Loading...
2005-03-15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2005 INDEX Petition for Change of Zone Amedore Homes 1. PZ 2-2005 Tax Map No. 302.8-1-13, 14, 15 Subdivision No. 4-2005 RESOLUTION Site Plan No. 3-2005 Jelenik Construction, LLC 2. Tax Map No. 309.5-1-5 Subdivision No. 11-2004 Diamond Point Realty 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.10-1-19 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 14-2004 Jane Potter 18. PEWLIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.19-1-27 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 15-2004 Rino Longhitano 30. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 279.15-1-61 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 65-2004 Peter Rozelle & Phil Whittemore 34. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-31 Site Plan No. 66-2004 Jeffrey Threw 42. Tax Map No. 316.5-1-12.1 Subdivision No. 20-2004 Jeffrey Threw 43 PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.5-1-12.1 FINAL STAGE THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC GRETCHEN STEFFAN ANTHONY METIVIER MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MAC EWAN RICHARD SANFORD GIS ADMIISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. VOLLARO-The first thing we’re going to do is a little housekeeping up front. We want to get an approval of the minutes for 12/21 and 12/28/04. If I could have a motion for that. CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 21, 2004: NONE December 28, 2004: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21 AND DECEMBER 28, 2004, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Metivier ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If you look at your agendas, we were to start off with Diamond Point Realty, but I’ve moved it around just a little bit because there’s some quick housekeeping things to be done just before that. OTHER: RESOLUTION PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE: PZ 2-2005 SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2005 AMEDORE HOMES PROPERTY OWNER: BROWER FAMILY TRUST ZONE: HC-INT, PROPOSED CHANGE TO MR-5 LOCATION: BAY ROAD SEEKING LA STATUS ON SEQR REVIEW FOR PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE AND SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT PROPOSES 1) REZONING THREE PARCELS TOTALING 6.93 ACRES FROM HC-INT TO MR-5 AND 2) DEVELOPING A 44 UNIT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION/CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY. TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-13, 14, 15 MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to call for a draft resolution on a rezone. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY FOR THE PLANNING BOARD FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING SEQRA REVIEW ON THE PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ 2-2005 AND SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2005 FOR GEORGE AMEDORE, AMEDORE HOMES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger SITE PLAN NO. 3-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JELENIK CONSTRUCTION, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: FINCH PRUYN & CO., INC. AGENT: PAUL TOMMELL/CLARK WILKINSON ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: SHERMAN AVE., JUST WEST OF I-87 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT FOUR SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS (9,800 SQ. FT. TOTAL) ON SHERMAN AVENUE, JUST WEST OF INTERSTATE 87. SELF-STORAGE USES IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 10-05 TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-5 LOT SIZE: 1.00 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MR. VOLLARO-The next thing we want to do is a tabling for Jelenik Construction, and we’re going to table this to March 22. nd MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2005 JELENIK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: The reason for the tabling is the applicant is waiting for a variance, and the variance will be heard tomorrow evening. Tabled to March 22, 2005. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You can start to follow your agendas now. OLD BUSINESS: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2004 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGES SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DIAMOND POINT REALTY AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: NORTH OFF OAKWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 17.7 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.152 ACRES TO 5.024 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.10-1-19 LOT SIZE: 17.7 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RICK MEATH & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MR. MEATH-Good evening. For the record, my name is Rick Meath, and I am an officer of the applicant, here with our engineer, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. We’re here again tonight on our original five lot subdivision plan for the property on Oakwood Drive. We have made a few revisions to the plan since we were here before. We have put in some more restrictive tree cutting provisions. The plan now provides, it’s based on comments that we received. The plan now provides that there would be no cutting at all in the subdivision to the west of the subdivision road, except for any dead, dying, or diseased, hazardous trees. We’ve also added a restriction so that no trees would be cut between the lot line of each lot, and the side setback lines, except for dead, dying, diseased or hazardous trees, and this no cut zone would extend from the subdivision road easterly to the easterly edge of any house that would be built in the subdivision. In addition, we’ve also added another restriction, that on the remainder of the property, outside of the lot development areas, 70% of the original overall basal area of trees six inches or larger will be left intact. Obviously, this is going to remain a very heavily wooded piece of property. It’s going to be predominantly green space within the subdivision. There will be large buffers between each house and there will be large buffers between the subdivision site and any other surrounding properties. We’ve already submitted a traffic engineer’s report, stating that there will be no adverse traffic impacts. Based on the traffic engineer’s recommendations, we actually had moved the subdivision entrance road a little bit. We’ve also had the Highway Superintendent look at the property and the entrance road and he had no concerns with it whatsoever. We also, I believe, have the consent of the Fire Marshal, and we designed the driveways with his comments in mind. We’ve also submitted an acoustical engineer’s report, which indicates there’ll be no negative noise impacts from this project. I think we’ve done everything possible here to prevent any undue negative impacts of any sort from this project. We also have, which I think is very important, the written consent from the one party who would be mostly potentially affected by this subdivision. So that would mean the Glens Falls Country Club which owns the entire property along our easterly boundaries, and they’ve consented in writing that they have no concerns whatsoever with this proposed subdivision. In order to proceed, obviously, the subject of the night, I assume, is that we need a waiver from the slope provisions of the regulations, since obviously there’s a good part of this property where slopes are over 25%. We did come to this Board last summer for Sketch Plan review and the waiver issue was specifically addressed at that point, and when the Board members in attendance that night were polled on the waiver issue, none of the Board members present had any concerns about granting a waiver, and although we realize that that’s not technically a final ruling, it certainly is what lead us to the point where we are now, and I’m not aware of anything which has changed between then and now which would lead to a different result today than the Board had reached informally last summer. MR. VOLLARO-I think the one thing that might have changed is the Board has had a much better chance and a longer opportunity to look at this proposal. You get pretty much of a snapshot when you do Sketch Plan, but when you sit down and actually start analyzing an application, it’s a little more of a thorough review. So the Planning Board members may or may not have a different view of it this evening. MR. MEATH-The Subdivision Regulations provide that a waiver can be granted when there are special circumstances with a certain piece of property, and where enforcing the slope provisions are not required in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. Now I don’t 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) think there’s any question, at least not in our minds, that this is a fairly unique piece of property. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a similar piece of land like this in the Town of Queensbury. We have over seven acres of absolutely flat land up on top of this property, and our plan shows that we will not be touching, in any manner, any of the slopes that are on the property. This Board has granted waivers on other occasions. I would refer to the Moon Hill property on the corner of I think it’s Bay Road and Moon Hill Road. A waiver was granted in that case, I believe, and they, in fact, are developing on some of the slopes to some extent. On this property, our intent and our plan shows that we will not, in any manner, touch any of the slopes. There won’t be any houses on any slopes. There won’t be any roads, any access points. There will be no septic systems on slopes, nothing. There’s going to be no impact whatsoever on any of the slopes. I don’t think you can find another piece of property in Queensbury that has these kind of slopes which also has an absolutely flat piece of property which allows for development within the guidelines of the zoning, the three acre zoning provisions, and because we are not going to be touching any of the slopes at all, I don’t feel that there’s any way that you can say that this project would be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare. Each of the lots will still be over three acres, which is obviously a pretty good size lot for residential development, especially when you consider that all the other residential property in this area is zoned for one acre lots, which is the case with everything on Oakwood Drive and the entire Twicwood, Orchard Park area, actually most of that area, I believe, was developed with less than one acre lots. I think it was either half acre or three quarter lots back at the time that the development was built out. We have what I think is a very unique piece of property. We’ve tried to be as sensitive as we can to the environment. We’re not going to touch any slopes whatsoever. I don’t think that there’s anything which is adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare, and I think that a waiver is warranted in this situation. I don’t know if we should discuss the cluster provision which was requested, the map. MR. JARRETT-We can get into it briefly, if you wish. If you want to go ahead. MR. MEATH-We did file the cluster plans. MR. JARRETT-As requested by the Board, we filed a cluster plan. It’s a version of the clustering concept that we feel is appropriate for this site. One could take the clustering concept to an extreme, and literally group all the houses near Oakwood Drive, which we felt would be counterproductive for this property, not only for the subdivision itself and for the lot owners in this subdivision, but also for the Oakwood Drive property owners, we felt that grouping the houses near Oakwood Drive would not work for this property, and we’ve submitted a clustering plan that we think is a compromise between that and our original layout that makes sense for both parties, if the Board wants to consider that. We don’t feel it’s preferable to the five lot layout. We feel the clustering arrangement really has no significant advantage over the layout we submitted, but we have provided it for the Board to review. MR. MEATH-We’ve tried to be as sensitive as we can with this property. It’s going to remain a very heavily wooded, treed piece of property. It will barely be visible from anywhere. The only adjoining owners that will really be able to see anything on this property is the Country Club, and they’ve consented to it. They have no concerns with the subdivision whatsoever. MR. VOLLARO-Well, before we proceed on that, I want to explore something with the Board for just a moment. On 179-11-050A, and I’ve opened it up here, and it has to do with procedures concerning clustering, and it says, and I’ll read this for the general public as well as for the Board, a cluster design alternative shall be required if the characteristics of the site include any of the following, and then they talk about a lot of things, but the two things they talk about in there that touch on what we’re speaking about tonight is slopes greater than 15% occupy over 50% of the site, and slopes over 25% occupy 25% of the site. It seems to me, in interpreting this 179, that we are slaved to go into a cluster subdivision. This doesn’t mention anything in here about waivers on slopes yet. It just says that if this is what’s presented, this is where you should go, and this is how I read the Code. MR. JARRETT-That clustering is dictated or that you should look at a clustering provision? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-No. It says a cluster design alternative shall be required if the characteristics of the site include any of the following. MR. SCHACHNER-Question. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, are you suggesting that you think that that provision means that any plan that’s approved by this Board must be a cluster subdivision in accordance with our regulations? MR. VOLLARO-No. It says it must be presented. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. It has been presented as an alternative. MR. VOLLARO-As an alternative. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I just want to make sure we’re clear on that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, in my view what was presented as a standard subdivision and what was presented as a cluster subdivision are nearly identical. I don’t think they’ve met the requirement, in my view, of a cluster subdivision, and that’s just the Chair speaking now. I don’t speak for the rest of the Board, but I want the rest of the Board to understand where that’s coming from. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree there was no, I didn’t see any difference between the conventional subdivision and the cluster, other than the road was shortened. MR. JARRETT-There is a difference. It is not as stark as maybe you would have expected, but there is a difference. In the conventional layout that we provided originally, we’ve extended the development all the way to the northern end of the property. Whereas, in the cluster provision, we’re only say 2/3’s of the way to the north end, and the entire north end of the rd property is preserved as green. We’ve condensed the five lots in a tighter footprint. It is not the possibly expected cluster in a circle right around Oakwood Drive. We felt that’s not a design that works for this property. MR. MEATH-And these lots, and the cluster do not meet the, several of the provisions for that zone. Right? MR. JARRETT-Right. They do not meet the dimensional requirements for this zone, and there is a reduction in infrastructure, which is the intent of a cluster. So, now, if you disagree with this, that’s fine, but we feel we’ve met the minimum requirements for a cluster alternative for you to review. Now, certainly we welcome your feedback on whether you feel it’s appropriate or inappropriate for this particular property. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there are other advantages of a cluster as well, in addition to just limiting infrastructure. You’re also maximizing open space, and I think that was really where the will of the Board was, when we first brought it up, and that was without having read the Code, as Bob just read for the record. MR. JARRETT-Well, that’s a very good point, but I think if you look at the two layouts, you’ll see, with the exception of the one driveway, there’s no difference in green space. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think that’s part of the reason why I would agree with the Chairman’s comments. I was pretty disappointed with clustering concept that was presented, and other than shortening the length of the common driveway, I mean, that really wasn’t what I think we had in mind when we suggested a clustering option. I think it was more along the lines of, you 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) know, like maybe a common cul de sac or, you know, trying to get, I mean, I didn’t bring the minutes with me, but I remember specifically saying, you know, you could probably put all five lots on the space that you show it as the first two lots, and then have the rest reserved in some sort of homeowners association for these five lot owners. Reducing the lot size is pretty significant. MR. MEATH-And that is something that we considered, but we just don’t feel makes any sense whatsoever for this specific piece of property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MEATH-But we still wanted to provide some type of a cluster alternative and we felt this really was the only one that made any sense at all for this, again, which is kind of a unique piece of property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s your prerogative. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would, I think one of the things that this is going to pivot on, this whole thing is going to pivot on whether or not this Board agrees to waivers or not. Considering that there have been waivers granted before, at prior applications, it really doesn’t have any bearing on this application. Each application goes on its own merits, and I don’t think there’s any precedent set in that area. If that’s the end of your presentation, I would like, the public hearing was left open by Mr. MacEwan on November 23, 2004. So the public hearing is still open, and if the applicant wishes, I will open the public hearing again and have the public come up and speak to this. I’d like to give each member of the public five minutes. We’re taking quite a few folks here. So I want to limit it to a reasonable time. I know five minutes is not much time to speak your peace, but I’ll give you five minutes each. For everybody that comes up to speak, there’s a yellow sheet on the table in front of me. Would you just please sign your name when you come up through to speak, because we’d like to have copies of the folks that made comments. So, if somebody would like to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN CAFFRY MR. CAFFRY-Good evening. I’m John Caffry. I’m the attorney from Caffry and Flower, representing David and Sally Kelly who are adjoining property owners. At this point, we’ve filed three different letters with the Board. We hope you’ve finally got copies of all of them, and all had a chance to read them. We think there’s three main issues on this application. We think that a cluster design is mandated, that it has to be adopted. That’s how we read the Code. We think that this application does not meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance for a cluster design, and if you were to decide that a cluster is not mandated, this application clearly doesn’t qualify for a waiver of the density limit under the subdivision rules, because there are no special circumstances, and there’s no proof that enforcing these rules is not in the public interest. This project is only allowed two lots. When they were in here before, they were claiming three. Once they had to go back and re-do the calculations. Now they’ve had to admit they’re only allowed two lots, and so they have, now they’re asking for a 250% waiver, and they’ve made no offer to compromise. They’re still asking for five lots. You asked them for a cluster. They come back with basically the same project. My clients understand that something is going to happen on this property, but they think five lots is just way too many, and it really needs to be cut way, way back. The first issue, again, we think that it says, the Code says a cluster design alternative shall be required. It doesn’t say shall be considered, shall be presented. It says shall be required. We think that’s mandatory, and obviously that rule applies, because you do have slopes greater than 25%. The second issue. As your Staff pointed out in the Staff notes, the cluster design they presented does not qualify or doesn’t not meet the requirements for a cluster design under your rules. They’re limited to two lots by the cluster rules. Once you back out all the slopes and everything else, it doesn’t preserve open space at all. That’s what a cluster’s supposed to do. It chops it up just the way their other design did, a little bit less but not 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) significantly less. There’s not really any difference there, and your Code is really quite specific about the need for a cluster to preserve open space and how it’s supposed to work, and the cluster design requirements can’t be just waived on the subdivision rules. They’re in the Zoning Code, which requires an Area Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. That’s not something this Board can waive. Lastly, if you do look at the waiver under the subdivision rules, we think it should not be granted. They’re only allowed 2.6 lots, which really means two. There’s no proof of special circumstances here. We submitted evidence with our letter in November that showed there’s other similar lots that are part of this same contiguous RR-3A zone, in that vicinity. They have similar topography, similar issues. This is not a unique site. This is why this site was zoned the way it was zoned, back in ’88, and there’s nothing different about it if you look at all those sites. You can find a way to put a subdivision in there, too. If you look at the Master Plan, the sections of it that we quoted in our November letter and in our other documents that the Town prepared when it first adopted this zoning, the intent of the limitations on density where you have steep slopes and other limitations, is not just to keep the development off of the slopes. It’s to limit the density itself. If all you wanted to do is keep it off steep slopes, you’d have a rule that says keep it off the slopes. Cluster it on the flat parts, but that’s not what the Code says. It says back out the slopes, back out the wetlands, whatever you’ve got, and limit the density. That’s what this rule’s about and they seem to be ignoring that. It’s not just, can you bring in Mr. Jarrett and engineer a design around it. Mr. Jarrett can engineer a design around almost anything. I’ve worked with him. He’s very good. That’s not what your Code says. It says you need to limit the density. It was rezoned in ’88. The Town’s been through a Master Plan process since then. There’s been no recommendations to change this zoning. I think that this Board ought to look at the Master Plan and the process the Town’s been through and stick to what’s in your Code, and I also would like to point out a few specific issues with the tree cutting plan and the no cut zones and all that are still very vague. They’re not shown very well on the map. They’d be very hard to enforce them. They’d be very hard for a property owner to know what they’re dealing with. There’s been no visual impact assessment done. It might be visible from the Country Club, but it might be visible from the road there, from the bike path that goes by there, from other sites. They haven’t done any assessment of that. Your Staff pointed out in the Staff notes that there’s a question about visibility. They ought to do a full visual impact assessment. They ought to do an Environmental Impact Statement to bring that up. We think that an EIS would be appropriate. I know this Board voted to require one for the Hayes and Hayes subdivision last summer, off of Dix Avenue. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Caffry, I’ve been notified that your five minutes is up. MR. CAFFRY-I’ll finish up real quickly, then. Lastly, if and when it does go forward, and we think it needs a very careful set of permit conditions, regardless of the number of lots, to limit the visual impact, the tree cutting, lighting and some other issues, those are outlined in our November letter, and finally, again, we think that this applicant bought this property. They knew what the rules are, and they ought to be required to stick to those rules, as they’re written in the Code, and as they were developed through the Town Planning process. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Anyone else that wants to speak to this application? BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside Road. I’m actually reading this communication for Kathleen Sonnabend who had a prior commitment as a parent tonight, and I think we all agree the parent ought to come first. It says, “Dear Board Members: I strongly urge you to deny any waivers that allow more units to be built on this property than are allowed under current zoning. The zoning laws, cluster or otherwise, do not allow for more than 2 units on this property. The recently released built out study projects an alarming amount of growth for Queensbury, which will swamp our infrastructure, including schools and roads. Even more alarming is the fact that this study understates the real potential growth because it assumes development only of land currently zoned residential with no greater than a 15% grade. Yet every month, Queensbury is asked to convert non residential property to residential, and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) provide waivers for more unit construction than current zoning allows. Further, parts of our current Code allow for development of grades up to 25% under certain circumstances. Bottom line: we are headed for much greater growth than even that projected by the build out study, which is alarming enough. You might think that allowing one project to increase from 2 units to 5 makes no real difference. But you would be very wrong. Dan Stec is already on the public record asserting that if we allow one developer to do something, we must be fair and allow all developers to do it. In other words, by approving this waiver, you are setting a dangerous precedent in the minds of developers and Town staff, which will multiple our growth problems over and over. There is something very wrong with this process. This applicant has been told clearly before by the Planning Board that their proposal was not compliant and to come back with a proposal that is compliant. Yet the Community Development Staff has allowed the developer to return with only minor modifications to a still non-compliant proposal. Does staff feel pressure from Dan Stec, and does Dan Stec feel pressure from the developer’s attorney? Is this some kind of game to see if the public will become tired, or if the composition of the Planning Board will be more favorable on a given night? A few months ago, Community Development Staff said they were too busy to move expeditiously on PORC’s crucial project to update our CLUP and Zoning Code. Recently, according to quotes in The Post Star, staff has been logging in a lot of overtime. But maybe too much time is being spent on minor modifications to non-compliant projects such as this. Where is the leadership to allocate our resources for the benefit of the community and not just for a few influential politicians and developers? Attached her are copies of a petition signed by about 300 people, urging the Planning Board to deny waivers that increase density and thereby infrastructure strain. Also attached are copies of an earlier petition signed by about 800 people, urging denial of site plan 56-2004 (Blind Rock & Bay Road) for density and tax base reasons. These petitions also urge support of PORC’s efforts to develop an updated plan for balanced and desirable land use and growth of all of Queensbury. The community is very unhappy about the growth we have already experienced. We want you to be smart about the decisions you are making on all of our behalves. Queensbury is on the threshold of major change. The qualify of our future community is largely in your hands. Sincerely, Kathleen Sonnabend 55 Cedar Court Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Okay. Does somebody else want to speak? BERNARD RAHILL MR. RAHILL-Good evening. My name is Bernard Rahill. I live at 37 Wincrest Drive in Queensbury, and I have a number of things which I’d like to mention with regard to this project. First of all, in 1988, after we had first moved to this area, shortly, a few years afterwards, my son was driving with his new license down the road from Montray Road to our house, and, boom, somebody slammed into him, really hard. It was a brand new Chevrolet station wagon. Thank God it was a big, sturdy vehicle. There was massive damage to the car. If somebody had been sitting in the driver’s seat, in the passenger’s seat, they would have been sincerely and harshly injured. They would have gone to the hospital and probably had a lot of surgery done. Well, anyway, as it turns out, the man who did the damage, was working for a lawyer who was renting or owning, owns the corner house opposite ours, and she was running a construction company out of it and the man who was driving his vehicle slammed into my son and admitted culpability. Nevertheless, this was a serious matter for us, for a young driver, and also for possibility that any time that any person drives around that particular corner, there can be an accident, right in front of that property that you’re talking about right now. Because that’s exactly where it took place. So I want you to take this into mind when you’re making your decisions, you’re going to have two pieces of property. You’re going to have at least two vehicles coming out per property, maybe three or four. If you have three pieces of property there, you’re going to have two vehicles, if not three or four coming out of that property for each house, and so therefore we could have as many as 20 vehicles coming out of that property and somebody coming along quickly. Now you might say, well, this is not a serious matter, Mr. Rahill. We can put up some signs. Well, there’s a sign outside of my house, 15 miles per hour, and right after that sign, the Town of Queensbury in all of its brilliance, has another sign that says 30 miles per hour, and another sign after that that says 15 miles per hour. That’s all inside 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) of 30 yards. So I want you to take this very seriously. I don’t want to see any children in that area impacted by the damage of an accident caused by too much development in a place where it shouldn’t take place. That’s Number One. We’re talking about traffic. Number Two, Montray Road. I was here before Brad MacEwan. I don’t think any of the rest of you were here at that point in time, and Brad promised me up and down that there would be no clear cutting on Montray Road where somebody wanted to develop a church property, and everybody in the community and in Montray and Twicwood and the whole area was up in arms. We didn’t want that property. Didn’t want it, and Brad promised, no clear cutting. Well, if you take a look at Kendrick and Montray right now, that whole property is clear cut. So much for the property owners who don’t want clear cutting in that area. Another thing I’d like you to take a look at is Brown’s Path, on the south of Wincrest Drive in Queensbury. If you drive straight down Wincrest Drive to Brown’s Path, that was developed by Mr. Valenti, who’s wife was involved in the 1988 law that you’re following right now. Do you know that there are no trees down there? Why aren’t there any trees down there? Why does that look like a long alley down there on Brown’s Path? Think about it. You’re the Planning Board. It’s your job. Another thing with regard to Twicwood. There is a development that just came in this past year with Lendel Associates, or Lendel Construction Company. It looks like a large stove pipe going up 30 feet, and do you know what’s right behind it? A big hill. Right on top of it practically. Isn’t there supposed to be some separation between hills and valleys and dales and property building? Did you pass that? I’m asking you these questions. I think you have to answer them before you make any decisions here. Thank you. DAVID KELLY MR. KELLY-Hi. David Kelly. 30 Oakwood Drive. I’d first like to thank my neighbors for coming out and supporting our efforts here to deny the waivers. I know it’s quite scary to get up here and speak, but perhaps the people that came in support of this cause, of denying the waiver, might raise their hand at this point in time, show some support. Thank you. Simply stated, I believe it is wrong for the Planning Board to dismiss the existing subdivision codes, as well as the testing which has been established for granting density waivers. The proposal submitted by the developers are seeking densities far in excess to what is permissible. The developers have yet to submit a compliant alternative or a reasonable compromise plan for the Board’s consideration. Granting a waiver of this magnitude would set a terrible precedent for other projects waiting in the wings, seeking to overdevelop marginal or sensitive properties. Also simply stated, I think it is wrong for the developers to think that the Planning Board should even consider, let alone grant, a density waiver of this magnitude. The developers clearly purchased this landlocked property on speculation. The developers knew that they would need a variance to build a private road for the developer to put multiple homes without Town frontage. They knew that they would need to obtain a waiver for the density requirements. They knew that they would face significant public opposition, at a time when there’s a newly formed PORC Committee, a recently completed Town build out analysis, and general concern about potential overdevelopment of Queensbury. This property has been zoned this way since 1988 and has survived rezoning in 1998 and again in 2002. Simply stated, this project is wrong as presently submitted. Thank you. MARK HOFFMAN DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, Fox Hollow Lane. Just very briefly would like to state, I fully support the efforts of the PORC Committee to reexamine the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. I think some of the concerns that lead to the formation of that Ordinance relate to issues of the density in the Town, and I think they’re planning to take a good hard look at the overall development in the Town through a careful structured and knowledgeable reassessment of how the zoning and Comprehensive Land Use Plans are currently instituted. I think by granting piecemeal re-zonings, which is what these variances basically come about, you’re basically undercutting the function of the PORC Committee. I see no reason why the developer shouldn’t be asked to obey the law. It’s as simple as that. Thank you. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. PETER KINDERSLEY MR. KINDERSLEY-Good evening. I’m Peter Kindersley, Wincrest Drive. Whether or not this is a compliant or noncompliant land and so forth I’m not clever enough to make any judgments. I have a couple of concerns. I would like to ask the applicant, if I may, what is the white path, if that’s what it is, shown in the bottom left hand corner of their diagram? MR. VOLLARO-He’ll answer that question when he comes up. We’ll have him answer that. MR. KINDERSLEY-I’m thinking that it is perhaps a cart path of the golf course. I’m a member of the golf course, and I hear the applicant saying, if I’m recording correctly, the trees will not be touched in any manner whatsoever. The slope will not be touched in any manner whatsoever. Now if I were to buy one of those lots, I would certainly want to cut down a whole lot of trees on that slope so that I have a wonderful vista over the golf course. Are these empty words by the applicant about the slope not being touched whatsoever or are they prepared to place covenants in the deeds, when they sell these properties, to restrict the cutting of the trees on those slopes? The trees that are there are dense. We have no problem with water damage or runoff down onto the golf club property at the present time, but if they were to cut a whole lot of trees to improve their view, which I would certainly want to do, as I say, that could be a whole new situation as far as runoff is concerned down onto the fairway. If the properties do encroach, or if the golf club property actually, golf club usage, encroaches on this private land, this developer’s land, as it seems to do near the third tee of the golf course, are they prepared to covenant the golf club for perpetual use as it is now, or will there be some problem presented for the golf course later, if the buyer of the one or two lots that are affected here decide that they want the golf carts off their property. Question for the developer. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else like to speak? THOMAS GROW MR. GROW-My name is Tom Grow. I live on Cedarwood Drive. My property is on the western border of these proposed sites, and I’m very familiar with the land. I’ve walked up there a lot. There are a lot of nice trails, and I would just encourage all of you, before you vote on this, to go up there and walk it. Have you walked it? MR. VOLLARO-We have, yes. MR. GROW-You’ve all walked it. Because what they propose at the northernmost point on this diagram, or map, which is interesting to look at, is, and I’m not a surveyor or contractor, but I think it’s unrealistic. I think you can put anything up there. You can put a double wide up there. What they’re talking about, I think, is really ambitious, and that’s my only comment. I’m not against development, but I think they’re trying to, if you’ve seen it, that’s great, but if you haven’t seen it, don’t buy something you haven’t seen sight unseen, because. MR. VOLLARO-It’s narrow. MR. GROW-It’s very narrow, and to put a private road in there, and then to accommodate housing, you know, they were talking about significant housing, like worth $500,000 or whatever they talk about. This is not Queens County. Do you know what I’m talking about? You don’t get like a flower garden out in front of the house. Anyway, if you’ve seen it, you’ve seen it, but I just wanted to be sure you’d seen it, okay. It’s not big enough to really accommodate that northern end of it, okay. That’s all I had to say to you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. MR. GROW-You’re welcome. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) CHRIS WETTERSTEN MRS. WETTERSTEN-My name is Chris Wettersten, and I reside at 23 Twicwood Lane, and I’m a mother of three, and I just would like to state for the record that these codes have been put in place, and time after time some of these codes have been bent or changed, and I’m worried that if Queensbury continues on this path, that what was once a nice place to live and what we moved to back in ’87 is going to turn into another Jersey, and that’s something that just concerns me. I teach within the public schools in Glens Falls. I’m concerned with the class size that we’re going to see in Queensbury in the future. I don’t think that this one development is going to have a great impact on class size. However, if we continue to change the rules and have these variances, I’m concerned of other properties that may not, at present, meet the requirements for homes be bent or changed so they can accommodate more growth within the Town of Queensbury, and that’s all I needed to say. Thank you. KATHY ROWE MS. ROWE-Good evening. I originally attended the November meeting by chance. My name is Kathy Rowe, and I came to attend another hearing, and ended up listening to this one at that time. I also, like Chris, moved up here more than 20 years ago to get away from Long Island, not to accomplish the feat of having another one follow me here. In all honesty, I have some questions for the developer which I didn’t hear answered at the last meeting, and I was wondering, when he comes back up, if he would mind answering them. The road that travels down this development, is that going to be deeded over to the Town, or is that going to remain a private road? MR. VOLLARO-It’s presently proposed as a private road. MS. ROWE-Just out of curiosity, because the snow plow plowed me in today again, even though we had no snow today, I was curious. Where is the snow plow going to, or how is the snow plow going to plow these people in or out being that he’s not going down that road. Obviously it’s not accessible to a snow plow, being where it is. So how, or who will dig these people out when the snow ends up three feet outside the end of that street? Okay. I don’t see any place where the snow plow’s going to be able to push that snow, because, even down towards the end, you’re still on somebody’s cul de sac, more or less, that surrounds the drive of their house. Just out of curiosity, but I have to honestly say that this provision does not look very well thought out to me, and I have to also honestly say that these lots seem to be the subject of a great deal of difficulty for people, and as a previous member of the Planning Board, I have to honestly say to you also that the waivers and the variances that we keep giving people are not in the Town’s best interests. They’re in the interests of an individual who benefits, and the Town, as a whole, overall, is going downhill, and as I saw in a t.v. show the other day, we’re becoming one big blur of Targets and Wal-Marts and Taco Bells and whatever, with no thought whatsoever to individuality or creativity as we plan the towns that we live in. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. NANCY WILDER MS. WILDER-Hi. My name is Nancy Wilder, and I live at 21 Oakwood Drive. I’ve submitted written comments which I think you’ll have a chance to see, and I did just want to bring up a couple of things, plus a couple of questions for the developer in particular. I stand very firmly behind the analysis that Mr. Caffry has done of the land, laws that they are the ordinances on the books, and what I think I’m seeing here tonight, and I think I saw going through the Planning Board file today and looking at the different public comments, is this is not perceived as a single neighborhood problem, and this is not a bunch of people who are standing up because they are concerned about the quality of their neighborhood, which is specifically something that I heard tonight from I believe Mr. Meath, saying that all the rest of the neighborhood is currently built up at less than one acre per lot, but the proposal that I read in 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) the planning file states that this is to be an exclusive gated community without a gate. So I don’t see how they can consider it part of our neighborhood. The regulations for zoning were created after all of Oakwood Drive was built. There was no zoning on the books, then. So it’s a fallacy to refer to that as a thought out planned okay for continued development, even on the one acre scale. People have repeated tonight that this level of zoning has withstood several years of different investigations. I would also specifically like Mr. Meath to address with his statement that he feels that a cluster proposal would be counterproductive to the neighborhood. I think a cluster is trying to maintain open space for the public good, not for the good of one street. It’s supposed to maintain vistas, and the more rural quality of the Town. So I would like him to address why this is counterproductive to the people living around this proposed development. In general, as I said, I have several other comments in writing on the zoning, but I would ask the Board tonight to seriously consider tabling this application yet again until a compliant cluster plan is submitted and can be reviewed by everyone here who’s concerned. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Do we have anybody else? DOUG AUER MR. AUER-Good evening. Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. I’ve taken a little bit of a different approach to looking at this, and I’m taking more or less the same view that some folks here have commented on, the general situation within the Town. As an engineer by education, I took and put together a spread sheet that includes 23 years of building permits, and this is data that comes directly from the Town, in their, what they call their Supervisor’s Report, and I had to colorize it because I was glazing over looking at this thing. It’s a spreadsheet, and what I did is I extruded this through Excel which is a spreadsheet program, and had it plot some things, and one of the interesting things that crops up is this plot right here, and I’ll give this to you folks. You can look at it at your leisure, but the blue, the nice blue bars are the number of building permits, for residential, that is. The pink ones are commercial, and at the end of this, or actually throughout this whole chart, it does not take into consideration multiple family dwellings. The Planning Board, basically through an analysis of this build out study, recognized there was a flaw in the way that the number of habitable residences were being presented in this report. So actually these numbers would be significantly more, because a building permit, for example, for a duplex building, is one building permit, but there’s actually two residences. For a tri-plex or four-plex or an eight plex, it’s still one building permit. So, in reality multiple family dwellings would create a perbation to this and be actually larger. The point is this. We have a much larger continuing pressure on residential construction than commercial, and commercial is what pays the taxes. There are all sorts of studies done out there that will tell you that residential housing continues to beat up on infrastructure, all of what these other folks commented on. So here it is in black and white. It’s not just somebody’s speculation. It’s reality. Numbers, you know, as an engineer, numbers don’t lie. You can look at it from a dollars and cents standpoint also, which I did. So the white bar, this is a stack bar chart, is the commercial value of development, and the red bar is the residential value of development. So there’s about a two to three to one ratio there also. So no matter how you cut this, and I’ve done some other very interesting analysis, I won’t bore you with tonight, but numbers do tell a story. So, thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Do we have anybody else that would like to speak? George, you have some letters? MR. HILTON-The first letter I have here is from Betsy Rabida, dated March 15. It says, “As an th introduction, my name is Betsy Rabida and I live at 29 Cedarwood Drive in Queensbury. I have lived here for 19 years. The site of the proposed five lot subdivision would be just a “Niagara Mohawk easement” away from my back yard. The Queensbury Zoning Ordinances and Subdivision Codes were established for a reason. They have provided us, the residents of the Town of Queensbury, with a Quality of Life that is comfortable, and one that we have all come to expect. Why are you even considering granting a “waiver” to these Regulations that have served the Town so well? The 17.7 +/- parcel of land in question has long been zoned 3-acre 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) residential. According to the Town Subdivision codes, any area with slopes greater than a 25% grade must be subtracted from the total acreage before you can determine the allowable acreage for development. Because of the topography of this parcel of land, that would mean that less than 50% of the total acreage could be used when determining the number of homes that would be allowed. Unless a “waiver” were granted, that would mean that two houses, not five, could be built. Again, I wonder why would the Planning Board even consider granting a “waiver”?? I respectfully ask that the Planning Board not grant the “waiver”. Please help maintain our Quality of Life by enforcing the Ordinances and Codes that have served the Town so well. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, Betsy Rabida 29 Cedarwood Drive Queensbury, NY 12804” The second letter is from Karen Angleson, One Greenwood Lane, Twicwood. “In response to a notice of public hearing of a subdivision application no. 11-2004 by Diamond Point Realty, I would encourage the Planning Board to Deny this variance request. This request would require a variance to a zoned 3 acre residential area. In addition, it is my understanding that the issue of acreage having slopes with greater than 25% grade be determined before determining allowable acreage for development. I feel that the request for 5 homes on this parcel of land is excessive – since 2 homes would be allowed if zoning laws are followed. As a Town we must follow zoning laws and not continue to allow variances. Traffic issues as well as environmental impact issues of this request must be considered. I am unable to attend this hearing – but have confidence that the members of this Planning Board will do the correct action to maintain Queensbury as a “good place to live”. Sincerely, Karen C. Angleson 1 Greenwood Lane – Twicwood Queensbury, NY 12804” A letter from Mike Mulshine, dated March 15. Mike’s address is 24 Fox Hollow Lane, “To Whom It May Concern: I strongly th believe that the Planning Board should not allow any more than the two homes able to be built under current zoning regulations at the Oakwood parcel. Easing the “buildable” land requirements, such as steepness of grades, etc., to accommodate the development of more homes in this area would set a terrible precedent. For example, the 12.9 acres directly behind my home on Fox Hollow and adjoining the wetlands has recently been purchased by an individual who intends to build only a couple homes on the property, in keeping with the wetlands and hilly woodland characteristics of the area. However, should he decide to sell in the future to a developer, under current zoning and “buildable” land rules, that developer might only be able to fit 2-4 more homes on this property. But an aggressive developer might cite any compromise on the Oakwood property as reason to waive steepness and wetland requirements in order to put 10 homes back there, compromising the wetlands and two adjacent neighborhoods. Please do not allow this negative precedent. As small as it might seem, it could have significant impact on a number of other Queensbury parcels and the town’s quality of life. Thanks, Mike Mulshine” Lastly I have a letter from Nancy Wilder, and it’s quite lengthy, and I believe that many of the points in the letter were described when Nancy spoke earlier. I just wanted to let you know that we do have that in the file as well, and that’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you, George. There were several questions that were asked by the public, and I guess what you want to try and do now is address those, I would suspect. MR. JARRETT-There were a number of issues raised. Primarily I heard that the public is in opposition to Town growth, or excessive Town growth, and I guess the one issue that we want to bring up that is, at this point a misnomer in our opinion, is the number of lots allowed by density calculation. A number of 2.6 lots allowed was mentioned, and our calculations show 2.9 is actually allowed. MR. VOLLARO-The difference was in the road. MR. JARRETT-The difference is in the road. So I just wanted to clarify that one. Other than that, I think we’d open it up to any specific questions of the Board and we can clarify our position versus what the public perceives. MR. MEATH-One thing I would like to comment on, however, is that I’ve heard a lot of comments tonight about the public wanting this Board to enforce the Ordinance, and they keep talking about a request for a variance. We’re not here for a variance, obviously. We’re here for 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) a waiver, and the waiver is specifically authorized by the Code. So we’re simply asking the Planning Board to enforce the provisions of its Code. If a piece of property is in some way unique, and if the waiver is not adverse to the public health, safety, and general welfare, then the waiver is warranted. So we’re asking the Board to enforce the Ordinance, also. We’re not asking for a waiver, obviously, or I mean a variance. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think the Code indicates that we have to give a variance, though. There’s nothing in the Code that says we must. We have to evaluate whether we will or won’t. MR. MEATH-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, I’d like to throw this open to the Board. I have a couple of things myself that I wrote down, but I’d like to see what my other fellow Board members have to say about this, now that we’ve heard the public. MR. SEGULJIC-I think what we really need to do is see another cluster plan, something more reasonable, or viable than the plan that was previously submitted. MR. JARRETT-So you’re defining that as meaning closer to Oakwood Drive, in a tighter configuration as Mr. Hunsinger described? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m leaving it up to you, but in the matter of preserving open space, and keeping the fact that you’re only allowed the 2.6 or 2.9 lots, depending on how you look at it. MR. JARRETT-All right. Let’s go through the rest of the Board. We’ll come back to that. I want to make sure we define that correctly if we’re going to settle on, or discuss that further. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I think what’s in contention, and I think I’d like to ask Staff a question. Have you got clarification on the private road situation from the Zoning Administrator yet? MR. HILTON-Yes, I do. I spoke with him concerning that subject, and because it is a private road proposed, we have not deducted that, in the past, from other applications from the density calculation. The Code says something to the effect of public rights of way, and in my conversation with him, he stated that because the this is a private road, and private easements, they would not be, we would not factor those in and reduce those from the density calculation. MR. VOLLARO-I have also looked at that, and I don’t want to have a contest between the Zoning Administrator and the Board this evening, but in our 179 Code, under the definition of Street, Private, it says, access drive that serves two or more lots and is maintained by private ownership, not the Town of Queensbury, and then further on, you’ve got, in our 183, it begins to talk about private rights of way. These two things, to me, sort of tie together. I would leave it up to the Zoning Administrator, and if it needs to be contested it may have to be, but I believe the way the Code reads now it talks as a private street to be maintained as a typical road. That’s just one person’s opinion of reading our own Code. MR. HUNSINGER-I already raised the question about the cluster alternative, and if I wasn’t the one that brought it up at the November meeting, I was certainly engaged in that discussion, and like I said, I was a little disappointed with the cluster division, the cluster design that was provided. That wasn’t what I had in mind, and I apologize if we didn’t do a good job of conveying what our intent was, but my thought was that it would be, that the home sites themselves would be limited to the first two or three lots, and not stretch out into the northern reaches of the property. MR. METIVIER-I’m just looking at the plan here and wonder how feasible it would be if you just took out Lots Four and Five altogether. I mean, it seems the general consensus is, from the community, is that they understand something’s going to happen here. Why don’t you stick 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) with the three lots. I’ll take 2.9 up to 3. I have no problem with that, but, you know, to push it to five, I mean, you have a good plan going up into Lots Four and Five. That’s my opinion. MR. JARRETT-I guess I would ask the rest of the Board to weigh in in their comments and see how they would react to that. MRS. STEFFAN-One of my major concerns with this project is that I believe that it’s too dense. I don’t believe that five units on this particular piece of property is an appropriate decision, and regarding the slopes, based on what I know and not just looking at the zoning criteria, but also a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Open Space and some of the other things, I wouldn’t be inclined to grant a waiver on this project. MR. JARRETT-Any waiver at all? MRS. STEFFAN-Not on the project as it is right now, no. MR. JARRETT-Would you consider a waiver down to four or three? MRS. STEFFAN-I’d have to look at the plan at that point, but I did say that I thought it was too dense. I thought five units was too much. MR. MEATH-I’m curious about how some of the other Board members might feel about a plan where basically we just eliminated the last lot. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me weigh in, now that my Board members have weighed in, I’ll also weigh in on the discussion. We have a new zoning map. Members of this Board have large zoning maps. There happen to be three members sitting on this Board who are also members of the PORC Committee, this Planning/Ordinance Review Committee, as it’s called, a lousy name, but that’s what we got stuck with, and one of our objectives in that Committee is to make sure that we don’t get overly populated and too dense in Queensbury. So you’ve got three members sitting here that also wear the other hats as well. Grant your waiver here, to me, in looking at the large zoning map, and taking a look at Round Pond and Glen Lake, and taking a look at all the RR-3A that surrounds that, and then, and this particular property is somewhat contiguous to all of those, all around Glen Lake and Round Pond. If we were to continue to grant waivers to do that, for example, the build out study, which we now have in our possession, talks about not building out in areas where the slopes are in excess of 15%. That’s what the build out study says. If we continue to do this, and grant waivers, the numbers in the build out study will slowly become meaningless, because there’s an awful lot of land that’s RR-3A. It could go through exactly the same approach as you folks are trying to do now. So that’s one of my concerns, and also because we’re trying to limit the impact on the school system, there’s another variable we have to deal with. The school system, looking at the growth that’s projected in the Study, having that based on not doing anything with 15%, if we continue to grant waivers, then that number that impacts the school will become also meaningless. So I have a concern with that, but I’m going to jump right on to what Tony had to say, because I wrote it down, and I’ll read it as I wrote it when we sit in our dining rooms which are overflowed with paper these days. I said I find the proposed alternate cluster proposal to be nearly the same as the original five lot proposal. My position, and this is only one Board member’s position, is to allow three houses, each on 65,340 square feet. That’s an acre and a half, set back 200 feet from Oakwood Drive, with the existing tree cover to remain in the 200 foot buffer, except for the road entrance. That’s how I view it as a cluster, three, based on your 2., I think that’s your 2.89. Yes, because I think we’re playing with a moot point when we talk about roads or (lost words). MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. For the most part we are. Could you clarify? Did you say setback 200 feet from Oakwood? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I took your scale on your drawing, and really that was kind of almost an arbitrary shot for me. Because I’ve always considered 100 feet to be. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. JARRETT-Adequate. MR. VOLLARO-No, not adequate. The houses should be setback 200 feet from Oakwood Drive. MR. JARRETT-And you said situated on an acre and a half each? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 65,340 square feet. MR. JARRETT-And when you mean situated on, meaning? MR. VOLLARO-Well, that each home would have an acre and a half. MR. JARRETT-And the remainder would be forever wild, green? MR. VOLLARO-Well, then what I’d like to do, in keeping with the thing we talked about in the PORC Committee, is to set aside, and I think it would be 13.2 acres, roughly, and have that set aside in some sort of a conservation trust, and that trust would then outline the future life of that property. I’m not an expert on, I’m trying to become, but I am not an expert. I’m trying to become familiar with conservation trusts, how they’re funded, how they work, and that’s part of what the PORC Committee’s trying to do now, will try and do, but I’m sure attorneys and folks who understand that kind of thing could draft up language that talks adequately to a conservation trust and how that’s funded. MR. JARRETT-Could we get the rest of the Board to weigh in on your proposal or your thoughts? MR. METIVIER-I’ll take it first. I obviously agree with that, except for the 1.5 acres, you said. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, one and a half acres. MR. METIVIER-I guess my feeling is spread these out a little bit more. You have the three acres, the first three lots are three acres plus. You’re talking about some, you know, significant homes here. Let’s compromise. You’re still, you know, with what they propose, as far as their setbacks, their cutting, clear cutting, you know, give them the three acres. At least that way they can market these homes. MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying put nine acres into development and let the rest? MR. METIVIER-Nine acres into development, but you’re not. I mean, from what he proposed at the very beginning of this meeting, you know, give them the three acres a piece for three lots. Leave the back two alone, which would be another eight and a half acres, and then regulate the cutting, clear cutting and buffering and all that. You’re still going to get your 200 feet from Oakwood easy, on the first lot. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking to protect the Oakwood Drive, and buffer that off. That was my only concern. MR. METIVIER-I understand. I think you could achieve that even with the three acres, but, you know. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my big thing, Tony, is to try, because of what we try to do on the PORC Committee, what we’re trying to talk about on that Committee is to get as much green space into this Town as we possibly can. MR. METIVIER-I understand. I just don’t think you’re going to lose a whole lot of green space by giving them the three acres. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m talking 13 acres. You’re talking about nine acres. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s the difference. MR. METIVIER-I understand exactly where you’re coming from. MR. HILTON-I just have a couple of comments. It sounds like we’re in the middle of doing what I’m about to say, but I would, I guess, hope that the Board would, Number One, determine whether or not you’d like to see the cluster versus the conventional subdivision, and, Number Two, determine if you’re going to grant the waivers or not, and I guess any discussion about three acres, three lots, if the Board chooses, or decides that you want to see a cluster subdivision, I think our comments about less infrastructure and open space are still going to apply, but again, my hope would be is that the Board would again decide whether or not you want to see conventional or cluster and if you’re going to grant any waivers, some variation of the waiver, just to get that kind of consensus before we’re done here. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can get that consensus now. I’ll lead it off so I don’t have to be the one to wait for everybody. First of all, I’m in favor of a cluster proposal, of the type that I described and the type that Tony’s talking about, not necessarily one and a half, not necessarily three or something like that. I’m I favor of a cluster proposal. Secondly, I’m not in favor of granting waivers, period. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. If we go with three lots, do we have to grant any waivers? With the two lots we don’t have to, but for the three lots. MR. HILTON-If you go with three, there would be some variation of a waiver, yes. MR. METIVIER-Is a slight waiver and a waiver, is it still a waiver? MR. HILTON-It’s a waiver, yes, it’s just to what degree. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s a less substantial, but it would still be a waiver. MR. VOLLARO-See, what I’m really concerned about, on waivering, and why I say no waivers, is I’m concerned about the impact that that might have on surrounding RR-3A zone properties. MR. MEATH-I respectfully submit that that’s somewhat irrelevant. The question now is what is pertinent to this piece of property. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not irrelevant in my mind, sir. MR. MEATH-If you make a blanket statement that you’re not going to grant waivers, you’re not following your own Ordinance. MR. VOLLARO-No. The Ordinance gives us, I think, the latitude to grant or not to grant, based on the circumstances presented to the Board. MR. MEATH-Right, but you’re saying you would never grant them. In any event. MR. VOLLARO-I won’t grant them, I’m not in favor of granting them on this application. I’m not in favor, frankly, of, I would look harshly on waivers. Just generally. MR. MEATH-How would you feel about a waiver on the, what Mr. Metivier was talking about, which is the three first lots, which is a waiver from 2.9 acres? MR. VOLLARO-To nine acres. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. JARRETT-To three lots at some size that’s, frankly, we had envisioned protecting the lands that were not developed here, and the extent of the protection was to be discussed with the Board. We’ve showed you what the absolute maximum clearing would be, and the protection requirements were to be discussed with the Board. So we’re on the same wavelength with you in regard to protection. The size of the footprint area or development area I think needs to be discussed, and whether the lots are acre and a half or three acre lots can certainly be discussed. We don’t need to clear all of that, even if it’s a three acre parcel, each individual. So I think that’s up to discussion. I think we’re making progress with some kind of, working with the Board here. MR. VOLLARO-I think, as Mr. Seguljic said a few minutes ago, we don’t want to be sitting here as a Board designing your project for you, but I think you’re on the right track. Your thoughts are correct. MR. JARRETT-We’re certainly willing, we understand those concerns and we’re certainly willing to go there. In fact, we’ve been there. I don’t think the Board has quite focused on those to realize that we do plan on protecting the remaining acreage. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the things that I was concerned about, and one of the things Mr. Caffry brought out, I think, was the shading of the properties to show, even when you get into this cluster mode that we’re talking about, we’re slowly kind of getting into what I consider maybe a real cluster, is to shade the properties to show where your forester is talking about cutting down stuff, so that we can see what the vistas will be. It’s very hard to judge from your words what that would look like. MR. JARRETT-Understandable, and in fact we could have Mr. Sipperly here to better describe that as well, pictorially and orally, if need be. MR. SEGULJIC-Would it make sense to have two alternatives, the cluster with one and a half acre lots, and one with the three acre lots? MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s entirely up to the applicant. I think that’s a good approach, and it gives the Board a chance to look at both, but I think that’s the applicant’s draw in this particular case. Mr. Hunsinger, how do you feel about that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think I already went on record as saying that I would prefer a cluster division. Sort of at the risk of alienating the neighbors who are here, and I guess I would also add, this is probably the biggest attendance we’ve ever had at a Planning Board meeting in the five years that I’ve been on the Planning Board, and I think it’s really great when the public comes out and expresses their opinion like that, but I thought the applicant made a very good argument at our prior meeting in saying how, you know, the proposed five units was in keeping with the, was not incompatible with the existing neighborhood. I think you did a very good argument doing that, and that was why I proposed, or suggested the cluster. I felt that if the cluster was designed properly, that I might be okay with five lots still, but, you know, you said it before, the cluster that you proposed, I’m disappointed in, and certainly could not support that, because it was really a conventional subdivision. I’m in disagreement with some of the comments that have been made this evening about what the problem is in Queensbury. I don’t think it’s necessarily density. I think it’s sprawl, and I’m someone who has had three children in the Queensbury School District. My oldest son graduated from a class of 240. Six years later, my youngest son is in a class with 390. That’s a 66% increase. So I understand those concerns as well. I experienced them myself, but I don’t think a one, five unit subdivision is going to become the litmus test for the future of the whole Town, but, you know, I’m already in the minority. So it doesn’t really matter. It’s kind of easy to say that when you’re in that position, but would I support a three unit? Sure. To go from 2.89 to three is not a huge stretch, and I think the public really needs to know that there have been very, very times that we have approved these types of waivers. I can only think of one instance that it’s been done, again, in 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) the five years that I’ve been on the Planning Board. There may have been others, but I think there was only one. It really is unusual. MR. VOLLARO-The Moon Hill, that was the only one I remember. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s the only one, and it was the same kind of discussion. They started out with a much larger number of subdivision, and we worked them down to a three unit subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-So I think, George, we have a consensus on the Board here, at least, that we, A, want to see a cluster subdivision proposal, in the true sense of a cluster, and the applicant can feel free there to propose, I think, based on what I’ve seen across the Board, a three unit cluster, if you want, in keeping with Mr. Hunsinger’s requirement, if you can put a five house cluster up there on three quarters of an acre each, that would be something. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think they have the support of this Board. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. METIVIER-I actually would strike that from the record. MR. JARRETT-To be honest with you, being consistent with our earlier opinion, we don’t think five lots crowded near Oakwood Drive works. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. JARRETT-If the Board is willing to consider or even tonight give us a straw vote saying three votes, if you like a layout of one and a half or three acres, we’re willing to come back with those two layouts. MR. MEATH-I’m not really sure if a cluster is really required for a three lot subdivision. I have envisioned the first three lots (lost words). MR. JARRETT-It’s something of a variation on that theme, I think. MR. METIVIER-Like I said, Lots One, Two, and Three are nice. Take off Four and Five. I think you have a really good plan, and I think it’s going to be very marketable, and I think it’s something that the neighbors can live with, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-I just thought, you know, it is a very unique piece of property. I just thought there might be an opportunity there. You have 13 acres to work with. Who wouldn’t want to live in a three unit cluster where you have access to 13 acres, you know, if it was in some sort of joint ownership of the three property owners. That would be my thought, but again, we don’t want to design your project for you. MR. JARRETT-If we have support of the Board, we would come back with two layouts or maybe even three, I don’t know, but some layouts per discussion, if we have that support. I don’t think any of us want to drag this out any longer than we have to. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think you can go much further with how much support the Board has. I’m concerned, as your Counsel, that you don’t go too far into the designing the project for the applicant, and you know I’m going to advise you against anything along the lines of a straw vote. I think this input and feedback is terrific, very helpful, and hopefully will work out in the manner that more people find to their liking, but I don’t think you can do a whole lot more, in terms of the feedback. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. That’s why I stated a couple of times from this chair that we don’t want to be in the position of designing their project. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, at this point I just want to somehow just provide clear direction. If the Board is going to table this application and look for some resubmission, re-submittal, just some clear direction as to what we’re going to expect. There was some confusion with the previous submission that they just resubmitted the full five lot conventional subdivision. I just want to make it clear, if that’s your intent to table this this evening, and you’re looking for something, just let’s be clear as to what we’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll do that, yes. MR. MEATH-And I assume what the Board is looking for is tabling this current application and having the re-filing for a three lot subdivision, and we have to discuss exactly what form we think that makes sense to have that look like. We would come back in with one or maybe more different alternatives to what would be probably three lots. MRS. STEFFAN-I’d say a compliant subdivision. MR. MEATH-It would still need a waiver, no matter what. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. JARRETT-A compliant subdivision is two. We’re asking, now we’re asking the Board to support three. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there would be a minor waiver on that. They’re a shade away from three. MR. MEATH-We’re one-tenth of an acre away. We need a waiver for one-tenth of an acre. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I don’t think that would be, I’d like to see their proposal before I go any further. MR. MEATH-Understood. MR. SEGULJIC-And the only thing I would add is I’d like to see open space maximized. MR. MEATH-Which we certainly will do. MR. JARRETT-I think one layout we would present is the two last lots, the two northern lots truncated. That’s one alternative. We’ll come back with one or more other alternatives to look at. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The first thing I want to do is I’ll leave the public hearing open, or should I close the public hearing because they may come back at a later time? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, procedurally we have an issue here, and I don’t care which way you go on this, you or the applicant. I think the applicant was talking, a second ago, about perhaps submitting a new application. I don’t know if you meant that literally or not. I don’t care, as Counsel, but you can’t do that while this application’s pending. So, if you want to call it a new application, then I’m going to advise either that the Board rule on the current application without prejudice, or the easier thing would be for the applicant to withdraw the current application without prejudice, or, if you want to call all this one sort of evolving application, and I don’t, as Counsel, have a problem with that, but I think it’s essential that you not close the public hearing if you’re going to pick Choice Two, vital to not close the public hearing. I’m advising in strongest terms possible not to close the public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On that basis, are you willing to withdraw this application without prejudice and present an application for a three lot subdivision? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. MEATH-We would rather just leave this application open and we’ll submit a revised application, and the public hearing can remain open. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. I don’t care which, so long as you handle it consistently. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask how the Board feels about that? Would you like this to be a continuing, or would you like them to? MR. METIVIER-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. METIVIER-There’s no reason to withdraw this. MR. VOLLARO-So I’ll leave the public hearing open, and we’d like to table this application. Do we want to talk amongst ourselves as to what we want them to do? Is it basically a three lot cluster subdivision, or, as Gretchen has said, a compliant, now the word compliant in that issue says that they would only get two. MR. METIVIER-Two lots. MR. VOLLARO-They can only get two to be compliant, because they don’t quite make three. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the word I was using. Obviously they can come back with as many as they want. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think we want to tell them how many lots. MRS. STEFFAN-Mark, can you weigh in on this one? MR. SCHACHNER-I can, but in all likelihood you will reject my advice because it’s the same advice I’ve given dozens and dozens of times. If you’re tabling the application, you’ve already had a healthy dialogue with the applicant. You don’t need to refine, clarify, define list, or do anything further than you’ve done already. You typically do, and that’s your prerogative, but you don’t need to from the legal standpoint. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’d like to entertain a motion from a Board member for tabling this application, and, George, would you pick out a date, and I’ll ask them when they could be ready by, but you’d have to pick out a date. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess first of all, understanding that we do have items in the queue for April and even May at this point, it’s up to this Board to decide whether or not you want to have them back on a specific date. I can give you the dates for the April meetings, for the May meetings. If you want to move them to the head of the line, if you will, and put them on a specific meeting, that’s fine. MR. METIVIER-Well, there’s so many people here that probably would be interested in coming back to this meeting. MR. HILTON-Yes, and that’s fine. MR. METIVIER-What are your April meetings? MR. SCHACHNER-April meetings are April 19 and April 26. thth 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. METIVIER-And will the applicant, 26, you said? th MR. SCHACHNER-I did. MR. METIVIER-Will the applicant have something to us in a timely manner? MR. VOLLARO-By the 26 of April. th MR. SCHACHNER-Wait, you don’t mean by the 26 of April. th MR. MEATH-Define the submission requirements. MR. HILTON-Yes, well, first of all today is the deadline for April. So that’s one thing, and you can extend that. You can extend that if you’d like, and give them the opportunity to get something in beforehand. MR. VOLLARO-The next deadline date would be April 15 to be on for May. Is that correct? th MR. HILTON-For the May meetings. Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And the May meetings are on May 17 and May 24. thth MR. MEATH-We ought to be able to get things in within a week or so, if we could get an extension of the filing deadline, and then get on the April 26 meeting. th MRS. STEFFAN-Is our agenda full? MR. HILTON-It’s full. It’s pretty full. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think we’re going to have to do the April 15 and look at the May 17 thth meeting. We just won’t be able to pack it in any harder than that. We’re full as it is. MR. MEATH-Very good. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody might want to make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2004 DIAMOND POINT, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: To the May 17 meeting. So they can come back with another plan. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford MR. JARRETT-Thank you for your dialogue. We will be back. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JANE POTTER PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD BAKER AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.52 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR (4) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.84 TO 0.91 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 4-98, SB 8-03 TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-27 LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are? MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper and Matt Steves, on behalf of Jane Potter, the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-This is essentially a pretty straightforward four lot subdivision, with the exception of the issue of whether or not the road should be connected between Ferris and Sherman, and I guess our view of this is that if the Town has that in its master plan, that that’s a Town project and not an applicant project, because the need or not need for that road is not created by the four lots in this subdivision, that if there’s a Town wide traffic concern, it’s not an impact created by these four lots, and just in terms of the economics of this project, a $50,000 purchase, she can’t afford to put in a $50,000 road and build three lots instead of four. So we think that this is approvable as it was submitted and if the Town Board, or the Highway Department, at some point decide that they want to put the road through, the Town always has the ability to condemn property to build a road, and it would just go through the normal channels of eminent domain, but it’s not a case where somebody’s presenting a substantial project that creates impacts and then the applicant needs to mitigate those impacts, you know, which is certainly the case in that scenario, but not the case here, and I think that’s really what the whole issue has been to date. Matt can certainly walk you through the proposed subdivision if you’d like. I know that there are a number of neighbors who are here who are concerned for different reasons with the traffic that would be created by the cut through, and that they’re opposed to it. So I know that there’ll be some healthy discussion at the public hearing, but if you’d like, I can have Matt walk you through our proposal MR. VOLLARO-Well, for the benefit of those that are here from the public, we, of the Board, have seen it once, but for the benefit of those that have come here, I think it would be good to walk us through. MR. STEVES-Real simply, this is a four lot subdivision. Matt Steve, representing Jane Potter. It’s a four lot subdivision. Two lots fronting on Sherman Avenue, both of those having their access from Sherman Avenue, and two on the southerly end of Ferris Drive having their driveway access from Ferris Drive, ranging in lot size from .84 acres to .91 acres. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. For the fear of not being heard, I’ll speak louder into this microphone if necessary. I’m going to offer something up here. I’ve had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Missita about this application, and I’ve talked to Staff about it, somewhat, as well, about the discussion with Mr. Missita. There were two proposals that he made to me on the phone that said, first of all, he’s very concerned about doing what this application says, and he used the word, let the buyer beware then, and I said that’s not the job of the Planning Board. The job of the Planning Board is to protect future buyers from problems that we may see on this Board. With that, he proposed two alternatives. One was to take the existing hammerhead, where it is now, and leave it there, and drop another one 150 foot south. I laid it out on my, in other words, here’s the existing hammerhead, coming down like so. It just touches the apex of this line, right here. That was one proposal. I scaled that off at 150 feet, as opposed to going all the way down to Sherman. That’s one. Two, if that doesn’t, you know, you can’t get together on something like that, then bring the driveways for the two proposed houses to the center of this hammerhead, so that he at least has the ends. MR. LAPPER-That would certainly be acceptable, to bring the driveways there. We’d have to look at the other one, but bringing the driveways to the center would not be a problem. MR. VOLLARO-What would be nice about the first one here for everybody to see, is that these driveways would now go out on a small extension of Ferris Drive, just like everybody else does. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. METIVIER-I actually was thinking, what about taking the driveways, if they have such a problem with the snow, and moving the driveways to the edges of the hammerhead, so they can plow straight ahead, and you’re going to miss driveways on either side. Unless my math is way off. I am absolutely, positively against a road through here. I’ve said that from the beginning. MR. VOLLARO-This is not about putting a road through. MR. METIVIER-I know, and I’ve said that all along. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just some alternates to the applicant’s proposal as to how to get by. MR. METIVIER-I think that this application could have been approved months ago if somebody had just listened to some reasoning, as far as this hammerhead. The snow, and I’m not going to say buyer beware, but there’s so many options to these two driveways. Put them on either side. The plow’s going to come in front of you. If they get some extra snow in their driveway, so be it, but the whole thing of, in all developments, this one, when you have Ferris Drive, and the letter states it right here, why we put a road here is beyond me. Absolutely beyond me. MR. STEVES-At previous meetings, we had stated the same thing that Tony had just stated, that we can slide those to the ends of the hammerhead, or put them in the center, but that wasn’t open for anymore discussion at that point. MR. VOLLARO-Well, a lot of this centered around Mr. Missita’s letter about snow and the hammerhead, that’s how we got to where we are. Okay. What’s the Board’s position on this? MR. METIVIER-The public hearing’s left open. I have a really good feeling that most of the people here are against a road. So why don’t you let them speak, or, if we are in agreement that there’s not going to be a road going through here, I’ll guarantee you probably nobody’s going to speak, and let’s get on with it. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if the consensus of the Board is that you would like to go with that option, that’s fine. I guess my suggestion would be, unfortunately, to have the applicant resubmit a plan showing a revised hammerhead, and we would forward that on to the Highway Superintendent, and quite possibly C.T. Male, to get their review. Since we already have a letter in the file from the Highway Superintendent on one alternative, we’d just like to make it official and get some comment on any revision. MR. LAPPER-I guess of all the suggestions, the idea of building another 150 feet of road, just to have more road for the Town to plow. MR. VOLLARO-That wasn’t the reason for it. MR. LAPPER-No, I’m saying that would be the effect of it. MR. VOLLARO-There would be two reasons. One, both of those houses would now have a way to get access onto a road, and not have their driveways plowed in, as Tony has said. I think one of the reasons that we sit on this Board is to make sure that people who buy properties like that don’t get into bad situations. MR. METIVIER-That’s right, but it’s not always preventable. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not, but in this particular instance, there’s an alternative that we could look at, and I think we ought to just take a look at that. MR. METIVIER-Absolutely. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. LAPPER-You did say that Rick indicated that if the driveways were simply in the center that that would be acceptable? MR. VOLLARO-It would be acceptable to him, yes. MR. LAPPER-And I guess that’s the simplest option here, rather than building road and donating it, dedicating to the Town if it doesn’t need to be built. So that would be preferable, but that’s the Board’s call. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’d like to do, the public hearing was left open the last time and I know there are people here that would like to speak, and if they would, I would like to give them the opportunity to speak. So, since the public hearing was left open, I would ask anyone who wants to come up to come on up and talk to this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MIKE GREENE MR. GREENE-Hi. Mike Greene. I live on Ferris Drive, and most everybody here, the problem we were here is because we didn’t want to see the road through there. My question is, the hammerhead’s been there for eight or nine years. He’s plowed it the way it is. There’s one driveway off the end of the hammerhead that goes to a house back there. Why do we need to change it the way, you know, add an additional hammerhead or anything? It’s been plowed that way since it’s been put in. I don’t understand why they would have to put in another additional road or, you know, hammerhead, you know, their driveways can come out. They plow it anyway. So nothing’s really going to change as far as what they have to do down there as far as plowing or anymore inconvenience to them than they already have. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing we’re looking at is as to where to put the two new driveways on the hammerhead. That’s what we’re looking at. MR. GREENE-There’s already one driveway off the end of the hammerhead. MR. VOLLARO-So now there would be three. So he has to negotiate the snow in that area some way. MR. GREENE-They don’t negotiate the snow in my driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s not here in his own defense. MR. GREENE-And I did talk to Rick Missita myself. I’ve known him for years, and I went to school with him, and he told me whatever the Board decided he would work with. He had no real. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he put a letter in to the Board that he had some concerns, and that’s on file with this Board, and that’s one of the reasons that we are where we are. We were trying to address the Highway Superintendent’s concerns about snow plowing in that area. MR. GREENE-Like I say, he’s been doing it for eight or nine years since that’s been there, that phase of the development’s been there. So I don’t see any more real inconvenience for him to plow it. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the letter that started all this is from November 16, and it states, “I th would prefer to see Ferriss Drive extended to Sherman Avenue to make a complete loop. The proposed driveways on the hammerhead will be significantly inundated with snow. Prospective buyers need to be aware that there’s going to be a problem with snow being dumped due to the fact that this is the only place it can go.” 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. GREENE-I’ve walked down there. I’ve been, you know, I walk that street every day. There’s no more snow on the end of that road than there is on anybody else’s road, you know, it’s just, you’re going to get snow in your driveway. If you live in this country, you’ve got to expect that, but he told me the reason he originally thought the road would go through would be a convenience for fire and EMS, which isn’t a problem anyway. Fire comes from Peggy Ann Road, if it comes, and EMS would come, you know, they would just have to make arrangements, but it’s never been a problem as far as time wise getting to us. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. GREENE-Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody else want to speak? KEVIN GILLIGAN MR. GILLIGAN-Kevin Gilligan. I live at that hammerhead. So if you want to know anything about the plowing down at the end of the hammerhead, I’d be the one you’d field to get all the information from. They come down there and they take a hard left, and they don’t dump any snow at the end of the hammerhead, at the end where you have these two proposed driveways. They make a hard left hand bank turn, and they dump it to the left, then they back down my driveway, and then they go and push it again to the left, or if it’s a different driver, they come down Ferriss Drive and dump it into my lot on the right hand side next to my mailbox, and it gets dumped there. By no way do they come straight down that hammerhead and dump it at the end of Ferriss Drive where those two proposed driveways are going to be, ever, and I’ve lived there since the house has been there. That would be my first. Second. Definitely no road. I have five children, and every house in that area has children, and the kids are out there playing all the time, and that’s just going to be a runway for a short cut for cars. That’s all it’s going to be, and when we originally bought the house, we bought it for specifically that reason, because it was secluded, safe, and a place to bring our children up. Not to have a thruway for cars to make it easier for people to run from Sherman Avenue over. So that would not be a very good idea to have a road going through there, and to make it easier for a plow to do his loop. Thirdly, there has been excessive water problems in that area, in the past. I would hope that the Board is aware of that, that the water table is extremely high. Are you aware of this? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I am, at least I am. I don’t speak for everybody, but I understand. MR. GILLIGAN-The Town, approximately 10 years ago, put a drain, starting in my front yard. Now there’s about one foot below my basement, which is in my front yard, which is about 30 feet away from where the proposed septic tanks are for the new development, which empties into the reservoir down by the plug mill. I don’t think anybody took a look at that. Actually, there is two septic systems that would be dumping into that drain, which is lower in elevation than the septic systems. MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me, where’s the drain? MR. GILLIGAN-Right down my driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-And where does it go? MR. GILLIGAN-It goes down Ferriss Drive through Queen Victoria Grant, across Peggy Ann Road and dumps into the reservoir. MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t go into the current site? It doesn’t go into the site owned by Mrs. Potter? MR. GILLIGAN-No. If you see Lot 36 on that, it runs right down that driveway of Lot 36, parallel to the property. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Into Ferris Drive. MR. GILLIGAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GILLIGAN-It’s a 12 inch pipe, perforated, and I would guess the elevation of the pipe has got to be, hold on a second, I’ve probably got it right here. The elevation of that has got to be about 398 feet, and I believe they’re putting the elevation of the houses at around 405 feet, because they have to build it up, because the water table’s so high. MR. HUNSINGER-405. MR. GILLIGAN-Well, you can fill in the blank, but guess what runs down hill. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked the question. MR. GILLIGAN-Also, seeing how I’m the lowest elevation in that area, which is directly next to that proposed development. My basement elevation is 401 feet. The average household goes about 50,000 gallons of water a year, which is bought from the Town. That’ll be coming over to my house, too. So I’d like to know what the Town is going to do about stopping all that extra water coming over into my lot. MR. VOLLARO-Which lot are you on? Are you on 16? MR. GILLIGAN-Lot 36. MR. HUNSINGER-The other side. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re on 36. MR. GILLIGAN-So all those trees that are in that development right now are going to be cut down, which helps alleviate what water does take care of. MR. VOLLARO-See, I have a note on my thing here about the seasonally high groundwater is at 20 feet, 20 inches. MR. GILLIGAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s pretty high. MR. GILLIGAN-Well, back in 1986, between 1986 and 1994, it rose eight feet. That’s when you guys went and developed all of Queensbury Forest Phase I and Phase II. It rose eight feet in that time, based on your perc tests and the minutes from the Board meetings, and it’s going to rise again. Keep on building. You’ve got 50 houses going across the street from Sherman Avenue, directly across from Jane Potter’s development. You have another 10 houses that just went south of her. You’ve got another 25 houses that just went west of that in the Grove. Keep on cutting trees down, and you’ve got no place to put the water but in the water table. Keep on building, and then ask, why is the water table going so high. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a known fact. You’re absolutely right. MR. GILLIGAN-That’s all I have. Thank you. JIM POTTER 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. POTTER-Hello. My name is Jim Potter. I live at 45 Ferris Drive. I live directly one house away from the cul de sac you’re talking about. Pretty much to reiterate what Mr. Gilligan has said, I’ve been involved with the water problem, dealt with inches, if not feet, of water in our basement. Big consideration, but more importantly, you know, if we can change this, I’ve seen this Board being flexible this evening, willing to be open to opinion and different ideas. I’m very encouraged, even what I’ve heard this evening, to agree with Mr. Gilligan and Mr. Metivier. I think most of us who are here have children. No road. Almost be willing to deal with everything else. I do feel for Mr. Gilligan being part of the water problem. Just recently we’ve been without. That’s excellent, but I know a lot of people that were affected. The value of their house, the health of their house. People who had finished basements ruined. We lost a lot of personal property, documents and stuff of that nature. So just consider, from what’s being said. Like I said, I appreciate everything that’s being done. I think most people would be willing to deal with the driveway problem, as far as the snow, once again, too, I haven’t seen it as a problem. I see it every day. I’m right there. So, thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-George, a question. We never got a stormwater report on this, did we? MR. HILTON-I believe we did, and we have a C.T. Male signoff. MR. VOLLARO-I saw the C.T. Male letter, and I just looked at it to make sure their letter was in here, but I didn’t see him referring to the stormwater report, and I don’t have a stormwater report here on that. It says in response to our September 15 comment, we have received a re- th submittal of information from the applicant’s consultant consisting of a revised set of plans, at the latest revision date of September 20, 2004. Upon examination of the revised plans, we observed that the driveways for three lots and four connect to the hammerhead on Ferriss Drive in Queensbury, but he doesn’t say anything about a stormwater report. The date of the letter is November 11, 2004. MRS. STEFFAN-And, George, in your November 16 Staff notes, you’ve got, on Page Two, the th applicant has requested a waiver from providing a stormwater management plan. MR. HILTON-Okay. I guess what I’m looking at here is a September 15 letter from C.T. Male, th September 15, 2004, where they’re referencing stormwater, and that’s from the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan sheet that was submitted, but you’re correct, I’m not finding a report. I’m finding a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan sheet that’s included in the plans, and C.T. Male has commented on that sheet. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got that, the September 15 letter, but there is sort of general information th that he wants a stormwater prevention. MR. HILTON-But as far as a formal report, that is not part of the file. MR. VOLLARO-No, and the reason I flagged that in my own notes, I said, a question to myself, it says granting a waiver for stormwater with seasonally high groundwater at 20 inches. Looking at the Charles Maine soil pits, and the fact that, as Gretchen just brings out, the fact that all houses to be built on a slab has got to tell you something, that something is, they’re concerned about a high water mark there, seasonally high groundwater. MRS. STEFFAN-And also, George, in the Staff notes on those November 16 Staff notes, there th was something about a no buffer zone, but there is a potential for a federal or New York State DEC wetlands on this property. Has the applicant received jurisdictional determinations from New York State DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers. Applicant has submitted test pit information indicating depth to high groundwater, mottling closer than three feet, a proposed grading plan and test pit information has been referred to C.T. Male for their comments, and then there’s the stormwater management plan waiver request, and because it involves a disturbance of more than one acre, a Notice Of Intent or a Stormwater permit are required to be submitted. That’s what’s in your Staff notes. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I don’t know, how does the Board feel? The waiver has been requested for the stormwater management plan, and with the test pit reports that I see, where you had elevations of 20 inches. I would like to see a stormwater report on this. MR. SEGULJIC-And in light of the information that we just heard. MR. VOLLARO-Not only that, but the plans themselves talk about building on a slab. There must be a reason for that. It’s the water table, I’m sure. MR. METIVIER-Mr. Brewer would like to speak. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Brewer. TIM BREWER MR. BREWER-I would like to maybe submit some information that might help the Board, the applicant and the neighborhood. Many years went on and on with the water problem that the neighborhood had over there, and in 2000, I instigated a study that Tom Nace did that may help this Board. There’s some 4,000 feet of pipe that the Town put in, to alleviate this drainage problem. What we did is go down below the water table, because in 2000, for whatever miraculous reason, there was no water. We did dig down, and in about four to five feet, I think, we hit water, standing water. We put the pipe below it, perforated the pipe, and we put it down there purposely to draw the water away from Kevin’s house and all the other houses that had the problems. Rick Koke, was it, that lived on the corner, also had many problems. Many homes over there did. Pretty much all of them did. So I think if it would be any help to this Board, Mr. Missita has all those plans, all the documents that he, himself, installed that stormwater system in there, and essentially what we did is we didn’t collect it. We just, we pulled it away from there, and I think possibly, and maybe Matt or somebody could look into it, is if they were going to build over there and there is a problem, maybe they could tie into that system. Because like Kevin said, it is a 12 inch pipe, and the water never stops flowing. I mean, I’ve gone by there for the last four and a half years and it has never stopped, winter, summer, spring, and fall. It doesn’t make any difference. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not unreasonable. Because the latest test pit data that we have, which was reasonably taken, was showing seasonally high groundwater at 20 inches. MR. BREWER-It’s there. There’s no question, and maybe it’s something for their engineers to look into that maybe they could tie into that system. It’s sized adequate. Maybe, Matt, you could get the details from Rick and maybe it would be helpful, rather than reinvent the wheel all over again. MR. VOLLARO-That pipe goes all the way down the reservoir. MR. BREWER-It goes all the way over to the watershed property. Short of the reservoir. MR. VOLLARO-But it finds its way into the reservoir eventually, I would guess. MR. BREWER-Hopefully it doesn’t, but eventually it probably does, and I would agree with the people that live over there. I don’t think, I talked to Rick about the road. He said he would like a road, in a perfect world, but we all know it’s not a perfect world. MR. VOLLARO-I think he acquiesced that to me. He said it’s obvious the folks don’t want it. So he offered two alternatives, which I’ve already given out. Thanks a lot. Just let me ask the Board a question here. We have a public hearing. Is there anybody else that wants to speak to this? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. HILTON-We have a couple of letters, Mr. Chairman. Just real quick. Number One, we have a letter from Hillary and Glen Dwyer, 47 Ferriss Drive, dated March 15. “I would like to th offer you my opinion on the agenda at hand, the proposed subdivision and road connecting Sherman Avenue with Peggy Ann. The proposed road is to go directly past my house and through the neighborhood of Queensbury Forest. Our house is at the end of the cul-de-sac and is one of the reasons we bought our house 3 ½ years ago. We are the parents of three children, ages ten, eight, and four. It is very comforting to know that they can ride a bike or scooter to a friend’s house and not have to worry about heavy traffic. During the warmer months the children ride bikes and play hockey in the street, they run to friend’s houses to play, all with the comfort of knowing that they can and not have to worry about heavy traffic and cars zooming by. Putting a road in could have serious consequences. Will the speed limit stay the same? Will there be more stop signs? I’m not happy about the road being put in practically in my front lawn. As I stated, we bought our house 3 ½ years ago because of the family oriented, safe, quiet neighborhood. Now for lack of a reason other than to elevate so called over flow traffic from Sherman Avenue, you’d like to disrupt and destroy the quality of life in our neighborhood. In the Queensbury Forest subdivision there is approximately two hundred children ages infant to college age. Putting a pass through road in would greatly diminish the quality of life that we all so dearly enjoy. Queensbury Forest was not designed to be a pass way to another roadway. It is very unfortunate that the board perhaps through poor planning allowed subdivisions on Sherman First, rather than looking at the effect it may have on neighboring subdivisions. I hope that as elected officials you will listen to the people who put you in office and not destroy our quiet beautiful and SAFE neighborhood! Sincerely, Glen and Hillary Dwyer” The second letter is from Michael and Jennifer Brown, 10 Hampton Court. It says, “Our apologies for not being able to attend tonight’s public hearing by the Queensbury Planning Board. We would encourage the Board to please review my concerns regarding the above matter. We are against the “connector road” from Sherman Avenue to Peggy Ann Road by way of Walton Ct. and Ferriss Dr. It is not necessary for another connector road to be in place. There are already 4 connector roads over a stretch of less than 2 miles between Sherman and Peggy Ann and a 5 road would have no benefit. We both travel Sherman and Peggy Ann th very day and there is no problem with traffic. The connector road discussed above would create heavier and less traffic in our neighborhood, which creates a hazard to the children in our area. In this development, there are a good number of children at almost every home and I for one, will be concerned about their safety if the board approves this new road. Please feel free to contact us with any questions regarding this matter. thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns and we seek a favorable decision. Sincerely, Michael & Jennifer Brown 10 Hampton Ct. Queensbury, NY 12804” And that’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. With that, I will close the public hearing. I think we’ll leave the public hearing open, because it looks like they’re going to be coming back. MR. SCHACHNER-So, in other words, you’re unclosing the public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-I’m unclosing the public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We’ve got a couple of quick responses to some of the issues that were discussed in the public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-What I would like to do is get a consensus, first, from this Board about the road. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-I think I’ll start with you, Tom, and work straight on down. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s reasonable enough to put the road across and have the two driveways on either end of the, either side of the hammerhead. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-It seems we came up with a reasonable alternative. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll alienate the neighbors again tonight. I was in favor of the road. I still think it’s good planning. It has nothing to do with snow, and let me tell you one of the specific reasons why. In fact, I meant to ask the applicant this question. Why wasn’t this subdivision considered as part of Queensbury Forest Phase III? MR. LAPPER-It was under separate ownership. It wasn’t part of the same parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Because basically what you’re proposing is to attach two lots onto the Queensbury Forest subdivision. MR. LAPPER-Well, to a Town road. That’s just a parcel that has frontage on a Town road. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it has, certainly, SEQRA implications and some other implications that won’t be considered as a standalone four lot subdivision, but as part of a larger project there may have been issues and concerns that otherwise won’t be addressed, and it’s for that reason I raise the question. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think it was segmentation. Queensbury Forest was done independently years ago, and I don’t know why, you know, when this parcel came on the market, but it was recent. It wasn’t in the same title, in other words. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to weigh in on the same thing. I don’t think, now looking at this, I don’t think the road’s a good idea. I think the consensus of the Board is that we will not put a road through, and now we’ve got to deal with the subdivision without the road. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-The one thing I’m concerned about is probably this drainage issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Having said that, I don’t think any of us are in favor of the stormwater management request. MR. LAPPER-And we have no problem submitting the stormwater management plan, but I just want to give you a couple of answers. I was also involved in that whole drainage thing, with the Town Board, and what’s happened now is that that drainage line, and that was designed by Tom Nace for the Town, who designed this subdivision, drains the water away from this area, and the soils report that we submitted, that Matt put on the plans, from Charlie Maine, shows that it’s sand, and that seasonal high groundwater, what is mottling, which was done, you know, some time before the drainage pipe went in. So now there’s not a groundwater, the groundwater’s not there. You can just see the mottling. MR. STEVES-Right. There’s still groundwater, but not at the elevation that the mottling is at. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STEVES-The mottling is an indication of where it was. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a fallacy of mottling altogether. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, you know I’ve never been in favor of mottling techniques. I never will be. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. STEVES-Right. MR. LAPPER-It could have been 2,000 years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, these test pits were dug in 2004. MR. LAPPER-Right, but they showed mottling, not water. MR. STEVES-The test pits were dug to about 52 inches, with no water at all. What we’re saying is that the mottling is a rust layer where it shows where water was at one time, and now it is lowered because of the drainage system that was designed and installed for Queensbury Forest. MR. LAPPER-We’ll provide a stormwater management plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Was the drainage plan that was adopted for Queensbury Forest, did it take into account these two lots? MR. LAPPER-Well, it drained that whole basin, the whole area. MR. HUNSINGER-Did it anticipate the development of these two lots? MR. LAPPER-I don’t know. We’ll find out. We’ll get a stormwater management plan. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think it’s a question that needs to be addressed. MR. STEVES-And we will gladly address that. Tom Nace who did the design, the engineer that did the design for that stormwater, for that basin, and the pipe also did the engineering on this subdivision, and he’s well aware of, naturally, well aware of all the information on both, and we will have a stormwater report from him that will incorporate all that for you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the things that we have to, I’ve listened to neighbors who tell me they have water in basements, even with all this drainage that’s going on, and the two seem incompatible. You get a stormwater report, but that doesn’t solve that gentleman’s problem of having water in the basement or this gentleman who knows that the water is coming up higher. I think Tom Nace has got to look at what’s causing some of these problems. You’ve got actual conditions to deal with, not just theoretical. MR. LAPPER-I thought that Tim said that the basement problems had been solved by the drainage line. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that they have been. MRS. STEFFAN-But not according to the public comment that we got. MR. LAPPER-Well, the stormwater report will address all that. That’s definitely the right answer. We have no problem with that. MR. METIVIER-What about the comment being made about the septics flowing into that pipe? What’s your feeling on that? Is that something Tom’s going to have to address? MR. LAPPER-That’s the issue, C.T. Male’s looked at that. He was looking at the septic tank, and it’s, of course, the leach field location. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. LAPPER-Which is like 100. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. STEVES-Seventy-five to one hundred feet away from that drainage structure, and the requirement is to be fifty feet. MR. LAPPER-So that complies. MR. VOLLARO-How sandy is that soil? MR. STEVES-It’s all sand. MR. METIVIER-It’s all sand over there. MR. VOLLARO-Sand sounds good, but when you put a drain field here, and another piece here, you know, a drain field’s going to drain. It’s going to drain down. MR. LAPPER-Well, but it’s a 50 foot requirement. MR. VOLLARO-I know, I know about the requirements, but I think this gentleman has got. MR. STEVES-Engineering wise, about 90% of all the water from an absorption system goes straight down, not to the sides. So if you’re worrying about the 10% in sandy soils to travel 100 feet, it won’t happen, but I’ll have Tom address that in his letter. MR. METIVIER-Wouldn’t you, in those instances, put the septic in the front of the house as opposed to the back of the house? MR. STEVES-We can adjust the septic systems to accomplish the greatest separation, and we will do that. MR. METIVIER-I mean, that was just for show. I don’t know what word I’m looking for, but to put the septic in the back. You don’t have to do that. MR. LAPPER-We’ll look into it, though. The other issue, Gretchen had mentioned the wetlands, and we did have Charlie Maine’s soils report indicated that there were no wetlands on the site, and that’s because it’s sand. MR. STEVES-There is no New York State DEC Wetlands on the property, and he also looked at the entire property for Army Corps wetlands, and there’s no Army Corps Wetlands, and we had Roberts Environmental look at it for endangered species, and we have letters back from United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife, and from Kathy O’Brien of DEC. Saying that there are no endangered species as well. MR. LAPPER-And that was submitted. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, that would respond to the Staff notes, then. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-You had indicated that the groundwater was, what, 52 inches or 55 inches, something like that? MR. STEVES-We dug down to test pits 52 inches and we didn’t encounter any groundwater at the time. We encountered mottling at about 31 inches. MR. METIVIER-When were your test pits done? MR. STEVES-They were done in April 22, 2004. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Now when you look at the plans, it looks like you’re going to be bringing some soil in from an area around the house. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Why is that then? MR. STEVES-The houses are going to be designed, I believe, on a slab, and to raise up the house so we have positive drainage away from the house. If you look at that area, it’s a pretty flat area, and it’s actually like a little bit of a cup shape to it, and to create positive drainage around the houses and the septic systems. MR. SEGULJIC-But you have like on Lot Number Three you bring it up three feet, I believe. Isn’t that more than adequate, though? Wouldn’t you only have to bring it up like a foot? Why three feet? Why not a foot? MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says, on the plan it says all houses to be built on slab with cellars, the cellar floor would be one foot above mottling. So they’re putting some emphasis on the 20 inches. They want to be above the mottling level. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-But like Lot Three. MR. STEVES-Because that’s the requirement to go by. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. MR. SEGULJIC-Lot Three you’re bringing it in on four feet of fill, if I’m reading that correctly. The house is at 405 and one of the grading lines is at 401. MR. STEVES-Correct, you’re mounding up around the house, that’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Four feet, though. MR. LAPPER-Just to make it a nicer development to have the house set up. MR. SEGULJIC-That just seems excessive. If you just want to have positive drainage, six inches will give you that. MR. LAPPER-But from what standpoint do you mean excessive? MR. SEGULJIC-Why four feet? That’s a lot more cost bringing in four feet of fill in that whole area. MR. STEVES-Because that’s one of the lower lots, and to obtain the bottom of the foundation above the mottling, and that’s why we’re doing that. MR. SEGULJIC-But still, it’s four feet of fill. That gives you five and a half, almost six feet above mottling. You said all you wanted was one foot. MR. STEVES-Right, but you have a foundation, even on a slab, that goes down four feet. MR. VOLLARO-That’s footings you’re talking about. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. METIVIER-You’re not limited to slabs there, are you? MR. STEVES-No. MR. METIVIER-I mean, if you want to do a raised ranch or something like that. MR. STEVES-Correct. What we’re trying to say is that the lowest level of any part of the footing or foundation is going to be established with this grading plan to be above that mottling layer. MR. VOLLARO-What amazes me is that you were able to go down four feet, roughly, fifty some odd inches. MR. STEVES-Fifty-two inches, forty-four, forty-eight, forty-four. MR. VOLLARO-So nominally they’re talking four feet. MR. STEVES-Four feet. MR. VOLLARO-And not strike any water at all. MR. LAPPER-In April. MR. VOLLARO-And yet I’m getting all the reports from the public where there’s a significant amount of water. MR. STEVES-There used to be a significant amount of water. I can’t speak to the neighboring basements at this time, but I know that they did have a substantial amount, and that’s why that drainage system was placed in there. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why the drainage system is there. MR. LAPPER-And that was a Town issue to fix the neighbors problem. MR. STEVES-That’s another long, long story. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, real long. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and if there’s a report on file, that will explain, I think, for us. MR. METIVIER-Does that drainage system, does that get, who’s responsible for that, the Town? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Do they take care of it? MR. STEVES-Yes. Rick Missita does maintenance on it and checks it all the time. MR. METIVIER-Is that one of those things that they vacuum out and everything every year for the sediment? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what we want to do is, we’re going to table this application, and table it for the purposes of receiving a stormwater report from the applicant, and to address, I’d like that stormwater report to address the. MR. LAPPER-Town system. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-The Town system as well and whether or not that’s taking the water away adequately on today’s basis, from when it was first put in. MR. METIVIER-And with maximum build out of these lots, will there be sufficient. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. STEVES-No problem. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, also a revised map showing a new hammerhead. MR. METIVIER-Not so much the hammerhead, but where the driveways would be. MR. HILTON-Well, relocating, it sounds like what we discussed with relocating that hammerhead to the south. MR. VOLLARO-No, I think that was a proposal that Rick Missita said he would accept, but he also said he would accept the driveways going to the center of the hammerhead, either or. MR. HILTON-Okay. I guess I misunderstood. Well, either way, a revised map. MR. VOLLARO-So there’d have to be a revised map showing the, reestablishing the driveways on the hammerhead. MR. STEVES-Right, and then a note on the plan that says that they must be at that location, as well. Not just show them there, but state the fact that they must be there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Could we also have on the map the location of Mr. Gilligan’s septic and leach, in relation? Because the driveway’s on the plan currently, the drain. MR. STEVES-I think he was worried about our systems in relation to the catch basin that’s there for the stormwater, not his septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have some drawings. Bob didn’t pass them down to you. MR. STEVES-Right. I will gladly have that drywell placed on the map. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because if the drywell’s there and we know where his septic is, then we kind of know where all the water is concentrated between those two lots. MR. HILTON-Just one other thing. Are you going to table this to a specific date, a specific meeting? MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re in the same box as we were at the last application. We’ve got to figure out what’s happening. The date would be April 15. th MR. HILTON-That’s the deadline date. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the deadline date, and that would give them to be on the first Planning Board meeting of April 19? th MR. HILTON-May. April 15 would be the deadline for the May meetings, and the 17 or the thth 24. th MR. VOLLARO-May 17. th 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Can we fit them on May 17? That’s the other thing. What’s the agenda look th like? Do you have an idea? MR. HILTON-At this point, no. I know we do have some items that are in waiting. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a bump list ready. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Possibly this will be a quick one when we come back with the stormwater plan that’s already been reviewed, possibly. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve looked at this quite a bit. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we try to schedule them on May 17. th MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-See how that fits. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to call for a formal tabling motion on this to table this application to May 17, for purposes of receipt of a stormwater report. th MR. SCHACHNER-And revised plans. MR. VOLLARO-And revised plans, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-As per our discussions. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 JANE POTTER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Tabled to May 17, for purposes of receipt of a stormwater report, and revised plans, as per our th discussions. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RINO LONGHITANO PROPERTY OWNER: H. RUSSELL HARRIS ESTATE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-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 REGS 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-I have a question for Staff before we get started. C.T. Male’s March 8 letter, th which I have here, refers to S-1 dated February 17. My latest drawing is February 8, 2005. Now are we on the same page drawing wise? MR. STEVES-I don’t know how the date of the map from C.T. Male could be the 17 when the th letter and the maps that I sent to them, the letter was dated February 15. th MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll read his letter to you. Do you have it with you? MR. STEVES-C.T. Male’s? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have it here. It says, in response to December 17 comments, we th received and reviewed additional information consisting of a revised plan. The revised sheet, the latest revision February 17. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they say earlier in the letter that the cover letter was dated February 15, and then the revised plan sheet S-1, last revised February 17. thth MR. STEVES-Can’t be. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, how could it be? So it’s got to be a typo. MR. STEVES-I know that this is the plan that I talked to Jim about, and he signed off on. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s a typo by C.T. Male. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-You may now proceed. MR. STEVES-Again, Matt Steves for the record, representing Rino Longhitano on this application. We had tabled this at the last meeting pending a signoff letter from C.T. Male which we have now in your file. So I believe it’s as simple as that, that you just didn’t want to make a final motion until we had that signoff letter. Here we are. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One question I have. There was a motion of November 16 required the th subdivision to Highway for comment on the culvert that goes under the road at the location of proposed driveway. MR. STEVES-Yes, I talked to Rick Missita on that. MR. VOLLARO-Did we ever receive comment from Mr. Missita on that? MR. STEVES-I talked to him, and I believe that Staff even talked to him. There was some dialogue at last meeting about that. He was asking that we have it as a common driveway, and he didn’t have any problem with the location to the north of that culvert. I had talked to Rick Missita, and I believe that George had as well. MR. VOLLARO-Did he reply to that at all? MR. HILTON-Yes. I talked to him in our office and he just indicated that it looked like the driveway wasn’t going to impact that culvert. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure we closed on that issue, because it was in our motion of November 16. th 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. STEVES-Absolutely. I believe we did that last month. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we’ve covered everything, other than the fact we have a 500 foot long driveway, but that’s the applicant’s problem. I don’t have any other comments on this. Any other Board members want to comment on this application? MR. METIVIER-Not at all. MRS. STEFFAN-Just what we asked for. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. We need to open the public hearing on this. Is there anybody here from the public that wants to speak to this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-We do have to do a SEQRA, which was issued as a Long Form. MR. STEVES-Required for subdivision. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RINO LONGHITANO, 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. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I would entertain a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2004 RINO LONGHITANO, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 15-2004 Applicant: Rino Longhitano PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: H. Russell Harris Estate FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-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 Public Hearing: 11/16/04 Tabled, 2/15/05 Tabled WHEREAS, the application was received 8/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/11/05, and 3/15/05 Staff Notes 3/8/05 CTM engineering comments 2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent 2/15/05 PB minutes 2/15/05 Response to 2/8/05 CTM comments 2/11/05 Staff Notes w/ previous PB resolution dated 11/16/04, 2/8/05 CTM eng. comments 2/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing 1/18/05 New Map: S-1 revised 1/6/05 1/11/05 C. Brown from J. Edwards, CTM: witness of test pits 11/17/04 PB resolution: Tabled 11/16/04 PB minutes 11/16/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes 11/9/04 Notice of Public Hearing sent 9/21/04 TB from J. Martin 9/21/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes 9/14/04 Notice of Public Hearing sent 7/26/04 Affected Applicants: Applications bumped from August to Sept 7/13/04 S-1 map revised 6/2/04 7/13/04 Application materials submitted: Preliminary & Final Stg. 5/27/04 M. Steves from J. O’Connor, Regional Habitat Biologist, NYS DEC 11/17/03 Preliminary Stage submission 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) 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 11/16/04, 2/15/05, 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 is hereby granted. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan. Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2004 RINO LONGHITANO, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Subdivision No. 15-2004 Applicant: Rino Longhitano PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: H. Russell Harris Estate FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-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 Public Hearing: 11/16/04 Tabled, 2/15/05 Tabled WHEREAS, the application was received 8/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/11/05, and 3/15/05 Staff Notes 3/8/05 CTM engineering comments 2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent 2/15/05 PB minutes 2/15/05 Response to 2/8/05 CTM comments 2/11/05 Staff Notes w/ previous PB resolution dated 11/16/04, 2/8/05 CTM eng. comments 2/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing 1/18/05 New Map: S-1 revised 1/6/05 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) 1/11/05 C. Brown from J. Edwards, CTM: witness of test pits 11/17/04 PB resolution: Tabled 11/16/04 PB minutes 11/16/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes 11/9/04 Notice of Public Hearing sent 9/21/04 TB from J. Martin 9/21/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes 9/14/04 Notice of Public Hearing sent 7/26/04 Affected Applicants: Applications bumped from August to Sept 7/13/04 S-1 map revised 6/2/04 7/13/04 Application materials submitted: Preliminary & Final Stg. 5/27/04 M. Steves from J. O’Connor, Regional Habitat Biologist, NYS DEC 11/17/03 Preliminary Stage submission 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 11/16/04, 2/15/05, 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 granted 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. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision upon submission of a building permit. 2. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan 3. 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. 4. 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 March, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford MR. STEVES-Thank you. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) SITE PLAN NO. 65-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED PETER ROZELLE & PHIL WHITTEMORE PROPERTY OWNER: HELEN SLEIGHT AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, ETHAN HALL ZONE: NC-10 LOCATION: 333 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING GARAGE/SERVICE BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT TWO (2) OFFICE BUILDINGS - 9,000 SQ. FT AND 5750 SQ. FT. OFFICE USES IN THE NC-10 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 96-02, NOA 5-02, SP 37-00, SP 12-90, UV 3- 90 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-31 LOT SIZE: 1.69 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of quick comments on this. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILTON-I’d mentioned in my notes a suggested condition concerning the lighting which was left out of our prepared motion, and the applicant has responded with some comment on that condition, and I guess I would stress the importance of that condition. We’ve found with other applications that what’s approved is not necessarily what’s installed, and we just, with all our non-residential and I guess all our projects that have lighting plans we’re really looking to make sure that what this Board has approved is actually constructed. So I would suggest, again, that condition be placed in the resolution, and my second comment concerns landscaping. The applicant has revised the landscaping plan, and with some shrubs along the western property line. As I’ve mentioned, other site plans in this area have included trees from our Zoning Ordinance, suggested species, and I guess, to be consistent with other plans in this neighborhood and on this corridor, we’d suggest some attention or some additional trees, or trees in place of some of the shrubs that have been proposed along that western line especially. Having said that, that’s all I have on this. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I think that you placed that in your Staff notes and Staff suggests a condition of approval that all light fixtures be downcast cut off and that Staff inspect the light fixtures for compliance and installation, we will put that as part of the motion, as a condition of. As far as the trees and things are concerned, I’d like to hear from the applicant on that as well, but your point’s well taken. MR. LAPPER-Hello. For the record, Jon Lapper and Ethan Hall. Since we’ve been here last time, we had to make some changes to the plan to address the engineering issues. In general, we reduced the size of the building along Aviation Road by 3,000 square feet and we moved the driveway so there would be a larger separation distance between the two driveways. That was, the applicants wanted the larger building, but this just made it a better plan, and we resubmitted and received a signoff from C.T. Male. I’m just going to let Ethan walk you through the changes and then there’s just a couple of issues like the trees that we’ll go through. MR. VOLLARO-Just to make sure we’re all talking about the revisions to the plans of 9 February 2005, is that correct? MR. HALL-That is correct, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Shoot. MR. HALL-The major changes involved on this pretty much deal just with the front building, the building closest to Aviation Road. There were some issues with the sewage disposal system and its proximity to a catch basin that’s being, there’s an existing drywell that we’re replacing with a catch basin, and there’s a separation distance that has to be maintained between those. It’s 50 feet, and the separation distance caused us to relocate those two sewage disposal systems 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) for that front building. They were running parallel to Aviation Road in the original. We’ve since moved them to the western property line. MR. VOLLARO-I see that, but I also see that to them you have a 20 foot separation between the building and the disposal. MR. HALL-To the building, there’s a 20 foot separation to the building. There’s a 50 foot separation to the catch basin. MR. LAPPER-Stormwater catch basin. MR. HALL-Stormwater catch basin. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HALL-Along Aviation Road. MR. VOLLARO-Because I figured 20 was adequate. MR. HALL-Twenty to the building, but it’s 50 to a surface groundwater collection. So that caused us to move the sewage disposal system around on the west side of the building, caused us to make that front building, we had originally been a 9,000 square foot building. We’re now at 5700 square feet. So the building has gotten significantly smaller. We’ve revised the architecture so the front of the building faces Aviation Road instead of the plan that we had had originally, where the main entry to the building comes in off the parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I really wanted to compliment you on that. MR. LAPPER-That was one of the things you had asked for. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it looks good. I also feel that way. I think a lot of that had to do with some comments made by Dr. Hoffman back upstream a way as to what things would look like along Aviation Road. So I’m happy with that. MR. LAPPER-We can listen when we have to. MR. HALL-There were a couple of other minor points that Mr. Houston made from C.T. Male. One of them is in regard to a catch basin that was in the entry drive. We’ve since moved that down a little bit. It was again a separation distance to a sewage disposal on the adjoining. We’ve pulled it down. We were about two feet or three feet inside the cone of influence for that sewage disposal system. We’re going to pull that one down and get it out of that, and the other one was just a simple arithmetic error on a site elevation. MR. VOLLARO-On his, it looks like there’s still outstanding requirements that are not signed off on C.T. Male’s letter. MR. HALL-Those are the two issues that, in response to Item Number Five and Item Number Fourteen on this, that I sent to George yesterday. MR. LAPPER-We concur. MR. HALL-Yes, and we agreed to the two items that he has. I’m pulling the one catch basin down to get it out. That takes care of Item Number Five, and I’ve indicated the elevation that he was missing for Item Number Fourteen. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just ask the Board a question. How do you feel about being able to condition this on the acceptance? I think it’s a pretty minor thing. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Pretty minor. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay. MR. HALL-As far as the light fixtures, that’s fine. I just wanted to note, you know, we’ve submitted the cut sheets and that is what we intend to put in. What we’re trying to do there is to keep the lighting to be similar to what’s on the adjoining property, but, you know, the inspection can certainly be done by Staff to make sure that that’s what’s installed. As far as the trees go, we changed the trees along Aviation Road. We have an issue with a separation between the root balls of the trees and the sewage disposal system that we really want to avoid. So for the sewage disposal systems that are along Manor Drive, we’re proposing trees that don’t grow very big and don’t have a huge root ball. We don’t want those roots growing into the sewage disposal system. So those are the ones that we have left as crab apple trees. The ones that are on Aviation Road we’ve switched to trees that came out of the Zoning regs. The other ones that are along the western property line, we had that same issue along the western property line being very close to the sewage disposal system. So we’d prefer to leave, we did change to some evergreen shrubs which was requested at the first Board meeting. It was requested that we mix some evergreen shrubbery in there that would stay green all year round, and the rest of the shrubs that are in there will, are chosen from that. We did put in Japanese Red Maple, or Japanese Red Pine that are going to be the deciduous that are the coniferous trees that run right up that property line, and those should grow to, they can grow up to about 14, 15 feet high. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s some good reasoning in there, George, as far as the root ball is concerned next to septic disposal. I think that they make some sense in that area. I don’t know enough about how trees grow. MR. HILTON-Yes, and I guess I don’t either, but, you know, just looking at our Code, and looking at consistency with the neighborhood, as well as potentially improving the visual buffer from that residence to the west, that’s where our comments were based. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think the applicant has made a case for using a tree whose root ball doesn’t get large and into the septic system, and I think that that’s a consideration I would have to look at as well. MR. HALL-And there’s about a 55 foot maple, or a 55 foot white pine that’s right there, too. MR. VOLLARO-That’s on the adjoining property. MR. LAPPER-Also George’s comments are well taken. On Aviation Road, which is the main corridor, we did change it to the Town requirements. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That’s what most people will see. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I noticed. Another question I had, did we receive a letter from Highway per Rucinski/Hall Architecture letter of December 10 concerning Aviation Road th storm drainage in this Schoder Rivers Stormwater Report? There was supposed to be a, Highway was supposed to make comment to that. MR. HALL-On that note, we did meet on site with Rick Missita. Both Carl Schoder and myself met with Rick out there during one of the big rainstorms we had in January. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HALL-And Rick had told us that our assumption all along had been that the drywell and the catch basins that are on that side of Aviation Road were draining from Aviation Road and 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) draining across Aviation Road and bringing it across to the site. Rick told us that actually it’s just the opposite. What it’s doing is it picks up the road water on that side of Aviation Road, brings it under Aviation Road to a catch basin at Sokols Market and then takes it under Sokols Market over to Dixon and there’s a big catch basin on the other side of Dixon Ave, or Dixon Road that takes it that way. I don’t know if he gave you a letter or not. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HALL-He had indicated he was going to. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t always get letters from Highway. MR. HALL-But that was his indication, and they had gone out, I believe it was shortly after that, and they cleaned them out and they were shooting the inverts of the pipe to confirm that, and he had told us that they did confirm that. MR. VOLLARO-George, would you ask him if he would put just a note into the file to that effect, that he’s satisfied with the drainage system on Aviation Road, in accordance with the Schoder Rivers Stormwater Report. MR. HILTON-We can do that if you’d like. You certainly can condition the application as well. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d like to see something from him. If he’s been out there, he certainly ought to just drop something into the record that he’s been there and agreed with it. MR. LAPPER-Make it a request, though, because we can’t force him to write a letter. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. HILTON-And I guess that’s why I think a condition might be more appropriate. That way there it’s clear, and it can be presented to the Highway Superintendent, and I’ll make it clear to him that you’re looking for that as a final piece of the puzzle if you want. MR. VOLLARO-Make it a condition that the Highway Superintendent agrees with the stormwater drainage that exists in the Schoder Rivers Stormwater Report, along Aviation Road. MR. HALL-That should be the revised report. Your comments should be towards Schoder Rivers revised report. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a question on the curb cut back on Manor Drive. Is that both ingress and egress? MR. HALL-That is correct. That’s really the only way we can get out of this site. MR. LAPPER-Because it’s only ingress. MR. HALL-It’s only ingress coming off of Aviation Road. MR. LAPPER-That’s what you had asked for. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to make sure, because I didn’t see the two aisles on the drawing, and I was wondering. MR. HALL-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Plus the next lot also has that, and I think it’s Hudson Headwaters and the Bank lot, they both have an ingress/egress, as well. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-I have no other questions. If there’s any other questions from the Board, we will proceed to a SEQRA. We can open the public hearing. Does anybody here from the public want to speak to this? MR. HUNSINGER-You didn’t give us a chance to ask questions, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Does the Board have any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if it was an oversight or what, but there was some considerable discussion about a sidewalk along. MR. HALL-The Aviation Road. MR. HUNSINGER-And I still didn’t see that in the plan, unless I missed it. MR. HALL-There’s the paved swale. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-Which runs along Aviation Road, and that is in the same general area that the sidewalk would be in. It ties in with the one that is immediately adjacent at Mountain View Commons, and it ties into the same edge drainage along that road. That acts as the walking surface for that road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So there will be a sidewalk there? MR. HALL-It’s a paved swale. It’s like the break down lane of the road. Putting a sidewalk on this site wouldn’t connect to anything. There’s not one on the Mountain View Commons. There’s not one at any of the ones along that side. MR. VOLLARO-I thought there was a comment that I’d read that was a sidewalk at the School that this might connect to. I think when the public hearing gets opened, Dr. Hoffman might want to speak to that. I think there’s some information. MR. METIVIER-I just want to state for the record, you guys did a great job. You really did. I mean, everything we asked for is here, minus the sidewalk, but you really did a great job. I totally compliment you all. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, really, the biggest thing was getting the public presentation of the building towards the Aviation Road, and I mean, that made all the difference in the world. It’s a really nice project. MR. HALL-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Any other Board member questions? I would concur with other members of the Board. I think it was great. It was a evolutionary thing, but it came out looking pretty good. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-Not pretty good, very good. MR. HALL-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Are there any other questions from Board members? Then I’d like to open the public hearing, if somebody would like to speak. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK HOFFMAN DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, 32 Fox Hollow Lane. I wasn’t at the previous meeting, but it sounds like modifications were made as far as the presentation of the building to Aviation Road and certainly I’m pleased that they’ve done some work on that. Regarding the sidewalk, I’d like to go on record as saying a paved swale, a break down lane on Aviation Road is not an adequate substitute for a sidewalk. This whole area there is, there are few other areas of Queensbury like it. I wouldn’t say it’s unique, but it’s unusual in Queensbury in that it’s a commercial area and yet it has kind of a neighborhood feel, and there’s a lot of residential development nearby which is within walking distance, and so it’s sort of like a mini- neighborhood center for that area, and if the Town of Queensbury is ever going to be in any way remotely a walkable community, this is the type of neighborhood that needs to have sidewalks. I can see, you know, if you live in a little residential cul de sac or something, it may not be worthwhile investing in a sidewalk, on a quiet street without a lot of traffic, but Aviation Road is not safe to walk on. I do it regularly and I know, certainly even for me as an adult it’s not safe. In no way would it be safe for a child to walk on that road, paved swale or no paved swale. Queensbury School is within a quarter mile of that building. There is a sidewalk that runs all the way along Aviation Road in front of Queensbury School, and then it kind of dead ends toward the end of the School. There is a sidewalk on the property immediately to the west of the garage. I guess there’s a private home there now. I’m not sure if anyone’s living in it. The sidewalk has not been maintained for a while, but it is there. It needs to be improved. It would be something that a sidewalk could be connected to. It’s true that the properties immediate to the east don’t currently have sidewalks, but you’ve got to start somewhere, and if you don’t put a sidewalk here, well, then the next time they want to redevelop a property to the east, they’re just going to say, well, there’s no sidewalk to the west. So you can’t just say, well, the next door neighbor doesn’t have a sidewalk. Therefore we’re not going to put one in. So, you know, as someone who tries to walk along Aviation Road, who sometimes drives along Aviation Road, and sees people trying to walk, getting splattered, getting their clothes splattered by rainwater that gets splattered from the cars, breathing in the exhaust fumes from the cars that are a few feet away, trying to dodge snow plows and other trucks, a paved swale is not a substitute for a sidewalk. Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. With that, is there anybody else? JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. The last time I was here, you know, I had asked if they would fix up the rear of the building to make it look like the front, and it looked like the applicant was just about ready to explain that when you called the public hearing. So, I think that was the case, so if they would explain that. I also asked if they could upgrade the front, because it is Aviation Road and the main road into the third ward, and it appeared, in one of the drawings that they did, but if you could have the applicant explain that as well I would appreciate that, and I support the project. It looks like a great project. MR. VOLLARO-It turned out real nice, John. MR. STROUGH-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Anyone else? Okay, with that, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And bring the applicant back up to the table. I guess the issue is on, one of the issues is how do we want to address this sidewalk thing? I think Dr. Hoffman has some good points. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. LAPPER-Is that the consensus of the Board that you want to see a sidewalk? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know, I haven’t polled them yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I raised the issue, and I concur with Dr. Hoffman. I don’t live in that neighborhood, but my son’s best friend does, and until he got his license, he frequently would walk from school down Aviation Road to his friend’s house. MR. LAPPER-Well, now he has his license. We don’t need a sidewalk. MR. HUNSINGER-Unfortunately for all the kids that are under 17, you know. MR. HALL-One of the things that I would offer is that Manor Drive, that runs behind us, is certainly a lot less traveled than Aviation Road, and it seems that that’s most of the area where the people are coming around that direction. I mean, if it comes down, if it’s the Board’s will that a sidewalk be put in there, you know, subject to Rick Missita’s review of it or his looking at it, we can certainly take a look at it. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going to throw this out. Is this a Town issue for sidewalks, or is this up to each individual applicant to put a sidewalk in front of his structures? MR. HALL-The sidewalk would be on the property because the actual property line for this property is in that drainage swale. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the sidewalk would be on your property. Therefore it’s up to you to either put it in or not put it in. MR. HUNSINGER-But it is consistent with the Master Plan for the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Sidewalks in commercial areas. MR. SEGULJIC-You have to start somewhere. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it looks like the consensus of the Board, I would think, I don’t know, how do you feel about that? MR. METIVIER-I agree, you have to start somewhere, but I just honestly don’t, in the next 100 years, foresee sidewalks on Aviation Road. I just don’t think it’s going to happen. Everything else is done. I mean, so I’ll go either way. It honestly doesn’t, I could go either way. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll take that as a yes. MR. METIVIER-Take it as you will. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m a strong maybe. There’s two points of view. Certainly it would be nice to have a sidewalk. If you look at the Indian Ridge development, you know, folks would walk down Farr Lane, go past whatever’s going to happen on that corner lot, if it’s professional office, there may be doctors in here that they would be seeing, they could walk. They could walk to Stewarts. They could go to the bank, and so if there was a sidewalk here, it would encourage people to walk from that very large neighborhood and then Farr Lane, Farr Lane east is a 42 (lost words). MR. HALL-Basically the big issue at the last meeting was, in an attempt to get the parking behind the buildings, which is kind of in keeping with the Master Plan, keeping parking away from everything, the main parking for both business is going to be out behind and the main entries to the building will be from the parking. The big problem that was raised at the last 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) meeting that we were at was, you know, the back of the building then faces Aviation Road. So we took that to heart and we really looked at, how do you make the back of the building look like the front of the building, even though you don’t want to draw a lot of attention to it. We added a couple of gables to the front side to give the appearance as though it’s the front of the building. We did add, there has to be a door coming out that side, for the emergency exit egress from the building. That’s kind of tucked back in between the two parts of the building that stick out a little bit, but we do have an entry or a front looking piece to Aviation Road that has a small canopy over the front of it and just gives it the appearance that it’s the front of the building. If somebody comes to the front of the, you know, comes up to that door, they will be able to get in, but they’re not going to get anywhere. It just goes to a stairwell and things like that. The main entry is obviously at the back of the building, and there’s really no way to park out here anyway. So, but it is there. It gives the appearance that it’s the front of the building. MR. VOLLARO-That was the intent all along. MR. HALL-That’s the intent, just to make it look more like the front of the building. We’ve added both perennial and annual planting beds, both in an area right along the front of the building. MR. LAPPER-That’ll have to move because of the sidewalk. MR. HALL-The sidewalk, yes, the sidewalk’s going to push that back a little bit now, or, you know, make it a little bit smaller or something, and then we’ve got another one over between the exit drive from the bank and the entry drive to our facility. There’s a planting mound in there as well. MR. HUNSINGER-And we’ve also got the future egress/ingress to go out next door labeled on the map. That was another issue that we had. MR. HALL-The next door, the bank absolutely does not want it. It’s shown there for future easement. We’ll make it a standard four foot wide concrete sidewalk, and we’ll leave a grass buffer strip of three feet between the paved swale and the sidewalk. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And the final plan will show that when we submit it. MR. HALL-Yes, our final submitted plan we’ll add that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll go to a SEQRA Short Form now. I think that’s what was submitted. MR. LAPPER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 65-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PETER ROZELLE & PHIL WHITTEMORE, 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: 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) 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 March, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2004 PETER ROZELLE & PHIL WHITTEMORE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 65-2004 Applicant: Peter Rozelle & Phil Whittemore SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Helen Sleight Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Ethan Hall Zone: NC-10 Location: 333 Aviation Road Applicant proposes to demolish existing garage/service buildings and construct two (2) office buildings - 9,000 sq. ft. and 5750 sq. ft. Office uses in the NC-10 zone require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: UV 96-02, NOA 5-02, SP 37-00, SP 12-90, UV 3-90 Warren Co. Planning: 11/10/04 Tax Map No. 301.8-1-31 Lot size: 1.69 acres / Section: 179-4-030 Public Hearing: 11/23/04 Tabled, 1/18/05 Tabled, 3/15/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/15/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/11/05, and 3/15/05 Staff Notes 3/8/05 CTM engineering comments 3/8/05 Notice of public hearing sent 3/1/05 Meeting Notice sent 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) 2/14/05 Revised submission 2/8/05 Transmittal to PB: M. Hoffman letter 2/6/05 PB from M. Hoffman 1/19/05 Letter to applicant+: 1/18/05 PB resolution: Tabled 1/18/05 PB resolution: Tabled 1/18/05 PB from Jonathan Lapper: Request to be tabled 1/18/05 PB minutes 1/14/05 PB from G. Hilton: Staff Notes w/1-10-05 CTM eng. comments 12/31/04 PB c/o Town Clerk: M. Hoffman 12/13/04 Revised submission 11/24/04 Letter to applicant+: 11/23/04 PB resolution: Tabled 11/23/04 PB resolution: Tabled 11/23/04 PB minutes 11/23/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes 2/11-17-04 CTM eng. comments 11/22/04 Rucinski Hall Architecture to C. Brown: response to eng. comments 11/16/04 Notice of Public Hearing sent 11/12/04 McGraw Hill: Request for information 10/26/04 RPS Property Description Report 10/20/04 Govern Summary Report 10/15/04 Application / Maps submitted 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 11/23/04, 1/18/05 & 3/15/05; 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 in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. That all light fixtures be downcast cut off fixtures, and that Staff shall inspect the light fixtures for compliance prior to installation. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) 2. That the Highway Superintendent concur with the revised stormwater report as it impacts along Aviation Road. 3. That the applicant install a four foot wide concrete walk with three feet of green space between the concrete sidewalk and the paved swale along Aviation Road. 4. A Final C.T. Male signoff. 5. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford MR. HALL-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 66-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY THREW AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: WR-1A, SR-1A LOCATION: 25 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR SITE FILLING AND GRADING ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED DUE TO FILL/GRADING THAT HAS EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-6-070. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 20-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/8/04 TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 6.1 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF THREW, PRESENT SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY THREW AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: WR-1A, SR-1A LOCATION: 25 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 6 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO THREE (3) LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 TO 3.92 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 66-04 TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 6.1 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRSENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF THREW, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to start off and say there are three separate S-1 drawings that I’m looking at. One is August 12, 1997. One is October 15, 2004, and the other is October 19, 2004. To get a complete picture of all of this, you’ve got to integrate those three drawings. MR. STEVES-Tom Nace did some of the work on some of the plans, specifically the grading plan, and comments for C.T. Male, and used my drawing and created his own drawing, and he should have created a different number on the sheet. So we have corrected that. I’ll go through some of the stuff. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I looked at, when I saw it, is somebody didn’t turn the layers on on the CAD. I mean, you know, for example the zone line is not on any of the drawings. At least on those three drawings I mentioned there’s no zone line. MR. STEVES-It’s all in the waterfront, right. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a split zone, nonetheless, and being it’s a split zone and part of it’s in a WR- 1A zone, and I’ll talk to my fellow Board members about this, but in the Floor Area Ratio, I 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) think when we get to site plan, that Floor Area Ratio worksheet should be filled out. Because we are in a WR-1A zone. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no way to tell where the zones are on the drawings if they’re not there. MRS. STEFFAN-I see what you mean. I just looked at it. I thought that the existing building was in the WR-1A zone, but, you’re right, it’s not on the drawings. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not on the drawings, no, and the fact that we are a split zone with WR-1A, I thought that the Floor Area Ratio was now applicable, and it’s submitted with an N/A on it. MR. STEVES-Well, the development on the two proposed lots are not within the WR-1A. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, see, I don’t know that. There’s no way to tell where the split is. MR. STEVES-Understood. The existing home on Lot 1A, the existing garage and the existing house are within the WR-1A. MR. VOLLARO-We have a drawing here with it on. MR. STEVES-Right. My subdivision map should have it on there. The other plans were plans submitted by Tom Nace. We had broken out the house, the existing house on Lot Number Two in 1997 and there was just a typo in not having the revision date on this plan. MR. VOLLARO-But Lot Number 1C and Lot Number 1B. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Are split, and each lot contains some property in SR-1A and some property in WR-1A. MR. STEVES-Correct, and I don’t disagree, and if you would want a Floor Area Ratio sheet, I will gladly provide it. MR. VOLLARO-I think you’re going to need it. MR. STEVES-I guess I’m asking the Board, because of the fact that the development proposed is completely within the SR-1 Acre, I’m asking do you still want it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because it’s a split zone. MR. STEVES-Just yes or no. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. I have no problem with that. It’ll be a completely nominal amount anyway, but I will gladly provide that for you. MR. METIVIER-How do you do that? Do you take the whole lot into consideration, or just that? MR. STEVES-I have to, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. It’s a lot with a split zone, but. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. STEVES-But you have to take in the area of the whole lot when you do your Floor Area Ratio. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and I think this is .3 now, WR-1. No, it’s still .22. MR. STEVES-22. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-So to start off again, Matt Steves representing Jeff Threw on this application for, as Bob has said two different applications really. The property has already been filled and graded. We’re proposing a slight amount of finished grading, as you can see on the subdivision plan, and on the grading plan, it kind of incorporates what was, back in 1989, and the fill that has taken place to this date, and that’s what the Zoning Administrator asked us to do, because the fill is already there, but you have to create a site plan that shows how it came about. We have got the comment letters from C.T. Male. Between yesterday and today, Tom Nace has been in contact with C.T. Male and discussed all of them and we have no problems with any of their comments and everything has already been taken care of and being sent back to C.T. Male for a signoff. We realize that we don’t have that as of this meeting, but we anticipate having one be in the next few days. So, I mean, we wholeheartedly understand that you have typically tabled, or, you know, held the application open until the next meeting, until you have that signoff letter, and we have no problem with that, and that would also allow us to have the Floor Area Ratio sheet filled out. MR. VOLLARO-Along with the answer to the 18 line items in the C.T. Male letter. MR. STEVES-Yes, correct, and they’ve already been answered, Bob, and addressed back to C.T. Male, and they are in agreement, but I don’t have the signoff letter, but I don’t have any problem waiting until next month or whenever you can get this back on the agenda so we can have that signoff, and we will have that signoff, and I will also have the Floor Area Ratio sheet. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So there’s two things we’re going to be getting, is a C.T. Male signoff letter and the Floor Area Ratio. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, the next question is, let me ask the Board. There’s 18 questions that C.T. Male has raised, fairly significant questions. It sounds like they’ve made an agreement on those, in the interest in moving this. Would you rather wait for that signoff? MR. METIVIER-Well, you can’t move it without the Floor Area Ratio sheet anyway, right? So he just said. MR. STEVES-Because of the fact that you typically haven’t done that in the past, recently, and the fact that I have to have the Floor Area Ratio, unless you want to give me 10 minutes. MR. VOLLARO-The answer to that is no. The date for submission of that material would be April 15. th MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And that would get you on, now we’ve put a couple of people on May 17 th already tonight, and I don’t know how many more people we want to get on there. Hopefully I’m not Chairing that night. MR. STEVES-Or you can give us a break and put us on the last meeting in April, and I can have that letter, that Floor Area Ratio information to you by the beginning of the week. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-April 26? th MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HILTON-Well, I just want to make sure, I’m not sure what kind of conversations have taken place between the applicant and C.T. Male, but I just want to make sure that we have anything that they’re submitting given to us, so that we can forward it on to them, and also have it for our records. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure, I understand that. MR. HILTON-That would be the first part of it. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. We can take care of all of that, but, I mean, April is full, but it’s up to you, if you want to. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s not just up to me. I don’t want to put an excessive burden on Staff either. MR. STEVES-Well, (lost words) problem, one of those sheets, the grading plan for some reason C.T. Male didn’t get it, and it’s probably my fault since I mailed them all out. So I’ll have to take responsibility for it. So when we called them up, Tom Nace and myself, and were going through the list, he was like, well, all these were answered if you had given me that sheet, which we had sent to them finally. So most of the questions were answered in the one sheet he didn’t have. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that’s even the question. The question is where do we fit this for the next meeting, because we’re already into back log, and there’s already, you know. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. METIVIER-I have a suggestion. Don’t shoot me. Let’s do a third meeting next month, get some of this backlog out of here. I mean, is that possible? Because, how many did you roll over from March? Seven or eight? So, you know, why don’t we just do a third meeting and get it over. April’s a crappy month anyway. You might as well be in here. Right? Let’s just do it, because summer’s coming. I don’t want to be here in the summer. Come on. MR. HILTON-Well, we’re going to sit down and we’re going to set our agenda for April, and I guess I would say that I’d certainly pass that along and take that into consideration. I don’t want to commit to anything. MR. METIVIER-I know. MR. HILTON-The one comment I would make is this Board recently, you know, reduced the number of items that you’re looking at in a month to 14. MR. METIVIER-And I also specified that we would want to do a third meeting, and I was the one that said I don’t want to do a third meeting, and here I am saying let’s do a third meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s one thing to have three meetings every month for six months in a row. It’s another thing to have a third meeting once in a great while to get caught up, and I guess I would support Tony’s suggestion. MR. HILTON-Again, I guess, you know. MR. VOLLARO-I may be with you on that. I think that, you know, sitting here for the length of time we do, and then trying to get everything worked in, it’s more favorable to the applicant for 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) us in a way to have three meetings, because we’ve got a better shot at it. This will just keep going. The back log’s just going to keep going. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But remember, we talked about in our workshop that part of the problem is not just us, it’s the Staff and that they have to go through and add another meeting, and I’m very concerned about that. We’ve got one planner in training. We’ve got a new one coming on board, and so there’s the learning curve within the office is extreme. MR. HILTON-Again, I guess my answer would be, you know, we’ll take it under consideration, and we haven’t set the agenda yet for April, but I’ll pass that along when we discuss it tomorrow. MR. VOLLARO-I think you can say that the Planning Board would be willing, in this instance, to sit for one more meeting. MR. STEVES-You could do it just for me. I wouldn’t mind. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. Let’s open this up to questions to the applicant. Board, why don’t you go right ahead. MR. SEGULJIC-Fill. What’s the story of the fill on site? MR. STEVES-Well, there is test pits that were performed. The data, I believe, was supplied on the plans. Test pit information, 0 to 9 inches topsoil on test pit number one. Nine to twenty- nine, loamy, fine sands, twenty-nine to sixty-five, medium course sands, no mottling. Test pit number two shows some gravel and compaction and some fill material on test pit number two. Test pit number one, which is on Lot 1B, near the proposed, right between the proposed house and septic system, was no fill. I’m just making sure so you know, but the fill in behind there, that’s what the grading plan is for and the stabilization details that Tom Nace has developed on his grading plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess my concern, when we were there, if I recall correctly, we saw concrete and at some point I got the impression stumps were backfilled on site. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says that, in a letter we received from Jeff and Kathy Edwards, it says that he has a permit from DEC to use this property as a stump dump. MR. SEGULJIC-One of my concerns with stump dumps is they rot and that creates voids. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. SEGULJIC-And, you know, if you put the house over that, where the stump is, you could have cracks. MR. STEVES-That’s why we did the test pits and have placed the house and the septics where we have, it is not on any type of fill that would be unstable fill. That type of stuff is over the bank and up the ravine that has been filled in over the last eight or nine years, and is not in the area where the proposed house or septics are. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how many test pits did you do, one? MR. STEVES-We did two, one per lot. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s kind of a needle in a haystack. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. STEVES-No, not when you know the property and I did the original topography on it in 1988, and Tom Nace was the original engineer on it in 1988, and we know that property since the first shovel full of fill has been placed on it, and we know that the area that we’re proposing has been graded at only about two feet, and the area behind it has been substantially filled, and so I can guarantee you that the houses and the driveways and septics are not on any substantial fill. MR. SEGULJIC-So just so I understand what you’re saying, is this stump dump is further back, like at the 370 contour line. MR. STEVES-Correct. About the 360 and below is a substantial amount, and a slight amount above that in that ravine, in the back of Lot 1B to about the 371 contour, and then what we’re doing is just, instead of making that such a severe ravine, we’re just kind of rounding that off with fill on our grading plan to make it a more stable transition. MR. SEGULJIC-Those are the 373, 372 contours? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. The darker lines that start off at 360, 370, 371, 72, 73. That is the only new grading that is going to be done on this entire site for the placement of two single family homes. MR. SEGULJIC-So there will still be a relatively steep grade in the back? MR. STEVES-That’s always been there. That’s the big ravine that’s been along the river forever. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s going to be from 370 down to 349? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Actually from 360 to 330 at the end of the lot, 320, really, at the end of the lot. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s quite a drop, but, see, anybody that buys either of two lots has to understand that there’s not much they can do past the 360 level. It’s not very usable. After elevation 360, it really starts dropping off fast. MR. STEVES-Cleaning it up, stabilizing it and using the flatter area on the top for the house, the septic, and the driveway, grading that off and stabilizing it with vegetation and was requested by Staff. We had a meeting a year ago with Craig Brown and he suggested that we come in with a site plan to accomplish the grading and the stabilization of that before we come in with the subdivision, and that’s the reason we did that, and I can assure you that the houses aren’t going to be placed on, or septic on areas of substantial fill. MR. VOLLARO-See, Tom’s point is well taken. When it said the property was used as a stump dump, the question I thought of was, when stumps deteriorate, you know. MR. STEVES-Understood, and that’s why we did the test pits. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-And that’s why I showed you the topography from 1989 and the topography to now to show you that the area up near the houses hasn’t changed only about a foot or so. It’s the area in the back that has changed substantially. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-The acid test of something like this, after a lot of property has been used like this, the acid test is whether you do a boring or you don’t do a boring. That’s how you find out what’s going on down there. A test pit doesn’t tell you much. So, you know, if I were buying one of these houses, I would ask you to give me some test pit, if I knew all the background, which I wouldn’t know as a new buyer, but if I knew the background, I’d ask you to put a couple of borings in and tell me what it looks like, see what you get. That’s a concern of mine, frankly. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that. That’s where I’d be coming from if I was going to buy one of these things. Anyhow. MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit, I’m very nervous. At our society we have landfills, and, you know, we see little beautiful hillsides that have those little candy canes all over them and they sit dormant because there’s all kinds of stuff going on underneath the soil, and so, you know, I looked at this and certainly when we did the our site visits and saw the amount of fill that was kind of coming out of that hillside, it looked pretty seedy, and so I just thought this probably isn’t a good place for people to live. So I obviously made some judgments based on what I saw on top of the land, and I had no idea what was underneath. MR. STEVES-Right. Understood. MRS. STEFFAN-So, I’ve got some concerns. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask Mr. Threw something. The property right off the road, if you look at this, most of your dumping was done where, out back? MR. THREW-Out towards the back of the property. MR. VOLLARO-I just go this uneasy feeling that I don’t have x-ray eyes and I don’t know what’s down there. That’s my problem. MR. THREW-Well, these two lots are going to be, one for each one of my sons, that’s what they’re for. MR. VOLLARO-But that doesn’t mean, they could sell the property later on, or whatever. We’ve got to make sure that things are right. I know there’s somebody here from the public that would like to speak to this application. So I’m going to open the public hearing on this, and let this, I think it was left open from the last meeting. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MATT SUDERS MR. SUDERS-Good evening. My name’s Matt Suders. I live at 42 Eagan Road, Queensbury, which is right across the street from the proposed grading and subdivision Mr. Threw wants to put out. First off I’d like to start, I do have a few things I’d like to present to the Board. I have a signed petition from the majority of homeowners on Eagan Road that oppose this project. I have pictures that myself and my neighbors have taken over a period of the last few years of what’s actually been taking place. I also have videotape. I’m not going to present the videotape tonight, but I do have videotape that’s available for viewing of what was actually being dumped and pushed into the ravines. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. These are taken from your driveway? MR. SUDERS-The larger pictures of the mining of the topsoil was taken from the neighbor. The smaller pictures were taken from my video camera, outside my living room window. Again, those are all copies, the smaller ones, so I don’t necessarily need those back. What I’d like to start off with is I’d like to tell you that my family and I, we lived in Glens Falls for eight years. We rented over on McDonald Street, up until 1996, and I don’t know if any of you are familiar with McDonald Street, the truck traffic all rattles the homes. So we had, you know, eight years 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) of renting until we could afford to buy a house. It didn’t take us very look until we found Eagan Road and we liked the fact that it was a dead end road. There were only a few homes that were going to be on the road. There’s only probably 12 homes on the whole road, you know. There’s not much to it, but the proximity to my job with the police department in Glens Falls and my wife with Travelers, you know, it was the perfect, you know, we’re a mile from our jobs. So, I mean, we have three quarters of an acre, which we had no yard in Glens Falls. Unfortunately for us, no sooner had we gotten into the house and the trucks started coming, and it began as logging trucks, right across from our house. They were currently were storing logs over on that site, and then basically, over a number of years, it was just a continuing, trucks were coming and going. I mean, sometimes they were storing logs and rocks and shell, and anything you can imagine on that site, and basically that was Bill Threw. Bill Threw owns Threw Excavating, which is Jeff Threw’s father, and we were always close with the Threws. Unfortunately, due to this, we’re not anymore, and it’s sad because, you know, his wife was our daughter’s babysitter, and they’re great people. They’re nice people, but unfortunately, you know, when you invest a home, and you want to try to protect your home, you know, that’s quite an investment, and I tell a lot of people, this isn’t like a barking dog complaint that’s going to go away. I have this right outside my living room window, and I’ve had to live with it since 1996, and I’ve lived with my wife wanting to shut the blinds when the big dump trucks and tractors start coming, and then she wanted to go for rides, you know, just to get away from the house, and now she wants to sell the house, and unfortunately, last summer was the first year, just in a nutshell, last summer was the first year I did no landscaping to the front of my yard. I planted no flowers, because as you’ll see from the pictures, my view is constantly of that mess, and I have to tell you, when I had enough. Jeff Threw is correct. He always told us when we were on speaking terms that he was going to build homes for his kids some day. Well, whenever the excavators and the topsoil screeners and all that mess showed up and started excavating the very site that he was supposed to be filling to build on, that’s when I had enough. I had a new driveway that’s full of cracks within one year. My gray Jeep was all brown. Our house was a mess from the dust. Our neighbors were constantly, and myself, hosing off the driveway, hosing off the street from the mud and the dust, and I told myself, you know, what is worth the price of a wave? I mean, we wave to these people. We say hello, and we’re good neighbors. I’ll look after his kids, you know, if bullies were picking on his kids at one time, I’d put an end to it, and I would still do it, and the kids play together fine, but this isn’t about Jeff Threw and Matt Suders. This is about my home and how am I going to protect my home, or how am I going to protect the value of my home, how am I going to live in my home, or how am I going to sell my home? Because right now where it stands, the dumping has stopped. The Town put a stop to the dumping back in the fall of 2002, I believe it was, but for the last year and a half, we’re still looking at, I’m still looking at piles of blacktop from the hospital project, and tree stumps that were dumped over there, and concrete and everything you can imagine, and so you can see we live with it every day, and what concerns me the most is every single day, every single truck, this has all been an extension of Bill Threw Incorporated. This has been a commercial operation from Day One, from the get go. The mining of topsoil, my neighbor said she counted 38 dump trucks in one day, because he was digging it out of the ravine. He was screening it on site, he was leaving his tractor on site, and he had people coming, excavating people, would jump in the tractor and start it up, because the key was left in it, and take their own topsoil. I imagine they probably were going around the corner and then paying for it, but, you know, this is a residential road. This is Suburban Residential where we live, and I just can’t believe this can go on in the Town of Queensbury, and I’ve had nothing but sympathy from everybody I spoke to, and I’ve had Bruce Frank come out and take pictures, and he noted violations. Dan Stec. I’ve spoken to everybody, and they all say the same thing, that we’ll get our chance to speak, that they’re sorry this has happened and I realize this Board can’t reverse what has happened, but they can put an end to it, you know, because in my eyes, you know, if the trucks start coming tomorrow, we’re back where we were before, and I really wish this was just a matter of Jeff Threw wanting to build homes on land that was suitable for building on, we would not oppose it. When I built my home, there was four lots beyond my house. They were all woods. Three of them have homes on them. One of them’s still a vacant lot. Those were all suitable lots for building. We knew that when we picked ours. We didn’t oppose anybody else building next to us and so on and so forth. That’s what the lots were for. He’s trying to take a six acre ravine, you know, that was bought, I imagine, you know, who 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) would buy a six acre ravine to build on it? I don’t know, maybe an excavator. Because he always has a place to dump what he needs to dump, and he always has topsoil at his disposal, and that’s not my opinion, that is what we’ve been living for the past almost nine years, you know, right outside my window. You can see from the pictures the proximity to it, you know, we have no escape from this, other than having to leave our home. I don’t want to leave my home, and it’s too bad that our relationship has gotten to the point that it has, but I don’t see how it can be any other way. If I never would have spoke up, I would have still been living with dump trucks and tractors and excavating equipment and topsoil screeners for the past two and a half years. It wouldn’t have stopped. So I just hope this Board can take into consideration the homeowner, and I want to add one more thing. It’s been mentioned that this was a stump dump, and another neighbor of mine was able to get a copy from DEC of Mr. Threw’s stump dump application, in which the only thing that DEC has on file, at least the only thing they tell us they have on file, is they’re acknowledging Mr. Threw’s application to make that a, not a, they don’t call it a permit. They call it a registration, and it states that this letter back that he got from DEC acknowledges the receipt of the registration and does not in any way verify that the information he provided is true. They’re just basically acknowledging that they got it, and they told him, they reminded him that 6NYCRR Part 360 contains various requirements that must be followed to warrant the Jeff Threw stump dump landfill continued status as a registered facility. We have no way of knowing whether he ever went any further than this registration letter, and what concerns me is he has times of operation on here and dates that aren’t accurate and I don’t think DEC would issue someone a blank, with no expiration date, a blank form to do whatever you want to do, and lastly I would just like to add when he applied for this, there was nothing but woods down there. None of us, there was one neighbor that had a home. So as you can see, I mean, the Town probably wasn’t. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the date of their? MR. SUDERS-February 9, 1995. We built our home in September of ’96, and you know what, I don’t think any of our neighbors down there, all new construction, had any idea what this was for. I don’t know whether they figured they had to clear the lot and they were going to need somewhere to put the stumps. I don’t know. That’s just my opinion, but I don’t think anybody would have built a home down there if they knew they were going to have dump trucks the size of Finch and Pruyn, logging trucks, you know, and large heavy industrial equipment. I mean, we know, you guys are all familiar with Big Bay Road. We know what’s behind us down there. We knew the Town had a sandpit. We knew Threw and a few other people had businesses down there with a lot of stuff behind it. I didn’t know there was as much as there is. However, you know, we still built our home there because we felt we had a sufficient buffer behind our homes to not have to see all that. This is beyond reproach, expecting us to have this on the front of our homes as well. We’re in a position of where we just can’t win. MR. VOLLARO-Are the documents in front of you, do they indicate that a permit of any kind has been issued for a stump dump? In other words, is there an issued permit? MR. SUDERS-No. I’ll let you have this, because we have copies of this on file. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, do you want to speak? MR. SCHACHNER-I have no direct knowledge of this particular applicant’s permitting status with DEC, but I will tell you, generically, that what I call land clearing debris, landfill, or solid waste management facilities, are subject to a two part DEC regulatory process, and if they’re under a certain size, which I believe is three acres, but I’m not certain, then they’re subject to the registration that the public commenter is referring to, and there are other restrictions as well. They have to be under three acres, I believe, only utilized by the property owner, and there’s a series of restrictions, but if somebody meets those restrictions in DEC’s eyes, then DEC does not issue a permit, a solid waste management facility permit. They issue this registration document. If the proposed or existing operation does not meet those parameters, then it’s subject to full DEC permitting. It sounds like what happened here is that, I’m just basing this on what the commenter is saying, it sounds like what happened here is that DEC has issued a 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) registration for this to be a non-permit, registration only, minor land clearing debris, landfill facility. That’s what I would surmise, based on what I’m hearing. MR. SUDERS-That’s correct. The box is checked on this form for land clearing debris, landfills three acres or less. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s consistent with my understanding. MR. SUDERS-It also states he’d be dumping stumps, trees, concrete, asphalt, rock, brick, approximately, and I can’t make out how many cubic yards, but I can attest, you know, the tree stumps that were dumped down there, and there’s even, Bruce Frank has a picture of a large tire. I think it was a tractor tire. I don’t know if since that picture he took, and the Post Star took a picture of it, whether someone came and took it out of there, but there’s been dump and push, dump and push, dump and push, has been nonstop since I’ve been in my house since September of ’96, and the only time the dump and push stopped is when Mr. Threw came over and decided he needed to sell some screen topsoil, and that has taken place not just across from my house, but to the right of my house, where I suspect, I’m not quite certain where Mr. Threw wants to build these two homes. My concern is you’re going to give him permission to start dumping his business waste there, and, you know, his sons are in elementary school, and we’re either going to be looking at years of dump trucks every day, or we’re not going to be able to sell our home. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, you talked about a three acre limit. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. The program I’m referring to at DEC allows registration of these construction and land clearing debris, landfill facilities, registration as opposed to permit, my understanding is only if the size of the facility is three acres or less. MR. VOLLARO-And we’re looking at almost six or seven acres here. MR. SCHACHNER-Then either of two things is happening, not the piece of property, but the size of the disposal area, I’m talking about. MR. VOLLARO-This is the whole subdivision that we’re talking about. MR. STEVES-I can answer those questions, Bob. I’d rather you address those to me. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that’s not up to whoever’s yelling from the audience. That’s up to you, but again, remember, I’m answering generically. I have no knowledge of this particular application, but my understanding of the DEC program, or I mean, regulatory program, is that the three acres I’m referring to is not the size of the parcel, but the size of the disposal area. MRS. STEFFAN-And that would meet the threshold. MR. SCHACHNER-I have no idea if that would meet the threshold, but that’s the threshold. MR. SUDERS-I don’t know how you can. I mean, I know some of you folks have been out to the property, and if you walked the property, to where the large concrete, they almost look like gravestones, but they’re not, that’s all been filled, and you’re walking on something that’s been graded, dumped and graded. I watched it take place for a number of years. I work midnights. So I mean, I see a lot during the day, and to me, I kept wondering, were they trying to connect that part of the property to where his home is now closer down the river. I don’t know. I don’t know what they were trying to do. I just, I enjoyed the days when the trucks weren’t there, and the tractors weren’t there, and I’ve had all my neighbors tell me that it’s been really quiet and they really enjoyed it. This isn’t about stopping someone from making a livelihood, by no means. If I had to choose at looking at two homes, or all the mess that’s over there right now, I would choose two homes, and I know, I can tell Mr. Steves has referred to that, that, you know, it sounds like there’s a hint that they want to try to alleviate the mess over there. God, we 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) would all love that, but how do we know that’s going to take place? I’ve waited a number of years, and I kept telling myself every time the trucks stopped going that they’re done, and a few times I mentioned to Mr. Threw or his wife, what’s going on there, is he ever going to be finished, and they said, well, Bill isn’t supposed to be over on our property, and that’s basically, how much do you want to push it? You’re looking at someone who won’t start his lawnmower if I thought my neighbors were still sleeping. I work nights, and I’ve got 17 years with the police department. I’ve got 17 years of respecting other people, and I want that same respect, and I just feel like I haven’t got it and none of my neighbors have got it. I’ve got Mr. Threw on videotape making obscene gestures at my house, the day Mr. Brown told him to stop dumping, he’s shooting the finger at my house. Well, you know, I didn’t do anything to Mr. Threw. I did not do anything to Mr. Threw. It should not have had to come to this. I never had him say, geez, I’m sorry about this. I had one of Bill Threw’s employees, when my Jeep was covered in so much dirt, look over to me, he knew I was made, and he said, I’m sorry. I mean, what am I supposed to do? My boss wants me to do this, when they were screening the topsoil. How much can you take? Really, how much can someone take until you final say, that’s enough, and this has affected my whole family. I have a four year old son. It was in the paper, and he’ll be five, but when he was a little younger, he was afraid to go outside because of the dump trucks, the big noise. I have a daughter who’s come home from school spit on by someone on the road and choked by another kid and, you know, she didn’t want to tell me about it because she said, dad, you’ll blow it out of proportion, because she knows what has happened with this Threw mess. She knows that the young son didn’t come around for a number of months because of it, and you know what, it hurts when you have to make a decision that you know is going to affect two kids that play together well, but I would really like Mr. Steves and Mr. Threw to tell me, what would they do if they were in my position? Would they just keep putting up with it or would they do something about it, and I’m trying to do something about it, and I’m sorry if I’m stepping on some toes or upsetting some people, but, you know what, I had no choice. I had to do what I had to do. MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a question for you before you leave. Has the activity level diminished since 2002? MR. SUDERS-Since the fall of 2000, it may have been 2003, it was October, Craig Brown came up from the Town, and I think he issued a verbal Stop Work Order. That’s what I saw on Channel Eight. They issued a Stop Work Order on that site. The only activity we had on that site since then is I noticed a business off of Big Bay Road, not affiliated with Mr. Threw, Gross Electric was dumping some concrete over there one day. I don’t think the Threws new about it, and then his son dumps all his grass clippings, comes up from the road and dumps them right across from my house. Other than that, there’s been no other activity because they’re not allowed to dump there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SUDERS-Thank you very much. MR. STEVES-I just want to clarify for Mr. Suders that we’re not proposing to continue any kind of filling activity there. What we have shown you on our plan is the final grading so that it can become two single family homes. He’s talking that the massive amount of traffic has stopped over the last year and a half or so. It has stopped and it is not continuing, and that’s not what we’re proposing here. I don’t want him to get the wrong idea that we’re proposing a stump dump or a C & D landfill. What we’re proposing to do is take what’s there, do the finished grading on it, and build two homes. I think I would rather have two homes built over there and finish graded than I would to have what’s over there, and that’s what Mr. Threw wants. MR. VOLLARO-I think the real question here, Matt, is when? MR. STEVES-As soon as I can get the subdivision approved, Bob. I can’t build anything until I get a subdivision approved. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-And I want to back up to say that I feel for him, too, but Mr. Suders bought that property after a registration from DEC allowed Mr. Threw to do all that. That was allowed by the State. All the plans went to the State. It was under three acres, and it was allowed and it was checked on by DEC every year, until at some time that Craig Brown had decided that the Town of Queensbury, if you’re going to do that, also you must have a site plan review in order to do that in the Town of Queensbury with the new Code. So therefore the Stop Work Order, and they had to stop. Now we’re asking to be able to grade that off, finish it up, clean it up, seed it, and be able to build two houses on there. MR. VOLLARO-When would you be building the two houses? MR. THREW-As soon as my sons come of age. MR. VOLLARO-How old are they now? MR. THREW-My eldest is 13, my youngest is 10, 11. MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve got a good 10 years before you even think about building a house there. MR. STEVES-Right, but we want to make sure that Mr. Suders knows, and to this Board, is we’re not proposing, and if we were to come in or ask for a continuation of a C & D or stump dump, we’d have to come back in front of this Board to get an approval to do so. That’s not what we’re asking. We’re asking to grade it off, clean it up, and to have it prepared for two residential homes. I don’t know what the neighbors think. We’re not in here asking you for a stump dump. MR. VOLLARO-No, certainly not in this application. I can see that. MR. STEVES-And that’s why the confusion. MR. VOLLARO-Once you get all graded off and cleaned up, what’s the situation with the property out back? Can you still get to it? After you’ve done this, can you still get to this property? It looks to me like you can easily get. MR. STEVES-He can get to the property through his existing house lot. MR. VOLLARO-So, because you’ve got this all graded off, you still have access to this back property? MR. THREW-That’s where my house is, yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where your house is. Is this you right here? MR. STEVES-That’s, yes. MR. THREW-All the rest of it’s a ravine. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, my concern is I can see where you get this all graded off and you still have access to this lot for dumping. If you don’t have access to this property, what do you with the? MR. STEVES-We just discussed that, Bob. If we do any dumping in there, we have to come in front of this Board for an approval to do so. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. THREW-There’s no intentions to. I want to grade these two lots off so they’re done. When my kids graduate, they can build whatever whenever they want. MR. STEVES-We’re trying to clean it up, not come in here and aggravate the neighbors or this Board. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re under a Stop Work Order now, as we stand, are you not? MR. STEVES-Correct, without coming back in front of the Board for an approval to do so, and obviously, we didn’t come in front of this Board with an approval to continue filling. MR. HUNSINGER-We could always condition it on the fact that there be no further dumping. MR. VOLLARO-And that we have that inspected now and then by Mr. Frank. That he goes out and looks at it. MR. STEVES-And I want to make sure that that would be suitable with the neighbor. MR. SUDERS-I have a few concerns, and my first concern is, why the sense of urgency if he’s got so many years until his kids are ready for this property? A few of my neighbors, I’ve heard a number of stories. I heard that Clute was going to buy the property and build homes on it. I heard a few other builders were going to buy the property, and that doesn’t matter to me. If Jeff Threw had two properties or 10 properties suitable to build on right now, I wouldn’t really care who he sold them to. I really wish that was the case. We wouldn’t be here tonight, and none of this animosity would have existed. However, that’s not the case, and I know what’s over behind Bill Threw’s property. It looks to me like they’ve been dumping stuff over there since they stopped dumping across from me. I don’t know if that’s a fact, but it looks like, you know, I know I’ve been behind some dump trucks coming home from work in the morning. So, I don’t know, but what concerns me is, you know, they’re here tonight to tell you that we’re proposing to clean this property up. We want to clean it up. We want to grade it, get rid of all that blacktop and concrete so you don’t have to look at anything but flat land and vegetation. That would be really nice. We would all enjoy that down there, but I’m not confident that’s going to happen, and I’m not confident anyone’s going to see that happen because it hasn’t happened in the history that I’ve lived in that neighborhood. Nobody, if I wouldn’t have done what I did, which I some ways I regret and in some ways obviously I don’t, but if I didn’t finally say something to the Town and send some e-mails and take some pictures, and make some calls, they would have still been dumping, to this day. Every single day, morning until night. A number of things, and it’s just, you know the sound of a large diesel dump truck. You hear it and you feel it before you see it and that’s why I’ve lived for that many years, since we built our home, every single day, many, many, dozens and dozens of times a day, and the big plumes of diesel smoke and that’s not why any of us build a home. Mr. Steves mentioned that we bought our properties after he submitted a registration request with DEC for a stump dump. That’s correct. Mr. Threw, his father, and I’m not quite sure who the two other partners were, they owned all those lots down there, before they sold them to myself and the other neighbors. The partners apparently had a falling out. It just seems to me that almost, you know, as these homes were being finished and being built, that’s when all the trucks started coming. I mean, why weren’t they there before for any of us to see it? It just seems like systematically, that property over there has suited him for whatever he’s wanted to use it for, and I’m afraid they’re going to continue to do that, and it’s not just him. His father’s been down there more than Jeff. Mr. Threw’s been down there more, dumping and sifting topsoil, and another question I’d like to ask is why did you remove so much topsoil if you planned on building on that property? It doesn’t make sense. Mr. Steves says he’s very familiar with that property. He’s known that property for years. Was he aware of all the topsoil that was taken out of that same property he’s now supporting an applicant to build on? It doesn’t make any sense to me that anybody else, if you’re going to fill a ravine and build on it, why would you take so much topsoil away from it? 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. STEVES-I don’t want to prolong this meeting too much longer, but just real quick. You have a Stop Work Order on that property, and when we came in with the subdivision, your Zoning Administrator said that he wanted a site plan for the final grading and clearing of that, cleaning of that, which we had prepared, and we couldn’t do that until such time as we got the approval from this Board. So, yes, we will be cleaning it up as soon as we get the approval from the site plan so that he can clean it up, stabilize the bank, and then we’d have two residential lots that he can give to his sons, sell them or let anybody else build on them if they want, but, no there will be no more filling, stump dump, demolition debris, whatever you want to call it, placed on that site. MR. VOLLARO-In all parts of Lot 1A, 1B, and 1C. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-In other words, this whole subdivision now, as I see it, will not have any further dumping on it. We would make a condition of that, I think on this application. MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and we agree with, well, we can’t, not touch anything until we get an approval from this Board. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. METIVIER-How long will it take you to stabilize that bank? MR. THREW-Once spring, probably a month, a month and a half. MR. METIVIER-So you’re really looking at doing this now? MR. THREW-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So the gentleman has to understand there will be some activity. MR. THREW-Right, to clean it up and get everything graded. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not dumping, but it’s an activity, because I think Mr. Metivier has asked how long it will take to stabilize the bank. It’s a good question. In other words, there’ll still be activity over there to try to stabilize that bank. They’ll be bringing stuff to stabilize it. MR. THREW-Right. MR. STEVES-If you look at the grading plan, a very nominal amount of fill, basically what is on site from up top, grading it off. MR. VOLLARO-What’s your outside guess as to how long it’s going to take to stabilize this site? MR. THREW-Say roughly two months. MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel about conditioning the fact that the site must be stabilized in X period of time? MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s where we’re going, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-My only concern is weather. MR. HUNSINGER-Give them three months. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Give them three months. Give him a finite time when he has to finish. MR. METIVIER-And also hours of operation for it. No weekends. I mean, can you work with no weekends? Or does it have to be weekends? MR. THREW-Like Saturday at the most, a half a day, until noon. Other than that, just normal hours. MR. METIVIER-Is that all right? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the normal hours would be what? MR. THREW-Seven, eight o’clock in the morning until four o’clock, five o’clock. MR. VOLLARO-We can condition it that there won’t be any activity between, there will be activity between the hours of seven and four. MR. STEVES-Right. You’re talking grading on the site, not fill brought in to the site. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’ll be a dozer on that site to grade off and things of that nature. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Maybe a backhoe to move some stuff here to there. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So there’ll be some machinery noise taking place while they’re stabilizing and grading, and we’ll have to keep our eye on that as well. MR. METIVIER-Why don’t we say it has to be done by June 30? That way it won’t get to the th summer, as far as. MR. STEVES-Well, it depends on when you get the approval. We can’t do anything until we get the site plan approved. MR. METIVIER-That’s what I’m saying. MR. STEVES-Unless you’re approving this site plan tonight, and then we’re coming back for the subdivision at a later date. My point is that I don’t have a problem, but I don’t want you to give us 60 days but we only get the approval for 30. I just want to make sure that you know that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’m also looking at a couple of other conditions, and I need support from Counsel. Obviously trust is an issue, based on what we’ve heard, and from my experience, past practice is the best indicator of future behavior, and so based on some of the things we’ve seen, if you’re looking at subdividing this property for your families, and we’ve also heard that you might sell it to someone else, and I’d like a restriction in there so that if these two units are not used for family use, that it has to come back, any site plan needs to come back before the Planning Board, so that we can take a look at it, because if somebody buys that lot and then they decide they want to build back, if you grade the back, and they want to build toward the back. MR. STEVES-If we would be building anywhere other than the location that you specify now, saying that it has to be built where it is shown, then they don’t have to. They can build where it’s shown. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because I don’t want any buyer beware kind of philosophy here, because I don’t want to set anybody up for any kind of problems later on. The other thing, with 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) the condition no more topsoil mining on this site, period, and with the timeframe, I could support that, but then I’d also like to see some kind of deed restriction or notation on the deed saying that this is a landfill site. So that anybody who gets that deed to that, either one of those subdivision lots knows what they’re getting into. MR. STEVES-It was a prior DEC approved fill site. MR. SCHACHNER-Gretchen, what was the first one of those three? I’m comfortable with the latter two, but what was your first point? Something to the effect of, if someone other than the applicant builds something at a different location? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. If we’ve got this subdivision approved and we’ve got a subdivision that we’re looking at, there’s a proposed house site, and a proposed septic tank. So if somebody buys this lot and then somewhere later down the road, a few years from now, decides that they’re going to build some place other than what’s here, they have to come back for another site plan approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and what I’m going to propose to you or suggest to you is that I’m not comfortable with that, only because you’re tagging it to someone other than the applicant. You can’t regulate based on who is doing whatever it is they’re doing. I would suggest that that concern can be reflected by a condition that says that if anyone, applicant or anybody, is seeking to build at some other location other than what you’re specifically approving, that can’t occur without coming back to this Board for a modification. MRS. STEFFAN-I would feel better about that. MR. STEVES-And I agree with that, too, because of the fact you’d be basically saying if his son wanted to build behind it, he doesn’t have to come back. So I would rather specify that the house has to be built where it is shown on the plan, not who builds the house. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. What I’m saying is you can’t get into the who is doing the activity. It’s the what they’re doing. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s fine, because I wrote down secondarily, nothing built on that lot without site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Wouldn’t that be implied in any approval anyway? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I want it to be very black and white. MR. STEVES-And we don’t have a problem with anything. MR. VOLLARO-Right now the drawings and plans don’t dictate that the house must be exactly where it’s shown on the subdivision. MR. SCHACHNER-Which I think is what Gretchen’s getting at, and I think that’s perfectly fine to have that be a condition. MR. VOLLARO-I do, too. MR. STEVES-And we don’t have a problem with any of it. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a couple of other questions. Lot 1A, how come, I mean, number one, there’s no access to that house right now, other than through another lot. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But yet we have the throat there. MR. STEVES-Well, you have the 40 foot to have the frontage on a Town road, but subsequent to this, his father, William Threw, owns the lot directly to the east here, where the driveway is. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, can we have that, George? I mean, doesn’t that? MR. HILTON-Yes, that’s an existing condition. I guess the only thing is, does the applicant plan, in the future, to fill that 40 foot frontage in to provide physical access from this lot? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, why isn’t that lot line over further to make Lot 1B bigger? MR. STEVES-You want it bigger? MR. SEGULJIC-No, I’m just more curious as to why they left the throat there. MR. STEVES-Because of the fact that, I can tell you exactly why I left the throat there. Your Town Code says every lot must have frontage on a Town road of at least 40 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-But you have access. MR. VOLLARO-You left it there for 1A. MR. STEVES-That’s right. MR. THREW-Yes, but it’s on my father’s property. MR. STEVES-He has his own driveway, but his driveway, he has permission and an easement from his father, because it was there when they bought this entire property, there were camps down here, and that’s where the driveway was to both of these homes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So is the 40 foot adequate then, or does he need the 150? MR. STEVES-Forty feet’s required by your Code. MR. HILTON-Yes. That meets Code. They’ve got the 40 feet of frontage on a Town road. They have the required lot width, and it’s an existing condition, with the driveway off site. MR. SEGULJIC-And then, would the building have been allowed on an SR-1A lot like this? Could you have gotten a permit, a registration for that? MR. HILTON-Yes. Our Code states that filling is allowed and there are certain thresholds that say that beyond a certain point site plan review may be required, and that’s why this application’s here. The Zoning Administrator has determined that they exceeded, I guess, those thresholds, and so site plan is required. That’s why we’re looking at this, the site plan portion. MR. SEGULJIC-I realize, supposedly you have a cease and desist order from the Town. Is that correct? MR. HILTON-I believe a Stop Work Order. MR. SEGULJIC-Stop Work Order. What’s the status of the registration? Is that still in effect? Or has that been withdrawn also? That should be withdrawn also. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. THREW-That’s all done and over with. MR. STEVES-Yes, that didn’t get renewed. MR. THREW-It hasn’t been renewed. MR. SEGULJIC-Does the permit have a life to it? MR. STEVES-Yes, yearly, I believe. MR. THREW-It’s a yearly renewal. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s a yearly renewal. Okay. MR. STEVES-And we’ve already agreed that that wouldn’t be taking place anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Comment? I think Tom’s onto something here. Why not, in light of the Board’s concerns, why not, I’m just suggesting this, seek documentation confirming that the applicant is no longer subject to the DEC registration? I’m just following Tom’s thought there. MR. SEGULJIC-DEC? MR. SCHACHNER-Department of Environmental Conservation. That’s who does the registration. MR. STEVES-Confirmation that it is not there anymore. MR. SCHACHNER-That it’s no longer a registered facility, right. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and the other thing is, there’s discussion of that drainage ditch across the site which lead us to the stormwater management plan in the first place, then there was no discussion of the storm drainage ditch anywhere in the stormwater management plan. MR. STEVES-In the stormwater report, you mean, Tom Nace’s stormwater report? If there’s a specific question on that, I’d have to let Tom answer that, and he’s not available tonight. I know that C.T. Male, he’s been in contact with C.T. Male and they agree with his report. That’s all I can tell you, but if you want him here next meeting, to address that specifically, I’m going to have to ask Tom about that. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I guess the concern is was there a ditch there that drained into the Hudson River and was it filled? MR. STEVES-Okay. I don’t think the drainage, there’s not a stream or anything that makes it all the way into the river from there. No. MR. SEGULJIC-So there was never a drainage ditch there? MR. STEVES-There’s a large ravine, but not a ditch that flowed, that brought drainage off of Eagan Road down to the Hudson River, no. Otherwise DEC would have not permitted it in the way they had. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Do you have any reason to believe that the DEC permit is not, has been withdrawn? Are you still operating under that permit? MR. STEVES-No. MR. THREW-No. MR. SCHACHNER-If I could just amplify that. My understanding is that those registrations terminate, they’re for certain set periods of time. I didn’t think it was a year, I thought it was longer, but I could be wrong, but all I’m saying is that since there’s been so much concern from the neighbor, since the applicant is perfectly willing to state, you know, many times on the record that that activity has ceased, what I’m suggesting is it can’t be too hard to get a letter from DEC confirming that that registration has lapsed and not been renewed and that therefore this is no longer a registered land clearing debris facility. That just doesn’t strike me as a difficult task. The applicant’s perfectly willing to do that. They’ve so stated on the record, so I’m suggesting, in follow up to Tom’s concern, that that be a condition you consider. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think it’s an excellent point. MR. STEVES-And we’ll supply that, and as you’ve already stated, then say that no further activities will take place on that property. Consisting of all three of those lots. MR. VOLLARO-And also I’d like to put a condition on it that the large lot, that there be no further subdivision existing on that lot ever. That’s where all the dumping has been done. That’s why I’m saying that. MR. STEVES-No problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we can condition that no further development on the large lot, which is Lot 1A. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re going to table this. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to table it, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s three conditions for tabling it, that I saw. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Floor Area Ratio. MR. HUNSINGER-Floor Area Ratio, C.T. Male signoff, and the letter from DEC, that the registration is no longer valid. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I have as well, three conditions. MR. STEVES-We will provide those three, and then furthermore when we come back we’ll have those other conditions as far as no further subdivision and 60 days from the date of approval, you know, with that timeline, if that’s what the Board’s comfortable with, two months. So that once that mylar is signed, and when we get to that point, there doesn’t have to be a worry about what date it is. It just says from that date you have this many days. We’ll also put that information on the map. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, at least we, and if we’re the only ones, if you all know, you can educate us. We’re all confused as to where you’re at now procedurally in terms of, we started off with site plan review. Now it sounds like we’re talking a lot about subdivision. I think, we think the public hearings have not been closed, and we know we haven’t done any SEQRA review. MR. VOLLARO-We have not done a SEQRA review. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. The public hearing’s still open. MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing’s still open. MR. SCHACHNER-On the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-I started this off by saying that we had a subdivision for Preliminary and Final, and a Site Plan, all combined. These are all combined into one. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. All right. Fine. MR. HUNSINGER-So the public hearing for both is still open? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we ready for a tabling motion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILTON-Really quickly. You mentioned C.T. Male signoff. I guess I just want to clarify, are you looking for just a signoff or are you looking for revised plans that show the revisions per the C.T. Male comments. I just want to be clear. MR. HUNSINGER-Both, really. MR. VOLLARO-But we need a signoff to their March 8 letter for sure. th MR. HILTON-Right. MR. STEVES-And any plans that would be associated to obtain that signoff. MR. HILTON-That’s, I guess, what I’m looking for. I just want to be clear. MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to have to submit a new set of plans with. MR. STEVES-Any changes that are required because of getting that signoff we will gladly provide you. That’s not a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-I agree with Staff. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. STEVES-And as I stated at the beginning, most of that was because of the fact one of the maps did not get to C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think I’m ready. MR. VOLLARO-We’re leaving the public hearing open. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we table both with the same motion or should we have separate motions? 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. SCHACHNER-I would say do separate motions, because they’re separate applications, one subdivision and one site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Chris, the conditions I talked about earlier, when they come back next time, I have to bring those up again? MR. SCHACHNER-If you want them to be conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant said he would put them on the plan, but we’ve all made note of them to make sure that if it’s not on the plan we’ll make it a condition of any approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, Gretchen. If you’re tabling, then you’re not attaching conditions to anything yet. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. STEVES-I’ll make sure that they’re on the plan. Please present them again. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thanks. I just want to be positive. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll start off with the Site Plan. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2004 JEFFREY THREW, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier : For the following reasons: 1. Pending completion of the Floor Area Ratio worksheet. 2. Pending revised plans per C.T. Male analysis and discussion. 3. The applicant shall obtain a final C.T. Male signoff. 4. The applicant shall obtain a letter for DEC that the prior registration as a fill site is no longer valid. 5. Tabled until May 24, 2005. (Meeting has been rescheduled for May 26. You will thth receive a letter.) Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. STEVES-Can I ask one specific question on that Floor Area, just so I’m clear. Do you want that to be just on the two new lots or do you want it to include all three parcels? MR. VOLLARO-If we stipulate that there’ll be no further subdivision on Lot 1A, then it would just be for the two parcels. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HILTON-I just, again, want to clarify a specific date that you’re tabling it to and when this information will be? MR. VOLLARO-We haven’t gotten to that yet. MR. HILTON-Okay. I was just checking. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Again, we’re looking at April 15. th MR. HILTON-As a deadline, sure. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’d be tabling this until May. MR. VOLLARO-The way we’re operating here, it’s very difficult to sit here and inject applications into the Staff loop until Staff has had the chance to look at these, and put them in position in future dates. I don’t think that we can do it here. MR. HILTON-Right, except that we have two known meeting dates. I guess other applications that come in, we can either fit those in. I don’t know what to do, but if you’re accepting information on 4/15, the public hearing’s open, left open, just, I guess, for the public’s benefit, so that they know now when this will be reheard again, so that we don’t have to re-notice or re- advertise or anything like that. I guess my suggestion would be to pick a date. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, Bob, in reference to your concern, remember, the only reason Staff pushes you to pick a date is not to annoy anybody. It’s so you don’t have to go through the re- advertising process. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that, but I’m also concerned with their backlog. They’ve got a tough backlog that they’re looking at and it gets worse all the time. Tony’s probably got a point here. We’re going to look at a third meeting anyway. MR. HILTON-We’re going to talk about it, sure. I don’t know. Pick the second meeting of May, maybe. MR. VOLLARO-May 24 would be the second Planning Board meeting in May. th MR. HUNSINGER-May 24, then. th MR. VOLLARO-Can you get everything done by then? MR. STEVES-For the submission of April 15? Sure. th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, , Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now you’ve got to do one for the subdivision. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2004 JEFFREY THREW, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier : For the following reasons: 1. That the applicant shall obtain a final signoff from C.T. Male. 2. The applicant shall submit revised plans in accordance with C.T. Male’s analysis and discussion. 3. The applicant must provide the revised plans by April 15. th 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/15/05) 4. Tabled until May 24, 2005, provided that the applicant can provide the new th information by April 15. (Meeting has been rescheduled for May 26. You will receive thth a letter.) 5. If the applicant does not provide the information by the April 15 deadline, it would th have to be re-advertised in order for the meeting to be held again. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, , Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sanford MR. VOLLARO-What you’re looking at is as soon as he gets the approvals, we will put a 60 day limit on, that he has to complete the operation across the way from you within 60 days. We’re trying to put a finite date down that you can hang your hat on if you will. MR. THREW-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-With that, I would like to adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman 75