Loading...
2005-06-28 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2005 INDEX Site Plan No. 37-2005 Jean Hoffman 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-9.11 Subdivision No. 1-2000 John Fedorowicz 3. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11 Subdivision No. 9-2004 Doris Farrar 5. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 290.6-1-70.1, 70.2 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 13-2003 James Newbury 11. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 307-1-47, 46.2 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 8-2005 Western Reserve LLC 18. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 300-1-19 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 29-2005 Mark & Ann Marie Reynolds 48. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-9 Site Plan No. 30-2005 Eugene Timpano 50. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14 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 6/28/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY RICHARD SANFORD GEORGE GOETZ THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT CHRIS HUNSINGER LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. VOLLARO-We have a couple of housekeeping issues before we get started here. There’s a change of order in the applications. You might have picked up some. We’re going to be tabling Site Plan No. 37-2005 for Jean Hoffman. Is anybody here for Jean Hoffman? And we’re going to be tabling Subdivision No. 13-2003, for James Newbury. I think we have prepared tabling motions for that. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, as far as the Newbury application, this was scheduled for a public hearing this evening, and the Zoning Board tabled this application and is seeking some kind of referral, I’ll say, from the Planning Board. So I guess if the ultimate goal is to table it, that’s fine, but I guess my suggestion would be that you may want to open the public hearing. I believe there are some people here from the public to speak, and at least begin discussing the application and possibly make that recommendation to the Zoning Board, prior to tabling. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed there’s a prepared tabling motion. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. HILTON-Yes, and I think that’s in anticipation that, because the variances that the applicant is requesting have not been granted, that this Board can’t act on the subdivision this evening, but again, as I said, the Zoning Board has asked for some form of recommendation, and there is a public hearing scheduled this evening. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll ask the question. Is there anybody here that wants to speak to the Newbury? All right. The new order, then, will be, I guess we will put James Newbury up for discussion, I guess. I have a concern with that. I don’t know really what to recommend to the Zoning Board. I don’t know what their issue is. I’d like to hear their issue first, before we make a recommendation at this Board. Do we know what their issue is for the tabling? MR. HILTON-I guess I can simply just tell you what I read in the minutes, that they’re looking for a recommendation on the lot configuration. I think there were some issues as far as the lot layout and the fact that the property is split by a municipal boundary. Susan is here. She was at the Zoning Board. She may be able to give you a little more information as far as what the Zoning Board is looking for, but that’s my understanding. MR. VOLLARO-Then let’s get on with it. SITE PLAN NO. 37-2005 SEQR TYPE II JEAN HOFFMAN AGENT: WILLIAM KENIRY, ESQ. ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 159 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN OVERSIZED BOATHOUSE WITH 1170 SQ. FT. SUNDECK AND SEEKS A MODIFICATION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BOATHOUSE, WHICH WAS LIMITED TO 700 SQ. FT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 46-05, AV 90-04, SUB 15-03, AV 30-01, AV 91-01, SP 15-01, SUB 14- 99, AV 60-99 LGPC, APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/8/05 TAX MAP NO. 227.17- 1-9.11 LOT SIZE: 3.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MR. VOLLARO-For Jean Hoffman, I notice that the prepared tabling motion just has for the following reason, and has no reason associated with it. What is the reason that we’re tabling Jean Hoffman’s application? MR. HILTON-I believe with that application, that’s at the applicant’s request. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s sufficient. I see for the following reason, and blank. MR. SANFORD-Well, in a way, Bob, I mean, agenda is a main concern of this Board. We’ve scheduled additional third meetings now for two months in the summer to meet the backlog, and I think we have to have, moving forward, a little bit more of a specific reason for a tabling other than at the request of the applicant, because it wreaks havoc with our agenda scheduling. MR. VOLLARO-True enough. MR. SANFORD-And, you know, here’s a situation where we could have perhaps seen another application and maybe, in some cases, avoid a third meeting. So, in a way, in the future, I think something more than just at the applicant’s request is warranted. MR. HILTON-Yes, and, Mr. Sanford, I think, in this situation as well, after just speaking with Susan here, I believe that this is another application that requires a variance, so that this Board probably wouldn’t be able to act on it anyway. It’s probably a combination of the two. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, if there was a variance missing, it should be listed right here under following reasons, so we know why we’re tabling this. I think Mr. Sanford has a perfectly valid position on that. So it’s not at the applicant’s request. It’s because the ZBA is still looking for a variance? Is that now correct, Susan? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MRS. BARDEN-It was tabled at the Zoning Board as well. MR. VOLLARO-For? MRS. BARDEN-For the same reason, by the applicant’s request. MR. HILTON-I think it’s probably fair to say in this case that you could state in the resolution, so that the applicant can seek required variances or something like that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if that’s not the reason, Mr. Hilton, I don’t know whether I want to put that into the motion. I’d like to know the reason why they’ve been tabled. If it’s at the applicant’s request, that’s fine, but if we’ve got two separate issues on the table here, I’d like to know which one is the right one. How does the rest of the Board feel? Do you want to go with the applicant’s request? MR. SANFORD-Yes, it’s going to be tabled, Bob, it’s just that I think this isn’t the first time that this particular application has been tabled. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-And so my question is how many times does it show up on our agenda only to be tabled? MR. VOLLARO-It’s a valid point. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. VOLLARO-But in the interest of moving the clock along, I’m going to make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2005 JEAN HOFFMAN TO JULY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA CYCLE [meeting to be determined], Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, for the following reason: at the applicant’s request. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2000 MOD. SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION JOHN FEDOROWICZ AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO DIVIDE LOT 2 OF THIS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION – 10.14 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 6.27 AND 3.87 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 8-99 APA, CEA TAX MAP NO. 265-1-19.11 LOT SIZE: 10.14 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-Before we get started, has everybody on the Board read the Staff comments on this application, or would they like to have them read? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m fine. MR. SANFORD-I’m fine. MR. FORD-I’ve read them. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve read them. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-Good evening. MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MR. STEVES-I’m Matt Steves representing John Fedorowicz on this application. This is property up on the west side of Bay Road. It was part of a previous subdivision, I believe, by Byron Rist, and Mr. Fedorowicz has a parcel that he would like to further subdivide 10 acres, and he would like to try to split that into two lots. There was an original, in the original subdivision, the topography on that lot, there was a notation made on the original subdivision by Rist, no further subdivision because of the concern of the steep slopes, and Mr. Fedorowicz had asked if we could try to come in front of this Board and see if he could possibly subdivide it. He built a house on that lot and he would like to build another one, and that’s the plan in front of you. We did the calculations for the steep slopes, and we also did the driveway profile for the proposed lot, which would be north of the existing home. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. Is that it, Mr. Steves? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll take questions from the Board, if the Board has questions on this application. I’ll start off with Mr. Sanford. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know what’s changed. This was reviewed by the Planning Board. A decision was made to permit the original subdivision with the condition that it wouldn’t be further subdivided. Has anything changed? Have the slopes gotten less severe on the lot? MR. STEVES-No. MR. SANFORD-No, and so, again, I’m also going almost in a similar vein. I’m not sure why something like this isn’t addressed by Staff. I question procedure. I’m not sure what our procedure is, but the Planning Board addressed this issue, made a decision, we’re here, nothing’s changed, and now we’re asked to evaluate something that’s already been decided upon by the Planning Board. So my knee jerk reaction is, that we do not entertain further subdivision because we’d merely be doing the job twice, and I have to presume that the Planning Board did an adequate job when they did it the first time. MR. VOLLARO-My understanding on this is that Staff had some concerns on this application when they first reviewed it, and they went to legal, and I guess Cathi Radner, is that correct? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-Cathi Radner said that the applicant has a right to come before the Board, and that’s why they’re here. My concern with something like this is just to piggyback on what Mr. Sanford had to say, is we probably have a dozen or so of these type of applications out there, where we put the notation on the plat. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-And if we do it for this, I could see ten people sitting here asking for the same thing, and that was my contention, more than anything else. So I’d have to second whatever Mr. Sanford had to say there. MR. SEGULJIC-And I would have to echo that also. There was a reason why we said no further subdivision. The reasons are still the same. MR. STEVES-I let my client know that, that that was on the plan when he came to me and asked for the subdivision. I said, do you realize that there was a condition of the previous subdivision when you purchased the lot, and he said he was under the understanding that that wasn’t so. He had talked to Staff who said that it was possible, and that’s the only reason I’m here, is to see if we can get that lifted so he can go forward. I understand. I let him know from the minute he walked in my office that that was a condition on the prior subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I don’t know whether we have this as a public hearing or not. MR. SANFORD-It’s not required. MR. VOLLARO-Not required for a mod. So there’s no public hearing and there’s no SEQRA on this, I believe. So we’re just going to, I think we’re just going to move for a denial on this. MR. HILTON-Actually, Mr. Chairman, I think what’s involved here is first of all a request to modify a previous approval, to amend a previous motion, I guess, to remove that condition, and if the Board chooses to do that, then the second part would be an actual subdivision modification. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HILTON-So I think that if you are, whatever the Board’s pleasure is, if the Board does not choose to modify that previous approval, then no denial is necessary. I think that you’d simply just not amend the previous motion. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I understand what you’re saying, and I think that’s where we’re going with it. We’re not interested in amending the previous. MR. STEVES-The modification is not for the new subdivision, the lot into two lots. It’s for what has been previously done back in May 16, 2000. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the way the draft resolution is written, it has a resolution approving or denying the mod. So if we’re not going to make a mod, there isn’t any modification. It’s just a denial for removing the clause on the plat. So I guess the motion could be made to deny the removal of the modification of the clause on the plat. MR. SANFORD-And I’ll second that. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MOTION TO DENY MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2000 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 01-2000 Mod. Applicant/Property Owner: John Fedorowicz SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Zone: RR-3A MODIFICATION Location: 1433 Bay Road Applicant is requesting to divide lot 2 of this previously approved subdivision - 10.14 acres into 2 lots of 6.27and 3.87 acres. Cross Reference: SUB 8-99 APA, CEA: APA Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11 Lot size: 10.14 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: Not required for modification WHEREAS, the application was received in 5/16/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/24/05, and 6/28 Staff Notes 6/2 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby Denied: to deny the removal of the clause on the plat. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Sorry about that. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. STEVES-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DORIS FARRAR PROPERTY OWNER: DORIS FARRAR/RACHAEL ALLEN AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.03 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS OF 1 ACRE AND 3.03 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 1-03, AV 36-04, AV 66-02 TAX MAP NO. 290.6-1-70.1, 70.2 LOT SIZE: 4.03 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-I have some questions for Staff. Have we completed a SEQRA on this? I don’t recall having done it, but we might have. MR. HILTON-No, I don’t believe we have. It’s an Unlisted action. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I see that it looks like the public hearing was closed on 12/21/04. I don’t see anything on a public hearing tonight either. MR. HILTON-I can check that for you. MR. SANFORD-It says the public hearing was tabled by 9/21/04. I don’t know what tabled means on a public hearing. It’s either open or closed. What does tabled mean? MR. HILTON-If an application is tabled, I mean, a lot of times the public hearing is left open with the tabling. MR. SANFORD-So this would be open public hearing, then? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think so. There was another public hearing on 12/21/04, after that night. MR. SANFORD-It’s not on the prepared resolution. MR. LAPPER-It’s on the agenda. MR. SANFORD-It’s on the agenda. Okay. I see. So the draft resolution is not complete. MR. VOLLARO-The floor is yours, sir. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Matt Steves, and Doris is right behind us in the third row, if there’s any questions for her. This has been a long process, but we believe that everything that the Board has asked for has been satisfied. What we submitted, what the Staff notes indicate, is that the DOH has now approved the septic system on the lot. Doris had previously agreed to give up the right to subdivide this into a third lot. So it’s just the existing house and the large vacant lot, and Dave Hatin also approved the septic system on behalf of the Town. So, Matt previously had to get a variance just for the driveway because the way these lots are configured, it wasn’t possible to have a shared driveway, just because of the location of the other house, the older existing house, but we hope that the issues are all pretty flat at this point. MR. STEVES-We went through all the comments at the last Planning Board in December, and the one concern was the septic system, was it an approvable system by the Department of Health and/or the Town of Queensbury, and we have shown, designed a system that has been approved by both. That was the concern of the Planning Board at the last meeting. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-It’s the first time I’ve seen, I guess, that much interest by the New York State Department of Health on an application like this, and I was really pleased to see it. MR. STEVES-It’s because the concern of the Board, we decided that we’d be best suited to go right to the State, design a system that we could come back to you and make you comfortable that it is something that the New York State Department of Health does approve of. MR. VOLLARO-It was interesting to see their stamp on the drawing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before in the six years I’m on this Board. Not typical. Okay. The Staff notes talk about a variance, but I think it says, however, as proposed, the home on Lot Number Two will require a variance prior to issuance of a building permit. That’s nothing. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know what that referred to. We couldn’t figure that out. MR. HILTON-In the SR-1A zone, there is a building setback of 75 feet from any shoreline wetland. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I was wondering if that’s what you were talking about. This is only an Army Corps wetland, not a Federal wetland, not a State wetland, excuse me. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. LAPPER-And the Department has previously determined that that only applies to State wetlands. MR. HILTON-Well, I checked with Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, prior to issuing these notes, and he confirmed with me that the 75 foot setback would apply to the home. MR. LAPPER-I just recall that we got into that whole discussion six months ago, and that a different determination was made that the Town Freshwater wetlands only applied to State and not Federal, but I mean, if that’s the case, since there’s no buffer from an Army Corps wetland under Federal law. MR. VOLLARO-Well, since this is just a subdivision and doesn’t have anything to do with the building of a home, this would be a site plan issue, if it came to a site plan because of the variance requirement. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HILTON-I think so. MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing is deemed closed. Is that correct? MR. HILTON-I guess, I’m looking at the draft resolution, and I’m not seeing where you feel the error is. I’m reading where it says public hearing 9/21/04 tabled, and I read that to be that the public hearing, with the application, was tabled, left open. MR. LAPPER-What about 12/21? MR. VOLLARO-There’s 12/21/04, and that’s on this. MR. SANFORD-That’s on Page Two of your actual resolution. So you’ve got to believe that that’s accurate, that there was a public hearing on 12/21. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. HILTON-And I believe, yes. Without minutes, I don’t have the minutes with me, but my feeling would be that on 12/21 that was tabled as well, with this tabling, the public hearing that is. MR. VOLLARO-So with that, you would feel the public hearing is open? We don’t know? MR. HILTON-I can’t say for sure, no. MR. SANFORD-See if anybody wants to speak to it. Maybe it’s a moot point. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll ask that question. Does anybody in the audience want to talk to this application for Doris Farrar? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-It looks like we’re going to be doing a SEQRA on this, I believe. I don’t think there’s a SEQRA required here tonight. It’s a Type Unlisted, but have we done the SEQRA? I don’t know. If it’s not, we need a Long Form, and it wasn’t submitted with the application. MR. HILTON-SEQRA, I don’t believe SEQRA has been done, and this is an Unlisted action and typically Unlisted actions require a Long Form. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and there wasn’t any submitted with the application. That’s what lead me to believe that I didn’t know whether we had a SEQRA requirement or not. I think all subdivisions require a Long Form. Has anybody on the Board got a SEQRA application? MR. LAPPER-Matt’s looking through his file. Here it is. Matt has a Long Form. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-I filled out, I don’t know the exact date, but, 4/15/04, when the subdivision first came in. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-Would you like it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-2004, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DORIS FARRAR, 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 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) 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 28 day of June, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think the final resolution, whoever makes it, has to contain a statement from C.T. Male on the Drawing S-1, referring to Schedule 40 versus Schedule 35. MR. STEVES-Yes, that’s not a problem. The New York State Code says either/or. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s what you did. I noticed, you put it on one and not on the other, in favor of consistency. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-I have some questions on the preparation of the resolution itself. I just want to ask a couple of questions. It says, this is, whereas the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information not included, should that be in this listing as of 12/17/04? Not included “is”, I guess that should be “in”. I just want to make sure we’ve got the correct words there. Is that correct? MR. HILTON-Yes, I believe in looking at other resolutions in your packets, I believe it should read “in” this listing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now there’s a couple here, the June 20 letter from C.T. Male th and the April 18 from Dave Hatin and the March 7 from DOH, March 7 from DOH, I ththth would like, somehow or other, for that letter to be tied to the plat. I think that’s an important piece of information there, and it either should be tied to the plat or photoed to the plat, one or the other. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. STEVES-I can shrink it down and affix it to the plat before we make the mylar. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-That’s not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Before the Chairman signs it. I think that letter should be on the plat. I think that’s important. MR. HILTON-You can make it a condition. MR. STEVES-I’ll agree to that. That’s not a problem. MR. HILTON-Good. MR. VOLLARO-And with that, I guess I’d be looking for a motion on this application. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2004 DORIS FARRAR, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 9-2004 Applicant: DORIS FARRAR Preliminary & Final Stage Property Owner: Doris Farrar / Rachael Allen SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: VanDusen & Steves Zone: SR-1A Location: Ridge Road Applicant seeks approval to subdivide a 4.03 +/- acre property into two lots of 1 acre and 3.03 acres. Cross Reference: SB 1-03, AV 36-04, AV 66- 02 Tax Map No. 290.6-1-70.1, 70.2 Lot size: 4.03 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: 6/22/04, 7/27/04, 9/21/04, 12/21/04 WHEREAS, the application was received in 4/15/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/24/05, and 6/24/05 Staff Notes 6/2/05 Meeting Notice 5/17/05 New info 9/21/04 PB resolution – Tabled 7/27/04 PB resolution – Tabled 6/22/04 PB resolution – Tabled 12/21/04 PB resolution - Tabled 12/21/04 Staff Notes 12/20/04 New map received: S-1 revised 12/17/04, (2) maps 29066-01 revised 12/17/04 12/14/04 CTM engineering comments 11/30/04 D. Farrar from PW: Copies 11/18/04 Maps: S-1 revised 11/16/04, 29065-01 – 2 maps revised 11/5/04 11/8/04 Maps: S-1 revised 11/5/04, 29065-01 – 2 maps revised 11/5/04 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) 12/21/04 Staff Notes 11/30/04 Meeting Notice 9/21/04 PB from G. Hilton – staff notes 9/15/04 CTM engineering comments 8/20/04 Transmittal to CTM from GH: Map & Long EAF info 8/11/04 Map S-1 revised 8/10/04 8/11/04 Long Environmental Assessment Form 7/6/04 D. Farrar from CB: meeting notice 6/22/04 CONFIDENTIAL 6/22/04 Public Hearing comment: E. Miller to C. McNulty 6/15/04 Notice of Public Hearing 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 6/22/04, 7/27/04, 9/21/04 and 12/21/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby Approved. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MOTION TO APPROVE FINALSTAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2004 DORIS FARRAR, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 9-2004 Applicant: DORIS FARRAR Preliminary & Final Stage Property Owner: Doris Farrar / Rachael Allen SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: VanDusen & Steves Zone: SR-1A Location: Ridge Road Applicant seeks approval to subdivide a 4.03 +/- acre property into two lots of 1 acre and 3.03 acres. Cross Reference: SB 1-03, AV 36-04, AV 66- 02 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) Tax Map No. 290.6-1-70.1, 70.2 Lot size: 4.03 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: 6/22/04, 7/27/04, 9/21/04, 12/21/04 WHEREAS, the application was received in 4/15/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/04, and 6/24/05 Staff Notes 6/2/05 Meeting Notice 5/17/05 New info C.T. Male Associates engineering comments 4/18/05 Dave Hatin letter 3/7/05 Letter from DOH 9/21/04 PB resolution – Tabled 7/27/04 PB resolution – Tabled 6/22/04 PB resolution – Tabled 12/21/04 PB resolution - Tabled 12/21/04 Staff Notes 12/20/04 New map received: S-1 revised 12/17/04, (2) maps 29066-01 revised 12/17/04 12/14/04 CTM engineering comments 11/30/04 D. Farrar from PW: Copies 11/18/04 Maps: S-1 revised 11/16/04, 29065-01 – 2 maps revised 11/5/04 11/8/04 Maps: S-1 revised 11/5/04, 29065-01 – 2 maps revised 11/5/04 12/21/04 Staff Notes 11/30/04 Meeting Notice 9/21/04 PB from G. Hilton – staff notes 9/15/04 CTM engineering comments 8/20/04 Transmittal to CTM from GH: Map & Long EAF info 8/11/04 Map S-1 revised 8/10/04 8/11/04 Long Environmental Assessment Form 7/6/04 D. Farrar from CB: meeting notice 6/22/04 CONFIDENTIAL 6/22/04 Public Hearing comment: E. Miller to C. McNulty 6/15/04 Notice of Public Hearing 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 6/22/04, 7/27/04, 9/21/04 and 12/21/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage 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 plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. C.T. Male Associates’ statement on Drawing S-1 reference Schedule 40 versus Schedule 35. 2. That the letter of March 7, 2005 from the Dept. of Health should be attached or made part of the final plat. 3. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision. 4. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan 5. Applicant shall submit a copy of the required NOI prior to final signature by the Planning Board Chairman. 6. 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. 7. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 8. Final approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES NEWBURY AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LC- 10A, APA LOCATION: 62 CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF LAND – 24 +/- ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WITH THE BALANCE IN THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE – INTO 4 LOTS, WITH THE TOTAL SIZE OF EACH LOT RANGING FROM 8 +/- ACRES TO 16 +/- ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-2004 PENDING TAX MAP NO. 307-1-47, 46.2 LOT SIZE: 24 +/- acres [TOQ] SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MATT STEVES & MR. HAMILTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-And I understand that the ZBA has not yet acted on Area Variance request, and the Planning Board cannot act on the Preliminary and Final subdivision until and unless ZBA acts on the variance request. Now, I don’t know that, in the Staff notes it doesn’t say anything in here about the ZBA looking for some sort of a recommendation from our Board. Somehow or other, do I remember that we did a recommendation on this to the ZBA in the past, or never? I’m trying to think back. MR. SANFORD-We passed SEQRA on this, Bob, and then it went to them for the variance, and then it will come back to us for final plan approval. We can only speculate, based on what we received in written material, as to what the ZBA is looking for in terms of guidance or a recommendation. I have no idea when the lot size configuration, or the lot configurations were mentioned. I’m not sure what that means. Is that the shape of the lots? MR. HILTON-Having not attended the Zoning Board meeting, I can’t answer that question either. I can simply say, reviewing the minutes, that the resolution that the ZBA passed tabling this simply said tabling. Further back in the minutes, there was some discussion that they were looking for a recommendation and some comment from this Board on lot configuration, and as I said previously, Susan here was at that meeting, and perhaps she could shed some light on this, if you’d like. MR. STEVES-And I was at that meeting as well. MR. SANFORD-Well, what’s your spin on it? MR. STEVES-To back up. When this was in front of you last, it was five lots originally, if you remember, reduced it to the four lots. We had a review with the Town of Luzerne. We came back here. They elected to make you Lead Agency on SEQRA. So we came back last month for, I think it was last month, two months ago, for the SEQRA determination. That was given, and we had to move forward with the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board, there was no Counsel for the Town available at the meeting, and at the beginning of the meeting they had some concerns as to whether or not, because the Town of Queensbury took Lead Agency on SEQRA, and now they’re looking at it for a variance, even though they’re over 10 acre lots, it is in two different municipalities. So what they’re hung up on, after hearing public comment, was whether or not they can only look at the property in Queensbury. So the question was asked whether or not I could create two conforming lots in Queensbury and two conforming lots in Luzerne, and I said that is possible, but I don’t think the Planning Board would allow that or like that, and I think that the Planning Board should have some comment as to that. I said these are wide lots, conforming in size, both municipalities have the same zoning, ten acre zoning. They all are 10 acre lots, and if we were to create two 10 acre lots in Luzerne and two 10 acre lots in Queensbury, you would have to have flagged lots to get back to the area in Luzerne, because all your frontage is on Cormus Road, which is entirely within Queensbury. I mean, we try to get away from 25 or 50 foot entrances and flag out to lots. Could we do that and not need a variance? Yes. Would it be good planning? No, not in my opinion, and I’ve heard that from this Board numerous times that they do not want flag shaped lots. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I think, based on my memory when we last saw it, we did discuss the fact that these lots were split, and that each lot would be over 10, but they would be part in Luzerne and part in Queensbury, and we had some discussion on it. I would feel comfortable if you went back to the Zoning Board and stated that the Planning Board was well aware of that fact and was comfortable with the split lot configuration, and that we did not believe it was necessary for the 10 acres to reside solely in the Town of Queensbury. MR. STEVES-That was our discussion at our meeting the last time. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. SANFORD-Yes, and I thought if they had the benefit of our minutes, that would probably have been reflected in those minutes. MR. VOLLARO-So, I guess they’re looking for, if we didn’t give them that kind of guidance, they’d be looking for direction in terms of a variance for, for example, if every lot in here is like under 10, five, four, eight, and I can’t read the other ones in here, six. So they’re variance is just based on a variance from the 10 acres, it looks like, that’s what they want. MR. SANFORD-Right, and that’s their call. MR. VOLLARO-That’s their call. Our recommendation is to go with it, to them. So that their Board understands that our recommendation is that you could go with that. So let them. MR. SEGULJIC-As I recall also, didn’t we also go along the path that one of our concerns was that we had no control over Luzerne. So we’re going to get some wording about how that lot would not be further divided in Luzerne. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. STEVES-That they would have to be attached, and you discussed that the parcels as they are shown, no further subdivision, and that the lots would have to be fronted on the Town road in Queensbury and they’d have to say in this configuration, and Luzerne is fine with that, too, no further subdivision, and by both Towns having the signature on that, with the no further subdivision, and the fact that I understand, you know, this invisible line that everybody talks about, that you cannot extend beyond that, but that’s the right you have when you take on Lead Agency and SEQRA. You have the right to look at the property as a whole. MR. VOLLARO-And we did. MR. STEVES-And you did. MR. VOLLARO-We looked at the whole 10. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that if somebody in the ZBA would have looked at our minutes, I think they could have concluded that they could have granted the variance in Queensbury. That’s my opinion. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I mean, let’s just leave it at that. I think that’s a good way to leave it, for the purposes, before we table. I don’t think we have to go any further than that. MR. HAMILTON-Could we get a motion to that effect from this Board? MR. SANFORD-I don’t know. MR. HILTON-I just want to remind the Board, again, that the public hearing was scheduled for this evening, and as you’re aware, there are people that would like to speak to this application. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. We can call them in. MRS. STEFFAN-I just have a question. With this subdivision, if you’ve got half of the property in Queensbury and half of the property in Lake Luzerne, for example, the two 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) lots that, where the houses are proposed in Lake Luzerne, how does the permitting process work? Do you get a driveway permit in Queensbury, but you get a building permit in Lake Luzerne? Because, you know, in Queensbury when you build you get a package of information. You have all the forms you have to fill out. How does something like this work? MR. HAMILTON-That’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-You get the driveway permit from Queensbury? MR. HAMILTON-Right. The building permit would come from the Town of Luzerne. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, if anybody here wants to talk to this application for James Newbury, they can approach. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PATRICIA WASHBURN MRS. WASHBURN-Good evening. My name is Patricia Washburn. I live at 107 Cormus Road, which is the property adjacent to and surrounded by Mr. Newbury’s Queensbury and Luzerne acreage. We will be the most impacted by this subdivision. We’re at the end of the street. We will be the ones that will be most effected. This is my fourth appearance at public hearings. Three in front of you people and one in front of the Zoning Board. Each time I have stated my opposition to any change in the 10 acre lot size requirement in the Town of Queensbury and in the Adirondack Park. At the last meeting of the Zoning Board, Mr. Steves stated that with or without Queensbury’s approval, this subdivision will happen. This statement concerned me, and so I began to inquire how Mr. Steves could accomplish this within the legal limits of the law. I spoke with the Town of Lake Luzerne Zoning Administrator and found out the following. Number One, Luzerne only gave Queensbury Lead Agency status on this project for the SEQRA review, nothing else. Mr. Newbury has enough acreage in Luzerne to create two legal lots. Mr. Newbury must have access to these lots, and since his property connects to the Glens Falls Mountain Road, this is his only legal access, and this was supplied to me by the Administrator of the Zoning Board in Lake Luzerne. That is Luzerne’s preferred access to Mr. Newbury’s property. This situation is similar to one 20 years ago when Mr. Brandt proposed a housing development on top of West Mountain. At that time, the Town of Queensbury told him he must provide access from the Glens Falls Mountain Road and not from Cormus Road. So for Mr. Newbury to legally create two lots in Luzerne, he must build an access point from the Glens Falls Mountain Road. This would then lessen the impact for residents on Cormus Road, and now, for my final comment, and the reason that we are here tonight, Mr. Newbury’s 24 acres in Queensbury. Mr. Newbury’s residence is located almost exactly in the center of this acreage. I assume everybody has been up there, seen the location of the house and barn. It sits almost dead center of this 24 acre parcel. To create two legal 10 acre lots or perhaps a 10 acre and a 14 acre lot, he would either have to take down his house and barn, or split the house and barn, with the barn included in the northern 10 acre piece. Even with that, I’m not sure the barn would meet the setback requirements. So to conclude, yes, Mr. Steves can legally create this subdivision and maintain the 10 acre lot size, with compliant setbacks, but not with the plans that he has presented to you this evening. My hope is that we can maintain our privacy, not allow three or four new homes to change the rural setting that we love, and that this Board will vote no on this project. Thank you. THOMAS WASHBURN 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. WASHBURN-Thomas Washburn, Cormus Road. My wife and I have lived up here in Queensbury at this location for close to 25 years. We’ve seen the development that’s progressed up in our neighborhood over these years, and we haven’t had a problem with the way things have gone to this point. Everyone that has built up here has been within compliance of 10 acre lots, and/or in an instance that there was a substandard lot, plot of ground which didn’t conform but a buyer had a right to take and build on. It was a small parcel. I think the person even added on, bought some acreage from a neighbor to make these, make it a little bit more aesthetically pleasing. I understand that, you know, you can take a piece in Queensbury and a piece in Luzerne and it still becomes 10 acres. It’s in the Park. It’s all neat and dandy. These lots are all chopped. There’s a straight block that goes back one way, chops up to get to Luzerne. The only problem in there in Luzerne is that the mountain drops right off on that back parcel. It’s all mountainous area. That’s why we’re zoned 10 acres to begin with. That’s my feeling is what’s in Queensbury, what’s before me right here with this Board, who is my representatives in Queensbury, 10 acres is 10 acres is in Queensbury. Access, if he has access, the property buts over to Luzerne, I have no right to go to Luzerne and say that whatever happens on that part is that way, but this is my Town. This is my neighborhood. We’re going to be impacted. With the way our two parcels run on this, if I ever wanted to build a home on my other piece, we’re going to be right, looking right around at each other here. So please consider this. RICHARD UDALL MR. UDALL-I’m Richard Udall, and my wife and I own the property that adjoins the Washburn property at the end of Cormus Road. I think from the very beginning our concern has been the proposition that Mr. Newbury has is going to change the character of the neighborhood in an adverse way with increased traffic and he’s trying to manipulate to get his way with his configuration of the lots. The 10 acre zoning is for a purpose, and I think to try to wiggle out of that and for his own convenience to create a different way to approach the lots is not in the best interest of the character of the area. It would increase the amount of traffic on the road, and the way that the original zoning was set up was designed to protect the integrity of that neighborhood, and I think that to ask to change that, for the convenience of developing the lots in a more productive way is against the best interests of all the people who live up there and live there for the reason of the environmental concerns that make it such an attractive area to be in. So I urge you to turn down this application, please. STEPHEN BROWN MR. BROWN-Good evening. My name’s Stephen Brown. I reside at 57 Cormus Road. I’m really not going to tell you anything new. I’m just going to repeat, basically, what my neighbors have said. I think when you look at this, at least when I do, and you look at the way he’s put these lots together, it’s obvious what he’s doing, and he has every right to try, but he’s trying to maximize his property. The more homes you can get in, the more money you make on your land, and that’s great. That’s the American way, but as neighbors that want to keep our neighborhood as close to what it’s been, we’re here just saying, hey, you know, if he can just put in the lots that the rules apply, let’s let him do that, without a variance, putting the homes that he can legally put in without you guys giving him more room to put in more homes, and I guess lastly I just want to say to the group something I said to you last time I was sitting up here, but I just really, it sounds funny, but it’s really, it means a lot to me. Our neighborhood is so rural , the United States Postal Service will not deliver. Their motto is “We Deliver”. They won’t deliver to us. That’s how quiet it is. We don’t even have mail couriers come to our street. It’s extremely quiet, and if this goes through, and you allow it, you’re going to almost double the size of the homes that are currently there. So, I’ll leave it at that. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Does anyone else want to speak to this application? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) LYLE WASHBURN MR. WASHBURN-Lyle Washburn, 107 Cormus Road. I would just like to state that I am also opposed to the application Mr. Newbury has presented. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is that it? Does anybody else want to speak to this application? MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, we have a couple of letters. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-The first letter is from Thomas Barrowman and Ruth Barrowman, 956 Luzerne Road. It says, The zoning for the Luzerne Mountain was carefully considered and matched to the terrain. At the time the Zoning Board did not consider combining land with adjacent towns. Mr. Newbury has enough land to divide into two parcels under current regulations. The zoning rules apply to everyone. As far as road runoff is concerned, I have not had my driveway entrance fixed correctly in 38 years. After every rain the driveway entrance washes out. One of the proposed home entrance will affect water runoff in my driveway. Homes already built on the east side of Cormus Road will have to contend with much more runoff as land is cleared and paved. We’re strongly against granting a variance for purely financial gain, while ignoring the environmental impact of the Luzerne Mountain. A mountainous area is not a setting for a housing development. This is why the Town of Queensbury originally zoned the top of Luzerne Mountain for 10 acres. All the proposed homes would be lumped together because of the terrain. This can be likened to a housing development adjacent to the Adirondack Park and claiming each lot has a lot of land. If the Newbury development is allowed, then other landowners on the Luzerne Mountain would be able to divide their land into smaller parcels as long as they owned land somewhere else. It should be noted that a recent request for a density change on the Luzerne Mountain/Tuthill Road was rejected by the Adirondack Park Agency. And then the letter actually goes in and describes, I guess, the requirements for a Use Variance and it lists a couple which this application isn’t, and it seems to list a couple of criteria, Can a reasonable return be realized if the land is used as zoned? They’ve indicated yes. Will the requested variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Yes, the mountainous terrain does not lend itself to closely spaced homes all having accessed cuts into Cormus Road and lastly it reads, Is the alleged hardship self-created? Yes. Thomas and Ruth Barrowman. Last letter I have is from Al Saheim, the Zoning Administrator from the Town of Lake Luzerne. It says, This memo is concerning Mr. Newbury’s subdivision on Cormus Road. The Lake Luzerne Planning and Zoning Boards would also require Mr. Newbury or his agent to present his subdivision application at scheduled meetings in the Town of Lake Luzerne. Mr. Newbury will require an Area Variance for substandard lot size in our Town. Respectfully Al Saheim, Zoning Administrator, Town of Lake Luzerne. That’s all we have. MR. VOLLARO-They’re asking for an Area Variance for lot size, is that what they’re? MR. HILTON-The Town of Lake Luzerne? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Area Variance for lot size? MR. HILTON-Yes, at least, and it sounds like also for subdivision as well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the things that we’ve done, with that reading, I will close the public hearing. MR. SANFORD-Wait a second, Bob. If they get the variance, it’ll come back to us. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-They have to come back. Okay. Sorry about that. Yes. I want to talk to the Board for just a minute here. We’ve already done a SEQRA here, and we’ve neg dec’d the SEQRA. Now, I don’t know whether we can consider the people who have spoken as new information or not. MR. SANFORD-We’re not going to change the SEQRA. This is going to be tabled, but the question of the recommendation, I’ve reconsidered that. We asked, at the last meeting, for legal clarification on this splitting townships type of thing, and I was lead to believe that it was appropriate to look at the lot independent of whether or not it went into a different township, and in fact I think that within the last couple of months we approved a similar situation, going into Washington County. Part in Washington, part in Queensbury. I don’t think we should be doing the business for the ZBA, in getting too far out ahead of it. I really think that, since the legal advice we’ve been getting is about as clear as mud, I’d rather not go out on a limb. I’d rather that they deal with their issue, which is whether or not to grant the variance, and therefore I think that we, the best thing for us to do at this particular point in time is to let them do their job, table this and see what they come up with. Because I certainly don’t want to send an encouraging message to the ZBA that we’re all for this, when in fact, to me, this should be a definitive legal issue. Whether or not, if 10 acres is 10 acres, independent on what township it is, or whether or not you should only be looking at Queensbury, we shouldn’t have to be speculating on. We should get a clear, concise answer on that, and we haven’t gotten it yet, and I’m certainly not going to go out on a limb and say, yes, we can look at different townships. Let the ZBA do it and let our legal department, we don’t have legal representation here tonight, deal with it and hopefully advise ZBA. MR. STEVES-Richard, I believe you asked her that question, correct, at the time when we got the zoning, or the SEQRA. MR. SANFORD-And what was her comment, Matt? What did she say? MR. STEVES-No, no, no. I agree with you. You asked her the question, and she said she’d look into that, and I don’t know, I haven’t heard an answer back from her. MR. SANFORD-I haven’t, either. MR. STEVES-Okay. I’m concurring, Richard. MR. SANFORD-I know. I’m just frustrated with this because I would think that this is something that we shouldn’t have to debate amongst ourselves. We should get straightforward answer on this. It’s a legal issue, as I see it. MR. SEGULJIC-And I don’t see where we can make a motion on it. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at another municipality’s comment, that they in turn are looking for an Area Variance in their area. So they’re considering the acreage that’s in Luzerne, as opposed to ourselves, and so we’re both looking at the same thing. I guess the APA does not see that municipal line, however. I’m concerned about that as well. MR. STEVES-That’s correct, they do not. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The APA, to them, this is transparent. Okay. MR. STEVES-When they look at zoning, and you look at the APA zoning map, they do not stop their zoning at a municipal line, like a municipality does. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So to them 10 acres was fine. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-That’s how they see it in the APA. MR. STEVES-And that’s the way the State sees it. Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think Mr. Sanford has a point. We really haven’t gotten good definition as to whether we should be looking in Queensbury only or whether or not this is, we should be looking at the entire lot, the way we did on SEQRA. SEQRA we looked at the entire lot. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure, in light of the information we’re getting now, we could revisit SEQRA if we have to, but in light of the information we’re getting, I’m not sure that we clearly understood what we were doing in this SEQRA area. Now I don’t know whether we made a mistake there, and if we have, we ought to step up to it, but we looked at the entire package in SEQRA, from the SEQRA point of view. However, there’s another issue now, and that issue is whether or not each municipality has to say whether it approves the lot in its area. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess, if I may, for this application, this proposed subdivision, the Town of Lake Luzerne and the Adirondack Park Agency both consented to this Board being Lead Agent for the review. MR. VOLLARO-For SEQRA. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-Now, and obviously by the letter this evening that was read from the Town of Lake Luzerne, there are some approvals that are required on their end, and I don’t think that this Board or anyone here has ever said that no approvals would be necessary from other agencies. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. MR. HILTON-But it’s been, you know, presented, and I think the Board’s aware that, through the SEQRA process, that this Board was Lead Agent for this subdivision. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but I’m not sure as a SEQRA, which mostly deals with environmental impacts, is addressing the issue of lot size in light of 179, and I think that, basically, that’s a ZBA call, and I think ZBA needs to go to legal staff and get some guidance to make their decision. I don’t think we should even be going in that direction. It’s none of our business. It’s their decision. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. SANFORD-So again, I mean, to me, I would just recommend that the ZBA read the minutes of this meeting and act accordingly, and that would be the extent of it, and then table this application. MR. STEVES-And as well have Mr. Hamilton here, who is the counsel for Mr. Newbury, maybe contact Cathi and see if we can get some legal answers for both Boards before we come back. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-That would be helpful. It certainly would be helpful, because we’re in a position now we really don’t know whether we’re dealing with 10 or we’re dealing with half of 10. MR. STEVES-I did just want to make one statement, before you move for the tabling, which I know that’s where it has to go anyway. There was a comment made by the public that Mr. Newbury has frontage on Luzerne Mountain Road. That is not correct. He owns no land that fronts on Luzerne Mountain Road. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. Where is Luzerne Mountain Road? MR. STEVES-Luzerne Mountain Road is just to the north. MR. VOLLARO-Is that it, where the pointer is there? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and Mr. Newbury’s plot, okay, I’ve got it. So he does not own anything on that Mountain Road. Okay. I think we’re going to move to table this. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 JAMES NEWBURY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: For the following reasons: 1. Until a resolution has been passed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-And, Matt, you’ll try to get together with our Counsel and try to find out where we are. MR. STEVES-I’ve been trying for three months. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. MR. SANFORD-Incidentally, George, is there any reason why we don’t have legal representation? Because I know they have another attorney that was supposed to be filling in for Cathi, and, you know, a situation like this, it would have been helpful. MR. HILTON-Yes. My understanding that this is a regularly scheduled meeting, and they were aware of our agenda. It is my understanding that there was going to be someone here. I can’t answer why there is no one here. MR. SANFORD-All right. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WESTERN RESERVE LLC AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, MATT 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) STEVES ZONE: RR-3 & SR-1A LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN RD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 26.15-ACRE SUBDIVISION INTO 14 LOTS, INCLUDING 13 TOWNHOUSE UNITS (WITH BUILDING FOOTPRINTS/BUILDING LOTS RANGING FROM 523 SQ. FT. TO 1230 SQ. FT.) AND ONE COMMON LOT (24.97-ACRES). CROSS REFERENCE: SP 46-03, SB 16- 03, SB 17-02, AV 22-02, AV 52-01, AV 36-05 TAX MAP NO. 300-1-19 LOT SIZE: 26.15 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030, A183-31 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & MICKIE HAYES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Gentlemen, the floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-Yes, for the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, and Mickie Hayes. I guess, just to start out with, this is a very unique application for this Board, because we already have received all approvals for this project from the Planning Board for both the 12 lot single family subdivision and the 13 multi-family units, and what we’re proposing tonight does not change one stick of wood or one shrub on the plan for the multi-family portion of this project. It is very simply to take exactly what is under construction and what was approved and change it from a rental, multi-family apartment project, to a single family townhouse project, so that these units would be purchased. We needed some technical approval from the Zoning Board for the zero lot line townhouses, because even though it’s an approved use under the Town Code, the Town Code really doesn’t address when you have attached units, in terms of the area requirements. So we took care of that a couple of months ago at the Zoning Board. Those approvals were granted, but what we’re here to talk to you about tonight is just doing nothing different on the site than what this Board has already approved. I’m sure that you all have been out to the site, because you’re very diligent about doing that, and we’re all very proud of what the site looks like, compared to what this was as a former industrial dumping ground for concrete and rotting steel and old rubber tires, so the first single family home has been built and sold. The road is almost complete and ready for dedication to the Town, and on the multi-family part that we’re talking about tonight, the pond has, is almost completed at this point, and it’s just a very pretty project compared to what was there. When we were at the Zoning Board meeting, some of the neighbors who have been just vehemently opposed to anything on this site, came in with photographs of the stormwater aspect of this, of the pond, when, early in the spring when it was half constructed. We have the approved site plan, and that was just in the middle of construction, and they came in and said it’s not functioning right, and the answer is, as it was documented in the record by the Town Planning Staff for you tonight, that when you come in and look at a stormwater project that’s half constructed, yes, it looks like it’s half constructed, but that is not the situation now, and I hope you agree with me that it really looks like a good project. When we were at the, both Boards for the project itself, and especially here, the neighbors were completely opposed to multi-family because they thought that apartments would change the character of the area and would hurt their property value. Because the market is so strong for single family, after the project got under construction, the applicant decided that it would be better to make it single family. I mean, the theory is that people that buy their townhouse units take better care of it than if you’re a renter, that if you’ve invested in it, both emotionally and financially, you’ll be a better neighbor, and that perhaps is true, but certainly it’s what the neighbors were arguing at the time we should have been doing, and now we came in to just make that change and seek the approval so that these could be sold, and the neighbors are, for some reason, vehemently opposed to this change. As is reflected in the notes, this would be a Homeowners Association project. So the owners would own their footprint and all of the rest of the land on Lot 13 would be a common lot, which would be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. We don’t actually draft that, the Offering Plan until after we get the land use approval. That has to go to Department of Law, Attorney General’s Office in Manhattan, like every other Homeowners Association. I have gone to the trouble of drafting just the Declaration of Covenants, 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) which merely says that it’s the Homeowners Association’s responsibility to do the maintenance for all of the common property, and I’ve got a copy of that. Sometimes the Board wants to submit it to legal counsel to look at, and if you want it, we’ve got it, but it’s not really an issue that the Board gets too involved in because it’s an Attorney General approval, and that’s just standard stuff, but I have that if you want us to submit. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think it’s important. Again, public hearing is not required on this, right? I don’t believe we have a public hearing because it’s a modification, right? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. HILTON-No. This is a new subdivision. A public hearing is scheduled. MR. VOLLARO-This is not a modification to the old? MR. SANFORD-Why wouldn’t this be a modification? MR. HILTON-Because the previous approval was for a site plan for this portion of the property. Now what they’re doing is they’re subdividing. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you. Okay. So there will be public hearing. I’m interested in hearing that, but I hear what you’re saying in your summary. It’s just changing from rental to ownership, but there have been claims made, or representations made, either correct or not correct, that there’s problems with stormwater management, and I would like to see a copy of the Homeowners Association provisions, have them reviewed by legal, because if there’s some truth to that, what we’re doing here, what we would be doing as a Planning Board, if we granted this, is we would basically be displacing liability, because in a rental situation, the Hayes organization would be responsible for correcting any problem. If there are any issues and they are sold, then it will now be the responsibility of the owners, not the Hayes brothers, and so I would like to see if this Homeowners Association program addresses any of those types of issues regarding potential liabilities. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Let me address that in a couple of ways. The boilerplate of the Offering Plan just says the Homeowners Association is responsible for maintaining all of the common properties, which is where the drainage would be. With that said, there’s a six year new home warranty that the Hayes are responsible for, under New York General Business law, and more important than all that, the plan itself, the stormwater management plan was fully and completely approved by C. T. Male. So what they’re building there is exactly what was approved. Neighbors might not like it, but what’s being constructed is completely what was approved, and there is. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me just a second. Is that the stormwater plan of September 2003? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and Tom Nace, the engineer who prepared it, is here to answer questions as well, but beyond that, we also have verification from Bruce Frank, the Code Enforcement Officer, who went out to the site and said that actually it’s being built better than what was approved on the plan, and that’s in the record as well. So that’s our assurance that C.T. Male signed off on it. It’s been verified by Town Planning Staff. Tom Nace who designed it is here to answer any questions, and we’re not asking for any changes, but I do have copies of the boilerplate Offering Plan declaration that just says that it’s going to be maintained by the Association and I can submit them to the Board and to Staff. MR. VOLLARO-This would be something I’d like to have a chance to review, however. This is new information to us tonight. We were expecting this in our packets, actually. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) Is this very similar to what you expect the pro forma to look like when the Offering Plan is? MR. LAPPER-It’s going to be, you have to tailor it a little more fine to this project, but, yes, but in general, it has all the bells and whistles that go into all of them. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because I have some comments, having been President of an Association for a while, I’d be interested in reading that, because what I see is, as a buyer, who’s given an Offering Plan by the sponsor, which would be you, Mr. Hayes, has to know that he’s got responsibilities under this new situation of the whole 13 some odd acres of ground. That would include snow removal? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Grounds maintenance, stormwater maintenance for the stormwater system, on site septic maintenance, pond security, is something we have to look at, and the other thing is that usually in the thing that goes to the Department of Law, which is the Attorney General’s Office as you previously stated, also has a monthly maintenance fee schedule in it that is projected for about five years. MR. LAPPER-And that is a budget, you’re correct, that has to be approved by a management company that has to verify that before it goes into the Attorney General, but that’s something that wouldn’t be prepared until after the Town approval, and if you want to condition an approval on legal counsel reviewing that. MR. VOLLARO-I do, yes. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Definitely want our Counsel. Is this the first time that we’ve seen this document? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Our Counsel doesn’t have a copy of this? MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, I have a note here on my notes, update the September 2003 stormwater management report, but if we’re building it in accordance with the September 2003 stormwater management plan provided, and, Tom, if you attest to the fact that it’s being built in accordance with that, then there doesn’t need to be a modification. MR. NACE-Yes, it is being built in accordance with that. On the lower section, there have been some facilities added on the upper section, in addition to what was originally planned and specified. There will be an as built going to DEC as part of their stormwater permitting process, and that could easily be provided to the Town for the records. MR. VOLLARO-I see where, in Bruce Frank’s visit that he made on Wednesday, June 8, th that he makes a statement that Mr. Hayes stated he plans to have all changes surveyed and new plans reflecting the as built conditions will be submitted to the Planning Board for the subdivision, and then he has a parenthetical statement that says or site plan review. Now I’m not so sure exactly what Bruce meant by that. Does anybody on Staff understand Bruce’s comment number six? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. HILTON-I think he’s simply just saying that he wasn’t sure whether it was a subdivision or site plan review, but this application before the Board this evening is what he was referencing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, which is a subdivision, yes. Okay. MR. HAYES-Mr. Vollaro, can I interrupt you for a second? MR. VOLLARO-Surely. MR. HAYES-I just wanted to make you aware that we’d like to have Mr. Sanford recuse himself from these proceedings, and we filed an Ethics charge against him on Monday. MR. VOLLARO-We haven’t been informed by that. MR. HAYES-I have a receipt of the Ethics charge. We filed it on Monday. MR. SANFORD-What’s the legal advice on this? MR. SCHACHNER-I’m glad I rolled in. I haven’t the faintest idea what the nature of the charge is, but maybe somebody’s about to hand us something that would help, but the general rule is that it’s up to an individual Board member to decide if they have a conflict of interest, unless they there’s an allegation of what I call a Prohibitive Conflict of Interest, which is an economic incentive issue. I have no idea what the nature of the ethical challenge is. Is this it here? MR. HAYES-We have a copy of the Ethics claim. MR. SANFORD-I mean, I can’t make any statement. MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t know what it’s about either. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. HAYES-Would you like a copy of that? MR. VOLLARO-I think we’d need to. I think Counsel needs a copy, at least to be able to understand what the charge is. I mean, this is a two page document. I’m happy to review it, but I don’t think, I’m not going to do it on the fly. MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-And certainly Mr. Sanford would be interested in reviewing it, I would assume. Even more than interested. I mean, I wouldn’t wait on me for the moment. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think one of the things I would advise in here is that when, the Attorney General has a Limit of Encumbrance it’s called, and I’m sure, Jon, you understand what that is. When these scheduled fees are put together, there’s a Limit of Encumbrance that the Attorney General looks at when he says, and in this particular issue we’ve got 13 families going to be looking at a large amount of acreage, and the individual cost of that program cannot be above whatever number he set for the year, and it changes every year. So you’re familiar with that, I assume. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. LAPPER-Right, and most of this is passive recreation area, and that’ll all be in the budget, which is, as you’re saying, something that the State rather than the Town would approve, but that all has to be prepared for the submission. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s not something we’re involved with. What you need before you make a sale there, however, is an approval by the Attorney General on the Offering Plan. MR. LAPPER-Right, the Offering Plan has to be accepted for filing, and that has to be submitted to all the owners. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. GOETZ-The Homeowners Association that I belong to over at Hudson Pointe originally the builder was involved with it for the first three or four or five years. MR. LAPPER-That’s called a sponsor maintaining control, and that would be up until at least 50% of the units are sold, that the sponsor’s in control of the Association sets the budget and handles the maintenance. That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-In this case it would be roughly six and a half units because there’s 13, but let’s say seven, but I had the same situation in the Homeowners Association that I was in. The sponsor hung in there until a certain amount was built. MR. GOETZ-Yes, because it takes a while to get people interested in becoming officers, taking the responsibility of doing that. MR. LAPPER-Right. Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things I definitely want to do is to be able to read this Declaration of Protective Covenants. Now, in the sense this is the pro forma for the Offering Plan. This is approximately what it’ll look like after it gets tweaked. MR. LAPPER-It’s a boilerplate that’s been somewhat tweaked so far for this project, but in general it’s boilerplate, like all of them are, just in terms of the responsibilities. The budget is different on each one, but in terms of responsibilities, the Association is responsible for maintaining all of the common area. MR. VOLLARO-And the thing that’s really concerning me about this is, in the Homeowners Association that I was with, we had, I think today it’s up at about 86 units in Baybridge. When I was in it, it probably had 70 units, but we spread all the cost across 70 people. There’s only 13 folks here, looking at maintaining a huge amount of acreage, including, and I think that, I’ve got a note on this, the maintenance and safety that be part of the HOA agreement. I think they have to know that they have a responsibility for the pond as well, when Mr. Hayes steps out, there’s a safety issue on that pond, because it’s like a big pool. MR. LAPPER-Well, they’ll be insured as well. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, of course, but. MR. LAPPER-And they don’t have to maintain the road, because that’s going to be Town property, but the pond is on the common property, you’re right. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That road goes in off West Mountain Road, that feeds these 13 units, it’s a private road. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry. The apartment driveway is a private. The road for the 12 single families are what’s public. The driveway for the. MR. VOLLARO-That I understand. They’ll go up and do that cul de sac as a Town road, but the approach to the 13 units is a private road. So that needs to be plowed. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that’s all part of the budget. MR. HAYES-And the ponds have been constructed, and the rubric of the DEC’s requirements for safety rings and such. They are constructed under the guidelines of the DEC for the purpose of safety, with the safety rings and, yes, so they’re all, like any other pond anywhere. DEC heavily recommends that you have safety rings and such, five foot plats around there all constructed in a specific manner. MR. VOLLARO-Because I know in the private homes you’re going to have some children in there, and the first glimmer they get of that pond, they’ll be there in their wink. MR. HAYES-Absolutely. We had a gentleman from the DEC there, and he was very adamant about the fact that they don’t like fences around ponds, but they want to have safety rings around the ponds. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. NACE-DEC requires what’s called a safety bench, and that’s at water level so that the slope doesn’t go directly down into the water at the water level. There’s a level area about five feet wide, so that if kids do get attracted, which they obviously do, they have a level place at water level where they can stand without slipping into the water. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. FORD-What’s the maximum depth of the water in the pond? MR. HAYES-Some of the ponds, depending on the stormwater control, goes from six inches to two feet, but the main pond, the main pond has an area where it’s actually 20 feet deep. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HAYES-There’s actually quite a bit of fish in there, as a matter of fact. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll bet. On the drawing package, I looked at all of the drawings from S- 1 through SP-2, 3, 4, and 5. Now, S-1 is dated February 9, 2005. That’s the latest drawing I see, but the rest of them are SP-2, SP-3, SP-4, and SP-5 are all 2003. SP-2 is 2004. Do we expect, in accordance with what you stated to Bruce Frank that you would be updating those drawings including as builts? MR. NACE-The main update will be for DEC, will be a grading, drainage, and stormwater pollution prevention plan, as builts. There will also be an as built of the subdivision road that’s being turned over to the Town, but that’s not part of apartment complex. MR. LAPPER-And the as built has to be submitted to the Town also for CO’s. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I think the main issue for this site down was to get a look at this. That was the issue that I, I think that when we tabled this the last time it was because we 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) wanted to take a look at the pro forma of an Offering Plan, and this is what we have, and this is what we’ll take, each member, I think, has an obligation to read it, and I think Counsel also has to look at this document. Mark, I don’t know whether you were here when this was passed out or not, but this is a pro forma of the Offering Plan, or the Declaration of Protective Covenants, and we had asked to take a look at a sample Offering Plan associated with this Homeowners Association, because the Subdivision Regs require that. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I’m certainly familiar with them, but you’re correct. I’ve not seen this particular one previously. MR. VOLLARO-So I think we’d all like to have an opportunity to read, digest this, and then comment on it at some future meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-How many acres will the Homeowners Association be responsible for, about? MR. LAPPER-Most of it is the side of the mountain, 26. MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-six. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-six and a half acres. MR. NACE-Yes, 26.15. MR. SEGULJIC-So then single family homes won’t be part of that? MR. LAPPER-They’ll have the right to use the passive recreation area. MR. SEGULJIC-But they won’t be responsible for it? MR. LAPPER-There’ll be a small fee that they’ll be paying as well. That will be figured in the budget. MR. FORD-Will they be part of this Association? MR. LAPPER-No. They’re going to pay something to this Association to defer some of the cost of maintenance, but they’re not going to be part of the Association. MR. FORD-Will they be part of a separate Association? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. HAYES-Yes, they’re part of their own Association. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because the reason, when that was approved, the boulevard has landscaping that has to be maintained, and the Town Highway Department doesn’t maintain it. So there’s not an Offering Plan, but there was a CPS-7 Short Form submitted to the Department of Law, just for the budget for doing the maintenance of that boulevard, the center of the boulevard. So that’s a very simple Homeowners Association, just for that fee. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, for your information, the difference here is that the private homes that you see on the drawing have their own plot, and their deed shows a complete plot. When you get a deed to one of these townhouses, your plot is your footprint of your building, and everything else belongs in common. Am I correct with that? MR. FORD-I’m aware of that. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. GOETZ-It looks like there is a lot of property up behind each individual house. I was up there today, and it just seemed like a lot of property for individual owners to have to maintain. MR. LAPPER-For the single family or for the multi family? MR. GOETZ-Well, for both actually. MR. LAPPER-It’s a good size piece of property, but it’s mostly. MR. NACE-It’s mostly trails. It’s low maintenance, once it’s established. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there will be some grass grounds around these buildings I’m sure, that have to be contracted out to somebody like Cleveland brothers or whatever, whoever they are. MR. HAYES-We’ve received bids on all that for the maintenance, for the plowing, shoveling, plantings of flowers, actually for everything, for roof replacements, septic replacements, the whole nine yards, but of course to go to the next step we have to get the approval of this to actually come up with a budget, but mowing and all that’s been, we’ve researched that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HAYES-Because the people who have expressed interest in the facilities want to have an idea what they’ll be paying for the Association. It’s the first question they ask, as you can imagine. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I know when I got handed a document like this, the first thing I was told to go get an attorney to read it, but I didn’t do that. That might have been a mistake at that time. I spent time in New York City with the Department of Law anyway. MR. HAYES-We don’t go into it lightly, as our conversations with Jon with this level of Homeowners Associations is one of the most stringently regulated things to do in the State, because the Attorney General is very, very adamant about how it’s handled. MR. VOLLARO-No question. With that, I think there’s some people here who might want to make some comments or talk to this application. So I’d ask you to leave the table for a minute and give them a chance. Does anybody in the audience want to talk to this application? Come right up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-Excuse me. Can we come to some kind of resolution with Mr. Sanford? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know yet. I was waiting to see what the Counsel had to say about that. MR. SCHACHNER-What Counsel has to say is that it does appear that the applicants have filed a charge with the Ethics Board. The process that’s in our Town of Queensbury Ethics Code or Code of Ethics, I should say, is that Mr. Sanford will be notified by the Board of Ethics of the complaint. Now the applicants have submitted the complaint, at least to me. I’ve given it to Mr. Sanford simply because he’s going to get notified anyway. What I want to say to Mr. Sanford is, the Board of Ethics, according to our Code, the proceeding before our Ethics Board can be kept confidential. So this does not need to be discussed tonight at an open public meeting at all, if you don’t wish it to 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) be. Having read the allegations, if you wish it to be, we can discuss it at an open public meeting. The applicant has submitted it an open public meeting, but I want you to understand that this does not have to be discussed at an open public meeting if you’d prefer it not be. MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure what relevance discussing it has to this application, or, as a matter of general procedure, is it typical? MR. SCHACHNER-Is what typical? MR. SANFORD-To discuss, I guess they filed a complaint against me. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, with the Board of Ethics. MR. SANFORD-And so why would we wish to discuss that? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think there’s any “we” that would wish to discuss it, because the issue of your participation is not a Board decision, nor is it certainly my decision, but the applicant has asked, and they’re entitled to ask, correct me if I’m wrong, applicant, but I think the applicant has asked here, at an open public meeting, that you not participate in consideration and review of this application. That was my understanding of what I heard, basically when I walked through the door, but again, just so it’s clear to everybody, that’s a decision initially for Mr. Sanford, and Mr. Sanford only, to make. It’s not a Board decision in any way, form, shape or manner. There has, apparently, been a complaint filed with our Board of Ethics. The Board of Ethics has not only the right but the obligation to review the charge, to notify Mr. Sanford of the charge, to convene a proceeding, should it wish to do so, and ultimately the Board of Ethics could recommend that he not participate in consideration of this, or if he’s already participated, it could recommend that he not have done so or whatever. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’ll make a comment and then leave it at that. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. SANFORD-I did read the complaint. I believe the complaint is completely unfounded. I believe a review of the minutes of the hearing that they’re referencing will prove that out, and I don’t wish to recuse myself from this particular hearing. I’ll leave it at that. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think he has to until he’s been officially notified by the Ethics Board. MR. HAYES-The very reason that we filed an Ethics charge is because of the fact that if somebody had an Ethics charge against them, we were starting a new process. We felt we did not get due process because he had an interest. I won’t get into it. I don’t want to talk about it because I don’t want to embarrass him or vice versa back and forth, but the fact that he’s not recusing himself now is not a positive sign towards us. If it was me, I wouldn’t even want to be under the cloud of, I can’t believe that, that makes us even more adamant about our Ethics charge, the fact that he’d want to stay in here when somebody is questioning, and in his past handling of our process. We don’t feel that we’re getting due process from Mr. Sanford. MR. SANFORD-I think your goals are political and I believe without merit, and that’s why I’m not recusing myself. MR. HAYES-I think we have a right to file our Ethics charge, and we’re entitled to due process, regardless of any of our beliefs, Rich, and I don’t think you should bring your political beliefs into this, because your aspirations, for whatever your aspirations are, I 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) don’t, you must be God to be able to read what we’re deciding to do. We just thought we did not get due process, in the process that we’re guaranteed as citizens to get. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine, you’re entitled to your belief. MR. HAYES-Belief? That’s a right, not a belief. MR. SANFORD-Fine. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-You opened up the public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-I think I’m going to open the public hearing. I’m probably not even qualified to answer this, because the law is not my forte, obviously. MR. HAYES-And I hate to put you in that position. MR. SCHACHNER-What’s the “this” you’re referring to, Bob, the ethics issue? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a matter of your qualifications. Let me try to be as clear as I possibly can, the issue of, the applicant absolutely has the right, and Mr. Sanford certainly acknowledges this, the right to make the complaint. The Board not only has no obligation to all this, you have no right to all this. It’s not a Planning Board issue. It’s an individual issue to the individual member involved, and to the Board of Ethics. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, what’s on the table now is the applicant is requesting him to recuse himself, and he has said he’s not going to. MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct, and that’s his decision. That’s not a Board decision. MR. VOLLARO-So, as far as I’m concerned, he can continue to sit. MR. FORD-Let’s move on. MR. SCHACHNER-No question. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it. Thank you, and with that, I will open the public hearing for anybody who would like to comment this evening on this application. KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-Ladies and gentlemen, for the record, Kelly Carte, the adjacent neighbor to the property. We’ve been here before. First of all, I’m not sure whether you have seen these pictures that I took a while ago. I did present a set of them at the ZBA meeting. I did present a set of them to the Planning Staff. You may or may not have seen them, but I’ll give you a copy of them here to pass on. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. CARTE-A short synopses there and some pictures. Now, as I understand it, obviously from the pictures that are being shown up on the board here now, the ones that I’ve taken have been superceded by work that has been done up there. The plan that’s over on the easel there also shows things that have been done up in the back. My first question is, why wasn’t all this stuff that’s been done up there on the original site plan for this project? All the while this thing has been going on here now, they’ve been working upon the hill, taking fill out, putting auxiliary ponds up there, putting a road up there, all this kind of stuff, none of which was on the original site plan for this 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) project. It seems rather strange that we can come in here, after the work has been done, or being done here, and say this is what we did, we’d like you to approve this, when we tried to get the Board and the Planning Staff to require this type of thing before the original site plan was approved, and before the original subdivision was approved, and none of it was looked at favorably at the time. If you look at the plans, and I have copies of the original plans when this was done, there was absolutely nothing on them, beyond the Glens Falls City water line, which is the straight line at the back of four or five of the individual single family houses there and continues off to the left. That line is the line of the Glens Falls City water main, and that was the back end of the original subdivision plans, and there was absolutely nothing detailed about what was being done on the back there, as was the water situation on the land in the back, which has never been addressed, to my knowledge. I went through, I mean, I went to all the meetings that we’ve had here, all the information that was supplied by Mr. Nace and everything. When the subdivision plans were approved, none of them dealt with anything to do with the runoff of the water from the back, on the mountain. The only things they dealt with was stormwater management from the areas on the site plan that were going to be disturbed. I mean, those that were going to be subdivided into lots, those that were going to be, where the road was going to go, where the multi family housing units were going to go, all that was detailed as to the rain runoff and how much volume and how much the pond would rise and all this kind of stuff. There was nothing done about the water from the back, and the water in the back is the main problem. It’s not the rain that falls on the road and runs into this pond. It’s the millions of gallons of water that run into this pond in the spring from the mountain up behind it. The applicant has said that this was approved by C.T. Male, the Town engineers. As far as I can tell, unless there’s something in there that I missed, as far as I can tell on the original information supplied for the subdivision, there was no information supplied to C.T. Male about the volume of water or the layout or anything else about the land in the back and the amount of water that would run off there, and also as far as I know, the only time, I talked to someone from C.T. Male about this, and he confirmed at the time, now as I said, it may have changed in the time that, since the thing was approved or immediately before that, but at the time I talked to him, which was before the subdivision and the site plan was approved, he indicated to me that no one from C.T. Male had ever set foot on the property there to determine any of this stuff except for an individual who was looking for the habitat for the Karner blue butterfly. The only information that they ruled on, or gave the Town information on or whatever, was that that was supplied by Tom Nace regarding this application, and as I already previously stated, the only thing that I can find in there is Mr. Nace never supplied information regarding what was in the back there, because they didn’t really want everybody to know the fact that three-quarters of the acreage that was back there was unbuildable. It was under water in the spring. From March until May or June, you can’t hardly walk across that property back there without being in mud up to your knees. MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking about the property that sits to the north of that, of the Glens Falls water main? MR. CARTE-The property that was not on the original site plan, sir. All of that stuff was never addressed, and rightly so because they didn’t want you to know what was going on back there, or else we would not have approved the number of units that you approved, because the land in the back was unbuildable. There was remnants of a stock pond back there, where the water was accumulated for stock at one point in time with stone walls and whatever, that was counted and buildable acres. I want to try to go through this in a little more of a sequential thing here. It’s been stated that they can’t understand why we would oppose this being converted to a townhouse situation instead of the rentals, when it’s stated that we were opposed to the rentals in the beginning and wanted it to be some owned property, so that people would take care of it, rather than as a rental situation. They’re misunderstanding it. We wanted it to be single family houses that were owned by individuals and would take care of their property the same as anybody else with a house. The fact that these things are already 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) built now doesn’t change the way that they look. They look like rental units, whether they’re rental or townhouse. The act has been done. These houses are up here in the front. They’re not in character with the rest of the neighborhood. The ownership of them, it’s too late to rectify this, and in fact it’s our contention that the reason they want to change from rental to townhouses is to get out of the liability, future liability that’s going to occur on this lot because of the water situation. Mr. Lapper has stated that, a couple of times here and at the other meeting, about there being a six year warranty and this and housing and all this kind of stuff. I’ve spoken to an attorney about the legality of a Limited Liability Corporation and what happens in a situation like this, just as a for instance, if they successfully sell all of these things, and by the way, saying that there’s a bigger market for buying, for people owning them than for people renting them, is rather strange, since there’s never been a sign out in front of there that says for rent. There has never been a sign there saying that these units are for rent. So it doesn’t strike me as being very odd that they’d never have a number of people that want to rent them. There are, however, signs out there saying “For Sale”. MR. VOLLARO-“For Sale” being that they would be owned under a Homeowners Association. MR. CARTE-Yes. Well, rather than rent. I mean, you know, the contention was made, well, we have a lot of people wanting to buy them and not many people wanting to rent them. Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that if you don’t offer them for rent, but you offer them for sale, that’s going to be the case. They were adamant at the time that they didn’t want to put in, they wanted rentals. They wanted the future income. They wanted this situation. I believe that this spring, which was a particularly dry spring that we had here, as far as runoff goes, they kind of, for lack of a better term, believed their own propaganda, that the water in the back, or the land in the back wasn’t the big problem, and they discovered that it’s a whole lot bigger problem than what hey had thought it was going to be. Mr. Nace stated, when they were talking about making the pond smaller, this pond, this Board has seen pictures that we did back in the beginning of this thing that I took showing the size of the pond, and the original pond was probably two to three acres in size, in the spring, and gradually got smaller as the season wore on. They proposed making this pond two thirds of an acre in size, and Mr. Nace stated that he found the high water mark of the pond and it was, I don’t know what the elevation was, but he had it detailed there, and at the high water elevation, it would be two thirds of an acre in size, and he also stated that it would only rise nine inches, after a 50 year rain, okay. The pictures that I have there show the pond rising about three feet, after a two day rain this spring, and it brought the level of the pond up to within, by eyeball, two to three feet below the level of the foundation of the townhouse units that were built on the bank of the pond. I believe, and my neighbors also believe, that they looked at this and say, my God, look at this, look at the amount of water that comes in here. What are we going to do if we have a wet spring with a lot of snow and a lot of April and late March and when the pond, when the groundwater elevation of the pond is already high. We’re going to have three feet of water in the foundations of these houses. Let’s see if we can convert these things to townhouses, get, you know, get out of here, dissolve the corporation, and this is where the six year warranty comes in. The lawyer tells me, if they get these things sold and they can walk away from this, they dissolve the corporation and they have no liability for these houses, for the water runoff or whatever. They put it on 13 people that supposedly have this Homeowners Association to maintain, what are they going to do about the situation when they have the water coming in the basements of the buildings here? I mean, it’s not like there’s any lower area on the land to drain it off to or anything else. It’s a situation that is highly questionable. Let’s put it that way, and to say that these guys have any, you know, responsibility, if they continue to own it, they have a responsibility to take care of this. If you let them turn it into townhouses and sell it, they can walk away Scot free. They’ve just stated, another little thing on the pond, stated that they have a level spot, they’ve designed it the way that DEC wanted it and they’ve put a, whatever, five foot level area before you go into the, on the shore of the pond or 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) something, so the water is not sloping in there. How does that work when the pond varies probably six or eight feet in height from early spring to late spring? I mean, where do you put the five foot shoulder on here like this, so that the kids don’t fall in the pond or whatever? They’ve made, before, part of the pond used to be relatively steep around the edge, and in fact it was so steep that kids wouldn’t really go there because it was hard to get up and down the banks like that, cement, jumbled cement, very steep ground, and then the rest of the pond was a very gradual shoulder so that when the water came in there in the spring and the pond rose considerably, it rose up a very gradual slope. Now, you know, three quarters or more of the pond is all steep slope because they’ve filled it in all the way around the edges with broken concrete and then put dirt over the thing and seeded it or whatever. So now it’s all steep bank for the majority of it. So there is no place to, you know, when the water rises to where it’s above this five foot flat area, it’s going to be a steep slope all the way down in there that kids could very well fall into. Before I leave this situation with the liability aspect of the thing, I’d like you guys to think of the situation on Peggy Ann Road. I mean, I firmly believe that if they’re successful in selling these things and walking away, when the people are there have a problem with the water in their basement, they’re going to be coming to the Town. They’re not going to be able to handle, there’s nothing they can do about draining the water off somewhere else or whatever. They have to live with whatever Mother Nature sends in the spring here, and they’re going to be coming to the Town and wanting the Town to do something about this, and I believe with all the information in the minutes of these meetings and all the stuff that we’ve brought up about it, the Town doesn’t stand a chance of saying it’s not our problem. Because we’ve tried to alert the Town to this potential problem over several years here now. So I don’t want to end up having to pay on the other end of this thing, as a taxpayer, when this thing happens, and just as a, the pictures that are shown of what they’ve done up on the land behind the water line show them, my pictures show them in a raw state, more or less, as I said, most of this, all of this work was done without any plans, without any anything on the site plan or the subdivision or anything like this. It was done, as I believe, initially to try to stop the water from coming down and washing the road out here because they’ve got like three little holding ponds here like this that were holding back the water to a certain degree, but they show it here now where they’re grading it off and putting in stone and all this kind of stuff here. There’s, I don’t know if you guys have been up on the property or walked on the back acreage or not, but there’s probably five, six acres maybe, seven acres or something like that that are somewhat clear cut. I mean, they’re technically not clear cut because they would have had to get permission for that. So they’ve left a tree here and there, whatever, but there’s an awful lot of it that is raw land, sloped, maybe some grass or some hay put on it or whatever. If any of you have ever had occasion to clear cut any amount of land like that and then try to maintain it later on, you’d know that it’s not small job to try to keep this stuff from growing back up, and when you’re talking about land that is sloped and steep and ravined and not nice level, clean land is what I’m referring to, I guess, it’s not an inexpensive type of proposition to keep this land looking the way that it’s looking now. You’re asking 13 people to have, be able to have someone go through there with a mowing machine on a monthly basis here to mow five, six, seven acres of wood land, side of the hill, side of the mountain here like this, to keep it looking the way that they’re showing it to you know as what they propose it to look like, and I’ve got an acre and a half or so that are cleared that way, and in no time at all, you let it go for a year, and you’ve got sumac and other things up four, five feet, and two years you can’t traverse the land again. So, keep that in mind. I think that the situation of having 13 people try to maintain any of this stuff is ludicrous. I mean, there is no way that people are going to be able to, that this number of people are going to be able to do this, or are going to want to do this, and the problem is, they don’t know what it’s going to cost them. They don’t know about the potential water situation. They don’t know about this. Anybody that buys these things, they don’t know how often you have to have somebody go up there and mow with a rotary mower to keep down all the brush and stuff up in these so called good looking areas up here. I guess that’s all I’ve got. I wish this had been done much better in the beginning. I wish that all of this stuff had been addressed. I still don’t see why they were allowed 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) to, the site plan was approved and the subdivision plan approved without all this that’s taking place on the land up in the back having been addressed at this point in time, addressed, excuse me, at that point in time, but, to come back here now and show pictures of what they’ve done and then try to present this as being the way that it will be, I mean, it should have been done a long time ago. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Carte, what you’re referring to, I believe, this site plan is updated to June 3, 2004. The new one that we have, which is a 2005 plan, does show the topography of the land in the back, but this is what was approved. Is that what you’re, is that your complaint? MR. CARTE-Correct. There was nothing shown, aside what they may have presented, I have never seen this one before here, but whatever they presented for this meeting, I got a copy of the latest ones about, well, like, let’s say three weeks ago, a week after the ZBA meeting of last month. I have a copy of the latest ones, just to make sure that I didn’t make a mistake and say that there had been something that had been put in there, and those ones that were the latest ones, the ones that were approved and the ones they were working with, showed nothing beyond that line where the City water main runs here. They may have shown some topography. There may have been some contour lines on it there, yes, like what you have there. They may have shown some contour lines, but they showed nothing about the road. They showed nothing with the stream. They showed nothing of the ponds. They showed nothing of the clear cutting, nothing of anything that they did back there. Believe me, we live right next door to it. They’ve been doing, this has been going ongoing for, God, you know, two and a half years of digging up on the side of the mountain and roads and taking down trees and, you know. MR. VOLLARO-This is the last subdivision plan that I have is dated February 9, 2005, and it doesn’t look like what’s up on the board, and I may be wrong, but, from where I sit here, that plan looks different than what I have. MR. CARTE-Yes. That plan definitely shows some manmade, you know, changes to the land in the back. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, the pictures you gave us, the one with the three ponds you refer to. Those are to the west of the Glens Falls water district line. MR. CARTE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then when were those pictures taken? MR. CARTE-April. MR. SEGULJIC-All of these pictures were taken in April. MR. CARTE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Where are those ponds, up in here? MR. CARTE-Almost off the map there, yes, up in there, up behind there and almost off the map. MR. VOLLARO-Are those the retention ponds that they put in? MR. CARTE-Correct. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Those are the ponds that they put in. They’re not shown on this map at all. MR. CARTE-They’re not shown anywhere there, and I don’t know why, if that one was dated February 8, I don’t know why I don’t have a copy of that, because I asked them th for the latest plans. I said I wanted a copy of the latest plans that have been filed on this subdivision here so I have what’s correct. I wanted to find out if any changes had been made, and if those have been dated February 8. th MR. VOLLARO-Mine says February 9, 2005, received at the Town Planning Office on April 15, 2005. That’s the latest drawing that I have. MRS. BARDEN-You don’t have that plan. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have that plan. MRS. BARDEN-We don’t have it. MR. VOLLARO-What this Planning Staff is saying is they don’t have what’s up on the board. MR. CARTE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So, and I don’t have what’s up on the board, and I don’t think any of our members have what’s up on the board. I don’t know. Does anybody have that, looking at that? MR. FORD-No. MR. SANFORD-Why is it up on the board? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. That’s a good question, Mr. Sanford. I don’t know why it’s up on the board. MR. SANFORD-All right. I don’t, either. MR. CARTE-I mean, usually you don’t come in with the work already done and then draw a plan of what you did and then come in to a Board and say, I’d like you to approve this now, you know. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s interesting. When Mr. Frank went up on June 8, 2005, last Wednesday, he was talking to Mr. Hayes, and Mr. Hayes stated he has, that he plans having all the changes surveyed and the new plans reflecting the as built conditions will be submitted to the Planning Board for the subdivision. Now, when I looked at that, and I have a note on it that says that these plans would be different, it seems to me, than what we were approving, what we have already approved, because he’s talking about reflecting the as built condition, not what was approved by the Board, and those are two different things, in my mind. MR. CARTE-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-So I think that’s something we have to take into consideration, and we’ll ask the applicant when they come back up. My other concerns, just to address some of your comments, I’ve always been concerned, as somebody who’s been playing with Homeowners Associations for longer than I care to admit, spreading the reliability, the accountability, rather, for this acreage, which turns out to be 26 acres of ground, over 13 folks, that’s why I’m very, very interested in reading this pro forma document that purports to be somewhat of an offering plan. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. CARTE-Well, as Mr. Lapper stated, he says that that’s a boilerplate thing. I doubt very much you’d find all the things that they have to maintain in there, that are on this, and we’re talking about another, a good quarter of a mile of road going up in there. We’re talking about better than a quarter of a mile of stream bed that they’d be filling in with rock and stuff like that for the runoff water. We’re talking about three retention ponds that are up there, and, as I said, five or six acres of cleared land, not to mention the whole liability issue of the main pond and the drainage into that pond. MR. VOLLARO-To me, one of the big things that stood out to me on this whole thing, and I won’t say any more, was the pond itself, as being a responsibility, in other words, whether it’s a liability or not I won’t even say because I don’t think I can, but being the responsibility of 13 people. That’s a concern of mine anyway. MR. CARTE-It would seem that you would have to, before anybody, any of these people could make a rational judgment as to whether or not they wanted to take this on, they’d have to know pretty darn concretely how much it’s going to cost them, and I think that there are so many unknowns in this, as to what it’s going to cost them, or potentially cost them, in a wet spring when the water, you know, comes running into their basements there or whatever, you know, how do you do that? MR. VOLLARO-One of the things, Mr. Carte, is that when the Offering Plan is presented to the Attorney General for signature, and I had to go through this whole thing, so I can speak with some authority on this, is that the fee schedule that the homeowner is going to be faced with over a period of a minimum of five years has to be part of the Offering Plan. So the person who accepts the plan what his at least five year projection of fees, maintenance fees is what they’re really called, and the sponsor has an obligation to put into the Offering Plan all of what he knows about that, and if the homeowner finds that there are things that were not included in the Offering Plan, and that’s what we had to do. We had to go back to the Attorney General and it got to be very messy, and I won’t get into the whole story. MR. CARTE-It would seem like it would be. I mean, these guys wanted this rental in the beginning, you know, we didn’t want the buildings there anyway, but they’re there. I mean, we lost. They won. They got the buildings. They’re there. Make them live with it. That’s all I’m saying. Make them be responsible for all the roads, the land, the ponds, everything like this. They wanted rentals. Let them live with rentals here. This business about having more people wanting to buy it is just a smoke screen. That’s it. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. CARTE-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else like to talk to this application can come right up. ARZBERGER MR. ARZBERGER-I’ll make it brief. My name is Arzgerber. I live on the corner of Bronk and West Mountain Road, right across the street from Mr. Carte’s driveway, and I wanted to go on record that I agree with everything he said. I thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome, sir. BOB RAYMOND MR. RAYMOND-Good evening. My name is Bob Raymond. I live to the south of Mr. Carte’s driveway, adjacent to this property. First of all, when I stepped up to give Mr. Carte the date, I didn’t mean to step on Mr. Carte’s time, and I apologize for that. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-Not a problem. MR. RAYMOND-Okay. Initially my concern, my concern originally was the initially development. I was against it. It was not a single family housing development as all the other homes in the area are. The project was outrageous. Initially, an approval was sought because of the expense to develop it. Eventually the cost must have been cured for some reason because of what is currently standing on the piece of property. Should this subdivision be approved, I’m concerned, as a taxpayer, that the Town will have to absorb the cost of the inevitable water problems that will occur, from clear cutting that has occurred, and the rise in the pond, if you will, the major pond on the bottom basin of that property. The pond, I have seen it from what it is today, the shape of that pond, I’ve seen water right at the very top of it. I agree that we’ve had a little bit more rain this spring than maybe we have in the last couple of years, but I’ve also seen it where the pond has had water go way up to where those houses are, those buildings are today. The American way is buy low and sell high, unless of course you can get others to absorb some of the expenses, and thus have a higher profit. Why should the Town be the “others” who absorb the cost of what Western Reserve asked for and now has? As was referred to in 13 23, the 10 acres is 10 acres, as was just discussed earlier this evening. So why would this Board approve modifications to existing zoning to existing property, what is there, what’s already been approved? Mr. Sanford’s comment about passing the cost on really just took the thunder out of what I was trying to say initially, but maybe, I think you helped me say it a little bit better, a little clearer. I question the six year home warranty. I know that certain things will have to be covered with a new home being built, but I don’t know what the, I’m not an attorney, so I don’t what that would translate out to as far as the properties that are “common” properties. The safe rings that were talked about around the pond, are they low water or high water? It is part of the water table that does affect that, the way it works. In favor of what’s been done over there, it does look a lot better than it has in the past. I will give credit where credit is due. The buildings are, the single home is a beautiful looking home. I don’t particularly care for the multi-family dwellings, but they’re there, and we have to live with them, but I would like to just ask this Board to make sure that Western Reserve, as they requested initially for the rental units, that they have them and that’s the way it stays. I don’t think subdivision setbacks, side setbacks, front setbacks, you know, I’m just sitting here as an every day citizen, and not someone who’s experienced and versed in the Codes, and I know there’s variances that can be gotten for whatever the reason, but I think the comment that you made, Mr. Vollaro, regarding the covenants there, I think that’s an important thing, and if nothing else, at this point, I would like to see this application be tabled until such time as all the facts are presented, and what was submitted on the board up here today, with the modifications to that map, be approved as they should have been in the beginning, and with that, thank you for your time. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome, sir. Anyone else? CHARLES BAKER MR. BAKER-My name is Charles Baker. My wife and I previously owned the property that we’re talking about, before the Ashton property. My father-in-law and I started a washed sand plant there, as I’ve stated before at these meetings. There was never a pond there. We dug the pond to process the sand and that’s how the pond got developed. I dug the pond. I have never seen the pond overflow. Yes, it does grow in the spring of the year. The water comes from Mr. Carte’s property, runs down and brooks to the pond, which surface water, and then it’s added to it, and it was spread over a large area. Now we removed dirt from a very large area, and that’s why the pond looks so big, as Mr. Carte stated earlier. We have backfilled the pond, condensing the pond to satisfy the neighbors that we were trying to get the pond down to where we could handle it, and things would be all right. Insisted on, didn’t want anything in there. There’s been all kinds of things going on down there, rifle ranges, private use, 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) private playground. They run their four-wheelers and whatever. There’s been accidents in there, people have gotten hurt, kids have gotten hurt. As I understand it, I don’t know this for a fact, but as I understand it, I received from a police report that there was a rape down there. They purchased the property and tried to clean it up. There was a big ruckus about cleaning up the property. To appease the neighbors, we tried to do everything that they wanted. First they didn’t want rentals in there. They wanted sold. They’ve gone as far as changing, tried to get variances and things to appease the neighborhood and make it presentable to the neighborhood. The neighbors in the area were lead to believe that the pond overruns, and it doesn’t. The water level stays at, you know, it raises and lowers in the spring of the year. So we’ve gone on to the upper property and put leach fields in, drywells in, the water originally was channeled to run all into the pond, and the pictures that were taken earlier this spring was because all the water from Potter Mountain, Owl Hill, and all that property above, was all channeled to the pond. There was a statement made at the last meeting, the Zoning Board meeting, that there should have been something done to stop the water. So we started and changed the configuration of the ponds up at the top, put the drainage fields in, put the drywells in, to relocate the water and let it dissipate in the ground where it should. Right now, there is only one brook, one streamlet, I won’t consider it a brook, a streamlet, which is only about four inches deep and probably two foot wide, and it comes directly off of Mr. Carte’s property that runs down in there. We’ve applied silt fences to stop the erosion. We’ve planted and seeded the area. We’ve graded the area according to what you’re supposed to have, three to one pitch. MR. SANFORD-Excuse me, sir, who’s “we”? MR. BAKER-I work there. MR. SANFORD-So you own the property, sold it to the Cement Company. MR. BAKER-Right. MR. SANFORD-They sold it to Western Reserve LLC, and now you work for Western Reserve LLC? MR. BAKER-I retired and I was looking for something to do, and I went to work down there. MR. SANFORD-So you’re not only a prior owner, you’re also an employee? MR. BAKER-I am an employee? MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. BAKER-And I also hold a mortgage on a property adjacent to this property. So I am concerned as well, but like I said, as far as on the upper property, a statement was made here tonight about a stock pond. There is no stock pond above. That’s been there for years. That property was a wooded area owned by the McEchron Estate. There’s been cattle raised on the property. It’s all farm land, the whole area has been farmland. As you know, the wooded areas, years ago, they put a fence up or stonewall up and keep your cattle or sheep or whatever it is you had in there, and that’s what you see up there. It’s not a containment pond that’s been there or anything else of that nature. As far as the rings around the pond, that’s called for by the, I think it’s DEC. They’re safety rings, and it’s any pond that’s put in, or is in there, there should be some access to get something, or some animal or person out of the water. There’s no specific regulation. I believe that any height or whatever, it’s put there at the water level, and that’s where the water level is now. As I understand it, if the water drops down lower, there’ll be another ring put in. If it’s under water, you can’t very well put a ring around it. You’ve got to wait for the water to go down, and we’ve had quite a rainstorm that decimated 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) the North Country in the last month, month and a half. Since we put these retention ponds, drywells and drainage areas off of these, the pond water has not risen over three to four inches. The water has been dissipated, and as you know, we had a terrific amount of rain in there in that specific time. The water has been dropping every week about three inches, and that is the water table. That’s not water running in and the rain storms that we’ve had has not risen the water. They said that water is going to get into the buildings. If you shoot the area, you’ll find that the West Mountain Road is, would get inundated if the water came up to get into those buildings. So, that’s all I have to say. MR. VOLLARO-Anyone else who’d like to speak to this application? Having nobody else, I’d bring the applicant back up. MR. LAPPER-First of all, Mr. Chairman, the comments of Mr. Carte were absolutely slanderous. For him to say on the record in a public meeting that this is some conspiracy to avoid maintenance, the Hayes are building dozens of homes on subdivision lots that they’ve had approved or that they’ve purchased all over Town, all over the area, and other Towns, and they’re in the business of building homes, and so the idea that he’s always been opposed to this project and he’s got some conspiracy theory that they’re trying to do all this work to manicure the mountain to walk away, that they’ve got some plan to bankrupt their company, they live in Queensbury. They’ve grown up here. They went to high school here. They’ve been here their whole lives. Their families are here. They own a whole bunch of businesses in Town that the Board is aware of. MR. SANFORD-Along those lines, Mr. Lapper, just because you raise an interesting point, what’s the name of your construction company, your main business, Mr. Hayes? MR. HAYES-We construct under the name of Hayes Construction Group and Western Reserve LLC. MR. SANFORD-Now, Western Reserve LLC, an LLC is a Limited Liability Corporation. MR. LAPPER-It’s like a corporation. MR. SANFORD-The individuals, Mr. Hayes and his brother, don’t have personal liability associated with the organization. The LLC would, in fact, if my understanding is correct, basically the assets of the LLC would be basically the only thing that could potentially be at risk. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Well, if we’re going to have a discussion about corporate law, we have to start more basic, that, in America, if you want to go into a business venture, you are permitted to form a venture that the assets of that entity would be at risk, so that your house is not at risk and that’s the way. MR. SANFORD-I understand. I just want to know what the assets of the Western Reserve are? Are they solely this property? MR. LAPPER-It’s not relevant to this application. Every developer that comes before you is an LLC or a corporation, because that’s how you do a development. If somebody breaks their neck on an ATV when they’re trespassing on your property. MR. SANFORD-But in all due respect, Mr. Lapper, I believe the person from the public who spoke was concerned that a particular organization that you said would be giving a six year guarantee may not have assets in that corporation to satisfy any liability issues, and I think it’s a valid point. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. LAPPER-Mr. Sanford, I did not read the Ethics complaint. I had nothing to do with that. I don’t know what it says, but where you’re going now. MR. SANFORD-Please answer my question. MR. LAPPER-To treat this applicant any different than any other corporation or LLC that comes before you, that’s how business is done. You form an entity so that the assets of one of your entities is not at risk. Their coffee company doesn’t have anything to do with their development company. The construction company, there’s all sorts of construction liability that requires separate insurance. So you have a construction company that’s different than your development company. MR. SANFORD-But are you disagreeing with what I’m saying which is that only the assets limited to the LLC would be subject to risk? MR. LAPPER-Yes. I disagree with the implication, because the fact that in America you’re allowed to limit your liability to make an investment is no different for the Hayes in this application than every other application that comes before you. MR. SANFORD-I know, but you. MR. LAPPER-You’ve got a neighbor here that doesn’t want to, that wanted to leave this as trees, and that didn’t happen. So they’re trying to throw mud at this project. There’s nothing different about developing this as a limited liability company than any other company that comes before you, and that should not be a discussion before this Board. MR. SANFORD-Well, wait a second. Why shouldn’t it be? MR. LAPPER-Because if you go through the agenda, if I go on the computer and look at the website of the Town and see how many applicants that come before the Board that are corporations and limited liability companies, that’s not something that’s discussed at a Planning Board meeting. MR. SANFORD-No. What the point is, is how can you make good on the six year guarantee, if you need to, if, in fact, the assets are limited to only this particular piece of property? In other words, not the other properties that the Hayes brothers are involved with. There in, yet, another corporation, I’m lead to believe. So really there’s no assets to back up a warranty. MR. LAPPER-If you want to talk about the profitability of a project that’s going to have 12 single family homes and 13 townhouses, where those profits would get reinvested for the next project, or what Western Reserve would do, this is an entity that’s formed, that exists, that will have profits, that will invest its profits and do other stuff. MR. SANFORD-I think I’ve made my point. It’s probably an empty warranty, if, in fact, the organization is an organization without assets. MR. LAPPER-But if you’re going to say that, every other townhouse developer that’s come before this Town, it’s exactly the same thing. It’s an entity. MR. SANFORD-Not every other developer is asking to go from rental units to private ownership, and it does raise the point, how can you make good on a six year guarantee, should there be liability issues, if the underlying organization does not have assets? MR. LAPPER-I can’t believe we’re having this discussion. Every home builder in Town is subject to the six year warranty, and I don’t know anybody who builds houses other than in a corporation. So, in the Queensbury building boom that we’ve had, everyone that’s been building houses has been in an entity. That’s how it works, and the six year 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) warranty is the legal responsibility under New York State law. So why would you single out the Hayes to have this discussion? MR. SANFORD-Because some companies may very well build multiple developments but not create separate organizations for each individual development. They may very well have assets that can actually make good on a liability that may come down the road. This organization, I’m just merely asking the question. What kind of assets will this organization have to support any potential clients? MR. LAPPER-The LLC has very valuable assets, but I don’t understand why they would be grilled to have that discussion before the Planning Board. MR. GOETZ-Excuse me. In all due respect, I feel this is getting a little far out of line. There’s ways you can handle an LLC, or whatever you want to call them. They have perfect right to name any project they want to and form a corporation for any project they want to, and if the Board so wanted, they could also possibly require a certain amount of insurance coverage, liability coverages to take care of that, and I think the gentlemen deserve a right to answer some of the concerns that Mr. Carte presented to this Board. I’d like to move on. MR. LAPPER-The project issues, rather than liability issues. MR. GOETZ-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I think that one of the big questions, in my mind, is that ultimately this document that I, as a buyer, would be handed by the sponsor, clearly delineates to me the risk I’d be taking by buying one of the townhouses. MR. LAPPER-And when this is a formal Offering Plan, it’ll be two inches thick, as you’re familiar with. There’ll have to be special risks disclosed, all of that. MR. VOLLARO-And, you know, that’s, to me, the Offering Plan, the first page always says read this very well because there’s a risk that you assume. MR. LAPPER-That’s the Special Risk section, the first two pages, but the point is that the Attorney General requires disclosure. Whatever the costs are, whatever they’re going to be, if you’re saying that someone’s making some assumption that this somehow 13 lots, that these poor people aren’t going to know what they’re getting into, if somebody buys a single family home in Queensbury on an acre, they have to mow an acre. We heard that there may be five acres here that 13 people may be responsible for. So what? As long as they decide that they want to live here and use the passive trails for hiking and cross country skiing, that’s something that people are going to want. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s all true. My concern is, and I’m going to ask some questions. What is the situation on, and I’ve heard the retention pond thing, but what are some of the situations on the runoff on the back side of the private homes, coming down toward, because I’m looking at a slope, thereon the private houses would be here. The pond would be here, and the uplands are in this area. So you’ve got runoff that’s coming down. MR. LAPPER-We have a lot of comments that we have to make in response to those slanderous comments, but to begin with, as you all know, this was an abandoned industrial site, with a lot of concrete, and so what they had to do in the back to begin with was that there were a lot of tires that had to be removed. I think there was an old cement truck. There was a whole bunch of work that had to be done. There was also a passive recreation area, and I guess, just at this point for the record, I’d like to ask Susan to just go through some of the pictures. As I started out saying that we’re all very proud of this project. I mean, Tom will put on record the seven foot difference between the top 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) of the pond and the bottom of the foundation. I mean, there’s not a stormwater issue there, but in terms of the areas in the back that I know that the Town Staff has so graciously photographed, we have photos showing what this is now. To talk about what it looked like in April when it was half constructed is like saying that there are sliding glass doors now that don’t have a deck and someone’s going to walk out and hurt themselves. I mean, you can’t comment on a half built project, and that’s what the neighbors did. MR. VOLLARO-Can we get time to relate to a picture, so that we understand what we’re looking at, rather than being flashing around, because I’m getting a little dizzy watching that stuff. MR. LAPPER-Okay. This is a perfect example. That’s the passive recreation area that the neighbor is complaining about. MR. VOLLARO-Approximately where is that in relation to the site plan, what’s in the subdivision plan? MR. NACE-That is approximately here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So that is an area that obviously has been final graded, seeded and hayed. When the neighbor was talking about roads, those roads are going to be pads. You have to bring the machinery up there to do the grading, and when it’s done, it’s going to be seeded. The grass is going to grow, and it’s going to be a little path for walking and jogging and cross country skiing. They’re not roads that have to be maintained. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, let me ask a question in connection with exactly what Tom is talking about. Are the retention ponds part of the stormwater report that was prepared in September 2003, those retention ponds up on the top? MR. NACE-No, they are not. MR. VOLLARO-They’re not. Should they be? MR. NACE-They will be part of the final modified as builts that go to DEC and to the Town. They will be addressed. What transpired. MR. VOLLARO-What C.T. Male approved was really the September 2003 document. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but now there will be an addendum to that document to include certain things like these retention ponds, etc.? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. FORD-And these have been accomplished without prior approval. Is that correct? MR. NACE-Well, what happened is when the road was put up through to the upper section, to this passive recreation area. It intercepted some drainage swales that came down off the mountain. Okay. Those drainage swales have naturally gone on down, and as you get down, on down the mountain, toward the base here, the soil becomes much more open and that drainage naturally filtered down into the ground before it got down to the bottom flat area. When the road was put in here, it intercepted some of those, and the ponds were put in as a means of starting to deal with that drainage that had been intercepted and wasn’t following its original path. Since then, facilities have 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) been added so that that drainage now does follow it’s original path, and is filtered back into the ground in this area here. MR. SEGULJIC-What would those features be, culverts, I assume? MR. NACE-Drywells, some under drains and leaching pipe infiltration trenches, stone filled infiltration trenches with perforated pipe in them that lead on down into where the better soil material is. MR. SEGULJIC-So when the road was cut to get up there, it provided a preferential pathway for water to collect? MR. NACE-Well, it intercepted those and part of the issue with the main pond down here was that that road temporarily, during the spring, diverted those drainage ways coming off the mountain, diverted all of them down into the pond, instead of just the one or two here at the base, which have naturally been going into the pond. So it, in essence, for a short period during the spring, it contributed a lot more water to the pond than had naturally gotten there and was intended to get there. MR. VOLLARO-So, Tom, the intention, now, is to get the water to a much more porous area? MR. NACE-To the good soils. As you come down the mountain, you start losing the hard pan. MR. VOLLARO-So the perc is much better in that area? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And it’s able to absorb all of the water coming off the mountain before it gets into the back yards of the private houses? MR. NACE-Yes, and it has a soil type. If had been out on the site prior to any of this construction going on, you would have found that this area in here was not wet. This is the back of the original cement plant facility. That area was good sand, deep sands, and accepted the water, and as you went on up the mountain, you started to run into hard pan, on up higher. MR. VOLLARO-So prior to any development that took place there, the pond then, in its past, received almost all of that water coming off that slope, and that’s how that pond. MR. NACE-No. It received water coming off this portion of the slope, okay. Anything coming off from up the mountain up here, filtered into the ground down here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now what are we doing to prevent it from coming from the, hold on a second, coming from the northwest, right up in that, the other way. MR. NACE-Here? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-It always naturally has come down this way. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay, and it still will, that’s not changing. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, does that place those houses at risk, that are in the path of that? MR. NACE-No, the path of that is back through here. You see this drainage way that comes up through. MR. VOLLARO-And that runoff gets to the pond? MR. NACE-That does, and, yes. MR. FORD-What is the date on that, please, Tom, again. MR. NACE-I’m partially at fault. I picked the map out of the file to bring. It’s one that we are starting to provide as built, you know, to get the as built map ready to submit to DEC and to the Town so it does include this information up here that evidently wasn’t on the one that was submitted to the Board, okay, but the date on here is 4/29/05. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes, the final date on this is, what we have is February 9, 2005. Okay. MR. LAPPER-I’d like to keep going through the photos, because I think they just show the care that was done to manicure the site. MR. VOLLARO-So long as the photos, though, identify to the map, so we can make sense of the photos, and not just pictures. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So this area is the passive recreation area with the table. MR. NACE-Looking this way. MR. LAPPER-I think all those that you showed were good, that showed the finished work, the back and then the pond. MR. VOLLARO-Were these the pictures taken by Bruce, Bruce Frank? Okay. MR. NACE-That’s standing here, approximately here, looking down this way a little bit. MR. LAPPER-And keep in mind that this site had to be cleaned up, which we’d always said to the Board that there was going to be all this material that had to be moved, all the concrete, all the tires, and all the steel. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we realize, it’s cleaned up pretty well. I mean, from West Mountain Road, it looks pretty clean, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Just as a frame of reference for me, when was this approved? Because I don’t remember. MR. LAPPER-A year ago maybe. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I’ve been around for about a year and a half and, it was before me. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. LAPPER-You know what happened on this one, we had to get Department of Health approval, and that took, the local engineer died, and it took an extra six months. MR. HAYES-It look longer than the normal. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. NACE-If I’m not mistaken, that’s standing, again, about in here, looking this way. MR. VOLLARO-So I’m looking through the trees at the backs of those houses. If the trees were cleared, I could see the back line. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay. Now was all that standing timber, at one time, that was cut or? MR. LAPPER-Mixed bag. MRS. BARDEN-Are you ready for some pond, or do you want to see some more common lots? MR. LAPPER-I think there were a couple of others on top, right in the middle there. MR. NACE-That’s standing somewhere in here looking north. MR. LAPPER-And that’s yet to be seeded. It’s graded but not seeded. MR. VOLLARO-Now, that’s going to be all part of the Homeowners Association, the major acreage? MR. LAPPER-Yes, the recreation. MR. VOLLARO-And you said something about seeding it. You plan to seed that? MR. HAYES-All areas were seeded. That’s the DEC requirement, and with the hay, too, to contain the soils. I assume (lost) let go to whatever they determine how they want it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that might be an added cost to the homeowners if they decide to mow it once a year or something like that. MR. HAYES-We projected a certain area, and it would be up to them to decide, because they’re adults. They decide how they want to handle their land. They’re the owners. MR. VOLLARO-I understand they’re the owners all right. That’s pretty clear. MR. NACE-That’s standing approximately here, looking north. MR. HAYES-If they want to abandon the passive recreation area, that would be up to them to let it go back to wild. That’s totally up to the, I doubt that they’ll do that, because most people find that that is the most valuable asset on the property. They, in fact, love that feature, to be able to be on their own property to do passive recreation. That’s literally been unbelievably popular. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to look at some of the stormwater at the top there, stormwater facility? MR. NACE-That’s on the uphill side of the road, looking back up along these ponds. The original ditch line is all riprapped (lost words) since then the outlets of these ponds, stock ponds, has been diverted. It goes down into the soils, better soils. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. LAPPER-You can see from the photo the care that was taken to manicure this. MR. NACE-This will now simply act as an emergency (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-I’m just taking a look at pictures that Mr. Hayes has given me here. I’m going to pass them around to the Board. I just wanted to ask a question real quick. This is the back side of the townhouses I believe. Is that correct? MR. HAYES-Yes, sir, that’s from the pond, the lower pond. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and this is the lower pond that we’ve been talking about. MR. HAYES-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Now that’s a fairly gradual. MR. HAYES-Three to one. MR. VOLLARO-Slope, and I’m just concerned now that the more I look at where the pond is with respect to this, as a safety issue for young children, I don’t see anything stepped in here, in terms of the flat areas. MR. HAYES-Yes. The ring just has to be installed on the lower portion of the pond. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Are you waiting for the pond to go down to do the ring? MR. HAYES-The pond is going down four inches a day. MR. VOLLARO-A day. So you’ll be able to get to the ring. MR. HAYES-The main concern now, the pond is a feature for people, as an aesthetic feature. With all the stormwater control we do, our worry is the fact that the pond may end up being too small, as the season carries on. We’ve had a very dramatic rainfall, 51% over the norm for June, and the pond is plummeting as we speak. So we actually got a quote to actually maybe have a well to actually bring the level of the pond up so it retains its aesthetic qualities. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m going to pass these pictures around to the Board to take a look at. Okay. I guess you’ve addressed what you think is the correct, I’m sorry. MR. LAPPER-We need to address the height of the pond versus the height of the townhouses, the finished floor of the basement, but Tom wants to talk about DEC. MR. NACE-Yes. Just to let you know, Monday we had Bill Lupo come and go through the site with us. We wanted to make sure for the as built plans and storm report that we had addressed all the issues that he might want addressed on it, and he walked through the entire site with us and was impressed that it was well done. MR. VOLLARO-Now what is, once these as builts get done, and they depict the property as it’s in its final state, is your intention to bring those before this Board? MR. NACE-We can simply provide those as a matter of record for the file. The ones they really need to go to are DEC. So that the stormwater permit is. MR. VOLLARO-What we’d be looking at in that as built is really not necessarily what we approved. In other words, it will be different. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. NACE-The only thing different is the top of the mountain, and now that we’ve re- established the existing drainage conditions, the conditions, the stormwater conditions for the main pond will remain the same as our original design. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I’m just trying to see if there’s been a point of departure from what we approved to what is going to be there in the as built condition. MR. NACE-For the main pond and the drainage at the bottom accommodating the subdivision and the townhouses, no, there has been no appreciable change. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and you intend to make, essentially, an addendum to the stormwater report of September 2003 to reflect those ponds? MR. NACE-The upper drainage conditions, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to get that straight in my mind, what’s happening here. MR. FORD-But that will be an as built. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that will be an as built. In other words, everything from now on, it looks to me that what they’re planning to do is to take a look at what their plans are now and create those into an as built. Now normally the as builts are done after you’re all finished. That’s why it’s called an as built. So, I don’t know. You’re going to be almost finished before the as built drawing can actually be put together, I would think. MR. NACE-This is true. MR. LAPPER-Bob, what Bruce Frank said in his Staff notes was that the drainage facilities that were constructed were superior to what was. MR. VOLLARO-He said, however in the past…additional stormwater has been constructed in the passive recreation area, which will be reviewed by the Planning Board in the near future, meaning tonight, I guess. However, in the past, other projects, additional stormwater infrastructure other than that approved has been acceptable. More is better. Less is not acceptable without an engineer sign of. That’s his statement. I read his document. MR. SEGULJIC-Why are we doing everything after the fact? Why didn’t you come back for the passive recreation area while the stormwater? MR. LAPPER-During construction, what Tom said that when it was partially built, putting in that road to get up to the top to do the clean up did it as you had said, you, Tom, used a term, beneficial. It took the path of least resistance. So that caused a temporary issue during construction. MR. SEGULJIC-So you didn’t realize that was going to occur then? MR. LAPPER-Right, and it had to get mitigated right there. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how about the construction of the passive recreation area? I guess that’s not, is that part of site plan? MR. LAPPER-That was always in the site plan, that the passive recreation area was going to be in that area, because it’s part of the cluster. MR. VOLLARO-It was going to be in the area, but I’m looking at the original plan that I think the plan that we approved was SP-1, and it was dated June 3, 2004, and it said final 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) approval conditions, and this is the plan that I think we ultimately approved, but this plan never showed anything up in the back the way that plan does now. MR. NACE-If you take a look at the landscaping plan that goes with that set. I think maybe the landscaping plan was labeled that passive recreation area. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got landscaping and lighting all on one plan, and this is the landscaping plan. It really has to do, more or less, with the landscaping on the. MR. NACE-It may have been the landscaping plan that went with the subdivision, Bob. I’m not sure, but it was labeled, I’m pretty sure it was labeled on one of the plans. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think it’s not on this one. It’s not on the package I have. I mean, I don’t have that, the package. MR. LAPPER-I know that that was something that was discussed at the meeting of the passive recreation area on top. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it might have been discussed. MR. SEGULJIC-All the plans I’ve seen they end at the cul de sac more or less. MR. NACE-The subdivision plan I don’t think did. The subdivision plan went on. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I was in and out on this particular, but in reality, because I’m getting confused here. You’re here for subdivision so you can develop the Homeowners Association. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And you need to do subdivision before you can go to the Attorney General. MR. LAPPER-Attorney General. You have to have your local approvals as part of the Offering Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have to get approval from the Planning Board before you can submit the Offering Plan. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-To get their approval. MR. LAPPER-Right. We have to reflect that approval in a document, the date and the resolution and the conditions. MR. SANFORD-But, could we see a draft of the Offering Plan, as part of our review process? MR. LAPPER-Well, what we submitted was the operative part of the Offering Plan, the restrictive covenants. That is the fundamental part that relates to the subdivision. There’s going to be by-laws of the corporation that talks about how you have a vote. That’s not something that’s relevant to the planning process. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. MR. LAPPER-There’s a lot of work that has to go into an Offering Plan. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. SANFORD-Yes, I can imagine. So you’re feeling what you gave us is satisfactory for our review and that the Offering Plan will be different than that, but not anything of relevance. MR. LAPPER-Well, we could submit the Offering Plan in a few months, after it’s submitted. MR. SANFORD-After we approve the project? I mean, again, I don’t know what the relevance of that is. MR. LAPPER-It’s not, it’s an Attorney General, it’s an outside agency approval. It’s not a Planning Board approval for the Offering Plan, and I know that some of the Board members are very familiar with living in Homeowners Association projects, and the Offering Plan deals with issues other than Planning Board issues. MR. SANFORD-Well, anywhere in this document, again, my only issue is, well, I have a number of issues, but the one that I don’t know if there’s going to be an effort to address, is there going to be a way, and I’m not suggesting that there is going to be any future liability associated with ownership versus rental, but if there is, is there any way in which there’s going to be some form of assurances that these people who buy these homes will be protected? And that’s what I would like to nail down, not necessarily tonight, but perhaps at the next time we get together, because I believe this is probably going to have to be tabled for additional information, but just, you know, I mean, you know, whether or not the representations that were made here tonight are accurate or not, by the public, I feel concerned that we as a Town, if we make this change, and if there are problems, that we are leaving the Town open to some form of potential liability, and I just want to make sure, and I think Mr. Goetz mentioned, yes, the assets in the LLC, if there are any ample assets, and there probably aren’t, you know, you can take insurance. I’ve had some experience with LLC’s, and we were going to do some projects, not construction projects, but other types of projects, and we were taking out insurance to protect, in the event that there were problems. So I would like to hear you address those issues up front, rather than the kind of exchange that we had, which got us nowhere. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Sanford, what I’m going to try to do is to pull this thing together now and see if we can’t, we’re going to have to table this, we know that, but I think the protective document that I’m concerned with protecting homeowners from any sort of undue liability that they may undertake is this document. It’s, to me, when a homeowner accepts an Offering Plan, and I agree with Counsel that the Offering Plan would probably, because I know what they look like, but I’m going to be looking for certain things in here. I know Counsel’s going to review this, but I’m also going to be looking for certain, some language in here that talks to the ultimate protection against water invasion, etc., etc. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. LAPPER-Some of that is in the warranty, which is not included. MR. VOLLARO-I want it to include, I want some words in the Offering Plan, my objective here is to protect the future buyers, even though I know it’s a buyer beware. They’re given the document. They’re given the risk area. If they want it, they buy it, if they don’t, they don’t, but I want to make sure there’s words in here of a protective nature. MR. LAPPER-It’s not in there. There’s a warranty that goes with the contract which is a separate agreement between the buyer and the seller. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-That usually has nothing to do with the Offering Plan. The Offering Plan sticks the Homeowners Association, this Offering Plan really holds the owner liable for everything. When you sign this document, you’re saying that you’re going to take. MR. LAPPER-You’re right. The owner is responsible for constructing the project per the Town approval, and if it doesn’t get built the way the Town approved it, then the Code Enforcement Officer comes to the sponsor and says you’ve got to fix it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, in my past, the argument was always between the Homeowners Association and the sponsor. MR. LAPPER-If the basements flood, that’s a warranty issue. MR. VOLLARO-If the basements flood, it’s a warranty issue, yes, up to a point. MR. LAPPER-And that’s the same as any other house that’s constructed in the Town of Queensbury. I mean, not generally something that the Planning Board talks about. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, in this particular situation, people are going to be buying. I think the Offering Plan has to address that. I really do feel it’s got to address the fact that there are some liabilities associated with this purchase, particularly with possible invasion of any water. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ll address any issues that the Board wants us to address, but the fact that there’s a stormwater management plan that in this case may be more elaborate than others is no different than how the planning process works for everybody else. You get approval by the Town. You get approval by C.T. Male, and you build it, and if the basements flood, it’s the responsibility of the builder, and here we didn’t put on the record, but there’s a, the top of the pond at the highest point versus the basement is nine feet, versus the basement. So the neighbor, who’s not engineer, was talking about, gee, it looks like it’s at the same height, is a nine foot difference between the finished floor of the basement. MR. VOLLARO-And the height of the pond. MR. LAPPER-Right now it’s nine feet. What was the highest that it was? MR. HAYES-Within seven feet. MR. LAPPER-All right. So it got to within seven feet, and that’s an extreme, you know, seven feet. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-C.T. Male has not seen the, shall we call them, revised stormwater plans? MR. NACE-No. The top of the mountain. MR. FORD-But that’s a plan in progress, as I understand it. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. NACE-It’s not finished. DEC has seen it, but not it it’s, you know, it’s not finished yet. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Just one other thing, and I know I asked this before, and you addressed it, but just refresh my memory. With regards to the single family homes, why are they not going to be part of the Association? MR. LAPPER-They’re going to have the right to use the passive recreation area, and they’re going to pay a fee for that, but they’re not, the Association, they’re not going to own that. They own their own approximately one acre lot. MR. SEGULJIC-They could also reject (lost word) I assume. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s going to be part of the covenants, that once the recreation area is done, that’ll get incorporated, that they’ll have rights and obligations. MR. SEGULJIC-Part of that would be paying a fee to the Homeowners Association to give them rights to access to the area. MR. LAPPER-Right, because Mickey would use that as an amenity, something extra. MR. HAYES-I just wanted to, Mr. Vollaro, if I could just, the talks about liability and all these other issues, basically, all the conspiracy theories and all these things I’ve heard, and I find it very offensive, basically, it’s very simple here, not to put it in simple terms, but it’s simple here. We all live in Queensbury. We know what the market is, just the plain fact is that we could make a lot more money selling these as individual units than we can to retaining them. We retain apartments throughout Queensbury. We’re selling these because we’re going to make more money, period, off it, there’s no, we’re not trying to save amenities. There’s no other illusions besides the fact that we’re going to make more money by selling these as units. There’s no other reason than that. We’re not trying to hide the fact that we are making significant dollars off this project. We’re selling these as individual units because the profit margin is much greater. Period. MR. VOLLARO-It makes sense to me. MR. HAYES-I mean this could be a t.v. show. MR. VOLLARO-I can understand that. Okay. What I’m proposing to do is to table this to a, I don’t know if we want to table it to a specified date or not? What does it look like downstream? MRS. BARDEN-Next available meeting? MR. VOLLARO-The next available meeting, in other words, when you plug it into the something on the blackboard in the Conference Room. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me for one second. Do we want to have C.T. Male take a look at these stormwater plans at all, since we’re so concerned about the water? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that the, Mr. Nace said he’s going to do an addendum to this plan to concern, and that addendum will address these retention ponds at the top. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And I think C.T. Male does have to look at those. MR. SEGULJIC-So wouldn’t we want them to give us their opinion before we meet again to discuss this? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-The problem is that they will, I don’t think Mr. Nace is going to have, he may, there may be enough sufficient information now to go to Hydro CAD with the information available up on the hill, and plug that into Hydro CAD, it should work. MR. NACE-As soon as survey finishes. As soon as survey finishes, we’ll have enough information, yes. MR. VOLLARO-So, yes, I think he can have that for C.T. Male and then C.T. Male can tell us what he thinks about the addendum to the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it will give us a level, some level of comfort, at least. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I agree. So let’s table this to the next available meeting. MRS. BARDEN-Excuse me, Tom. Are you saying that you want C.T. Male signoff before you see it again? MR. SEGULJIC-I think that would make sense, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-A signoff or just their comments, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, their signoff on it. Everyone, the public is concerned about the water. We’re concerned about the water. I mean, I can see we get together again and then we’re going to have to table it because we don’t have, we’re going to say we need C.T. Male approval. So why are we going to even meet? MRS. BARDEN-I think that C.T. Male had approved it. The Code Compliance Officer went and inspected the site and said that it’s working properly. I think that we do need some sort of addendum, but I don’t think that you shouldn’t proceed on this, because of that. There doesn’t appear to be any problem. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t know that. MRS. BARDEN-And Bruce Frank’s site inspection. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is really Bruce Frank’s opinion. I want to see what the Hydro CAD says about the ability of that to absorb the water. I mean, this is just merely a statement by Bruce, and he did a good job, but Hydro CAD will tell us whether or not all of those ponds are capable of doing what they should do. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So I tend to agree with Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-So how long is it going to take you to finish your? MR. NACE-Probably a week or so, a week or two after I get the survey information. MR. SEGULJIC-So it should all fit in with the schedule. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I definitely think C.T. Male has to look at that, for us to feel comfortable with it. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. LAPPER-I feel that way, too, Bob, I mean, the neighbors are acting like engineers. There’s only three neighbors. So it’s not like the whole neighborhood’s up in arms. I would feel better having C.T. Male before asking you to approve it. I think that’s the right answer. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just have a quick question for myself, I guess, I want to clarify. Is it the intent that this Board wants to see a revised plan, revised stormwater plan, submitted to the Town for C.T. Male’s review, or an absolute signoff before this comes back, signoff by C.T. Male before this appears before this Board again? I guess I’m not. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, if it’s submitted to C.T. Male and they agree with it, they’ve already signed off on the stormwater plan. They’ve got to look at this, I call it an addendum, to this plan, and essentially, yes, sign off and say, this submission of this addendum is satisfactory when included with the original plan. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Is the Board satisfied with that position? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Gretchen, do you want to try that? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Tabled with the following conditions. Incorporation of Staff note items. Consideration of a Homeowners Association document which was presented tonight. Updated drawings and stormwater plan addendum identifying differences between the approved site plan and as built conditions for review by C.T. Male, and an opinion from Town Counsel regarding future liability of a Homeowners Association and the what ifs regarding catastrophic of key systems if the Limited Liability Company ceases to exist. Does that sound like everything we’ve talked about? MR. SCHACHNER-I can tell you from Town Counsel’s point of view we’re concerned that you’re going too far into economic issues that are really not the province of the Planning Board. I can tell you that our opinion is going to be that since this is an application that’s going to require, as I understand it, New York State Department of Law approval as an Offering Plan, that we’re concerned that Planning Board would be going too far into stepping into the shoes of the New York State Department of Law by looking at the economic aspects of the applicants, which is really the province of the Department of Law, when it approves an Offering Plan, and one of the things I’ve done during your lengthy discussion of that sub issue is reviewed your Subdivision Regulations, or our Subdivision Regulations, and I’m troubled at the notion that the Planning Board may be stepping a little further than we’re comfortable with as Town Counsel in looking at those issues, because I don’t see much reflection of those concerns in the Subdivision Regulation criteria that you have to look at. Typically a Board exercising the maximum degree of scrutiny on these issues that I’m familiar with, would ask to see exactly the sort of documentation that the applicant has submitted. The portion of the Offering Plan that’s typically referred to as the Declaration of Covenants and Restriction that imposes the various obligations on the project sponsor that you’re concerned about. I don’t think, as Town Counsel, we’re prepared to go much further than that. MRS. STEFFAN-And if there was an issue for the Town, wouldn’t they require a Performance Bond, if there was a concern? 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. SCHACHNER-One of the Board members, I can’t remember who, or somebody mentioned insurance, Performance Bonds. There are all sorts of opportunities in Subdivision review to require Performance Bonds, Letters of Credit, and various sorts of financial security to secure performance of certain obligations that are part of an approved subdivider. That’s an option. That is an available option, and that has nothing to do with what is the nature of the entity, what is the business nature of the entity making the application, and remember that typically, and this is not to suggest that it isn’t going to happen here. This is a generic comment, but if Corporation A, B, C is the applicant before you on a given day, and receives approval, today, tomorrow, or a week from tomorrow or a month from tomorrow, there’s nothing in your approval that does or lawfully can prohibit Corporation A, B, C from selling the project the next day to Corporation D, E, F, and I’m not by any means suggesting that this particular corporation has that in mind. That’s just something that you should keep in mind. It’s one of the reasons that New York Law doesn’t really authorize some of the detailed exploration of the specific financial characteristics of a particular applicant. If an applicant, if you happen to know that an applicant is a, let’s just say it’s an individual applicant, you happen to know that an applicant is a multimillionaire or you happen to know an applicant is a person of relatively modest means, your job as a Planning Board is to review the application, not the applicant, but the application in accordance with, in this case, Subdivision Regulations and sometimes site plan regulations and you are absolutely, in more direct response, you are allowed to require financial security for performance of certain obligations that are part and parcel of the subdivision that’s approved, but you’re actually not lawfully allowed to say we’ll approve an applicant if they have multimillion dollar assets, but we’ll deny the applicant if they have one thousand dollar in assets. You have to be real careful there. MRS. STEFFAN-I put that in based on the discussion. I thought it would provide clarity, but based on Counsel’s input, let’s strike the last point from the tabling motion. So we should incorporate Staff notes. MR. SANFORD-Well, what Counsel said, I mean, again, I don’t want to put words in his mouth or yours, Gretchen, but he said we really can’t evaluate the financial integrity of the applicant, but we can protect the project through things such as in the Offering Plan or as part of our approval require certain, an insurance policy would not be unreasonable. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s a fair characterization of what I said, depending upon what it is you’re seeking to insure, of course, has to be related to an element of the subdivision that you’re reviewing, but I think that was a fair statement. MR. SANFORD-So I think what we’re interested in, and I think Mr. Vollaro touched upon it earlier, is he’s interested in the applicant coming back with something for us to review that would assure us that if something is miscalculated here that the liability issue might be properly addressed. Now I don’t know if that’s a provision in the ownership document or merely a representation by the applicant on what they’re going to do as a condition of approval to assure that, and I think that we’re looking for something there. We’re not looking to come to the next meeting empty handed on that. MRS. STEFFAN-But in the motion it’s consideration of the Homeowners Association document which was presented tonight. So is that sufficient, Mark, does that cover it? MR. SCHACHNER-From our standpoint as Town Counsel, just a quick, real quick review of what the applicant presented, seems to be the portion of future Offering Plans that is typically required by Boards that undertake the most rigorous and most scrutiny of a subdivider applicant. It would not, I would not be comfortable suggesting that you should require the entire Offering Plan. I think the portions that have been presented seem to be the relevant portions. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. SANFORD-I think the Offering Plan can be isolated from what, from the second issue, which is addressing the liability issue, and I would really ask Mr. Lapper to come back with us, with something that he feels is appropriate, so that, and where I see this whole application, primarily, is moving from rental to ownership, and I believe that Mr. Hayes is probably accurate. It’s probably more financially advantageous to sell them than to own them and rent them. However, I also heard the public, and I have concerns about, if there is something wrong and basements start to flood and what have you, that there be some forms of protection on the purchases of these properties, and so I would ask that you satisfy us with some recommendations as to what you’re willing to do as a condition of approval in that regard, be it that you’ll take out an insurance policy or whatever it is. I’ll leave it up to you, but something that is satisfactory to this Board. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, you had a comment? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I’m a little concerned. Pardon me, I’m weak on the facts. You all know much more about the specifics of the application, but I think I just heard Rich say something about either the only or the most significant aspect of an issue facing the Board is the change of ownership, or form of ownership, from rental to purchase, a single family residence. MR. SANFORD-What I’m saying, Mark, is that the reason this is in front of us is we approved this application, the material change is, I understand that it’s in front of us, the reason it’s in front of us, is because the approval was for 13 rental units, and now they want to have 13, they want to sell these units. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. SANFORD-And that’s why we’re seeing it. MR. VOLLARO-I think what happened here, too, is the Subdivision Regulations, as soon as that shift was made that Mr. Sanford just talked about, it brought the Homeowners Association into the front. The Subdivision Regulations talk about that. It talks to that, and that’s why we’re here, because of this switch. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and if I’m not mistaken, and Staff has enlightened me a bit, just in the last few moments, we now have a slightly different shaped animal, if you will, by virtue, that kicks in provisions in our Subdivision Regulations that were not going to be kicked in previously because we were not talking about the separate ownerships. Okay. So that we all can agree on that, but I guess what I’m trying to say to the Planning Board is let’s be careful that you remember your Planning Board, the limitations in your role, in that for example, just as you can’t really lawfully approve something based on, well, I know the applicant’s a multimillionaire, but tonight I know the applicant is a person of modest means, you know, if the mere form of ownership were the only issue before you, we’d have concerns as Town Counsel about the legality of picking apart some of this stuff. I guess what I’m saying is the mere form of ownership is similar to the mere identity of a particular applicant. You have to look at a project, which you’ve already done here, and here form of ownership is not irrelevant because it does kick in with the Subdivision Regulations, but all I’m saying is be cautious about not overstepping your authority in terms of scrutinizing the former identity of the ownership or owners. That’s all. MR. SANFORD-For purposes of discussion, forget that. Forget who the owner is. Don’t you believe that within our Subdivision Regs we need to be concerned that if as a Planning Board, we approve a project, and it proves to be a faulty project, and coming back on the Town as a potential exposure, a legal exposure? MR. SCHACHNER-It depends upon the nature of what you call the faulty project, but generally speaking you all are, and we appreciate this as Counsel, but you are all 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) remarkably concerned about that, more so than New York Law would indicate you should be. In other words, our perception as Town Counsel, is you’re extraordinarily concerned about that, and again, we appreciate that because you make our jobs easier, to the extent that the Town can’t ever even be named in any litigation action, but generally speaking, your concerns about potential municipal liability if something goes wrong with the project, are not really that well founded in New York Law. Generally speaking, it’s crystal clear that the primary responsibility lies with the project sponsor, applicant, owner, developer, or whomever, and it’s also pretty clear that very seldom will a municipality incur what I call secondary liability, other than if there’s either proof of gross negligence on behalf of the municipality, and I think that you cover, we, C.T. Male, your Staff and yourselves, cover the Planning Board decisions beautifully in that regard. So we’re very comfortable, we will never all you all to make a decision that we think could be subject to a review as gross negligence. I can assure you, we’ll pound the table and object, you know, and give our advice. You can refuse our advice, but we’ll give the advice, and the other instance in which municipal liability can be at issue, and this, believe it or not, does come up, but very seldom, is if somebody can prove that some aspect of the municipal of the approval that turns out to have been faulty or erroneous was done with negative intent, basically. For example, there was a case in the lower part of the State in which people got hold of tapes where Planning Board members actually said at meetings that were taped that, you know, they were going to do some things to this particular applicant, with the idea of hurting them, and the things that they did ended up backfiring and there was some potential liability, substantial municipal liability, but again, this is stuff you guys would never dream of doing. So frankly we’re not as concerned as you are about the potential liability issue, because your review process is very thorough, very diligent. You exercise your authority in a very careful manner. Your Staff does the same, we do the same as Town Counsel, and our consulting engineer does the same. So we’re not too concerned about the municipal liability. MR. SANFORD-So I guess what I’m hearing you say, maybe you’re not saying anything, but what you could be saying is don’t worry about any potential future liability of the people who purchased these townhouses and that it’s overkill for us to be concerned about future potential liability with the project. MR. SCHACHNER-No. I think that, Rich, I think is taking what I said a bit further than what I said, in fairness. I think that’s not an accurate characterization. I think that a certain degree. Let me give you an easier example. We’re talking too abstract, I think, okay. If you have a subdivider who, as part of the subdivision, needs to build a certain road to a certain standard, you’re clearly allowed, under your Subdivision Regulations, to require posting of a Performance Bond, Letter of Credit, financial guarantee, or money, in fact, in an actual account that the Town can hold to make sure that that subdivider builds the road the way the subdivision application that’s been approved says it has to be built, and I think your characterization that you just said of my remarks would be, no, don’t ever do that, don’t worry about it, if they build the road, great. If they don’t, too bad, who cares, let the homeowner suffer. That’s not a fair characterization of our opinion as Town Counsel. What I said, and somebody, actually I thought it was you, summarized it reasonably accurately, you can seek financial security, in any of a variety of number of forms, for issues that are legitimately part of your subdivision review. That’s fine, and I think you actually summarized that earlier, and I said that was a fair characterization, but it is true that I’m advising some caution about grilling applicants about their own financial resources and their own financial backing. What you last said, I think, not last, but earlier said was you want this applicant, I’m going to now paraphrase you, you want this applicant to produce either some documentation or some information about, in order to make you as a Planning Board, or at least you as a Planning Board member, feel more comfortable that there’s financial security in place in case of failures of the subdivision construction. Is that a fair statement? 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. SANFORD-Yes, that is. MR. SCHACHNER-And I’m not opposed to that. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but I guess the question is, having said all of that, what’s the practical next step? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you identified, I thought, a reasonable one. MR. SANFORD-Have them come back with something for us to look at. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s, I think, what you said, and I thought that was appropriate. MR. SANFORD-All right. Well, let’s leave it at that, then. Does everybody feel comfortable with that? MR. VOLLARO-I’m certainly comfortable with it. Gretchen, do you want to finish that out? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’m not really sure at this point. I’m trying. I’m just not sure if my words are adequate here. Was consideration of the Homeowners Association document going to cover it? MR. VOLLARO-That was the key thing that this Board was reconvened for was the movement from rental to sales, which triggered an input from the subdivision called a Homeowners Association, and that’s really why we’re here. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and you’ve asked for that information. The applicant’s provided some of that information, and from our standpoint as Counsel, that seems very appropriate. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-As does your review of it seem appropriate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There are other things that have been brought up, though, that this Board was not aware of, nor was I aware of, concerning the stormwater, which really now is an amendment to the original stormwater plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Those concerns seem totally appropriate. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that, and your request for additional information in that regard seems totally appropriate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Just for clarity, let me try this again. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 WESTERN RESERVE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: For the following reasons: 1. We would like incorporation of the Staff note items, upon their return, consideration of the Homeowners Association document, which was presented tonight. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) 2. We would like updated drawings identifying the differences between the approved site plan and the as-built conditions for review by C.T. Male Associates, as well as a stormwater plan addendum. 3. The applicant will bring back to the Planning Board, for our consideration, a recommendation on how they can address potential liabilities should they arise. Duly adopted this 28th day of June 2005 by the following vote: MR. SANFORD-And what you have done then, that’s fine, if the Board wants to go with that. You have not asked them for any kind of performance assurances, in keeping with guarantees. The way you can add that, if you want to, is by saying that they provide draft additional language to the Homeowners Association which would address potential liability concerns, should they arise in the future, due to the construction of the townhouses. MRS. STEFFAN-But shouldn’t we look at this document first? MR. SANFORD-It’s not in there. MR. LAPPER-It wouldn’t be a Homeowners Association issue. It would be a Town and an applicant. It would be between the Town and the applicant if there was a performance bond. It wouldn’t be the Association. MR. SANFORD-Okay. If you wanted to go the way of the Performance Bond. I thought you might have wanted to take another approach. There’s a lot of ways you can go with this, Jon. MR. LAPPER-I’d like to see what C.T. Male says first. If it’s a seven foot difference, I don’t think there’s really much to talk about, but we’ll certainly consider the idea of some sort of a Performance, financial performance guarantee, and we’ll come up with something to talk about. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s see what they come back with. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-I think we have to take a good hard look at this, at least we all do, have to read this document, and let’s see what they bring back to us. MR. SANFORD-Right, but I mean, the only reason I’m beating this to death is Gretchen’s motion wasn’t asking them to bring back anything. MR. VOLLARO-No, it was not. MR. SANFORD-And that’s why I just wanted her, in her motion, to consider whether she wanted to let it go that way, or if she, I think just leave it in your motion that the applicant will bring back to the Planning Board, for our consideration, a recommendation on how they can address potential liabilities should they arise. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that okay with you, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that sounds fine. MR. LAPPER-And we’ll be prepared to talk about that. MRS. STEFFAN-Then we will include that as part of this tabling motion. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2005 SEQR TYPE II MARK & ANN MARIE REYNOLDS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 4 JAY ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE A 380 SQ. FT. DECK ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. EXPANSIONS IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 58-04, AV 39-05 TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-9 CEA LOT SIZE: 0.74 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-30 MARK REYNOLDS, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-There is a public hearing on this, if anybody wants to speak to this, but I don’t see anybody here, to talk to this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO-Do we have any comments or letters on this at all from Staff? MRS. BARDEN-There are two public comments. One from Marilyn & Don Higley, at 23 Jay Road. “We have received notice that Mark and Ann Marie Reynolds would like to put a 380 square foot deck addition to the house. We think it is a great idea and have no objections at all. Marilyn and Don Higley” And also we have one from Richard and Susan Rourke, at 19 Jay Road. “We have absolutely no objections and hope they get this”. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And with that, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Do any Board members have comments on this at all? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No, I’m all set with it. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any comments myself. MR. SANFORD-I’m good with it. MR. FORD-I don’t have a problem. MR. GOETZ-Let’s approve it so this gentleman can go home. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2005 MARK & ANN REYNOLDS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 29-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Mark & Ann Marie Reynolds SEQR Type II Zone: WR-1A Location: 4 Jay Road Applicants propose a 380 sq. ft. deck addition to existing single-family dwelling. Expansions in a Critical Environmental Area require Site Plan Review. Cross Reference: AV 58-04, AV 39-05 CEA Tax Map No. 289.10-1-9 Lot size: 0.74 acres / Section: 179-4-30 Public Hearing: 6/28/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/16/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/05, and 6/24/05 Staff Notes 6/21/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 6/2/05 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 6/28/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff: 1. Final approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 2005, by the following vote: 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MRS. STEFFAN-You’re approved, thank you for your patience. MR. REYNOLDS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 30-2005 SEQR TYPE II EUGENE TIMPANO ZONE: HC MOD LOCATION: 928 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH AN 874 SQ. FT. LAUNDROMAT. PERSONAL SERVICE USES IN THE HC-MOD ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/8/05 TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; EUGENE TIMPANO, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-And the floor is yours, Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Timpano just purchased the building. He’s renovating it for a Laundromat, as the application indicates, and he’s proposing no site plan changes whatsoever. Apparently it’s subject to site plan review because a building permit was issued for a Bilco door in the back of the building, to get to the basement. MR. VOLLARO-And that triggered a site plan? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s my understanding. Because there’s an exemption under the site plan section that says if you’re not, if you’re changing use and it doesn’t increase the parking demand by 10 cars, you don’t need site plan review. That’s in that Section 020 of the Site Plan, and I believe that that’s what triggered this, because of the Bilco, but nevertheless, if it’s subject to site plan, it’s subject to site plan, but this was an existing facility. There’s a trailer park and a couple of apartment complexes nearby, so Gene thought that this was a good location for a Laundromat. The Staff indicates that there’s more parking than what the Code would require for this small sized building, but that’s existing space, and Gene feels that that is necessary. So he sort of doesn’t want to take out parking because he thinks that that’s going to be needed for his customers, and that’s pretty much our story. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There were comments in the Staff notes concerning parking and drive aisles and things of this nature. You made a statement that if the parking didn’t come up to more than X. What was X? MR. LAPPER-He said that we’d only need two spaces, based upon the Code. That’s what the Staff notes said. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I looked at the Code, and I think really the retail space, it really wants a space for every 200 square feet. There’s an 874 square foot here by his plan, which gives him 4.4 spaces, and right now he’s got three, and he’s got four with the handicap. So he meets the Code, but he’s got a couple out in the back here, right next to the garage, that only has nine feet to the property line. You couldn’t possibly back out of those. So I’m suggesting that none of this area here can be used as parking. MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s also a residence, a rental, on the property, existing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s part of the garage? 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. LAPPER-There’s a house. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a house there. I’m familiar with that. It’s right next to Gambles. MR. LAPPER-Right. Exactly, only the Laundromat, the house part is separate, and requires parking for the house residence. MR. VOLLARO-I see where the Laundromat is, and then he comes up with an outline of the Laundromat. That’s how you get the 874 square feet. So, as far as parking in here is concerned, is this private parking or parking for the Laundromat? MR. TIMPANO-I would have expected that I could fit space for five cars on the Route 9 side. MR. VOLLARO-You might be able to. That one space may hold a car that’s, this space right here might hold a car. MR. TIMPANO-That was my intention, that that space would hold. MR. VOLLARO-You meet the Code with what you’ve got, because the Code gives you 4.4 spaces. So as far as I’m concerned, you meet the Code on that. MR. SANFORD-A Type II, we don’t have a SEQRA, right? MRS. STEFFAN-No, we don’t. The one question I have on the Staff notes is that the site plan shows two points of ingress and egress. MR. LAPPER-And that’s because it’s on a corner. So there’s one on Sweet and one on Route 9. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right, there’s one on both. MR. LAPPER-It’s not for the same parking area. It’s for separate parking areas. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It’s really a house. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a house, basically, and part of it’s going to be converted to a Laundromat. I think it’s pretty straightforward myself. MR. LAPPER-It’s a small project, certainly. MR. TIMPANO-It was originally a retail space, or originally it was office space for Winchip, when the retail space was added back in the early 70’s, and since then the most recent use was as an antique store, and I believe the entire house was used as an antique store because there is an indication there’s master card and visa stickers on the doors that enter the garage. So they must have been using that as display space at one time also. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2005 EUGENE TIMPANO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) Site Plan No. 30-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Eugene Timpano SEQR Type II Zone: HC Mod. Location: 928 State Route 9 Applicant proposes to establish an 874 sq. ft. Laundromat. Personal Service uses in the HC-Mod zone requires in Site Plan Review. Warren Co. Planning: 6/8/05 Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14 Lot size: 0.33 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 6/28/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/16/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/24/05, and 6/24/05 Staff Notes 6/21/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 6/13/05 PB from Fire Marshal: No fire dept. access issues 6/8/05 Warren Co. PB referral: No County Impact 6/2/05 Meeting Notice 5/23 C. Brown from M. Shaw, Deputy Director Wastewater 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 6/28/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff: 1. Final approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 28 day of June, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. TIMPANO-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-This is the next thing. We have a draft resolution here. I’d like to correct it, first of all, before we go through with it. It’s got Mr. Hunsinger, you probably want to change that to me, as Acting Chair, for this particular draft, and the same thing on the bottom, put my name in as Acting Chair. Now, this is a Special Meeting, this will be a third meeting for the 27 of July, and I have some comments on this. This will th make our third additional meeting, the third month we’re going to an additional meeting. We had one in May. We’re going to have one in June, with this Thursday’s meeting. What particular reason is this for? MR. SANFORD-We talked about it, Bob, last time. We weren’t going to move forward with this because we only had a handful of applications to deal with, to clean it up, but Marilyn apparently requested a workshop, and we said we might just as well clean up all the backlog and have the workshop at the same time. Now, if she’s not going forward with the workshop. MR. HILTON-No. That’s not it. If you’ll recall at the last meeting, there was a memo that was handed to the Planning Board that did discuss having a workshop to discuss elements of the Main Street project. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILTON-That memo indicated that the preferred date, or identified a date July 27. th MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, and we said we would piggyback on that. MR. HILTON-Correct. There was some discussion about adding other items to catch up with the backlog. MR. VOLLARO-We determined there were only three. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess, I can’t speak to that, because I certainly, I don’t believe that I identified that there were three items. I’m here to update you this evening and let you know that, in reality, if we were to catch up on all the backlog, you would have a meeting that would have the workshop item, as discussed, and my understanding is six additional items, which would catch this Board up on all the backlog, excluding items that have been tabled previously. So that was one thing I did want to communicate to you this evening. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, I don’t know if we have to have six agenda items on, plus the workshop, but if we’re going to have the workshop, I don’t see any reason why we can’t, my feeling is, have some additional items on there, and then all of a sudden, all of the big brouhaha that has been made over the last six months about the unresponsive Planning Board, kind of gets pushed aside and we’ve kind of cleaned things up and did our job. So that was the thinking. To me, it’s, coming here for just a workshop, is as much of an inconvenience, for lack of a better way of putting it, than to come here for a workshop and three hearings. I’ll leave it at the pleasure of the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I think that the decision that we made at the last meeting was that we would couple three applications with the workshop, and that’s what I would like to do. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HILTON-So you’d just like three. Okay. That’s fine. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. FORD-May we get some sort of an estimate on the length of the workshop. MR. VOLLARO-As long as we want to make it, probably. MR. HILTON-In reality, the workshop item itself, my understanding, in discussions we’ve had with Staff, could be somewhere in the area of 20 to a half hour discussion. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just an update on Exit 18, I believe, and a few things associated with Exit 18. So, that means that we would not, under these conditions, we would not have this July 27 meeting, Special Meeting. The 27 meeting, okay, will include, I’m sorry. thth MR. SANFORD-It will include a workshop. MR. VOLLARO-This would be the workshop plus three. MR. SANFORD-Plus three. MR. HILTON-Okay, and it will be on the 27. th MR. SANFORD-On the 27 of July. th MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WILL HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING ON JULY 27, 2005 TO INCLUDE A WORKSHOP PLUS THREE AGENDA ITEMS, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, before you depart, could I say something to the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-First off, I’d like to apologize for my tardiness tonight. There was a minor gap in communication with Staff. I had actually informed Staff, 10 days ago, that I wouldn’t be here until 8:15, but apparently there was a gap in that communication, and that wasn’t brought to your attention. So I apologize. As you know, we cover this Board all the time, I just want to bring to the Board’s attention now that on Tuesday, the 26, which is your second regular meeting in July, if we cover it at all, it will be pretty th late in the game, again, and I can’t promise Counsel coverage on the 27, the night you th just picked. I just want to make sure everybody’s aware of that up front. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is there anything in those three meetings, that you know of, off the top of your head, George, that would require Counsel? MR. SCHACHNER-You said three meetings. I only mentioned two. I only mentioned two meetings, the 26 and the 27. thth MR. VOLLARO-Right, and the 27 has three items associated with it, plus the th workshop. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/28/05) MR. SCHACHNER-The reason I’m saying this is in case you want to factor in what items you want to be heard that night and the need for Counsel. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I’m asking George the question. Do any of those three applications have need for Counsel, in his opinion. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and what I’m saying is, on the 26, if you know if Counsel th need, the later the better. If we can come at all that night, it’s going to be quite late, and the 27 I can’t promise coverage, but the 27, if we can cover it, we can cover the whole thth thing. I just can’t promise coverage on that Special Meeting night right now as I sit here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. MR. GOETZ-I’d just like to ask the other Board members. Are we going to have a quorum on Thursday? Because I may have to leave early. I’ll be here, but I have to leave by 9:30. MR. SANFORD-Well, a quorum’s four. So we’ll probably end up with a, it’s hard not to have a quorum, on a Board of seven. MR. VOLLARO-It should be okay. I mean, I plan to be here. Tom plans to be here. MR. FORD-I’ll be here. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll be here. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen’s going to be here. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. GOETZ-All right. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s the Great Escape thing is going on on that night, too, and I’ll be Chairing that night as well. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman 68