Loading...
2005-05-10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 10, 2005 INDEX DISCUSSION Re-vote on Planning Board Chairman 1. Site Plan No. 21-2005 Jon & Crystal Holcomb 3. Tax Map No. 309.11-2-25 Site Plan No. 5-2003 Ian Rowlandson 5. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 227.17-2-14 Subdivision No. 6-2005 Robert Reid 6. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 297.6-1-6.1 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 10-2005 Robert & Janice Grillo 7. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-51 Site Plan No. 66-2004 Jeffrey Threw 9. Tax Map No. 316.5-1-12.1 Subdivision No. 20-2004 Jeffrey Threw 32. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.5-1-12.1 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 9-2005 Jeffrey Inglee 33. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 300-1-40.2 FINAL STAGE THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 10, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD GRETCHEN STEFFAN ANTHONY METIVIER GEORGE GOETZ SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to open the Special Meeting of May 10, 2005 of the Planning Board. You have in your hand, some of you, agendas. Be it known that Robert Reid, which was the third applicant down, has withdrawn his application. I have a letter here that I’ll read during the regular session. So that won’t be on tonight. We have a change in the agenda item that I’m going to start off with first, and then we’ll get to Jon and Crystal Holcomb, and then start it from there, but I’m going to start the meeting off by reading a prepared statement by myself. First, I want to read a letter that we received, we, the Board, received from the Executive Director of Community Development on May 4, 2005. The subject was Planning Board Chairman. The Town Board was canvassed, and a majority is requesting the Planning Board consider and make a new recommendation to the Town Board. I have been asked to request that a revised recommendation for Planning Board Chairman, male or female, be made and submitted to the Town Board. It is my understanding that the Town Board will act on such recommendation during the next Town Board meeting scheduled for May 16, 2005. I will add this item to the May 10, 2005 Planning Board agenda, and it was so done today, in e-mail. Now, I’m going to read a prepared statement to you. The Planning Board has no obligation to respond to this letter for two reasons. One. It was canvassed by telephone by the assistant to the Supervisor and a decision was made to request that the Planning Board submit a revised recommendation. Since this was a decision made by a telephone canvassing, it is in violation of the Open Meetings Law. Now I’m going to read and digress for just a second to opinions rendered by Robert Freeman, who is down at the Department of State, and he has two opinions there, 22-56 and 25-74 and others, but I just picked those two out. It says a series of communications between individual members or telephone calls between members which result in a decision or a meeting held by means of a telephone conference would be, in my 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) opinion, inconsistent with the law, and that’s by Robert J. Freeman. Now, the Planning Board is not required to take direction from the Executive Director of Community Development. Having said that, Chapter 271 of the Town law states in part, and I’ll read it for you, and it’s revision of February 2004. I’ve checked this out with a number of people in State and the legislature. This is the latest piece of information that’s available, as far as Town law is concerned, Chapter 271. It says the Town Board of each town is hereby authorized by local law ordinance to create a Planning Board consistent of five to seven members and shall, by resolution, appoint the members of such Board and designate the Chairperson thereof. In the absence of a Chairperson, the Planning Board may designate a member to serve as Chairperson. The Planning Board, on April 19, made a unanimous decision to designate a member to serve th as Chairperson. In fact, there is no obligation to have sent a recommendation to the Town Board. There never is. We do that as a matter of courtesy to that Board. The Town Board has now two options. One, per Chapter 271 of the Section I just read, the Town can let the decision of the Chairmanship stand. Two, they can make a resolution designating a Chairman of their choice following discussion and vote in open meeting. They may choose to go into Executive Session. I don’t know. This is a personnel matter, and they may choose to hang on a personnel matter for Executive Session. If they do, they must come out and vote in the clear. Therefore, I’m recommending that we as a Board, this Planning Board, take no action on Marilyn Ryba’s letter dated May 4, 2005. Now, all of this information comes from the Department of State, my discussions with them, and if anybody wants to talk to the attorney there, his name is Harry Willis. He’d be glad to talk to either our attorneys or any member of this Board concerning this action, and that’s all I have to say. Thank you very much. MR. SANFORD-So we basically do nothing at this point? It’s already been done. MR. VOLLARO-That is correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So, having said that, why don’t we move to the regular agenda. MR. VOLLARO-I intend to do that. Now, I will ask if there’s any comment from the Board, if a Board member would like to speak. I don’t like to silence the Board. If there’s a Board member who wishes to comment, they may, and then after that comment, we will continue on with the regular Planning Board meeting. Are there any comments by anybody on the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-I’d just be curious as to Counsel’s opinion on the comments that you just made. MR. VOLLARO-Feel free. MS. RADNER-Very briefly, there’s no obligation for you folks to make a recommendation to the Town Board, nor is there an obligation from the Town Board to solicit one. As Mr. Vollaro pointed out, the law gives the Town Board the right to appoint a Chairperson. By soliciting a different recommendation, they haven’t taken an action. They’ve asked you for the courtesy of reconsidering. If you don’t wish to do that, as Bob said, you have no obligation to do so. They, then, have the option of either not appointing a Chair and letting your Acting Chair, Mr. Vollaro, continue in that capacity, or making their own selection without your recommendation. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Exception to your comment. I don’t believe we have actually a legitimate request, based on what I’ve understood from Mr. Vollaro’s comment, as to the Town Board. First of all, there was a canvassing. When was it done. Who said what? Who decided what? I don’t know. It certainly is not in public record, and so when you’re talking in terms of the Town Board has asked us, from a legal and actually just a commonsense perspective, I don’t believe they’ve asked us to do anything. This was done all underground, for lack of a better expression, and if they cared to do something like that, they should do it in public setting, and I don’t believe they have. MS. RADNER-I can’t comment on that. I wasn’t at their last Town Board meeting. They were given your recommendation, though, and did not choose to act on it, and to accept that 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) recommendation. There has been no official action to appoint a Town Board member. So in that respect they have not yet acted on appointing a Chairman, and they are aware of their obligation, and that decision will be made in accordance with the Open Meetings Law. MR. SANFORD-My understanding was, though I don’t have the minutes of that meeting, but I think when we do have the minutes of that meeting, there was no discussion whatsoever. So, having said that, I guess what my point is, I just want to characterize your statement in a technically correct way. The Town Board has really asked us to do nothing. It was this canvassing which was an informal thing done, presumably by Mr. Stec. Again, I don’t understand it. It certainly wasn’t part of a public meeting. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a slight correction there. The canvassing was not done by Mr. Stec. The canvassing was done by his secretary. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Fine. Thank you. Okay. That’s all. MS. RADNER-Does that answer your questions, Chris? Are you satisfied? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-As I said, any member is free to call Mr. Willis. He understands that there are seven people on this Board that may call him concerning this matter, and he’s free to take your call, and I’ll give you the phone number and whatever if you need to do that. MR. GOETZ-Essentially what I think I heard is that the, if the Town Board were to do it properly, that they could make a decision as to who they would like to have as head of this Board. MS. RADNER-That’s correct. MR. GOETZ-And if they said they wanted a certain person, then as an appointed Board we pretty much have to go along with their decision. Is that correct? MS. RADNER-Well, the individual selected doesn’t have to serve. They can’t be forced to act as Chair if they don’t feel qualified or decline that position, but, yes, they can choose it for you and they do not need to ask your recommendation or take your recommendation. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true. MR. GOETZ-Okay. So they have that right to make the recommendation, except for where they have no right is to overrule decisions that we make here that are pertinent to the Planning Board’s business. Is that correct? MS. RADNER-Are you referring to specific applications? MR. GOETZ-Yes. MS. RADNER-Yes. They don’t have an appeal status in terms of particular applications. That’s correct. MR. GOETZ-Okay. Thank you. MS. RADNER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Are we done with that issue? MR. SANFORD-Yes. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The first application before is for Jon and Crystal Holcomb. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2005 SEQR TYPE II JON & CRYSTAL HOLCOMB AGENT: SEAN FITZPATRICK ZONE: MIXED USE LOCATION: 13 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 1650 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE MIXED USE ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2005-144 TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-25 LOT SIZE: 1.05 AC. +/- SECTION: 179-4-020 SEAN FITZPATRICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FITZPATRICK-Good evening. MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MR. FITZPATRICK-I’m Sean Fitzpatrick. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, Sean. As I understand, this is a single family home in a mixed use zone. Is that correct? MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And, as such, it requires site plan review. MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I can understand. I’ve read this, and I feel I have absolutely no comment. I feel you were caught in our mixed use definition with a single family home. I don’t know why it’s in there. I believe it’s an error. It’s got to be changed, and that’s my only comment as Chairman. I will let the rest of the Board discuss it, and there’s no, this is a Type II. So there’s no SEQRA on this as well, and there is a public hearing, however, is somebody wants to speak to this, but if you’re all finished, I’ll solicit the Board and see if we. MR. FITZPATRICK-All I have is, the only thing that I know about is there was an existing house. I submitted a survey that was, it’s not current. It’s a survey of what was handed to me. We’re going to have final survey, obviously, before the CO is submitted. There was an existing house on there they tore down because, obviously, it was just an eyesore. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I understand the conditions that surround the application, and I don’t have any comment, as I said before, and if any other Board member does have a comment, they can speak to it. I think this is pretty, Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t have any comment. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, how about you? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No comment. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I don’t see any comments from the Board, but I will accept a motion from the Board for approval of this application. MS. RADNER-I think you have a public hearing. MR. METIVIER-There’s a public hearing. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. Does anybody want to speak to this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SANFORD-All right. I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2005 JON & CRYSTAL HOLCOMB, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 21-2005 Applicant/Owner: Jon & Crystal Holcomb SEQR Type II Agent: Sean Fitzpatrick Zone: Mixed Use Location 13 Luzerne Road Applicant seeks approval to construct a 2380 square foot single family dwelling with a 2 car attached garage. Single Family Dwellings in the Mixed Use zone require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: BP 2004-502 Tax Map No. 309.11-2-25 Lot Size: 1.05 ac +/- / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 5/10/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/4/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/6/05, and 5/10/05 Staff Notes 5/2/05 Notice of public hearing sent 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent 5/2/05 Map S-1 revised received by CB 4/27/05 C. Brown from Fitzpatrick Construction: submitting required info 4/25/05 Comments from Mike Shaw, Deputy Director Wastewater Dept. 4/21/05 M. Shaw from C. Brown: referral 4/19/05 Staff Notes 4/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 4/4/05 Meeting Notice sent 4/4/05 RPS info 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 5/10/05 and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) 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 10th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You’re all set. MR. FITZPATRICK-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2003 PREVIOUS SEQR MOD IAN ROWLANDSON AGENT: JAMES W. MOONEY ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 90 SEELYE RD., QUEENSBURY, NY 12804 APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FROM MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN INCREASE OF 167 SQ. FT. ABOVE WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 77-2003, BP 2004-382 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/13/05 APA, CEA: TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-14 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-010 JAMES MOONEY & ROBERT FLANSBURG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Would you like to state for the record your name, please. MR. MOONEY-I’m James Mooney. I’m the contractor for the Rowlandsons. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. And? MR. FLANSBURG-I’m Robert Flansburg. I’m the architect. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want to tell us a little bit about your problem here? MR. FLANSBURG-What we’ve done is following Planning Board approval, without realizing it, the second floor was expanded by five and a half feet. The footprint was not changed. It was done to meet the client’s needs, and we didn’t know we’d have to come back here, because we were underneath the ratios. I believe the max is 22%. We’re at 20, and the zoning officer, when we submitted amended plans and Res Check and so on for the building permit, picked that up and recommended that we come back before the Planning Board because it was different than what was approved, in terms of the square footage. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a deviation of 167 square feet. MR. FLANSBURG-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the deviation. Look, there is very little that we can do here on this Board. If I was a real ogre, I could talk about making you take it down, but I’m not going to do that. So, with that, we have no SEQRA this evening. It’s a Type II and there is no public hearing this evening on this at all. I’m sorry, it says not required. It says public hearing not required on the agenda. Are we correct with that? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MS. RADNER-Right, public hearing not required. If you were to see something about the application that made you believe that the previous SEQRA was no longer valid, you could revisit the SEQRA. Otherwise, you’ve already completed SEQRA. It’s not that it’s a Type II. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s just on the previous SEQR. Fine. I see nothing here, personally. The rest of the Board will have to make a determination, but for 167 square feet, I have no comments. MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I have is, since it’s so close to the lake, would that have an impact on the stormwater management plan? Staff said it didn’t appear to. I guess I’d like to hear from the applicant. Let him go on the record saying that it won’t. MR. FLANSBURG-No. It would not. The roof area has not changed. The footprint has not changed. Instead of a 12/12 roof over a certain area, there’s a flatter roof, but it’s the same overall effects. MR. VOLLARO-It’s the same non pervious. Once you said the footprint was the same, I knew that it was an interior problem. MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, it was. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any problem with it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Anybody on the Board have a problem with this one? Okay. Since there’s no SEQRA and I don’t think there’s a requirement here for a public hearing, I’ll entertain a motion for approval. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 50-2003 IAN ROWLANDSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 50-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Ian Rowlandson Previous SEQR Agent: James W. Mooney Zone: WR-1A Modification Location: 90 Seelye Rd, Queensbury, NY 12804 Applicant is seeking approval from modifications to a previously approved site plan. The applicant has constructed a single family dwelling with an increase of 167 sq. ft. above what was previously approved by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 77-2003, BP 2004-382 Warren Co. Planning: 4/13/05 APA, CEA Tax Map No.: 227.17-2-14 Lot size: 0.26acres / Section: 179-4-010 Public Hearing: Not Required WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/15/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/6/05, and 5/10/05 Staff Notes 5/2/05 Meeting Notice sent Undated Staff Notes 4/21/05 J. Connolly, APA from C. Brown 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) 4/1/05 Meeting notice sent 3/15/05 RPS info WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing is not required for a modification; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 10th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. FLANSBURG-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERT REID PROPERTY OWNER: MARGARET REID ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: ROLLING ROAD, LOT 48 IN SECTION 4 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE AN 8 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 5 +/- AND 3 +/- ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE TAX MAP NO. 297.6-1-6.1 LOT SIZE: 1.02 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MR. VOLLARO-And a letter was submitted to Craig Brown that says, “After considerable deliberation concerning our plan to divide Lot 48, Section IV of Rolling Ridge, (which we are planning to give to our son, Robert S. Reid) we have decided to withdraw our application. It is our hope that this decision will not prejudice the planning board toward any possible (but unlikely) future change in plans. Thank you for your courtesy and help in guiding Robert through the various steps involved in our application. Sincerely, Margaret Reid Robert A. Reid, M.D. Robert S. Reid” Is that letter in the record? I have read it. MS. RADNER-It’s now in the record. MR. BAKER-It’s now in the record. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have a copy, is what I really want to know. MR. BAKER-Let me just check the file. We should. MR. VOLLARO-Because this is May 5, received. th MR. BAKER-Yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2005 ROBERT & JANICE GRILLO AGENT: SHAWN CALLAHAN ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 121 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 600 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF EXISTING GARAGE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-2004, BP 96-240 APA, LG CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-51 LOT SIZE: 0.84 ACRES SECTION: 179-13-010 SHAWN CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBERT GRILLO, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are? MR. GRILLO-Robert Grillo. MR. CALLAHAN-Shawn Callahan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Shawn, are you the contractor? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Incidentally, the agenda says, under this, that we have a, it says the SEQRA is Type II and yet the SEQRA status on the Staff notes talks about Unlisted. Does anybody have comment on which one it is? MS. RADNER-It’s a Type II because it’s a single family, right? MR. BAKER-Type II. MR. VOLLARO-Type II. Okay. Fine. So there would be no SEQRA involved on a Type II. You did supply some stormwater. I know that the way our motion was, and I guess I can read the motion, but the motion said pending submission of a stormwater management plan for the existing and addition to the garage. Now I’ve read the minutes. I think I advised you at the time we did that, we weren’t looking for a sophisticated engineering report. MR. CALLAHAN-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and so what I see on the drawing, and really what you did is you annotated the bottom of the drawing with some notes and said 12 deep by 24 wide, from building out, Number Two or Three Crushed Stone. (Lost words) continues for the entire structure toward Grillo on the east side. Personally, in looking at 12 deep by 24 wide, from a shed on the roof, you know, I could almost say it’s good. I haven’t done any calculations on that, so I don’t know. I don’t know what the volume of water from the roof is. I have no idea, whether or not this 12 deep by 24 wide can handle that or not. However, it looks reasonable to me, and I’ll have to solicit from the remaining portion of our Board here whether it looks okay to them. So I’ll start off with, Tony, what’s your, have you looked at the plan, Tony, to see what he’s actually done? MR. METIVIER-I understand it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. He’s going to dig a trench, basically a French drain, that’s 24 inches wide, 12 inches deep, for the length of the new building and the old, and he’s going to pipe that toward his building, so that the neighbor to his north, who testified, not testified, but came before our Board complaining about some water running over on her property. What he’s done is tried to divert that to his own. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. METIVIER-I understand, and I’m fine with that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Is it a pipe or is it a swale? I thought, I was under the impression from last meeting it was a swale. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a swale there now. My understanding is there was a swale that was not acting well enough to keep the water off the neighbor’s property. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, no, I was asking the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-When he says 12 deep by 24 wide, I assume that that’s a trench. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the trench. MR. VOLLARO-That runs along the north side of both of us new buildings, the new and the old. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and then on the map there’s a label that says stormwater diversion to Grillo. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And my question is, is that a, you said it was a pipe. I don’t know how you arrived at that, because it doesn’t say anywhere here that it is a pipe. MR. VOLLARO-No. All I said, Chris, was that on the north side of the building there’s a trench. How it gets out of that trench, I don’t really know. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’m asking them. MR. GRILLO-Well, where the garage is right now, it’s a level area. Beyond the garage on the east side, property slopes down toward the lake, and basically the slope is right at the end of the garage within two or three feet. So all I have to do is just end that trench where it starts to slope, just meet the grade of the property. MR. HUNSINGER-So the grade will keep the water away from the neighbor. MR. GRILLO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s pretty good. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I’m fine with it. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else on the Board have any considerations? MRS. STEFFAN-In the pictures you provided, there seems to be small diameter trees behind there. Will they have to go when you put the drain in? MR. GRILLO-I planted those trees. There’s two Cherry Trees, one I have to replace, it’s dead, and two Peach Trees, and a bunch of little oak trees that are back there and maples. No, they’re staying. MRS. STEFFAN-They’re staying? Okay. Good. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We have a Type II. So we don’t have a SEQRA, and the public hearing has been closed. So, based on general consensus of the Board, I will call for a motion on this application. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2005 ROBERT & JANICE GRILLO, 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. 10-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Robert & Janice Grillo SEQR Type II Agent: Shawn Callahan Zone: WR-1A Location: 121 Seelye Road Applicant proposes a 600 sq. ft. expansion of existing garage. Expansion of a non- conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area requires site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 45-2004, BP 96-240 APA, LG CEA Warren Co. Planning: 3/9/05 Tax Map No. 227.17-1-51 Lot size: 0.84 acres / Section: 179-13-010 Public Hearing: 3/22/05 Tabled; P H Closed 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 5/6/05, and 5/10/05 Staff Notes 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent Undated FAR sheet; Site Development sheet 4/26/05 PB resolution: Tabled 4/15/05 Additional info received 4/15/05 Fax to agent: 3/22//05 PB resolution: Tabled 3/22/05 Staff Notes 3/15/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 3/9/05 Warren Co. PB recommendation: No Action 2/28/05 Meeting Notice sent 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 3/22/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 10th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. GRILLO-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 66-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY THREW AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: WR-1A, SR-1A LOCATION: 25 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR SITE FILLING AND GRADING ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED DUE TO FILL/GRADING THAT HAS EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-6-070. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 20-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/8/04 TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 6.1 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves representing Jeffrey Threw on this application. I believe at the last meeting there were a few things that were brought up about the plan, and those have been addressed and changed. We also received a letter from C.T. Male, after their review, with just four minor comments. I have a copy of that letter that they had faxed to us, and then a copy of the Nace Engineering letter reviewing those changes. Two of them weren’t really changes. They were just denoting something a little better on the map. I can go through their letter real quick. MR. VOLLARO-You can if you’d like. After you do, I’d like to just make a comment to that. MR. STEVES-Okay. The Number One was the limits of fill are indicated on the plan, the location of the appropriate erosion control measures should also be clearly denoted, which has been done. There’s a silt fence on the lower portion of the fill area that has been done. Place silt fence prior to any site disturbance, and that’s been noted on the plans. Number Two, we assume that the shaded area on the drawing represents the area for placement of the erosion control blanket, and there was a note there that is erosion control blanket, see note that’s on there. From a phasing perspective, the plan should describe whether the fill will be placed during one defined period of time or over the course of several months. It is noted that that should be placed within one month’s time. The blanket should be placed during times of inactivity to prevent erosion. Like I say, it’s going to be there for one month time, topsoil, seeded, the erosion control blanket, everything all done within one month. Will topsoil be placed beneath the erosion control blanket? Yes. Again, it’ll all be topsoil, graded, seeded, erosion control. It’ll all be taken care of within the one month period. Temporary stone apron should be placed at the point of ingress and egress to help keep excessive soil off the road, and we have, again, shown that, in the area near where one of the driveways would be placed on that lot, and we sent that back with all the changes on it to Jim Edwards, and to Craig Brown. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just have one comment. In reviewing the application, it’s been here for a while. I went over the whole application. There were three letters by C.T. Male, January 18, th March 8, and May 6, and what I’m really asking C.T. Male to do, when they reply and signoff thth on this, that they signoff on all the items that are listed on January 18, March 8, and May 6, ththth because there’s two different engineers did this, Mr. Houston and Mr. Edwards, and I want to make sure they’re holding hands in terms of the signoff. That’s all I’m really asking you. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) Because there was an awful lot in the first two letters. They had 16 or 17 items that they talked about. Okay. MR. STEVES-And I believe there was one other comment in the letter that was from Dave Hatin, regarding the soil borings. Tom Nace did test pits in that area, not necessarily soil borings, but they did go down to six feet in the area of the proposed septics and near where the houses are. We don’t have a problem with that, requesting that boring. The question we have for the Board is, you know, getting a hold of somebody like Fred Dente, doing a soil boring at each location, you’re talking around five to seven thousand dollars, and we don’t have a problem with that, but Mr. Threw is going to convey these to his sons, basically in a trust, and they may not build there for quite a few years. They’re young teenagers. If we could stipulate on the map that a soil boring will be performed at the location of the proposed structure prior to issuance of a building permit, and that is engineering sound for the house at that location. Because if we bore one right now, right where the house is shown, what if, in ten years from now, if somebody builds on it, they decide to build over a few feet, is there any way to check it at that time? These aren’t lots that are going to be built on tomorrow. So we’re asking the opinion of the Board on that, as to whether or not that’s a suitable situation for, or suitable to do that, apply that to, before a building permit is issued. MR. SEGULJIC-I would think that sounds reasonable to me. Could we put a condition like that? MS. RADNER-It would be very, very difficult, from the enforcement standpoint, to hope that your planning staff, seven years from now, or ten years from now, or whenever actually would catch that as a requirement before a building permit is issued. I think the concern with this particular property was the types of fill, and that when construction happens, is they don’t know exactly what fill was placed where, composting over the years, you’re going to end up with some of these neighborhoods where we’re now having sinkholes in backyards, and we’re trying to guard against that by making sure we know what we’re building on. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the questions I have, Mr. Steves, is when we soil borings are done, is it, how many per lot? Or is it just one, is it several? MR. STEVES-No, it’s typically, if you take your foundation plan of your home, in the area where you’re going to be building the house, and around that area, and they typically do three to four. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Tony, I’ll go down the line on this. What’s your feeling on this application? MR. METIVIER-I actually have to echo what Staff Counsel just said. I was thinking the same thing. Seven or ten years down the road, they’re never going to catch that. I think if it was a requirement of the Board, we should probably have something in place now for that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I looked at all of, there was a lot of things I was willing to condition. I’m not a big condition man, as most of you know. I like to see a plat that’s pretty clean, but I would have gone along with some conditions, but what I feel, on soil borings, it will tell us whether or not this property is developable, because when you look at Eagan Road, where it’s going to be done, and you move the setbacks back from Eagan, your required setbacks, the conventional wisdom says you’re going to build a house around that setback a little bit more, and that’s where the soil borings need to be done, because there’s only a certain amount of flat area on that property. After that it gets pretty steep. So I’d be willing to condition most of this, but I think I’d want to see that the property was developable to begin with, and then add the conditions to that, once I knew that’s what it was. MR. STEVES-Okay. Question for you, Mr. Chairman. As far as, this is a kind of two step process. Correct? Because we have a site plan, too, to stabilize. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize that. MR. STEVES-And then the subdivision, and, you know, I still haven’t heard from everybody on the Board, but I get the general consensus here. If we can get the permission and the approval for the site plan, so that we can get the equipment in there to stabilize that bank, then that would be an opportune time for him to also do the test borings, but, you know, not knowing if he’s going to be able to get a subdivision or even have the approval to grade that and stabilize the bank, he’s kind of up in the air of whether he wants to spend that kind of money to do soil borings. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t blame him. I wouldn’t want him to do that. What I want to do, in my mind, this is one seat, one Board member one, the Chairman has just one vote. MR. STEVES-Yes, understood. MR. VOLLARO-I want to make sure that the subdivision is doable, and that we can actually have developable lots here based on soil borings. Once I know that, I can go forward, I can condition this on things like prior to final signature of the plat, proof of compliance with the DEC letter be submitted to Staff for review. Those kind of things I can condition. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-The soil borings I’m concerned with. I want to know that this lot can be, indeed, built upon, and then go from there, and in looking at the Dave Hatin, he’s pretty strong on that particular situation. He places a lot of emphasis on it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Were you asking us to just look at the site plan first? MR. STEVES-No, I just wanted to make sure you understood that, talking for my client, I don’t believe he’ll have a problem, knowing that at least if we get the site plan approved, then we can do the grading. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I think you were both saying the same thing. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t have a problem in separating the site plan from the subdivision. MR. STEVES-Right. Understood. We’re not going to move forward with the subdivision tonight. The idea I’m hearing is that can we at least move forward with the site plan, get that approved, come back with any conditions you may have, such as the soil borings, and we can get that bank stabilized, grade that off, and then come back with the information presented to this Board, and then go through the subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Because completing the site plan would pacify the concerns of the neighbors that we heard the last time. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. METIVIER-That’s more important than the subdivision at this point. I understand where your client is coming from, but you have to understand where the neighbor is coming from, and I think if we could get that done, it’ll be a big step in the whole overall process. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-If we go to site plan, Chris, and the rest of the Board, I notice that this is a split zone, and part of this subdivision is in WR-1A zone, and that we don’t have a floor area 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) worksheet to go along with the WR-1A. It was never submitted as part of site plan. So if we want to get into site plan, that’s fine. I’m ready to do that, if you want to talk site plan, but there are certain things that are missing in the site plan application, I feel, unless I’m missing it. If Staff can show me where there’s a floor area ratio worksheet, I have N/A on mine, in what I got in my packet. If Staff has one that’s already filled out, just let me know. MR. STEVES-You’re only talking on the entire property, or just the area within the? MR. VOLLARO-Well, because it’s a split zone, the WR-1A zone, half of this property is in WR- 1A. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that requires a floor area ratio worksheet, at least in my view. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t know. Staff is looking at it. I have a blank one. They may have one that’s filled out. I don’t know. MR. BAKER-No, the Board has what Staff has. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. So, that would be one thing I think we’d need in here is a floor area ratio worksheet. MR. STEVES-I don’t have a problem with that, but doing that, and we were not proposing anything new in the WR-1 Acre zone. MR. VOLLARO-The whole lot is split. I mean, you can’t take that zone line and say, okay, the rest of the lot’s not ours. MR. STEVES-I understand, but the two new lots, then, there won’t be any, there’s zero floor area ratio there. There’s zero, and there will be zero. MR. VOLLARO-Because nothing is built. MR. STEVES-And nothing will be built within that zone. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then how do we get to a, if we get to a site plan, normally a site plan, to me, at least, has a building. A building is on the building. How far is the setback, forward and back setbacks, all of that, are something we discuss in site plan. There is no building, and there will not be for maybe ten years, when these youngsters grow up to an age where they want to build a house. MR. STEVES-Right, and that house, whenever it is built, will not be within the WR-1 Acre zone. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, and I can see that from the drawing, but the lot that they’re going to build on is still part of that. You can’t just say they’re building north of the WR-1A zone, and therefore they don’t have to come in with anything. I’ll ask the rest of the Board how they feel about this, but. MR. STEVES-I guess my question is, do you apply this WR-1 Acre zone requirement of floor area ratio to the portion of the lot that isn’t within that zone? MR. VOLLARO-That’s a question that I, it’s a good question. I don’t know whether I have an immediate answer for that. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MS. RADNER-That would be the Zoning Administrator’s determination, ultimately, and I believe the answer is yes, that they do consider that, whenever you have a split zone property. MR. STEVES-Fine. I was just making the Board aware that there isn’t anything happening within that zone, that’s all. MS. RADNER-Can I make just two real quick points for the record? It sounds like what the applicant is asking is that the subdivision be tabled, and that he proceed only on the site plan. If the applicant wants to do that, and the Board is inclined to allow that, we need the applicant to acknowledge that they’re proceeding at their own risk. They propose construction of two single family homes, and this grading is with the anticipation of two single family homes, but since we’ve only got one lot, they proceed at their own risk, because we wouldn’t allow two primary structures on a single lot, absent a subdivision, ultimately. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. SANFORD-I think it’s putting the cart in front of the horse, a bit. I think we need to get the subdivision resolved. Wouldn’t that be the logical way to proceed? MR. VOLLARO-I feel that way, but I want the Board to speak, one member of the Board has already spoken in favor of going to the site plan. MR. SANFORD-That’s the presumption of subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-It usually is. My problem is, on a site plan, I usually deal with the things that are typical to site plan, like setbacks, stormwater drainage, that kind of thing, and here we don’t have a house. MR. HUNSINGER-He’s proposing grading. MR. VOLLARO-Fine, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s it. So that’s all we’re really looking at. That’s how I view the site plan, as grading. MR. VOLLARO-When he goes to build a house, what does he do, now? Does he go and get a building permit that’s based on setbacks and that sort of thing? In other words, we’ve done a site plan review, and we say, based on grading, everything looks fine, and does he just come back for a building permit at that point? MR. BAKER-That’s correct, yes. One principal use would be allowed on the lot. MR. METIVIER-Or he would come back for site plan or a subdivision approval, prior to building anything, to see if you can get a subdivision for the two lots. MR. SANFORD-But isn’t the real issue whether or not, I mean, there’s been all kinds of fill thrown in there, and we were out there a couple of times, and, you know, it’s probably going to be fine. I have no reason to suspect otherwise, but wouldn’t we want to know that the soil strength is going to be significant, you know, or of such a substance that houses can be built on this, and then, after we know that, approve a subdivision and then move to site plan. Otherwise, we’re spending time doing this, and if the subdivision doesn’t work, we’ve wasted that time. I mean, that’s my only point. MR. HUNSINGER-This might play right to Bob’s comment, but there is an existing house on Lot One. So maybe we do need to get the Floor Area Ratio, but if we approve the site plan, we’re approving a site plan for an existing residence. All we’re approving is the grading. I mean, I think we can differentiate the difference between the grading and then the future 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) subdivision. If the rest of the Board doesn’t feel that way, that’s fine. I’m just providing my opinion. MR. SANFORD-No, Chris, I’m a little confused, I think. I know that when we went out there, we saw, a lot of wood chunks and thinks like that, and as they break down, we’re concerned about the stability of the soil, I thought. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand that. I had the same concern. MR. STEVES-I do, too, okay, and we’re not denying all this stuff. I just want to back up real quick. When we went into the Staff, Mr. Brown, to show him this two lot subdivision, he suggested, because of the fact that the fill was placed and the neighbor’s concern with the bank, that we have site plan approved before we get subdivision approval. Now that was my understanding with Mr. Brown. MR. VOLLARO-Was that his recommendation? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. Otherwise, why would we come in for site plan at all? MR. VOLLARO-Does Staff acknowledge that recommendation? MR. SANFORD-Why do you want it to be done that way? MR. BAKER-Site plan review is required for the fill activity. MR. STEVES-He just thought, Mr. Brown thought it would be a better idea to get that bank stabilized, instead of just incorporating the grading plan in the subdivision, is to have that completely pulled away from the subdivision and just have a grading plan for the existing lot, get that done, and then come back in, or then have subdivision approval. So that’s why we have site plan and subdivision. Otherwise, we’d be here just for subdivision with the grading plan on the subdivision. We wouldn’t even be here for a site plan whatsoever, but that was the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the site plan, let’s go down that street, just for a second. You’ve got a spot for a proposed house. Is that where they’re going to be? Have you fixed in your mind that on those two lots that’s where the proposed houses are going to sit? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So, from a setback point of view and so on, I mean, this can be measured on the drawing here. So I don’t know, you know. I’m going to bend to the will of this Board and find out what the Board thinks. I’m not going to try to negotiate this by myself . MR. METIVIER-I think we should move forward with the site plan and for tonight table the subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s one, and, Chris, I know where you are. Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-It’s a unique situation, in that I think we want to get the area filled. So that means we want to approve the site plan, if I’m understanding all this. MR. VOLLARO-That’s exactly the track we’re on. MR. SEGULJIC-Because that’s what the neighbors are most concerned with right now, and then as far as subdivision goes, I don’t think I really have a problem with that either, other than, my only comment about doing the borings is that, let’s say this doesn’t get developed for five years and all of a sudden they want to move the house elsewhere, when you have fill, it’s very 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) location specific. My concern would be they do the borings at one location and actually end up building a house on another location. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good point. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t, sort of. That’s why I’m in favor of doing them later, but I can understand the concern of making sure they get them. MR. STEVES-Right. I mean, I don’t know how to address that, as far as legally. I mean, that note would have to be placed on the mylar. We can even convey these lots with some kind of a restriction in the deed that that be done. I have no idea, but, like I said, if you do test borings now, and then ten years from now nobody else remembers this, but somebody builds in a completely different location, it’s kind of useless to have done those test borings. MR. SEGULJIC-Or, more likely, they said there were test borings done, the site’s all set, and they built wherever, and all of a sudden, we’re back at the door. That’s my concern. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s valid. It’s certainly a valid concern. I understand where you’re coming from on something like this. This is a difficult decision to make. MR. GOETZ-I agree with the Counsel, with what I’ve heard. I think we came here for one thing. Now we’re going a different direction, and the Counsel has some concerns about doing it that way, and I do also. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Gretchen, where do you come down on this? MRS. STEFFAN-I think that we should look at the site plan first, based on Counsel’s comments which are part of the record. The applicant understands what we’re looking for next, that there are guarantees that it can be subdivided. I’m still a little nervous about conditions and deed notations. I mean, I certainly believe that there needs to be a deed notation on this lot, or lots, that this has been a landfill, but as far as enforcement goes, the plat’s going to have to contain some of that information, that it’s been a landfill, but also, wherever the test borings were, that’s the place that the building has to happen, but that is at the next phase. So I think we’d need to find out that the land is stabilized, and able to be subdivided for building. So I think that needs to happen first. MR. VOLLARO-I think we have a consensus from the Board here that we go to site plan. It looks that way to me. I think we have, Tom, you’re okay with site plan first? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-You’re okay with site plan first. You would like to? MR. GOETZ-I’m against it. MR. VOLLARO-You’re against it, and I think Mr. Sanford is one way or the other. MR. SANFORD-To be honest with you, you know, I’m just a little confused, but I guess, it just seems like it’s a little backwards. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we don’t normally do it this way. It’s a little out of context. MR. SEGULJIC-This is a unique situation. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a unique situation, I believe. I do have one question. In the Staff notes it said here the allowable residential density after deducting slopes greater than 20% is three lots. The Planning Board should consider including a condition that no further subdivision of this property shall be allowed, and my question for Counsel, is that enforceable? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MS. RADNER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, as long as it’s included on the plat, then it’s enforceable long term. MR. BAKER-That would be a condition on the subdivision approval. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s a subdivision condition. It’s not a site plan condition. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-On the site plan condition, I would also like to put a comment in there, if we get to that, that prior to issuing a building permit against this site plan, that the position of the houses be determined, and then the soil borings be done. So when you know where you’re going to put it, where the optimum position to put it is, then you do your soil borings. MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. VOLLARO-If they don’t work, you find another place to put the house, but I’d like to have those words on the site plan as well as on the subdivision, in both areas. I think it’s a serious concern, based on the history of this property, that that be done and done correctly. So, having said that, I’m going to move forward with the site plan. MRS. STEFFAN-One other thought. Do the boring holes need to be witnessed by our engineer, C.T. Male? MR. VOLLARO-I would like them to be, and I think that’s something that we can put on as a condition, certainly, on the borings, because of course when the borings are done, see, the interesting part of this is when they decide to build a house, maybe 10 years from now, C.T. Male may be gone, you and I may not be here, that Staff may disappear, and somebody else has got to grapple with the paper, to determine what has to be done, and that’s a concern of mine, and we can go from there, ladies and gentlemen, and take a look at the site plan. I, personally, am not comfortable with this route, but I think the will of the Board has spoken, and we’ll go forward. MR. STEVES-It doesn’t make a lot of difference to us. I mean, I’m backing up, again, to say that I was asked by Staff to go through site plan prior to going through subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-I’m surprised that our Staff doesn’t, I haven’t seen any strong nods there that said absolutely, that’s what Craig Brown said. I’m staring over there to try to see whether I’ve got any comments from Staff, and I don’t have any. MR. BAKER-We can’t speak for Craig. MR. SANFORD-Bob, just a quick question. Do you really know what you’re going to be building at this point in time? No. So what kind of a site plan review are we doing? MR. STEVES-Wait a minute. Back up. The site plan has, look at the lot, has no buildings. All the site plan is for is to stabilize the bank that is there, end of story. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MS. RADNER-For grading. MR. SANFORD-But, here we are engaging, already, in all of these what if’s. Where is the building going to be put, that kind of stuff. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. STEVES-I’ll tell you what. We can pull this whole thing off, we can leave the site just the way it is. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We want it cleaned up. Clean it up. There’s a good start. Not use a word like fill. Clean it up. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to get your chance. There’ll be a public hearing. MR. SANFORD-Again, you know, I don’t know, if they don’t know where they’re going to be putting a house for sure, to me at least, the site plan review is problematic. That’s my point, but, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-But once again, the site plan is to get the site graded, to get it filled. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but that has to pass some tests to make sure that it’s stable enough, and that’s part of the subdivision evaluation. Right? And so, my question is, why aren’t we just dealing with strictly the subdivision? It seems like Mr. Brown, who isn’t here, is the one who feels strongly about this, and I have yet to get an idea as to why he feels so strongly about this. He’s not here. All right. That’s all. I don’t want to be argumentative. I just don’t understand why he feels strong about this. MR. STEVES-Well, does this Board feel more comfortable having the soil tests done, or borings done, and not having anything to do with site plan, just deal with all this in the subdivision? MR. VOLLARO-The only thing we’re going to be dealing with here in the site plan review, as I understand, correct me if I’m wrong, Board members, but is grading. Am I correct? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s my understanding, and, Richard, I only offered that because the applicants made the suggestion. I’m just trying to find a way to move forward, again, and work with the applicant and make the neighbors happy. MR. SANFORD-I’m not really against it. I just don’t understand where Mr. Brown’s coming from. MS. RADNER-A little bit of insight, based upon my past information with this site, this site was used as a landfill, and there has been New York State DEC involvement. There’s concern about where the limits of the landfill are. There’s concern that because of the way things were dumped on that site, right now you have an unstable condition. You’ve got slopes that exceed what would be allowed for any sort of a subdivision. The applicant wants to proceed with now grading and fill, but is not allowed to do so absent review by this Board because of the amount of fill that’s required in order to get to a point of stability and level. So, the reason why Mr. Brown is encouraging you to move forward on the site plan is solely so that you can take a look at those grading, fill issues so that this area can be stabilized, and again, I think it’s very important that the applicant know that they have not gotten approval, by your approving a grading site plan. You have not approved the location of any building MR. STEVES-Or subdivision. MS. RADNER-Or subdivision. What they would have at this point would be one lot, which they could use consistent with the zoning for that lot only. They face the risk that zoning will change, that the Town’s regulations will change, etc. The reason Craig Brown is encouraging you to move forward on site plan is merely so these fill issues can be addressed and so that the material that’s going to compost and disappear and collapse can be removed, and real fill, stable fill put in in its place. MR. SANFORD-I just assumed that that would have to happen under any set of circumstances. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MS. RADNER-But our Code says that they can’t put in the kind of fill that would be required without this Board’s approval and review of what they’re doing and where and what the slopes are going to be, etc. Does that make sense? MR. SANFORD-Yes, more sense. Yes. Okay. I’m with you. MR. GOETZ-That was a good explanation, and doing it that way could also be helpful for the neighbors. Is that correct? MS. RADNER-I would hope so. MR. GOETZ-Yes. MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and that’s what we’d like to do. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s another thing that’s interesting here, the comment that the areas of fill be identified on, I think this is part of, I don’t know whether this is Dave Hatin’s part or not. MS. RADNER-That’s, again, part of what was dumped there and when, and figuring out where we have materials that are going to breakdown and compost, versus materials that are stable in time. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We want a note, I guess, that areas of fill be identified on the plat, and a note added to the plat indicating that this site was previously used as a land clearing debris landfill. I think that’s a comment that comes out of Staff notes. I believe that’s a Staff note comment. MR. STEVES-Right. You want that placed on after we do this grading from the site plan, and put it on that site plan, and then bring it back in with those notes, also, on the proposed subdivision when we come back in? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think the subdivision and the site plan have to have very similar comments on them in order to keep the glue into this thing. Otherwise, we’re going to lose it. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-You know, I can see that happening in time. So, if it merely is a matter of approving the grading plan on this, does C.T. Male’s comments talk to the grading plan on the site plan itself? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-They do? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have to take a look at their letter. MR. STEVES-That’s exactly what their comment letter talks about is the grading, the stabilization, the netting, the erosion control silt fence below that area. Everything they’re talking about is dealing with the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. STEVES-Because once the site plan is complete, it’s just the division of a line on the map for the subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Remember what I said, as far as C.T. Male signoff is concerned, they have three letters they have submitted. One is January 18, March 8, and May 6. The January 18 and thththth the March 8 memorandums are voluminous. They’ve got a lot of data in them, and I want to th make sure that both engineers, because they were done by different people. One was done by Mr. Houston. One was done by Mr. Edwards, and I’d like to make sure they’re holding hands on the signoff. Because when I look at the. MR. STEVES-Yes. We had all three in front of us today when we were reviewing this back and forth with C.T. Male. Understood. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You understand what I’m saying. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, we can move forward with the site plan only, in order to get your, then when we get to subdivision, we’ll talk about the rest of it. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, there is a SEQRA associated with this, and it’s a Long Form SEQRA, I believe. MR. SANFORD-I think we have a public hearing, too. MR. VOLLARO-And we have a public hearing, yes. I just want to ask a question. Are we getting into segmentation in any way here, on the SEQRA form? Can anybody give me an answer on that, whether we would or would not be getting into segmentation on SEQRA by essentially splitting this application? MS. RADNER-Well, your SEQRA form has already been completed, with the hope and expectation that they would get the subdivision. So they’ve already addressed the potential build out issues. So I don’t think you are facing segmentation issues by moving forward on the SEQRA tonight, for the site plan review, and nothing would prevent you from revisiting SEQRA issues and doing SEQRA again, when it came to the subdivision, and I would recommend that you do that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That makes sense, Cathi. We’ll do it that way. Okay. I’ve looked at the clearing plan, and I understand what you’re doing there, and, based on C.T. Male’s comments, it seems to look okay. So I would go along with approving, you know, my own, one seat, one vote, one particular approach on this would be to approve the site plan, unless you want to make a lot of discussion about the filling and the grading. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, excuse me. Just a comment. You just remarked that you felt this was looking all right by C.T. Male. C.T. Male did get a chance to review the notes dated today, actually, from Nace Engineering, and phoned in comments to George Hilton. MR. VOLLARO-Today? MR. BAKER-Yes, today. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have those comments in our packet? We don’t have them in our packets. MR. BAKER-No, you don’t have them in your packets. They were noted in a notes from a conversation George Hilton had with Jim Edwards. Jim commented that the Nace response was 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) based on what had been submitted today, and didn’t include any review of test pits or whatever the Planning Board may ask for this evening. So I wanted to make sure the Board was aware of that. MR. VOLLARO-That probably would go along, if we go on our present path, the path we’re going down now, of approving the site plan for just the grading portion of it, and annotate a condition properly, with the proper conditions, that piece of information would supplement the C.T. Male, the three letters that C.T. Male has already put in. I would think. When we get to subdivision. MR. STEVES-Right. That would be more of a subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s a subdivision issue. MR. SANFORD-Well, let’s get public hearing out of the way, and then. MR. SEGULJIC-Could I ask a quick question? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-In regards to the extent of this proposed capping, shall we call it. Have you defined the limits of the landfill? MR. STEVES-Yes. We have two different plans there we gave to you, which was the pre- existing condition plan that we had to show the topography back in I believe 1989, and then you go to what we’re proposing now and you can see the change. Most of the fill took place beyond about 65, 70 feet from the road. There was a small swale that came up, I believe, on Lot One, that was filled in there, and now what it is is stabilization of the bank from the fill that has been placed over the last 10 or 12 years. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have defined the limits of the landfill? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying it’s on one of the drawings, then? MR. STEVES-We can definitely outline it better for you than just comparing the two contours, yes. MR. VOLLARO-I think what’s going to happen here, Tom, prior to the final signature of the plat, proof of compliance with the DEC letter, which was rather in-depth, if you read that, it was dated 4/04, that’s got to be submitted to Staff for review. In other words, I want to make sure that the final signature, signoff from DEC is complete. One of the things they talked about was the area of the fill, DEC did. It’s a fairly in-depth letter, and I want to make sure that they have a complete signoff on this plat. So, I think where we stand now, we can go forward on the site plan, we can go forward based on C.T. Male’s review of the grading, do that, condition the approval of that specific thing on the site plan. We may get another look at the site plan at another time as well. I’m not sure if it may come back. So that’s my view. If the rest of the Board has any comments, I’ll hear them now. MR. SEGULJIC-I think we’re ready for public comment. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If we’re ready, I will open the public hearing, and I’d like the public to come up. I know there’s a couple of responses from the public here. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MATT SUDERS 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. SUDERS-Good evening. My name’s Matt Suders. I live at 42 Eagan Road, which is right across the street from this proposed site. First off, I’d like to apologize for shouting out. This has been very difficult the last seven or eight years living next to this mess. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a human thing to do. MR. SUDERS-I want to first bring up, you mentioned the DEC signoff letter. The last meeting, if I’m not mistaken, they were supposed to have that tonight, something from DEC. MR. VOLLARO-They were, but, prior to the final signature of the plat, we need proof. The plat will have to state that there’s proof of compliance with that letter. MR. SUDERS-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Normally I would ask, because this has gone on as long as it has, it might be nice if we had the DEC letter, I agree, but I’m trying to move forward with our applications. I’ve been accused, I suppose, of taking too long, doing too much study, taking a look at the prints too long, fine. So I’m trying to move it along the best I know how. MR. SUDERS-I can make it relatively easy. If all of you would like to come over to my house for a cup of coffee, my raised ranch, and get a good view of what’s. MR. SANFORD-We’ve been to the site. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve been there. We know what the situation is. MR. SUDERS-My concern, obviously from DEC is, once again, what we’ve looked into, the only thing DEC has pertaining to that site was the confirming his registering that site as a registered facility and not a permit, and it stated there was various requirements within Part 360 of the DEC Code that he would have to abide by. I printed out the entire Code. The first thing I want to take exception with is Mr. Steves, in respect to Mr. Steves. At the last meeting, he made a comment that I bought my lot and built my home after that was a dumpsite, and it was almost a buyer beware type of thing, like we should have known. Well, DEC requires that that should have been posted, and it should have been fenced in. It should have been posted with hours of operation, what type of fill was dumped there. There’s yearly reports that have to be filed by Mr. Threw. I’m quite certain none of that was done, and my concern is this has been an unauthorized landfill for a number of years. Because no one has shown any proof otherwise, and I can attest for myself and all my other neighbors that built our homes down there, they would certainly not build a home next to a landfill, but once again, like I said at the previous meeting, when we built our homes there, there was nothing there but overgrowth and brush and a ravine and the Hudson River. There was no signs of tires and hot water tanks and buildings or whatever else is down into the ravine. Unfortunately today what I’m still looking at is piles of blacktop from the Hospital project, now that the winter’s gone and the snow’s melted. My concern is, obviously, like I’ve shouted out, I want that site cleaned up, and I feel giving him permission to fill or grade or stabilize or however he wants to call it, I think, I mean, obviously this Board is taking baby steps, I think, and I think they’re cautiously taking baby steps. Unfortunately, I believe the applicant hasn’t shown a positive track record of complying at all, and I think a good, you know, why not stipulate that one day, a top loader, one day can take those piles of blacktop out of there, can skim off the top of all that visual mess, without getting into what’s underneath everything, and it would be a good start to pleasing all the neighbors, because we won’t have to look at it, you know. MR. VOLLARO-That’s part of, I think, what we’re talking about in a grading plan, to grade it off, so that it’s suitable for a home site. MR. SUDERS-Because, you know, who is going to police, you know, I brought up at the last meeting, again, for years they were telling us they were going to build homes someday for their 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) kids, and then one summer Mr. Threw, the father, was over there removing topsoil. He had an excavator. It started off, it was on ground level. You could see it from the road, but by the time he was done, it was below ground level, because he mined the entire ravine, half of the ravine, and he made piles of topsoil, sifted it with a sifter on site, and sold it on site. Now, you know, like I told you before, that was when I had had it. That was when I was convinced, if you’re filling a ravine, backfilling it, to build on it someday, why would you remove, you know, you made a comment to what is good soil. He removed all the good soil, and he sold it. Now this street is zoned residential and waterfront residential. It’s not zoned commercial. I’ve had seven or eight years of nothing but commercial work done on there, and I’m just afraid that it’s going to continue. That’s what’s going to happen. I mean, how do we know he’s not going to be bringing, dump, you know, not just dirt, but gravel or whatever else from other work sites and once again, you know, he mentioned they might build in ten years, they might not. My belief is, the guise that you’re going to build someday is just an excuse to continue dumping for free, because you’re charging people to remove it, and you’re probably charging them to dump it, but you’re dumping it for free on your own property, at the expense of all these neighbors. Mr. Threw was before the Board a few months ago, and he wanted to open up a truck repair business out of his father’s business, and he said, it’s in the minutes, he said right in front of the Board, that he already is operating it, and you guys denied him permission to operate it, and I don’t go on Mr. Threw’s property. I don’t trespass, but I have a pretty good suspicion that he’s operating it anyway. So, you know, in my mind, what I see every day is whatever this Board tells him he’s just going to do it anyway, regardless, and my concern, again, is who do we call? It’s taken this much process to get to where we are right now. Who’s going to police it? Who’s going to police the site? MR. VOLLARO-Hold on for just a second. Can I ask Stu that we have Bruce take a look at this to make sure that everything is in compliance out there with respect to our last decision to deny the operation of that truck repair facility? Would you put that, a note down for me. MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. STEVES-That was in a different location. MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. I mean, it’s information to the Board, and I think the Board’s entitled to accept that information. MR. SUDERS-We know what’s behind Big Bay Road. We know the mess that’s back there. We want a solution to our problem, because, I mean, unfortunately, you know, I don’t know how much longer I’m going to keep looking at this mess, that I can’t avoid it. I can’t shut my blinds. I can’t go for road trips, and, you know what, I can’t sell my house, either. I’m stuck. We’re all stuck. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve got the New York DEC letter and it says when completed with the cap construction activities, and he’s got, keep in mind that you need to complete cap construction of the landfill within 180 days of this letter. When you are completed with cap construction activities, please notified me, and me is David Pleasant, Environmental Engineer for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Please notify me so I can conduct a final inspection. So I have to rely that when he comes there, he sees a sufficient cap situation, and that it stays that way, and I think we have somebody on Staff that can go out to make sure that after the capping is done and DEC walks away, that I don’t have truckloads of Number Two Stone, Number Three Stone whatever being piled up there. MR. SUDERS-Do we know why it was never posted? MR. VOLLARO-I personally have no idea. MR. SUDERS-Well, unfortunately the history is still there. I understand that, but what you’re talking about is, Mr. Steves’ comments was recent history, and those kind of comments are only going to foster, possibly a lawsuit by saying something like that, and I don’t believe in, I don’t 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) think that’s the answer, but to be so flippant and imply that we should have known, looking at growth that is no different than outside this window, and we should have known that was a landfill? How were any of us going to know that was a landfill? I saw the Hudson River. Now, you know, lastly, you know, I would just like to add, you said you guys were concerned with determining what is buildable land. I went on your website, and the Town of Queensbury paid, I’m guessing, a lot of money. They just completed a plan. I don’t know the name of it. It’s where you basically broke the whole Town down into, there’s a map of it on there, and I had it printed out, but I don’t have it tonight, but it mapped the entire Town, basically, onto what is buildable land and what is not. MR. VOLLARO-It’s probably the GIS map. MRS. STEFFAN-The build out study. MR. SUDERS-Okay. Well, that, this property in question is all mapped out as landfill and not buildable land. So why, if you were to go off the study that you paid for, it’s not suitable for building on it. Just go off your own map. I’d like to close my comments. MR. VOLLARO-That’s an interesting comment. MR. SUDERS-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Does Staff recognize that comment? In other words, do we know what the applicant is talking about in terms of a map? MR. BAKER-Yes. I would just point out, for the Board and for the gentleman who just spoke, that the maps included in the build out study are not in and of themselves Town Code. They were study maps based on assumptions made as part of the study as to what’s buildable and what isn’t, and aren’t necessarily a representation of what’s allowed under zoning and other relevant Town Codes. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my fundamental question is, were they done by our GIS, yes or no? MR. BAKER-No, that was done by the consultants. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Stu, could I ask you a quick question? If I recall correctly, there was a letter, I can’t find it in my package tonight, that the applicant withdrew their registration to use the site as a landfill, or am I imagining things? MR. BAKER-That the applicant did what? MR. VOLLARO-No, it doesn’t say that. If you read the DEC letter. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe, at the last meeting, we requested that, and I thought there was a letter in the packet, but I can’t find it. MR. STEVES-Correct. I can read it for you. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead, Matt. MR. STEVES-This is the letter you requested that DEC say that it cease and desisted, and it said that this was a letter that Jeff Threw wrote there and said, I have reviewed your March 28, 2005 letter to me regarding. MR. VOLLARO-I have that in front of me, Matt. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. STEVES-Your land clearing debris. You wrote, requested I modify the facility status from Active to Inactive, since you are closing this facility, and you wanted confirmation that we had DEC saying that it was no longer going to be an Active, and we asked for them that we wanted to close it. They’ve looked at our capping plan that we have proposed to you with the grading, and they say, make sure you comply with this stuff. That’s what we’re trying to do, and one comment from Mr. Suder, I understand what he’s looking at, but understand what we are not allowed to touch that site until we get okay from this Board. MR. VOLLARO-Do you understand, and I don’t know what that is, but Part 37.2 (C)(3)(4), you understand what that requirement is? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And that all goes with capping the construction. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and, you know, what I want to do is I want to make sure that we have a final inspection by DEC on that, and an approval. Now, that doesn’t go with the site plan. Again, this goes into the subdivision, all of these things, and I think what Counsel said is by going forward with the site plan, you go at your own risk, assuming an approval of subdivision by this Board. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. As long as that’s on the record, I just want to make sure. MR. STEVES-Understand, the neighbor’s main concerns here, unless I’m mistaken, is that they want that site cleaned up. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. It sounds that way. MR. STEVES-We are not allowed to touch that site until we have approval from this Board. We can’t. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. STEVES-So we’re in a Catch-22 as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you need to, you don’t need to submit your capping plan to the DEC for a approval, though? MR. STEVES-No, we have to just cap it in compliance with their. MR. SEGULJIC-And then they’re going to, according to this, it looks like they’re going to come out after and inspect. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. That’s a requirement of DEC. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think, I wouldn’t say that real quick, Tom. I think what they’re saying, you must meet the capping requirements contained in Part 367.2(C)(3)(4). We don’t know what that is, but they’ve laid down a set of conditions for capping. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s attached to the letter. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. METIVIER-Bob, we still have a public hearing open, and there is somebody else that would like to speak, I believe. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is there somebody else that would like to talk to this application? PAUL FRITSCH MR. FRITSCH-My name is Paul Fritsch. I live at 59 Eagan Road, and I really don’t know where to start, because I’ve been in on this thing since before it started. My house was the only one there, and, needless to say, if we knew this was going to happen, we wouldn’t have built there, but anyway, Mr. Sanford, you raise some good points about what’s under there. If you need a stack of bibles for me to swear on, you’re not going to believe what’s in there. First of all, it was never approved by the Town of Queensbury. It was approved by ECON, but Mike Brandt and three other supervisors promised me it would never be approved by the Town of Queensbury, and they went ahead and they filled it in anyway, and then the Town tried to work with them as best as could be done, tried to keep from putting stuff in there that they weren’t supposed to put in there, but they covered it up so fast, they couldn’t find out, until Dave Hatin caught Mr. William Threw red handed dumping a building in there, which he took down from next to Steve’s restaurant. Now, he made Mr. Threw take a track hoe over there and dig the building back out, and believe me, there was much more than that in there. I’ve got a letter here that’s in the Town record from one of the neighbors who saw the stainless steel tanks, refrigerators and washing machines and other things that are in there. Okay. We finished our house in 1990, October. In November we had a terrible storm which took down about 300 pine trees in the Town of Queensbury. Does anybody remember that? I work for the Highway Department, and we’ve got an awful lot of overtime there trying to clean up that mess. Well about 80 loads of those pine trees went in that ravine. One afternoon we heard some cracking noises. My wife and I looked out of the house, and we see a loader pushing the trees down, and that’s when the whole thing started, and after that, Adirondack Tree Surgeons road in about 75 loads of trees and dumped them in there, and someone complained to the Town, and it wasn’t me, but at that time, I forget, I think it was Mr. Parisi or somebody, anyway, you know, I don’t have anything written down or somebody to swear to it, but at that time they said Mr. Threw told him he didn’t know who was dumping there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if he didn’t know, then they were trespassing on his land. MR. FRITSCH-Yes, well, then why did he push the trees down with the loader so they could dump the trucks? And I saw them do that, and I ID’ed them, you know, it was Jeffrey Threw in the loader. So that’s what started it, and it just went on and on, mostly wood. There’s more wood and wood products than there is actually viable fill, and when they got about a third of the way through it, they took a dozer down in there and they cleaved it, because now you’ve got to remember, there’s water in there, even though some of the paperwork says there’s no groundwater, from DEC. That’s not true, because the water comes out on my property. The Town Board, at that time, came down and looked at that, and that was Mike Brandt, Pliney Tucker, I think Hildegard Mann was there, too. I know she was on the Board, and when they cleaved that out with the dozer, the angle was so great that they were working with the dozer, they couldn’t get the dozer out. It took them about three days to get it out of there. Then they put a plastic pipe down in there, and so the water would run through the pipe and come out the other end towards the river. So underneath that huge mess, you’ve got a plastic pipe with a water supply. Would you put your house on that. MR. VOLLARO-Not I, sir, no. MR. FRITSCH-Okay. The springs, they’re called the Fritsch Springs, they’re my springs, Cathi, Ms. Radner, said something about it being operated as a landfill. If it was, it wasn’t, it couldn’t be because according to this document here my springs had to be checked every year for contaminants. This is the original, William Threw, this isn’t going to go on the easel because it staples on the side, but if you’d like to look at it, I could pass it around. It’s the original dump with the setbacks and everything. The setbacks on my property line don’t exist anymore. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) They’ve encroached on my property line with the fill, and I’d like to get it removed, but you’re welcome to copy this. I don’t have anything big enough to copy that. You should have that in the record, Town record somewhere, and, you know, as these Supervisors, in succession, ran for election, they came over and they looked at the mess and they promised to do something about it but they couldn’t get anywhere either. You really need Staff here. I asked Dave Hatin if he could make the meeting, and he said he had other commitments, but David and I probably know more than anybody what’s in there, and I don’t think it’s anything that’s buildable on at all. It’s a joke, and I think you’re getting into an area here that you might regret, and you’ve got to remember, that’s, the water under there is going right across my property into the Hudson River. That’s a freshwater tributary. I don’t know what would happen over the years. I don’t know. Maybe it would stay stable or, it’s not, I don’t think anybody’s going to make Bill or Jeffrey take it back out of there, because I imagine it would cost them somewhere in the vicinity of about $250,000 to $350,000 to remove all that stuff, and when they start digging sewers they’re going to be awfully embarrassed, especially if the Town is there watching. If you have any questions that I can help you with, otherwise, I could sit here for an hour and tell you more, and I know everybody wants to go home, but it’s a real mess, and I really think, I like that you’ve been taking these baby steps, as Matt called them. Otherwise, I might have been too late. MR. SANFORD-What I’m picking up here, from your comments as well as the previous speaker’s comments, is that you’re questioning the intent of the applicant to seriously want to fill this for building lots, and as I understand this, they’ve been basically, to some degree, they’ve been put on hold, and in order to proceed with filling, they need to come in front of us and get some form of an approval, and yet if what you’re saying is true, it may not be all that likely that someday they’re going to be actually putting residential homes here, because, in your own words, it’s not a suitable site for residential homes, because the fill that has been previously placed there is going to break down and create an insecure foundation. Is that a correct statement? MR. FRITSCH-Yes, that’s basically it. I did sign the petition that went around and said that we wanted it put back the way it was, but I’m not naïve enough to think that it’s ever going to happen, because if you leave it alone, and try to dress it up and plant some trees or something and forget about the houses in there, I still don’t know if the whole thing is going to collapse some day, because there’s an awful lot of. MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, it seems to me if you bring in truckload after truckload after truckload of pine, cover it up with dirt, after a while that pine’s going to break down, and all of a sudden you’re not going to have integrity. MR. FRITSCH-We have sinkholes all over Town, getting back to my other hat. We have to repair them for the contractors years ago, the Highway Department has had to go and fix these areas where the road has just collapsed on us. We’ve had to go in there and put proper Item Four, things like that in there and restore the road in different developments. MR. SANFORD-I hear your point. I’ve got your point. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Fritsch, that pipe that you said that takes water runoff and then it feeds into the river. MR. FRITSCH-It’s a 15 inch black pipe it was. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a black pipe, okay, and that’s, we can see it. If we went there, we could see that? MR. FRITSCH-No. It’s way down at the bottom of the ravine, over towards my house, and all that fill is on top of it, so that the water won’t create a whirlpool and start a sinkhole. So the water’s being taken away, but if the pipe ever collapses or deteriorates, which it may or may not, I mean, we’ve had them deteriorate with the Highway Department, plastic pipe does, will 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) break down. Then you have the water just running, and it’s only a matter of time before the sinkhole develops, and that’s a pretty good flow of stream. This Board would actually have to come down there and look. That’s why the Town Board went down there years ago to see how much flow there was, and there’s quite a bit. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s what I was getting at, if I could see, you know, if I went there, could I see the water? MR. FRITSCH-There’s two streams, one comes from the area towards, right in front of Mr. Suder’s, and then the other one with the pipe, has the pipe in it, joins it. I don’t know if you can see the end of the pipe, because in order to do that you’d be trespassing. So I didn’t go down there and look, but, you know, the water is plain to see. It comes out of that from underneath all that and works its way down our property lines, Jeff and mine, and then it goes over across my property and into the River. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. GOETZ-I was at the site today, and I totally understand your concerns. Where I’m having a problem is trying to figure out how to best rectify the situation. If a site plan review results in a landfill and that ravine being filled so it’s a better site, that’s going to be better for you. Now what you’re saying is you don’t believe it’ll be done, and if that’s the case, and if we don’t take the baby steps, what you’re suggesting, if we put a great big foot down on it, nothing might happen. MR. FRITSCH-If the Board has the power to make them take it back out, that would be real nice, but otherwise, try to somehow cover it up with something suitable and plant some trees or something like that. MR. SANFORD-I would think science should be at an elevated level at this point in time, where we could get some definitive answer as to a bunch of what if’s. In other words, what if appropriate fill is put in now, will it be stable enough? And, I mean, if the answer is no because there’s been so much unstable fill put in there already, that you’ve got a problem, then I think moving forward is somewhat problematic from our point of view. I think we just need to have the answers. MR. SEGULJIC-(Lost words) of landfills is a routine matter. So as far as the stability of it, I don’t have a concern with that. My concerns would lie in that fact that, have the extents of the landfill been defined? MR. FRITSCH-Okay, but you’ve got to remember, landfills don’t have stumps and wood in them. MR. SEGULJIC-You just wouldn’t build in that portion. One of my understandings, along the road has not been filled. That grade doesn’t look like it’s been changed there. Most of your activity has been in the back. By doing some borings, we’d be able to verify that. MR. FRITSCH-Everything come in off of Eagan Road. MR. SEGULJIC-Then it won’t be suitable for building, but we’re still left with the fact that we have to get a cap to improve the site. MR. FRITSCH-Yes. What he’s saying is, what if you put the cap on there, and then the stuff underneath starts to work in about 40 or 50 years, and all of that slides into the Hudson River? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s an engineering issue. MR. FRITSCH-It’s not very far away from. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s an engineering issue, once again, that caps are. MR. SANFORD-I think we should know, Tom. MR. FRITSCH-It’s only about 350 feet from the River. MR. SANFORD-So, I mean, again, I’m not sure. MR. SEGULJIC-We have the Town Engineer. C.T. Male will have to approve their plans. MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess what I’m saying is, in a worst case scenario, where it actually doesn’t hold and it becomes unstable and goes down, then maybe what we should be doing is looking at a corrective measure where they remove some of this, so that it does not happen, rather than to give them the green light to proceed to cap it off, only to find out that five years down the road it’s not stable, and again, I don’t know the extent of our jurisdiction or our influence over this, but it seems like I certainly don’t have a enough information to feel comfortable that his scenario won’t happen, that’s all. MR. SEGULJIC-Anything’s possible, but if it’s engineered correctly, I don’t think that’ll be an issue. MR. SANFORD-Right, but there hasn’t been any appropriate actions taken in the past on what makes you think it’s going to be changed in the future. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s correct, but we’re still left with this, we need to do something about. MR. FRITSCH-Some of the letters that were written to the Town Board from our neighbors, that you should be able to find them, I think. I have copies of them, but that was their concern, too, that the track record of the applicant isn’t. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that we’re faced with here is that we have three letters from our engineering department that we need to have signed off on. I’m not sure, I’ll have to look. I have them here and I have to study them in depth. This Board, and certain members of this Board, primarily myself, have been accused of dabbling with engineering items, and that’s what we’re doing tonight. We’re talking about landfill, whether it’ll hold over a period of time, after the cap is over it, and these are all engineering issues that I particularly have been accused of dabbling around in, see, and I’m really sensitive to that kind of thing. I’m getting very sensitive to it. In any event, they’re important issues, and I realize that, and then we’ve got the DEC. Now, looking at the DEC letter by Mr. Pleasant, I’m not sure where he is of the history of this landfill. To him, I’m sure a bureaucrat sitting down and essentially writing a letter doesn’t, I don’t know whether he ever got out and looked at this and understands the background associated with this landfill. MR. FRITSCH-Jerry Barris did. MR. VOLLARO-He signs it, this is probably a standard letter with a standard attachment, and the guy is just saying, do what we say here and fill it up and go by and when I come out I’ll look at it and if it’s capped I’m going to sign off on it. So, what we’ve got to do is respect that. I don’t know whether we’ve got the authority to look into the depth of this, because once we start doing that, I think we’re circumventing our own engineering background and I want our engineers to sign off on this. They’ve got three specific letters with a lot of information in it. Now, I don’t know what else to do. See, we’re not empowered to do a lot of things on this Board, other than approve or disapproved, based on how we feel, what the law says. MR. FRITSCH-You got a letter from Dave Hatin, too, about the. MR. VOLLARO-We got a letter from Dave, absolutely, and what the applicant is suggesting is we do one simple thing tonight, and we’ve been on this now nearly an hour. We’re watching 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) the clock. We do one simple thing. We approve the site plan for grading only. That’s the only thing we’re going to approve. As the grading is shown on the site plan. Then he comes back with a subdivision application, and that subdivision application is going to have to have borings associated with it. I’m going to ask, at that time, that we do borings on the most likely portions of the site and let the applicant tell us where that is, and so I really don’t know where to go with this, other than to table this entire issue for discussions between C.T. Male and Staff, and possibly myself and some of the people on the Board. MR. SANFORD-Well, one thing, I mean, if C.T. Male, who’s not here tonight, but if, in fact, they’ve digested the context of this discussion, and they were able to say, we’ve looked at this. We feel it can be stabilized, and it won’t present a future problem, then I would be much more inclined to go forward with the grading plan. I don’t have that sense of confidence that that’s, in fact, what the situation is, Bob, and it’s something that we don’t have to dabble in. We could basically table this and get better information in order to make a decision. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, I read all three C.T. Male letters, and the thing that I find is that Mr. Houston did the first two, and Mr. Edwards did the last. I want to make sure they’re holding hands, because there’s a lot of information in all of those three letters. MR. SANFORD-Well, do they have the history of the site? Do they understand the background? Do they understand what we’ve just been hearing tonight? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-I mean, they might not know how many truckloads of trees, of pine trees were dumped on there. MR. FRITSCH-That was in the beginning. There’s a lot more wood products than that in there. There’s stumps in there. The most recent was they brought some stumps in, around the same time as the building went in there, and in the process of taking the building out, they took some of the stumps back out of there, but that was near the top. MR. SANFORD-My point is that if we don’t know this, didn’t know this, and C.T. Male didn’t know this, how do they draw certain conclusions? MR. FRITSCH-You can’t. You can’t possibly know. You have to find out from someone who actually saw it, and then, there’s another area on the other side of. MR. VOLLARO-Sir, I’d like to take a comment from the Staff for just a moment, please. Yes, Stu? MR. BAKER-The comments we received earlier today from C.T. Male were actually more extensive than I indicated earlier. I didn’t read further on down into an e-mail from George to the rest of the Planning Staff. The actual full comments from C.T. Male, and these were sent today, based on the Nace Engineering comments that were also dated today, went as follows, and again, I apologize for not noting this earlier. We just received responses from our comments from Tom Nace. Our comments were minor and have been addressed adequately. If an action is contemplated this evening, I would be fine with conditioning an approval upon our signoff. I also would just like to point out for the public, and as a reminder to the Board, that the Town is not, does not have the responsibility for enforcing State regulations, but we can condition approvals upon proof of compliance with applicable State regs. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. We’re sort of faced here tonight with a problem. If C.T. Male is willing to signoff on their three letters, and I keep insisting that, because I didn’t see, we never got a signoff on January 18 or March 8, and that was the voluminous portion of C.T. Male’s thth comments. The comments of May 6 were rather minor, and that’s my concern. You’ve got th three separate memorandum here from C.T. Male. If the signoff and say, we’re giving you a signoff on all our comments of January 18, March 8 and May 6, I’m happy. ththth 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. BAKER-And again, to repeat, Jim Edwards wrote that he would be fine with conditioning an approval upon C.T. Male signoff. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s fine, and, you know, I still think, look, the preponderance of the problem on here is going to be with us approving the subdivision, and I think we’ve got to get this off the dime tonight. We’re vacillating, and trying to understand it. I would like to move forward with approving the site plan, with conditions, and we’re going to have to sit down and write some, and then take a look at all of these things, when it comes back for subdivision review. Things like soil borings. Things like having the DEC signoff eventually on this thing, final inspection by DEC on signing off the cap and so on and so forth. That’s what I’m really looking for. MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds reasonable to me. One question I have. It’s a quick question. The plans that the gentleman passed around indicated the entire area was a landfill, and it had final grading plans on it, as well as gas venting and monitoring wells. MR. STEVES-For the. MR. SEGULJIC-The demolition landfill. MR. STEVES-Actually, I believe the permit or license or whatever it’s called through DEC was for a stump dump, a land clearing debris landfill, and I don’t know if the entire site, from that plan I believe it was drawn up by Haanen Engineering, correct? MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. STEVES-And I believe Tom Nace was with Haanen Engineering at the time, when he developed that plan, and he is now the one reviewing this for the capping, and the grading of our plan, and, by the way, Bob, all three letters have been discussed with C.T. Male, and I do appreciate that, but we have discussed all three letters. As far as the entire site, yes. I don’t know how much of that they have used. I don’t believe they ever completely used the entire area that they were okayed with, with DEC. That’s the area, now, that we have, that DEC is aware of, and we want to grade this off, clean it up, do the cap, you know, so that the neighbors are worried that it’s going to continue to be a landfill of trees, stump dump, in other words, it’s not. They want to grade it off, clean it up, and if it never becomes a subdivision, so be it, but at least that way we can grade this thing off and it can be, you know, appealing to the eye for the neighbors and for Mr. Threw, and for everybody else on that area. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So essentially the entire site was proposed as the demolition landfill. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-But only this portion was actually used. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What I think we have to do is approve the site plan for grading, and then have C.T. Male signoff on DEC. MR. STEVES-And again, as well, too, when you know, and we do this, you know, your condition of having to standby the requirements of DEC, definitely, that’s a given. We have to do that, and we have no problems with that. MR. VOLLARO-When you come back with the subdivision, I’d like to see the final inspection by DEC. I’d like to see that done. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. VOLLARO-So they said this cap was done in accordance with all of the attachments that are attached to this letter. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Because one of the things talks about surface leachate investigation must be performed. The objectives of this investigation, etc., etc. I want to make sure that happens. So I’m going to make a decision that we go along with the site plan, we approve it as, approve only the grading portion of the site plan, that’s all we’re going to approve, getting it capped, getting it filled, getting DEC to signoff on them, getting C.T. Male to signoff on theirs, and then we’ve done our job here. We can’t do much more than that. They’ll come back for subdivision. Then we’ll ask them a lot, a lot of questions. He’s got to come back with the final inspection by DEC, that’ll talk about borings, and see whether the site is actually buildable by the kind of things that we’re going to ask for in the subdivision. So, that’s where I am. I think, Chris, you’re in that spot. Tony’s in that spot. I know Tony doesn’t want to see this thing drag on any more than it does. I don’t blame you. Let’s just go that route, okay. MR. FRITSCH-Yes, because the way it is now. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much for your time and your efforts on this thing. MR. FRITSCH-All right. When the truck traffic and everything starts back in again, it’s probably going to be an annoying factor for us because it’s been like a normal neighborhood for a while. After 14 years of loaders and trucks and everything else. They were, like Mr. Suder said, they were using it as an extension of their business, and they had screen there. Sometimes two o’clock in the morning they’d screen the sand to sand the Mall, because they had a contract with the Mall, and it would wake us up. MR. VOLLARO-There’s an awful lot of circumstances associated with this. I mean, you could have a regular court testimony here for days about this, I’m sure. We’ll try our best. We’ll do what we’re going to do now to try to get it cleaned up so it’ll look good, and then when they come back for subdivision review, we’re going to ask them a whole bunch of questions, and I want to determine, at that time, is this site buildable, yes or no. That’s what I’ll do at that time, if I’m here. I may not be here at that time. MR. STEFFAN-Thank you, Mr. Fritsch. MR. FRITSCH-Okay. Thank you. I’m glad to see that the Board is hard at work. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. Can we move forward, here, on this site plan? MS. RADNER-Mr. Vollaro, your public hearing is still open. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to close the public hearing. Mr. Suder, we’ve spent a lot of time, we know as much as we’re going to know. MR. SUDER-I just wanted to add one comment, please. I waited many years to do it, unfortunately, all right, and I just want to add that I’m assuming by doing this is the only way to assure the cleaning begins. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SUDER-Okay, and someone’s going to police him. MR. VOLLARO-I mentioned that I want Mr. Frank down there to look, and I think that it has to have some oversight on that. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. SUDER-Like hours of operation, stuff like that, what gets brought in, that type of stuff, correct? MR. VOLLARO-That’s part of the subdivision, in other words, this filling and clearing here is going to be part of the site plan. They’re going to have to see that it’s done in accordance with DEC’s capping requirements. Yes, there’s going to have to be some activity there. Otherwise you can’t cap it. MR. SUDER-I understand that, but what I’m saying is, if something’s happening that shouldn’t be happening, who do we call? Do we wait for another meeting a month from now? MS. RADNER-Call Mr. Hatin. MR. SUDER-Okay. That’s all I wanted to know. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, Code Enforcement. MR. VOLLARO-Call Dave Hatin. Say, Dave, you know, we went to the thing, we saw your memo and so on, and this is what’s taking place. MR. SUDER-I appreciate all your work. I realize you guys, this got dumped on you guys. This has been happening for years and years. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Are we preparing something here? MR. HUNSINGER-I still have a question for the applicant. I’ve just got a quick question. In order to achieve the grading that’s proposed, do you need to bring in anymore fill? MR. STEVES-I don’t believe so. They’re just reworking what’s there. You’ll have some topsoil. MR. HUNSINGER-And that would be the final? MR. STEVES-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess from here we have to do a SEQRA. It’s a Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. “Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Examples, I guess that would be for construction on slopes of 15% or greater? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And is this a small to moderate, potentially large, or can the impact be mitigated by project change? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. METIVIER-The project will be mitigated. MR. VOLLARO-I think it can be mitigated with project change, but it’s not small to moderate. I think it’s a potentially large impact. MS. RADNER-Potentially large positive, or potentially large negative? MR. METIVIER-Positive, it’s a good thing. MR. VOLLARO-Potentially large positive impact. It doesn’t say positive. MS. RADNER-I know on the form it doesn’t, but your job is to identify the potential negative impacts. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MS. RADNER-So if you’re identifying a positive impact, you can still have a negative declaration. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?” MR. METIVIER-I hope not. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think we got an answer to that. MR. METIVIER-Well, I mean, we don’t know. We don’t know what’s going on in there, but nobody has studied that, and I’m sure nobody will. MR. HUNSINGER-Let me give you the examples. Developable area of site contains a protected water body? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body? MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Construction in a designated freshwater or title wetland? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-And then any other impacts. MR. METIVIER-None. MR. VOLLARO-I would say, no. MR. HUNSINGER-So the answer’s then no. “Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?” 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And is the impact small to moderate, potentially large, and/or can it be mitigated by project change? MR. METIVIER-It should be mitigated by project change, on the positive side. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a positive impact. Okay. “Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Examples. Blasting within 1500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility? Odors will occur routinely more than an hour a day? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures? MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have a Code for that, so they’ll tell you there’s no Code, and therefore there’s no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. MRS. STEFFAN-That doesn’t apply. MR. HUNSINGER-So what are we left with here? I can see your point that there could be objectionable noise, odors or vibrations during construction, but it would be temporary. MR. METIVIER-And mitigated through project change. MR. HUNSINGER-Mitigated by project change. MR. VOLLARO-So all of what they’re going to do is in a positive direction, as far as I’m concerned. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing neighborhood?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think it will make it better. MR. HUNSINGER-“Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. VOLLARO-Adverse environmental impacts, I would say no, but there are aesthetic impacts that are of most concern here, but the answer to that is no, I believe. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 66-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEFFREY THREW, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 10 day of May, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we want to entertain a motion now, and I think Mr. Hunsinger has prepared some conditions associated with that motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2004 JEFFREY THREW, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 66-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: Jeffrey Threw SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Zone: WR-1A, SR-1A Location: 25 Eagan Road Applicant is seeking approval for site filling and grading associated with the future construction of two single-family homes. Site Plan Review is required due to fill / grading that has exceeded the requirements of Section 179-6-070. Cross Reference: SUB 20-2004 Warren Co. Planning: 12/8/04 Tax Map No. 316.5-1-12.1 Lot size: 6.1 acres / Section: 179-4-020 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) Public Hearing: 12/28/04 Tabled, 3/15/05 Tabled, P H left open WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/15/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/6/05, and 5/10/05 Staff Notes 5/10/05 CTM engineering comments 5/2/05 Notice of public hearing sent 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent 4/29/05 New information received Undated Petition received 4/26/05 PB resolution: addition of special meeting 4/4/05 J. Threw from D. Mt. Pleasant, NYSDEC: Land clearing debris landfill 3/16/05 PB resolution: Tabled 3/15/05 Staff Notes 3/11/05 PB from G. Hilton: staff notes 3/11/05 Fax to Van Dusen & Steves: staff notes 3/8/05 CTM engineering comments 2/28/05 Meeting Notice 1/28/05 M/M Edwards from M. Ryba: response to letter dated 1/24/05 1/25/05 PB resolution: Tabled 1/20/05 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes w/1-18-05 CTM Male eng. comments 12/28/04 PB minutes 12/22/04 PB from G. Hilton: Staff notes w/12-8-04 Warren Co. PB recommendation 11/15/04 Application submission w/maps 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 December 28, 2004 and January 25, 2005, March 15, 2005 and May 10, 2005, 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. The applicant obtain a final signoff from C.T. Male on the site plan, 2. That there is no explicit or implied assumption of approval by the Planning Board for the pending subdivision plan 20-2004, 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) 3. The applicant shall not operate heavy machinery on the site during the week before eight a.m. or after five p.m.; and on Saturdays it shall only be allowed from eight a.m. until noon. 4. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 5. Proof of compliance with all NYSDEC requirements as described in the NYSDEC letter of 4/4/05 shall be provided prior to signature of the final plat by the Planning Board Chairman. 6. All areas of fill are to be identified on the plat and site plan; and a note shall be added to the plat indicating that this site was used as a land clearing landfill. Duly adopted this 10 day of May, 2005 by, the following vote: th MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing I would consider adding to that is a timeline as how long they have to complete the capping. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he has 180 days, according to DEC. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. MR. SEGULJIC-But he had indicated they could do it in a month. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s already listed. MR. STEVES-The grading they were doing, if there’s any changes that DEC wants, I can’t guarantee that within a month. We’re going to do the grading plan on here, and then if they say, okay, we’ve done a test here, we want a vent here, we want this, that might exceed past the 30, but we’ll definitely comply with both. MR. VOLLARO-I think DEC’s put a time certain on this, and I think we have to live with the DEC’s time certain and not try to condense that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-They’ve given us 180 days, and I’m satisfied with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Are the boring holes part of the one through three? MR. VOLLARO-The boring holes are going to be on the subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-Subdivision piece, okay. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay, Matt, you’ve got it. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to ask that not only Mr. Hatin be notified if something’s going on screwy there, but that Bruce Frank take a look at it once in a while. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. STEVES-Mr. Threw, my client, Jeff Threw, just wants to clean this site up, and he hasn’t been able to do anything with this. I don’t think any fill material’s been placed there in a while. I think the neighbors can attest to that, but he can’t do anything with it until we get the okay from here. So now at least we can get in there and get it cleaned up, and then if it’s buildable down there in the future, it is. If it isn’t, it isn’t. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY THREW AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: WR-1A, SR-1A LOCATION: 25 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 6 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO THREE (3) LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 TO 3.92 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 66-04 TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 6.1 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-So, I’m sorry, before you leave, what are we doing with the Subdivision? MR. METIVIER-Tabling it, or withdrawing it? MR. HUNSINGER-Is the applicant withdrawing it? MR. STEVES-We’ve tabled it. MR. VOLLARO-We haven’t tabled it yet, I haven’t tabled it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I will. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2004 JEFFREY THREW, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: At no time certain, until such time as the applicant gets a DEC signoff on the capping of the property, and at that time, once that signoff is done, we will reschedule the subdivision for review. Duly adopted this 10th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, is the public hearing being left open, or is it closed, on the subdivision application? MR. VOLLARO-On the subdivision application, I would like to leave it open, because I think that that’s the lion’s share of this problem. MR. SANFORD-I agree. MR. BAKER-Counsel is just saying that we will want to re-advertise the hearing on the subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY INGLEE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND SUBDIVISION OF 10.10 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS OF 5.09 AND 5.01 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 15-2002 APA, CEA: APA TAX MAP NO. 300-1-40.2 LOT SIZE: 5.09, 5.01 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS 183 JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF INGLEE, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Matt Steves, and Jeff Inglee. Previously, the applicant was here seeking approval of, he’d been to the Zoning Board, and he was seeking to create two lots out of his approximately eight and a half acre lot in a five acre zone, and the neighbors voiced concern at that time that it wouldn’t meet the five acre minimum lot size. So what he’s managed to do since then is to enter into an agreement with his neighbor so that he can purchase the additional property, so that he would have the 10 acres, and these would both be five acre lots, conforming in minimum lot size. The only thing that we’re aware of that’s any issue here that was raised by the Staff is that the back of the site falls off beyond the 25%, which is the same character as everything else on the east side of Tuthill Road. Most of the other lots are smaller than the five acre lot, and they also have that slope issue in the back. That’s nowhere near where the house would be constructed near the road, but I asked Matt to prepare a map that he’ll go through with you, a tax map that’s marked up to show you that this is the same as the character of the rest of the road and actually a larger parcel because they all have the slope issue. So, with that, I’d like to just ask Matt to walk you through the subdivision proposal, and also talk about the other lots in the neighborhood. MR. STEVES-Good evening, again, Matt Steves. This is property on the east side of Tuthill Road. It is currently Mr. Inglee’s house site, and he’s proposing to subdivide this into two lots, as Jon has stated, the southerly lot being 5.10 acres. There’s a slight modification to the map you have in front of you, by a one hundredth of an acre, because after discussions with George Hilton of your Staff, we were lacking the average lot width on Lot One by about three tenths of a foot. So we adjusted Lot One to have an average of the 200 feet, so that it complies with all your zoning except, as Jon has stated, with the slope. So anyway, the southerly lot being 5.1 acres and the northerly of the two lots being his existing home site at 5.00 acres. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Steves, can I stop you for a moment there? MR. STEVES-Certainly. MRS. STEFFAN-We have Lot Four and Lot Five. MR. STEVES-Lot Four and Lot Five, the southerly lot being Lot Four. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You said Lot One, and that didn’t correlate. MR. STEVES-Sorry, Lot Four and Five. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-The existing house on Lot Five is Mr. Inglee’s present home? MR. INGLEE-Yes, sir. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and the area that he is acquiring is on the north end of Lot Five, of approximately 1.47 acres to accomplish the 10 acres, and then subdivide the property into two five acre lots, and as Jon has stated, if you go through the requirements of the zone, area of slopes of 25% or greater, you remove that, as you can see in the back of the property, way, way in the back on Lot Four, and basically the portion of the area that he’s acquiring from the neighbor outside of his house site on Lot Five with the area with the steep slopes, as you can see from about 300 feet, 250 feet to 300 feet from the road, back west to the road, it’s a fairly flat site for the Tuthill area, and getting to that is this map that I will open up, discuss a little bit, and pass around to the Board so you can see it. This is a USGS sheet with the tax map superimposed on it, and our site in yellow. As you can see with the contours, in that area is one of the flatter sites on that side. Any lot that you see with an X on it are lots that exist in there that are within the five acre zone that are approximately five acres or less that do not have five acres of usable ground if you take away the 25% slopes. MR. VOLLARO-I was up at the property on Sunday. I parked there. I don’t know if you saw me. I actually walked around a little bit. I don’t really have any objections to this site. You’re in an area, in a hilly area, but you’ve got a flat spot there that looks like it’s suitable for a house, and my opinion is, right off the top, to save a lot of time, I would, underneath Staff comments, the applicant requests the following waivers. They only have stormwater management and Sketch. You’re also asking a waiver for slopes in excess of 25%. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BAKER-Actually, Mr. Chairman, the waiver is from the density requirement, not just particularly slope. MR. VOLLARO-I understand, but the density requirement comes from the 25% slope. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, that’s where it comes from. MR. SANFORD-What’s the rationale, Bob, for not adhering to Town Code? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the rationale, in my mind, is that all of the property in this area is pretty hilly. Mr. Inglee has found a spot to put one additional house right up front next to Tuthill, which I looked at myself and said, I looked at it and looked at it, and I said how bad would a house be right here, in all this hilly country? He’s found a flat spot. I think, in my mind, he’s entitled to the waiver on this. He’s meeting the Code of five acres. The site is just naturally hilly to the east. MR. SANFORD-Actually, Bob, I think it’s five acres if you don’t have 25% slopes. So it’s less than five acres, and he’s asking for approval to build on less than five acres. MS. RADNER-The Planning Board does have authority to grant a waiver of that specific relief. MR. SANFORD-I’m not discussing that. I’m arguing with Mr. Vollaro on, he said he has the five acres. I’m saying, technically, he doesn’t have the five acres. MR. BAKER-No, I have to agree with the Chairman. They have the five acres, and their waiver would be from the density requirement provision in the Sub regs. MR. VOLLARO-I wouldn’t want to hold an applicant, you know, I see his comp on there. I know we had some problems with him. I know how DEC ruled on the variance up that way, and I understand. I’ve talked to Mr. Connelly extensively about his views of the Adirondacks, 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) and I know what his views are about acreage, and I found out how he determines the 8.5. You probably know how that’s done. Correct? So, based on that, Richard, I don’t often favor waivers. MR. SANFORD-Well, how does this materially differ from the application that was in front of us before where we didn’t feel comfortable with it? MR. METIVIER-Because he obtained the acreage necessary to get his five acres on either side, which he did not have before. MR. VOLLARO-He went to the ZBA before, you’re talking about the previous application. He went to the ZBA for a variance on acreage, and it was approved. It went up to the APA and it was disapproved, withdrawn, disapproved, whatever. They disapproved the variance by our ZBA. MR. SANFORD-I recall that. MR. METIVIER-And now he doesn’t need a variance. MR. VOLLARO-Now he doesn’t have to go before the ZBA. He’s got his five. MR. SANFORD-He needs a density variance. MR. VOLLARO-He needs a density variance. MR. BAKER-It’s not a variance, it’s a waiver. It’s a density waiver. MR. VOLLARO-You know, Dick, I don’t normally bend too easily on this, but having gone up there and looked at the property. MR. SANFORD-I just don’t understand how we can consistently apply the slope issue to future applications if we don’t have a problem with this one. In other words, in any five acre parcel, you’re likely to find a flat enough area to build a home. So I guess the question is, then, do we ever care about having five acres that don’t have the slopes, I mean, five clean acres? MR. LAPPER-I’ve got the simple answer to that. It’s just. MR. VOLLARO-Wait a second. Let him finish and then you’ve got your piece. MR. SANFORD-I guess, what’s your opinion on that? MR. VOLLARO-My opinion on that is I think all these applications are kind of site specific, you know, and I’m willing, on this particular site, when I park there, I happened to park on this side, so that the site was on my right, and I looked on my left, and I saw Mr. Inglee’s property, you know, kind of mountain goat stuff, to be honest with you. It’s steep, but all the properties that I drove along on Tuthill, all have pretty steep slopes, except the ones that are on this east side that have some building on them, and then it falls off very steeply in the back of that. I mean, I’m adverse to building on steep slopes, no question, but I know it can be done. I mean, anything can be done. Engineering wise, you can do anything, carve up a mountain in a couple of days, and build houses on it. This happens to be a fairly flat spot, and I feel comfortable with it. MR. SEGULJIC-I know the application you’re speaking of. That was, I forget the number, that was like 12 lots. This is only one. MR. SANFORD-No, no, actually, that’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to Mr. Inglee was in front of us before with a subdivision and they didn’t have the five acres in that case. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. VOLLARO-They had to go before the ZBA and they had to. MS. RADNER-Section A183-47 of the Code is what controls waivers, and what it reads is that “Where the 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 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 objectives of the standards or requirements so waived are met.” So, to answer Mr. Sanford’s question, he doesn’t have to be concerned that he’s now setting a standard that he has to excuse if you were to grant this, that he has to excuse slopes in the future. It is site specific, and you’re considering whether or not it is reasonable to waive it for this particular plat, for these particular circumstances. MR. SANFORD-I trust you. Now, Mr. Vollaro, one other question and that will be it. I’m directing it to you. The shape of this lot is certainly not, I mean, it has I guess you’d call it a flag shape. Is that the way of putting it? MR. VOLLARO-The shape of the proposed lot? MR. SANFORD-Well, site. MR. VOLLARO-The whole site. It’s got a slight implication of a flag lot by, I don’t know, 12 feet maybe. I don’t know. MR. BAKER-The original lot is essentially a reverse flag lot. MR. METIVIER-And if you subdivide it, you’re actually taking the flag away. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. METIVIER-Which would be setting a precedent for us. MR. SANFORD-All right. Well, Bob, I’ll go with the majority of the Board on it. MR. VOLLARO-Again, being site specific and looking at the site and having been there, parked there and looked at it for a while, I think you could build a house there, without any problems. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine. I just have one question. Who is Armando vs. Paul? MR. INGLEE-That’s Gabe Armando. He (lost words) the property you’re talking about. MR. METIVIER-That’s all I needed to know. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I guess this real estate deal is pending, based on approval? MR. LAPPER-We have a contract that is signed, that is subject to contingency as approval by the Planning Board. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t have any further questions. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have any questions. MR. SEGULJIC-No questions. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MRS. STEFFAN-No. I think it fits with the neighborhood character, and we’re not going to have to worry about a driveway running, we’re not going to have to worry about a driveway with runoff into the road. I think it’ll be fine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. GOETZ-And I was out there last night. It was beautiful last night. I was ready to build next to you. I think it’s great. MR. INGLEE-I’d like to just make one statement in regards to, before you folks cast a vote, in regards to my intentions for these properties. I was granted permission to build a home on a higher piece of land that I own on the west side of Tuthill Road. My intentions for these two five acre lots is to, Number One, if we are approved, to give one of the five acre lots to my daughter for her wedding present next month, and to relinquish the other five acres with the old house to my oldest son within three years time, as soon as my house is finished. So they’re really not being subdivided for resale, per say. I just want to give them to the kids. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think there’s any problem with any further subdivision on that, because you’d have to face the APA again, and you don’t want to do that. MR. INGLEE-No. MR. VOLLARO-One question that I have is, has the APA provided a letter of non-jurisdictional determination on this property? MR. LAPPER-No, but that’s because this is an approved plan in Queensbury, an APA approved Zoning Ordinance. The only thing that the APA would look at is whether or not it was a variance. They would get to look at a variance. The only thing else that would make it jurisdictional is if it was a subdivision of wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-Did anything go forward to the APA in terms of us notifying them of this particular subdivision requirement? MR. BAKER-Yes, I believe they were notified of it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They have 30 days to act on that if they’re going to, and has the 30 day clock run down, or not? Do you know? MR. LAPPER-They get 30 days after the issuance of the approval. They get the resolution granting an approval, they have 30 days after the approval. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Fine. Okay. That’s probably true, because that’s what happened the last time. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions. MR. METIVIER-We have a public hearing scheduled. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have, this is an Unlisted Action, and we have a public hearing on this as well. So, before we get into the SEQRA, is there anybody here that wants to talk to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AUDIENCE MEMBER-I was going to, but I’m not going to. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. That’s going to save us a little time. Okay. Thank you very much. Having no other comments, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And go into a SEQRA. You supplied a Short Form, I believe. MR. BAKER-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, we did receive a letter in support of the application from Trevor and Christina Schmetterer of 241 Clendon Brook Road, supporting the application. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. It’s in support of. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Ready? MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-2005, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEFFREY INGLEE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 10 day of May, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) MR. SANFORD-Just a quick point, technical point. Maybe I’m missing the point. On the Part that you completed here on the SEQRA, Page Nine, Item Nine, minimum lot size proposed, 3.53 acres. What’s that all about? MR. STEVES-That’s what he currently owns, but he’s acquiring that 1.47 to make it the five acres. MR. SANFORD-That explains it. Okay. Thanks. MR. STEVES-And that’s subject to this approval. MR. SANFORD-All right. Sorry. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2005 JEFFREY INGLEE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 09-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Jeffrey Inglee PRELIMINARY STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves FINAL STAGE Zone: RR-5A SEQR Type Unlisted Location: Tuthill Rd Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment and subdivision of 10.10 acres of property into two lots of 5.09 and 5.01 acres. Cross Reference: SB 15-2002 APA, CEA: APA Tax Map No. 300-1-39 Lot size: 5.09, 5.01 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs 183 Public Hearing: 5/10/05 WHEREAS, the application was received in 4/15/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/6/05, and 5/10/05 Staff Notes 5/3/05 Revised notice of public hearing sent 5/2/05 Notice of public hearing 5/2/05 Meeting Notice 4/21/05 J. Connolly, APA from C. Brown: referral 4/19/05 PB from M. Steves: statement of intent 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 5/10/05; 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 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby Approved. Duly adopted this 10th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2005 JEFFREY INGLEE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 09-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Jeffrey Inglee PRELIMINARY STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves FINAL STAGE Zone: RR-5A SEQR Type Unlisted Location: Tuthill Rd Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment and subdivision of 10.10 acres of property into two lots of 5.09 and 5.01 acres. Cross Reference: SB 15-2002 APA, CEA: APA Tax Map No. 300-1-39 Lot size: 5.09, 5.01 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs 183 Public Hearing: 5/10/05 WHEREAS, the application was received in 4/15/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/6/05, and 5/10/05 Staff Notes 5/3/05 Revised notice of public hearing sent 5/2/05 Notice of public hearing 5/2/05 Meeting Notice 4/21/05 J. Connolly, APA from C. Brown: referral 4/19/05 PB from M. Steves: statement of intent 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 5/10/05; 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 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/10/05) application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby Approved 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, Landscaping Plan, and Density requirements. 3. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 10th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-And with that, this meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman 50