Loading...
2005-04-19 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 2005 INDEX Subdivision No. 5-2005 Gregory White 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 252-1-52 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 17-2004 John Dreps/Eugene Cerniglia 18. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.16-1-14, 15, 16.1 Petition for Change of Zone George Amedore/Amedore Homes 22. PZ 2-2005 Tax Map No. 302.8-1-13, 14, 15 Subdivision No. 4-2005 Site Plan No. 14-2005 Wallace Hirsch – Binley Florist 46. Tax Map No. 110-1-2/303.15-1-27, 28, 29 Site Plan No. 15-2005 Steve & Donna Sutton 49. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10, 11 Site Plan No. 16-2005 BMI Supply, Inc. 54. Tax Map No. 297.8-1-22.1 Site Plan No. 18-2005 Richard, Jr./Beth Schermerhorn 58. Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1 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 4/19/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER GRETCHEN STEFFAN THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD GEORGE GOETZ, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN B. BARDEN SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM HOUSTON STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. VOLLARO-I want to first address a couple of announcements. First the Planning Board would like to make their condolences to the Sutton family for the passing of Steve Sutton. I don’t know whether anybody here tonight is here representing, he is an applicant before this Board this evening. Secondly, at the end of this meeting, the Board will go into a discussion concerning its reorganization. Maybe some of you know, most of you probably do, that Mr. MacEwan, who is the former Chairman of this Board, has resigned, and therefore the Board is going to make a recommendation this evening or possibly not make a recommendation this evening, depending upon how it goes, to the Town Board for a replacement for Mr. MacEwan. At the present time, I’m the Vice Chairman and have been taking over for Mr. MacEwan’s duties while he’s been away, and that’s about all we’re going to say for that. The folks that want to listen to that deliberation, which will take place after we do all of this stack of material we have in front of us here, if you want to, you’re perfectly welcome to. It’s an open meeting, and with that, I’ll bring the first candidate up. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED GREGORY WHITE PROPERTY OWNER: SCOTT MC LAUGHLIN AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5 & LC-10 LOCATION: BAY & WOODCHUCK HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. LOTS ARE 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) TO BE +/- 10 ACRES AND +/- 24.27 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE TAX MAP NO. 252.-1-52 LOT SIZE: 31.77 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GREGORY WHITE, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-There will be a public hearing on this application this evening and also we will be doing SEQRA, which is a Long Form for subdivisions. Did you want to say anything about your application before we start, because I think I might want to ask the Staff to read their Staff notes. They’re not very long. Who prepared these Staff notes for White? MR. BAKER-I did the Staff notes. MR. VOLLARO-Did you, for Gregory White? Would you want to read those? MR. BAKER-Sure. This is Staff notes prepared for this particular meeting. I noted them as an addendum to the March 22 Staff comments. The comments are as follows. “On Friday, April nd 8. 2005 the following new information was submitted for the Planning Board’s review: Sheet S-2, including a driveway slope profile (Revised 3/28/05) ?? Sheet S-3, including stormwater management and erosion control plans (Revised 4/7/05) ?? The driveway slope profile indicates that the slope of the existing driveway within the front setback area is below the 10% requirement. The stationing points used on the driveway slope profile graph are not shown on any of the driveway plans/plats submitted. The stormwater management and erosion control plans submitted only addresses the proposed driveway extension. The Board may wish to consider whether to review the adequacy of the stormwater management/erosion control on the existing driveway. The new information submitted was forwarded to C.T. Male for their review and comment. I have sent a second request to the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co. for comments on the proposed subdivision.” MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. With that, would you like to give the Board an overview of what you plan to do up there? MR. WHITE-Absolutely. First of all, I didn’t get those, a copy of the second Staff notes that he had just mentioned. So I don’t have that, but, yes, my intentions on this piece of property are to simply subdivide a 10 acre lot, and it’s going to be a one single family home placed there. There is sufficient property between the existing property that I’m retaining and my neighbor’s where neither one of us will have to visually a house or visually be impacted by a house. The existing driveway that is there now has been there for approximately 16 years, going on 17 years. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the drive where you have your sign? MR. WHITE-Yes. That driveway’s been there since 1989. The owner or the main user of that driveway, Mr. Cowles, has absolutely no problem with sharing the driveway with the new resident there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that property will remain at 21.77 acres, will be one half of it, and your property, at 10 even, will be the other half? There’ll be two lots here? MR. WHITE-I am the current owner of the entire property. The ten acres will be sold to, I don’t know. I’m not sure. My family members are interested in the property. MR. VOLLARO-So there is some feeling for subdividing, possibly, the 21.77 acres? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. WHITE-Absolutely not. That is what I’m retaining for my own personal home to raise my family there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and what about the 10 acre piece? Isn’t that where you plan to put your house? MR. WHITE-No. I own the entire property. The existing house that is on the 31 acres is my home. The 10 acres will be, hopefully, subdivided and up for sale at some point. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at S-1. Other Board members can jump in here if they like. I see S- 1 says a proposed house on the 10 acres. Am I missing something there or? MR. WHITE-That’s just a potential proposed house. That’s not going to be my home. That’s whoever purchases this 10 acres, that’s a viable spot for their potential home. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. So this is not where you’re going to be. All right. MR. WHITE-No, no. MR. VOLLARO-Your house, then, is on the 21.77 acres right up along the drive? MR. WHITE-Yes, sir. I can promise you that all of that acreage will remain mine, and will be used as it has always been used, and never be subdivided. There’s not any other subdividable land there, as far as I’m concerned. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m going to throw this open to the Board, and we’ll let the Board comment on anything they want. Does the Board feel they want to go through our prepared subdivision questions, the pre-prepared check sheets that we have, or do you think this application should do that or not? MR. SANFORD-I don’t. I’m just one person. MR. METIVIER-I don’t, either. I don’t have any issues with this. I guess the only issue I have is the legality of a driveway that is or is not owned by someone else. I mean, you said the gentleman that’s using it has no problem with somebody else using it, but that’s a problem. I mean, is it your driveway or is it somebody else’s that is using it on your property? MR. WHITE-At this point, I own the driveway, and I give him right of way to use it. MR. METIVIER-You do? Okay. So that would continue on to somebody else? MR. WHITE-Absolutely. Yes, and that would be, you know, contingent upon them purchasing that drive, you know, that piece of property. They would fully be aware that they are going to be sharing that driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Tony, are you talking about the crushed stone driveway coming from the Lands of Cowles? MR. METIVIER-I guess, yes. I misunderstood. If it was somebody else’s, you just can’t go say. MR. WHITE-I own it at this point. He has a right of way to use it. MR. METIVIER-All right. That’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-It states that on the map. It mentions that on the map. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SANFORD-Mr. White, I just have one question for you. I don’t know how to phrase this, but let me just ask you. This subdivision, since you don’t, on the other 10 acre, is it the 10 acre parcel that’s going to be remaining if this is subdivided? MR. WHITE-No. There’ll be almost a 22 acre parcel. MR. SANFORD-Twenty-two, but the other piece is how big? MR. WHITE-Exactly 10. MR. SANFORD-Ten acres. I guess what I’m wondering is, if you care to answer this, is this subdivision at least in part due to concern over activities that the Town Board took a while back about possibly changing zoning, and that the concern being you might want to subdivide now, because if you wait you might not be able to? MR. WHITE-No, absolutely not. This was my intention from the beginning, when I purchased this property. I saw that there was a viable lot there, and that’s it. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. I mean, I just wanted to get that out, for what it’s worth, because I know there’s been some controversy around the LC, whatever it was, 42, and this seems to be a situation where there’s not a sale pending on the 10 acre piece, and so I was wondering if you were concerned about what action might take place in the future and you were interested in moving forward at this point in time, and that doesn’t prejudice your application one iota. I just was wondering about this because I think it’s important, in terms of how we can learn as a Town government to behave in the future. That’s why I asked the question. MR. WHITE-The reason I bought this piece of property was to have my own personal space, and I think Mr. Cowles, who is the very neighbor who this is going to impact, has the same idea. This subdivision isn’t going to impact him or me, visually, sound wise, I mean, there’s enough property in between all of us where we’re not going to be impacted. If I was impacted, I would not do this, or Mr. Cowles. MR. SANFORD-No, no, that’s fine. You answered my question. MR. VOLLARO-I do have some questions on the application, but I want to wait for everybody else to go first. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I have a couple of questions. One is the stormwater controls, which I think would be necessary. They’re proposing to put in four and a half foot deep trenches, I believe. Can you do that, or is it all rock? No. There is plenty of soil there, at first look, there is more than enough topsoil there. There is, the property that I own is not rock. I have a full basement. I’m down a little bit lower. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re down at the lower elevations. These are proposed above 450 feet in elevation, I believe. I’m no expert on French Mountain, but I know on Pilot Knob Ridge there’s about six inches of soil. MR. WHITE-I don’t know if you’ve been up and walked up onto that part of the property. MR. SEGULJIC-No, just drove up the driveway. MR. WHITE-Where that proposed house sits is a very flat piece of land, and there is, there’s definitely going to be some rock there, but it’s not ledge, by any means. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that is one of my concerns. I don’t know if there’s going to be, typically when you get into higher elevations there’s not a lot of soil. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. WHITE-Again, this is a very flat area. You do get up on top of the hill and there is a plateau there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then number two, my other concern is visual impacts. Not what you can see but us being able to see you. Because what you’re starting to see on development, people clear cut. Now you have these patches up there. MR. WHITE-But there’s a lot of regulations on how much they can clear for a house. They’re existing. As far as the Adirondack Park goes, and the Town of Queensbury. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s something we would like to see you put some restrictions on also. One of my first comments would be, why not put the house down on an elevation of like 450 or 430? Why all the way up at, above 500 feet? MR. WHITE-At that point, it was very flat up there. Again, this is just a proposed thing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well would you be okay if we had some restrictions to reduce visible impacts, a reduction on clear cutting? MR. WHITE-I’d certainly be willing to hear them. MR. SEGULJIC-Only natural colors? Is that what I’m looking for? Also cutting in the front so that you maintain your trees in the front. So you could still have your view, but people can’t see you. MR. WHITE-This lot is going to be definitely geared towards someone who wants to be in the woods. MR. SEGULJIC-Personally, I think they’re going to want to have a view. MR. WHITE-Of what? MR. SEGULJIC-Of the lake from there. MR. WHITE-There is not a view of the lake from there. From where that proposed house sits, there is not a view of the lake from there. MRS. STEFFAN-Just the marsh. MR. WHITE-Just the marsh. If you look east towards Bay Road, there would be a view of the marsh, but there is no lake view from this particular spot, anywhere on that property. So they could cut down 100,000 trees and they would never see a lake view. There is no incentive to cut down trees for a view. MR. SEGULJIC-So you would be okay with having restrictions on cutting? MR. WHITE-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. WHITE-I’m all for that. I want this to remain as wild and as rural as it can be. MR. SEGULJIC-And how do the others feel? MR. SANFORD-Actually, I’m pretty comfortable with this application, based on what the applicant has said. Again, there’s a lot of land. I’m sure there’s ample land for appropriate development of a single family home. I’m not concerned about that. I understand what you’re talking about, and I have concerns about that as well, myself. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MRS. STEFFAN-I have a question for Counsel. If we put, if we ask to have deed restrictions put on the deed of this particular property, how is that enforced? MR. SCHACHNER-It depends what you mean by if you ask. If you ask, it may not be enforceable at all. If you make a condition of approval or a condition of, even before you decide, however you do it, but if you make a formal condition requiring certain restrictions, then that becomes a condition of your approval, and the final mylar shouldn’t be signed until that condition is fulfilled, which means that there’s evidence of those deed restrictions having been placed in deeds. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and then as far as enforcement goes, when the eventual owner decides to build, selects a site, and what happens if they clear more than, say there’s a one acre restriction, and the new owner clears more than an acre of trees, what is the enforcement mechanism that we have in place? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the most effective means of enforcement, typically, is actually among the private parties, subject to the deed restrictions, but if you make a condition of your approval specific enough as to the deed restrictions and those deed restrictions state in them that the Town has the right to enforce them, then that would be like a zoning violation. The Town would have the right to enforce the deed restrictions. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think we need to go back to the applicant now. Gretchen just mentioned an acre of clearing. I don’t know if that was a number she had in mind, or if she just used it as an example. MRS. STEFFAN-I just used it as an example. MR. SANFORD-But is there an area of clearing that you’re comfortable with that you would perhaps be willing to have us incorporate a deed restriction in the potential approval of this application? And if so, what would that amount be? Because I think we would, let me give you a little background. I mean, we’re all concerned, I think, about having a lot of homes built on higher elevations because, we’re not particularly concerned about the applicants, but we’re concerned about the vision from everybody else, and what you’ve said earlier is that you share these types of concerns as well. So without trying to infringe upon your ability to do what you’re hoping to accomplish here, what would be an appropriate clearing that you could live with, in terms of a deed restriction? Is there anything that comes to mind? Because I think that would probably put a lot of Board members at ease if we could come to terms with that. MR. WHITE-Okay. Again, an acre is a fairly small plot of land, as far as a home. I mean, this is going to be geared to someone who wants to live in the woods. They’re going to drive up a driveway into the woods, they want to live in the woods. They’re going to expect to be in the woods. They’re not going to be able to clear. I think an acre is a little small. I might ask for two acres, just because I think an acre is a little bit small. I mean, a fairly good size house on one acre gives you a tiny bit of lawn. It doesn’t give you a whole lot. MR. SANFORD-So you’re saying that you would be agreeable, if this Board feels comfortable with it as well, to two acre limitation? MR. WHITE-That’s my first suggestion. MR. SEGULJIC-For me, two acres is way excessive. Even one acre, I think, is excessive. MR. WHITE-Okay. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question of the Board. Would the Board agree, at this particular point, to put a no further subdivision clause into our, or condition into our, so that there can’t be any further subdivision than these two lots? That means there would be the house that he has now plus one other house, and that’s it. MR. SANFORD-Right now, of course, the zoning allows for, what, 10? MR. VOLLARO-I think this is a 10 acre zone. It’s LC-10, isn’t it? MR. WHITE-No, it’s halfway between five and ten. Half of the lot is five acre zone, and the other. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a split zone? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is, LC-10 and RR-5A. Okay. MR. SANFORD-Okay, RR-5 and LC-10. MR. WHITE-I’m 100% with you guys on that, as far as the limitation for the two lot subdivision. I’m with you on that. MR. SANFORD-All right. Well, if he’s comfortable with the two lot subdivision, based on what he said, I mean, the way I’m hearing this is that he wants to be able to allow an appropriate amount of clearing to provide, perhaps, for a lawn and what have you. We can open it up for discussion, but I’m favorably inclined with what the applicant’s saying, and I’ll weigh in on that, but I appreciate what Gretchen and Tom’s concerns are as well, but I mean, if he’s willing to restrict, yet again, another subdivision. MR. WHITE-I’m all for that. MR. SANFORD-Then that goes a long ways. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there you’d only have two houses on 31 acres. MR. SANFORD-That’s not dense. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, it wouldn’t really be an eyesore, I don’t think. I can appreciate, Tom, what you’re saying, though. People that get up there would like to have a view, and before you know it they start cutting down. MR. SEGULJIC-You see a lot of it. MR. VOLLARO-You see a lot of it. I look at it all the time. MR. SEGULJIC-And the applicant is saying he wants someone who wants to live in the woods. So why would they want to clear so much land? The other thing I would say is, I would be in favor of putting a restriction that the house has to be built below some certain level, like where the other house is now. MR. SANFORD-Again, you’ve got to deal with the plateaus that are available for the construction of any proposed home, and I think that was the applicant’s point. Not all the land is developable. You can’t develop on all that slopes. We were up there. We saw a lot of problematic areas where you really would have a hard time building when we went up there. MR. SEGULJIC-So why would you want to go higher? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SANFORD-Because if you go higher, you might find a flat piece of land where you could develop. MR. WHITE-I mean, it doesn’t sound like it would be, but the higher you go there, the flatter it is, to a point. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is just a subdivision. Actually when, of course the two lot subdivision would never come before us, probably, but what he’s saying is where he has that house is just a proposed a position and not a firm position. So even if we got him to move it down, Tom, to a level that you thought was better, when he went to build it, he would build it higher. He would never come before this Board anyway. So, I don’t know how to correct the problem. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, unless we restricted it and said the house can only. MR. SANFORD-If he’s willing to not subdivide any further, and if we could come to terms with a reasonable amount of clear cutting, I guess that’s what we’re talking about, you know, I think that’s the issue. What is a reasonable amount of clear cutting? If we can split the difference on two acres versus one to one and a half, I’ll support that. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to offer another idea to that. I know, in the past, and I can’t recall specific numbers, but we have restricted cutting to trees that are larger than a certain caliper, and I think there’s a big difference between clear cutting an acre, an acre and a half for a lawn and having a lawn that has some trees left in it, and I don’t think anyone would go in there and just, you know, knock out two acres of everything. MR. SEGULJIC-I beg to differ. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we’ve seen it, but I don’t think, it’s because there are views of the lake, and they wanted their house to show off to all the boaters down on the lake. MR. SANFORD-I appreciate where my colleague’s comment is coming from. On the other hand, I also appreciate the practicality of it. We’re certainly not going to go around and put ribbons around trees and say you can’t cut them, and you can’t cut this. I think we have to come up with a reasonable approach that’ll work for you, also work for the Town, in terms of what we’re trying to do. I appreciate what you’re saying, Tom, but on the other hand, you know, we’re just not going to be able to get down to that level of specific detail, at least I don’t see it, and so I guess what I’m asking. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we did on another subdivision, Richard, where we limited each lot to no more than an acre, and that included the driveway as well. So I think that’s where Tom’s idea came from. MR. SANFORD-No, no, no. I appreciate the area detail, but in terms of what you were saying, Chris, about, you know, all of a sudden start laying out specifications for certain size trees that must remain. We have, and we have oftentimes not. MR. HUNSINGER-What I was just trying to offer is a compromise, that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-The simpler thing would be to try to come up with an agreement with the applicant that we do no more than one and a half acres. I think that you’re trying to split the difference between the one and the two, and that might be a good approach. With the terms that there be no further subdivision of this property. MR. SANFORD-If this applicant came in front of us with a proposal that he wanted to subdivide because he had some relative that in 10 years from now might very well be interested in that 10 acre parcel of land and he has no idea what he’s going to be doing with it, I question whether we’d be going to this level of discussion, and is zoned for subdivision, RR-5 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) and LC-10. I think if the applicant is willing to work with us, I think we need to negotiate terms that are fairly reasonable. That’s my position. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s well stated, Richard. I have some things I have to talk about on this application as well, so I might as well get on to them. If the Board is done with that deliberation, we can get back to it. They’re asking for two waivers, one for the Sketch Plan, which I understand, but they’re also asking for waivers of slopes over 25%. Now if you get to drawing S-2, you’re going to see that some of the driveway here is burdened by more than 25% slope, and on that basis, I think I would see some stationing points to determine the remaining driveway slope. Now I talked to engineering on this, to our engineering consultant. Have you looked at that that all, or were you asked to look at it at all? MR. HOUSTON-As far as our involvement with this, apparently it was sent to Jim Edwards, and I have looked at it since I’ve been here, but Jim Edwards is out on vacation now. I’m trying to fill in, but I’ve had to look at it while people were discussing the projects. MR. VOLLARO-It’s getting pretty close. I calculated almost a straight line basis that they’ve had about a 20% slope here, but I didn’t include those areas of the slope burdened by over 25, and I’d need stationing points, and I think you would, too, in order to do that. MR. HOUSTON-One critical comment about that is that the contours on this map seem to be based on U.S.G.S. quant sheet contours, 10 foot intervals and then everything is just interpolated in between that. So it’s a very crude estimate of what those slopes are. That’s one key comment as far as the slope that you’re actually traversing. It’s a guesstimate of what that is. If you’re very concerned about that slope, it would be warranted to do some additional survey along that route or in those areas of concern. MR. VOLLARO-I had the same note, Jim. I had the same concern when I looked at that. It wasn’t definitive enough. MR. HOUSTON-Also, in regard to that, in traversing steep slopes like that, you’ll usually want to cut on the uphill side and place fill on the downhill side to create a level surface to be able to drive up in there. In doing that, you’re going to have clearing on the uphill side. You’re going to have clearing on the downhill side. So when you agree to or try to set an area of limit of disturbance or tree removal, there could be a fairly significant removal along this driveway, in order to get a flat, level area on such steep slopes, just to be considered in your area agreement. MR. VOLLARO-That was the thing that I had. I had one other thing I wanted to talk about, and that was, Jim, if you want to participate with me on this. It’s on Drawing S-1, if you’re looking at that now, and on the. MR. WHITE-For any of those of you who have been up on that property and walked the property. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just try to get this, and then I’ll get right back to you. Just let us deliberate here for a minute. You see where they have the datum level at 360 there? There’s a little chart there that tends to give you the road profile? Okay. If you look at that, there’s the edge of pavement is 372.52, and the setback line is 380. The differential between those two is 7.48 feet, over a 60 foot length, and it really comes out, by my calculation not to be 6.3, but 12.46. It’s merely the division of 7.48 by 60. Now, if you divide 7.48 by 120, it comes out to exactly 6.3. Somehow or other, you follow where I’m at on that? MR. HOUSTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, now if you go, what they did is, on the right hand side of that drawing, all the way over to the right hand side, they took a look at the edge of pavement to the first setback line and I measured that on this scale of 1 to 100 as, again, 60 feet, just to make sure that 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) they didn’t make a mistake on that, but it is 60 feet. So the slope is in excess of 10%. See, where the Staff notes say the slope appears to be less than 10%, I believe it’s 12.46. MR. WHITE-I’m not sure why you’re coming up with two different calculations. Why are you coming up with one and the surveyor coming up with another? Are there two different formulas? MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s just plain old math. It’s not something that I’m concocting here, and that’s why I want our engineer to be with me on this. The edge of pavement elevation is 3.72, and the elevation at the setback line is 380. The difference between those two is 7.48 feet in elevation, over a 60 foot level. It gives you 12.46 percent slope, and I’m just trying to make sure our engineering group goes along with that. MR. HOUSTON-The thing that jumps out at me is the 380 contour is quite a ways further up the driveway past the setback. So I don’t understand, you know, you’re using 380 minus 372 over 60 feet, and I think your math is right, but I’m trying to figure out where that 380 is coming from. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’m looking at is what looks like a setback line, if you go to the right hand side of the drawing, and you follow it up for L-25, L-24, L-23. Are you with me on that? MR. HOUSTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Right to the left of that is what looks like a setback line, as opposed to a contour line. I don’t know, and I think that’s the setback line that they’re referring to in that station chart, being at the 380 elevation, but I don’t know. There’s no way that I can interpolate that to be a 380 point. They’re just taking that at face value, based on what the surveyor had to say. That’s what I’m doing. I can’t come up with it any better than you can. It just seems to me that the math is incorrect. If you take a look at their chart and you buy all the numbers that are there, you’re going to get 12.46. So there is a greater than 10% elevation there. MR. WHITE-The setback line that you see on the. MR. VOLLARO-Do you understand what we were just doing here, so that you’re not in the dark on this? MR. WHITE-I think I’m following you. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll take you through it if you’d like. MR. WHITE-For RR-5 Acres, which the bottom half of this property is, the setback line is 50 feet, from the front. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m talking about what the surveyor put in here, right here. This is the piece we’re at, okay. Now the surveyor talks about the setback line being elevation 380, and the edge of pavement being at 372, and he’s saying that that’s 6.3%, and it’s really not. It’s 12.46. We’ve got an error some place in here. MR. WHITE-It’s only an eight degree difference in elevation. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and that gives us a slope in excess of 10%. Staff says that. MR. WHITE-Do you know what the formula is for calculating that? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. It’s simple. You take the vertical elevation and divide it by the horizontal distance. That would be 7.48 divided by 60, to give you 12.46. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask Staff a question. When you put in the Staff notes this is less than a 10% slope, that was based on what? MR. BAKER-Just based on the chart they provided. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. WHITE-But you didn’t do your own calculation before you wrote it in the Staff notes? MR. BAKER-No. MR. VOLLARO-Now what I’m trying to get in my mind, is there a problem with greater than 10% on that particular portion of the slope? I didn’t understand why the surveyor just took that small 60 foot difference. Is there something in the Code that talks about that? MR. BAKER-Yes, there is. If you go back to my original comments for the March 22 meeting, I nd quoted Section 183-24J of the Town Code indicating that driveway grades between the pavement and the setback line shall not exceed 10%. I believe the applicant’s surveyor did that chart work in response to that comment. MR. WHITE-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-If that’s the case, if he did it in response to that comment, I believe he would have, but the math that goes along with it is incorrect. It’s in excess of 10%. MR. WHITE-Is anybody here from VanDusen and Steves? TOM NACE MR. NACE-Maybe I can help you out. Let me try. MR. WHITE-I don’t know why Matt would say one thing and they tell me another. Here’s the driveway profile, and they’re tell me it’s a 6.3% grade, not a 12 something. MR. NACE-Without digging into it, I could not. That’s this driveway? MR. WHITE-It’s the setback from the pavement, from the setback to the pavement can’t exceed 10%, and here’s the pavement line, and here’s the setback. MR. STEVES-It says 6.3. I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Maybe I ought to jump in here with you, Tom, if you’d like. They’ve got two numbers that they’ve provided, edge of pavement elevation and a setback elevation. The differential in elevation between those two points is 7.48, and the distance, horizontally, is 60 feet. That’s their numbers, not mine, and it’s a simple division of 7.48 by 60. MR. NACE-That’s more than 10%. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. WHITE-How did Matt come up with 6.3? MR. NACE-I have no idea, not without going back to the drawing board. I could not tell you. MR. WHITE-Okay. I understand your concern with this. Again, this driveway has been existing for 16 years. The Town hasn’t had a problem with it, when it was put in, hasn’t had a problem with it since. It doesn’t have water runoff issues. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, all I know is that the calculations show that it’s greater than 10%. There’s a spot in the Code that talks to the fact that it shouldn’t be any greater than 10%. So, you know, I’m not comfortable with that, and if we did, would this be a variance that they would have to go to get a variance on that? MR. BAKER-It would require an Area Variance, yes. MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t see how we can sit here, knowing now that it’s in excess of 10%, and pass this with a pass. I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but I just don’t see how we can do that. MR. SANFORD-Well, I look at it, I’m looking at this, Bob, from density. I don’t see a density problem. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either. MR. SANFORD-And again, the way I’m looking at this, if this applicant is willing to disturb no more than an acre and a half and not further subdivide, I’m reasonably certain that any home that’s built up there would be fine. That’s my opinion, and I may be out on a limb on this one. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SANFORD-But that’s my approach on this. I mean, I don’t want to make a mountain when we don’t have to on this. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not trying to. MR. SANFORD-Because this is not a dense development we’re talking about. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you 100%. The problem is that there’s a Code requirement for no more than 10% between those two points and we’re at 12.6 now. MR. SANFORD-Well, in the past we’ve had heavy discussions about slopes and driveways and things. I recall the West Mountain applicant, and we were able to, again, I’m not sure even if I totally agree with the logic associated with that, because people certainly get themselves involved with situations, along as they know what they are, I’m not particularly as concerned about that. I am concerned about things like erosions and things of an environmental nature, but if you’re talking fire safety and things of this nature, in terms of access to. MR. WHITE-Well, there are many driveways along Bay Road that are a lot steeper than this one that are steeper than this that have been existing for a long time. MR. BAKER-I’d like to correct my previous statement. That section in the Code that has the 10% maximum slope requirement between the edge of the pavement and setback line is in the sub regs, not in the rest of the Zoning Code. Consequently, under Section A183-47 of the sub regs, the Planning Board does have the authority to waive that requirement, and let me just quote from the regs, “When a Planning Board finds, due to the special circumstances of a particular plat, that meeting a certain requirement of these regulations is not requisite in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare, it may waive such requirement subject to the appropriate conditions, provided that in no case shall any of the provisions of Article XI, Regional Projects Within the Adirondack Park; be waived. In granting waivers, the Planning Board shall impose such conditions and will substantially assume that the objective of the standards or requirements so waived are met.” MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. I think that may take us out of the quandary that we’re in. MR. SANFORD-Mr. White, where do you currently reside? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. WHITE-My current address is Albany. MR. SANFORD-Albany. I was under the impression, based on your comments, that you actually lived up there, but you don’t, at this point. MR. WHITE-I’m waiting on a transfer from work. I was born and raised in this area. I’ve moved to Albany since for my job. I’ve put in a transfer to come back to Glens Falls, and the second it happens, that is my primary and permanent address. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Again, I mean, you know, Mr. Chairman, I think you ought to poll the Board and find out where we’re going with this, because it’s been 45 minutes, and it seems pretty straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. I think the Counsel has a question, however. MR. SCHACHNER-No, the Counsel has a public service announcement. The raucous noise is coming from the Highway Department building and the Highway Superintendent is on his way to investigate. MR. VOLLARO-I thank you, sir. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank Mr. Hilton for that information. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thanks, Mark. I’m certainly willing to waive this and get on with this. I think Staff has given us a way to get out of it. I’m willing to do that. As long as we have waiver capability here to overlook that, I’m fine with it. Now this plan was submitted to C.T. Male, the stormwater and erosion control plan was submitted to C.T. Male. Do we have any kind of a signoff on that at this stage? MR. BAKER-This application, I suspect others that are to be heard tonight, was sent to the Glens Falls office, out of which Jim Edwards works. Jim is on vacation, and apparently has not seen this application, and so we do not have comments on it. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the concerns I have is noted here in the Staff notes. The Board may wish to consider whether to review the adequacy of the stormwater management/erosion control on the existing driveway, and that’s a hot button for me on the erosion. When we look at a driveway of this size and this pitch, there’s obviously going to be runoff on here, and when folks start to build the property, obviously they’re looking at costs. One of the things that sometimes gets cut is the excavation, and so on a situation like this, there may not be proper stormwater controls in place on a driveway that’s constructed. With the current driveway that we drove up, it is significant pitch. There is drainage on the side, but it’s not, there’s no stormwater control. It’s just things run in a dirt ditch and down into the road. We have had subdivisions before, you know, there’s one that comes to mind on West Mountain Road, a house that was constructed up on a hill with an S-shaped, you know, a curving driveway, and all winter long I watched the stormwater improperly come off that driveway, and it iced over the road and caused a hazard condition and the Highway Department was there in the sub zero weather every day, and so I would like to see that plan and have our engineers review it, because that’s a concern that I have. MR. WHITE-Okay. Again, the bottom half of this driveway has been existing for a long, long time, and there has not been issues with water runoff. The proposed extension to the driveway is 350 feet away from Bay Road, and it does, on S-3, it does have areas where there’ll be water runoff, areas where any potential water runoff will be taken care of, and again, it’s 350 feet away from Bay Road. Any water runoff from a new proposed driveway isn’t going to reach Bay Road. It’s 350 feet away, and there are ditches that could be put in to substantially handle any water runoff. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MRS. STEFFAN-Could be, and that’s one of the concerns, depending on the contractor they pick, and the excavator they picked, if there’s no plan in place that they have to adhere to or follow, then if it doesn’t come back before the Board, then it would be a Code Enforcement issue. MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s a private driveway. Are you talking, in your other example, are you talking about a road, a public road? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. SANFORD-Private driveway? MRS. STEFFAN-A driveway that goes through, the West Mountain example? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a private driveway. MR. SANFORD-And you’re saying that, who was there every day, or through the winter, to check that? MRS. STEFFAN-The Queensbury Highways Department. Well, because they had complaints about the ice that was built up across the road, they had to come and plow and sand. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m just surprised that they got involved with a private drive. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, only because the water flowed out onto West Mountain Road. MR. SANFORD-Onto the road. MR. WHITE-And again, with this, it’s an extension from an existing driveway. The existing driveway has no water runoff issues, and it’s three, any new proposed driveway would be 350 feet away from Bay Road. That’s a long way for water to get through there. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a lot of driveway for things to runoff. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to ask the Board a question. You’ve heard the deliberations here. We have not gotten satisfactory review from C.T. Male. So we don’t know what the stormwater management and erosion control plan, whether it’s good or bad. We don’t know that. I don’t know it. You don’t know it. What does the Board really want to do here? We’ll open the public hearing and bring the public up and have them comment on this, but I think Board members now have to decide, do we want to table this in favor of a C.T. Male application and review, or condition it on a signoff by C.T. Male? And with that, I will open the public hearing, if you’ll give up your seat for a couple of minutes. We’ll get some people up here that might want to speak to this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WADE COWLES MR. COWLES-My name is Wade Cowles. I’m the property owner to the south of this proposed subdivision. I have used that road, as Greg says, for now 17 years plus. The first question I’d like to answer is that there is no bedrock there. My father-in-law owned the property that’s in question prior to Mr. White buying it. It is all digable. There are large boulders, but there are no, there is no bedrock, and just to reiterate what Greg said, when I first started using that road, I did have an erosion problem, but that was probably 14 years ago, and since then there has been no problem with it whatsoever, and I personally have no problem with this subdivision application. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-All right. Thank you very much. Anybody else to speak to this application? With that, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Now I’d like to get back to the Board for just a moment and decide what do we want to do. Do we want to go forward with this? We’ll do the SEQRA, because I have some questions on the SEQRA as well, concerning the septic up there, but if you want to go forward with this, we’ll waive that slope, because we can waive that 12% slope, even though it was an error on the drawing, and we’ve got to make a decision whether we want to condition this on the C.T. Male approval or table it to get a C.T. Male look at it. Now, how does the Board feel about that? MR. SANFORD-I’d certainly want to move forward with it. I mean, when I look at this, in terms of visa vie the applications that we’ve dealt with and the kind of impacts that they’ve had, you know, we’ve got 32 plus acres and the person’s looking to put a single family residence on there. To me, it’s a no-brainer. This is something that’s totally doable, and I see no reason at all to hold this up. End of story. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that. I think we’ve got to come up with some type of a cutting restriction. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I think, based on Mr. Cowles comments, I would be okay to move forward with some restriction on cutting MR. VOLLARO-Okay. George? MR. GOETZ-Let’s go with it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay. MR. VOLLARO-All right. With that, we get into a SEQRA on the Long Form. Before we get to that, I just want to make a couple of comments on Part I, and I wanted to ask a question. They have the depth to water table as four feet, and I was wondering how that was determined, because I saw no test pits here. How did you get to four foot on the depth to the water table? MR. WHITE-Honestly, I don’t have an answer for that. My surveyor’s not here, and that’s who has handled all of that information. MR. VOLLARO-Was Mr. Steves supposed to support you this evening? MR. WHITE-No. I thought I could handle it myself. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s a number of blanks in Part I. It says if subsurface liquid waste disposal is involved, and you say yes, and then it says what type of septic you’re going to use, and that’s blank. Now, if the Board wants to just by-pass this kind of thing, in the interest of getting on with this, because it is 30 acres and two houses, then we can go right to Part II, if that’s the way the Board feels. I’ll go with the Board, with the way the majority of the Board feels on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the Department of Health has to approve the septic. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-True, that’s why I’m saying. So, Mr. Hunsinger, why don’t you go ahead along with Part II and we’ll get on with this thing. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would say yes, but small to moderate, and it can be mitigated, because I think there is going to be some runoff on this, and that’s one of the reasons why we’ve asked C.T. Male to do a stormwater management and erosion control study. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the examples are floodwater flows, substantial erosion, compatibility with existing drainage patterns or development in a designated floodway. MR. VOLLARO-Compatibility with existing drainage patterns is what I would look at. MR. HUNSINGER-Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s one seat on the Board saying that. It’s not the rest of the Board. It’s just me. MR. METIVIER-I just disagree with that. I just think this project is so small, relative to the size of the area, that there would be so little impact. MR. SANFORD-That’s what he said. I think he said small to moderate. MR. VOLLARO-I said small to moderate. MR. SANFORD-And it can be mitigated. So it’s irrelevant in terms of SEQRA, really. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Small to moderate and can be mitigated stormwater. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2005, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GREGORY WHITE, 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. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) 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 19 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Who wants to take on the task of putting whatever conditions you want? Tom, you seem to be the proponent of putting some condition on here for, the one condition is easy. No further subdivision. That’s one we want to put in. MR. SANFORD-Well, no further subdivision on the, I take it on the 24.27 acre plot. I’m not sure if the 10 acre, which you’re hoping to sell, I’m not sure that can be subdivided or not, and I would rather not put a condition on that because if the applicant sells it, then I don’t know if that should travel with the deed, and I just don’t know if that’s appropriate. MR. WHITE-It wouldn’t be subdividable anyway. MR. SANFORD-It wouldn’t be subdividable anyway. All right. MR. VOLLARO-I think what happens in that case, the zone would then fold into. MR. SANFORD-But it could be RR-5. I mean, that’s what I was thinking, in which case it could possibly be subdividable. MR. WHITE-You could put that right in there, as far as I’m concerned. MR. SANFORD-All right. He’s saying it’s not a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-I would just say there would be no further subdivision beyond this application. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I tend to agree. MR. SANFORD-I see the subdivision and then just the one and a half acre limit on disturbance, and C.T. Male signoff, and that’s it. MR. SEGULJIC-But one half acre disturbance includes the road. MR. WHITE-Yes, that’s the only issue I have is that’s a big road and it takes up some space. MR. SANFORD-Again, you know, I would say one and a half acre disturbance plus the road. Again, we’ve got a ton of land here. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, remember, our Open Space Plan says to protect the ridges. MR. METIVIER-But we’re only talking about one house. You’re not talking about a condominium complex up there. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SEGULJIC-That’s correct. It starts with one house. MR. METIVIER-Yes, but you know, two acres, if you have some kids, is not a lot of land. It truly isn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-What the applicant said, he said he wants someone who loves the woods. MR. METIVIER-Granted, he does, and that’s fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Therefore they want limited clearing, and I am just fulfilling his request. MR. SANFORD-If we go one and a half acres on the actual property that the house is going to reside on, plus the road, we’re talking about far less than a 10% disturbance on a 24 acre plot of land, I think we’ve got to be realistic here. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s the 10 acres that’s the piece he’s selling. MR. SANFORD-All right. Then I’m wrong on that. The point’s still there, but you’re right, it’s not as extreme. MR. SEGULJIC-Quick question for you. How much will the road take up in clearing, would you think? MR. WHITE-It’s actually on here. MR. HOUSTON-That would be very tough to determine without knowing that side slope that you’re trying to traverse, because then it would depend on how much you’re going to clear on the upstream, how much you’re going to fill on the downhill side, and without more details. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess the consensus here is that we move forward with this. We put the restriction on, as Mr. Hunsinger just stated. I think that’s fair, and that the disturbance would be no more than an acre and a half, in addition to the road clearance that’s required, and that’s it. Okay. MR. SANFORD-Or, if you would prefer, I think the applicant agreed earlier to two acres, and then you can maybe include the road. MR. VOLLARO-No. From what I get in talking to C.T. Male, it’s going to be considerably more than an acre or half acre to get this road to flatten out on the curves. I know exactly what he’s talking about. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I hear you. MR. WHITE-An acre and a half for the lot I itself, plus the driveway, is fine with me. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let’s go with that. MR. SANFORD-I’m okay with that. I don’t know about Tom and Gretchen. MR. SEGULJIC-So you said an acre and a half. MR. WHITE-For the house itself, plus the driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-What about an acre? MR. VOLLARO-Tom, let’s not drag this too long. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SEGULJIC-I just asked a question. MR. VOLLARO-I know, but it’s eight o’clock. We’ve been one hour on this, and I know what we’re trying to do here. I understand the concern. I understand, particularly, your concerns, Tom, that we’re trying to protect the ridges here, and it’s kind of been drilled into us via the CLUP and via our own PORC Committee. We talk about it. We’re going to be bringing a consultant in to talk about limiting this kind of thing, and I think, Tom, you’re on the right track, but, on the other side of a coin, I see this as a 30 acre piece. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a 10 acre piece. This piece that will eventually be the subdividable sellable piece is 10. MR. VOLLARO-Is 10 acres, but the whole property, when you step back and take a look at the whole thing, it’s on the order of 30. MR. SANFORD-Thirty-four. MR. WHITE-Almost 35 acres, 34 plus. MR. SANFORD-And he’s agreeing not to further subdivide that other piece. MR. VOLLARO-So I’ll be comfortable with that. Does somebody want to make a motion? MR. SANFORD-I’ll make the motion. I’ll make a motion to approve Subdivision No. 5-2005 Gregory White, in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following additions. That would be that the parcel of land would not be further subdivided, and I guess just to clarify that, that would be neither the 10 acres nor the 24.27 acres would not be further subdivided, and that the area of disturbance for any future residential area on the 10 acre lot would incur no more than an acre and a half of disturbance, in terms of tree clearing, etc., in addition to the amount of area required for the road to provide the access to the property, and that the applicant receive C.T. Male signoff on stormwater and that the Planning Board agrees to waive the 10% grade requirement. That’s it. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll second that. MR. HUNSINGER-We do need to specify that the waiver requests are either granted or denied on Item Two. MR. SANFORD-Well, I said in accordance with, aren’t they in the motion? MR. HUNSINGER-It says waiver requests are, and then we have to say either granted or denied. I assume you mean to say that they’re granted. MR. VOLLARO-They’re granted. MR. SANFORD-They’re granted, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-One is for Sketch Plan and the other is. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s in the draft resolution. MR. SANFORD-It’s in there, yes, granted. MR. HUNSINGER-Sketch Plan, stormwater, grading and landscaping. MR. SANFORD-With the following condition, or clarification. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SCHACHNER-Question, prior to vote, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, Counsel? MR. SCHACHNER-I understood this to be, I didn’t hear Rich specify, but I’m guessing this is the motion on Preliminary Stage, is that correct? MR. WHITE-And Final. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is a motion for Preliminary only. Then we’ve got to go to Final yet. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I’m asking. MR. SANFORD-See, I was treating it as a Final. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s why I’m asking the question. MR. BAKER-This is a joint Preliminary and Final application. MR. SANFORD-So what’s the proper protocol here, Mark? Do we do something different on Preliminary and then we put it into Final? MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t want the conditions in Preliminary because the conditions can’t be fulfilled, and then he can’t move to Final until the conditions on Preliminary are fulfilled. I think what you want to do, I’m sorry I didn’t jump in sooner. I just was hearing the motion, but I think what you want to do is grant Preliminary approval, if that’s the Board’s will, and then move to Final and then have the conditions be part of your Final approval. MR. SANFORD-I agree. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2005 GREGORY WHITE, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 5-2005 Applicant: Gregory White PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Scott McLaughlin Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: RR-5 & LC-10 Location: Bay & Woodchuck Hill Road Applicant proposes a two lot residential subdivision. Lots are to be +/- 10 acres and +/- 24.27 acres. Cross Reference: None Tax Map No. 252.-1-52 Lot size: 31.77 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: 3/22/05, Tabled 4/19 WHEREAS, the application was received in 2/15/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 4/15/05, and 4/19 Staff Notes 4/8 New Information on Driveway, Slope, & Stormwater management received 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) 4/4 Meeting Notice 3/22 Staff Notes 3/15 Notice of Public Hearing sent 2/28 Meeting Notice 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 3/22/05; 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 20 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2005 GREGORY WHITE, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 5-2005 Applicant: Gregory White FINAL STAGE Property Owner: Scott McLaughlin Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: RR-5 & LC-10 Location: Bay & Woodchuck Hill Road Applicant proposes a two lot residential subdivision. Lots are to be +/- 10 acres and +/- 24.27 acres. Cross Reference: None Tax Map No. 252.-1-52 Lot size: 31.77 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: 3/22/05, Tabled 4/19 WHEREAS, the application was received in 2/15/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 4/15/05, and 4/19 Staff Notes 4/8 New Information on Driveway, Slope, & Stormwater management received 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) 4/4 Meeting Notice 3/22 Staff Notes 3/15 Notice of Public Hearing sent 2/28 Meeting Notice 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 3/22/05; 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. 2. Waiver request(s) are granted [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan] 3. Applicant shall submit a copy of the required NOI prior to final signature by the Planning Board Chairman. 4. 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. 5. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 6. No more than one and a half acre disturbance on the 10 acre parcel, plus the area that is required for the road to provide access to the residence. 7. No further subdivision on either of the two parcels. 8. The applicant will obtain C.T. Male signoff. Duly adopted this 19th day of April 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Now all that means is you’ve got to get a signoff from C.T. Male before the thing goes, because the approval is conditioned upon them signing off on your stormwater. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. WHITE-So we’ll have to have further contact with the Staff on C.T. Male signoff. MR. VOLLARO-Correct, and so you’re all finished. Lot’s of luck. MR. WHITE-Thank you very much. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, before you move to the next agenda item, I know we’re, it’s eight o’clock now. Do you plan on imposing the 11 o’clock cut off or not? We don’t know how long it’s going to take, but as you’ve mentioned earlier, the first application took an hour, and so I’m wondering if it might be appropriate, if you plan on doing the eleven o’clock curfew, that we at least make notice of it so that we’re not stuck at 10:45 and then considering it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Why don’t we do this. We’ll look at it, at our position, at half past nine and see where we are. How does that sound? MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. I just wanted to bring it up. I didn’t want to be stuck and then we feel that we shouldn’t do it because we didn’t discuss it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN DREPS/EUGENE CERNIGLIA PROPERTY OWNER: BAY MEADOWS GOLF CLUB, INC. J. DREPS, E. CERNIGLIA AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/JOE WALSH ESQ., WALSH & WALSH ZONE: HC-MOD LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY ROAD, NORTH OF CRONIN APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.37-ACRE PROPERTY INTO FIVE COMMERCIAL LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF BAY RD. NORTH OF CRONIN RD. LOTS ARE TO BE +/- 1.21 ACRES, 1.38 ACRES, 1.06 ACRES AND (TWO) 1 ACRE LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 1-2005, SB 12-98, SB 14-98, AV 3-99, SP 65-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-14, 15, 16.1 LOT SIZE: 0.61, 1.10 & 5.76 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN DREPS, PRESENT MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and John Dreps, the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Just to take the Board through one quick loop here. We did, on February 22, 2005, come up with a neg dec on SEQRA on this application, and we also recommended to approve the rezoning to Highway Commercial Moderate. Those were the two things that we did on February 22, and now we’re continuing on that. So do you want to go nd forward with your presentation, Mr. Nace? MR. NACE-Sure. As you say, we’re at the Preliminary subdivision stage now. We have had review comments from C.T. Male. I have looked through those and we are able to respond to them. We have not responded to them yet because, as we were doing it, we discovered a mistake in the topography in one section of the site that affected the road and the drainage, and we’ve been scrambling to get the correct information and make the appropriate changes, and we were not able to do that in time for submission to C.T. Male to give them time to review before this meeting. So rather than try to come up here with information that’s brand new for you, that you haven’t seen, I’ll be right up front. We have not finished those changes. We don’t have signoff from C.T. Male for those changes. So, you know, we don’t expect to proceed too far down the road here, but we would like to at least get public comments out on the table. We would like to have any other concerns that the Board has up on the table, so that we can make sure that all those are taken care of in our last clean up of this. The comments from C.T. Male were largely stormwater, and we will be addressing and complying with all of those comments. MR. VOLLARO-Will C.T. Male’s review change based on what you’ve discovered? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. NACE-No. It just means that I have to change road profiles and all the little nitty gritty details. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, may I just offer a comment? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SANFORD-I agree with what the applicant has just stated, that we open up the public hearing. However, just as a matter of process, I think it’s slightly problematic for us to feel that we should, at this point in time, state the laundry list of outstanding in items, in anticipation that that would then be deemed as a completed application. I would rather have the applicant come back with Final application, Preliminary and Final application, and not necessarily restrict ourselves to, at that particular point in time, finding anything in addition. MR. NACE-No, that wasn’t my intention. MR. SANFORD-No, no, no, but you understand, in terms of process. What my concern is that. MR. NACE-Absolutely. You can’t get out concerns on what you haven’t seen. MR. SANFORD-Absolutely. So, if you have an appreciation of that. MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-And the Board does. MR. NACE-If there were any issues that you already have, if we get those to the table, then we can take care of them. MR. SANFORD-Fine, but I wouldn’t want that to be all inclusive. Okay. That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Well, on Page Two of the Staff notes, I think this was prepared by Mr. Baker. There was a fair amount of comments in there about what is missing, and so that’s something that would have to be considered. The applicant has not specified how many lots will have sole public road access off the new road to be constructed and so on. MR. NACE-Bear with me a second. I’m just seeing these for the first time. For some reason I did not get a copy of them. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. MR. NACE-Okay. Yes, we have addressed, all of the lots will have access from roads other than Bay Road, with the exception of the southernmost lot, which shares an access with Stewarts. So there will be no new driveways onto Bay Road. It is our intention and always has been that the street to be constructed be turned over to the Town and become a Town road. In fact it’s imperative because otherwise those lots that have access directly off that would not be legal. MR. VOLLARO-Well, have you seen the comment from Highway? The Highway Department has recommended that this remain a private road. MR. NACE-I have not seen that. MR. HUNSINGER-Memo dated April 15. th MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. NACE-For some reason, we did not get a package of Staff comments this month. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, we seem to be two for two with applicants not having received Staff comments, and I can’t explain why, but I do apologize. MR. VOLLARO-It certainly makes it difficult when the applicant is not up to speed on what the Staff has had to say about the application. It makes it difficult for both sides of the fence here. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s basically a one sentence letter, memo that say it is my recommendation, based on the fact that this is a commercial subdivision, that it should stay a private road, and then it says if you have any questions, please call me. MR. NACE-I’m not quite sure where Rick’s coming from with that. It’s designed, you know, to be built to Town standards. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Nace, would you like a copy of that letter? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Have mine. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-If necessary, we can certainly table this application. I can give you my set of. MR. NACE-Well, I think we picked up a copy here tonight that has the Staff comments. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because I think Page Two is what Staff had to say about what they thought might be included in the Preliminary and Final application. So, without carrying this too much further, do you feel we ought to? I feel we ought to probably table this application. Because there isn’t anything that I can contribute. I don’t know. Maybe the Board does, something they can contribute. You said this should be in and that should be in, that we need a Final application to work on. MR. NACE-You probably ought to open the public hearing, since it was advertised for tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I intend to do that anyway. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, wait, we have a big question about that. From what we’re seeing, it appears that the public hearing held on February 22 was a public hearing for both the rezone nd and the Preliminary subdivision, and that public hearing was opened and closed. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That was what we were told to do at that particular meeting, open and close. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not quarreling with that. What I’m saying is that appears to have been a public hearing not just for the rezoning but for the Preliminary subdivision as well, and you appear to have closed the public hearing. So what I’m suggesting is, despite the applicant’s desire to gain more input from an additional public hearing, which is commendable, it doesn’t appear that that’s the proper process because you’ve already conducted the public hearing. That’s what I’m trying to say. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BAKER-Let me see if I can clarify the process. This is one of the types of applications where the SEQRA review for both the rezoning and the following subdivision or site plan application are done concurrently. The public hearing that was held last time was for the purpose of the SEQRA review only. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SCHACHNER-We’re giving you mixed signals, and we apologize. You can see how unrehearsed this is, but minutes reflect otherwise, Stu. The February 22 minutes clearly nd indicate that the, rightly or wrongly, that the public hearing was for Preliminary subdivision and the Rezoning SEQRA review. MR. NACE-So SEQRA was for the. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s clearly correct. We’re definitely on the same page on that, and that’s consistent with our practice. MR. NACE-Okay, because I thought SEQRA, at that point, was just for the rezone. MR. SCHACHNER-No. The SEQRA review, as Stu said, and he’s absolutely right. The SEQRA review was done for the entire action, as it should be. So what apparently was done at the February 22 meeting, and in fairness, I don’t think either he or I were there, but looking at the nd minutes, it appears that the public hearing that was opened on February 22 and closed on nd February 22 appears, from the minutes, to have been for the purposes of both the SEQRA nd review and the Preliminary subdivision. MR. METIVIER-So we can have a public hearing for a Final, though, can’t we? MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess what we’re saying, I mean, is anybody here? MR. SCHACHNER-But, fortunately no one spoke at the public hearing in February. I think Rich is asking a very important question. MR. SANFORD-Is anybody here wishing to speak on this application? Because maybe, I think we were caught with our pants down, but maybe it’s not important if no one’s here for the public hearing. No one seems to be raising their hand for the public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-And by the way, it appears that on February 22, no one spoke at the nd public hearing, either. MR. VOLLARO-That’s also correct. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I think what I want to do is call for a tabling motion here. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So if somebody wants to make a motion to table. MR. SANFORD-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2004 JOHN DREPS / EUGENE CERNIGLIA, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: For the following reasons: Information to be submitted by the 13 of May. Tabled to May 24. thth Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2005 by the following vote: th MR. SANFORD-Do we want to table it to a certain date? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s see. To get on to the May agenda, you’d have to be in by, for May you’d have had to be in by April 15, I believe. th MR. NACE-That’s passed. Is there any chance? MR. VOLLARO-We can give you some leeway on that. MR. BAKER-I mean, if the Planning Board wants to state a date for the May meeting upon which this will be reviewed under Old Business, you can certainly do that. The agenda for May hasn’t been finalized. I would ask that you require any new information that’s to be submitted be received in the Community Development Offices at least a week and a half in advance of the meeting date. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’d like to set the meeting date for May 24. th MR. NACE-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-That would give you a chance to get that whole act together. MR. NACE-Yes, that will be plenty of time. MR. SANFORD-And would this be for Preliminary and Final Stage? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, as I understand it. MR. NACE-Yes, we’d like to do that. MR. SANFORD-All right. Now, in terms of the completion of the application, I believe Mr. Nace is familiar with what’s required, and so I don’t know if we need to specify anything in this tabling motion. MR. VOLLARO-No, we do not. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s the extent of my tabling motion, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Did Staff want us to give them a date to submit additional information. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want a specific date? MR. NACE-That’s up to you. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we should. MR. SANFORD-May 13? th MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you pick a date in May that you’d want to have this. MR. BAKER-Would May 13, a Friday, work for? th MR. NACE-Easily. MR. BAKER-Okay. May 13. th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks. NEW BUSINESS: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE: PZ 2-2005 SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2005 GEORGE AMEDORE/AMEDORE HOMES PROPERTY OWNER: BROWER FAMILY TRUST AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES & CHRIS ROUND, CHAZEN COMPANIES ZONE: HC-INT, PROPOSED CHANGE TO PO LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY ROAD, NORTH OF CRONIN APPLICANT PROPOSES 1) REZONING THREE PARCELS TOTALING 6.93 ACRES FROM HC-INT TO PO AND 2) DEVELOPING A 44 UNIT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION/CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY. THE TOWN BOARD IS SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING. AT THIS MEETING THE PLANNING BOARD WILL CONSIDER A. ACCEPTING SEQR LEAD AGENCY STATUS, B. PERFORM SEQR REVIEW AND PREPARE FINDINGS, AND C. DEVELOP A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD REGARDING THE PROPOSED REZONING. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-13, 14, 15 LOT SIZE: 0.12 AC., 2.87 AC., 3.83 ACRES SECTION: 179-15-020 & SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER & CHRIS ROUND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Just to get the record straight, you are? MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper and Chris Round, and David Gordon is with us as well. MR. VOLLARO-Just for purposes of this meeting, I think the Planning Board is asked to do two tasks at this meeting. It’s to accept the SEQRA Lead Agency status and perform the SEQRA review, on both the proposed rezoning and the proposed subdivision. So we’re doing this again. We’re into that same routine that we were before. We’re going to be doing the SEQRA on both the proposed rezoning and the proposed Subdivision, and to issue findings and recommendation to the Town Board relative to the zoning petition. That’s what we’re going to do. Now do you folks want to have the floor before we get into that? MR. LAPPER-Sure. To start out with, this is a site that is of course zoned Highway Commercial Intensive and was the subject of a big debate about six years ago, I guess, when there was a proposal for a Grand Union, which was compatible with most of the property. The front is all Highway Commercial, and in that one it needed a rezoning of the back residential piece to make it support the 65,000 square foot supermarket, but in general, what we’re comparing this time is a project which is compatible with the residential neighborhood and would act as a transition, a single family ownership, but in attached four-plexes, as a transition, if you will, between the single family residential behind and the commercial along Quaker Road. One of the main benefits is the decreased traffic impact compared to a commercial project. We’ve run the numbers. Chris will get into it in a few minutes, but it’s around 10 to 15% of the traffic that would be generated if it were developed for the commercial plaza as it is zoned now, and for that reason, we’ve spoken with the residential owners on the adjacent blocks and they’ve been very supportive. With perhaps one or two exceptions, most of them have been very supportive and we do have a petition signed by seven of the adjacent neighbors that we’ll hand in that support the rezoning. Obviously, a lot of the issues that, the questions you’ll be asking are site plan/subdivision issues that will come up in more detailed review later on if we get through the rezoning at the Town Board, but at the same time, since you’re SEQRA Lead Agency, we needed to provide enough detail so you could do a SEQRA review, and for that reason, we submitted a traffic report, a conceptual stormwater report. The engineering wasn’t done to actually size and design all the facilities for stormwater, but the homework was done to show 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) where it’s going to be, what it’s going to look like. Chris will go through the site plan, but in general, we’re trying to leave a green space in front to make it look nicer from Bay Road, and also to give good visibility for turning movements, and develop the center of the site. We’re hopeful that the Planning Board will be supportive of the rezoning. The Town Board was supportive of it, and that’s why they referred it to you. Sometimes rezonings don’t get out of the box with the Town Board, but they were supportive. MR. VOLLARO-Before we get started, I have a statement to make for the Board, and I want to read some stuff. I personally, as one member of this Board, do not agree with the PO district, and I want to read something before I get comment, okay. This comes right out of our Code definition, and it talks to the two zones. I’m going to state my case in that I think the case for MR-5 is well stated in Chazen Engineer’s January 18, 2005 document entitled Condominium Development. I thought they did a great job there. Now, having said that, let me go forward with this. The definition of the MR-5 district is intended to provide for an anticipated increase demand for high density, multi-family housing and professional office buildings in areas located near commercial services. The definition of the PO zone, the PO District encompasses areas where professional offices are encouraged. These are located along arterials, adjoining residential areas where compatibility with the residential uses is important. I think that one of the things we have going on within the Town is concern about the PO district itself. We’ve had a lot of debate internally about PO district. I think MR-5, the way Chazen Engineering first described it, is far better suited as a zone, and this is only one member talking, before we get into it, is far better suited as a zone than is the PO district. Now, having said that, so you know where I’m coming from anyway, you can go forward with your presentation. MR. SANFORD-Well, if I could, just for a minute, Bob. I totally concur with you, independent of the project’s merits, which is another issue. Just regarding the rezoning, is that I personally cannot support a rezoning to PO for the similar reasons that Mr. Vollaro just stated. I think that there needs to be clarification or redefinition on PO within the Town of Queensbury. I certainly would not encourage this Board to recommend a rezoning to PO, when we know it’s going to be multi-family. Now, having said that, MR-5, I don’t necessarily have an objection to, which I think satisfies your needs as well. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And so I just want to provide my support to Mr. Vollaro that we can have our discussion, and I may be in the minority, but I will not support a rezoning to PO. MR. LAPPER-Let me respond by saying that if this Board made a recommendation that it should be rezoned to MR-5, that would be perfectly suitable to us. We submitted for MR-5 because we were trying to get the zone with the least intensity that would permit our use, and that is only a residential use. When we got to the Town Board, there were a minority of the Town Board members that felt, because of the discussion on the upper Bay Road, that they’d rather see office in front, and when we went back home and looked at, I mean, we agreed because either one suited our client’s purpose of being a complete residential project and it wasn’t worth arguing with the Town Board about it. In fact, Ted Turner, well, everyone had a different position, but in general, the majority of the Board was in favor of MR-5. They liked the project, and we would be perfectly happy if you said MR-5. We don’t care. MR. SANFORD-That’s right, Jon. You’re aware of issues that surround Queensbury that aren’t involving this particular project. I think there’s confusion, if you will, regarding PO that needs to be dealt with, and I certainly wouldn’t want an action, in terms of a recommendation on this Board, in terms of recommending a PO zone for what we know to be a residential area to move forward, in terms of what it may reflect upon future applications. So I can’t support that. I mean, but the MR-5, I mean, we have to deal with the merits of the application, but I think the MR-5 is the more appropriate approach for you to take, based on my understanding of your project. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. LAPPER-And we are completely happy with that. Just in general, in terms of the PO zone, you know, obviously, one of my client’s, Rich Schermerhorn, built the office buildings on Bay Road, and we think that upper Bay Road is appropriate for office buildings in front. That’s the character, but on lower Bay Road, if you will, south of Quaker, it’s different, because there, with Hanneford, with everything that’s going on, you’d want less of a traffic generator. So when Chris came back and ran the numbers for what it would be if we did office in front, that would increase the traffic when we’re trying to decrease the traffic, and then visually, we don’t want to have a parking field next to the residential project that we’re trying to, our client’s are trying to build. So we don’t want to do office. MR. SANFORD-No, I think we’re on the same page. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I have one minor question in my mind on the PO zone. Are the requirements for the P O zone identical north and south of Quaker? I haven’t been able to get a good answer for that. So I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-Bob, I don’t believe there’s a distinction, but Mark can chime in here, if he would, but I believe there are, as you’re well aware of, there’s other source documents such as the vision of the Bay Road corridor, which enter into our thinking process, which may influence not this application but other applications, but I believe that what I think is needed, independent of this, and if it goes to MR-5, it’s not an issue here, but I do believe that I would recommend that the Town Board revisit the PO zone and put appropriate clarity to some of the areas that have been in dispute, namely PO up front and for how many feet and all those issues. MR. VOLLARO-We’re really talking 1,000 feet being the critical area. MR. SANFORD-I understand, but I think that if the applicant is not digging in on a PO, then I would also prefer to, if we render a recommendation at all, to move in the direction of MR-5. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t want to answer Mark’s question, but the PO zone is the PO zone. It doesn’t matter where you go in the Town. MR. SANFORD-No, I think that’s a fact. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, every zone is the same. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a Bay Road corridor, that overlays the PO zone on upper Bay Road. MR. SANFORD-No, I understand that. I don’t think you’re saying anything inconsistent with what I just said, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I’m answering Bob’s question. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Are we all in agreement that MR-5 is a more suitable zone for this? MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m fine either way. MR. GOETZ-Sounds like everybody’s in agreement. MR. SEGULJIC-Not to throw a wrench into this, but what about mixed use? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that the multi-family residential zone is really, I’ve looked at them all, and this fits far better than any other one. If you look at Chazen’s, and I don’t know whether Mr. Round did the Chazen study there or not, but I thought it was very well stated in what they called their condominium development. That was their document of January 18, 2005. In reading that, it supported the MR-5 zone and it supported it well. It went to the Town Board and they did a twist into PO. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I get confused, if we do a zone change and this project does not come through, then we’re left in an MR-5 zone there. MR. LAPPER-Well, I can respond to that. Because just for example, the Home Depot, and most of you were here for that, there was a sunset of 18 months, that if it didn’t get built, that the zoning would revert, and that’s a way to protect the Town, if the project doesn’t go forward, and this is going to go forward quickly. So we could agree to a condition like that. That’s no problem. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good solution to that. I do agree. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Are you satisfied with that, Tom? MR. SEGULJLIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Did you look at Urban Residential 10 as an option? MR. SANFORD-It’s not dense enough, I don’t think. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. It’s not dense enough for development purposes, but it might fit the neighborhood character better. MR. ROUND-Yes. We did look at that, and if you look at the map on the floor, it’s difficult to see from this distance, but our site, those two, you can visualize where Bay Road and Quaker Road intersect there. Our site’s just south of Quaker Road there. All that red is Highway Commercial, that you’re looking at. What we looked at are zones that are in the region, in the closest proximity to the site. So the MR-5 was the first zone that you start to look at, and it’s the closest use. So we’re looking for consistency in the Land Use Plan. MR-5 made the most sense. The next closest zone is the PO zone. So those are the first two that we considered. They met our objectives. So we didn’t go through a broad analysis, and UR-10 probably won’t meet our target, as far as density. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the reasons I asked that question is because obviously several definitions fit and I think that the Multi-Family fits, but I’m also looking at the folks who live on Homer Avenue, and, you know, it’s still a residential neighborhood, even though there’s some commercial establishments on it, but it certainly fits the Urban Residential description, but, yes, that is just one road. MR. ROUND-Very much. MR. LAPPER-And I guess we just look at this as a transition that there’s not enough land to do single-family, and it backs up to the Wrap place and the Denny’s. So it’s a transition that a more dense project is appropriate because it’s next to commercial on one side and it’s next to Single Family on the other, and I know that the residents, the single family residents, think that this buffers them. I mean, some people would probably like to see it stay as a field, but it’s for sale. It’s being listed, and it’s either going to go commercial or residential. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. LAPPER-At this point, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask Chris to just walk you through the plan, to get started, orient everybody. MR. ROUND-Thanks. As Jon said, I think most of you are familiar with the site location. It’s on the east side of Bay Road opposite a couple of professional office or uses. There’s that health care center that’s in the old Stan’s fish fry, if you folks remember that. It’s opposite that. There are two existing residences on the site right now. They’re both vacant. It’s approximately 6.93 acres. What we have up on top of the easel there is an architectural rendering of the site. As Jon says it’s currently zoned Highway Commercial. It’s important to note that this site is located in the Glens Falls School District, and I know a lot of the growth concerns have been expressed by the Queensbury School District. Our conversations with the Glens Falls School District, they’d invite additional density and assessed value into the district. They need to increase the values. I know the City’s plight has been, hey, how do we increase our assessed values within the district, and this addresses one of those issues, coincidentally enough. It is, I think we mentioned this, a 44 condominium unit project. Those are four-plex buildings that you’re looking at on your plan. They are, Dave, they’re up and down. They’re flat. So they’re complete unit, two complete units on the first floor. Two complete units on the second floor. We mentioned the PO and MR-5 zones. Those are both certainly appropriate for this location as well as for our project objectives. What we’ve tried to get you, it’s very difficult when we’re trying to do a SEQRA review for a multiple task within a particular action, and as you folks, and as the Staff notes reflected, the action is a rezoning. It’s a site plan or subdivision approval, and therefore you need to do SEQRA for both of those, and so what we think we’ve submitted a very comprehensive analysis of the project without engineering, reaching final engineering status with the project because we’re not there yet. We don’t have a project until you folks act on the rezoning. So what we did do is prepared a full Environmental Assessment Form and we supplemented that with a full traffic impact study, looking at both the service drive, our entrance onto Bay Road as well as the Quaker and Bay intersection. We also did a conceptual stormwater management report, and we’ll talk a little bit about that. What you folks didn’t receive, that we did prepare back in January, was a geo technical evaluation. We did test pitting on the site, and we’re fortunate that the Nigro project did extensive investigations of the site in regards to stormwater, depth to groundwater, depth to bedrock, and we think there’s adequate soils and separation distance to groundwater, because I know that was a concern when the previous project was here in front of you. We also did a wetlands delineation. There are Federal wetlands on the site. We’ll talk a little bit about that, and the real bonus for us, for the site development for the site is there’s municipal water and sewer. So that addresses a lot of the site concerns that we typically see with a project like this. Traffic, the traffic impact study, we will have no degradation to the level of service at the Bay and Quaker Road intersection. There will be very similar delays as we all realize that are out there today. We’re talking several seconds increase in delay but not a decrease in the level of service. What we did, there were questions in the Staff notes about how, or engineering comments on how the traffic counts were arrived at. Sear Brown is now working for Warren County Department of Public Works, and Sear Brown is now called Stantec Engineering. They have traffic counts that they’re using for intersection improvements up and down Quaker Road, including this particular Quaker Road intersection. So we took those most recent traffic counts. They were originally dated ’99 and they were updated to 2002 by Sear Brown, and we projected a two percent growth rate and those of you familiar with the traffic studies that are done in Queensbury, two percent is a very aggressive growth number, and we think it’s very conservative as far as projecting future growth. So two percent sounds nominal, out of context, but for traffic, that’s quite a considerable amount of traffic that would be two percent a year. So we’re very comfortable that the level of service analysis is compensating for all the traffic that’s going to going in the region. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you back up a second? MR. ROUND-Sure. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Because that was one of the questions I had specifically, is on the traffic counts, what days those counts were taken, what time of year and that kind of thing. Do you have that data? MR. ROUND-I do have it. I don’t have it in front of me, and I have it in my file. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ROUND-It was done. There’s been tons of traffic data collected on Quaker Road. I know as part of the signal coordination project that they were collected during the summer originally. If it’s that same data, their summer date, you know, there’s week day and weekend dates. The left turns are also a concern, coming out of that site, as was expressed by the Town’s Engineer. We’re looking at, in the AM, we’re looking at 13 left hand turns out of the site and 3 into the site, and in the PM, an equal nine in and nine out, and so we think that’s a relatively small number. We think that, with, there’s adequate gaps with the signal that’s located there. As part of the traffic analysis, they did look at the gaps. So there’s adequate gaps for folks to exit and enter the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think you actually already answered my question because, you know, in previous traffic studies, we all know there’s a huge, well, maybe not huge, but there’s a significant difference in traffic in the summer than there is in the winter. MR. ROUND-Seasonal, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s seasonal traffic, and if the traffic counts were, indeed, taken in the summer, that, I think typically, is the heaviest traffic on Quaker Road, and that pretty much answers my question. MR. ROUND-We’ll confirm that, and what we’ll do is adjust it seasonally. There’s a ratio to adjust it seasonally, especially for areas like ours. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-These are the numbers the County’s using, and they’re improving that intersection. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I understand. MR. ROUND-They’re doing a significant amount of engineering in that region. MR. VOLLARO-My only concern, Mr. Round, has always been the cumulative impacts. Every traffic study that I’ve ever seen turns out to be, you know, a very minimum level of impact on that intersection or that road or whatever, and I’ve been campaigning on this Board for a long time, as you know when you were an Executive Director here, that I’m always looking for the cumulative impact study, on Route 9, on Quaker Road and so on, and on Bay Road. I guess my question is, does this new data that’s being looked at have a component in it for evaluating the cumulative impacts of the whole road? I mean, I don’t know the study that you’re looking at. MR. ROUND-Yes. When you say cumulative impact analysis, generally you’re looking at in a regional area, and you’re trying to capture a number of projects that are happening in sequence or are planned to happen in sequence. The two percent growth rate plugs in a lot of that, accounts for a lot of that, and that would be our first response. I know that the Quaker Road project, they’re planning facility improvements for the long term. So they are looking at, well what is the long term, and as you can see, those numbers that Sear Brown or Stantec is now using are the numbers that we’re using. MR. LAPPER-I think also traffic’s really our best argument here. Because just if you go with what zone, and you know maybe it’s not going to be a big supermarket, but even if it was half 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) of that, we’re still talking about many, many times the traffic that this project would generate. We were at like 337 peak hour for a supermarket, and even if you took, you know, 150 compared to what we have, which is, what, 30. MR. ROUND-Yes, it’s between 30 and 40. MR. LAPPER-This is really, and because that’s zoned for it now, I mean, this is really much more minor an impact. MR. VOLLARO-The real world I look at is the world of Lowe’s, the world of Hanneford, the world of Hollywood Video, and a considerable amount of ins and out’s, because I use the Hanneford in and out all the time and I find it sometimes difficult to make a left turn there to go north on Bay. MR. SANFORD-Bob, I’ve been on this Board as an alternate and as a member for about four years, and I’ve never seen a single traffic study report prepared by the applicant which showed any impact. The bottom line is, sometime down the future there needs to be a change by the Town Board requiring an independent traffic analysis that’s not in place now, but this is just never going to happen. You’re never going to see an impact. MR. VOLLARO-Obviously. MR. SANFORD-And we’ve never seen one. I’m not addressing this application specifically. I’m just saying I have never seen an applicant ever come in front of this Board and say, we did a traffic study, and, you know what, we’ve got some problems here. It just has never happened. MR. LAPPER-We have a good response, though. This is a County road. So that we’re going to have to get our curb cut permit from the County, and if they felt that they needed mitigation, turning lane, different treatment, that’s going to be something that they’re going to mandate, but it is a minor traffic generator, compared to commercial, and that’s our point. MR. SANFORD-Well, I appreciate your argument. Hopefully you’ll appreciate where I’m going. Down the road, perhaps what we should do is we should change the way in which applications are presented. Instead of the applicant hiring a traffic engineer to do the study, it be done in a strictly independent sense, and that way we’re at least assured a better degree of objectivity. That’s my only point. It’s almost like when I see these traffic studies, I don’t spend a whole lot of time with them, because I’ve never seen a single one that’s presented a single problem. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Round, continue. MR. ROUND-You folks can come back to any of these particular areas and we can talk about questions that we might have, but stormwater, as I said, we did do a geo technical investigation, test pitting across the site, and as I mentioned, Nigro, as part of their project, a number of geo probes and test pits and actually Town Staff at the time witnessed the test pits during that particular investigation, and groundwater’s between four and six feet below grade. It does appear at the surface in the form of the wetland, and so it does taper as you approach the eastern part of the site, and we’re avoiding development in the areas of the wetlands. We know the project will be subject to the DEC new Phase II regulations, the GP, what they call the General Primary 201 requirements. What we did is we conceptually, we did do a conceptual design, and it’s a micro pool type of design, and basically the water feature that you see on the northern part of the site is a representation of that stormwater basin, and so a portion of that basin will be wet at all times, and that’s according to DEC requirements. Micro Pools are designed to be wet throughout the year. I asked our engineer, why is that, that they need to be wet, and he said we’ve asked DEC and we don’t know, but it’s a State requirement, and so they’ve managed to meet that requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Doesn’t that create a problem with bugs? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. ROUND-Mosquitoes. I think that’s the general one, and I think across the State and all the towns that we’re doing work is that we find is that how do we address maintenance of stormwater facilities. How do we address safety issues with stormwater. In this case it’s going to be owned by the developer. It’s going to be maintained by the developer. So, with mosquitoes, we don’t know. The condominium corporation is actually going to own the facility, but that’s an important point, and we don’t know, but we’re trying to meet our permit requirements. So we’re confident, you know, the feasibility investigation, and the fact that they designed the system to handle a 65,000 square foot commercial facility previously on this site, we’re going to be able to accommodate a stormwater system to manage our 44 unit condominium project. Basically it will release stormwater at a rate equal to pre-development conditions, and it will provide for stormwater quality treatment consistent with the new Phase II regs. Wetlands impacts, we do propose some impacts wetlands on the site, and we’re allowed to under the Nationwide Permit program. We’re proposing to disturb 0.26 acres of wetlands. That’s below the .5 acre threshold that they allow. They allow .1 to .5. The only issue that we have with Corps wetlands is whether they were going to require mitigation or not. We’ve planned on mitigating and constructing wetlands and it doesn’t show up on our rendering, but it does show up on our site plan that we presented you folks and there are several areas there we would add wetlands if required by the Corps. So it’s just a matter of, when we reach our design, the design stage, which we’re not quite at yet. We’re at feasibility stage. When we reach design stage, we’ll be in communication with the Corps and follow their direction, whether we need to construct wetlands or not. MR. VOLLARO-I just have a question on that. Probably for Counsel. We’re going to be doing a combined SEQRA and Subdivision review this evening. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t believe that’s correct. I thought you were just doing your SEQRA review this evening. Am I incorrect? MR. SANFORD-I think you’re right, Mark. We’re just doing the SEQRA and we’re going to advise the Town regarding a recommendation for rezoning. That’s it. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I thought. MR. VOLLARO-Hold on just a second. Let me take a look at what Staff notes has to say about that. MR. SCHACHNER-My understanding was the same as Mr. Sanford’s, that your role tonight would be. MR. VOLLARO-It says in Staff notes the direction is, and let me just read those, for the record. It says accept SEQRA Lead Agency status, and perform the SEQRA review on both the proposed rezoning and the proposed subdivision. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct, and the second role you do, and underneath that, it says, and issue findings and recommendation to the Town Board relative to the Petition For Rezoning. That’s exactly what Mr. Sanford said. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’re accepting Lead Agency status. MR. SCHACHNER-What you said, Bob, if I understood you correctly, you said something about also doing Preliminary subdivision review, and you’re not there yet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess what I’m looking at is, when we get into the Subdivision review, if there’s going to be changes in what we’re talking about now, because Mr. Round is talking about perhaps having to go through mitigation because of the Corps requirements, which in my mind there could be some impact on our SEQRA analysis. In that stage, can we re-visit the SEQRA based on what we see at a later date? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. In fact, if there are material changes that impact your SEQRA review, you’re obligated to re-visit your SEQRA review. MR. LAPPER-Mark’s right. With that said, we did submit the mitigation as part of the site plan. So that’s all on there, and to show that there’s room for it if we have to do it. MR. ROUND-Generally, if we hadn’t planned for it, Mr. Vollaro, and we had to come back and say, now we have to come back and plan for mitigation. We’ve got to remove a unit or we’ve got to redesign a unit, we’ve taken that into consideration. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s part of this submission. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I’m saying only if there are material changes at that time, which is I thought what you asked. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You’re correct. You interpreted my remarks correctly, Counsel. MR. ROUND-I think that’s basically the sum and substance of the project, and the big issues. MR. LAPPER-We also have the design of the front façade. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, while you’re up there, would you give me just a little bit of ingress/egress there. MR. ROUND-Sure. This is Bay Road. This is the Hanneford entrance that’s located north of us. This is the proposed drive entrance for the project. It’s shown as a boulevard entrance at this point, I think just for aesthetic purposes largely. You can see this is Cost Control Associates directly to our south. There are two residences that are going to be demolished on the site. Homer Avenue, these homes that adjoin us to the south front on Homer Avenue. So there was a question from the Town Engineer whether this was the optimal location. What we tried to do is place this drive entrance between this higher volume commercial entrance and the street. If we shift it one way or another, we’re going to, you know, we think this is the best location. It splits the difference between those two locations. There are some drives opposing this, and frankly they’re poorly managed by the County. There’s not a lot of curb cuts. We expect that, as a part of the County projects and improvements to the bike trail safety issues that they’ve raised over the years, that you’re going to see improvements to the curbing along that area. This is a similar project. Amedore Homes, this is Dave Gordon, who’s a partner in the project. Amedore Homes is a large builder. They build a lot of different projects in the Capital District, and this is a project that they’ve selected the model from and that they’ve had some success with, and so these are the building footprints, second story, and a front elevation. Garages for each of the entrances. Staff asked about parking. We were in front of the Town Board. The Town Board asked for overflow parking, so we added some additional parking. That’s not a requirement, and we’re sure that can be addressed during the plan review process. MR. HUNSINGER-I saw those comments and I thought you were right on line, to be honest. I think one and a half spaces is too few for multi-family residential. MRS. STEFFAN-I do, too. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. MR. LAPPER-Better too many, in this case, than two few. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You don’t want people parking out on Bay Road. MR. LAPPER-Right. Hanneford and walking. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-And they would. MR. HUNSINGER-They would. Yes. MR. ROUND-So we actually provide in excess of two per unit at this point, at the current concept design, but that can be massaged during the review process. MR. LAPPER-During the Planning Board process. MR. ROUND-I don’t know if there’s any other questions. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. I think some of the moves are up to us at this point, unless there’s any comments by Board members. MR. SANFORD-The only comment I have, I mean, I guess I think I understand it. If we get through SEQRA tonight, and then we’re looking at this project later on, we’ve kind of locked into the 44 unit, unless there’s a material environmental reason not to. In other words, we’re not looking at this quite as conceptually minded as I’d feel comfortable with. They’re making a case for 44 units, as I understand it, and there has to be a pretty compelling reason to maybe, down the road, want less density. Am I correct on that one, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I guess so. You’re using some, and I’m not criticizing you for this. You’re using some gray terms, I’m going to say, as opposed to black/white. I mean, you’re looking at two things tonight, I think. The potential environmental impacts, not just of the rezoning but of the entire project, as proposed, and you’re making a recommendation, correct, on the rezoning to the Town Board, and you’re still subject to, or the project, I should say, is still subject to your site specific, for lack of a better term, if the Town Board does what the applicant wants them to do down the road. When you get to that site specific review, you can apply the criteria that are in your governing regulations, and if there are criteria in those governing regulations that you, as a Board, feel are not met at the current level of intensity of the proposal, you have the right to deny the project as proposed. You have the right to approve it subject to conditions. You have the right to ask the applicant to scale it back and the like. Having said all those things, the tension that you might be getting at, Rich, but I’m not sure, that is something to be careful of it, if you conduct your SEQRA review tonight, or whenever you conduct your SEQRA review, and if you reach the conclusion that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts, as the project is currently proposed, and therefore issue a SEQRA negative declaration, you would then be hard-pressed, at your site specific review stage, if the project has not undergone any material changes, to now say, there are problems environmentally because you will have already issued a SEQRA negative declaration. Am I being responsive to your question? MR. SANFORD-Very much so, but let me be more specific, so there’s no gray area here. Let’s say, after public hearing, and we certainly want to hear what the public has to say, we’re kind of comfortable with what they have in mind, but we really haven’t gotten into it in enough detail to determine whether or not 44’s the right number, maybe 40, or something along those lines. Are we hurting our ability, or are we infringing upon our ability, if we go through the SEQRA and give them a neg dec, to later, when it comes to Subdivision or what have you, to bring up issues like this, or have we kind of, in a way, given an endorsement for the 44? MR. SCHACHNER-To a limited extent you will have given an endorsement for the 44, and the limited extent is this. You will have, if this is how it plays out, reached a determination that the proposed 44 unit project will not have significant, as currently proposed, will not have significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, down the road, if the project has not undergone material changes, you will be hard-pressed to seek reduction in density for environmental impact reasons. However, if there are reasons relating to your other criteria, in your regulations, that would lend themselves to seeking density reductions, you would not have curtailed your ability to do that. MR. SANFORD-All right. That’s fine. You’ve clarified my question for me. Thank you. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that may help, Richard, we don’t have C.T. Male review of this yet, either. MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So we don’t have that independent engineering review. MR. SANFORD-No. I’m not passing judgment one way or the other. I’m just wondering to what degree are we giving a green light. When we typically look at rezonings, we have to look at any possible use, and that’s why we commonly get into the situation where we really like to see a used trailer sales outfit, maybe not. So we have to look at it pretty hard. Here they’re presenting us with a pretty specific type of a program, and I think what I’m kind of hearing is we better pretty well consider that 44 units as we contemplate environmental impacts, because once we say, hey, there’s not a problem, it’s going to be pretty difficult to say, you know, we’d kind of like 38 units or 36 units. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no question in my mind, Mr. Sanford, that the 44 units are a driver in this whole application. A shift in the 44 units will shift everything in terms of the supporting data. So if we’ve got a problem with the 44 units, I think we’d have to get that out here. MR. SANFORD-That was the reason why I brought it up. I didn’t want everybody to think, okay, what we’re doing is we’re kind of thinking we’re okay with this, and we’re willing to give a recommendation for a rezone to MR-5, but we haven’t settled in on the 44. I think what I’m trying to say is we better feel pretty damn comfortable up to 44 before we give any real solid recommendations. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and that’s a fact, because the 44 is the driver. There’s no question about that in my mind. MR. SANFORD-All right, fine. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing that I would see on the 44 units that I would have a question with, I would like to see our support engineering talk a little bit more to the traffic study, just to see what they have to say. I haven’t heard from them yet on that. We probably won’t hear from them on that until we get into the Preliminary Stage, I don’t believe. Do we have an engineering comment on this traffic at this point may I ask? MR. HOUSTON-I did look at the report and had a couple of comments about it that Chris addressed our concern. An overall statement I would say about the report, I would seek more information on is the traffic impact, that the traffic study was done to analyze the Bay Road/Quaker Road intersection, and that does not appear to address the Level of Service and I wholeheartedly concur with that assessment. I think it’s a greater concern what’s happening right out, on the entrance right out onto Bay Road, with the entrance in that Hannaford, any of the curb cuts across the street and the actual maneuvers right in that area, I just came through that on the way up here to the evening, and it’s a tight area. There’s no doubt. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I go through it all the time, maneuver around that thing. It’s a test. MR. HOUSTON-I don’t know if traffic counts in their own is the right way to fully address that, potentially stacking patterns and maybe that’s, you know, you need more information in that regard would be helpful, as far as, does it stack back from that Hannaford so as to even preclude an exit from this site. Those kind of issues are more (lost word). MR. LAPPER-I guess, we don’t disagree with that at all, but I guess our answer, procedurally, it’s a question of how far do you go in designing this to get through SEQRA because we don’t know if we have a rezoning. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-This gets back to the question of when we get to that, the subdivision. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and I think that you still have the right, during site plan review, let’s say the left turn, there’s a center median, there’s additional land within, that the County has there, outside of the drive lanes, and if the center median had to be extended farther south, which was something that was going to be required of the Nigro project, the land exists to do that, if there have to be dedicated left turn lanes on both sides, and that’s something that we would look at as a site plan issue. I mean, certainly traffic is a SEQRA issue as well, and we’re saying that, in sort of a macro sense, partly that this is a lot less impact, obviously, than commercial, but also that the level of service wouldn’t drop based upon Chris’ firm’s analysis. We understand that there may be additional changes that have to be made, both required by this Board and by the County. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. MR. ROUND-Jim did see the plan, and the traffic analysis report. Jim generated a letter. We responded to that letter to the Town, and two comments were, one, what was the traffic, what was the source of the traffic data. I think we responded to that tonight. The second was, as Jim expressed his concern again tonight, what about the placement of our driveway with respect to the driveways opposing, on the opposite side of the road, and, you know, to add to John’s comments is that we don’t control those curb cuts. So we have little influence over how those curb cuts might be located. We have placed our driveway at what we think are reasonable distances offset from the Hannaford driveway and offset from the Homer Avenue. So we think that’s the ideal location. Our traffic analysis, we did look at queuing at the Bay Road intersection. Vehicles do not back up and block our entrance. They’re quite some distance away. The intersection is actually 600 feet to the north. So there’s significant queuing capacity at the Bay Road intersection, so that does not block our intersection. So I just want to make sure you’re clear on those issues. MR. LAPPER-Also, in response to Mr. Sanford, the design that we have of this site is not set in stone. I mean, during subdivision/site plan review, there may be some changes to the site design, but we’re trying to show, conceptually, how we can fit 44 units and we know that we have to undergo detailed review by the Planning Board, after we get through the zoning. MR. SANFORD-I appreciate it. Chris, just a follow-up. While you might not have a queuing problem in terms of getting out of the proposed apartment complex, with the people who are leaving the CVS, the Hollywood Plaza, who want to proceed to Quaker Road, due to the increased traffic, run into a wall of cars at that point, which is further, I think, north. MR. ROUND-Further north, and I don’t know the answer to that, but I guess the answer is they have a traffic light at the Quaker Road entrance which provides them with a controlled ingress and egress to Quaker Road. So they have an alternative. Hannaford was asked to share access with the CVS project on the corner, denied Town shared access. MR. SANFORD-I understand, but that’s the reality that we’re dealing with. MR. ROUND-No, but I’m just trying to throw all those ideas out there. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. ROUND-We’re at 40 vehicles during the peak hour period. Our traffic, like I said, it’s 10% of what the Nigro project was and it’s very miniscule compared to what Hannaford generates. So we think there’s adequate gaps. MR. SANFORD-Well, sometimes when I leave that Plaza and I want to go to Quaker Road, I don’t have a problem looking up Bay, either direction, but I find myself having a problem cutting in because there’s cars queued in, not all the way up to where you’re talking about, but queued to the point that’s past that area. Okay. I just wanted to raise that as an issue. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. ROUND-That’s a good point. MR. SANFORD-One question, could I ask who you are. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. I’m Susan Barden. I’m the new Land Use Planner, and I wrote these Staff notes for you. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So you’re kind of, because this is your project. Okay. Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Chris, one of the things I’d want to mention is, with the traffic plan, when you come back next time for Final, the peak hours you’ve got four to six. My opinion on that is that three o’clock is really a better, three to six, is a better peak hour look, because we still have a mill shift, you know, a multi-mill shift operation. You’ve got Finch. You’ve got the Hospital. You’ve got CR Bard and Boston Scientific who are all on shift rotation. So at three o’clock a lot of those facilities get out, and then they load those intersections. MR. ROUND-Bard being right there, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So that would be a better look. MR. ROUND-It’s a good thing to look, we’ll look at it. Generally they’re determined by the actually (lost word) counts that are out there. So it’s not something that we determine. It’s something that the data tells us what the peak hour is. So we’ll double check that. MRS. STEFFAN-But I think that, you know, that would be a good, certainly a good selling point when you look at features. MR. VOLLARO-With that, I think we’re ready for public comment, if you could give up your seat for a minute, and I would ask any members of the public who might want to comment on this application to come forward. MR. SCHACHNER-And Staff wants it to be clearly pointed out to the Board, and especially to the public, that the public comment you’re soliciting now would only be the SEQRA review and zone change recommendation. That there would still be a public hearing, in the future, on proposed subdivision, if the application continues. MR. VOLLARO-I understand, and with that, we would solicit input. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TERRY WHITE MRS. WHITE-So I guess I’m maybe not 100% clear on what I’m allowed to comment on this evening. MR. VOLLARO-You’re allowed to comment on anything that you want to, from that seat, but would you state your name? MRS. WHITE-My name’s Terry White, and I live on Homer Avenue, which is behind the proposed development, and I realize that this is a wonderful alternative to having a huge store or other large commercial venture on that piece of land, and, you know, I realize that a number of people did sign the petition in favor of the project, but a number of us did not, and I think it’s because we had some questions and concerns, even though I wasn’t able to talk to everyone on the street, it’s kind of hard to do that, and I have some concerns about the traffic, not that this project would contribute an extreme number of cars to the already existing traffic pattern, but 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) what was just discussed by Mr. Sanford and a couple of other members of the other cars coming out of the CVS Plaza and the Hannaford Plaza, during peak traffic times, it does tend to get kind of jammed up, especially if you are going north on Bay Road and you wanted to get into the left hand turn lane to go on to Quaker, and I’ve seen some pretty dangerous situations there from time to time. So there’s a little concern about that. It’s also very difficult to make a left hand turn off of our street to go south on Bay. There are certain times of the day when you simply cannot get out, and sometimes even turning north, or turning right onto Bay to go north, it becomes difficult. So I just wanted to say that. Also, those of us who live on Homer Avenue and would be looking at the back side of the development, I think we’re not 100% sure what we’re going to be looking at. Right now obviously it’s wonderful to look over there and see nothing but trees, and I guess I’m not quite clear as to what we’re going to be seeing instead. Even though I can see some of the design here, I guess from where we are, I’m not really clear on what we’re going to be looking at. So I had a question about that. MR. VOLLARO-May I ask a question? Where did the petition come from? MRS. WHITE-I did not speak to the gentleman who came around. My husband did. The gentleman who came around with the petition, his name was Bob Sears, and I’m not 100% clear on who he was representing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. He’s a real estate person, as far as I know. MRS. WHITE-He was seeking signatures on a petition in favor of the proposal, and I did not speak to him. MR. VOLLARO-I was just wondering how this petition got generated and who was carrying it around, because sometimes that has an impact on at least my thinking as to whether the person putting the petition together is biased in any way or not, but that’s neither here nor there on this one anyway. So your concerns are basically view shed from where you live, on how you view this community. That’s one thing. MRS WHITE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And the traffic impact that you described is the other. I think the applicant will come up and will discuss what you just had to say. MRS. WHITE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome. Anybody else? KATHY SONNABEND MRS. SONNABEND-Kathy Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. I just briefly want to say I support what Richard Sanford had to say about the concern about locking in to 44 units. I don’t know enough, from the legal standpoint, to understand all the ins and outs, but I think too many times we see developers come through in piecemeal, over a long period of time, and they have a tendency to say, well, you told us this was okay before. So I would appreciate it if the Planning Board took a very close look to make sure that 44 was not too much for this particular parcel. MR. VOLLARO-I would ask, the Staff would probably have done a density analysis on this to see whether 44 fits or not. In the MR-5 zone, I’ve done the calculation, and 44 does fit in the MR-5 zone. MRS. SONNABEND-And given the wetlands there, too, that’s not too much for that particular piece of property, and given the wetlands there, too, that’s not too much for that particular piece of property. MRS. STEFFAN-Not according to Staff notes. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-I took some of the wetlands out, but I didn’t do a good enough analysis. I would suspect that Staff has done that analysis to pull out the wetlands that are involved and so on. MRS. SONNABEND-So there’s adequate parking, as well as enough room for the wetlands to be able to put 44 units on there? MRS. BARDEN-I did the density calculation for a number of different zones, and I took the total acreage, and subtracted out the wetlands, the wetland area, to figure out the density. MRS. SONNABEND-So to MR-5, you could have 44 units? MRS. BARDEN-MR-5 you could have, maximum would be 51. MR. VOLLARO-That’s about what I got, 50, but that’s okay. That’s pretty close. MRS. SONNABEND-Okay. Thank you. MR. SANFORD-You know, Bob, I don’t know where you see us going tonight, in terms of, you see, if we really take any kind of an action, we’ve really made somewhat of a commitment. If we give a recommendation on zoning, we’ve committed, and of course if we actually conduct SEQRA we’ve made a strong commitment. I have no problems with us being lead agency on SEQRA, but I certainly would like to have more time and more analysis on traffic, before making that determination, and I’m not sure where I feel, in terms of giving the recommendation on the zone change, but I’m just wondering, I don’t know where the rest of the Board sits in terms of what you hope to accomplish and what we hope to accomplish tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s only two things we’re supposed to accomplish tonight, you know, and that’s to accept the Lead Agency status, which we asked for. MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s a no-brainer. MR. VOLLARO-And perform the SEQRA review on both the proposed rezoning and the proposed subdivision. So what you’re saying is you’re not comfortable doing that yet. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I’m sorry to interrupt. Those are not the two things you’re asked to do. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, I read it right off what it stated here. MR. SCHACHNER-Look right underneath. MR. VOLLARO-Issue findings and recommendation to the Town Board relative to the Petition for Rezoning. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Those are the two. The two are, Item One, which you just called two of them, and Item Two. Those are the two things you’ve been asked to do tonight. You don’t have to do it, but those are the two things you’ve been asked. MR. SANFORD-Right. What I’m saying is, you know, I have no problems with us eventually doing these things. The question I have is are we prepared to do them tonight? And the issue I have here is spending more time on the queuing and the traffic and things of this nature. Now I don’t know what more we can hope to get out of this, because of what I said previously, and I think everybody kind of understands, is we’re relying on the applicant’s traffic study and etc., etc. I’m not going to repeat that, but I know, personally, because I spent a lot of time going in and out of both the CVS/Hollywood Plaza as well as Hannaford, and I know that at times it’s difficult to get across that lane heading north on Bay, not because of traffic, but because of 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) queuing line, and then you add in 44 units and two cars per unit. You’ve got 88 additional vehicles going in and out of there. Is there going to be a situation where you really can’t seriously consider Bay Road and you have to resort to the light on Quaker, in order to move around, and that’s a personal issue I have. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I think what we need there, if we go down that route, is that C.T. Male has to complete their analysis on the traffic and give us a report on, up or down, on whether they agree with it or not. MR. SANFORD-And I don’t disagree with that, but I think what I’m trying to say, that if we move forward, with giving decisions, we’ve prejudiced our case to later go back and say, hey, we’re not comfortable with it. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s right, but I think we have to listen to public comment now, and have this debate afterwards. MR. SANFORD-Fine. That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we. JOE KONCIKOWSKI MR. KONCIKOWSKI-I’m Joe Koncikowski. I’m one of the owners of Hughes Insurance Agency, and we’re on the corner of this property. The main reason I came here this evening was I was concerned with the 44 units, that the Planning Board would look at this and determine whether that was the right number or not. I’m not opposed to development of anyone for any purposes, but I think it has to be done tastefully. So I was concerned with the 44 units. I did my math on this, and I said you could conceivably have two automobiles per unit, which brings you to 88, and I think the point was brought up that it could push some parking out into the streets, and I think that has to be carefully looked at and considered. So I was happy with your discussion in regard to that. As far as the traffic relocation on this, I think what one of my disappointments, is, of course I’ve been interested in this property, and I kind of have put feelers out as to what I thought the value of this property was, and I was kind of chuckled at because it’s worth a lot more, and so I get the sense we’re trying to make more of this property than it really should be, and I think we should keep that in mind at some point, not to over utilize or try to over utilize a property that really isn’t designed for that. The second item is if we, if this is changed from a residential or to a residential from a light commercial, you’re moving your services out of a service industry. Okay. So you’re going to have traffic effects into a now residential area. As an example, if my office decides that I’m too big for my present location, I’m going to open a second location, or a satellite maybe on Bay Road, maybe on Meadow Road, okay, and that’s driving me into more of a residential area, and I think you need to consider this. I think the infrastructure has been put there for Bay and Quaker Road, to handle these problems, and what we may be doing is inadvertently shifting some of these traffic patterns to residential areas, and I’d like to caution against that, and you can see some of the offices that come in that are converted from residentials, and I don’t think that we want to go that direction, and those are my two comments. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Would anyone else like to comment on this application? LARRY WHITE MR. WHITE-I’m Larry White and I live on Homer Avenue. The only thing I can see is most of the houses on Homer Avenue have sump pumps in their cellars, if they have cellars, and they run quite a bit of the time, and if you put this big unit in there and start pushing that water that way, is it going to be so much that the sump pumps won’t, they’re going to have flooded basements constantly? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-That’s always a concern with an area that’s as wet as that. We had that same kind of concern when we looked at the supermarket, the application. MR. WHITE-Because the water’s got to go somewhere. MR. VOLLARO-Can I ask the Staff a question here? Has C.T. Male also been looking at the whole stormwater issue on this site? MR. HOUSTON-I’ve looked at it, I would say briefly, at a conceptual level, as far as their treatment, proposed treatment and method of treatment, and all that seems to be on par with the Phase II Regulations. It’s overall impact on the adjoining watershed, I haven’t studied that or looked at any calculations for that. They have a continuation of those drainage patterns through the site, with what they’re proposing. So it seems to be a step in the direction of their trying to address that, but there’s not enough detail to confirm or not, whether. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m going to let you continue, but we’ll have the applicant answer that question, but I just wanted to see whether we had any input from the engineering. So you’re basically concerned about moving water from one place to another. MR. WHITE-Right, if it’s going to, because you’ve got this whole big spot, now, it’s not going to have grass, and that water’s going to go one side or the other. If it comes this way, with sump pumps running now, you may have flooded basements continuously and you may not. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the applicant has said that they’ve done some considerable test pits there and have determined the level of groundwater. We’ll talk to them when they come back up about that. If there’s a concern, we’ll get to it. Thank you very much. MR. WHITE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else? MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, we have one written public comment that we received today. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MRS. BARDEN-This is from Tammy Sullivan, at 18 Homer Avenue. “Dear Planning Board Members: In connection with the above referenced matter, I would like to express my concerns in writing as I am unable to attend tonight’s planning board meeting. According to the Planning Board Agenda on the Town’s website, it states that the above referenced project is seeking a Petition of Change of Zone from Highway Commercial (“HC-INT”) to Professional Offices (“PO”). This concerns me. I have had several visits to my house from representatives of the project trying to convince me that this housing development will be “upscale owner occupied condominiums”. The Summary of Allowed Uses on the Queensbury Town websites states that PO zoning as well as Multi Family Residential (“MR-5”) zoning allows for a variety of development such as a Nursery, Day Care Center, Cemetery, Health Related Facility, Professional Offices, School etc. With this type of zoning how can we residents be absolutely certain that nothing else will be proposed for that site if the zoning would allow for a magnitude of multiple uses? The zoning should be limited just to the use of “owner occupied condominiums” since that is what is being proposed to the surrounding residents. The applicant, if it were true to living with its representation, should seek to zone this development as a PUD so that the Town and Homer Avenue resident, in particular, could be rest assured that the Petitioner would use the property and only use the property in the manner they have indicated, as an owner occupied condominium development. I have several other concerns regarding this project which I will take up with the planning/zoning board at the appropriate time such as lighting, existing trees and adding more buffer trees, traffic and water issues. I have a small stream/brook that runs through my back yard that already has flooding issues and 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) would like to know what impact this project will have with this brook and flooding and how that would be addressed. Very truly yours, Tammy J. Sullivan” MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, and with that, is there anybody else that wants to address this application? If nobody else, I will close the public hearing and have the applicant come forward again. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-I have, for the record, a petition to submit, Bob Sears is a well known commercial realtor in Town and he went and knocked on everybody’s door to get their feelings and he has a petition that reads as follows. “The undersigned neighbors are hereby signing this petition in support of the rezoning request by George Amedore, Amedore Homes, with respect to the property located on the east side of Bay Road between Homer Avenue and Quaker Road, Tax Map No. 302.8-1-13, 14. We are aware that the applicant is proposing to construct a single family condominium project which would include approximately 44 units. We believe that this proposed use is far less intensive than the uses permitted in the Highway Commercial zone. We also believe that the proposed use will generate far less traffic than would a commercial project and as a result, we are in support of this use.” And the addresses of the people who signed are 7 Homer Ave., 10 Homer Ave., 298 Bay Road, 302 Bay Road, 310 Bay Road, 14 Homer Ave., and what looks like 1 Homer Ave., and I will submit it to the Chairman, and I guess just to start out I’d say that we probably, or many of us remember how controversial the commercial project was, when the room was filled up with people from the immediate neighborhood and adjacent neighborhoods, and I think just the fact that there were five people who came and one letter is a really good sign, in terms of the controversy. Obviously, we’re trying to make the point that this is a lot less dense and less traffic than the commercial use, and people have the right to say, you know, are you handling the traffic right. I’ll let Chris respond, in terms of the stormwater issues, and that’s something that, you know, obviously we haven’t gone through all the engineering, but we understand that for site plan review we have to do that, and Chris has shown, or will show that what he’s submitted deals with the stormwater. MR. VOLLARO-This is one of the problems, excuse me for interrupting, but this is one of the problems the Board is wrestling with now is just how much do we, in effect, agree to by doing the SEQRA, and how much recourse do we have after the SEQRA is done, to environmental issues that may surface at that point? I think Counsel has told me enough about that that I can. MR. LAPPER-I think what Counsel said also is that these issues are also site plan issues. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Normally the applicant will say, and I’ve been there, the applicant will say, but you already approved us under SEQRA. So how, now, can you bring forward this position? So it’s a tough one to be in. MR. ROUND-It is difficult, Bob. The issue that you have, though, with SEQRA is you need a project to illustrate what the potential impacts are. You need to put your hands around something, and so what we did is we proposed a project so you could get your hands around it. The current zoning, Highway Commercial, would allow a larger project that you might not be able to wrap your hands around tonight. Forty-four residential units compared to what could occur under the Highway Commercial zone. If you recall, six years ago, a neg dec was issued for this large, 65,000 square foot project. We’re looking at, during the peak period, 29 vehicles in the AM, entering and exiting, and 34 vehicles in the PM entering and exiting. Those are quite, you know, a small number compared to 337 for that project a couple of years ago. That’s not to downplay those issues, but I just, I need to be able to illustrate it for you, so you can get your hands around it. Left hand turns, in the AM, 13 moving out and 9 in the PM. So we’re not talking fast food here, where you were going to have substantial traffic impacts, which is a permitted use under the Highway Commercial zone. The other issue, residential uses do not have the same time of peaks that commercial uses have. A couple of people talked about, well, there’s 88 vehicles, there’s 100 parking spaces. People do not exit en masse in residential uses. They do exit during AM and PM peaks during the work day generally around the work day. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) We think the demographic for this project is probably going to be an older individual, 55 plus. They did a similar project where 75% or 80% of their residents are over 55. So just to, you know, to get your hands around it. In regards to stormwater, the site is going to be positively graded from south to north. So the grading will not change or interrupt stormwater flow. There is currently a culvert across some private properties to the south, and it’s on your site plan, under existing conditions as well as proposed conditions. There’s a culvert that captures stormwater flow that’s in existing here on the Cost Control site that continues onto our property and it daylights, it surface discharges, to this wetland area that’s right here. What we propose to do is collect that, route it and discharge it to the wetland. So we’re going to maintain the existing drainage pattern from that standpoint. Our stormwater management plan, by law, does not allow us to discharge stormwater onto an adjoining property, inconsistent with pre- development conditions. So the State requires that. The locality requires that. You folks require that. In regards to flooding, there has been a historical flooding problem in this area. There’s one on further on up Webster and a couple of the other streets that connect between it. That’s seasonal high groundwater condition, and we’re going to continue to have that. We don’t think we’re going to aggravate that because we will fully engineer our stormwater management system. MR. VOLLARO-Will there be any basements located or are these finished floors down at? MR. ROUND-We’re proposing slab construction. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Jim, what work has C.T. Male done on the traffic study, if any at this point? MR. HOUSTON-So far I’ve only reviewed the report that’s been submitted, but outside of that, definitely no traffic counts or anything like that. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, what I would recommend, and again, I don’t want to leave the false impression that I’m not favorably inclined towards this application. That’s not the case, but I think it would be prudent tonight, you know, we’ve been talking, it’s 9:30, we’re on our third application, and I’m not trying to push it along, is that we merely accept Lead Agency status tonight. That we ask our engineer to do a comprehensive review of the traffic patterns and study, in particular to the queue issues associated with cars lining up to the intersection of Bay and Quaker. We table this and at a future date, after our engineer has come back with any, after they do a comprehensive review based on not only traffic but whatever else we may want, we then digest all of this, and then we move forward on the recommendation for rezone, and SEQRA, only because we’re going to be, in the course of SEQRA, having to address questions where we don’t definitively have the answers right now, and I can’t see why there’s a need, necessarily, to rush to judgment on this at this particular point in time. I think we could tell the Town Board, yes, we’re happy to accept Lead Agency and leave it at that at this point in time, and then come up with things that we need to have further reviewed by our engineer. MR. VOLLARO-Specifically the traffic. Is this what you’re really looking at? MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, I think so. I mean, again, I just want to make sure. I think Chris did a very nice job just now in logically laying out where there won’t be problems, but I don’t know why we should be anything less than absolutely certain. I mean, that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me just ask, start off with Tony. Tony, you’ve heard Mr. Sanford’s position. How do you feel about this? MR. METIVIER-Actually, it’s not a bad idea. Of course, we could include that in part of the site plan review as opposed to, you know, doing it tonight. I think that, you know, if we go ahead with the suggestion or the recommendation for MR-5, I don’t think we’re doing much damage to ourselves. We’re not recommending anything. We’re not saying go ahead with 44 units. We’re just saying, yes, this is good. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SANFORD-I think, Tony, I appreciate what you’re saying. I think we are. I mean, I think if we go ahead and recommend the rezoning to MR-5, and then if, and it may not even be a high probability, but if the traffic study comes in and it’s problematic, we’re going to have a real uphill climb to reduce density. We really are, and I think that’s the reason why I said let’s not rush to it until we’re absolutely sure, because once we go ahead and recommend the rezone change, we really are sealing that. MR. METIVIER-But you have to realize that we’re recommending a zone change that’s less intensive than what’s there now. So what if they come back, next week, and say, hey, you know what, we’re going to put a McDonald’s or another Dunkin Donuts or something like that. MR. SANFORD-No, I appreciate that, but obviously the probability of that happening isn’t too likely. They know what they want to do with this. I just want to make sure it’s the right use for the property, and again, I’m not, I’m favorably inclined to this. I just don’t know why, until we’ve had that traffic study looked at by our engineer in a comprehensive, knowing what some of our concerns are, why should we take a leap of faith when I don’t see the real compelling reason to do it. I don’t know what’s lost by waiting for that. MR. METIVIER-I guess my only point was we’ve lost an hour and a half of time on this, and, you know, they’re going to come back and everybody else is going to come back. MR. SANFORD-The Town has to live with this, too, though, Tony. MR. METIVIER-Well, we have to live with it every week. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got to do the right thing, Tony. MR. METIVIER-I understand, but I think that, if you think about it, what harm are we doing? I mean, you’re looking at 44 units, 88 cars, versus what could be potentially a lot more. MR. SANFORD-You, potentially, could be bottlenecking the exit and entrance to both the Hannaford shopping plaza and/or the CVS/Hollywood Plaza in a rather material way, and altering traffic patterns to overburden the Quaker Road exit and entrance to those plazas, rather than the Bay Road. That’s my concern. MR. METIVIER-But my point is that we’re not doing site plan review tonight, and the use that they’re suggesting is less intensive than what’s there right now. MR. SANFORD-Than Highway Commercial, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Can I ask a question of Counsel? Is there any reason, or can we do a SEQRA and change the language of this. Instead of developing a 44 unit residential subdivision/condominium, can we do a SEQRA based on developing a multi-unit residential subdivision condominium community and not mention the 44? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the problem with that is two-fold. The whole basis for the agreement between the Town Board and the Planning Board to have the Planning Board serve as SEQRA Lead Agency for certain rezoning requests, is when the rezoning requests are accompanied by a specific project that will be subject to Planning Board review, that’s the nature of the agreement is that that’s when the Planning Board will serve as SEQRA Lead Agency. When applicants come, merely seeking rezoning, without a specifically defined project, you still weigh in with an advisory, non-binding recommendation on the rezoning, but you’re not the SEQRA Lead Agency. So I guess I’d be concerned about creating a ping pong ball situation, batting the applicant back and forth. I think if you do that, you may have a problem with the whole Lead Agency agreement with the Town Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SEGULJIC-What if we go through SEQRA and say traffic is an issue, because that seems to be the only issue that we have, then they come back with further information. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s two issues, I think. There’s the traffic issue, certainly, and a clarification by engineering on stormwater. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, a lot of that comes out in site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s site plan. MR. SANFORD-Well, if we pass the SEQRA, we basically have to give a neg dec on it being a materially adverse impact, both on stormwater and traffic, or else you can’t pass SEQRA. So really the SEQRA, getting through the SEQRA, is of paramount importance, and we’ve got the expert on SEQRA here. I don’t see him jumping in disagreeing with me on that. We need to be comfortable on those things. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think anyone’s trying to minimize the importance of SEQRA. I think it’s a question of whether or not, I mean, the only thing that you have really mentioned as being uncomfortable for you, Richard, is the traffic study. MR. SANFORD-I’m not even uncomfortable with that. I just don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-I think what he’s saying is he wants a little more in-depth analysis. MR. SANFORD-I just want to have our engineer come back and say, you know, we’ve done some work on it. Maybe this will give you a better level of comfort, and here’s what we’ve done. We’ve looked at this and we don’t feel there’s a problem. We’ve looked at this and we don’t feel there’s a problem. No, C.T. Male has not. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that. MR. SANFORD-No, I thought Tony said they had. MR. ROUND-Yes, we did submit it to C.T. Male and Jim issued a comment letter. I think that, you know, if you give us additional information if you want. It sounds like you’re asking us to look at what would be the impact on an opposing driveway and would that driveway be blocked as a result of our traffic generation being contributed to Bay Road. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m talking about, I think I’ve beaten this to death. I’m talking about cars entering and leaving the plaza as well as Hannaford onto Bay, crossing over. MR. ROUND-Making a left. MR. SANFORD-A left out of those places, finding that they can’t really negotiation the left hand turn for any number of reasons, but particularly because the queue line has built up, and they can’t go in, and also they’ll run into a wall of cars. I mean, these are the types of issues that, I already experience that now quite often without this. When I want to, you know. MR. ROUND-For us to come back with an answer, we need to know what it is you’re looking at. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m asking for C.T. Male to take a look at it. That’s what I would like. Again, we’ve already had an informal discussion as to the applicant’s opinion on this, and I think your feeling is that there’s not an impact, but I’d like to have C.T. Male look at it and say, you know, there’s not a problem here. I feel comfortable, but they haven’t done that yet. Jim said he’s just, he’s looked at it, and I don’t think he’s willing to make a representation that there isn’t a potential problem. Is that a correct statement? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-Now, if that’s a correct statement, I can’t answer those questions on SEQRA in a way in which I can say I’m comfortable in giving a neg dec. I just don’t have the answer to that. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s 35 trips an hour. That’s one car every two minutes. MR. SANFORD-That’s a representation. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we’re talking about here. MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know what we’re talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what’s in the traffic study. Thirty-five trips in the peak PM hour. Two cars, a car every two minutes. MR. VOLLARO-Look, let’s not debate that any further. I think we’ve beat it to death. Let me ask, go up and down the Board and find out whether we want to continue tonight or do we want the applicant to come back or do we want our engineering consultant to take a look at this and give us a more definitive answer on traffic. MRS. BARDEN-If it makes it any easier, you need more information on stormwater management. We’ve noticed a DEC AA Stream on the southeast corner. It’s indicated on your map that we’ve given to you tonight. So they need to provide that information, if that will make it easier for you to table on those two counts. MR. SCHACHNER-One procedural legal point that I’m confused about. I had understood, I think, Rich to be not asking the applicant to come back with additional traffic information, but to be asking our consulting engineer to look at the traffic data and information, and now I’m hearing, I heard the applicant, Mr. Round, actually, I think was under the impression that you were asking the applicant to gain. MR. ROUND-I just want to make sure we know who has to come back with what in order for us to progress. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and that’s where I’m heading with this, but I also want to make a procedural, legal point. Obviously it’s up to you who you’re asking, and the applicant’s certainly entitled to know that, but if you ask the applicant to be producing additional information, then Staff and I are not so comfortable with the notion that you’ve closed the public hearing, because if the applicant’s going to be bringing additional information to the table, then the public has a right to comment on it. So, we don’t care, I don’t think, Staff and Counsel, whether you’re asking for additional information from the applicant or from Staff, but if you ask it of the applicant, then I think we’re going to recommend that you not, that you re- open the public hearing and leave it open pending receipt of that additional information. Does that make sense? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense to me. What I would probably ask here, and I think if we’re going to go, if we’re going to even do this, because I want to poll this Board and see whether the Board wants to go forward with Richard’s recommendation or not. So, Tom, I’ve got to ask you. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a question. What if during SEQRA, we get to traffic, and we say small to moderate, and it would be mitigated through actions. Couldn’t one of those actions be reduce density at the site, and that this is a back door into that? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-You mean reduce density from the 44 units? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. I don’t think that a small to moderate is going to affect the density, in other words, our ability to affect the density. I don’t believe. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t understand what you’re asking. I’m sorry. MR. SEGULJLIC-Well, if we’re doing SEQRA, we come to one of the impacts meaning traffic, Rich’s concern. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, you identify a potential traffic impact which you characterize under the current plan as small to moderate, and then you do or do not issue a negative declaration. MR. SEGULJIC-We issue a negative declaration. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Say it’s small to moderate and some type of mitigation may be required. MR. SCHACHNER-Generally not. The mitigation is generally for potentially large. MR. VOLLARO-Right, exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then let’s go with potentially large. Does that mean we can’t give a negative dec? MR. SANFORD-We can’t give a neg then. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-No, that’s not true. I’m not sure why you’re saying that. That’s not correct. A potentially large would trigger the need to go to Part III of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, the part that you seldom reach because you don’t typically find too many potentially large impacts. That’s the part that you have to write out or cause a record of answers to a bunch of questions about the magnitude, the importance, the duration and other aspects of the impact, all to lead to the conclusion of whether or not the impact is important enough to warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. VOLLARO-Did you get that, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen, what’s your feeling about going forward with this, the way we are or to have some further analysis on this? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think we have consensus and so I think we should just go with the recommendation to the Town Board. MR. VOLLARO-And do the SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-And not do the SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-And not do the SEQRA. We can’t do that. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SCHACHNER-When you said recommendation, are you talking about actually making the recommendation on the rezone or just accepting Lead Agency Status? MRS. STEFFAN-No, making the recommendation. That’s our first charge. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what she’s suggesting. MR. SANFORD-Then we have to do the SEQRA, then? MR. SCHACHNER-No, not to make the recommendation. The Town Board will not be able to act on the rezoning because no involved agency can act on any aspect of the project until the Lead Agency has issued its SEQRA determination. So you can do what Gretchen said, if you want, and make the recommendation, and that’s fine, if that’s all you’re prepared to do, and you want to do that, you can do that. The Town Board won’t yet be able to act on the rezoning application until this Board makes its SEQRA determination. You can do that if you like. I’m not sure she realized that, playing it out that way. MRS. STEFFAN-No, I didn’t realize that, and so I think we should do the SEQRA. I think we should move this forward, because we can always reopen the SEQRA if other information comes up. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the key. I want to make sure that it’s on the record that if something comes up that affects our SEQRA decision, that we are able to reopen that SEQRA and re-look at that if it’s significant enough to do so. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and again, the answer to that’s yes, but I’m not too comfortable with the something comes up. Hear me out, if you don’t mind. It can’t be a change in, you know, a whim or a fancy if one of you woke up one morning and said, you know, I forgot about this aspect. It has to be new information, as part of the application, okay, or a substantial change in the environment, independent of the application. So that, for example, if next door a McDonalds opened, then that might have an impact, but what it can’t be is you all, or any of you collectively or individually, saying, now I have a new and different thought, and I want to make sure that’s clear. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If the applicant stays static on their application, then, and we’ve done a SEQRA to agree to a neg dec to that, then we are kind of obligated to stay with that. We can’t revisit the SEQRA, unless they move in some fashion. MR. SCHACHNER-Unless significant new information. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I mean by move in some fashion. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Or if there is a materially misrepresentation. MR. SCHACHNER-That would be new information. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. So, George, what do you want to do? MR. GOETZ-I can identify with the folks about the transportation. I’ve gone through it. I know it. I understand it. However, I’m looking at this and I’m saying, 88 cars, maybe 100, on a big weekend maybe 150. How much of an impact can that be? I’ve drive on that road many a times. Where my concerns for you are, are for are there going to be buffers. What about the drainage? And what’s it going to look like? Have we seen projects that this developer has done? That’s what would be important to me. I think having that could be a lot better than what you might end up with if it went zoned the way it came in. So, I’m sort of thinking we probably should move along. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re in favor of progressing on. I suspect this end of the Board is also. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think you started with Tony. I feel comfortable moving forward, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I also do. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was well put by George. Nice job. MR. VOLLARO-I feel we could move forward with this as well. I think we ought to, and, Rich, I understand where you’re coming from. If there’s any material change at all in this thing then we have a right to revisit. MR. SANFORD-I actually appreciate the Board’s pretty much consensus to move forward. However, to be honest with you, if someone comes back, after we approve this, and gives it a neg dec, on SEQRA, and C.T. Male comes back and says, geez, I think you’re going to have some problems with traffic, you aren’t going to be revisiting it. You can’t. Okay. I just wanted you to know that. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. SANFORD-So you’re not going to be able to revisit it. MR. HUNSINGER-I disagree. I totally and wholeheartedly disagree. I really do, because I think what we’re asked to do in SEQRA is do the big picture, if you will, and what we’re saying is, you know, 35 pm trips per hour in the peak are not significant on the intersection to this project, but what may be significant is a queuing lane on Bay Road, and that is something that’s mitigated during site plan review. So I really disagree with what you say. I respect what you’re saying, but I do disagree with what you’ve said. MR. SANFORD-I don’t think it has to be a disagreement. I think we could ask our Counsel the question and have him weigh in on it, if, in fact, we approve this on, and give it a neg dec on SEQRA, and then we’re doing site plan and C.T. Male says, yes, you’re probably going to have, you’re going to have a queuing problem on Bay, my opinion is, se la vi. MR. SCHACHNER-I think I’m going to largely agree with Chris. What I’ve been saying all along is you wouldn’t be able to re-open your SEQRA determination absent new material information. Remember that your whole complex, cumbersome and sometimes frustrating SEQRA exercise, despite the numerous steps to get there, is all designed to get to one punch line conclusion, and that punch line conclusion is, do we or do we not need an Environmental Impact Statement, and I think, my word’s not Chris’, I think what Chris is saying, or what I’m interpreting him to be saying is, although we would not be able to re-open the SEQRA review to now say, guess what we do need an Environmental Impact Statement, even though we previously issued a negative declaration, because traffic is one of the subdivision review/site plan review concerns on a site specific basis, you could still require certain traffic mitigation measures, not an Environmental Impact Statement, but certain traffic mitigation measures, in order to approve the site plan or subdivision, whatever it is that’s coming back to you. Is that a fair statement on what you said? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s fair. Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s true. Now, if you back me up to that wall and say, but if we’re going to have traffic concerns in the future and we know we’re going to have traffic concerns in the future. MR. SANFORD-Why not address them now. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SCHACHNER-No, that’s not what I was going to say, back on the wall. I was going to say I’d prefer not to have to defend a potential challenge that says, hey, you asked me for traffic mitigation measures, but you first said there’s no significant environmental impact. That’s not the best position to put us in, but I’m still largely going to agree with Chris’ analysis. MR. SANFORD-All right. I think we’ve beaten it to death. I will kind of go along with the Board. After all, I’m the only one out there on the limb on this one. MR. VOLLARO-I think we’re all with you to an extent, Richard, but I think we should move forward on this. Now, you know, we’re looking at the clock. Before we said we were going to be looking at that 11 o’clock cut off. So now I’m watching that pretty closely. So I think let’s go forward with this, and I think the first thing we have to do, in going forward, is to, the resolution acknowledging Lead Agency Status. MR. LAPPER-I think you did that last month. MR. SANFORD-Did we? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. MR. VOLLARO-No, last month we had resolution seeking Lead Agency Status. MR. LAPPER-Seeking. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Now we’re acknowledging that we do have it. MR. VOLLARO-Now we’re acknowledging Lead Agency. MR. LAPPER-Okay. My mistake. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 2-2005 AND SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2005 GEORGE AMEDORE/AMEDORE HOMES, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, in connection with Amadore Homes project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent [ZBA, APA], and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, The Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 19th day of April 2005 by the following vote: 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess our next step, now, is to do the SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Is to do the SEQRA, and this is the Long Form. MR. VOLLARO-And this is the Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What would the impact be? Examples include, “construction on slopes of 15% or greater”, “construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet”, “Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles”, “Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface”, “Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage”, “Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e. rock or soil) per year”, “Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill”, “Construction in a designated floodway”. MR. VOLLARO-How long is this project going to run? MR. LAPPER-Eight to fourteen months. MR. VOLLARO-And one of those was greater than one year. MR. HUNSINGER-“Construction that will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage”. MR. LAPPER-One phase. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a single phased operation. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s your comment, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-If it’s going to be more than one. MR. HUNSINGER-You said yes. Small to moderate impact. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s small to moderate, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Mitigated by any project change? MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate, mitigated by the fact that the applicant will take 12 to 14 months. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” MR. METIVIER-Possibly. MR. VOLLARO-There’s some groundwater concerns here. We’ve talked about it considerably, as far as stormwater mitigation is concerned. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-“Proposed Action will require a discharge permit”, Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that doe not have approval to serve proposed (project) action”, Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity”, “Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system”, “Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater”, “Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity”, “Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day”, “Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions”, “Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons”, “Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services”, “Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Which one? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know as I can come up with any on that. Let’s let it go. MR. METIVIER-I’d actually say, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I guess we hear a no. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate impact. MR. METIVIER-Mitigated through stormwater management. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry. Maybe I’m the only one, but you’re losing me, as you often do when you characterize the impact as small to moderate, but I’m not seeing which item you’ve identified as the impact. Did I miss that on that last one? MR. METIVIER-Probably. You didn’t miss it, it was never mentioned. MR. HUNSINGER-It wasn’t mentioned. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?” The answer was small to moderate impact. MR. SCHACHNER-What I’m trying to say is, you’re not supposed to characterize it as small to moderate or potentially large before you’ve first identified the potential impacts. That’s what I’m trying to say. MR. METIVIER-So read the bullets under it. MR. HUNSINGER-“Proposed Action would change flood water flows”, “Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion”, “Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns”, “Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway”, and then “Other impacts”. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. METIVIER-It would have to be other. MRS. STEFFAN-It would have to be current drainage patterns, because, you know, we’re putting in buildings, parking lots, which don’t exist. MR. VOLLARO-I think it fits one of those, and I think Gretchen is right. It’s probably the current drainage patterns are going to be affected, but they will be mitigated by stormwater management, but that’s the one we want to hang our hat on, if Mark needs that. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-So you’ve identified “Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns”? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And you’ve characterized that as small to moderate? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s mitigated through stormwater management. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems?” MR. SEGULJIC-What are the choices? MR. HUNSINGER-“Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods”, “Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems”. MR. VOLLARO-Neither one. I guess we’re going to have to say there isn’t anything there that fits the (lost words). RESOLUTION NO. PZ 2-2005 & SB 4-2005: Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: George Amadore/ Amadore Homes, 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: **** 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. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) 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 19 day of April 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN BOARD APPROVE THE REZONING FOR PZ 02-2005 GEORGE AMADORE/AMADORE HOMES TO MR-5, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Rezoning three parcels totaling 6.93 acres from HC-Int to MR-5 and developing a 44-unit residential subdivision/condominium community, with the revised lots of 0.12 acres, 2.87 acres, and 3.83 acres. That the Planning Board is of the opinion that the current PO zone is unclear as to the intent and needs to be addressed and clarified by the Town Board. The MR-5 zone is clear in regards to its intent and therefore provides less uncertainty as to what is or is not an appropriate use. Duly adopted this 19th day of April 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-I think we’re ready to go forward. I’m looking at our cut off, and I don’t know whether we’re going to get into BMI or not, here, or to Richard Schermerhorn, which is the last one. It seems to me we could probably get through Binley Florist and Steve & Donna Sutton. MR. LAPPER-Does that mean you’re sending us home, now? MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at the clock, and I want to exercise the 11 o’clock curfew. Particularly after what we’ve just gone through here. Minds get fuzzy, not working well. MR. LAPPER-Well, if it’s going to happen, it’s better to know that now it now and we’ll get the heck out of here. MR. VOLLARO-Who are you representing? MR. LAPPER-Rich Schermerhorn. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would say go. Does the Board agree with that? I’m making a decision here to cut one off. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m always the optimist. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, let’s see how it goes. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to try giving it a shot? Okay. Let’s do it. If the Board thinks they can make it, let’s give it a shot. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2005 SEQR TYPE: TYPE II WALLACE HIRSCH – BINLEY FLORIST AGENT: ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 222 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,650 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARDEN CENTER. RETAIL USES IN THE HC-INT ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2/303.15-1-27, 28, 29 LOT SIZE: 5.14, 1.09, 1.12 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; WALLY HIRSCH, PRESENT MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I’ll just give you a brief introduction, a brief summary, I guess, of my comments. This is a rather, I would characterize it as minor addition to an existing garden center/florist business. I’ve mentioned the waivers the applicant’s requesting. One comment I made is that there are some nonconforming lights. Should the Board consider replacing those with conforming freestanding fixtures that would front along Dix Avenue and Quaker Road, but overall, as I said, this is a minor addition. It would more than likely have minor, if any, impacts on stormwater. This is a Type II action, as far as SEQRA goes. So no further action from the Board is required. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. In looking at the lighting, I have a note that said pre-existing. I’m not going really going to, in my view, I wouldn’t challenge the existing lights. It’s up to the Board, but that’s how I look at it. MR. SEGULJIC-George, which lights are you speaking of? MR. HILTON-There are some out on the road frontage I’ve noticed, when I did my site visit, especially on the Dix Avenue portion, there is a floodlight that is actually facing in towards the site. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I guess looking at the application, that’s the only issue I had. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The only thing I wanted to address on this real quickly was, George, you talked about some setback relief, and I couldn’t determine, on my set of drawings, any setback violations based on C-1. MR. HILTON-Yes, well, the current parcel configuration is, I believe, three parcels, and the proposed addition would cross one of those lines. As I’ve mentioned, that relief would be required if the applicant were to keep the parcels as is. However, this Board could condition any approval on proof that these lots are merged. If that takes place, that setback relief is not required. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then I guess we can ask the applicant, will they merge or not merge, real quickly, and get that over with. Yes or no? MR. HIRSCH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Got that done. So that will be a condition, I would think, of the approval, that the lots be merged. All right. Do you want to go forward with your explanation on that? MR. HALL-Certainly. By way of introduction, by name is Ethan Hall. I’m partner with Rucinski/Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Wally Hirsch, owner of Binley Florist and Quaker Farms. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HALL-As we discussed, or as we have here tonight, it is Quaker Farms. It’s an addition to the rear of the existing building. There is currently a shed roof that is over the entire back of the existing building. The proposal is to tear that off and to create an addition off the back, as well as an addition to what would be the southeast end of the building, to create a new entry way. Currently there is a glass greenhouse that kind of comes down off the end of that. The proposal would be to tear that off and to build a piece on the end. The two areas, the area that’s the dark area there, on the map, is the area that would be the area that is the area of the addition. Everything else that’s on that map is currently existing as it is. The only proposed change to any drive or anything would be, as you come in, there’s a teardrop shape that’s back here. That portion would be just a gravel drive, and it’s for the delivery vans for the florist shop, so that they can come in and pick up and take deliveries out and not interfere with any of the traffic for Quaker Farms. MR. VOLLARO-I just had one question on this whole chart for Mark that I wanted to know whether you thought that there was sufficient drainage for the proposed tile field location of the new septic system. This will be a new septic, will it not? MR. HALL-Currently the existing septic system, the corner of the shed that’s coming off is basically sitting right on top of the septic tank, and then there’s a couple of leach lines that come out. So we’re going to have to just take that and turn it. We’re obviously going to have to go and do a perc test. When we did this initially it was the middle of January, and obviously it’s kind of tough to do a perc test at that time of year, but, yes, we do feel that there’s adequate drainage over there for that. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, it’s probably all sand in there, isn’t it? MR. HALL-It is, yes. The bedrock is between four and six feet below the surface. So we don’t feel there’s going to be any problem. The one that’s there now has been there since the Sunoco station was installed, and they haven’t had any problem with it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, to take a page out of Chris’ book, he always says, when I talk about septic, he says, well, the Department of Health’s got to approve that anyway. So I agree with that. So we’ll go along with that. Other than that, I don’t have any comments on this application. My page is blank. We have waivers to grant for stormwater, grading, lighting and landscaping. MR. SEGULJIC-Only one thing about the lighting. Can you eliminate the floodlight out front and make it a conforming light? MR. HALL-What we’ve talked about is once everything is done and the construction here is done, they are going to look at addressing that. There are a couple of big, I think they’re 450 watt lights that shine into that, and if there’s more light than is required for what they’re looking for, they’ll certainly address that, yes. MR. VOLLARO-But in order to make a resolution with a binding motion that talks to that, we have to talk a little bit about watt, whether it’s a 175 watts, 450 watts. I don’t know. See, as soon as you get into changing these things, and if we’re going to change it, once it’s changed, you’ve got to specify what you want. MR. HALL-Right. Currently what I would suggest, a lot of the light that’s at that intersection right now does help the intersection itself. All the lights that George has mentioned and everything shine into the lot and light the building and the parking lot for Quaker Farms, and for the parking lot itself. So it doesn’t shine out onto the road. There is a traffic light that’s there. There is a street light that’s there as well, that light that intersection. So any of the flood 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) that’s coming out off of there is only helping to kind of light that intersection and make it a little brighter, and there’s certainly enough light coming over from the K-Mart parking lot. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay with it. MR. VOLLARO-You’re okay with it? Okay. So we will grant waivers for stormwater, grading, lighting and landscaping. Those are the four requested waivers that I picked up on this thing. Anybody else have any comment? I think there’s a public hearing on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So if anybody wants to speak to this application from the audience, I’ll let them come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2005 WALLACE HIRSCH – BINLEY FLORIST, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 14-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Wallace Hirsch – Binley Florist SEQR Type: II Agent: Ethan Hall, Rucinski Hall Architecture Zone: HC-Intensive Location: 222 Quaker Road Applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. addition to an existing garden center. Retail uses in the HC-Int zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Warren Co. Planning: 3/9/05 Tax Map No. 110-1-2 / 303.15-1-27, 28, 29 Lot size: 5.14, 1.09, 1.12 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 4/19/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/14/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/15/05, and 4/19/05 Staff Notes 4/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing 4/4/05 Meeting Notice 2/25/05 Application Bumped to April 2005 2/14/0 5 RPS Summary 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 4/15/05, 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 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) 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. Proof that all three lots at this location shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 2. That the lots have to be merged. 3. We are granting the waivers for stormwater, lighting, landscaping, and grading. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. HIRSCH-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 15-2005 SEQR TYPE: II STEVE & DONNA SUTTON AGENT: JAMES MILLER, NORTHFIELD DESIGNS ZONE: HC-MOD LOCATION: 1066 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,736 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING FURNITURE STORE. RETAIL USES IN THE HC-INT ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-10, 11 LOT SIZE: 5.96 AC., 1.02 ACRES SECTION: 178-4-020 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MILLER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Jim Miller from Northfield Design representing Suttons Marketplace. What we’re proposing is a 1734 square foot addition off the south end of the existing furniture building. Currently they display the outdoor furniture on the lawn and on the sidewalks going in to the facility. We’re looking for a new home for that. The project is two structures. One has a roof over it. It’s 36 by 36. Attached to that is an open to the sky pergola type space that is 20 by 22. The new impervious area that we’re talking about sits partially on lawn and partially on existing paved area. So in our calculations for stormwater, we just consider where we’re taking up, where we’re presenting new impervious area. The facility will be used only during the daytime. There will be lighting in the evening, but only for security purposes, and there’ll be lighting in the ceiling of the covered structure for cloudy days. Basically, we’re not looking at an increase in customers. We’re looking at a situation where we’re taking the display of something that’s in another location and putting it under the new cover. MR. VOLLARO-That’s how I viewed it in the application. I’ll solicit the Board. Are there any Board comments on this that they would like to make? I notice that C.T. Male has not signed off on this. There’s some questions here that maybe I can. MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is on, actually it was something that obviously we approved back in ’99, site plan, site details S-1, this submission. There’s lawn mounted 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) spotlights. Those currently, those don’t conform with the current Town lighting plan, and I didn’t know what the plan was for those, to keep them, or if they were going to be changed. MR. MILLER-Well, in the area of the new addition, the proposal is not to light this new structure, but rather, like I said previously, to have some down lights inside the ceiling, but that’s primarily for cloudy days and for security purposes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-What you were referring to were the ones that are already there, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-See, there’s apparently some lights that are already there that are shining on the building that are up lit. We try to keep the sky dark, if we can. That’s part of the whole lighting philosophy we’re trying to approach here. So, I think what Chris is driving at is there’s some light already on the site currently being used that are up lighting the building, and whether or not they will remain or not remain. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, it is near where the addition is going. So that’s why I asked the question. MR. MILLER-Okay. This is kind of news to me, but my immediate answer would be that we’re not proposing to light the new structure. If you’re asking us to take away lights that are there, I guess we’d be open to that. There’s a purpose, and that was a previously approved situation. MR. VOLLARO-I would view that as a pre-existing condition at this particular point. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to raise the issue. MR. SANFORD-I think Chris has a point, though. I mean, we can look at everything. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you can. There’s no question. I’ve been to Suttons several times and driven by it and so on, and I don’t ever remember the lighting being objectionable. My own recollection of what I see there, I don’t see it as being objectionable. I don’t know. Anybody else? MRS. STEFFAN-Not objectionable. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my gut feeling is that it’s far enough away from the road that it’s not going to cause a problem. There’s some, one right out here, in fact, on Blind Rock Road, up lit sign that, you know, as you’re driving your car down the road, will catch your eye, or down at the golf course at Haviland, at the same way. MR. MILLER-We’re back 200 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s why I don’t think it’s a problem. Like I said, I just wanted to raise it for the Board’s benefit. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Have you seen the C.T. Male comments on your? MR. MILLER-Yes, I have, and I tried to talk to some of those topics in my presentation, but let me go down through them. The first one is concerned with the parking. We meet the regs for parking count, and there also is overflow area that’s not being utilized in the parking towards the receiving end or the south side of the facility, but we have a count that corresponds with what’s required. Now, more in particular, they ask whether the parking lot is currently, does become full, and it does, on Christmas and during peak periods, but, I mean, that’s what every commercial venue wants, and I’ve been there on Sunday mornings when the lot’s been full, but 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) the point to be made is that we meet all the requirements, and we’re not proposing any new parking. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the way I looked at this, it said the new area doesn’t really demand any increase in customer. You’re just putting that, the same merchandise in a different place. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And so I didn’t see that this was going to cause any increased traffic or parking. They’re going to come for that merchandise whether it’s under cover or not under cover. That’s how I viewed this. MR. MILLER-But that being said, when we do factor in for all the commercial space, and take it per the Code, we meet the requirement. So it’s not that we’re asking for a variance from that. We do meet it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-You also have overflow from the Toy Cottage. I mean, there is overflow parking there, and so folks could park down there. So I don’t think that’s a problem. MR. SANFORD-The biggest problem is the restaurant. That packs them in. MR. VOLLARO-In the stormwater area, on Item Two, for C.T. Male, they talk about the existing drywell will serve the roof area, be reviewed. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t mean to cut off the discussion, but I think Items Two and Three, I mean, I would feel comfortable moving forward on a condition that the applicant work with C.T. Male on those two final issues. MR. VOLLARO-I have the same thing. I said, per C.T. Male’s comment, I would like to see a gutter on western side, essentially, go along with that. If they can get a signoff from C.T. Male on Two and Three, I’d be happy to condition this on that. That’s my feeling. MR. MILLER-Okay. The other point to be made is on the drawing there is a note that that is, in fact, what we are going to do. Right on the drawing is says we’re going to collect the water off the eaves of the building and pipe it to the existing drywell. MR. VOLLARO-That would be the drainage pit at the 89 elevation level. That’s how I viewed it. The one out in the back. Is that the one you’re talking about? MR. MILLER-Well, the one that’s right on the front lawn is not being utilized at this point, and that’s the one we were thinking to go to, but we also could take water to the parking lot, the drywell out in the parking lot, on the south side, and there’s another, third drywell out towards the Toy Cottage that was put in by the Suttons, not under the premise of a site plan review. They just did it on their own. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So all we’re asking is that you solve these problems, or get them signed off by C.T. Male for Item Two and Three, and Number Four, I think, is there sufficient lighting, I think it’s fine. It says or will the area be open for business at night. I didn’t see that as a binding statement of any type. So let’s say that what we’re looking for is a resolution and signoff on Items Two and Three. Any other questions from the Board on this application? I know that Staff had made some comments on referencing moving the building to the east so the uncovered portion lines up with the existing front, and I have a comment that said only a small portion of landscaping at the southwest corner of display and office would be affected, and, George, was that your comment? MRS. BARDEN-It’s mine. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-It was yours. Hopefully this will change in time, that we know who we’re talking to. MRS. BARDEN-It will. MR. VOLLARO-In looking at the little bit of disturbance that would take place there, I don’t think it’s worth changing the site plan to move it back and make it flush with the front. As a matter of fact, the little bit of difference in depth might look good as well. MRS. BARDEN-Did you compare the original plan? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that was the original sheet with that, yes. I did. MRS. BARDEN-Just a consideration. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else have any comments? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. VOLLARO-Would somebody like to make. MR. METIVIER-We have a public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-There is a public hearing. You’ve got a letter? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, I do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-This was e-mailed today to the Planning Office from Linda McNulty. “Dear Ms. Ryba and Members of the Planning Board: As a resident of Twicwood Lane, there are concerns regarding the proposed Suttons’ expansion slated for the April 19, 2005 Planning Board agenda. My husband and I own a home and adjacent vacant lot which lies directly behind Suttons’ furniture store. Because we are currently out of town, I request that these concerns be brought before the Planning Board via this e-mail. I have not had an opportunity to view the proposal, so let me begin with a question. Will this proposal require additional clearing and added security lighting? If so, let it be known that I am against granting permission for this expansion. Should the proposal require no further clearing of that property for adding to the building, for additional parking, or any other purpose, and if the planning board can address issues with regard to the present and future lighting so as to correct and prevent security or decorative lighting from interfering with the Twicwood development, I would have no problem with the expansion. I request that before the Planning Board members make their decision on this project that they visit Twicwood Lane some evening after dark to view the areas where our properties abut Suttons’. This will provide a better prospective of some of the problems. The current lighting is very intrusive and offensive from the interior of our home and our yard. It is blinding as we enter our second driveway to park in back, and it shines in our eyes from all rooms along the back side of our home where most of our indoor time is spent. I realize some of this lighting problem is tied to the Toy Cottage property and may be beyond the scope of this particular site plan review; on the other hand, it would be a welcome relief if the Town, in some capacity, could rectify this wrongful planning. In taking into consideration lighting on said commercial properties, the elevation of the homes needs to be part of the equation. The Suttons benefited greatly when the Town rezoned the property behind us from single family residential to highway commercial in 1988, leaving the Twicwood area with only a 50’ buffer, it’s time the Town give back the quality of life Twicwood lost. Twicwood dates back to well before the aggressive commercial growth and deserves adequate screening; i.e. by building an ultra high barrier or substantially high berm planted densely with nondeciduous trees. I ask this be made a condition, if the Planning Board decides to grant 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) permission for this project. Respectfully submitted, Linda S. McNulty, 14 Twicwood Lane, Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The last part of that concerned a high berm, the last part of it? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, substantially high berm planted densely, nondeciduous trees. There is, in fact, a buffer back there. MR. VOLLARO-With that, I’m going to open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DOUG AUER MR. AUER-Good evening. It’s always a pleasure to come to these meetings. I never plan to comment, but tonight I do. Suttons have been great neighbors. I live on Oakwood Drive, which is not as close as McNulty. They overlook directly in the back, and the whole thing, I suppose most of you folks were on the Board when they had proposed the original warehouse, back, I don’t know, what was it, six years ago, something like that. Who of you were here then, anybody? MR. VOLLARO-I was. MR. AUER-Okay. Well, the compromise that they came up with really worked well. I know the folks up on Twicwood Lane were really happy with it. This particular thing that they’re doing I think will actually go to relieving some of that light spill. In my mind’s eye, I can’t quite see where that one particular light is, and I’m not sure what she’s talking about with the Toy Cottage thing, but if you, first of all, there’s no way you could build a berm high enough, because McNulty’s up pretty high up there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking at the elevation. MR. AUER-I think George is familiar with the neighborhood. You know the area also. I don’t know that it would be possible to build a berm that high, but certainly if you were to extend that building, which is the way I understand what this proposal is, you will begin to screen some additional low level lighting, you know, from car headlights or whatever, but I’ve got to say, they’ve been great neighbors. I mean, the place looks great. It’s a far better thing than was there when they had the greenhouse out in front, and they’ve just done a great job with it. I mean, everything they’ve done down through the years has been terrific, and I use them as an example for success stories in Queensbury, as far as small businesses that have been able to thrive, you know, against the big box stores and so forth. So, you know, all I can say is they’ve been great neighbors. The biggest problem of light spill on Route 9 is really from the racetrack thing there and the golf. That lights the sky up pretty good, but, you know, it’s my own personal opinion. I can live with that two months, three months out of the year, you know, and that’s the end of it in the summer, but I live further back than McNulty. So it’s easy for me to say that. I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Thanks, Mr. Auer. Okay. Anybody else want to speak to this application? KATHLEEN SONNABEND MS. SONNABEND-Just briefly, I’m wondering if the downward lighting would solve a lot of the problem. Kathleen Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. I’m just wondering if the lighting in the front of the building that’s shining on the building is what she’s seeing up the hill, and if you had the downward lighting, that might help eliminate some of that problem. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Some of that lighting could have some light shields put on it. That’s about the best I could say to do, put some light shields over it. I haven’t really taken a look at the fixtures themselves to know whether they can be fitted with light shields or not. They may be able to be, but I don’t know. They’re pre-existing fixtures. They’ve been there for a while. MS. SONNABEND-Obviously it has nothing to do with this particular project, but if it opens up the issue, and if there’s serious concern there, that might be a relatively inexpensive fix. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ll talk about it and see what we can come up with on that. From my view, I have never, of course I don’t live up on Twicwood, so I can’t speak authoritatively on whether or not those lights would affect it or not, but I certainly haven’t looked at Suttons as being over lit, either in the front or any other place, but we can certainly look and see whether we can put some light shields on there. I don’t know whether it’s even necessary, however. I would say that I was going to leave the lighting as it is. So that would be my recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to wait to ask the applicant when he came back up. Are you aware of which light, maybe, they were referring to? MR. MILLER-No, I’m not, but maybe a little history. I’ve been involved with all the projects at Suttons since the mid 80’s, and every time we look to do something, there’s always talk of how this zone reacts to the adjacent residential zone. I think it should be pointed out that we’re about, we’re over 150 feet from the back of the warehouse to the property line, as a buffer. There’s no buildings back up in there. Then we’re another, I don’t have my scale, but it’s probably another 70 feet to the back of this new addition. This conversation comes up every time we go to do something here, and we have to go through the motions of talking about it, but I don’t think there is a problem. I really don’t. How many properties that have a Highway Commercial zone have an inherent 150 foot buffer built in? I mean, there aren’t any, and we had the same conversation when we did the work on Smokey Bear’s restaurant, which is down the street. The same thing. It was talked about the light, even though there was an intervening property between the Smokey Bear property and Twicwood, that we had no control over, but I think the history of it all is that they’ve been great neighbors. When there’s been concerns, they’ve come up with a remedy for it, and I think things have been developed pretty nicely. MR. VOLLARO-When we do new developments up here, we’ve always very, very, very cognizant of down lighting and making sure all the lights are downcast. When we did Wal- Mart, when we did Home Depot, all those things are downcast lights. When you’ve got pre- existing lighting, however, I don’t know whether we can, in good conscience, ask that that lighting be changed. I recognize what Mr. Sanford has said, that we’ve got, we can look at the whole thing, once it’s open, we can look at anything, but I don’t view Suttons as being over lit, frankly. That’s just my opinion. The Board has opinions of their own. MR. MILLER-There’s really two types of lighting on site. One is a general illumination in the parking lots, which is a down lighting. Then there are these lawn mounted lights that shine on the building to highlight the architecture. I’m assuming that what’s being spoken about is the lights that are shining on the building. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’s some overspill, obviously, that Twicwood sees. I can see it. You’ve got lights shining on the building, and depending upon the spread that you’ve got in the beam. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, she mentioned a security light at the Toy Cottage which is why I asked if maybe you knew which specific light fixture she was referring to. It just seems logical that if there was a complaint that, you know, if you could identify a specific issue that could easily be remedied that we would ask about that. That’s all. MR. MILLER-Yes, and, you know, if it is the light behind the Toy Cottage, that’s probably close to 300 feet from the property line. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is it a floodlight, though, do you know? MR. MILLER-You know, I’m really not sure. I’m assuming there is an area light back there that shines into this receiving area. MR. VOLLARO-But the light’s facing, it’s not facing Twicwood, it’s facing the Toy Cottage? MR. MILLER-No, I believe that one is lighting that gravel area. MR. VOLLARO-In back of it. MR. MILLER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-But it’s basically facing in to the middle of the site. It’s not like it’s on the perimeter facing out. It’s facing on the perimeter, on the Route 9 side, facing into the site. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that the Twicwood folks probably always are going to get some light spill from that. There’s just no way to cut that down. So I’m happy with the way Suttons lights their place. Since we’ve had the public hearing and we’re not going to be doing the SEQRA on this mod, why, I would probably take a motion for approval with the conditions particularly relating to C.T. Male’s approval of Item Two and Three on their April 13, 2005 letter. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I’m sorry to interrupt. We don’t think you closed the public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-I did now. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2005 STEVE & DONNA SUTTON, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 15-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Steve & Donna Sutton SEQR Type: II Agent: James Miller, Northfield Designs Zone: HC-Mod Location: 1066 State Route 9 Applicant proposes to construct a 1,736 sq. ft. addition to an existing furniture store. Retail uses in the HC-Int zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: Many Warren Co. Planning: 3/9/05 Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10, 11 Lot size: 5.96 ac., 1.02 acres / Section: 178-4-020 Public Hearing: 4/19/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/14/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/15/05, and 4/19/05 Staff Notes 4/13/05 CTM engineering comments 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) 4/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 4/1/05 Meeting Notice 3/9/05 Warren Co. Planning: No Action 2/25/05 Application bumped to April 2005 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 4/19/05; 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. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. That there’s resolution and signoff from C.T. Male, particularly on Items 2 & 3 of the letter dated 4/13/05. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. MILLER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 16-2005 SEQR TYPE: II BMI SUPPLY, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: C & R PROPERTIES, IDA OF WARREN WASH. COUNTIES AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI LOCATION: 571 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 3,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING. WAREHOUSE USES IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 53-96, SV 83-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-22.1 LOT SIZE: 1.60 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 TOM NACE & ROBERT S. BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-This is also a Type II SEQRA. There will be no SEQRA on this. There will be a public hearing, and so you can go forward with your description of your project. You are, for the record? 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and this gentleman beside me is the owner. MR. BARBER-I’m the President of BMI Supply, Robert S. Barber. I’m not the trash plant guy. Let’s make that clear, and I’m also a member of C & R Properties. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, sir. MR. NACE-Okay. Real quick, what we’re doing is adding a 3,000 square foot addition onto the existing warehouse. The existing building for BMI is a total of 6,000 square feet. We’re adding 3,000 for a total of 9,000. We’re putting in, with the additional warehouse, we’re putting in one dock door and a little bit of extra paving to get to that door, and for a turnaround area for the truck. The additional roof drainage and pavement drainage is being taken into an existing stormwater pond that we’re increasing the size and storage of, right in here. One thing I will bring to your attention, I was remiss, or I guess maybe I had Alzheimer’s. I didn’t remember that when we did the original site plan, that these overflows from both this, and this detention basin could not be put in because the adjacent property owner wouldn’t allow us to cross his property, even though it was part of the original subdivision design that he had had done, that the drainage would go that way, but at any rate, at the time, we worked with the Town, and both of these basins are in. This basin overflows down a natural drainage way in that corner. This basin overflows into a drywell on BMI’s property. So both of the drainage structures follow existing drainage patterns and are taken care of, all of the stormwater detention is taken care of on the BMI site. So we’ve solved that problem, but, just so you’re aware, there is no actual pipe here. Any overflow from the basin simply overtops the edge of the basin, and I don’t think there’s ever been much of any overflow actually going out of the basin in the past. MR. VOLLARO-I understand there were concerns by an adjoining property owner over the drainage easement. MR. BARBER-Which property owner? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have the answer to that. That’s something I got from Staff, and who was the property owner then, that had a concern with the over drainage? George, is that you? MR. HILTON-I guess I don’t recall his name. He identified himself as the owner of the property directly to the west. I don’t know who that is offhand. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if he wasn’t willing to give us a name. MR. HILTON-He was. I just don’t recall it. MR. VOLLARO-I see. MR. HILTON-I guess that’s a better way to put it. MR. BARBER-Okay. Well, I do know who the owner of the property is. MR. VOLLARO-You do. Okay. MR. BARBER-Bear with me one moment. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. BARBER-SMS Enterprises is the property owner. To my understanding they have said they are the property owner. You might also know them as Monahan Metals, which is right next door. Their concern was when they saw the drawing, they saw those pipes going on to what is his property, and he expressed to me that he was concerned that if those pipes were put in, it would then possibly create a wetland, and he was afraid that then he couldn’t build on 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) that property, etc. I tried to allay his fears and I said, well, I don’t know that they have to go in, because we spoke with the Town Engineer back when we built this initially, and we had just natural overflow, and that was his concern, but if you’ll read that letter, he also says, you know. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It says the existing drainage easement shown in the southwest corner of the lot doesn’t exist, and I think that’s true, apparently. He said, second, if engineers feel that the manmade sumps will control the water runoff, we have no problems with the expansion. We are glad to see people who are working hard to be successful. Joseph Monahan, Member. So, I guess it’s a non-issue, from what I gather. MR. NACE-The existing drainage works. We’re increasing the size of the one basin to accept the additional hard surface, and we expect it to continue to work. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we should just label the plans to say that those were never built, so there’s no confusion. MR. NACE-I will. On the final plan that gets signed off, I will remove those. I apologize for not remembering that they weren’t put in originally. MR. VOLLARO-And we do have a signoff by C.T. Male on the BMI Supply signoff letter dated April 13, 2005. So, I don’t have any other. There’s a public hearing on this, and I think that if anybody wants to comment on this application, it’s getting pretty thin out there. So I don’t see anybody jumping up and down wanting to talk about this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s really it. I don’t see any other questions from Board members on this application. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MRS. BARDEN-Can I make one quick comment, please, Mr. Chairman? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-I was at the site yesterday, and it’s, that drainage basin in question is really full of water. If you don’t have that outlet drainage, are you going to be able to take that extra impervious surface? MR. NACE-The basin’s going to be deepened and widened to accommodate the additional. MRS. BARDEN-But it doesn’t look like it’s really accommodating what you have there now. MR. NACE-As far as I know, it’s worked satisfactorily throughout. MR. BARBER-I can answer that, although I’m not an engineer, but basically that is from the snow melt, okay, and as it fills up, it just naturally drains in a gradual pattern. There are no ruts running down the other property or anything like that. So there’s, you know, there’s no problem. It’s just done it naturally. Had we not put that there, and, well, I guess, of course, the building, that was the natural lay of the land to begin with. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. I just, the other one is working great. This one was really high, and I’m not an engineer either but there was full of water. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. BARBER-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. NACE-It works. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is there any perc going on down below there? MR. NACE-There is a little bit of percolation going on down through it. The one to the north has, as I said, has the drywell in it that takes away the excess drainage. So there is, the soils accept some water. In the spring, like Bob said, the groundwater is highest right now, so, yes, that’s when it’s going to be full. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when you’ve got snowmelt, this is the most intense. MRS. STEFFAN-Are we talking about behind the building, the little, lake BMI? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, lake BMI. MR. BARBER-My kids did that sign. MRS. STEFFAN-It was very cute. MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to know what it meant by no power turns. MR. BARBER-Truckers go out there and they stop, and then they crank their wheel, and it tears up the pavement. MR. HUNSINGER-I see. MR. BARBER-That’s a power turn. They still do it. They don’t read. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2005 BMI SUPPLY, INC., 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. 16-2005 Applicant: BMI Supply, Inc. SEQR Type: II Property Owner: C & R Properties, Ida of Warren Wash. Counties Agent: Nace Engineering Zone: LI Location: 571 Queensbury Avenue Applicant proposes to construct a 3,000 sq. ft. warehouse addition to an existing office/warehouse building. Warehouse uses in the LI zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SP 53-96, SV 83-2000 Warren Co. Planning: 3/9/05 Tax Map No. 297.8-1-22.1 Lot size: 1.60 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 4/19/05 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 4/15/05, and 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) 4/19/05 Staff Notes 4/13/05 CTM engineering 4/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 4/4/05 Meeting notice sent 3/9/05 Warren Co. PB recommendation: No Action 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 4/19/05; 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. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. BARBER-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD, JR./BETH SCHERMERHORN AGENT: TOM HUTCHINS, P.E. & JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SPLIT – RR-3A, PO LOCATION: 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR GRADING AND FILLING OF A 20 +/- ACRE PROPERTY. FILLING OPERATIONS THAT MEET OR EXCEED THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN § 179-6-070 (2) ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 20.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just a quick summary, if you will. A couple of the issues, main issues, I’d be happy to answer any questions the Board has on this, but a couple of issues that 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) I’ve mentioned, particularly one, the DEC wetlands on the western portion of the property. I’ve provided you with an aerial that shows the approximate location of those wetlands. This area of filling that is proposed, I guess it’s not known with the proximity to these wetlands. As I’ve stated, anything within 100 feet of those wetlands requires not only a State but a Town permit. Secondly, density. We’ve raised the question. What is the allowable density now, and what’s the allowable density upon completion of the fill, when it’s I guess likely or possible, let’s say, that slopes over 25% would be filled in. I guess we don’t have any information on that either. The applicant has indicated that his plans are to build one home, and that’s fine, but, you know, however, if this property is sold, the plans of some future property owner may not be the same plans of the current property owner. So, you know, as far as allowable density, that’s another issue that we’ve raised. Having said that, like I said, I’ll answer any questions you have. MR. SANFORD-How about a deed restriction, to carry with the property? So like if Rick sells the property, it still can’t be subdivided. Is that possible to do that? MR. LAPPER-We’d agree to that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That would be a way, George, to mitigate the problem of density. I would just say that the property can’t undergo any further subdivision. I think Rich is correct on that. That’s what was on my mind as well, is the way to handle that, and the applicant says they’ll go along with it. So that sort of settles it, it seems to me. MR. LAPPER-For the record, as quick as possible, Jon Lapper with the project engineer, Tom Hutchins. Rich is away this week, or he’d be with us. Very simply, this was a piece of property that was kind of a mess, that’s located behind Rich’s Hunter Brook apartment complex. He has a permit, which Tom has and will submit to you, from DEC, to dredge the pond. That pond is somewhat of an eyesore and a mosquito breeding situation, and the neighbor, Mary Lee Gosline, who you probably all know is here tonight, she’s a co-applicant on the permit with DEC about 25% of the pond is on her property, and Rich is going to dredge, under this permit, the whole pond, to clean it all up, so that visually it’s attractive, rather than negative as it is now. The plan, he’s been filling this property for some time. Under the Town Code it’s discretionary at the Zoning Administrator whether or not fill operation requires site plan approval, and ultimately Craig determined that we should come before the Board. So Tom put the application together and here we are. The way that this is being filled is such that it would create one building site for one big, beautiful house, which is what Rich is ultimately planning in the future, and that’s why, as a condition of the approval, we would agree that it would just be for one home and we’d certainly agree, as a condition, to add a deed restriction and we’ll submit the deed that it won’t be subdivided. This is, there’s a two-fold purpose here. One is to create a really nice building site for single family residents behind the apartment complex. Another is to clean up the pond and to have a place to deposit the materials. About 10% of what’s left to fill on Tom’s plan would come out of the pond, and the other is to have a good place to put the excess fill that’s going to come out of his other projects on Bay Road, which are already on the Queensbury traffic road network. This is just a very close proximity to where he’s developing on Bay Road. So this is a way to reduce any impacts on the Town because they’re not going far. They’re not going clear across the Town to go somewhere else. They’re just going right up the street about a mile away. So he’s creating something out of nothing by creating this really nice lot for building, cleaning it up, and keeping the trucks off the road. Let me just ask Tom to run you through the plan. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I think we’ve seen the, or you’ve all seen the grading plan. With regard to George’s comment on wetlands, he’s absolutely right. There are some wetlands there, and I thank him for mentioning it to me, a week or so ago. They are located here. We had them flagged yesterday, located today, and I will adjust this rear, the grading in the rear of this slightly about 45 feet toward the front of the parcel to stay outside the 100 foot buffer for the wetland. The peak elevation is what we’re showing elevation 430, which is approximately 15 feet above the height of it as it stands now. Contours shown here are existing contours as of last July. The uppers have not changed. There’s been a slight amount of fill down in this area, but they’re very consistent with what’s there now. We’ve taken, I guess the special attention on this 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) has been erosion and sediment control. We did submit the DEC NOI and prepared their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and for this type of project, which consists of an erosion and sediment control plan. That was done last, late last summer. The submission to them was in September, and we have received acknowledgement from them that they have that. Otherwise, the intent right now is I guess to focus, right now our intention is to focus our fill in this area, and work kind of from the front back to, there’s a very low area toward the front, compared to what’s back here, to semi-fill this area in, temporarily stabilize that, and then work our way to the back of the site, and right now I’m sure you’ve been there, there’s a considerable area that’s open and disturbed, and it’s our intention to implement a phasing plan that will get us some temporary stabilization over much of that area, and concentrate in one particular spot. MR. VOLLARO-Did you say you wanted to move some of that slope, I guess it’s to the western side of that, of 45 degrees, 45 or 50 feet? MR. HUTCHINS-No. I said at the top. MR. LAPPER-Tom, he’s talking about the basin that has to move because of the DEC wetland. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry. Not up 45 feet. I have to move it horizontally 45 feet toward the front of the site, such that. MR. VOLLARO-You’re not impacting the wetland there. MR. HUTCHINS-Such that I’m not impacting the wetland, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that has to be a change in that. MR. HUTCHINS-Here’s my wetland line. Here’s my wetland buffer, and here’s where, right now, my limit of area is. I’m going to rework this section such that my limit is well outside that wetland. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t know whether we, until we see a drawing that does that, I don’t know whether we can pass on that tonight or not. MR. LAPPER-We would hope that perhaps that could be subject to C.T. Male’s review. MR. VOLLARO-Well, C.T. Male’s got quite a stack of questions here. That was going to be my next question. We’ve got quite a bit of C.T. Male information here. He’s got. MR. HUTCHINS-Can I touch on one other thing? It was one of the items that C.T. Male had mentioned, and it’s something we have been thinking about, and that’s views and how it’s going to impact view shed from various areas. We have looked, primarily from three areas. One is from Blind Rock Road just, if you were just west of the entrance to this property looking across the corner of the pond, and you have a few trees, this is standing on Blind Rock Road looking towards our site, and this a section through that view line, which is a section through this line across here, from Blind Rock Road across the site, and there’s trees, you’re looking across the pond. It’s about 650 feet to the beginning of our activity, and, yes, there will be an area of this fill that will be visible, particularly during non-foliage times. When all is stabilized, it’ll look like a hill, but it will be visible and it will increase the crest of the land surface that you’re seeing from here slightly. This is a view from an adjoining property, this property here, and it’s about this point. If you’re standing at this point on the property line, this is the impact we’d expect, we’d expect to see. These are exaggerated vertically. So, otherwise, you’d just see a little (lost word). MR. VOLLARO-You’re just going to be seeing the tops of those hills from there. You’re going to see the tops of that. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. HUTCHINS-You’re going to see the tops of those hills through the trees, and likewise from a point back here, which there’s another house in here, I’m not sure who’s it is. They’re probably here, but that would be standing at this parcel line, looking direct this way, which shows this. Yes, you will see it. When it’s stabilized it’ll be another hill. MR. SANFORD-In the application, it calls for 150,000 yards of fill. Is that in its entirety, and so if we were to try to get a handle on how much more fill is going to go in, we would have a number to subtract from that, or are we saying that at this particular point in time, to complete the project, you’re going to bring in an additional, from where you are now, 150,000 yards of soil? MR. HUTCHINS-That number is generated from the difference in the grading, as of last July when the existing topography was made to ultimate build out, so, yes. MR. LAPPER-But some of that’s happened since July. MR. HUTCHINS-Some has happened. I would say it’s a small percentage of that. MR. SANFORD-How much fill did you bring in before? I mean, you know, when we were on the site, how much fill was in there? How many yards of fill has been brought in thus far? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know that. I’d be really guessing, because it’s been going on for a long time, and there’s a lot of material. MR. SANFORD-If you get 15 yards of fill in a truck, you’ve got 10,000 truckloads that you’re hoping to bring in there. Right, am I right? MR. HUTCHINS-I think your math’s right, yes. MR. LAPPER-These truckloads are going to be going through the Town anyway, because they’re coming off of Bay Road. It’s just a question of where they go. Some of it’s from Walker Lane, which is approved, and some of it’s from the office park on Bay Road. MR. SEGULJIC-How long a period are we talking? MRS. STEFFAN-It said two to four years, didn’t it? The plan said two to four years. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know. To me, the issue I have, I mean, we had an application earlier today, we were all concerned about slopes and what have you. I mean, basically you’ve eliminated the need for us to be concerned about slopes. You’re just filling everything in. MR. LAPPER-Well, this site was a gully. It wasn’t attractive, and, yes, it was a good place to put clean fill, and it does create a nice building site. MR. SANFORD-I don’t really know what to think of it. One hundred and fifty thousand yards of fill. MR. METIVIER-I think in the fairness of time, I think we should let the public speak on this one, because I’m sure there’s going to be comments, and, you know, it’s getting late, and they have their opportunity. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline, 25 Blind Rock Road. I’ve been watching them fill this in since 1999. I haven’t been over the property. I went the other day. That’s the first time I’ve been there in three years. I was amazed at what had happened. I had noticed it from my 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) daughter’s back yard, because I watched this hill growing, but we’ve often called the Town. We’ve called DEC. We’ve called different people asking how much can he bring in. How long is it going to go on. Does he have a permit. Well, I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know. I can’t do anything. Can you do something for me? No. So it’s just been a dead end. I’ve been looking through some of the notes here that I put together, and I wanted to know, is there a map of this property before the filling began, a topographical map or whatever you call it. Is there one? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if there’s one that we have available. MRS. GOSLINE-Has there ever been a permit to dump there before tonight? MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on Blind Rock Road. There’s a permitee for him to do this kind of thing. He hasn’t received a complete Notice of Intent, and so I’m looking at that now. That’s a document that he’s got to do that. So I think it’s not a question of whether he’s meeting the intent of the law or not. It’s a question of how it affects you, pretty much. MRS. GOSLINE-Well, there’s erosion control that we have issues with. 179-60-070, Page 17981, Section C, you’ve got Two, Four, and Ten. Cutting Plan. You don’t have to cut anything back there because he just covered it up, and it’s all underneath the dirt, and he’s killed every tree that’s there. It looks like an airport. Will not cause undue erosion or destruction of scenic beauty. You saw, it looks like a desert. It was a beautiful spot. It wasn’t just an unsightly ditch which was filled. That’s not true. Grading and development shall preserve natural features, such as trees, groves, natural terrain, waterways and other similar resources. There’s nothing left. There’s just all covered. Temporary vegetation and mulching shall be used to protect critical areas during development. There’s nothing there but sand. Cuts and fills should not endanger adjoining properties, nor divert water onto property of others. My daughter, who lives behind them, and is watching the mountain grow, watches the pond grow in her back yard from different times of the year, because what he’s doing, you saw the water on the side, when you were there. That’s all going towards her, and as they fill that in, it’s going to get worse, and the other day we were there and we saw the hill fell down, well, underneath of it, it’s all clay, and it’s not holding, and it looks just like black plastic at sunset, but I took another picture, and you can’t tell, you know, during the morning, what it looks like, but in the evening it looks like black plastic. All fill material shall be a composition suitable for the ultimate use of fill, free of rubbish and carefully restricted. There’s two tires up there. I don’t know what they’re doing up there, you know. They should take those to the dump, and I do have pictures, in 1999, where there was some rubbish dumped there, tires, rugs, a refrigerator, and I called Mr. Schermerhorn and told him, but he didn’t seem concerned about it, and that all went underneath the dirt. So there’s just different issues here that I think the Town really has to be responsible about, and it wasn’t an awful looking spot, and another issue here, grading and equipment, but the one here, the proposal regulated activity is reasonable and necessary. Is there no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity on the site which is not a fresh water wetland. Is this all necessary, bringing in 10,000 truckloads of dirt into an area like that? And once you’ve put, you’ve said how high it’s going to be, how high is it going to be when they put a house on it? It was a beautiful area in there. If you didn’t want to live there, don’t fill it up. Go live somewhere else. Go live on a beach, but if you want to live there, all the other people have built their homes and then left everything around them natural, and he’s just destroying the whole, he’s destroyed the whole area. Yes, I’ve spoken with him about dredging that pond, but that doesn’t make any difference to me. I like the frogs. So that’s not a live or die situation for me. I did take some pictures. I don’t think, Tony, did you go to the site? MR. METIVIER-I’ve been there. MRS. GOSLINE-If you’d like to see some of these pictures I took. MR. VOLLARO-You could pass them through the Board, yes. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MRS. GOSLINE-And here are the pictures in ’99 that I took of the rubbish. I’ve shown those to a past Supervisor in the Town, and he told me that anything that Rich Schermerhorn did is out of the goodness of his heart. I don’t mind if the man builds a house. I just don’t want to have to look at it every time I look out my window, and I don’t see why he has to fill in the whole area. When you first came up that driveway to the right where you could see in the picture there, the water, you step in that, that’s all clay and you go right down to your ankle, and that is percolating water under there. All the water in that pond is spring fed. There’s no streams feeding it. It’s spring fed. MR. SANFORD-You know, we were up there. We took a look at this site, and, you know, I’ve really not, I can’t say with a high degree of certainty that I’m, I know for sure at the end of the day what it’s going to look like, what exactly is going to be filled, but we saw where, obviously, we were walking on an area that had been heavily filled, and we assumed that he was just going to continue right on. It was a big ditch, but I really don’t know for sure exactly what the plan here is, Bob, and I don’t know if the rest of the Board does. If it’s not inappropriate, what I would almost think would make sense would be when we schedule, next month, our site plan, to arrange, perhaps, for this individual to meet us up there and we could walk the site and he could say, yes, we’re going to fill in here. We’re going to fill in here, we’re not going to fill in here. MR. VOLLARO-And it’ll be this high above where we’re standing and whatever. MR. SANFORD-Because we saw a whole lot of area that was filled. We assumed that they were going to continue to fill, I can’t say with certainty, and I looked at these drawings a little bit, and I didn’t really understand them, if you want to know the truth. Does that make sense to the rest of the Board? I would like to see and hear from somebody who’s, and then we could save our questions, I guess it’s not appropriate to get into much of a dialogue, because that would constitute a meeting, but we could get a walk through, and then we could come back and have a bunch of questions, because I have some questions. I mean, they’re talking about the pond. I saw a relatively well formed pond, but then I saw a gully that had water in it and marsh and what have you, and I don’t know if that’s considered a pond or just a wetland or what. I mean, I have a lot of questions on this site. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I see, I’m looking at C.T. Male’s 20 questions here, they have, and they have a sheet tied to that, and where it talks to conformance to zoning, they say information is incomplete or design not approved. The layout plan is, again, information incomplete. Grading and erosion control is incomplete. So, C.T. Male has some of the same questions that you do, obviously. MR. SANFORD-I just don’t know what we’re dealing with here. I know it’s a massive amount of fill. MR. VOLLARO-And I do feel that we have to get a little more understanding. MRS. GOSLINE-I want to know how much more he’s putting on the top, and then take a balloon and put it the height of where the house would be, and get an idea of what you’re thinking of here, and what you’re going to see. MR. SANFORD-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Does Counsel have any input on the site visit issue? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and Rich helped me out a little bit, but I’ll take that a step further. I mean, you know you’re allowed to do site visits, no question about it, and it’s not inappropriate to have sort of a modest or minor amount of tour guide pointing things out, but you really need to be careful about getting in any dialogue. I appreciate Rich beating me to that, actually, and what I’m going to encourage you to do is if need a tour guide, then when you do your site visit, or at the next Planning Board meeting or whenever you come back, the application comes back 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) to the Planning Board, I’m going to encourage you to state on the record what transpired at your site visit, verbally, I mean, what verbal dialogue occurred at your site visit. MR. VOLLARO-We take particular care, during our visits, to stay away from dialogue and all. MR. SCHACHNER-I know you do, and I appreciate that, and I’m glad Rich beat me to that as well. MR. SANFORD-Thanks. MR. METIVIER-I’m just wondering if it would be, I don’t want to push the issue, but if Mary Lee can join us there, too, if she’s willing. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SANFORD-What we just want to avoid is we want to avoid a lot of dialogue. We don’t want it to be constituted as a meeting when it’s not a meeting. MR. METIVIER-Right, absolutely. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you’re also, that was a pretty quick response of, sure. You’re also not supposed to invite private citizens on your site visits, because that raises liability concerns, and it raises insurance concerns. Now if you want to ask the applicant if the applicant would allow this person on their property to observe, that’s a different story, but you should not be in a position of inviting or encouraging private citizens to accompany you on your site visits. MRS. GOSLINE-I don’t need to go on the site plan visit. I’d like to be able to have this tabled so some other neighbors could come, because it did go quite late, and there were other people who wanted to come here but they couldn’t. MR. SANFORD-Well, again, I don’t want to cause any trouble. I just want to understand what we’re dealing with, and right now, I know what I saw, but that doesn’t tell me what it’s going to look like when it’s over with. MR. VOLLARO-That, for one thing, and I think that the whole 20 questions that C.T. Male has raised have to be answered as well, for us to be able to have a better idea of what the project is going to look like when it’s complete. I think Mary Lee has a point with the balloon. Let’s get the applicant to know what the increased elevation is going to be and then put a balloon up to represent the height of the building, which has got to be somewhere under 40 feet. MRS. GOSLINE-Somewhere in here it says when you fill that you’re supposed to go with the terrain and the natural setting of the area. If you look around there, that’s not natural. MR. VOLLARO-Mary Lee, what document are you looking at? MRS. GOSLINE-I’ve got all the different ones that you’ve cited, that you were going to review, and I’ve got, let me find it here. MR. VOLLARO-Did you get that out of our 179 Code, is that where that comes from? MRS. GOSLINE-Yes, I’ve got all your stuff. MRS. STEFFAN-The numbers are usually up in the right hand corner. MRS. GOSLINE-I’m trying to find that one that says when you fill you should go with the contour of the land, and I can’t see it now, but maybe you’ve read it yourself, that it says when you fill you’re supposed to. 78 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Up in the upper right hand corner, as Gretchen said, is there, does all this come out of our Code? MRS. GOSLINE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-179? MRS. GOSLINE-I’ve got 17979 is the page. I go to 179-6-070, soil erosion. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got where you are. All right. MRS. GOSLINE-But it did say something there about when you fill that you’re supposed to respect the contour of the land. I had it earlier. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess where we are now, from where I sit, you’ve got a couple of things that could happen here. There could be a cease and desist, and it would be left the way it is, or we could bring this to a reasonably good conclusion by having some dialogue with the Board after our visit, so that the Board sits down and says, okay, this is what we saw at a meeting like this, and see where we go with that, but. MRS. GOSLINE-I can’t even fathom 10,000 trucks coming in there. Those trucks last year were coming from six in the morning until six at night every twenty minutes. Every twenty minutes, and you’d hear the bang, bang, bang of the back of the truck. They would wake up my grandchildren every morning. Like (lost word) here said, the road was getting dirty. There was an accident there one year where a boy cut his leg off hitting on a motorcycle, and Rich should be knowing about that, because he was sued about that. I think it’s all over with now, but it’s the same circumstances again. I didn’t think it was his fault at the time. I really thought the boy was just driving, you know, recklessly. MR. VOLLARO-Could very well be, from what I’ve seen of some motorcyclists around, but anyway, that’s another story. I think we would like to take a look at, we’ll talk to the applicant and ask him what we can do to go on up there as a group and just get a look, and let him tell us what they’re going to do here, here, and here, and I think your suggestion is good. We know what the height is now. We know what that elevation is. We know where he’s going to go. We know how high his building is going to be. So he can set a balloon at that level and take a look at it, and take a look at it from the road, for example, as to what kind of visibility that balloon has. MRS. GOSLINE-And if you look at my daughter’s side, 5 Blackberry Lane, if you look her way, you can see how much higher they are than she is now. MR. VOLLARO-It’s high. I noticed that’s going to be a great view. I know it’s high. MR. HUNSINGER-So should we go there first, maybe, at nine o’clock? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, in our next review, in our next visit, we’ll be able to do that. MRS. GOSLINE-So will we be on the agenda again? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’re going to table this. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to have to table this and go on the agenda again, but I want to talk to the applicant to make arrangements for what we’re going to do. MRS. GOSLINE-All right, because we just want to know what’s going on. We just never know anything. We can’t get any answers. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. 79 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MRS. GOSLINE-Thank you. KATHLEEN SONNABEND MS. SONNABEND-Kathleen Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. This is kind of difficult for me, because I’m in Cedar Court, and we’ve had (lost word) action with Rich Schermerhorn, and he’s generally been very cooperative and listened to the issues in our development. So I don’t want to, you know, cause unnecessary problems for him, but I share in Mary Lee’s concerns. I moved in to Cedar Court in 1996, and my daughter and I have taken hikes back in all the way over to Glen Lake. There are trails in there for horses and snowmobile, and when we first started hiking, that area that Rich has been filling in was not, I forget how it was described by Jonathan Lapper, but it was not an ugly gully. It was a very varied terrain with lots of trees and we really enjoyed walking back in there, and one of those years, apparently it was in 1999 when he started filling, we walked back in there and it was like, whoa, what’s happening. There was a lot of clear cutting going on and we became aware that it was Rich’s property so we stayed off it since then. We’ve continued hiking in the area that is not his property and hasn’t been disturbed, but it’s very disturbing to see what’s happened. The last time we were in there was some time ago, but at that point there were basically two levels, very far apart, and I was very confused because I had heard that Rich was planning on building one house back in there, and I thought, well, why does he have these two levels that are, I think in the Staff notes it mentioned 35 feet in difference. I think it was even greater at that point. I really, I agree with you, what’s done has been done, and I would much rather see Rich do a nice development there, but I definitely agree you need a deed restriction. If this property had been developed, if he had gone for an approval for a development prior to all this filling, I’m not sure how many units he could have put back in there, because there are a lot of steep slopes. So the deed restriction is critical. Secondly, I don’t know about Mary Lee’s end of the pond, but there’s a separate pond that’s been created, or maybe that pond’s been divided in two by the road he put in, but there’s a pond in behind my property, behind the Cedar Court development, that is fed by a little stream that goes behind my property. I don’t want to see that pond become breeding ground for mosquitoes. I’m not an environmentalist. So I don’t know how much of a danger there is there, but if there is some kind of clean up planned for that pond, I would like to see that done. I don’t understand why we should allow another 150,000 yards of fill to come in there. I don’t understand why someone can be allowed to create a manmade mountain so he can have a great view. I’ve never seen Mary Lee’s daughter’s home, but I saw those pictures. I would hate to have somebody building a mountain behind me, putting me in shadow. So I’m not sure that the Town should be approving any additional height at all, probably some additional grading, and they definitely need to get further away from the wetlands that they were encroaching on, on the west end, but I would encourage the Board to think very strongly about not allowing any further height to that project. I don’t really understand why he needs 15 more feet unless it’s to create a great view for himself, but I’m not sure that’s in the best interests of the surrounding neighbors. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Well, what we don’t really know here, any of us, is having a picture in our minds of what this will look like when it’s complete, and that’s what’s bothering me most. What will it actually wind up to look like, and if somebody can do a rendition of what that is, and it can be done based on the amount of fill that he wants to put in and where it’s going to go, and hold a height restriction on the level that’s there now perhaps. MS. SONNABEND-Because that’s higher than what the land was originally. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess my position is what we’re going to do is take a look and get some description as to what this will look like when it’s complete and maybe add on to that a restriction that says, you will not go any increase in height above where you are now. That means he’s going to have to spread out, to make it look decent. In other words, you don’t want something that looks like a crater. 80 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MS. SONNABEND-Well, he’s already spread out quite a bit. That property was very varied in its terrain before. The amount of fill he’s already brought in has created a very large area. He’s got plenty of room to build a very nice house there. I don’t know how far apart those two levels are anymore. He may need to do some grading, based upon what’s there now. Going back a year, it wouldn’t have been required, but he could have just built on that top level. So I’m sure there’s still more work that needs to be done, and we’re going to have to accept a certain amount of trucks coming in, but I heard those trucks, too, you know, it echoes off the back of the buildings in my development, and they started quite early in the morning. MR. VOLLARO-I know they want to clear the bed with the bang. That’s how they clear it out. So we’ll have to take a look at this. We’ll take on Mr. Sanford’s suggestion and we’ll go to a site visit with the applicant and see what we can come up with. MS. SONNABEND-Yes. Now I did not canvas my neighborhood about this project. I didn’t know enough about what he was proposing. I wanted to come myself tonight to hear it. After hearing and seeing and talking with Mary Lee, I’ve got great concerns, and a couple of my neighbors, on their own, called me and said, we know you’re going to the Planning Board, and these are elderly people, you know, one is close to 80, and when they heard that it was almost the last one on the agenda, they said there was no way they could be here tonight that late, but there’s a lot more concern out there than you would think, based on the few number of people that are here now. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re obviously going to table this and have them come back when we’ve gotten a chance to go up there one more time and try to get a picture in our minds of what this is going to look like. MS. SONNABEND-Yes. It’s just when things are the last on the agenda, it’s very difficult for a lot of these elderly people to get out here. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. These Planning Board meetings go late. I mean, you know the story. It’s 11:30. Sir, go right ahead. JIM MC LAUGHLIN MR. MC LAUGHLIN-My name’s Jim McLaughlin. I just moved onto Blackberry Lane, which is basically due west of this proposed project. Honestly, how can someone build their own mount to put up a house that they want, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the ditch that you might have called a ditch, I could show you some photographs that would just blow you away, on how beautiful that property is. I’m new here. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have photographs of it before it was filled? MR. MC LAUGHLIN-I’ve only been living in the house for a year and a half, but I took some photographs this winter of the pond, and it’s a beautiful pond. So, I mean, yes, I’m new to this, and I would like to be more informed of what’s going on, but it’s just hard for me to understand how this filling can be put on and keep going and keep going and keep going, until he’s past the point where he should be, yet he’s going to continue without anybody saying, hey, you’ve got to stop until we get this done. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the idea is, what we’d like to do is, as I said before, you wouldn’t want to have him cease and desist now and leave it the way it is, because now it doesn’t look very good. MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I want to know what it’s going to look like when you’re done, Richard. This is what we need to know. I need some artist conception that’s been developed from some mathematics. We can do this. The engineer knows how to do it. 81 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. MC LAUGHLIN-But why it hasn’t been done up until now. MR. VOLLARO-Because nobody’s asked them to do it up until now. I think that’s the simple answer. MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And we’re going to have to get into gear and do that. So that’s what, I think what we want to do is table this application until such time as probably our next site visit would be. MRS. STEFFAN-May 14. th MR. VOLLARO-Would be May 14. So the first part of our site visit, then, would be to this, and th we’d like to have the engineering folks here, Mr. Hutchins. MR. LAPPER-You have to keep in mind that it’s a work in progress. So the condition now is not finished condition. MR. VOLLARO-No, and what I’m thinking of you could probably model that out, in a model, to say, this is what it would look like when it’s done. You know how much fill you want to put in there. You know where that fill is going to go and what the topography’s going to look like when it’s done, and then on top of that you superimpose what looks like a house, a single family residence, see what it looks like. That’s what the folks want to know. When it’s all done, what’s it going to look like. MR. SANFORD-That’s only part of the concern. The other concern, Bob, is getting there. You’ve got 150,000 yards of fill, and that’s 10,000 truckloads. That’s a lot of inconvenience. MR. LAPPER-Well, 10% of that’s going to come right from the site, from the pond, about 15,000. MR. SANFORD-I think what the engineer said was 10% was would come, 15,000. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s really 135,000 coming in. MR. SANFORD-All right, 135,000 coming in. Before we get ahead of ourselves and, you know, are willing to accept a nice picture, I want to get into this a little bit. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’m saying is that maybe with another 50,000 yards, or maybe even less, he can then create what looks like a reasonable picture. In other words, 150,000 cubic yards, or 135,000, is a lot. It’s just an awful lot of fill, and it’s over a two to four year period. MR. LAPPER-But the stuff’s going to be on the road anyway, because it’s got to get moved. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know, but in this particular instance, it’s going to one location. So you’ve got trucks going constantly to one place. MR. LAPPER-Well, your idea for a site visit is a good idea, with the engineer, so everyone can understand what the proposal is. MR. VOLLARO-And I’d like to see a rendition of, for example, here’s a rendition of what this is going to look like at 135,000 cubic yards. This is a rendition of, in other words, you just change your model around to show what it would look like at the low end of another 50,000. MR. LAPPER-No matter what the slope has to be graded. MR. VOLLARO-The slope has to be graded, no question. Right now it’s almost vertical. 82 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So something has to be done to make it look like this. MR. LAPPER-We understand what you’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-How much, what volume is in there to make it look like this, and maybe build at the height that it’s at, and then he’s got to find other places to put the fill. MR. LAPPER-Part of it’s to create a nice lot to build, also, but we’ll. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve walked up there now, it’s a pretty nice sized lot. MR. LAPPER-We’ll get you what you want. MR. SEGULJIC-The amount of fill on the site is dictated by his projects, correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So we really don’t know, this 150,000 cubic yard number is really. MR. LAPPER-No, but they were saying that that site can’t accommodate any more than 150,000 cubic yards. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That would be the maximum. MR. VOLLARO-But from what I can see and the number of trucks that are coming in, I would like to see that significantly reduced and a model shown graphically what it would look like when we get maybe 50,000 yards in there. Basically, when we walked up the hill, what I saw was this big incline. If that can be graded so that it looks halfway decent, and see what the volume is in the grade area, then we’ll know. It might only be another 50,000 cubic yards to go in there. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ll get you out there with the engineer and you can look at it. MR. VOLLARO-So May 14 is the day that we’re looking to do this. We’d be at the site at 9:15. th MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Is he going to continue to bring stuff in? MR. VOLLARO-Right now there’s an order in, I understand, it’s in the Staff notes that he’s been under a restriction at this particular time. MR. LAPPER-We have a site plan pending, so he’s not doing anything. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The answer to your question is, no, nothing. He can’t bring any more fill in there. We want to really know what the end result is going to be. That’s what we want to know. That’s what the people want to know. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we understand. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, now you mentioned something about balloons. Do you want to see balloons set at that time? MR. VOLLARO-If the weather is calm enough, usually the balloons, when there’s good wind like this, it doesn’t give you the zenith, it doesn’t give you (lost word) the way you want it. 83 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, a lot of things happen. MR. VOLLARO-So if it’s a calm day, we’ll get a good idea of what the balloon looks like from various residents. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I guess if you’re looking for plans as well that show cross sections, I guess I would specify exactly what you’re looking for in any tabling motion. I would also hope you would identify when you’re tabling this to and when. MR. VOLLARO-We haven’t identified that yet. We’ve identified a date we’re going to be there. MR. HILTON-Sure, but if you are looking for some new submission from the applicant, I guess just specify what you’re looking for and when you want it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We won’t get there until May 14. That certainly isn’t enough time. th MR. LAPPER-We’d like to get you the new plans, stuff that you want, so you’d have it for that site visit. MR. HUNSINGER-We’d need the C.T. Male signoff, too. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you’d need a C.T. Male signoff. What I’m looking at is probably the first Planning Board meeting in June. That’s about the best, I think, giving them enough time to do the work, giving us enough time to review that. The first meeting in June, June 21. st MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, why don’t we do the site visit on June 21, then, or in June. st MR. VOLLARO-Rather than? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, by the time we do our site visit on May 14, I would hope that th they’ve got some rendition for us on 21. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’ll do that. MR. VOLLARO-Something we can look at, after we’ve talked it over. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just thinking that we would review it soon after the site visit, so it would be fresher in our minds. MR. LAPPER-Maybe you could put us on on the second meeting in May. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was thinking. MR. VOLLARO-Do you still want to carry it out on May 14? th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, what I’m suggesting is if we’re not going to review the site plan until June, let’s do the site visit in June. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We usually do old business first. So it would be earlier in the agenda. MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. We’ve got the first meeting in May is on the 24. Do you want to th do it. 84 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SCHACHNER-That’s the second meeting in May. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the second meeting in May, but I’m looking at the site visit, unless we make a special visit. We could certainly do that, rather than do it on the 14 of May, which th would be a Saturday. We could do the visit on 21. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if it helps you any, our May agenda is probably pretty close to being full right now. I’m not sure if you want to go into June with this or how you want to handle it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s why I’m into June. The first Planning Board meeting would be on June 21. If we move back to, for example, do a special site visit on the 18, instead of the 14, thth that’s a Saturday. It would be a special site visit just for this, and then have our first Planning Board meeting to discuss that on 21. MR. LAPPER-So that’s June 18 or May 18? thth MR. VOLLARO-It’s June 18. We were going to do it on May 14. thth MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And people are saying that the May agenda is full, and I’m looking at the first meeting in June would be the 21, and to get some, to be able to get to the 21 meeting with stst some visibility, we’d need to see the site on the 18, instead of the 14 of May. Because May is thth pretty chock-a-block right now. So can we do that? Can we shift from May 14 to June 18 for thth the visit, and do the, put this on the June 21 calendar. Does that, is that satisfactory to Board st members? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Are you okay with me on that? MR. HILTON-I think June 18 might be your regular site visit date for June anyway. th MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is, and that’s why I’m putting it there, and we’ll do it at nine in the morning, early. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That way we get enough time for you folks to think a little bit about what we want. Now we’ve got to put a tabling motion together that tells what we actually want. So this isn’t easy to do at quarter to twelve. MR. LAPPER-We understand. We heard what you said. You want it modeled and you want some alternative heights. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d like to see what we can come up with on a motion. Is that sloped to the south? I believe it is. It’s a southern slope. It’s either the south or the east. MR. HUTCHINS-The southeast. MR. LAPPER-A slope on all sides. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-In other words, the slope you see when you’re driving, as you drive up. 85 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Well, I’ve got it down. The first thing is to hold the level at the existing site, at the existing height. MR. LAPPER-But it would have to be finished, and it would have to be. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right, and then model the site from there. In other words, a given would be it’s at its existing height. MR. LAPPER-And then maybe at another 50, another 100 and 150. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I said, model the site for an additional number of cubic yards (75 to maybe 90,000 cubic yards). Then grade the southeast slope to less than a 25% grade, and let’s see what that looks like, depicting that in a model. It shouldn’t be that hard to do. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Everybody understand what I’ve done? Okay. So that’s the level of detail. George, did you understand what I just did? Hold the level at the existing height, this is going to be in the motion, model the site for an additional number of cubic yards (75,000 to maybe 90,000 cubic yards), and grade the southeast slope to a grade of 25% or less. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And that should come out in a model, and that will give us an idea of what we’re looking at here. Am I on the right track there? MRS. STEFFAN-Jim, can you help us? Is there something else we should be looking at, that would give us a different perspective, or the perspective we need to make a better decision? MR. HOUSTON-The only thing I had thought about, and I’m not that familiar with that part of the Town, and everybody’s focusing on what you can see from the adjoining residences, or whatever, but either the surrounding hills or lakes or anything there that might be other impacts. MR. LAPPER-There’s nowhere else you can see it. It’s in the middle of the woods. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s packed in pretty tight. MR. HOUSTON-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-So the balloon, did you mention the balloon in the tabling motion? Because there’s some scenic guidelines for the Bay Road corridor and so if we went to Bay Road. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good point. MR. LAPPER-We’re not really on the Bay Road corridor, probably. MRS. STEFFAN-If the hill comes up high enough, and then you put a 40 foot structure, will you be able to see it from Bay Road? MR. LAPPER-We’ll look at that. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to put in the motion, place a balloon at the existing height. MR. LAPPER-Plus 40 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Plus 40 feet, which would be. 86 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. LAPPER-But actually a house won’t be 40 feet. MR. VOLLARO-It won’t be 40 feet. Place it at some nominal level that a private house, maybe 35, I don’t know. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We’ll do something that makes sense. MR. HUTCHINS-Above existing grade? MR. VOLLARO-Above existing grade. In other words, if a given is to hold the level at the existing height, then your balloon would be from that height up. MR. LAPPER-Since Rich isn’t interested in keeping it at existing grade, but would certainly compromise, we’ll probably do a few balloons to show you a few alternatives. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. We’ll see where we go with it. I mean, I can understand where some of the neighbors are coming from here. MR. LAPPER-Sure, but there’s no right that you can’t see a house in Queensbury. I mean, that’s, you know, there’s nothing shocking about that, but we’ll, Rich will always compromise with the Board. So let’s get out on the site and take it from there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does somebody want to make the motion, or do you want me to make it? MR. SANFORD-You go ahead, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2005 RICHARD & BETH SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: For the following reasons: Tabled to June 21, 2005. We will have a review meeting at the site on June 18 at 9 o’clock. For th the June 21 meeting we would like the engineer to hold the level at the existing height and st model the site for an additional number of cubic yards, let’s say 75,000 to 90,000 cubic yards, and grade the southeast slope to less than 25%. At the site visit, please place balloons at the existing height, the existing grade up approximately 35 feet to represent the height of a residential building on that site, and also to get a final C.T. Male signoff of the 20 items of their letter of April 13, 2005. Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-So to get that 25% grade, you’re going to be somewhere between probably 75,000 to 90,000. I’m guessing. I don’t have a crystal ball. MRS. STEFFAN-Bob, is existing grade enough, I mean, because they are plan on elevating it? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m saying I want them to hold that existing grade. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ll give you a few alternatives. We’ll give you what you want, but we’ll provide some other alternatives. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right now I’m saying the grade we walked at is what I want them to hold it at. If they want to come back with some alternate proposal, that’s fine. 87 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. HUTCHINS-I can put a couple of balloons up. I can put a red one up at 20 feet, a blue up at 30 feet, and a pink one up at 40 feet. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-So that’s easy to do. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Before you adjourn, I submitted a letter today, on behalf of the Girl Scouts, to the acting Chairman. They were the 15 application of the 14 application deadline, and they’ve th scheduled a whole bunch of activities for June around their splash pad, which is a little mini waterpark for the Girl Scouts for the summer, and they made the deadline on Friday, but didn’t make the cut because they were the last, or just missed the last spot. They would like you to consider a special meeting some time in May because their summer’s going to fall apart if they can’t get this site plan approved. It’s a big deal to them, although it’s a small modification. If there’s any way you could fit them in, or else if you would consider a special meeting, they’d real appreciate it, because it’s been in all their literature that they’re going to have that when they open their camp on Meadowbrook, and it’s just a procedural issue. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve had, in the last couple of days or whatever, weeks, we’ve had this problem with trying to hold, one of the things we’re going to discuss tonight, I hope, is we’re going to try to take a vote on whether we want to go from 14 to 16 or not. MR. LAPPER-If you did, they would make the cut, at 16. MR. VOLLARO-No, the problem is, you see what we had tonight with the seven. It’s gotten to be so most of the people aren’t operating on all six, four, or eight cylinders, whichever you’re driving these days, and these late meetings, we’re not at our best. MR. LAPPER-It’s just a real hardship for these guys. They’ve made the deadline, and I understand how it works, but it’s really going to be a big issue if they can’t. MR. VOLLARO-Well, George, do you understand where he’s at with that? MR. HILTON-I understand his request, but I’m not, I guess I’m not certain that they’re Number 15, especially with the addition of the item that was tabled tonight, Cerniglia. I think there may be, I’m not sure, but there might be other applications in front of this one that, you know, we receive them in a certain order. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. LAPPER-We were next, according to Craig, in terms of Friday. MR. HILTON-I guess I can’t say for sure. So I don’t know how that affects the rest of the people, if there are any applications that are in front of the Girl Scouts. I guess I just don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-And when are we going to do Holcomb? MR. HILTON-That’s going on next month. We’ve got that. 88 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. METIVIER-Again, can’t we, instead of pushing applications back every month, why don’t we take one month and have an extra meeting and get everything caught up? Can’t we do that, one month? MR. VOLLARO-We can do that, one month. There’s not a problem with doing it that way. The problem that I have, I guess, is nobody wanted to listen back upstream, and I’ve got a problem with that. I’ve got a real problem with that, putting people. I think the general consensus, back upstream, was let the Planning Board deal with it, and I didn’t want to deal with it at that time. So we did put, and I’ll use the word, we did put a moratorium up. It failed, and this is what we’ve got. We’re trying to do PORC at the same time as we’re doing this, and it’s become quite burdensome to everybody, and so that’s my little spiel. I won’t carry it any further. I will take this and I will try to deal with it the best I can. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Good night. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, really quickly, I did want to, unfortunately Susan Barden, our Land Use Planner, obviously left. You did meet here by way of the, her introduction. We wanted to introduce her in the beginning. Given that we got started, I think people were arriving at the same time, we were unable to. Susan is our new Land Use Planner, and she will be, at some point, probably the primary person you’ll see at this table, and I apologize tonight for the shifting of certain Staff, but I think that’s to be expected when we’re introducing new people and you have each individual Staff member doing certain applications. So, you know, that’s, having said that, we had hoped to introduce here. I apologize that we didn’t get to do that in the beginning, and we hope that, at some point soon, you will see some more, I guess, consistency, and as I said, primarily Susan at this table. MR. VOLLARO-We understand, at least I do. I don’t know about the rest of the Board, but, you know, you’ve got transitions going on. I know how that is. Anyway. Okay. We have some business we wanted to conduct tonight. Now I know it’s late. We can conduct it if you want. One of the things I want to take a vote on tonight is because we’re at the end of our term on the 14 versus 16 is up the 15 of April. So do you want to stay with 14, or do we want to vote to go th to 16, or what’s the consensus of the feeling on the Board? MR. SANFORD-We had seven tonight. It’s midnight. Why would we want to do eight? MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you from this seat, I won’t vote for eight. I just won’t. MR. SANFORD-Yes, again, I think Tony had a good suggestion. If we have to fit in the Girl Scouts, we fit them in, or if we need to have an extra meeting, we have an extra meeting once in a while, but I can’t see going back to eight and eight, when we’re finding us pushing 11:30, 12:00 with seven. It just doesn’t make any sense. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t make any sense to me, either. MR. SANFORD-So that’s my two cents. MR. VOLLARO-I think Tony’s right. Maybe occasionally we could put up an extra meeting. MR. SANFORD-Or, in a case of a situation like this, I don’t even know what the issue is, but, you know, if you have an issue where the season’s waiting on our decision, and it’s the Girl Scouts, we go eight that one meeting, as an exception, but we certainly shouldn’t make it a rule, and, we have to have a process in place for making those exceptions, and that’s something we could internalize, but in terms of going back to eight on a consistent basis, I just don’t feel good about it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Having said that, Tom, what’s your position? 89 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with the eight, because you don’t know what they’re going to be. Some are smaller. Some are bigger, and we have the eleven o’clock curfew which we decided. MR. VOLLARO-It never works. It never works. MR. SANFORD-It didn’t work tonight. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, I tried, you just can’t do it. They’re pressing you from this side, you know, you just can’t say, that’s it, you’re done. I just don’t know that that, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for me. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but it’s tough to do, very tough to do. I find. MRS. STEFFAN-Just based on the last couple of months, and what I see coming forward, I’d like to stay with the seven items, and if we get to a situation where the backlog is overwhelming, then we have to go with an extra meeting. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s still, it is a tremendous amount of workload to prepare for two meetings, then, if we add a third meeting, that’s at least six hours of work, between being here and the minimal two hours of prep, there’s usually more than that involved, and so that’s a lot more time. MR. VOLLARO-The prep time is three times the meeting time. Easily, if you do it right. If you take your job seriously and look at all these applications, it’s at least three times the meeting time, at least. So, George, what’s your? MR. GOETZ-Well, this is my first meeting. I haven’t had it very easy. I’m an alternate, but I think what Tony suggested really makes a lot of sense. I mean, you stay with the seven, and every once in a while, you go with a special meeting, and you can accomplish a lot. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I would go along with that. MRS. STEFFAN-But I also, one of the things I want to mention is that I don’t think every month there should be another meeting. This should be an extraordinary, when there’s a backlog, and things are overwhelming. So we need to be very considerate about that. MR. SANFORD-And the special meeting doesn’t have to have seven items on it. There could be a special meeting with four items on it. Just to catch up on a few things. MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t really have a strong feeling about, you know, 14 versus 16 or 7 versus 8. I think we spend a lot of time talking about agenda control and backlog, when maybe we should be focusing on, why are these reviews taking so long? I really, I mean, the first, took us three hours to get through the first three applications tonight, and, you know, I think on a number of occasions we went off on some tangents, perhaps, that maybe we shouldn’t have gone off on. I think, you know, we need to maybe have a workshop or something, but to talk about, you know, what exactly is the role of the Board, what should we be looking at in reviews, you know, maybe bring in a third party from some place to spearhead that training, but it just seems like we get too bogged down in minutia and instead of doing our job, and, you know, I’m not being critical of anyone. I think we’re all guilty of it, but, you know, we talk about agenda control, we talk about 11:00 curfews, but we don’t talk about, what should we be doing to speed up the meeting, and I think that’s where it should start, and I think it starts with, you know, we’ve talked a couple of times in the past about, you know, Roberts Rules of Order and some of those kinds of issues, but, you know, we haven’t had any discussion or training or anything else 90 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) on those, and I think that’s where we really need to start. No one likes these eleven o’clock or midnight meetings. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a fine balancing act, because the Town and the applicant both deserve a good review, and so it’s a balancing act of whether or not we get into details like I get into, like this four percent or six percent slope or whatever. MR. HUNSINGER-My favorite story, Craig’s not here, was the night we were here until 2:30, and Craig left, asked me to Chair the meeting. He didn’t want to review that particular applicant because he wanted to table it. We spent over two and a half hours debating the application only to table it. I mean, that was obviously the worst case of where things went wrong, but I think tonight was a good example. I mean, some of the discussion in those first three cases, I think really could have gone a lot quicker, and, you know, I don’t know, and like I said, I’m not saying it’s anyone’s fault. I’m not being critical of anyone, but I think there’s, you know, we really need to look at that and come to some consensus and agreement on how we can move these things along, and I’m not suggesting we do the Town or the applicant a disservice. I just think that maybe there’s some methods, perhaps, that we could institute that could speed some things, speed up the meetings. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the things that bogged us down tonight was this dual role that we play with SEQRA and the subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-But we have that every time. Every time we have a SEQRA, we have that same discussion, and it’s the same discussion every time. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and do you know why it is? It’s because the Board’s uncomfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then let’s have a workshop and deal with it, so that we are comfortable with it, so we don’t spend an hour talking about the same thing, month after month after month. MR. VOLLARO-Well, no one application is the same as the other. That’s the other problem. It’s all got its own unique things that go along with it, and I just don’t, I don’t know whether we can sort of streamline this in a box. MR. SANFORD-Well, first of all, I mean, you know, again, Gretchen mentioned this, I think. We were only supposed to get zoning changes, as I recall from a former workshop. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. SANFORD-On a quarterly basis. Well, we’ve had a few that there hasn’t been a quarter separating them. So, we have a workshop. We decide that we’re only going to get requests for zoning changes on a quarterly basis, and now we’ve had one this time. We’ve had one last month, and I think we had one the month before that, or so. So it doesn’t matter. We can have all the workshops we want, but they don’t seem to follow through, okay. I mean, do you remember that? MR. HILTON-Well, yes, and I guess I can’t say for sure whether or not these were referred quarterly or not. I guess it’s possible that once the referral was, if a referral is done on a quarterly basis from the Town Board, not all the zone changes, Petition for Zone Changes, it’s possible that they wouldn’t arrive at the same date in front of this Board. So you may have some kind of staggered review or referral to this Board. I guess I can’t say for sure. MR. SANFORD-The understanding we had at the workshop was that we, as the Planning Board, would have one meeting a quarter where we would address recommendations for zone changes. 91 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. HILTON-I don’t recall that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, that’s my understanding. MR. VOLLARO-No, we did have that. That was a workshop. MR. SANFORD-And it seems like we get them all the time, okay. MR. METIVIER-I do think we need to be more flexible, though, whether we do seven or eight agenda items. I think this last month was absolutely ridiculous with the rhetoric that went back and forth between these two applications that were put on and shouldn’t have been. I mean, it cost us our Chairman, over two applications. So in a case where there is an undue. MR. VOLLARO-That wasn’t the only reason your Chairman left. MR. METIVIER-I know, but you have to admit, that was a catalyst for what he did. So, you have to take these two applications, and when there’s hardship involved with people and mortgages, and, you know. MR. VOLLARO-Tony, let me stop you there for just a minute. The one that was supposed to be on for tonight, I brought back to Craig Brown. It would never past muster at this Board. If you saw the application, I don’t know whether you took a look at it or not, it was terrible. Somebody had scratched a bunch of stuff on a site plan. It looked like a first grade drawing, and all the math that supported it was incorrect. It would have never gotten by this Board, and Craig Brown looked at it and said, yes, you’re right, it wouldn’t have gotten by the Board. So people, you know, want to be on last minute, but want to give us junk, and I just won’t approve junk. MR. METIVIER-But we have to also be somewhat flexible in situations. Girl Scout perfect example. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to try to take of it. I’ve got it right here with Jonathan Lapper. I’ll do what I can. MR. METIVIER-I mean, I’ll be happy to come in for a special meeting to help them out, and I don’t think I’m doing them anymore favors than I would anybody else, but this is a situation where we should actually, you know, come together. The problem is we put ourselves in a situation, are we guaranteeing them, you know, approval because we? MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s the other thing. If we bring them before the Board, they’ve got to go through the Board review. MR. METIVIER-They better be ready, absolutely. MR. SANFORD-All right. Are we going to address? I, for one, would recommend that we do address the reorganization of the Planning Board, that tonight we talk about giving a recommendation to the Town Board. We have, for this year at least, we really haven’t had a Chairperson. Even though Craig was officially our Chairperson, he, counting tonight’s meeting, missed all but one, and of course, he resigned, you wouldn’t expect him to be here. Bob’s filled in, but I think, A, if we don’t make a recommendation, a decision may be made in the absence of our recommendation, because it’s the Town Board’s decision, and I’d just as soon have them have our recommendation, and, Two, I think that certain official documents have to be signed by the Chairman, and the Vice Chair may not qualify to sign those, and so I would like to open that discussion up, if there is a discussion. If not, I actually have a nomination I’d like to make, but, I’d just as soon open it up for discussion. Is there any? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to nominate Bob be Chairman. 92 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MOTION TO NOMINATE ROBERT VOLLARO FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. SANFORD-And that’s really all we have to do. MR. METIVIER-Well, we need a Vice Chairman. MR. SANFORD-That’s something we do. I don’t believe, officially, the Town Board appoints that. MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s us. If they Town Board accepts our recommendation, they may not. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they didn’t accept Craig that one time. MR. VOLLARO-They didn’t accept Craig that one year. MR. SANFORD-They ended up accepting him. MR. VOLLARO-We can now, among ourselves, appoint a Vice Chair, and I’ll make a nomination for a Vice Chair, and I’ll nominate Mr. Sanford for Vice Chair. I don’t expect to be absent a lot. MR. METIVIER-And I’ll second your nomination, if you can do that. Can you do that? Without being a Chairman yet, or because you’re Chair tonight, you can make a nomination? MR. VOLLARO-I’m not Chair tonight. I’m a Vice Chair tonight. So I may not be able to make that. You have a point. I’m not Chair until our Town Board says I am. That’s the way I see it. MR. METIVIER-So you can’t make a nomination on a Vice Chair right now. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I can’t. MR. SANFORD-Why don’t we just hold off. MR. VOLLARO-Just hold off until our next meeting, and then I’ll call for. MR. METIVIER-Somebody looks puzzled over there. MR. SCHACHNER-You can do whatever you want, and you’re correct that you’re not the Chairman, but anyone can make a nomination motion. It doesn’t have to be the Chairman. MR. SANFORD-If you want to do it, Bob, make it conditioned upon you being approved by the Town Board. MR. VOLLARO-Well, rather than do that, why don’t we take Mark’s tack, and if somebody else wants to make a motion for Vice Chair, let them do it, and I’ll stay out of it. MR. METIVIER-Well, what difference does it make if you do it or I do it? MR. SANFORD-I don’t think he cares if you’re in it or not. 93 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) MR. SCHACHNER-He’s right. I’m not understanding the concern. A nomination does not need to be made by the Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then again, I would nominate Mr. Sanford for the position of Vice Chairman of this Board. MR. SANFORD-Just add, contingent upon you being approved as the Chair. MR. VOLLARO-Contingent upon me being approved as the Chair. MR. SANFORD-Because if the Town Board doesn’t want Bob to be the Chair for whatever reason then I believe he should, perhaps, provided he stays with us, he should remain the Vice Chair. Otherwise he would be bounced out of that position. MR. METIVIER-Good point. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll second that nomination. MOTION TO NOMINATE RICHARD SANFORD FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-All right. I think that concludes our business. MR. SANFORD-And while I appreciate the seven, keep it to the seven, I think we ought to allow the Girl Scouts to come in. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got the Girl Scout thing. I will talk about it. MR. HILTON-Again, let me just say that I’m not sure, and it may very well be that they were the number 15. There may be other items in front of them. MR. VOLLARO-George, if necessary to get this through, we’ll hold a special meeting for them. MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, we’ll talk about, if you feel free to call me, we can discuss. MR. VOLLARO-I will, but we’ll get them on. MRS. STEFFAN-And, just so you know, I’m not going to be here for the September meetings. I’m gone. MR. VOLLARO-This meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman 94 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/19/05) 95