Loading...
2005-07-27 SP (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 27, 2005 INDEX Subdivision No. 13-2005 Patrick Burke 1. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 289.12-1-9.1 Subdivision No. 14-2005 Hayes Construction Group 10. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 308.6-1-86 Workshop Discussion Exit 18 Main Street update, etc. 17. 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 7/27/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 27, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD GEORGE GOETZ THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD, ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2005 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE N/A PATRICK BURKE OWNER(S): A. & E. OUDEKERK ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 936 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 ACRES TO 1.29 ACRES. CROSS REF. SUB 2-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 5.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.12-1-9.1 SECTION A-183 PATRICK BURKE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record, and tell us a little bit about what you want to do. MR. BURKE-My name’s Patrick Burke. I’m looking to subdivide a parcel on 936 Bay Road into five one acre lots. I’m just looking for your input and everything on, it seems pretty simple to me, but I was just looking to see if there was anything that was going to stop me from doing this five acres. I went over it with the surveyor and he said everything met the setbacks you guys usually look for. However, you know, there’s all you to look at and have their objections, whatever they may be, and to talk about them and deal with them. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions or comments from the Board? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. VOLLARO-I have one. I’m going to have to rely on Staff to lead me through this. 179-19-020, does anybody in Staff want to pick this up? This is entitled Residential Lots Abutting Collector or Arterial. MRS. RYBA-Got it. MR. VOLLARO-Ridge Road there is from Quaker north to Route 149 is classified as a regional arterial. MRS. RYBA-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Turn the page and you get to C under Regulations of that particular. MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It talks about, as of the effective date of this chapter all residential lots fronting on a collector or arterial road identified herein, any new collector or arterial roads, shall have two times the lot width permitted in the zone in which the lot is located. Except, there’s an exception, except that this requirement shall not apply under circumstances where adjoining residential lots exist or are proposed, and I believe that the gentleman’s submission showed that there is an adjoining lot. However, it goes on to talk about adjoining residential lots exist or are proposed to be established, and the width of each lot then meets the required width of the zone, and ingress or egress is limited to and provided by one single common driveway. MRS. RYBA-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-All right. That’s not what our site plan shows at all. First of all, it doesn’t show any ingress/egress. MRS. RYBA-Correct, and they’re here for Sketch Plan and comment. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. RYBA-But that’s correct. They would either have to have a shared drive or double the lot width, because it’s along Bay Road here. MR. BURKE-Yes. That’s no problem with me. I was planning on it. The surveyor was actually supposed to put it in for submission, and he didn’t, but I figured since this was Sketch that when he does my final set of plans that that’ll certainly be something that will be on there. I’m expecting that, as we had talked about, as I had talked about with the surveyor. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Your comment, Bob, is consistent with the Staff notes as well, saying that one shared driveway should be proposed to access Lots One and Two from Bay Road. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that would be to access Lots One and Two, but we have a problem with accessing Lots Three, Four, and Five. MRS. RYBA-You should probably ask the applicant if the applicant intends to have access off of Berry Drive for Four and Five, and Lot Three is an existing lot. MR. VOLLARO-Lot Three is an existing approved lot? MRS. RYBA-Correct. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. VOLLARO-Because the Lot Three frontage is 145 feet. MRS. RYBA-I don’t have a calculator, but 84.30 and 66.15. MR. BURKE-It’s 150 average lot width. MR. FORD-About 150. MR. BURKE-The average lot width needs to be 150. So I think that that was just broken down from some marker they had there, survey marker. MR. VOLLARO-The way the words in the Code read, at least the way it reads to me, is that the ingress and egress is limited to and provided by a single, common driveway, one single common driveway. MRS. RYBA-If it doesn’t have double the lot width. Correct. They can share a driveway or they can have double the width. MR. VOLLARO-That is correct, and I read that as that shared driveway would have to service all of those five lots. MRS. RYBA-No. I believe it says adjoining lot. MR. VOLLARO-It’s an adjoining lot. It’s Lot One of another subdivision, to the other side of Lot Two. MRS. RYBA-It’s an adjoining residential lot. It’s not saying that one driveway shares all five, for all five of these lots. MR. VOLLARO-It does to me. I don’t know. MRS. RYBA-The Zoning Administrator has interpreted this Code to mean that it’s for adjoining lots, and the other thing, in terms of how the Zoning Administrator does the lot width, does take the average lot width. So sometimes, that’s because sometimes you have lots that are narrower in some spots and wider in other spots. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure I’m following you, Marilyn. MRS. RYBA-Right here, these are pretty uniform, but sometimes there’s a lot, and you’ve probably seen it, that might be a little bit narrower in one spot and a little bit wider in another spot, and what he does is he does measurements to take the average lot width to look at what the requirements are. MR. VOLLARO-Well, in other words, we’re not actually following the Code. Is that what we’re saying here, that? MRS. RYBA-No. I’m saying that the Zoning Administrator gets to interpret the Code, and he, there may be some other Sections in here that I’m not aware of at this point in time, but his interpretation for this lot width, it’s exactly as it says, two times the lot width or a shared driveway, shared common access. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now what does that mean in terms of this application to the gentleman sitting before us? Because this is a Sketch Plan where we try to help the applicant along. Do we want him to put a shared driveway in, and where? MRS. RYBA-Well, and this is the first time I’ve had the opportunity to look at this, but for one thing I don’t know exactly where the driveway is that accesses the existing lot. If 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) it was, well, it looks like it might be, I don’t know if that’s a proposed or an existing. It looks like there’s a driveway possibly between Lots Two and Three here. I don’t know. MR. FORD-Yes. Didn’t the applicant indicate that he had already a plan that it didn’t get (lost words)? MR. BURKE-Yes. Lots One and Two were going to share a driveway over at the far left point coming in. MR. FORD-On the south side. MR. BURKE-Yes, south side looking down Bay Road. MRS. RYBA-So Lots One and Two have a shared driveway. MR. BURKE-Lots One and Two will be sharing a driveway, new driveway. Lot Three has an existing driveway that pretty much comes right down the middle of the property, and Lots Four and Five will be sharing a driveway off of Berry Drive, on the lot line. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Also there’s a dirt road on the existing lot. Is that on that lot, or is it next to it? MR. BURKE-No, there’s no dirt road that I, yes, actually, you’re right. There is a dirt road that goes around the back of the house. That’s an existing. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s on Lot Three. MR. BURKE-That’s on Lot Three, right. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s an existing driveway coming in, and then that dirt road. MR. BURKE-Right. It loops around the back of the house and goes back, almost like a horseshoe driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-The first thing where I would come from is Bay Road is getting busier and busier. If you can figure out so you only have one, if you can figure out how to reconfigure so you only have one driveway going into those three lots, the existing one, Lot One and Two, I don’t know if it’s possible, but we want to minimize the number of driveways on Bay Road. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s the intent of the Code, Tom, is to minimize the number of. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s only getting worse. MR. SANFORD-Did you consider four, rather than five homes on this parcel? Because you have that one lot that’s kind of built in between in the back, and I know I think it would be better from a planning point of view if there were four rather than the five. Now I don’t know, obviously trying to maximize your density, but you’ve got a flag shape lot there, and I’m not sure about the slopes on this property. I can’t really tell by the drawing whether you have any slopes in excess of 15 degrees. MR. BURKE-The only place where we run into that is on Lot Four, on that corner of Berry and Bay Road. Those, without doing further surveying, seem to be even outside of the setback area, which I wouldn’t plan on putting a house up that close to the road anyway. That whole area down, Lot Four and Five, is relatively basically flat or somewhat pitched back towards Vermont Mountains, somewhat. You can see some of the rough slope lines there. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. SEGULJIC-I always get confused with Sketch Plan. Sketch Plan is free thinking. MR. VOLLARO-Well, A-183 doesn’t exactly treat it as a free thinking exercise. 183 is pretty definitive in what a Sketch Plan ought to be. We tend to take, or have taken in the past, and I’ll have to admit this, we’ve taken a rather cavalier attitude toward Sketch Plans in the past, but I think the applicant’s entitled to know what he’s up against and what he should be looking for, before he comes in here with a Final, and our job is to try to let him know that, so we don’t throw things at him at Preliminary that he hasn’t heard before. MR. SEGULJIC-So we should give him some direction as to what we’d be looking for, for example, you know, one of the things we’d want to see is a complete survey of the area, and then I think we’d want to see, because there’s a number of trees on Lot Number Two. I’d like to see those trees surveyed, and I’d like to see those maintained as much as possible. MR. BURKE-That would definitely be the objective. MR. SEGULJIC-And under are there stone walls on the property, rock walls. MR. BURKE-Not to my knowledge. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to have that verified. MR. BURKE-Right. MR. VOLLARO-If you take a look at A 183 under Sketch Plans and read it, there’s a lot of things that they ask for. The survey is one. MR. BURKE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the reasons why the slope issue was raised is if you have excessive slopes, that they have to be taken out of the density calculation. So, you know, once you remove that, you may find that you can’t get five lots. You may, in fact, only be able to get four. MR. BURKE-As far as density, as far as taking into account, where does that apply? MR. HUNSINGER-When you fill out the actual application, you have to provide the number of square footage of the site, and you have to calculate out excessive slopes and wetlands, to meet your density requirements. MR. BURKE-For one acres, you mean you can’t count that as? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, you show one acre lots on your site plan. MR. BURKE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-But if a portion of Lot Four has excessive slopes, then you no longer have one acre of developable land. So that’s why when you come in for your application, you’ll have to provide the slope information. MR. BURKE-So you’re looking to say that anything greater than 15% is not usable land? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. When you do your density calculation. MR. BURKE-Okay. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. SANFORD-So you would start with your total lot, let’s say it’s five acres, and then you would net out of that any slopes greater than 15%, and come up with a new number, and then each one of the lots would have to be one acre, and you might only get four and a fraction. In which case you’d have four building lots rather than five. Does that make sense? MR. BURKE-Yes, I get what you’re saying. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and there might be some ways to adjust your lot lines. MR. BURKE-Yes, well, I’m definitely going to be going for that, to keep the five lots. MR. BAKER-Just a clarification. It’s slopes over 25% that would need to be subtracted out, as well as any proposed street right of ways. MR. SANFORD-What’s the 15, though? I mean, MR. HUNSINGER-That’s for septics. MR. VOLLARO-That’s for cluster. 15 is a cluster, 25 is a regular standard subdivision. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MRS. RYBA-And for septic. I was just looking at this. There were some notes on the plan we have, and I think Craig Brown wrote the notes, but I don’t know if this had been discussed with the applicant or not, but the possibility of eliminating the flag shape lot, incorporating that long drive area into Lot Two, and the doing a shared driveway between the Lots Two, Three, and One, so that you have one access for three lots, and then off of Berry Drive having a shared access off of Berry Drive, or actually, under the regulations, as long as other criteria were met, off Berry Drive, the applicant could have two driveways, but a shared driveway is also a possibility. MR. SANFORD-I like that suggestion of, what Craig was suggesting, One and Two become one lot. MRS. RYBA-No. He was suggesting that the long driveway portion along Lot One, that flag, which causes the stem of the flag, be incorporated into Lot Two, and then have further north here off up Bay Road, having a shared driveway between Lots Two, Three, then have that driveway go down to Lot One. MRS. STEFFAN-The lot lines would be adjusted. MRS. RYBA-True, they would have to be adjusted. MR. SANFORD-That whole flag, you’re just not going to have the acreage. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you’d have to move the property line, yes. MRS. RYBA-Move the property line. MR. BURKE-You’re just talking about flipping the flag, so shared Three from the one side? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the flag would no longer exist. It would be, Lot One and Lot Two would be reconfigured in a more geometric shape with a shared driveway. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-Well, there would be a flag, but part of it would go along Lot Three. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Because when I looked at this plan, I wasn’t a fan of Lot One, because I was thinking that, you know, the person who would eventually buy that house would be, would have houses in all directions. It’s oddly configured. It’s flag shaped. MR. BURKE-It’s funny that that’s the number one lot that people, prospective buyers that I have been talking to, would want. MRS. STEFFAN-Are there houses on Lot One, Two, and Three in the other subdivision yet? MR. HUNSINGER-Not yet. MR. BURKE-Lot One, I don’t think, has one, and Lot Six and Seven, there’s nothing there yet. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I think, in that particular subdivision, it’s a field, it’s an open field. There are no trees, I believe. MR. BURKE-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So once all the houses are there, it’s going to be pretty strange. MR. BURKE-Yes, it might change their opinion a little bit, but as far as the, there’s a great view from that way. So that’s something that people, especially people that move up here these days, look to have. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s one of the best views in Town, I think. MR. BURKE-It’s a very nice view. So to lose that lot wouldn’t be something that, I mean, I would try to do something, to make that happen. MRS. STEFFAN-It is a beautiful location. There’s no doubt about it. MR. BURKE-Well, yes, we’re going to be living there. So it’s going to be nice. So you’re basically, if I flip lot One and Two, flag shape them, share three driveways, would that kind of cover us. MR. VOLLARO-When you say flip it, what exactly are you talking about? MR. BURKE-Mirror flag One and Two. I actually had a survey that had it that way to begin with, but I thought that it would take out more of the tree line with the lot flagged, flipped the other way. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and that’s something we can’t tell from this drawing. MR. BURKE-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. BURKE-Yes, it would be more in the tree line there. The tree line comes down where Lot Three. MR. FORD-But the driveway, then, would come in between Two and Three and extend to One? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. BURKE-Right, then it would be taking out excessive trees, which, I don’t know what’s more valuable to you guys, as far as that goes, is something like that or cutting the beauty of the trees down. MRS. STEFFAN-Those are pretty old maple trees, aren’t they? MR. BURKE-Yes, I don’t want to take those down. I mean, nobody would want to see those things go. That’s why it’s open on the other side in the back of Lot One and Two. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, again, you heard the comment earlier from one of the Board members, you know, we’d like to see the more significant trees on your site plan, and since they’re not there now, you know, we can’t make that determination. MR. BURKE-Right. I’m going to be looking to come back, obviously, for Preliminary and maybe possibly Final my next meeting, just to, as far as. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when you do, are you going to put a separate drive to each of Lots Four and Five off Berry Drive, is that what you’re planning to do there? MR. BURKE-Lots Four and Five will be sharing a driveway on that. MR. VOLLARO-They’ll be sharing a driveway. MR. BURKE-They’ll be sharing a driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the other drive will come in where? MR. BURKE-Well, according to this plan in front of you, it’s going to be shared, One and Two are going to share a driveway. It’s going to come in off Bay Road. MR. VOLLARO-And what happens to Lot Three? MR. BURKE-Three has an existing driveway. MR. VOLLARO-See, I think that that is the reason why you’ve got the Code written the way it is. They’re trying to eliminate curb cuts along Bay Road. That’s the fundamental reasoning behind this, and saying that if you don’t have 300 feet in the 150 foot requirement, if you don’t have 300, then you’ve got to look at a shared drive, because they’re trying to eliminate curb cuts along Bay Road. MR. BURKE-Right, yes, I’ve got the 150 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but you would need 300 feet, double the width, okay. If you had no way to get another driveway in there. If you had enough acreage here, you could put, each lot would be 300 foot, and then you could put an access on each one, if each lot was 300 foot frontage on the road. That’s the intent of the thing, but you don’t have that. MR. SEGULJIC-But if I could clarify, one of the things we’ve been discussing is you’re going to take, potentially reverse the flag to the other side. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. MR. SEGULJIC-So then one driveway would come in here and service Lots Three, Two, and One. MR. FORD-Eliminate the current driveway that exists on Lot Three now. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and then the other two would be serviced by a direct drive from Berry, a shared lot from Berry Drive. MR. SANFORD-Or possibly two separate ones on Berry. They can do that on Berry. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no problem with that on Berry. MRS. STEFFAN-On Lot Three, the house already exists, where it is located. MR BURKE-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-But we don’t know where the driveway comes. We’re talking about eliminating that driveway on Lot Three. MR. BURKE-Yes, it comes over to the other side of the house. That’s why, keep that there, it’s going to create. MR. SEGULJIC-But there is that dirt road, which I believe is along that, in that area where that property line. MR. BURKE-It’s already there, and that’s used every day, which is kind of close to where the lot line would lie, maybe a little bit more south of that. We could use that existing driveway as the service. MR. VOLLARO-Be careful when you put those two driveways together, the one that you’re going to use on the flag lot to service these three, and the one that, you say there’s a dirt road in there, and access road to Lot Number Three? MR. BURKE-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Is there a curb cut out on Bay Road? In other words, can you get from Bay to that dirt road? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t want to leave that, because now you’re going to have two very close to each other that won’t meet the separation specs. There’s a separation distance between curb cuts. You’re going to have to look at the, have somebody or yourself take a real hard look at the Zoning Code before you do that. MR. BURKE-Okay. Well, I’ll talk to Craig Brown about that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing you mentioned, you are able to have two separate driveways for the lots on Berry Drive. MR. BURKE-I am. I’ll have to deal with the slope there on that to keep it down as far as it can. MR. VOLLARO-There may not be a slope problem. I’m just looking at your 430 to 420 contours. You may not have an over 25% slope on that lot. Just roughly looking at it, I don’t think you do, frankly. I don’t think you’re going to have a slope problem. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. BURKE-No, I don’t think there is either. Fifteen percent was, you were worrying me there. MR. VOLLARO-When you take a look at the Sketch Plan requirements, the reason for that is that they ask for the topographic features including the existing grade contours, at two foot contour intervals. That’s to give folks like us an idea whether you’re into the 25% slope or not. We can calculate that right here. MR. BURKE-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And we don’t have that. We’re absent that kind of information. MR. BURKE-Okay. Well, yes, Lots Three and Four, I don’t think there’s going to be any issue dealing with those lots, or, excuse me, Four and Five. Three is already there. Is there any other suggestions you have to keep the lot the way it sits? MR. VOLLARO-Just from your own knowing of that lot, we’ve looked at it, too, is it pretty flat? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You don’t anticipate any stormwater problems there at all? I don’t see any. MR. BURKE-Yes, there shouldn’t be. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have to contend with some, in other words, one of the basic premises is you keep the water that’s generated on that lot on that lot. MR. BURKE-Yes, whatever existing grades are there will have to stay somewhat the same, without ruining, especially the vegetation tree line there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You don’t see any wetlands on that lot, do you? MR. BURKE-No. There’s nothing wet there at all. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BURKE-I checked it on the computer down at the Zoning Office. MR. VOLLARO-On their website, you can look at that and see if there’s anything on there. Susan, when you did the review on this, did you see anything that would look like a jurisdictional problem with ACOE or DEC or anything like that MRS. BARDEN-No, no wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-Just from eyeballing it you know there isn’t any. MRS. BARDEN-From the coverages we have. MR. VOLLARO-On GIS? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other comments? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, have you done any test pits? We’ll probably be looking for that. MR. BURKE-Yes, I expect you to be looking for that. I don’t expect to run into any issues with septic or well issues. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll need perc information and stuff of this type, so that we can look at that. MR. BURKE-Right. I’m aware of that, yes. That’s no problem, but is that you’re, I mean, as far as keeping what I have here, is there another way to go about it without reconfiguring three shared driveways, a shared driveway, three lots? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to do your design for you. We’re not supposed to be doing that kind of thing up here. That’s something that you come to us. We’re just advising you on the pitfalls you might run into that you wouldn’t like to run into in coming back on Preliminary. We’ll tell you what we can, but we don’t usually sit here and design your lot. MR. BURKE-Right, no, I understand. Let me just ask you this directly, as far as the 300 feet of lot frontage. If I had 300 foot of lot frontage, I could split that right down the middle, have 150 foot average lot width, based on if I had one acres. I have two acres, I don’t have the 300 foot lot width, but I’m sharing a driveway. Doesn’t that calculate for being able to bring one access in off of that main road? I have the 150 foot to bring one access in. Why can’t I bring an access and split off of that on private land? MR. VOLLARO-Again, all I can do is read to you what’s in the Code. I mean, you want to read it yourself. Do you have one of these? MR. BURKE-No, I don’t. MR. VOLLARO-It would be nice if you did. I can tell you, if you’re going to do this yourself, you’re going to need this. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s available on line. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BURKE-And what’s your on line? MR. BAKER-Queensbury.net. Go under Town Documents. You’ll find the whole Zoning Code available on pdf. MR. BURKE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And I would look at that, because asking me a question like that indicates to me you don’t really. MR. BURKE-No, I was just getting confused as far as what you guys were saying. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not an unconfusing process. That’s part of the problem. MR. BURKE-Right. Okay. So either reconfigure that three shared driveways or drop to four lots is your advice. Okay. Well, I’ll have to. MR. VOLLARO-Did you have this done by Van Dusen and Steves? MR. BURKE-I did, yes. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. VOLLARO-You might want to see what he would do for you in terms of taking a look at this. MR. BURKE-Yes. Because he’s, I mean, that’s one of the questions I asked him on the get go if that was okay to plan it like this, to share driveways, and he said that as far as his knowledge, that meets your Code. So that was my main question, figuring this would be a piece of cake to do because everything meets setbacks. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and as you and Staff commented, that’s the job of the Zoning Administrator to interpret that Code and to look at that. MR. BURKE-Okay. So basically just get the advice and consent of Craig Brown and if he says that’s okay, then I can meet the Code, and then some sort of piece of paperwork, bring it back to my next meeting to say that’s okay, and that suffices. Okay. Yes, because I did have a conversation with Craig Brown, and he was, he said that it looked good to him, but talk to you guys. Okay. I’ll bring something like that back. MRS. STEFFAN-And once you fill out the application there’ll be conference notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. As Gretchen just mentioned, once you fill out the application, you’ll have a conference meeting with Staff. MR. BURKE-Yes, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Okay. Great. Thanks a lot. MR. BURKE-Take care. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE N/A HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 516 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A 19-LOT CLUSTER SUBDIVISION WITH 3 SINGLE FAMILY ONE ACRE LOTS AND A 16 UNIT CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF MULTI-FAMILY UNITS CROSS REF. NONE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6- 1-86 SECTION: A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, STUART MESINGER, MICKIE HAYES, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MESINGER-Good evening. I’m Stuart Mesinger. I’m a Planner with the Chazen Companies, representing the Hayes brothers, Mickie & Jamie, and Michael O’Connor is Counsel. We’re here to talk to you tonight about a 22 acre piece of property on the north side of Luzerne Road, between Van Dusen and Harold. MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I’m sorry to interrupt. I have a question for either of the Hayes brothers. Recently you, and/or a company with which you are affiliated, filed Ethics charges against a member of this Planning Board, Mr. Richard Sanford. When the Ethics Board exonerated Mr. Sanford, it was reported in The Post Star, that you, or a company with which you are affiliated, were planning to sue this Planning Board. My direct question to you is, has a lawsuit against this Planning Board been filed or is it anticipated that one will be filed? MR. O'CONNOR-To my knowledge no lawsuit has been filed with regard to that action by the Ethics Committee. It is being looked at as to whether or not a lawsuit will be filed. That’s not a conclusion that has been reached at this point. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. FORD-Okay. I wish to recuse myself, in anticipation of a pending lawsuit against this Board. In fairness to the applicant, myself, and this Board, I wish to recuse myself. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s your prerogative. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’d like to make a follow up question to you, Mr. O’Connor. What, in your mind, are the probabilities that this is going to happen? Is it a low probability, middle probability or high probability that this lawsuit will ensue? MR. O’CONNOR-That’s a determination that hasn’t been made. I wouldn’t try to prejudge someone else’s opinion as to whether or not litigation is appropriate. I would think that the litigation would not necessarily be against this Board, and I would think that the probability of that would be low, just from my outside looking in. The probability, the litigation most likely will be to challenge the determination by the Ethics Committee, and perhaps it may involve one member of your Board, and it’s a matter of somebody looking at their rights, and exercising their rights, and I heard last night a comment that this has been interpreted as a threat, and I don’t make any statement in that nature. I don’t think the Hayes have made any statement in that nature. They think that they deserve to have a fair hearing on their applications, and they think, in one particular instance, that they did not get that fair hearing, and they think they have a right to pursue remedies that may or may not be available to them, arising out of those circumstances. MR. FORD-I concur with that, and I support that contention. I hope you can also appreciate the fact that in an effort to really be very fair, as much fair to the applicants as to anyone else, with this hanging over my head, as a member of this Board, in fairness, I must recuse myself. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve got to tell you, I’m uneasy, sitting in this chair, with this conversation. I’m very, very uneasy. I just don’t feel comfortable, Mr. O’Connor. I really don’t feel comfortable with this whole cloud that’s, I have a funny feeling about it. I think I’m going to go along with Mr. Ford. I’m just not going to sit here, under those situations. I just can’t do it. MR. SANFORD-I guess I’m the one who feels the most comfortable about it. I think they have any right to sue anybody they want. What I’m trying to say is I really don’t think any legal action they’re contemplating or they may take has any real bearing on this particular application in front of us. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t, and I would do everything I could to treat it fairly, and I have. I’ve taken a lot of notes and a lot of time, but I think that when Mr. O’Connor is telling me that, because I really thought that Mr. Hayes, Mickie, when you made that comment, it was out of frustration, that if we don’t get satisfaction, we’ll probably sue the Board, and I said, well, I can understand him saying that, but now that I hear that there is definitely something in the wind, could be something in the wind, there’s a potential for it, it makes me very uneasy to sit here. It really does. I certainly understand what Mr. Sanford is saying, but I have an uneasy feeling. MRS. RYBA-I was just going to say, I would just suggest that anyone who wants to recuse themselves, that the best thing to do, in a case of recusing yourself, is to actually leave the room. So that there’s no perception of anything. MR. FORD-I just wanted to make sure that there weren’t any additional questions of me before I left. MRS. RYBA-Thank you. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think we can raise a question. I hope that the issue that you spoke of is resolved within a short timetable. I can’t guarantee you that, and I don’t mean by my comments to infer whether there is or there isn’t something. I’m just saying that it is an option that any applicant has, and it is an option that is being explored, and, depending upon the advice that’s received, you know, that further action will be taken. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think your points are very well taken, you know, it’s always the right of the applicant to do something, to do that, and I was about to say, you know, the reason why we’re here is to review preliminary site plan, and, you know, not to belabor and discuss something. MR. SANFORD-Actually it’s Sketch Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Sketch Plan, and not to belabor something that may or may not happen. MR. GOETZ-I think that any of us on this committee at any time are open to be sued at anything we may say, any face we may make, or whatever, and I just think that goes along with the job. MR. O'CONNOR-With or without your boots, whatever you said last night, your hip boots. MR. GOETZ-So, I think, however, when it gets into the paper, and it’s an implied threat, it makes the people here a lot more uncomfortable, and I think if, again, it’s your right, but I don’t think it’s something that should be talked about in the newspapers. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, you know, my perspective is, if I read something in the newspaper, I have every absolute reason to doubt its factualness. MR. O'CONNOR-Sit in my shoes for a while, guys. I wasn’t even part of the application, and I’m part of a great conspiracy, because of that. MRS. RYBA-I would suggest, too, our Town Counsel isn’t here tonight. So maybe this isn’t the most appropriate conversation to be having without our Town Counsel present. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was looking for. Can we get to the. MR. MESINGER-Maybe I’ll sit down and have better luck. We’re 22 acres. We’re on the north side of Luzerne. We’re located between Van Dusen and Harold. What we’re proposing is we’re zoned SR-1A. So we’re zoned one acre. We’re proposing three one acre lots, and those are going to be serviced by an existing access onto Luzerne, two of them here, one, two. The third lot is an existing residence that’s on the property, that would be refurbished and rehabilitated by the Hayes. The remainder of the property is proposed to be developed as a clustered subdivision, and we’re proposing 16 units in this configuration. We actually have 12 single families and then two duplexes, two duplex lots, which is how you get to 16. They’d be served by a cul de sac. We haven’t decided whether this would be a public or a private road. It’s under 1,000 feet. So it’s okay with respect to your 1,000 foot rule. We submitted two plans. We submitted an alternative sketch that just lays out the property slightly differently, the same two lots over here, same large existing property here. This one employs an eyebrow, okay, and then a cul de sac, and again, we’re within the 1,000 foot limit, and in this particular configuration, there are a total of 18 lots. In calculating density in both cases, there is a wetland area on the property. It’s located over here. It’s a Corps wetland. We haven’t done the formal delineation yet. We will, but we estimate the acreage at about two acres. We took that out and we took the area of the roadway out, giving us 19 usable acres, and so that’s how we arrived at a maximum density of 19 lots. These lots, as I say, these three are over one acre. The remainder are clustered. They’re 10,000 square foot 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) lots. The property is served by water. So we have Town water on Luzerne. We will do on site septic systems. We have an area for stormwater management over here. We’d obviously design the stormwater system to the extent that was necessary. I’m not sure that we’d be over an acre. I don’t know that we’d be into a formal SWPPP on this particular project. Staff notes raise a couple of points. We showed the designs to Mr. Missita who preferred this design here, and frankly so do we because there’s less roadway. Staff notes indicated a preference for the second design. We don’t like the second design as much, mainly because it uses more land area to accomplish essentially the same objective, and so we think we like this one a little bit better. The other Staff note was with respect to constructing potentially a road that was a loop this way. We’d prefer not to do that, because that road doesn’t really get us anything in terms of additional density, so there’s more site disturbance, and we don’t fall under the 35 lot rule that requires a second entrance. So we’re legal in a conforming layout the way it is now. So there’d be no reason to do that. It’s just more site disturbance and we don’t get more lots out of it. We think this way preserves more open space. There’s a possibility of constructing a trail on this part of the property, and I think one of the things that’s sort of nice about this project is that it really does preserve an amount of open space that’s usable open space, which has always been one of the Town’s goals. That’s really the formal presentation. We’re here tonight to hear your feedback. So what you’d like for us to look at. The goal would be to put together a Preliminary plat application, subsequent to this meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, with regards to the open space, with your proposed trails, conservation easement, how would you propose maintaining that? MR. MESINGER-How have you guys handled it in the past? We haven’t really talked about it. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the question. I’m looking for some suggestions. MR. HUNSINGER-Almost each project was different. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Some folks have deeded it to the Town, but that doesn’t look like it would be. MR. MESINGER-Doesn’t look like a piece of land you’d especially be interested in. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. MESINGER-We’re looking for guidance. If there’s a way that you want us to treat it, we’ll take it under advisement. If you’re going to leave it to our own devices, then we’ll have to make a proposal to you. MR. SEGULJIC-Does the Staff have any comments on that? MRS. BARDEN-On a conservation easement? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, what would be? MRS. BARDEN-Well, the applicant could propose a deed restriction on this wetland area that’s delineated as open space, both on the east side of the property as well as on the west side. MR. SEGULJIC-For no further development. MRS. BARDEN-Right. In the wetland areas? Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a pretty good sized parcel behind the wetland area that’s part of this parcel. The wetland area is probably smaller than what’s shown on the maps that you have there, that’s going to be delineated. I’m not sure of the acreage. I don’t think we have a calculation as to how much would be in actual lots as opposed to open space. Do we? MR. MESINGER-I don’t have an open space calculation. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s no intention to develop that in the future? I’m not looking at the calculations, for the cluster? MR. O'CONNOR-We would restrict it to your satisfaction, and it would maintain, you know, that is a green space, it is treed. I think it’s probably scrub pine trees, on both ends of the site. MR. HUNSINGER-So would you propose a like a homeowners association that would own that? MR. O'CONNOR-It depends upon whether or not, a homeowners association may be the way to do it, and you can do, I think it’s an Article Seven filing for open space, basically, and that’s a simple way of doing it. If the road is going to be owned by the Association, then it would probably be a full homeowners association, because you’d have the maintenance of the road to take into consideration as well. MR. MESINGER-A third way to do it would be to keep it in one lot, like keep it in the big mother lot, and give people easements or the ability to use it. MR. O'CONNOR-For a walking area. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because one of my questions would be how would the development access the open space. MR. O'CONNOR-In one of those areas, there is an opening that’s shown. The one with the eyebrow. MR. MESINGER-At the end of the cul de sac. MR. O'CONNOR-Probably you could do the same thing on the other end. MRS. STEFFAN-Because that would be a great location for, if you put trails in there, folks to cross country ski. It would be awesome to be developed like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Also the people that use the four wheelers. MR. MESINGER-They’re looking for a spot. MR. SEGULJIC-Now as far as we know, the open space on the, I guess it’s on the western side. As far as we know there’s no wetlands in there. Correct? MR. MESINGER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-One of my problems is those two extra lots you have on the eastern side. Is there a way that under Option One you could push that cul de sac back a little further and you’ve got those two, we’re talking about the one acre lots, though. If you pushed the cul de sac back you could have the two other single family cluster units on there. MR. MESINGER-Why are they a problem, the two one acres? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s just houses behind houses. MR. O'CONNOR-They’re quite a ways back, though, from the houses that are along Luzerne Road. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it’s just another road, too. MR. MESINGER-It’s really a driveway. MR. O'CONNOR-A private driveway. MR. MESINGER-It’s a driveway to two houses. I’m not sure that they would fit. I mean, you’d have to measure it out. I’m not sure that they would fit. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a suggestion, to keep all the development on that side, more open space to the eastern end. MR. BAKER-In response to the question about the means for guaranteeing the preservation of open space, I would refer the Board and the applicant to Section A-183- 34E, where it lays out options for lands to be retained for open space. MRS. STEFFAN-I would assume, on those two one acre lots, that you’d want to keep a lot of the trees that are there, since they’re, they look pretty wooded on the map you’ve got here. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you suggesting we show no cut zones? Is that what you’re suggesting? MR. HUNSINGER-I heard you talking up front. How long is the existing road proposed? It looks like it’s under 1,000 square feet right now. MR. MESINGER-It’s under 1,000. I don’t have an exact measurement. In both they’re under 1,000. So I think I can push it back, but I don’t think I can squeeze the lots in there. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m going to one of Staff’s comments about preferring two over one because it had more open space. Was any thought given on site plan one to having that open space on the west side? Because that one lot’s really big. Actually, those two lots are big. MR. MESINGER-I’m sorry, in Option One or in Option Two? MR. HUNSINGER-See where you have the open space on Option Two? MR. MESINGER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-All the way to the west. You show it similarly on site plan one. MR. MESINGER-This thing here? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that area. MR. MESINGER-You want this to be on this? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. MESINGER-Well, it’s just a matter of which way the road bends. I mean, here you could also pull the cul de sac off this way, and there’s more usable land doing it like that. I suppose you could come up with a, some kind of hybrid, which ran the cul de sac this way without the eyebrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Really what I was just talking about was cutting off those two most westerly lots and having open space on site plan one, like you do on site plan, two. MR. MESINGER-This here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MESINGER-Well, it would cost us a couple of lots. MR. HUNSINGER-No, you’d still have those two lots. They just wouldn’t be as big. MR. MESINGER-Yes, you could do that. Sure. It’s not a very big piece, though. MR. HUNSINGER-No. I realize that. The other question I had was with regard to on site septics, and you really can’t tell from the scale of this map. I assume there’s enough area on either proposal for the on site septics. MR. MESINGER-There is. Our preference is to do individuals, but we’re going to have to prove out the site before we can say that. There is a high water table on the east side of the property. So it’s really going to depend on what the test pits show, whether we need to do that or a community system. That might end up being a function of this piece of land over here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was wondering. MR. SEGULJIC-And are the dashed lines on the map, are those the topo lines? MR. MESINGER-Those are topo lines, yes. Yes, it’s a pretty flat site. MR. GOETZ-Maybe you mentioned it before on the cul de sacs, on each property, what was the average property size? MR. MESINGER-They’re 10,000 square feet, is the average. Obviously there’s some bigger ones, the big, like this guy here is a bit bigger, but they’re averaging 10,000, which is allowed by the cluster regs. MR. SEGULJIC-Then you had said you’re considering a homeowners association, but you have not made a decision yet. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, does that effect us at all, with that homeowners association or not? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s how they’re proposing the open space, to preserve the open space, is through a homeowners association. So, yes, I mean, it would be part of the consideration. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s something, when they come back, before we go to Final, we’d like to know that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it’s pretty typical for the Town Attorney to review the agreements. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. O'CONNOR-We would expect that. Here’s a general map. I don’t know if you do this or don’t do this, but this is that entire neighborhood. There is a mobile home park that’s actually back there. There’s a lot of mobile homes that are along the back of that subdivision. We looked at this once before. I don’t know if you recall, but we came in here once with that part of a request to rezone it to half acre lots with a density of 35 units, it was another builder, in January of ’04. I think we had a public hearing and went through part of the process, and that project never got off the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s all I have. MR. O'CONNOR-Can you informally tell us whether you like Option One or Option Two? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say. I don’t think we’ve really told you which option we like the best. MR. O'CONNOR-So that if we come back we can kind of concentrate our efforts on. MR. MESINGER-And if you truly don’t care, which is a perfectly fair answer, you know, we would probably pursue Option One. It would be our preference if you didn’t care. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we’d then take a look and see exactly which one pans out the best. MR. HUNSINGER-George, do you have a preference of one over the other? MR. GOETZ-No, I think they’re the ones who want to do the development, and I think in coming up with what would work best for them, it would probably work best for the Town of Queensbury also, providing, you know, it meets all the other requirements. I have no preference. I think that’s their preference. MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I thought Option Two was the neater, you know, it just looked like a neater package, but then we got some of the information from the Highway Department, some of the things that you just said, I mean, if there’s less road, then there’s more open space, or green space, and so I’d have to support that, you know, less road. I think that would probably be a better decision, from my point of view. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I would say I prefer Option One because of less road, but on Option Two, I like the fact that you have the, I guess the path, the method, where residents get the open space that you don’t have on Option One. That’s something I’d like to see in whatever you do. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard? MR. SANFORD-I have no comment on either option. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I would say that on both open spaces, because on Option One, Option Two, the open space on the west side, there’s no way to get to it, other than those two lots that adjoin it, technically. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. MESINGER-We’d probably put an easement or something through there so that people could. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, some way. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, let’s face it, in scenario one, somebody would really like a larger lot, I mean, if somebody wanted more land, that would certainly be ideal. They might want to be in a subdivision and have more land than the other folks. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that I liked better about Option One is the duplex units, because I think that offers some housing choices that people might not otherwise have, and I don’t know what the market is for that, but, you know, I thought it was something that made it a little unique and, you know, a little different. MRS. STEFFAN-And with the duplexes there, it would probably be more reasonable to have an access to the open space, with a duplex versus a single family. MR. HAYES-Basically the duplex design basically allows, believe it or not, for, some of the older people, they like to live with their brother or sister, two widows, two and it’s an affordability issue, because you can get a standard mortgage on a duplex. So I think it’s going to be a big trend coming forward, for affordability reasons, duplexes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. These are actually attached single family units. They’re really not duplexes. MR. HAYES-Yes, they’re two separate units, but they are connected. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but they’d be separate ownership. MR. HAYES-Separate ownerships, but a lot of times you get two sisters, two brothers, and it seems to be a trend that we’re seeing. MR. O'CONNOR-We probably will have to show some break up, too, of those lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, you would. MR. O'CONNOR-Each side, typically you do that, you have a boundary line that runs right down through the common wall, and somehow goes out into the front yard, back yard, unless you do a footprint type thing. MR. HAYES-We haven’t determined, we’re not sure if we want to sell them as duplexes as a whole or break them up individually, but I think we may sell them as duplexes on one lot. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. The big problem is we don’t, in our Code, at least the last time I got into the argument, we don’t have a mother-in-law apartment. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say. MR. O'CONNOR-If you have two kitchens, it’s a duplex. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-So unless we get an approval as a duplex, we can’t accommodate those people. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. O'CONNOR-I think I’m still correct. MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-So it would be a unique thing to market, which I think there is some need for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other thoughts or comments from the Board? Thanks a lot. MR. O'CONNOR-Can we get on your August agenda? You’ve always got to have a little bit of humor here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Next on the agenda is Workshop Items. WORKSHOP ITEM: EXIT 18 MAIN STREET UPDATE MR. HUNSINGER-The first thing is the Exit 18 Main Street update, Marilyn. MR. SANFORD-Well, we might want to invite back Tom and Bob. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say. MRS. RYBA-Ready? MR. HUNSINGER-We’re ready. MRS. RYBA-Okay. For the record, Marilyn Ryba, and I’ll try to make this as quick as possible, but I thought it would be a good idea to give everyone an update about what’s going on the best I can, because this is a complicated project, and there are many different components to it, but you have a small map, and I’ll refer to the larger map here. The Exit 18 Main Street project, so called, started out with some reconstruction on Corinth Road that the County will be doing, and along with that the Town is going to be putting in wastewater extension and some water line replacement rehabilitation, and so we obviously want to coordinate that with the County so that reconstruction include the paving. It doesn’t make any sense to repave a road and then dig it up again to do these other elements. The County is responsible for the reconstruction, but we’re responsible for the water and wastewater, and then the other aspect of this, of course, is the undergrounding of utilities, which, as you all know, there’s been some, I think the underground utilities are a bit (lost word) to be doing that although we do have an underground utilities overlay zone in our zoning, and that is something that the Town Board, last I knew, still fully supports. Right now what’s happening is the design for the road has been approved. The County just actually sent out a letter to the utilities saying, just like they would with any other road project, you have to move your utilities. How that gets done, the utilities still have to do it, and then whatever happens happens, in terms of lawsuits or whatever is being threatened, but the goal is to have construction take place from 2006 to 2008. Along with this, the Town will be doing some of the streetscape improvements, items like street lighting, landscaping, maybe benches, etc. The start of this project was the impetus for making this really, what did we want it to look like, and when Chris Round was here, did some work with actually Saratoga Associates, starting out with, and they had drawn that plan right there, working with business owners and landowners and residents in that part of Town, to get a sense of, what should it really look like, and we’ve got the whole issue of the number of lanes, which we finally got past all of that, too, but then the design guidelines were put in place, and Saratoga Associates did some graphics here and actually The Post Star, some 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) time back, probably a year ago, took some of that information, put it in the paper, but I’ll leave this here, so that, if you want to come up and take a closer look, and this is in our offices in Community Development Department, too, and what we think, you know, getting a sense of what we think it’s going to look like with having the buildings closer to the road, parking to the rear, that access along some of the rear lots where we can have access, so that people don’t have to go out into the street and have further curb cuts, thereby slowing down traffic, increasing traffic conflicts. So that’s the schedule there. Now the other aspect which is a little bit further on the mark is the connector road. The connector road, proposed connector road, will be used to divert traffic, too, when some of this construction is taking place. So there are a number of purposes for the connector road. This is a Town sponsored project that will be paid for by both a grant and some funding from the City of Glens Falls, because the City of Glens Falls annexed this Northway Business Park and that was part of the agreement. So the last figure I had was about $563,000 for this road. We have a $305,000 grant and we would be getting $200,000 from the City of Glens Falls. Now I hate to throw out too many numbers because numbers change. MR. HUNSINGER-Now has the alignment of the road been finalized, and the right of way secured? MRS. RYBA-Yes, it has. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. RYBA-So along Main Street, the County’s working on the right of way, securing it, and we’re doing the sewer/water at the same time. So there’s a lot of coordination that’s taking place to try to, we have the same company doing that easement work for us. MR. VOLLARO-Marilyn, what’s the degree of condemnation along the road, of buildings that are far too close now, that would have to be moved? I suspect there are some, or no? MRS. RYBA-No. There’s none. There was some mapping done a while back, and the easements, too, getting that easement work, there will be some things going close, but as far as I know, none of the buildings will be. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’re going to be able to get the three traffic lanes in there without doing that, plus the? MRS. RYBA-I’m not positive for everything, but as far as I know, and I guess condemnation is a strong word. Because if we need to do easements and property acquisition, we may need to do some of that, but until we get a final report from. MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking about eminent domain where you have to pay market value for anything you take. MRS. RYBA-Well, that’s part of what this company does, it’s R.K. Hait. They’re going out and talking to all the landowners, and they have gone out, and they’ll try to do whatever they can to get those easements, based on a willing buyer, willing seller basis, and as far as I know, there’s no eminent domain or condemnation taking place. Yes? MR. FORD-Marilyn, what is the plan for the Main Street connector after the project has been completed? MRS. RYBA-Well, the primary plan for the connector is to divert truck traffic so that it can go this way and up into the Northway Business Park, which, you might remember some of the Planning Board members might remember it as the Veterans Field Industrial Park. It’s a New York Build Now grant. We had the money to actually subdivide it, do 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) all the prep work so that it would be pretty much ready to go when industries come along, but now that the City of Glens Falls has taken that over, I mean, that’s the City’s, however they’re working to market it, I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Are there any potential for going in there? MRS. RYBA-I have no idea at this point. MR. VOLLARO-It’s been some time since we approved that. I guess it’s almost, what, since that. MRS. RYBA-A couple of years, several years, but as I said, the City owns it at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-So that connector road’s a permanent road? MRS. RYBA-It would be a permanent road, absolutely, but part of what’s happening here is this is the West Glens Falls Emergency Medical facility here. The Town is forcing them to move. So if you’re talking about any kind of condemnation, that’s one aspect for this road. So what will happen, and I have the site plans over here that I’ll leave up for you to look at, and I don’t think you’ve gotten the packets yet. So this is what’s come in. The West Glens Falls EMS will, and this has been somewhat tricky in terms of the timing. They will have a portion of land up here, and this area was a little bit misleading because these houses have already been razed here, and in terms of ownership, it’s Queensbury Economic Development property, which has gone to the Town, and so the Town is then putting together, or allowing the EMS to put their facility up here closer to Luzerne, because right now this road isn’t built. So they’re getting their access off of Luzerne Road, and you’ll see the plan, it has a bay so that it goes from Luzerne to Bay Road here, so that ambulances can just actually go out and go in whichever direction, although most likely they’ll be heading south onto Main Street and hopping on the Northway to get wherever they need to go, and then returning, they could come in off of Luzerne Road, and until this is constructed, although we believe, what we’re looking at it having this construction start from the north, for the connector road from the north heading down south. So the goal is, and this will be in your packets for the next Planning Board meeting is, and I think I might have brought one with me, for the timeline there, I think the goal is to have that building done April 2006, and then the connector road, let’s see, here it is, the connector road would be completed by the end of September 2006, but as I said, starting up here, and they would be finished down at the Main Street portion September 2006. Part of what’s happened with the West Glens Falls EMS facility, too, is that, and this has complicated my life more, but I think in the end will be, is a very good idea. The EMS wanted to be larger than they are currently, because they said we do training, we do, we have more than our few employees when we get people together to do the training, in the evenings, and we want a larger facility, and I think very similar to the firehouses, it was, we’ll have this available for training. We can still have meeting rooms available for other people and public use, and so we also have money through transportation equity through the Twenty First Century Act, or T21, to do what are called these gateway or multi-modal movements, multi-modal meaning that how can you connect vehicles to trains, to pedestrian access, to bicycle access, all of those things, and part of our grant that we were awarded for the gateway enhancements is for a park and ride facility. Now originally in the grant application we were thinking, well, we’d love to see that kind of facility off of Richardson Street where we’ll have some bikeway improvements, bike lane improvements going down to the Feeder Canal, and wouldn’t it be a great idea to do an information kiosk there, and we weren’t quite sure where the park and ride would go, but, because the Town has this land, and it’s available, and the EMS was looking for additional parking, the thought was, let’s combine the facility, so that the Town Park and Ride will be used by the EMS, in the evening, and the Park and Ride will be used by the public during the day. So we thought that that was a good idea. New York State DOT has been very helpful in that, you know, we’ve discussed all of this with them, and 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) normally we would have to go through a number of public informational or at least one public informational session, and your Planning Board meeting will count towards that public informational session, and what we’ll do is we’ll make that Planning Board meeting for the West Glens Falls EMS/Park and Ride facility, a public hearing, so that we can get information to the surrounding neighbors, and I’ve talked with the EMS folks, too, and said, you know, it’s, they don’t have a lot of neighbors, but it’s always a good idea to talk with your neighbors, and you’ll see by these plans that they really worked hard, both the West Glens Falls EMS and the architect, Barton and Loguidice, who has been working with us on a number of these projects, including the Park and Ride and these other Gateway, T21, enhancements, to make sure that there’s quite a bit of buffer, so that there’s buffer away from these neighbors, and you’ll see here this is wooded, but it is owned by St. Alphonsus Church. So you never know what’s going to end up there. Anyhow, so I’m doing the Staff notes for the West Glens Falls EMS/Park and Ride facility for next month, and so if you have any questions when you get those, you can certainly ask me, too. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I have one question. Is this coming before us as a site plan review or an informational meeting? MRS. RYBA-It’s both, actually. It’s both. It’s a little bit of a hybrid because there is an exception for Town owned facilities or Town owned land. For example, the Town won’t be going through the Subdivision Regulations, they don’t need to do that, but Staff, you know, I was asked by a lot of folks, well, why don’t you just go ahead and do it? Why does the Planning Board have to look at it, and we were trying to be consistent with the fact that we looked at the firehouse on Bay Road. We looked at Morse Fields for recreation, and that it’s always a good idea to have input, in terms of site plan review for the Planning Board. As I said, by doing that session with the Planning Board, with you folks next month, it fulfills our New York State DOT requirement for the Park and Ride facility as well for informational session, but it’s actually not as intense a standard for review. MR. VOLLARO-There’ll be no vote, I wouldn’t think, is there? I mean, let me put it on the table straight out. Do we have to be serious about this, we’ll just watch it and know what’s going on and be aware and so on. MRS. RYBA-What we’re trying to do is we’re trying to give people input, like we did with Morse Fields and like we did with the Bay Road firehouse, that if there’s concerns or input, let’s improve the plan and see what we can do. MR. SANFORD-Wait a second, though, Chris. If what I’m hearing here is they’re looking for our input, I certainly don’t want this to be a mock site plan review where we’re just going to be a rubberstamp to something. I’d just as soon not be a participant in that. I mean, is that what you’re telling me, that we really aren’t going to be a decision maker? MRS. RYBA-You are going to be a decision maker, because Staff has been trying to be consistent with what we’ve done in the past. The difference here, though, is that this is, West Glens Falls EMS would never have to move unless the Town required them to move. With the Bay Road firehouse, and with the Morse Field facilities, those were things that came up from those organizations. I really thought that we were doing a good thing here, and the right thing, by having input, etc., and I really wouldn’t categorize it as a rubberstamp type of thing. I mean, I thought Staff was doing the right thing by getting that input. I mean, we probably really don’t have to, based on the Code, but we’re looking at having some kind of input from the Planning Board and value your opinion. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. SANFORD-Well, input is one thing. I don’t want this to come in front of us as a so called site plan and when in fact we really don’t have authority over this. I think this is what Mr. Vollaro’s getting at here. MRS. RYBA-We’re presenting it to you as something for you to vote on, yes, to review and to vote on, yes. MR. FORD-It is a proposal. MRS. RYBA-It is a proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Normal site plan review. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t want, you know, we’re all adults here. I just don’t want this to be couched in a way that somebody in the audience says, well, the Planning Board approved that, when, indeed, I don’t think we have a real, supposing somebody on the Board makes an absolutely good case for not doing this. Where do we go from there? I mean, you folks have put some much effort and so much thought into this thing, I don’t know how much. MRS. RYBA-Well, then what you do is we go back to the drawing board. I mean, if the Planning Board really feels strongly about not reviewing it, we don’t have to review it. MRS. STEFFAN-Marilyn, this is an informational presentation, but you said you were going to be sending us those plans for review. MRS. RYBA-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So that we will be reviewing plans, going forward. MRS. RYBA-Unless you decide that you don’t want to do this, then fine. MR. SANFORD-Well, here’s my concern is that this looks like some 12 hour stuff, and th then it comes to us, and then somehow we get our name attached to this being a Queensbury Planning Board project, and, you know, I think really the way I was viewing this is you were giving us an informational update on what’s going to happen, and that’s far different than actually being in the driver’s seat here, and I certainly don’t want to, in an unprepared manner, be a good guy and approve something only to find out that, you know, we really didn’t do enough work on it, didn’t have enough understanding, weren’t involved in it from the beginning, and so I would just as soon keep it as we provide you some input. You provide us with information on it, and not have this come in front of us as a site plan. Because I don’t see us really doing site plan review on this. MR. VOLLARO-I would note, on a site plan review, normally we try to give the applicant some direction, maybe change things. There’s been so much human effort and man hours plugged into this job that somebody coming, like me, from the backside of this program, trying to understand how it works, why it works, and so on, and to really come up with valid inputs, I don’t think I can. I really don’t. You know, if you don’t come up growing up with that, you really don’t understand it all that well. It’s okay to see the lines. I know what’s happening here, but to offer constructive criticism to a plan that’s been put so many man hours on, I’m not sure I can even get close. MR. SANFORD-More importantly, Bob, if we endorse it, and approve it in a site plan context, and then down the road it turns out there’s a lot of problems and what have you, we’ve put our name on it when we really probably haven’t done due diligence. I mean, I’m having a hard time following what she’s saying now. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, I mean, I certainly appreciate the concerns from members of the Board, but I really don’t see what we’re being asked to do here any different than any other project that comes before this Board. MR. VOLLARO-Well, except I think there’s an overlaying perception that the Planning Board certainly wouldn’t disapprove this. Any applicant that comes before us, that says we’re here for approval, I blister at that, because they’re here for an approval or a disapproval, or a tabling. On this one here it’s almost categorized as, hey, you know, this is a slam dunk approval. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not what I’m hearing. What I’m hearing is we want to treat this like we treated the Bay Ridge Fire Department site plan, or the Morse Field recreational facility. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know when you got involved with it, but this thing looks like it’s got a good far distance without any input from this Board at all, is the way I’m looking at it. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see anything different than those other projects. What’s the role of the Planning Board? I mean, seriously, what is the role of the Planning Board? It’s to approve subdivisions and review site plans. MR. SANFORD-But the process of how the subdivision gets in front of us, this is very atypical here. In other words, this thing had miles behind it, I mean, this is pretty well. MRS. RYBA-I will agree to the degree that it is atypical. However, I will say that this is a project that has been, you know, in the news for years. It’s not like it’s all new information. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s just it. The firehouse that the Chairman mentions wasn’t in the news for years. This thing has got a life of its own. MRS. RYBA-True. MR. VOLLARO-It really does. MR. HUNSINGER-All we’re being asked to review is one little piece for this discussion, I mean, one site plan. That’s what we do. I mean, I just see it as that’s the role of the Planning Board. I mean, I don’t know if it’s the Town Board that’s giving us the authority to approve or disapprove it, but, you know, I just see it as being consistent with our mission. MRS. RYBA-Well, the Town Board has given Planning Board, I mean, they have given you the authority to review the plans and subdivisions. That’s what the Town Board has given you. MR. SANFORD-I guess those who don’t want to participate can recuse. I guess. I mean, but my only feeling is I don’t think there’s a legitimacy to our review of it, in reality, I really don’t. I see it more as almost a device, as you said, to count as a required meeting or whatever you were talking about. MRS. RYBA-I mean, we could do a public informational meeting separately from this. MR. VOLLARO-Is there a downside to us not hearing it, Marilyn? Is there a real downside, in any venue, politically or whatever? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-Well, I don’t think so. I mean, that’s just my opinion. I don’t think there’s a downside to not hearing it. It’s just that, you know, the Zoning Administrator has made a decision that he believed that the Planning Board should review it, and I go back to the Zoning Administrator and just say, you know, the Planning Board, for X, Y, Z reasons, because, and I have the Section of the Code, doesn’t believe that they need to look at it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, there’s only two dissenters. MR. SANFORD-I’ll give you maybe a more pointed example of why I feel uncomfortable getting involved with these types of things. I mean, we’ve been asked by the Town Board on a number of occasions for us to weigh in and give a recommendation to them, and we did, and a lot of times we did without enough information to make it. We were asked to give a recommendation on requiring underground utilities. We were asked for a recommendation on changing LC-10 to LC-42, and all these types of things, and we go in and a lot of times we don’t deal with it with enough level of depth and understanding, make a pre-mature judgment, and then the next thing you know there’s a lawsuit going on with Glens Falls and the fall back, in some cases, well, the Planning Board recommended it. Well, we were asked to recommend it, and we didn’t do the right level of due diligence. We got caught up in something, and here’s something that, as Bob said, has a life of its own. We’re coming in at the 12 hour and we put our nice th big stamp of approval on it, and then all of a sudden if something doesn’t, down the road has a problem with it, well, the Planning Board approved it. Well, the Planning Board, you know, approved it. MRS. RYBA-I understand what you’re saying. MR. SANFORD-You really do have to appreciate that. That unless, I think we have the right degree of intimate understanding, it would be irresponsible for this Board to be used in that fashion. I don’t mean used in necessarily a negative way, but used, nevertheless, as a vehicle to accomplish this. MRS. RYBA-Yes. I think there’s also some, and I know this Board and Staff struggles, too, sometimes, with having a concept plan review, and, you know, we wanted to get away from that, too. We didn’t want to have a concept plan review because we didn’t think that, A, the Board would necessarily understand, and, B, the public would necessarily understand the difference between what a concept plan review is and an actual site plan application. So it was, okay, well, let’s just forward it as a site plan application, and that’s the other role of a Planning Board. I know so many Planning Boards struggle with this. Typically you’re a review board and not necessarily a planning board, and that’s where it gets difficult when some of these projects are intertwined, and we’re trying to keep people informed, and we want, you know, some kind of feedback, and it gets a little tough, and in terms of, the other aspect is in terms of level of review. I know, recently, and it’s a very different example because I think Richard’s correct in that this is, you know, it’s a large project that has been going on for a while, but I know recently there was a ZBA Use Variance request by a church in an industrial zone, and our Ordinance really doesn’t, we allow churches in many zones, but we don’t allow churches in an industrial zone, but when, the legal research showed that there was not as high a standard of review in that particular case for this Use Variance. It was very different, and that was difficult for people to wrap their arms around, too. So sometimes it’s a little difficult to, I think we’ve done all the right things, like for example, even the SEQRA process, we’ve had a NEPA, and that’s the National Environmental Protection Act. There’s federal review in looking at the historic preservation aspects and the archeological aspects and a lot of those things have been accomplished along the connector road and these other areas. There really is many years worth of information that’s gone into this. MR. VOLLARO-That raises an interesting point. Would we be doing any sort of SEQRA review on this at all? I think it’s all done, really. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-SEQRA can still take place many ways along the project. I mean, I think the general rule of SEQRA is you go as early in the project as you can, but often there are different aspects. Let’s say for example because we, if it’s going in front of the Planning Board as a site plan then, yes, there’s still SEQRA involved. MR. VOLLARO-And a site plan would probably be a Short Form SEQRA, I would guess. MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So we’d ask a few rudimentary questions and get some rudimentary answers. MRS. RYBA-Correct. MR. FORD-Being the new kid on the block sometimes my colleagues will tell you sometimes I ask some questions that may seem a little funny, but I would have had a much greater comfort level with this, had the Planning Board been involved at a much earlier stage of this. Without casting any stones, if you had your druthers, would you have involved the Planning Board earlier in this project? MRS. RYBA-How early is early? This has been going on since 2000, maybe 2001, and I think there’s a practical aspect as well, and when I say going on since 2000, 2001, I’m talking about this. This actually, in terms of involvement, hasn’t really been discussed all that long. I think the West Glens Falls Firehouse has been working with the Town Board to really search for, where can we put our facility. I mean, there was some discussion, and maybe Mr. Strough, John, can correct me if I’m wrong, but even some discussion about putting it up off of Exit 19. I think there’s a small piece of land that was at one point proposed for a hotel, and you know, in considering the West Glens Falls EMS requirements, what do they really need, and looking at their calls and the distances and they like the fact that they’re closer here. So it’s been one of those things that, I think there’s been a lot of discussion about where they might be able to go, and in terms of finally coming to some kind of consensus of this place right here, that’s only been fairly recent. MR. SANFORD-Consensus among whom? MRS. RYBA-Among the Town Board members. MR. FORD-So the answer to my question is you feel this is the appropriate time to get Planning Board input. MRS. RYBA-Well, if it’s a site plan review, yes, then that’s the appropriate time. Otherwise, I mean, because this is essentially, this whole thing is a Town Board sponsored project, and it could be you know, and I’d have to discuss the particulars with the Zoning Administrator, but like I said, I know there is a section in the Town Code that does exempt Town properties, I think less than 100 acres, either properties owned by the Town or under contract or to be owned by the Town from that review, and I feel like I’m in a Catch-22 position here. If we didn’t come in front of the Planning Board, we’d hear, what are you trying to get away with, and I just think that’s wrong. MR. SANFORD-If you’re asking, you know, I think I’ve already given you my opinion, and I appreciate being asked, but when it comes to fire and EMS and things of that nature, I know that there’s a lot of concern among all communities about the costs and the politics associated with it, and again, in order for me to feel comfortable, I would have to do a much more in-depth analysis, including financial analysis, to weigh in on the decision. Town Board’s taken this ball and they ran with it. I think that they need to 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) make their own decision, and we would be happy to be informed like you’re doing now, to keep us up to date with it. I don’t think we should be a primary decision maker in what looks to be a particular issue that might have some potential financial and political ramifications, and I don’t think we’re equipped to deal with it. MR. VOLLARO-Let me try just to draw a parallel here, and jump a little bit on what Mr. Ford had to say before. Let me use The Great Escape. We just got a letter from Mr. Lemery. I got it in the mail, concerning the movement of the bridge and the whole pedestrian bridge thing. I read that, understood it right away, because I had the depth and knowledge of having maybe, what, nine or ten discussions with The Great Escape concerning this whole Route 9 hotel motel water park, etc., etc. Could probably pass the exam, if there was one, on that. Could not pass the exam on this one. That’s my feeling. MRS. RYBA-And I think, though, it’s because, as a private project, and part of your purview, that’s come before you. In terms, I mean, we can, and I don’t think I finished my thought with Mr. Ford, but part of it is, you know, the practical aspect. I mean, there are a lot of things that we do, that are Department does, that we don’t really fill the Planning Board in on, as we go along. I think one example was, you know, the affordable housing strategy. That was something we worked on. We did the presentation, we gave the information. I think the build out study was another one, for example. MR. VOLLARO-The Open Space study was another, I believe. MRS. RYBA-Well, there was more participation, though, I think, on the Open Space Plan, because that was adopted as part of the Comp Plan. So there was more participation there. MR. VOLLARO-But that participation level was maybe 90/10, in that ratio. So, I guess what I’m trying to say is, I don’t have an in-depth feeling on this, as well as I do on, for example, The Great Escape, and I realize one is private. One is municipal, and it’s a little bit different, but the relationship, in my mind, in this, what I think with is very much a parallel. MR. SANFORD-Yes, you just don’t have the history, and you don’t have the familiarity with it, Bob, and I think that that’s the way I feel about this, too. MR. GOETZ-Marilyn, excuse me. As I sit back, as the second newest one on the block, I look upon this as listening to the veterans here saying, this may not be our thing. I’m just wondering why doesn’t the Town Board make the decision. MRS. RYBA-Well, the Town Board does decide on the financial part. The Town Board does decide on the land. The Town Board does make a lot of those decisions. I the site plan review is, you look at your items that you do for site plan review, parking, circulation, pedestrian access, traffic, neighborhood impacts, environmental impacts. Those are the things that you’re looking at. You’re not looking at, is this something that I agree with the cost. That is a Town Board issue. It’s not a Planning Board issue for site plan review. MR. SANFORD-That’s a bit debatable, Marilyn. I think you’re safe to say that we’re discouraged from looking at planning and site plan review in that context. I think, I’m not so sure that in other communities the Planning Board does look actually look at certain financial impacts to site plan review and things of that nature, impacts on school systems and all that kind of stuff. I’m not sure that that is not necessarily within our jurisdiction. It hasn’t historically been. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-Well, impacts on public facilities such as schools, that’s correct. I mean, you can certainly look at some of those items, and the items are listed in your Code book, in terms of what you look at. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, why don’t we hear from the rest of the Board. Tom, how do you feel about this? MR. SEGULJIC-If all we’re doing is looking at that site plan, I don’t have a problem with it, and I guess as Rich said, if you have a problem with it, you recuse yourself. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Tom? MR. FORD-It’s not a review of the project in its totality, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s not. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s that project right there. MR. VOLLARO-No, but the rest of that project bears on that project. It’s not isolated and sitting by itself over on the back side of the moon. I can tell you that. MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s true of every project we look at. MR. VOLLARO-Not necessarily. Most of them are all encompassing. We have enough data to understand that. I don’t have enough data to understand how that fits into that. MR. HUNSINGER-We heard your comments, Bob. Tom? MR. FORD-Again, specify exactly what we would be focusing on, in as much as we’re not going to be focusing on the totality of this project that you have just described. MRS. RYBA-We would be focusing on a 3.3 acre parcel that would include the EMS proposed facility, looking at the access, ingress/egress, parking, lighting, grading, stormwater. MR. VOLLARO-Traffic. MRS. RYBA-Traffic, and then the EMS, or excuse me, then the Park and Ride facility, which the reason there are two plans here is because there were two different architects, although they did work together, I assure you, because there were a lot of questions, in terms of making sure that there’s some shared stormwater here, too, I believe, and then looking at the parking lot, which includes what I talked about that multi-modal aspect, there’s a bus shelter and a bus aspect there, as well as the pedestrian. MR. VOLLARO-Is there a traffic study associated with this, Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-I’m trying to remember. I believe, yes, there is some information based on traffic, and I couldn’t tell you the number right now, off the top of my head. MR. VOLLARO-Would the Board have access to traffic studies like we do on other? MRS. RYBA-I would have to look that up. I think it was part of that Veterans Road industrial park, that has traffic information, is what was utilized for the connector road. MR. FORD-I have a follow-up question. It will help me get my mind around this, Marilyn, if you can give me the rationale for why this portion of this project is coming before this Board. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-The rationale is that Planning Staff wanted to do a couple of things. One, get, because you do so much review of these items, these site plans, get whatever kind of input that the Planning Board might have, B, we want to be consistent with what we’ve done in the past, in terms of public utilities or public facilities, even if there’s, you know, Town sponsored or School sponsored, and have you do, or excuse me, C was that aspect of public information. So there are three areas there that we. MR. SANFORD-Public information, I don’t understand. MR. FORD-Public information? MRS. RYBA-Public information being public board, Planning Board public hearing. MR. SANFORD-But Town Board can have a public hearing. MRS. RYBA-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure they can, absolutely. MRS. RYBA-And actually the New York State DOT, for the Park and Ride facility, they don’t require a public hearing. They require a public informational session. Public hearing comes at a point for, when funds are actually put into the coffer or there’s a resolution to actually spend the money to build the road. I mean, a lot of this we spent money on design. We spent money on surveying. We spent money on engineering consultants, but haven’t actually taken the funds out of Capital Improvement to make that improvement, and when that happens, there is a public hearing on that aspect. MR. VOLLARO-We wouldn’t have a public hearing, would we? MRS. RYBA-You would have a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-We would have a public hearing, during site plan review. It would be normal site plan review with a public hearing. That’s what I’m hearing. MR. SANFORD-Again, I’ve already said my piece, so I’ll let it go. MR. HUNSINGER-You did, yes. Did you have a conclusion, Tom, concluding comment? It’s okay if you don’t. I’m just trying to get a feeling from the Board. MR. FORD-Thanks, Chris. What I hear you saying is part of this is for the public record? That’s one. MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. FORD-Two, it’s for consistency’s sake, because this Board has been involved on other projects like this portion that we’re going to be given the opportunity to review? MRS. RYBA-True, to some degree, not totally, but to some degree. MR. FORD-I’m confused. MRS. RYBA-That’s because I’m trying to think of other examples. The Morse park was owned by a school. Actually schools are exempt from anything. They don’t have to come in front of you for anything at all. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s why we have all the traffic problems up at the Queensbury School. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-There you go. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a nightmare, an absolute nightmare. MRS. RYBA-The Bay Road firehouse was, there are more neighbors, and I think that’s why the decision was made, you know, we really need to get some input. Plus, and Mr. Strough is here also, was a Planning Board member at the time. I mean, there were some concerns about traffic. I remember one of the big concerns was neighbors were concerned about the noise, and I had said to the EMS squad people, you don’t have very many neighbors here, but the couple that you do, I would advise talking to them because that’s going to be a question. Am I going to hear 2,000 sirens a year, and like I said, it’s not very many, and it’s proposed to be industrial in the area, and eventually this land also being proposed as, I don’t know, that’s going to be up to who the Town owns, or will own some of this and QEDC I think does own the rest of it, however that’s going to be proposed, and I don’t think there’s anything on the plate for that at this time. MR. FORD-With the level of observations that I have received from citizens of the Town of Queensbury relative to some of the other fire facilities, and that’s what you’re referring to here, right, is a shared facility? MRS. RYBA-This would be a shared facility, but there’s a Park and Ride lot that the Town would own. MR. FORD-I think we should focus on it. I think we should take a look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I think it would be appropriate for us to review this and just this piece of it, and we could certainly put in our resolution when we were done passing it or approving it, that this is just a piece of what we were looking at. This is the portion that we’re focusing our energy on, and leave it at that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think you’ve got a majority of the Board that would like to see site plan review on this. MRS. RYBA-Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. MR. SEGULJIC-Let me just ask a question, now that I’ve looked at this further. MRS. RYBA-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that going to be in an Empire Zone? MRS. RYBA-This Northway Business Park is an Empire Zone. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The yellow lines are just? MRS. RYBA-Yes. I believe it is, because this is the Miller facility. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because in the block it describes the Empire Zone as the yellow block. MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So you put an EMS in an Empire Zone? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-Well, there you go. I don’t know all the financial ins and outs of how that would work. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other comments about this project? MRS. RYBA-Yes, there’s more. The other thing here, in terms of the gateway enhancements, we’re also looking at having an informational kiosk facility, and I know when I think of kiosk I usually think of the things you see in Paris with the big basically columns with the post bills all over them, but in this Country the kiosks are more like, almost like a modified version of a rest area where you come in and get information about the community and there would be a couple of places to park, bike racks, you know, who knows whatever else the Town wanted to add on it in the future. So that’s another component of the entire project. I had mentioned the bike way, having some improvements there, going down to the Feeder Canal, and then here there would be some interchange improvements, including some bike path widening as well as discussion about traffic light changes. That wouldn’t happen until after all of this occurred, and the timeframes change a little bit on that. The whole other aspect to all of this is money and how the State allocates the funds. We’re involved in the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, and that, it’s called Metropolitan, part of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the whole point of having that, the Capital District has one, is that there’s so much money to go around, and the point is to try to get all the communities to decide where are they going to focus their money, and actually all of the communities in the Metropolitan Organization for the Adirondack Glens Falls area has agreed that this Main Street area is where the Priority Number One for funds to go. The other aspect is relocating Big Boom Road to have a T-intersection. Right now it would be offset, but to have a T-intersection and a traffic signal and that’s something that the County will do probably after the road connection is there. Some time ago, there was a proposal for a rezoning along Big Boom Road because the Town Supervisor, at that point in time, and this was several years ago, was trying to negotiate with the property owner to get that road, to have that access, for relocation, so that it could line up, and that will be something that the Planning Board will probably see again in the near future, I think the applicant’s going to come back in and ask for a rezoning in exchange for, as part of getting this relocation, and I don’t have all the details on that. I know several years ago it just kind of died because the Town Supervisor was trying to get the applicant to not only give land to the Town, but to also pay for the road and that didn’t happen. MR. FORD-This is all an extension and a part of that Main Street connector. Correct, Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-Not part of, it’s not an extension of the Main Street connector. It would be done separately, and this connector is a separate aspect, but eventually there is going to be a need to have a traffic signal here, and so that Big Boom Road will need to be relocated. MR. FORD-So there will be a traffic light there, but it’s not a part of that. It doesn’t simply extend across the road? MRS. RYBA-Not yet, no. MR. FORD-Is that the plan, however? MRS. RYBA-That’s the plan, yes. MR. GOETZ-Marilyn, I don’t know if this is getting off the track or not, but there’s a couple of conceptual questions that I have. MRS. RYBA-Okay. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. GOETZ-And maybe you answered them and I was daydreaming or something, but the Park and Ride facility, why is it, why are we having one? What’s it there for? MRS. RYBA-The Park and Ride facility is, it’s part of the whole idea of multi-modal transportation that if somebody, and there are quite a few people who take the bus to Albany to work. So that they want to drive their car, and have a place to park it and get a bus or share rides, I mean, you see this everywhere. You see it outside of Washington D.C. You see it right off of Exit 16, heading north. There’s a little parking lot there that’s used for Park and Ride facility. Although now the Department of Transportation is requiring a lot more than it used to, because that parking lot off of Exit 16’s pretty bare. MRS. STEFFAN-Exit 12 has a huge one. MRS. RYBA-But there’s more lighting and landscaping that’s required now. MR. FORD-Immediately, if you look at it, the reason for the Park and Ride basically to accommodate commuters heading south into the. MRS. RYBA-Or north. You never know. MR. FORD-I think we do, and to that extent, the Park and Ride would be much more appropriately situated on the west side of 87, rather than the east side. That is going to cause an unbelievable traffic jam on the east side of 18. MRS. RYBA-Well, it’s probably somewhat oversized. It’s for, I think, about 53 vehicles. The other thing you have to think about is in terms of the practicality, is there’s land available, and here, for example, I mean, originally it was thought, let’s just take the information kiosk. It was originally thought well, gee, wouldn’t it be great to put it off of Richardson Street, which I think, from a planning perspective, is a great idea, because what you need to do, if you really want people to come into the community and see your community, what do you need to do? You need to give them a clean public restroom, a place that they need to stop and get out of their car, not that there would be a restroom on the informational kiosk, but I’m just talking about what you want to bring people into the community. The problem is there’s a piece of land here for sale that’s about an eighth of an acre for $250,000, which is one half of our grant. So there’s that limitation to think about as well. I don’t believe that the traffic impacts. I mean, typically Department of Transportation asks for a traffic study if there’s 100 or more vehicles for a peak hour situation, and if you have a facility where people are going to park there to get a bus, I don’t really see where you’re going to be getting, and practically speaking, too, I would hope that, well, I’m not going to speculate right now, but that’s not 100 peak trip trips for further study, or what’s considered as an impact. MR. VOLLARO-Marilyn, now that the decision has been made that the Board will do that, let me ask a question. From a planning point of view, has anybody looked at the co-sharing of activity with the West Glens Falls fire company? Was that ever even thought of, in terms of the EMS facility? In other words, we’re putting an EMS, we’re going to relocate an EMS facility to another location. Was there ever any discussion to see whether there was enough room in the West Glens Falls Fire Department for co- sharing of those two activities? MRS. RYBA-I would ask that to the Town Board. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and it didn’t happen, wasn’t feasible? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. STROUGH-At one time, it looked like it, but then minds changed, and there was a definite no. MR. VOLLARO-I see. I like the way you couched that there, Mr. Strough. MR. GOETZ-What about the second West Glens Falls Fire Department, which is off of Van Dusen? MR. STROUGH-That was looked at, but not enough property. There’s requirements on behalf of the Fire Department (lost words) to have a facility. One of the reasons, should the Northway ever be closed or blockaded or something happened, they have access to either side of the Town from one facility or the other. So that other facility is on a smaller piece of property and doesn’t avail itself to the EMS experience. MR. GOETZ-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I know we had other things to talk about during the workshop. So is there any other questions, comments about the Main Street re-development program? MR. VOLLARO-Not from this chair. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m not sure who was going to discuss the Staffing issues, Marilyn. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, could I ask one other question? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the Corinth Road reconstruction, one of the things I struggle with personally, I think the Board does, too, is when we have a site plan come in on Corinth Road, and you go to the design guidelines, it says, you know, all the landscaping along the streets, and then it’s always brought up that, well, it’s possible that they put in all this landscaping, it’s going to get torn up in a few years. I guess the question is, when is that going to be, when do we think that’s going to be finished there, as far as being torn up and re-torn up? MRS. RYBA-I had construction completed in, I think it was 2008. MR. SEGULJIC-So does that mean we should wait until 2008 to actually invoke those design standards? MRS. RYBA-No. There are people right now who are putting septic systems in their front yard, at an expense, when they’re going to be hooking up to sewer, but the septic’s in the front yard so that they have all of the piping going, you know, available. I mean, that’s why, I think it was changed, or at least in 2002 the Code was, in terms of the setbacks, we didn’t know what the specific setbacks were going to be, but as soon as that engineering was figured out of what they would be, there was a setback put in there. So, yes, some things might get torn up. Sidewalks would be put in, too. I mean, Cumberland Farms is an example. They put in some, I believe they put in some street lighting there. I mean, that’s possible that that would be moved temporarily. I don’t know. Without me studying the, you know, the specific engineering plans, I can’t give you specifics, but I can tell you that engineering plans are on the big board in the hallway upstairs in the Town center. MR. SEGULJIC-That would tell us how far out they’re going from the center of the road? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-Yes. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Ready. MRS. RYBA-All right. Just a couple of things. I just wanted to go over Staffing, and I thought I had discussed this at one point when I introduced Susan, but I’ll go through it again. With new Staff, and things have been rearranged a little bit downstairs, and in fact the Town newsletter, I did write here’s what we’re trying to do. Susan is working with both Boards, for Planning and Zoning, the ZBA and you, as a Planning Board. So she’s really the person who, when you have questions, talk to her. We’re trying to, it’s been difficult, and we’re trying to make sure that we have very clear communication, and with the way our days are sometimes, believe it or not, we may be right next to each other, we don’t always get to talk to one another. So if we can funnel something in to one person, then Susan can then be the one to be responsible to contact Craig or contact Stuart or myself or whoever. So, I’d really like that to have happen, and you have her business card, as well as other Staff business cards so that you have the phone number there. Just quickly. George was promoted to GIS Administrator. What was happening with George was that he was working for the Planning Board and doing GIS work. Everybody in the whole Town realized how valuable he is. He was working for the Rec Department. He was working for the Highway Department. He was working for the Town Board. He was working for everyone, and essentially we had an almost less than a half time person working on planning. So now he does full time GIS, and especially, too, it’s very important that he be able to devote his time because he’s also responsible, and I’ve mentioned this, for the Gatsby 34 Accounting. We have to note where everything we own in the Town is located, and that needs to be in our database and will go on our GIS, and he’s getting the GPS unit out to do that. Plus, he is working on all of the stormwater. We have to do an inventory of everything we own in terms of all our drainage basins, catch basins, on and on with the stormwater. So he really has a lot of work to do. Stuart, as Senior Planner, does long range planning, works on the housing programs, works on grant applications. Also he does more of the complicated site plan reviews, such as rezoning requests, PUD’s, modifications for, PUD, the Meadows, I’m sure you’re familiar with coming up. Craig Brown is the Zoning Administrator, and he is the one who is responsible for making decisions, in terms of completeness, looking at what goes on the agenda, coordinating things with the Staff, etc. Bruce Frank, Bruce was working part time for the Zoning Board and part time Code Compliance. Well, here we had another situation where he wasn’t getting out into the field at all, and I wanted him to go out into the field so that we could prevent problems from, if he could be out in the beginning, when something’s happening, and I think the Miller property was a good example. He’s been out on that site nine times measuring, taking photos, making sure that everything is in compliance, so that we don’t have the situation where there is a, where there is a violation, and, or if he sees one happening, he can tell them to stop, and that’s the role that he needs to do. Because essentially Craig is also still part-time Code Compliance, but I think the way it’s worked out with Craig is he is basically the Zoning Administrator and coordinator and he really doesn’t get to do a lot of Code Compliance. He does get to go out with Bruce when, you know, oftentimes there are situations where you need two people to go together. So that’s how, you know, the roles have changed with the addition of a Staff person. I just wanted to quickly talk to you a little bit about application process and some of the things that we’re looking at doing, too. Human nature, we required pre-application meetings some time ago, for site plan reviews. I think when you do the zoning and subdivision updates, we need to include that for Subdivision Regs. Although it’s our policy, we require it, and I think a lot of the developers have noted the value of it, but now what’s happening is a lot of people just wait until the last minute, the due date, or day before, to come in and talk to Staff. We would like to tell people that they have to have a pre-application meeting a week in advance of submission, because the way it started out was, we had people doing that so we could help them and have them come back with all their information, do that review to make sure it was complete, before heading it on off, before they made 15 copies and gave it to us. So that’s what we’re hoping to do, to help more with completeness. The 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) other thing that used to happen that I think was very, very helpful, and we’ve gotten away from, but the Planning Board participated in agenda meetings. One person came in. I think we did it, one person came in every month, and people who, like if they were a teacher, you’d come in during the summer when, you know, you didn’t have classes, and that was great because you got a sense of what we go through, and then there was also an opportunity to ask questions. The same thing with the Completeness Review, is that that helps, you know, is it complete enough to review. Do you think more information is needed. Oftentimes we see ourselves in a Catch-22 position, and I think that’s really helpful to have someone. MR. SANFORD-Excuse me, what kind of a Catch-22? I appreciate, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t understand the Catch-22. MRS. RYBA-Well, here’s an example. Tonight, Mr. Vollaro said, with Sketch Plan application, you know, there are items here, we are very specific in the Subdivision Regulations, but yet typically we haven’t seen all those items in Sketch Plan, and in fact, I think, Mr. Vollaro, you sent Stuart Baker an e-mail, some time ago, because Stuart, when he first came on Staff, my direction to Staff was, follow the Code. Here’s what’s in the Code, and your e-mail to him said, gee, you know, I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but we don’t typically do that. So that’s a bit of a Catch-22 is how much information do you want for Sketch Plan review. Sometimes we’re hearing, we don’t need to see everything, and other times we’re hearing, we need to see everything. MR. SANFORD-Well, Sketch Plan has been all over the board and in fact, again, I’m surprised it hasn’t been addressed in a more definitive way, pretty much the same criteria is required for Sketch Plan, based on the list, as it is for Preliminary. MRS. RYBA-Right. MR. SANFORD-And so somebody needs to do something about that, but at any rate, when you get to completion review, we’re going away from Sketch Plan. I mean, there should just be a checklist that should identify when an application is complete, and what we’ve been witnessing lately is situations where material omissions have happened, and we get here and you’re forced to table it or somehow deal with it, and it just doesn’t make sense that it could have gotten to us with some of these omissions. MRS. RYBA-I think that the key word there is material, and what some people consider material, people don’t, and I think that’s where it’s helpful to have input, and that’s what I’m trying to get at. I think what we really need to do here is we need to act more like a team, because what ends up happening is, when Staff is criticized, when the public sees, and more importantly, the applicants get criticize from Board members that we’re incompetent, we’re not doing things correctly, this is what’s coming back to me, it sends a message to applicants that, great, now we’ve divided everybody, and I think what happens is, is then they play on it. They play on it, and I don’t think that that’s a good thing to do, that we need to work together, and that’s what I’m trying to get at here. MR. SANFORD-Good, but really I want to share some of my frustration with you, as well. What I’ve been seeing happen, and I’ve seen it in a number of different settings, is applicants and their agents will come in and then they’ll get very critical about the omissions, and well, why was this deemed complete. This happened last night, Mr. O’Connor. Why was this deemed complete if it’s not complete. They’re pointing the finger at the Planning Board, and I remember when Mr. Vollaro, when the Town Board had a hearing regarding his appointment as Chair, Mr. Lapper got up and started complaining about issues which really weren’t Planning Board issues. We do not have personnel responsibilities. The Town Board has personnel responsibilities, but everybody was taking a free shot at the Planning Board as being negligent in doing certain things, and so I hope you can feel our pain. We don’t have control over these things, and so I would like to have a better relationship and a team relationship as well, 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) but, you know, certain efficiencies have to be improved upon in order for that to happen, and what I’m seeing here is the misdirection of where the fingers are getting pointed, not by Staff, not by this Board, but by the applicants, and their agents, and I think the record needs to be straightened out on that, because we’re taking the blame, as the Planning Board, when we don’t have, we’re not doing that part of the job. That’s the backroom part of the job, and so that’s where I think a lot of our frustrations reside. MRS. RYBA-And I think what I’m asking for is, if there can be some, and I’m not asking for you to do our jobs. I’m asking for people to come in and go over some of this, and help us get a feel, because Planning Board members change, and I think, you know, certain attitudes and opinions change in terms of what’s acceptable and what isn’t acceptable, and we need to hear a little bit more about, rather than at a Planning Board meeting, we need to hear, you know, I think on a level that says, that shows that we’re working together, and I had mentioned this back in January at a workshop, that it’s really not appropriate to put that kind of thing out in a public forum. Let’s, you know, and which is why I encourage people, call Staff in advance when you have questions. If there’s something going on, call us in advance. I know you don’t always like, you know, the decisions that the Zoning Administrator comes with, and that’s going to happen. There’s going to be times when, you know, we don’t agree with each other, but I think that the thing is is that, you know, we need to try to keep it a level of communication open, so that at least it’s, we’re cooperating, and we’re not getting, like I said, showing a divisiveness, so that applicants get the wrong message, too. We don’t need to do that, but I think we’re all trying to work for the goals of the Town here. MR. HUNSINGER-We used to have Completeness Reviews with members from the Planning Board, as well as the agenda meetings, and I don’t know, did you ever do any of those, Richard, or was that before you were on the Board? MR. SANFORD-Bob Vollaro and Larry Ringer were the people who did them. MR. HUNSINGER-You guys did them towards the end, but I did a few before that. MR. SANFORD-Well, I did a few which, we rotated it for a while, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MR. SANFORD-I was part of that rotation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-But then it ended, and two people did them all. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Larry and Bob were doing them all the time. MR. SANFORD-But I was part of that where once every six or seventh month, I would come in. MR. HUNSINGER-Something like that, yes, but, you know, and I was talking to Marilyn about that. I wanted to put it before the Board for discussion, to see if that’s something we wanted to go back to, thinking that that might be an easy way for Staff and the Planning Board to be on the same page. At least that way there’s a member of the Planning Board that said, well, you know, I was at the Completeness Review meeting. We knew that this one item might be an issue, but we felt that it was ready to come before the Board. At least then there’s at least some more communication and coordination going on. So, I mean, it’s up for discussion, whatever the Board wants to do. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. SANFORD-Yes. I hear you. No, I think it’s a good point, and in fact my knee jerk reaction was we should go back to completion reviews, but then I was thinking, for a person for this Board, even if it’s a rotating thing, to do a good job on completion review, is a time consuming thing. You have to basically review the application. MRS. RYBA-Not necessarily. I mean, if you have a checklist, you’re looking at a checklist. You’re still not reviewing the application. You’re looking for, you’re not looking at, you know, the site plan review items, but let’s take, for example, is there a landscaping plan, yes. Don’t have to necessarily get into, is it a good one or is it a bad one, but is there a landscaping plan. Is there a lighting plan, yes, or no, and I think one of the concerns, and when you were asking for examples, another example is waivers. I mean, applicants have the right to ask for waivers. We asked for that in writing, and then at one point we had it in our application package, and then we just made it too easy for them, and so we took it out of the application package. We said, okay, we’re not going to make it easy for anyone. If they really want a waiver, they’re going to have to ask for it in writing, and so, you know, we’re trying to achieve that balance of what, because sometimes it’s not totally necessary, but that’s where it gets a little difficult, in making, we can’t second guess what you’re going to think is, maybe a lighting plan isn’t required or maybe you think it is and I’ll give you that, that in that aspect, a completeness review might be a little bit difficult. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Let me try to give you the benefit of two years of experience in doing that kind of thing. The premise, when you go into a completeness review is, for example, when you look at a lighting plan, even if it’s deficient, it’s satisfactory for the applicant to get before the Board. MRS. RYBA-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I’ve always had a problem with that. I’ve always had a problem with that, because if we know we have a deficient lighting plan, for example, it doesn’t meet the ability to calculate Uniformity Ratio, what do I do with a plan that doesn’t give me that ability? Is it ready for review? I don’t think so. MRS. RYBA-Well, I think this is where the philosophical aspect comes in, and we need to have some kind of concurrence on that. MR. SANFORD-I think it’s a good point, Marilyn. I think until Susan, if she’s going to lead on a lot of this stuff, gets a few more, you know, months behind her on this, it would probably be helpful to go back to what, at least what Chris was suggesting, some form of a situation where it’s done in conjunction with a Planning Board member, and then it could always be re-evaluated later, because she does have some new people, new members, and they don’t know exactly the culture, at this point. MRS. RYBA-And like I said, the culture changes with the Board member changes. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and that’s true, it does. I don’t know. My concern is, you know, we’ve been running lately three meetings a month, and it’s taken up a lot of time, and this was not a short process that you and Larry went through, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-No, but we started at 10 and pretty much wound up around 12, 12:15, two hours. It was four man hours. MRS. RYBA-And that’s a philosophical aspect, too. I mean, in some ways, I mean, and to let you know what our thinking is, okay, it’s a lighting plan, and here’s the other thing, I mean, lighting is guidelines. It’s not, I mean, we have lighting guidelines, but there was a lighting plan, but should, I mean, we review it for Staff review. We give you 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) our Staff notes, and then there are times when the Planning Board has disagreed with the Staff notes and what’s really needed, which I’ll just quickly go back to one of the things in the PORC aspect that we’ve been looking at, the whole idea of having planning principles, as some guidance for review, because maybe it means, all right, is the planning principle met that all lighting is cast downward. Looking at things more simply, rather than it has to be a specific standard. Is the maximum illumination X, and trying to simplify it, but that’s for another day. MR. VOLLARO-If things like Uniformity Ratio are not really important, and they may not be, get rid of it, because somebody like me is going to be playing around with a thing called Average over Min. I do those kind of things. MRS. RYBA-Well, I did it for many years, too. I think I started it. MR. VOLLARO-What happens is, when I go through a review, and I was talking to Chris about this before this meeting. I actually feel that, like for example, last night, particular thing, a man that has a 16,500 square foot piece of property, and he does his FAR based on 26,500 square feet. That should have jumped off the page at somebody. So I had to spend a lot of time home re-doing all of that stuff. I gave him the data last night and said, bring it back to Staff completed. Here’s all the numbers. Here’s how you do it. Now, you know, I’m beginning to feel that I’m sort of an impediment to the progress of the Board. When I go through these drills that I do with applicants, the clock is ticking all the time. I keep looking and saying to myself, am I doing the right thing here? Should this meeting be moving faster? Should I be aiding the Chairman to move it quickly, or am I, when I do sit in the Chairman’s seat, am I really impeding this Board’s progress? And so that’s where I’m coming from. MRS. STEFFAN-But, Bob, you weren’t saying those things until the Town Board criticized our process, and how fast we were expediting applications. Before that, that issue never came up. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-And so, from my point of view, as a Planning Board member, I look to you to do some of those kinds of things, because the application does need to be right, and if you’re finding that information, if you’re correcting it, then we have a correct application, which is the way it should be. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, but still and all, what happens is other people may look at this and say, you know, we’re picking. It’s a picky item. It really doesn’t matter that much. What matters is the overall big picture of what’s going on, and here’s this guy down in the bowels of this thing playing around with numbers. MR. SANFORD-And sometimes you are, Bob. I mean, you know, in all seriousness. We do have differences of opinion, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem. I mean, sometimes there’s seven of us and sometimes what you think is relevant and important, I might not feel that way. I think, though, in terms of completion review, I have a pretty good appreciation for Marilyn’s concept. I don’t think, when you’re doing the, whether it’s complete to come in to this Board, whether or not that lighting plan is impeccable is really the standard that should be used at that screen. Should there be a lighting plan, that determination has to be made. MR. VOLLARO-Should there be a lighting plan, but should it at least have some lighting statistics on it, yes or no. MR. SANFORD-All right. Give me an example. You wanted the lighting plan last night on the residential construction off of Bay Road, and it made a lot of sense to me, until Chris Round pointed out, well, wait a second, this is residential. There’s no real 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) enforcement or compliance, and anybody would have the right to change the bulb the next day, and totally appropriately, and then I got to thinking, I didn’t realize that. I’m not so sure that a lighting plan was needed. Do you follow me? MR. VOLLARO-Well, he supplied one. MRS. RYBA-Because it’s required as multifamily. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but I mean, I don’t want a lighting plan if it doesn’t mean anything, and in the case of a residential house, if you put a 60 watt bulb, take it out and put a 120 watt bulb in, and they’re allowed to do it one minute after the building’s built. So, there is a wide range of discretion that takes place at this Board level, in terms of what we see as a Board. I’ve been with you a lot of times, you know, I like these wetland projects that we get. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. I’m just wondering whether it pays for me to try to update these data sheets so that they lock into the drawing or not. I’m trying to struggle with that, whether I should continue doing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think most of us would agree that the, you know, the density calculations and the FAR’s, it’s important to have those correct, and I’m going back to Staff’s earlier comment about the pre-application meetings taking place, a week before the application deadline. I think a lot of times people, they come in the day before, they have their pre-application meeting and then they file the application, in one step, instead of taking the information from the pre-application meeting to consider the concerns and suggestions and improve the plan, and I think that’s why a lot of those numbers are wrong, is because they’re writing them there on the table, and not doing the work. MR. SANFORD-Has there been an effort to get an applicant into the queue? Here’s what I find amazing. We’ll get an application. There’ll be 33 outstanding C.T. Male comments, and it’s in front of us. Now, sure, more often than we should we condition things on C.T. Male approval, but the question I have is, where does that line up in the timeline for being deemed complete? I mean, I don’t know, if I was looking at a package that’s scheduled to go in front of the Planning Board and if there were 33 outstanding C.T. Male items that weren’t addressed by C.T. Male, I’d say it’s not complete, at this point in time. When C.T. Male responds to them, then it’s complete, but we almost always get these outstanding C.T. Male things. So I guess what I’m wondering is when you guys have been reviewing them, I mean, do you look at that stuff and say, hey, it’s not complete? MR. BAKER-Well, I’ll comment on that. We don’t, none of us our engineers. None of us on the Planning Staff are engineers. We leave the engineering review up to C.T. Male. We don’t get their comments on the applications, typically until the Friday before that application goes before the Board. So essentially, we see them about a day, the C.T. Male comments, and their list of concerns and deficiencies, essentially a day before you receive them in the mail. MR. SANFORD-You see, this is where I think it could be problematic. If I was the person designated to do completion review, and I was looking at, like some of those applications we had yesterday, where there were 33 items that C.T. Male addressed as concerns, and they hadn’t been adequately addressed, I would say, it’s not ready to come in front of the Planning Board at this point. MRS. RYBA-Here’s a question, though. I mean, somebody submits a stormwater plan. If there are things that are incorrect, they’ve still submitted the stormwater plan. MR. SANFORD-Correct. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-And we cannot look at all of the items in the stormwater plan and, not being engineers, depend on, I mean, I think any of us is capable of doing it. It’s just, you know, it’s good to have that. That’s why we have the engineers hired because, you know, it’s like anything, you have attorneys talk to attorneys, and you have engineers talk to engineers and you have accountants talk to accountants. MR. FORD-Should there be a different timeline developed, however, which would allow those engineering reports to come so that Staff has an adequate time to look at them, study them, and get back to the applicant, so that there are modifications that are made that are appropriate, before they ever get to us? So that we don’t approve something contingent upon 33 different items being requested. MRS. RYBA-We’ve done that, and we’ve had a lot of back and forth, and it’s been very difficult, because then what often ends up happening is it seems that the engineer and C.T. Male, the applicant’s engineer and C.T. Male kind of go back and forth, and leave us out of the picture, and then we don’t have the history, and so we’ve had a lot of discussion on that. We do need to look at timeframes. I know one of the things, too, is that we have to re-do our contracts, engineering contracts, and I’m going to be heading up a committee to do a new RFP for engineering firms, because it makes good accounting practice to do it every few years, and that’s one of the things that I have in my list of things in that RFP that we have to follow a better protocol, so to speak, but that’s certainly an item, but I think once again we’re going to get back to needing to be clear on what is something we need to wait on and what is an item we don’t necessarily need to wait on, and that’s probably not a discussion for tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you another example I’ll bring out is last night when we’ve already reviewed an application and denied it, it came before us again, and I understand why. It’s a different application. Makes sense. However, this time we discovered that the applicant needed to be set back 75 feet from 9L, and his drawing was 30 feet from 9L. Now that should have been looked at real quickly and said, wait a second, this can’t be ready for review. It’s in the, it doesn’t set back 75 feet. MR. SANFORD-More to the point on that application, though, Bob, the first time it was denied, many members commented because they were concerned about the ability to support septic systems, and this time it was submitted there was nothing at all regarding the proposed septic system and how it would work or anything. MR. VOLLARO-No. There was nothing on it. The disadvantage we had on that application was, we very seldom, if ever, on this Board, review a single application like that. It gets a little difficult. MR. SANFORD-Well, we do in Critical Environmental Areas all the time up at the lake. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, but we don’t get to look at, usually, single residential units, new construction. MR. SANFORD-Well, not new construction, but we look at a lot of renovations up there. MR. VOLLARO-Because they’re in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. SANFORD-Yes, we get them, but again, I guess the point is, I appreciate not wanting to have to exercise that discretion, but some of it just comes down to, it seems to me, common sense. First of all, I think it’s debatable whether or not an application that was denied on May 27, an essentially identical one should continue to be able to come th back to us, without, I mean, my feeling is, I don’t know who makes this decision, but if I was making the decision, I’d say this was denied, it’s essentially the same thing. You have recourse, but it’s not through the Planning Board, basically. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-Well, unfortunately, I mean, there are other things that come into play, and one of them is, and this is why we have Town Counsel, because they know all of the different cases, legal aspects, etc., and we cannot refuse somebody from submitting an application. They could submit it 100 times, and you could deny it 100 times, but they have a right to submit it, and we cannot tell them they can’t. That’s what it comes down to. MR. SANFORD-Well, first of all, I haven’t had that conversation with the Town Counsel, and they probably did say that. I’m not saying that they didn’t. I’m not 100% sure they’re always accurate and always correct. MRS. RYBA-But we pay them for their advice and we pay them well. MR. SANFORD-The question is, though, on that particular application, since we had a background on it, because in the Staff notes it was stated it was essentially identical, you would think that it wouldn’t be deemed complete without understanding whether or not what was the proposed septic system going to be and did we have enough information to form a determination. There was nothing on that, and it was presented as a new application, not a modification of an old one, and so again, there’s not a lot of discretion. That’s not a complete application. MR. GOETZ-Excuse me. Could I say something, Mr. Chairman? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. GOETZ-I’d like to, first of all, I’d like to commend the Staff. I think what you do, preparations, I love the Staff notes that we get. They at least let me know that the door is always open to call, ask if I have a question and I do call and ask questions. I do think they all try to get the information to us as soon as they have the information. Sometimes it comes at the last minute. That doesn’t bother me so much, actually, because as long as the information’s there, things have a way of changing, and you can’t always say black is black and white is white. No matter what the subject is, but I think if we could at least maybe have a 24 hour cut off time or something, that would be helpful. Second, I’d like to address Mr. Vollaro, because next to the Staff notes, my being new and all, I really rely on you, because he has the experience. He asks the questions. He’s a great crap detector, and every Board has to have somebody like that who can ask the questions to really get to the point. So I’m sure he can be annoying to the applicant, but that’s good. He’s trying to do what’s best for the Town of Queensbury and for the Board. I don’t always agree with him, and I’m not always going to follow what he says, but, Bob, keep the questions coming. Because at least I need that support. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, George. MR. GOETZ-And now the one thing I’d like to address the Planning Board, one thing I’ve noticed. I think that maybe we could speed the meetings along a little more and maybe have reasons for doing it. I come in with the idea that Jon Lapper or whatever, Michael O’Connor or whoever are going to make their presentation about their project. I would like to hear their presentation out. I’d like to listen to their whole thing, before we start asking questions. Because that way they’re getting answers to some of the questions we’re thinking about, and they’re going to help fill some of the holes, as they go along. Secondly, on those where we have audience participation, I’d like to hear them first, before we comment. MR. SANFORD-So would I. MR. GOETZ-Because there’s sometimes some very valuable input, and sometimes I’ll make a statement about something, when you ask what do I think, and one of the neighbors gets up and totally gives a great reason why what I just said wasn’t too smart, 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) once I hear the whole thing. So if we could sort of move the meetings that way, I think we could move them along a lot faster. MR. SANFORD-Is there a reason for the sequencing? Obviously the applicant should have their overview of the project, but the way we’ve been proceeding is then we engage them in discussion, then open up public hearing and then we have a discussion again, following public hearing. I mean, there may very well be a reason why it’s done that way, so that we’re not unduly influenced by public opinion, which I don’t agree with. I agree with you, George. I would rather have the applicant explain the project, public talk, and then we address them with all of our concerns and questions, but there may be actual reason why it’s not done in that ordering. MRS. RYBA-I think it’s up to the Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think there’s any requirement. MRS. RYBA-No, there’s no requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-We can certainly do it that way, if that’s the will of the Board. MR. FORD-I concur with that. I think we all can be taking notes during the presentation, and including during the public participation, and then I would feel my comments or questions could focus much more appropriately. MR. HUNSINGER-I think those are good comments. I think we can certainly do it that way. MR. SANFORD-Why don’t we try it for a while. MR. HUNSINGER-And since we’re talking about the public hearing, one of the specific comments that I want to make is I guess it’s more directed towards the newer members, but, there’s no requirement of us to address all the concerns that are raised by the public. Our job is to hear their concerns and to take them into consideration, but we don’t necessarily have to resolve all of the concerns that they raise, and it seems to me like, it seems to me more and more of an effort by our Board to try to resolve all of those problems, when, in fact, that’s really not our job. Our job is to consider them, not solve them. MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, again, I think the concept of a lay Planning Board, and that’s what we really are. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-We’re not, you know, otherwise the lawyers and the engineers would make all the decisions, is for us to basically heavily incorporate what we hear from the public, and to treat it very seriously. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-And so I think it’s being appropriately respectful to either this Board or the applicant or both to address legitimate public comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not saying we shouldn’t. All I’m saying is we don’t have to resolve every problem that’s raised. Because a lot of times you just can’t. MR. SANFORD-I know, but my experience on this Board is, I think, on balance, the most intelligent remarks I’ve ever heard come from the public. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-I mean, I’m very impressed when the public, you know, it takes nerve for these people to get up and do it and when they do it, I think some of their comments are just unbelievably insightful. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I agree. MRS. RYBA-The only thing I would just say is, once again, you do have some items in the Code, and to follow what the site plan review requirements are, because I think sometimes emotion gets in the way of our thinking, and that it’s, once again, human nature that if somebody’s upset about something, to want to resolve a problem, if somebody’s upset about something, to want to try to make that person, you know, feel better about it, whatever, but sometimes there are things that you look at that are in the Code that don’t, like Chris pointed out, that don’t necessarily apply or can be resolved. So that’s the advice I would give is just look through those site plan review requirements, and that’s always helpful, and in fact I know George and I, a couple of years ago, put together a checklist to give to Craig MacEwan, and based on those site plan requirements, and I know Craig MacEwan, as Chairman, was looking at those and he’d go through and say anybody have any concerns on. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we still have that. MRS. RYBA-That’s a helpful one. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we have consensus on the Board’s feeling on completeness reviews or agenda meeting reviews? Is that something we want to try? I mean, all this discussion has been really good about, you know, how to get better more complete applications, but. MR. VOLLARO-I think on balance it was a good thing. I think it helped, because there were several times when we did push one over and say, yes, it’s really not ready for review. What went on there is, Craig picked Larry and I for a reason. MR. HUNSINGER-You guys had the time. MR. VOLLARO-No. That wasn’t the reason. Unless that was one of the reasons, but we often came from different ends of the spectrum. Larry was a lot more liberal than I am. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s true. MR. VOLLARO-And I recognized that, and on balance that worked pretty well. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, if we agree that’s a good thing, does everyone have the time to commit, on a rotating basis? MR. FORD-I want to speak to that, because I, one, don’t have the time, and oftentimes would not have the expertise that other members of the Board would bring to that process, and I appreciate the desire to have a team approach, but I honestly feel that that is Staff responsibility. MRS. RYBA-I think I would like to clarify one thing, and I had mentioned that earlier, and I respect your opinion on that, but I think what I’m trying to get at is, is trying to learn some of the philosophical feelings of the Board, because Board members have changed and just to get a sense of what some people think is complete but some people don’t think is complete. I mean, certainly, and I’ll say there’s certain improvements Staff can make, but then it’s going to be up t o the Board to decide if it’s just that you don’t like something, then I think we’re still going to have some of this tension of, well, you 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) know, Staff made a decision. We don’t like it. We’re throwing it out, and that’s fine, but it just evolves, I think, into a negativity. MR. SANFORD-When do they take place, the completion reviews? MR. HUNSINGER-They used to be in the morning. MRS. RYBA-It used to be in the morning. We have a schedule, ten o’clock, it’s once a month. I think it’s the week after, actually it’s a couple of days after the 15 of the th month, but you know what we can change the schedule, too, but we do do those very quickly after the submissions. MR. SANFORD-I may volunteer, as long as I don’t have to stay with it if I can’t stand it, but my thinking is that, you know, I could rationalize the time in doing it is also getting started on actual review of the application. We all have to review the packets anyway, and this is sort of an opportunity to get into doing that. So I might be interested. MR. SEGULJIC-If an application does get, shall we say, rejected, not ready for the Board to review, does that mean another one takes its place, then, or is it just down to whatever, it’s six? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. No, Craig always tried to, if one went off, another one went on. We always managed to get, at that time it was eight. MR. HUNSINGER-And there’s a backlog anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You’re going to be working against that board, and there’s that board’s got a whole bunch of stuff on it. MRS. RYBA-And there were also a couple of, I think, situations where maybe they needed one small item to come in, and so there would be, okay, your stormwater plan is not quite complete. It’s coming in tomorrow, great, and, you know, that’s, I think, more of a discretionary area for Craig, because as long as we know it’s coming in, and as long as, typically those kinds of things would come in before the completeness review, but I think there were a couple of occasions when they came in afterwards. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, the posture that Craig took at the time was interesting. He said, okay, you and Larry make the decision. You fight it out. I would say, no, it’s not ready, and Larry says it is ready. We have this little squabble. We come to a consensus, and Craig would say, fine, if it’s off, it’s off. If it’s on, it’s on. That’s the position he took then, and I don’t know, when the backlog on the Board gets bigger and bigger, that backlog translates into some pressure on the people trying to make this review. So you’re inclined to say, yes, let it go through. So, you know, in that instance it’s not black and white at all. On Wednesday of one week it’ll be fine. Two weeks later, no, we’re starting to speed them up because the backlog is getting too high. MR. SANFORD-I would like to give it a try. I don’t even know if I’d like to, but I’d be willing to give it a try, to see if it works for me and also works for the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other volunteers? MR. FORD-I’m not volunteering, I just want to make another observation. That perhaps it goes back to my previous recommendation relative to the sequence and the timing, because if the need for this is because there’s a need to support Staff, then maybe Staff needs more time in order to review those applications, and that’s sequence and timing. It’s not? MR. SEGULJIC-I think it just comes down to the gray areas. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think so, too. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, the 75 foot setback, that was clear. There are other issues that aren’t. Do you need a lighting plan or not. When we get a consensus of the Board, there’s different opinions as to whether we should have a lighting plan. It’s like, what was it, Nemer Ford, I think it was, for example, I think it was four to three, for example. MR. VOLLARO-Although they agreed to supply a plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, they did, but you can’t put that on Staff. MR. SANFORD-But they should have provided that at the night of the meeting for it to be complete. Others didn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, so there’s a gray area. MRS. RYBA-And I’m hoping that by, and a letter will go, I wanted to wait on a letter until after this discussion, but a letter will go out to the development community saying that, you know, our policy is pre-application meetings must be held a week before they’re due, or five days before they’re due, or whatever, and that may help. That may help, because that was, I’m the one who started pre-applications, when I first came on Board in 2000, and at that time the development community was all up in arms. They said, you know, why are you adding this extra burden on us, and we spent a lot of time, as Staff, explaining this should not be a burden on anyone. We’re doing this to help the process, and it really did. I mean, you think back five years ago, we had rotating submissions. We had no pre-ap meetings. We had literally things come in on paper napkins, five years ago. We had that happen. MR. HUNSINGER-So we had one volunteer, but we really should have two people at those meetings. I know some people can’t do it. For me, ten o’clock would be really tough. If they were at eight, I could do it. MR. VOLLARO-I have the time, but I am also a short timer. I’ve got two options this year. It’s October 22 or December 31. I haven’t made my mind up yet, but I will. ndst Either of those two, because I came in and filled somebody else’s place seven years ago. MR. SANFORD-Bob, could we just try one together and neither of us will make a commitment beyond that. So that the next time, Bob and I will do the next time, and then we’ll determine whether or not it makes sense for anybody else to continue to do it or not, because I appreciate what other people have said as well, and, first of all, our judgment may not be satisfactory to the Board, either. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my feeling is if we’re going to do this, you know, we’d share the burden, and I could certainly find the time to take my turn every third meeting, or whatever would work out, too. It would just be real tough at ten o’clock. MRS. RYBA-Well, you know, the other aspect, or the other possibility is, if we’re looking at sharing things, I also enjoyed the time when the Board members rotated at the agenda meetings. Everyone on the Board at that time saw the advantage of sitting down and going through that agenda meeting. It was really helpful, I think, for everyone to see that process, and what the agenda meeting is, is this discussion of where it goes, how it falls, do we think it’s going to need a lot of time, a little time, is it going to possibly be controversial, should we put it at the beginning of the meeting so the public can participate. All those kinds of considerations, and that’s just helpful to go through that and sometimes we would get comments that would help us there as well. So that’s another aspect, and I hate to ask you to do more, but that was only something I think that went on for, until everybody pretty much took a turn on that agenda, on the agenda 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) meetings. So I don’t know if that’s something else that either you would want to divide up or see, or maybe just leave it to people who are interested in coming. MR. HUNSINGER-Let’s talk about the agenda meetings quickly. What’s the feeling of the Board? Beginning of the month, right? And those were first, at least the ones I went to were first thing in the morning. MRS. RYBA-Yes, they were first thing in the morning and I didn’t bring the schedule in front of me because we’ve outlined it for. MR. HUNSINGER-The meetings were about an hour long. MRS. RYBA-Yes, and we haven’t been able to stick to schedules too much lately, but 10 o’clock, well, we used to do them earlier. We’ve been doing them closer to ten, but we can go back to doing it earlier in the morning. If that works for people, we’ll accommodate it. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to ask a question to Gretchen that she do a time study for us here to see how many man hours you put in, considering the completion review meeting, going to the agenda meeting, go on site visits, do your really due diligence at home reviewing these applications, and then coming to a Planning Board meeting, and see what happens in a period of a month for essentially a volunteer Board. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m personally doing 20 to 25 hours a month. MR. SANFORD-That’s true. That’s a good point. MRS. RYBA-Here’s the other thing, and which is why I’m saying it’s just something to, I think, maybe look at it as more of a get to know you, get to know the process thing, is in the end is it going to save time for everyone by deleting some of the arguments that may occur during a meeting because you don’t necessarily agree with something that Staff has put forward. So there’s that consideration as well. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Staff will find out. Unfortunately Rich and I are the Scalias and the O’Connors, and we need a balance. Rich and I would be very difficult on Staff, I believe, at a completion review meeting, and so I don’t know whether that’s a good combination or not. MR. SANFORD-Speak for yourself. I get along with everybody. MR. VOLLARO-So do, I, but I know that we have a degree of criticism that may be a little higher than somebody else’s. So I think coupling our two personalities together might not be too easy on the Staff. MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, but I think you’re probably, in terms of the Board composition, would be, at least for an initial one, very useful because you kind of have the most knowledge of these types of things, at least in my opinion, and you would know what to look for. I would have a pretty good idea, but you’ve done it for so long, and you have almost an expert way of looking at it. So that’s why I asked you to go with me, for one, because I’d hate to go to one and come back and really blow it. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. FORD-Chris, are you looking for a volunteer for that agenda meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what I’m looking for is to see if Board members want to do it, and if people say, you know, it sounds like a good idea, but I don’t have the time, that’s okay. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. GOETZ-Chris, I’m still working full-time, and through the end of the year, and so it’s hard for me to really do that. It’s enjoyable for me, actually, to be on this, and to do the research for the meetings, but to try to do something extra at that time would be difficult. I wouldn’t mind, once in a great while, maybe going to the agenda, if it’s first thing in the morning, like eight in the morning or something for an hour. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GOETZ-I could handle that. MRS. RYBA-You know what I could do, too, is get back and send everyone an e-mail, in terms of what the schedule is. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, that might be helpful, because I’m asking people to sort of give their opinion without all the facts. Why don’t we do that. We can bring it up again. MR. FORD-That would be helpful. I would be willing to help out on that. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the other thing is just put out the schedule, and if people can show up, they show up. MRS. RYBA-True. It would be great to get firm commitments, but I understand. There are some unknowns here, so that’s the thing we can do is send that out. The last thing, in terms of any kind of attendance, and this is, I’m just throwing it out for the sake of throwing it out, and once again, people don’t have to come, but we do have a very definite schedule for debriefing meetings, and every time there is a Planning Board or a Zoning Board meeting, we have what’s called a debriefing meeting the next morning, nine o’clock, because first thing Staff has to do is get all the resolutions, Maria prepares the resolutions, the votes that were taken. The Staff member present reviews it, gets it to her, because it has to get to the Town Clerk right away, and then the Staff person prepares a debriefing session, and we go over, you know, what happened, what can we do better, where are there concerns, and that is extremely helpful for Staff, and it might be helpful for a Planning Board member to sit on, you know, we’ll throw it out to you to invite you to come. It might be really helpful to see, and it would certainly be helpful for us, because once again, there’s that level of communication, and it’s so difficult, I understand how difficult it is. Everybody’s, you know, you folks have full time jobs. You’re doing a lot of volunteer work here, and it’s a big job, and communications is really one of the tough things, but that’s, I think, what I’ve been trying to state is that we do want to, you know, work towards the good of the Town. I think we all have the same goal in mind. It’s just how we get there. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely, yes. Well, anyway, I feel like we’ve kind of covered a lot of ground tonight. I don’t know if anyone else has anything else they wanted to bring up. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there was this thing that Stu sent an e-mail out, and some of us replied to, including yourself, Chris, this was in response to mod’s being submitted as new applications. MR. BAKER-I do have some summary comments for the Board, both summarizing your responses as well as Staff discussion. I’ll forward that to you all in an e-mail. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. RYBA-I do have one last thing, Chris, and you and I had talked about it, in terms of engineering fees and engineering. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we had kind of resolved that, we were going to let the engineers decide. MRS. RYBA-Well, this is in terms of fees. Engineers come to the Board meetings right now, and what had happened was the engineers were coming at the request of, this was actually last year, I think, for every meeting, or many meetings, in case the Planning Board members wanted the engineering, C.T. Male to look at, well, we want to review this septic system or we want to see, you know, different perc test, or we want the engineer on site, etc., etc., and so there was money put into the budget for non- reimbursable engineering costs. Well, what ended up happening was the engineers were coming to the meetings, commenting on applications, and the Town’s paying for it, versus the applicant paying for it. So what I want to do is, and we have no more money left in the budget for non-reimbursable engineering. Applicants do agree to pay a fee, up to $1,000, for engineering review, and anything beyond that we do notify them, so Staff has been very careful, in terms of, when we, you know, our opinion only, when we think it might be valuable to have C.T. Male coming, but we’ve still been paying for that, and we would like to change that to have the applicants pay for whatever aspect. If the applicant wants the engineer there, then they’re going to have to pay for it. If you, as a Planning Board, want the engineer there, because you think there might be some concerns or questions, then that would be a non-reimbursable item, and I’ll still keep that in the budget for next year, to have some non-reimbursable fees, but I think it kind of flipped over what was the original intent, and what ended up happening, and I just didn’t think it was a good thing for the Town to be paying for engineering that normally we would have the applicants pay for. So I just wanted to let you know what I’m looking at there. MR. SANFORD-When was the last time engineering services went out for an RFP? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s been a while. MRS. RYBA-It’s been a while. It’s been three years. I had just mentioned that, I’m heading that up because the other thing is, and I opened my mouth, so I get to do it, but I had mentioned how, you know, the way purchasing policies work for professional services is that you do things with an RFP or an RFQ, Request For Qualifications, and essentially if you have a consultant on board, you can say, well they’re already here, we know their work, we can hire them for other things. So part of that RFP is going to include not just for the Planning Board but for other things that the Town uses, you know, an engineering firm for. So that’s, it’s going to be a bigger job, and a more comprehensive request for services from an engineering firm, because it’ll be more than just planning related. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what would that number look like, Marilyn, in your judgment, if you were to do a more comprehensive look at it, in terms of a full-time engineer, a Town engineer, versus the sub-contracting? MRS. RYBA-I really don’t know. I have not begun to look at that, but we’re talking about water, wastewater, things such as, I think, you know Mr. Strough is here, doing surveying for Rush Pond bike trail. There’s all kinds of things that come up during the course of a year, that, you know, we have a surveyor on board, or we have an engineer on board so we’ll just use that. So I have not gotten those figures from the Accounting Office at all, but I’m willing to bet it’s significant. MR. VOLLARO-A significant difference in terms of dollars. MRS. RYBA-Yes. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MR. SANFORD-I mean, the other issue, a lot of towns have their own Counsel, and they don’t just contract with a law firm. I’ve been talking to a number of villages and towns, people who are familiar with them, and there’s some value, I mean, to be considered with having an employed Counsel versus contracting out. MRS. RYBA-Didn’t the Town have that at one point? MR. BAKER-Yes. MRS. RYBA-Stuart used to work here years ago, and then came back. MR. BAKER-Yes, Counsel was in-house on Town Staff, 15 years ago. It was a Staff of two attorneys and at least two additional support Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Paul Dusek used to be the Town Counsel. MRS. RYBA-Although there certainly is an advantage to having a consulting firm, when you might have a number of people who, I mean, that’s the other aspect, who have different areas of expertise. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s kind of beyond the realm of the Planning Board, though, I think. MRS. RYBA-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not on our agenda tonight. MR. VOLLARO-We could have certainly used an attorney this evening, at least I could have. MR. SANFORD-On what, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-On what? On the opening discussion. I could have used it. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, could I bring it back to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be great. MR. SEGULJIC-Blue Karner butterfly. Where are we with that? MRS. RYBA-Nowhere. MR. SEGULJIC-Nowhere. The plan, one, two, three, I forget what it was, and overlay. MRS. RYBA-Yes. That Conservation Management Overlay. I did have a discussion actually two weeks ago with Robin Niver from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and a woman who is doing some database type work, inventory work, and they wanted our GIS services, and some work from us there, and I said we could do that, but they, you know, once again, human nature, well we need it done in three weeks and it’s 40 hours worth of work, and for my Staff to do 40 hours worth of work in three weeks, I don’t, I mean, it would be George, I didn’t have that. So we brought up that discussion a little bit, but it really has taken a back burner, and I don’t know what to tell you at this point, other than I know it’s there. I have, basically, 67 projects that I’m working on right now. MR. SEGULJIC-One of the things I thought of is the Town should just, what is it, Blue lupine, the Town goes out and buys some, and we plant them in the park. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-Well, there is progress on the property that Schermerhorn donated to the Town, and we’ve been working with DEC there in that the area’s been cleared. The Highway Department was great. They took out, what did they say, 200 loads of wood chips, and DEC is, wants to get the nectar planting done, but I think that’s part of the Schiavone subdivision, and Schiavone would end up doing the nectar planting, but there is some progress. MR. SANFORD-Anybody who has seen a Karner blue butterfly in its natural habitat, raise your hand. I don’t know if I believe you. MRS. RYBA-They’re very tiny. MR. SANFORD-There you go. MR. HUNSINGER-How do we look for number of items for August? Is there going to be a need for a third meeting? MR. BAKER-August I think we’ve got two full meetings, and already looking out into September, it looks like we’ve got two full meetings there, just in terms of what we’re anticipating coming in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, Chris, what you were asking, is a third meeting necessary? MR. SANFORD-I think we’ve cleaned up the backlog pretty good. MR. BAKER-I don’t think at this point it is. MRS. RYBA-No, there isn’t one. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? I had a couple of little things. I received a note from the Della Group, just a short thank you to you and members of the Planning Board for your positive decision regarding our renovations on Quaker Road. Our renovations will allow us to better serve the public and create a much needed retrofit for the restrooms. It will also provide positive reinforcement to all the employees of the dealership regarding our commitment to maintain a quality workplace. I appreciate the efforts. Thanks again, Michael Della Bella. MR. VOLLARO-We all got one. MR. FORD-And a personal note. MR. HUNSINGER-So anyway, August, site visits are the 13. I won’t be there. I’ll be th out of town on that day, and then meetings on the 16 and 23, and, I guess, unless thrd there’s anything else. MR. SANFORD-There’s one other thing. Perhaps Marilyn could encourage the Town Board to fill, some time in the next three or four years, the vacancy that we have for an alternate. MRS. RYBA-There is an advertisement, I believe, that is going out or has gone out. I don’t know. Mr. Strough knows better, but I was told that it was going out. I don’t know if it’s been published or not, but I was told it was going out. I haven’t seen it, but I do a limited reading of the paper. MRS. STEFFAN-I always read the classifieds. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/05) MRS. RYBA-Well, thank you very much, everyone. I really appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no other business, a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 53