Loading...
12-20-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 48-2012 Steve Kitchen 1. Freshwater Wetlands 4-2012 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 80-2012 Douglas McCall 4. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-8 Site Plan No. 76-2012 Paul & Margaret Sheehan 6. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-20 Site Plan No. 79-2012 Gerald Flynn 12. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-24 Site Plan No. 83-2012 Chris Patten 14. Tax Map No. 309.11-1-52 Site Plan No. 81-2012 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 17. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Site Plan No. 59-2012 Legacy Land Holdings, LLC 25. Tax Map No. 296.15-1-2 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. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Thursday, December 20th. Members of the audience, welcome. On the back table there are copies of the agenda. There's also a handout for public hearing information. Several of the projects do have public hearings scheduled this evening, and the purpose of the handout is to familiarize you with the purpose of the public hearing and the process for the public hearing. The first item on the agenda is a Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 STEVE KITCHEN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LINDA S. DE LAURA ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION END OF FOREST ROAD SITE PLAN/FRESHWATER WETLANDS: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE TOTALING 3,171 SQ. FT.; ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS PLANNED. DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR INFILTRATION DEVICES PER CHAPTER 147, PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 28- 10, BP 10-556 (TEST PIT) WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 179- 9; CHAPTER 94 JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Just to clarify on the agenda, I think this was noticed as a public hearing, but there are no public hearings for Zoning Board recommendations. So there will not be a public hearing on this project. With that, Craig, if you could summarize Staff Notes. MR. BROWN-Yes. Summary is this is a project that you guys have seen once before, issued a recommendation on some variances to some separation distance relief between infiltration devices and a wetland that's nearby to the parcel. During the engineering review and revisions for the design of the project, our engineer, the Town Engineer has identified some additional variances that are necessary for stormwater features and separation between stormwater devices and wells, and, the vertical separation between high groundwater and the bottom of the infiltration device, and those are the variances that the applicant is seeking tonight, and that's the recommendation that you'd be giving to the Zoning Board on, I think there's three or four variances that they're seeking. That's what they're doing, it's stormwater separation variances they're looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, project attorney Jon Lapper with Tom Center from Nace Engineering, and the Kitchens are behind us as well to answer any questions. I think this is a very unremarkable application. It's really a very modest house on a pre-existing lot. They're not seeking any variances to try to overdevelop the lot or build any kind of a large house at all. These variances are somewhat of a technicality because there's a wetland on the adjacent property on the other side of the road. They've dealt with the Highway Department and they've issued a letter that the Highway Department will extend the road to provide access (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) to this property, and the variances are really because the water's flowing downhill into the wetland anyway, and what Tom has designed are some modest infiltration devices to comply with the stormwater regulations to get the water in the ground before it leaves the site. So hopefully you'll see this as a simple application to develop this lot. Tom, let me ask you to just go through a little bit more technical detail. MR. CENTER-Besides the listed variances, there was a December 12th letter from the Town Engineer in regard to that. His first comment in regard to the work that's within the right of way, we have met with the Town Highway Superintendent. You do have a letter on that that I gave to Craig that was dated today. It should have been in your box that Mr. Travis dropped off, but I gave a copy of it to Craig that can be added to the record. So there is no issue with the rain garden being constructed in the right of way. We went out there and looked at it and the Highway Department takes no issue with it. The second item in regards to Part Five B and the separation between the well and the infiltration device, this is a regulation that I met with Department of Health in regards. They sent me back to Dave Hatin's office to discuss it with him. There is an avenue to go down for an exemption for wells for residential, single family owner occupied homes, and that's, talking with Dave, we've increased the detail on the well. We've slid the well back 50 feet from the rain garden, and we've also moved the rear rain garden, which is just for the roof, we've re-directed that water to the stone trench and had a small depression at the very end of it which is further away than any of the variances that are requested for the trench. So all that needs to go back through the engineer. This was something that came up on Friday. The gentlemen and the folks I need to talk to at DO, I spoke with them on Tuesday and worked it out with Dave over the last two days where we came up to an agreement to drill encase the well and grout it and do some additional things under the DOH's recommendations that we had in regards to 513, and other than that, that's just the very minor change that we ended up doing because of the two engineering comments. Other than that, I'll ask any questions that you may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I just want to make sure I'm clear, based on your comments, you no longer need relief from the stormwater infiltration within 100 feet of your water supply? MR. CENTER-We are working towards an exemption. Under the residential building code, there is a caveat in there for owner occupied single family residential homes that DOH sent us for new construction it falls under the local code enforcement officer to review that, those items, and we followed that path that they directed us to. MR. HUNSINGER-So you don't need a variance for that? MR. CENTER-The answer is we'll need that exception through Dave's office. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-And some additional minor things to the well and to the stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-So the only recommendation that we would be considering this evening is the relief request from the 100 foot wetland setback for the infiltration device. MR. CENTER-Correct. That second question doesn't affect any of the variances that we've proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? Any new concerns with the project as a result of this new variance request? MR. MAGOWAN-Not from me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no questions or comments, I'll entertain a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 61-2012 STEVE KITCHEN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan / Freshwater Wetlands: Applicant proposes construction of a two story dwelling with attached garage totaling 3,171 sq. ft.; associated wastewater and stormwater systems planned. Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief from separation requirements for infiltration devices per Chapter 147. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A SECOND POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 61- 2012 STEVE KITCHEN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Hold on one second. I notice in the Board package, Craig, there was also a tabling motion to table the Site Plan Review. MR. BROWN-Yes. I'm not sure. The last time you guys were here, were you tabled to this date, and if so, we probably want to re-table that to keep that application. MR. LAPPER-Procedurally, it was on for site plan before it was determined that there was a variance. So now we're going through the variance route, and we can't come back for site plan until after we're done with the Zoning Board. MR. BROWN-So I think we do need to continue to table the site plan application until they're done with the variance. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it would be February. MR. BROWN-So I think we've got them in the January 16th Zoning Board meeting to hear the variances, and I think we've tentatively got them on the January 22' Planning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-So we do need a motion to table the site plan. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#48-2012 FWW 3-2012 STEVE KITCHEN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan / Freshwater Wetlands: Applicant proposes construction of a two story dwelling with attached garage totaling 3,171 sq. ft.; associated wastewater and stormwater systems planned. Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18/2012, tabled to 10/16/2012, 11/27/2012, and 12/20/2012; On 11/15/2012 the PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA; On 11/30/2012 the applicant submitted revised information requesting additional variances; Following protocol the Planning Board will review the revised information and provide the ZBA with a 2nd recommendation for the additional variances; therefore this application will need to be tabled to a future Planning Board meeting MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3- 2012 STEVE KITCHEN, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to January 22, 2013. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Thanks. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We have several items this evening under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 80-2012 SEAR TYPE II DOUGLAS MC CALL OWNER(S) PAUL KASSELMAN ZONING WR-WATERFRONT LOCATION 25 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING 5,546 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BY 1,422 SQUARE FEET WITH A TWO STORY ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 53-12, SP 57-10, AV 29-03, AV 133-89, BP 12-396, 10-339, 02-695, 90-420 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2012 LOT SIZE 0.93 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-8 SECTION 179-9, 179-3-040 DOUG MC CALL, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. This is an application you guys rendered a recommendation to the Zoning Board for for an addition/expansion of a nonconforming in a CEA. It's also a project that has been before this Board in the past and you guys have had them look at some shoreline buffering and I think they've enhanced the shoreline buffering for you under a previous application. They're here for expansion of a nonconforming in a CEA. They got their variance granted for height relief, and it was December 5t", I think. So they're just here for the site plan portion of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MC CALL-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. MC CALL-I'm Doug McCall. I'm representing Becky & Paul Kasselman in their project. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything that you wanted to add or any information you want to present this evening? MR. MC CALL-I don't believe there's really anything that I can, you know, I can tell you, again, the whole story of it like I did last time if you want me to. MR. HUNSINGER-That's all right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We can remember. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll remember. So unless there's new information to present, I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. MR. KREBS-Well, I just wanted to make the comment that the Zoning Board recommended that we, the Planning Board do a review of the waterfront to add additional plantings if necessary. MR. TRAVER-Well, we had a discussion with him about the buffer once before. They did, I believe, add some. MR. MC CALL-The buffer was, you know, the Town approved the buffer that we put in. The Town inspected the buffer we put in, from my last application for the boathouse. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-No new comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No one in the audience wants to address the Board on this project? Okay. If there are no comments, I will close the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II SEAR so no SEAR review is required unless there's an issue that's been identified by the Board. So with that, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 80-2012 DOUGLAS MC CALL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to expand an existing 5,546 sq. ft. Single Family Dwelling by 1,422 square feet with a two story addition. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 11/27/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 11/28/2012; Type II SEAR-no further review necessary; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/20/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 80-2012 DOUGLAS MC CALL FOR PAUL KASSELMAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 6) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MC CALL-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck. SITE PLAN 76-2012 SEAR TYPE II PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 31 BIRCH ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,950 SQ. FT. FOUR BEDROOM RESIDENCE. CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-12, BP 89-508 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13- 1-20 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-060, 179-4-050 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-I think the first question I had, and I apologize if this has been answered before, but I'm trying to catch up here. Our agenda talks about a 3950 square foot four bedroom. Keith's Staff Notes talk about a 2597 three bedroom. MR. HUTCHINS-It's 25. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So that's the number. MR. HUTCHINS-We had thought that we hit that one at the first meeting. MR. BROWN-Okay. So 2597 single family dwelling. The reason they're here is for construction of a freestanding dwelling or structure within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15%. Main concern here is obviously the slopes, E&S measures. If you look through the packet there you'll see I guess a pretty lengthy set of engineering comments, and that's probably what the focus of our discussion will probably be on tonight is the items that have been identified by Chazen as far as what the requirements are for stormwater design on this site. I've had a conversation with the project's applicant, and you ask a good question and I kind of see the light, and the main question is, does this project, is this project required to prepare a SWPPP, or stormwater management plan, and in the black and white reading of the Code, it talks about, you know, stormwater management plans shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 147, and the way that I read that is if 147 doesn't capture your project, you don't have to do a stormwater management plan, and in this case, the disturbance on the site is less than one acre. They're not required to do a SWPPP or seek DEC SPDES coverage. So I guess the discretion of what type of stormwater management that the applicant has to do is up to the Board. What they're required to do is none. What they're offering is something, and in the process of offering something, our Town Engineer's identified that they don't meet certain separation requirements or, I don't know if it's vertical or just horizontal separation requirements. So I don't believe, and I certainly wouldn't make a determination that they need variances from those separation requirements when they're offering stormwater features, but they're not required to do that. So if they're not required to do it, how can we hold them to that standard, I guess. So, I mean, when you read through some of those engineering comments and they make reference to variances needed for horizontal separations, that's not the determination that I've made. That's not a position that I think I would take for a plan that offers stormwater that's not required. So it's one of those, if you do what's required, they'll do nothing, but if they do something that's an improvement, it's a plus. So it's more of a what do you think fits best for the site, and it's totally at the discretion of the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's similar to the project we had the other evening where they wanted to put in an infiltration device, but if they did that it would have required a variance because it was within 100 feet from the lake. I mean, it's similar. MR. BROWN-It depends on where it is. There are different requirements if you're in the Lake George drainage basin. You have to do certain things there. Outside the drainage basin, the Town, basically the entire Town is part of what's called MS-4, Municipal (lost word) storm system. So within that, if you have project that disturbs more than an acre, you're subject to the SPDES requirements and you have to do stormwater. This is a project that's outside the basin and it's under an acre. So it's in that area there they're not required to do stormwater, but they're offering some. So it's kind of a long explanation, but I think that's going to be probably a big thing when we start talking about (lost words). (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Great. MR. BROWN-And I think I talked about, I guess the main thing is, you know, slope stabilization. We're on a site that's got 15% slopes near the lake. I don't know, I don't want to say, use the word marginal soils, but sometimes there's difficulties with ledge and high groundwater. I don't think that's the case on this site, but slope stabilization is a factor. That's all I've got. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, with owner/applicant Paul Sheehan. We were here last month, I believe, and on a somewhat trivial variance for this property which had to do with the access, the shared access that's been ongoing for a number (lost words). We've been to the Zoning Board. That variance has been granted. We're back here for site plan review, and I won't go into a big explanation, but we want to kind of talk about two things, one being the planning and the layout of our site, and then the other item, of course, are the stormwater issues. Again, we did, with regard to the stormwater issues, we did, at least my office, we did what we felt made sense, and reconstruction on a, I mean, it's not a very small lot, but there are physical constraints that we're working with. We did what we felt made sense to deal with the stormwater. We cannot physically meet all of the separations cited in the engineer's comment letter from water supplies, our building structure, there's a 25 foot separation from building structures, and we've outlined that zone, and we have a neighboring well that's reasonably close to our property line, and again, we're talking about separation from stormwater devices that we did include because we felt it was the right thing to do. So, I don't know, with that I guess we'll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what might be helpful for me anyway, maybe, I assume the rest of the Board, is if we could maybe go down through the, this is the November 7t" comment letter from the Town Engineer, and comment on each one so we could get a better understanding for what the issues are from your perspective. I mean, Item One, you know, is pretty straightforward, but Item Two. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, Item One is kind of a statement that. MR. HUNSINGER-That Craig already made, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-That Craig has covered. Item Two, he's talking about a slight grading issue between the garage and the western wall of the house, and we have corrected that in a subsequent (lost word). MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Item Three says the proposed well on the site is 85 feet from the proposed infiltration device. In accordance with the DEC design manual, that's supposed to be 100 feet. Yes, it is. We put the well, we located the well on the lake, between the house and the lake, and there's a number of schools of thought about this. It's my personal opinion that, particularly a small lakefront lot, that's the right place for the well and we get the septic system back as far as we can. There is an option. We can, the option to address that comment is to put the well way up here, and I don't show the septic system shifted, but I could shift it. So we'd have 100 feet from the septic system and I'd have 100 feet from the stormwater device, and my well would be 200 some feet from the house and it would be right next to the road. We don't think that makes a lot of sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Were you aware of the exception that the prior applicant just mentioned about the wells from an infiltration device? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, that's a different, we've discussed that, okay, and I'm not fully up to speed on that, but we'll address that. I'll look into it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Number Four, we propose an infiltration trench. Basically on the eaves of the garage roof or near the eaves of the garage roof, where there's no basement. The book says it's supposed to be 25 feet from a structure. We're a 25 foot setback and we're at it. So we can't be, we'd have to go down toward the lake. Again, the slopes of the original grade exceed 15%, which the book says you can't put in a filtration trench yet. It's re-graded. It's granular material. We were comfortable with it. Comment Six, I'm not sure I understand. I believe there's a typo. We didn't propose any infiltration basins. I'm presuming he's referring to trenches, which are in close proximity to the property line. They're 20 feet from the property line because, probably 18 feet from the property line because they're near the house. As such, the location of neighboring wells should be shown so that we could get separations to that. We (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) have located the neighboring wells. The neighbor to the south, which is the side that our trench is on, draws water out of the lake. The neighbor to the north has a well that is basically right at the edge of his house. Here's his well. Here's his septic system. Here is the 100 foot arc around his well. So taking that into account, we can't do anything on that part of the lot with regard to stormwater. Number Seven, soil testing has not been provided in the vicinity of the infiltration trench. I did the test pits for the wastewater system, and I applied some consistency of some knowledge of (lost words) soils in the area, and we were 100 feet away. The book says do them at the trench, and we could arrange for that, but at this point we don't know, we're not sure about the fate of the trench. So we thought we'd have this discussion. Number Eight. The applicant shall clarify, we put in over, an overflow line in the event that there were a fairly high storm event that it would overflow in a controlled manner down toward the rain garden, which we show down by the lake. That was a choice. Did we have to do that? No, we probably didn't have to do that. I could take that out. Item Nine, here's the two rain gardens, more than 1,000 square feet of contributing area. They do slightly. This has been a new comment. MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to see it more often, too, I think. MR. HUTCHINS-That we've run into and, I mean, there's been a push on these things over the past few years, and they do a nice job. Crux of the comment is it's okay to be over 1,000 square feet, but then you have to apply what they call bio retention design elements, which basically changes it from a rain garden to a more sophisticated device with an underflow and it would be a hard thing to install. A true bio retention device would be, with an under drain, would be a tough thing to install on the shoreline. I think I could reconfigure those and show them as a shoreline buffer strip and address that. Grading on the southwest side of the site, it's just a one on one slope, actually it's a little less than one on one, but there's a steep cut there in order to get the driveway to work. It will have to be stabilized structurally probably with a rock type, riprap type surface which you kind of, I won't call it a wall, but a rock stabilized slope which you see all over the Glen Lake area because there's a lot of rocks. MR. MAGOWAN-It's easier than trucking them away. MR. HUTCH INS-Seeding and mulching requirements, apparently I didn't indicate rates on the areas to be turfed, and, Number 12, it is unclear if the proposed permeable paver walkway has been included in the impervious area calculations. I believe it was, but that's an item that I can clarify. It's, what is it, Craig, it's a permeable paver patio, but we still count it as 50%. MR. BROWN-Yes, I think 50's the number. It depends on the type of construction, too. If it's more flagstone than pea stone joint, there's a different percentage, I think, (lost word). So, again, just to clarify, these engineering comments, and I don't want to speak for the engineer, but these engineering comments were offered with their understanding that a plan, consistent with 147, was required. I think if they, when they look at this again with Tom's revisions, with the understanding that it's not required but this is something better than the nothing that they have to do, they'll probably have comments that say these are acceptable engineering practices and not so much they don't meet the Code. They're going to say this is an okay way to do it, I would guess. So I'm going to guess that there's going to be another round of revisions, another round of comments. If you want to do conditional and have the engineer okay the design, or if you want to see it again, I think the engineer's going to look at it with a different light, so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's why I thought it would be useful to kind of go through these so we could get a better sense for, you know, what the magnitude was, you know, and what your responses. MR. HUTCHINS-This program, on a small, particularly existing lakefront parcels, is, I mean, I won't say there aren't those that can meet it, but it's very difficult. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I think you need to sit down with him and just reach agreement on what you're going to do. MR. HUTCHINS-Sit down with? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The engineer and just reach agreement on what you're going to do on each of these items. Some of the items you can't meet. MR. HUTCHINS-We can't. That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But as Craig said, he wasn't looking at it in that light, but now he's going to be looking at it in a new light. Not everything has to be done. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. SIPP-Is there a plan for a shoreline buffer? MR. HUTCHINS-At this point, I have, we have shown it as somewhat elongated rain gardens which essentially are a shoreline buffer, but that. MR. SIPP-Well, there are some small, I don't know what you call them, weeds between the dock and the pine stone. There is some there, but it's not very big and not very vigorous. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, certainly I think that's, the shoreline's proposed to be left as is, and on the inside of that, if plantings would help, I think we could certainly consider that. MR. SIPP-1 think they would help considerably because of that pitch, you've got a pretty good pitch up on the top of that hill. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I think what Don was saying is true, and I think if you were to put something on either side of the house where your pitch stops, it gets flat going towards the water, you have some sort of pine trees or whatever are expert suggests, but that would help absorb that water coming down the hill. That wouldn't hurt the view at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing. Are there any written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-Nothing new. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Part of the reason why I wanted to go through the engineering comments was to get a flavor for how extensive the comments are, you know, so that we can begin to build a comfort level with whether or not we want to table this or consider a conditional approval. So, what's the feeling of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, on the engineering, I can support a conditional approval. The only question I have is with regards to the buffering. I think on the engineering side, between what Mr. Brown has explained to us and the applicant's engineer, I think, you know, that sounds like something that could be resolved. I just don't know if we're, if you want to see something definitive on the buffering, it would seem to me that we'd have to see some, you know, what are they going to do that's fairly specific. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments? MR. SIPP-1 definitely think you need a buffer there. Water's going to go down that hill pretty quick. You might better start at the top and work down. Trees (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? Yes, go ahead, Craig. MR. BROWN-Just to clarify the shoreline buffering requirements, they call for a 15 foot vegetative strip along the shoreline. It doesn't really talk about the entire site between the building and the shore. So, I'm not suggesting that you do anything, but the option is you could always specify we want to see a 15 foot wide strip X number of feet across the width of the property, and they have to provide that, or you could have them come back with a plan. I'm just thinking along the conditional line. If you give them a dimension of what you want to see, then you don't have to see them again. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BROWN-So, just a thought. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was thinking the same thing. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-We'd be okay with that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 figured you would be, yes. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I'll have to say I like Don's idea in terms of applying some shrubbery along the side, because that's really where you have some, just to help slow it down for those heavy storms, putting it on either side. MR. HUTCHINS-You're on the south side, right? MR. MAGOWAN-Looking at both sides. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. KREBS-Yes, from the side of the house toward Birch Road you've got 422 feet down to 40 feet, and then there's only another two and a half foot drop from there to right in the water. So along both sides of that house where you have that hill, if you were to put shrubs and pines or something in there, it would help absorb the water running down the hill. MR. HUNSINGER-So do we want to specify the number of bushes and shrubs, or do we want to have the applicant come back with a plan? MR. SIPP-I think he ought to come back with a plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it sounds like the Board's leaning towards tabling this. MR. SIPP-Some small shrubs have a big root. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-What kind of trees are you thinking? MR. SIPP-You want some spruce, fir, something that looks good that's going to be there year round. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, something you can shape and keep, in other words, it doesn't have to grow up too tall, but it gets a deep root structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think that's clear enough, the intent of the Board? Do you understand what we're looking for? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and I just, I would just, the feeling for the Board was, or the impression I took was the feeling of the Board was some of the stormwater controls that kind of makes sense is better than not doing any because, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think to a person we would agree with that. Yes, and, I mean, it sounds to me like we're really tabling it for the landscaping more than the engineering, even though the engineering is outstanding. MR. KREBS-And Paul probably would be happier with that, too, because if you don't, you're going to end up with, after a heavy rain, ripping up the front lawn. PAULSHEEHAN MR. SHEEHAN-There's no question. That's something we would have done anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. MAGOWAN-My only question on the well, how deep do you think that's going to be? If you ever have to pull it, will you be able to get a truck in there, or do you have to come down with a? MR. HUTCHINS-I can't say how deep, it's going have to be the minimum (lost words). A lot of Glen Lake has relatively shallow wells, but you don't know. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay, you don't know, and that's why I'm saying, is it an easy access to get to it if it has to be a deep one? I mean, 50 feet you could pull by hand, you know, if you have to. MR. HUTCHINS-It's feasible, it would be feasible to get a vehicle down there. I mean, it would involve some arrangements with neighboring properties. Not that you could do it, but it's. MR. MAGOWAN-Or flow it in by barge and back it up. I was just wondering when you mentioned putting it all the way down in the front, you know, instead of up in the corner, not that (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) you have that many problems with the wells, but one time that you do, if it happens to be a deep one, it's just easier with the mechanics. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we'll table this to the, it probably makes sense to table it to the second meeting in February. MR. BROWN-Yes. I mean, the meeting right now, tentatively, the way we have the agenda set up, is pretty full, but I would guess that if they come back with a landscaping plan you guys are looking for, it's a ten minute item, so it's not going to, you know, really fill up the agenda too much. So the 22nd is preferred. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make that motion to table this to the February 26th meeting for the requested landscaping plan and to address engineering comments? MR. BROWN-February 26th or January 22? We could squeeze it in January 22 if you want to do that. Because I think it's going to be a relatively short thing. MR. HUNSINGER-It works for me. Does it work for you guys, January 22nd? MR. DEEB-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 76-2012 PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 1,352 sq. ft. residence and accessory structures and construct a new 3,950 sq. ft. four bedroom residence. Construction of a dwelling within 50 feet of 15% slopes in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 11/15/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 12/5/2012; Type 11 SEAR-no further action required; No waivers requested; First engineering review-11/7/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/182012; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 76-2012 PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Tabled until the January 22, 2013 Planning Board meeting. So the applicant can provide us with a landscaping plan and to address engineering comments Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: MR. BROWN-My question, the specific reason for tabling is for them to provide with a landscaping plan. MR. HUNSINGER-And to address engineering comments. MR. BROWN-And address engineering comments, and the landscaping plan is what you talked about or based on the shoreline buffering requirements? Because the shoreline buffering says you do it at the shoreline, but it sounded like you guys want something up closer to the house. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. BROWN-Okay. I just wanted to make sure I know what I'm looking for when they submit it back. MR. MAGOWAN-So we're comfortable with the shoreline. MR. KREBS-Yes, we're comfortable with the shoreline the way it is, as long as we stop the water from coming off the ridge. MR. BROWN-So you're looking for stuff closer up to the house? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay, and you've got that comment, Tom, you know what they're looking for? (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUTCHINS-1 believe so. MR. KREBS-If they want to throw some ornamentals along the water that's okay, too. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay, too. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a month. Merry Christmas. SITE PLAN NO. 79-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 GERALD FLYNN OWNER(S) JAMES DENOOYER ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 4 LOCKHART LOOP APPLICANT PROPOSES A 208 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO MASTER BEDROOM AND THE ADDITION OF A 208 SQ. FT. SCREENED IN PORCH. EXPANSION OF A NOW CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 60-12 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL DECEMBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.86 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18- 1-24 SECTION 179-9, 179-3-040 GERALD FLYNN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-This is a roughly 200 square foot addition, I believe, for an upper story bedroom, expansion of a nonconforming in a CEA. Really no site disturbance, but, you know, it's a fair question to ask and it was raised in the Staff Notes if there is going to be some site disturbance to look for some E&S measures, silt fence, something like that during the construction just to maintain that, but it's really just a no footprint change in addition to the building. That's what they're here for. Pretty small project. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FLYNN-Hi, I'm Jerry Flynn representing the Denooyers for their project of basically Craig just explained it all. The only part where the addition's going over an existing bedroom. It's keeping the same footprint as the existing house. The addition for the screened porch which is going off the side is really a matter of four posts that go down into a, I don't know if you're familiar with it, it's a techno post that's augured into the ground so there's no disturbance of the ground. It actually goes in a four inch hole that augurs right into the ground, and that's what supports this addition, and the lot is a heavily treed lot, and the landscaping is all natural. It's been there. So we're not really going to disturb any soil as such. There's no machinery that needs to come into there. Actually the machine that puts this post in the ground is about as big as this table. It comes down in and augurs them in, and that's pretty much the whole story. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. Don't everyone speak at once. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's not much to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's pretty straightforward. MR. MAGOWAN-Straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-Nothing new. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. It's a Type 11 SEAR, so no SEAR review is necessary, unless there's an issue that we identified, and unless there's anything from the Board, I'll entertain a motion. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. BROWN-I just have something to add that I forgot to mention. They are seeking waivers from stormwater, landscaping, grading and lighting. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that changes everything then. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Do you want a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #79-2012 GERALD FLYNN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 208 sq. ft. residential addition to master bedroom and the addition of a 208 sq. ft. screened in porch. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Type 11, no further SEQRA review is necessary; The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 11/27/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 12/5/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/20/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 79-2012 GERALD FLYNN FOR JAMES DENOOYER, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waivers granted: grading, stormwater, lighting and landscaping; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 6) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. Have a Happy Holiday. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-You, too. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We have three items under New Business this evening. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 83-2012 SEAR TYPE II CHRIS PATTEN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MS-MAIN STREET LOCATION 31 GARNER STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,854 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. A CHANGE OF ALLOWABLE USES IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UV 37-12, BP 12-499 WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2012 LOT SIZE 0.50 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-1-52 SECTION 179-9 CHRIS PATTEN, PRESENT MR. BROWN-This is for an 1864 square foot single family home to be constructed in a Main Street zoning district. The reason they're here for site plan review is the project also required a Use Variance. Residential single family homes are not allowed in Main Street district. They were before the Zoning Board in November, got the Use Variance granted. So they're here before you to kind of close the circle on site plan review. Residential dwelling in a residential neighborhood basically. The zoning is Main Street. Not a lot of site issues. They have requested the waivers mentioned in the last application, lighting, landscaping, stormwater and grading, and it's a house. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. PATTEN-I have some pictures of the previous house, if you guys want to see them. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Good evening. MR. PATTEN-I brought with me the plan of the house that we intend to build here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry, if you could identify yourself for the record, first. MR. PATTEN-I'm sorry, Chris Patten. I'll be the builder and owner, actually, of this house. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PATTEN-This is my mother, Dayreen, Dayreen Patten, but I brought with me the plan of the home that I intend to build here and it's been very strenuously reviewed through the Zoning Board, but I finally got the Use Variance approved. So I'm just looking for your approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I've just shown a couple of houses there. A few issues that were brought up were the SWPPP deal and all that stuff and the vegetation and everything. I just wanted to show you guys other houses that are a little bit smaller. That's actually the plan that we intend to do there. The other house shows some hydroseeding I've done in the past, that one there is very small, but hydroseeding to mitigate any stormwater runoff, and then I also seed and bring in topsoil and stuff. So those types of things. MR. HUNSINGER-So you're planning on putting in a sprinkler system? MR. PATTEN-Yes, an irrigation system, gutters, everything. MR. MAGOWAN-And are you building this for spec or you said you're planning on living in it? MR. PATTEN-No. This is actually, I'm doing two houses across the street, and they're currently under construction, but we haven't really had to deal with anything. It's the same type of grade, but we are leveling that to mitigate anything, any of the stormwater runoff and the silt fences are actually not in place yet but they will be as of next week because we just started that one, but I'm actually relying on the grade here, on this, on the home that I intend to build. It conforms perfectly with the design that we intend to do. Yes, this will be a house for myself, and the vegetation and everything that's on there will be plus or minus a few plants or so. Williams and Williams likes to doll it up pretty. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Could I make a suggestion? (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. PATTEN-Sure. MR. KREBS-At some place in the basement put a sliding glass door instead of those windows and you've got a beautiful walkout. MR. PATTEN-Yes, I actually may consider that in the future for sure. MR. MAGOWAN-Or if anything frame it in when you're doing it, you know what I'm saying, so you can just take it out. But there are designs where you can actually get a one level floor but actually get a two level house, and it's a great lot to do it on. Then you'd have that walkout and then you've got the porch coming off the kitchen, then you put the roof system over so (lost words) the rain underneath there. Don't get me going. MR. HUNSINGER-It's on the back. MR. MAGOWAN-It is on the back? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the walkout, the rear elevation. MR. PATTEN-They did put it on the plan? I didn't know that they actually put it in there. That was a change that we did discuss. MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe he just dropped these off right before he mailed them out. MR. PATTEN-The rear elevation shows it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, at least on the little one it does. MR. PATTEN-Yes, you're right, it does. That's a great idea. Great minds think alike. Like I said, it's been very challenging to get through the Board. It was a tough purchase on my part. I purchased the property actually about two years ago. Contractually a single family residential and it was also listed as single family residential. So I've been paying taxes on the property for two years without being able to do anything with it. It's been a nightmare. I've had several attorneys, one's here tonight, Mr. Borgos, and just trying to figure out the best resolution to this whole thing, and as I said, it's been a real nightmare. I've had people dumping on the property illegally, trying to set up cameras and stuff. I'm really good friends with everybody in the neighborhood. I built the house that's up on the hill on Fourth Street, and that's in one of those pictures, it's about two by two, you can't really see it, but I build a nice house. I'm excited to be in the neighborhood. I'm doing two, currently, directly across the street that are both pre-sold. All the neighbors, like I said, they're anticipating new people coming, and it's going to be my neighborhood so I have every intention of keeping it up right and quality. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? I don't see any takers. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-No comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show, again, that no comments were received. MR. BROWN-I'm sorry, I just found one. A record of phone conversation between Sally Busteed of 19 Thomas Street and Pam Whiting of our Planning Staff, and she is in favor of Mr. Patten's application. He builds nice homes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. There you go. I've closed the public hearing. It's a Type II SEAR. So no SEAR review is necessary unless there's an issue that's identified. With that, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KREBS-The nice thing about that is that that is now officially in the minutes that you build nice houses. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PATTEN-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVE SP #83-2012 CHRIS PATTEN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,854 sq. ft. single family dwelling. A change of allowable uses in the Main Street zone requires Planning Board review and approval. SEAR Type II-no further review needed; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/20/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 83-2012 CHRIS PATTEN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per resolution prepared by Staff. We are granting waivers for lighting, topography, landscaping and grading. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: lighting plans, topography, 179-9-050 O, and 179-9-050 Q; 3) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 4) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 5) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 6) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 7) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 8) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 9) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-1 just want to make sure it's clear in the record it's in accordance with the draft prepared by Staff. MR. KREBS-Right. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. PATTEN-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Thanks for your patience in going through this long process. MR. DEEB-When are you going to start building this? (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. PATTEN-As soon as I finish the other two. Probably in the spring. SITE PLAN NO. 81-2012 SEAR TYPE FGEIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RC- RECREATION COMMERCIAL LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES THE NEW RIDE, SCREAM IN' EAGLES, LOCATED WITHIN PARK AREA "A" BETWEEN THE BROWN BRIDGE AND ALICE IN WONDERLAND THEMED AREA. NEW ATTRACTIONS IN THE RC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE MANY WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 238 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20- 1-20 SECTION 179-9 BOB HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. BROWN-Okay. Great Escape. This is for a ride basically in the middle of the Park. Our review has found there's a couple of inconsistencies with the plans and will vegetation be removed or not removed, and one portion says it will, one portion says it's not, and then there's some stormwater engineering comments that are, obviously there's going to be some back and forth comments on those with the engineer. I don't mean to make it sound short, but it's basically a ride in the middle of the Park. They're going to have a lot more details for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HOLMES-Good evening. Bob Holmes with Jarrett Engineers. I'm joined by Charles Dumas with Lemery Greisler and Ray Schroder, construction manager, business analyst for The Great Escape. Thank you for letting us present before you tonight. As Craig kind of alluded to, this is kind of a small family ride that's going to be located in the center of the Park, that hopefully people can come and enjoy. That's the short and the sweet of it. So, Craig had made some comments there. If you wish I can address some of those concerns that Staff had covered. If you want, why don't we start right with that. The first comment that we had from Staff was an issue, 2010 traffic counts versus 2012's. I must admit that was an error on my part. All the traffic counts that are in my narrative are for 2012. 1 just wrote 2010, and just so you're aware, I did forward on to Staff this morning the 2012 traffic study because apparently it didn't quite make it from the Supervisor's Office to the Planning Department back in September. So that's been provided there. I'm sure Craig hasn't had a whole lot of opportunity to peruse through it, but at this point we have not exceeded any of our thresholds that would cause us to jump into any of the additional traffic controls. The next comment, was it noted that the sound monitoring report, I'm assuming that was an offering for you, for your benefit, that they did include a copy of that, so obviously duly noted. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, obviously we did complete that, and we did have test pits and percolation tests observed by staff from the Chazen Companies on November 29th. So that has been completed, and when we do finally address and resolve the outstanding engineer's comments for a submission at that point we'll have that data included. We did not find anything different than really what we did demonstrate and show you on the plans currently. The Number Four comment, that was referring to my narrative Section E. I inexplicably left out one note or one word that that sentence should have read, no disruption of any threatened animal or plant species is expected, nor will there be any impact to open space and agricultural, forest or mineral resources. There is about 500 square feet of disturbance, and with that, with the lack of the word threatened, it obviously did change the meaning. That's why it did sound a little conflicting. So we aren't impacting any threatened or endangered species. Then the last one is here that they made note about the utilization of plants not found on the Town's authorized list. We do acknowledge that. It's just the case we're trying to blend our landscaping plan in with a lot of existing landscaping that's currently in the Park, and none of the plants that we are proposing are a threat or, I'm sorry, are an invasive species or not native species or not native species. So that's what we have here. Did you want to go through the engineer's comments, or what's your preference? MR. HUNSINGER-1 think for myself anyway it would be helpful to get a better understanding of what the ride itself is and how it operates and the impacts that it might make. RAY SCHRODER MR. SCHRODER-1 don't know if we have a picture that we can bring up on the screen. For those that are familiar with the Park, it's relatively similar to what we have, it's our flying trapeze right and/or (lost words) honey swings. Basically it relies on a center column and there are eight sweeps that come out from the column. The overall ride height is in the neighborhood of 28 feet. I think actually it's exactly 28 feet 4 inches or something like that, but it rotates at the (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) maximum speed of 10 revolutions per minute. Each car just basically swings out and it rotates around, and the one thing that's a little bit unique about this particular ride versus the other two that we do have is there's a rutter in the front that each passenger has the opportunity to swing either left or right, so they can kind of actually make the ride sort of as their own. It's a little bit interactive in that aspect. So the other two rides that we have kind of just rotate and you swing out and get the breeze in your face and that's about it. During revolution actually this thing is I want to say a maximum of diameter of 85 feet, if I'm not mistaken. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do the cars go up and down? Do they go up and down? MR. SCHRODER-The ride itself doesn't actually tilt, and the ride itself also does not raise during rotation or anything. We do have one ride that actually does raise up a little bit and then begins its rotation. This one really just begins to rotation and its rotation, the centrifugal force then causes the cars to swing out on their own. MR. DEEB-How high do the cars get? MR. DUMAS-They only rise off the ground about 15 feet maximum. If you look at the top there on D-1 for you, it's where the arm, the support arms are really going to be the highest point of the ride. It will continue to be the highest point of the ride even under operation, and for those of you that are familiar, this is actually going to be located in what used to be, they used to consider the old Cinema 180 dome. The dome is being removed, and the ride is going to sit right on that foundation right in that location. MR. SCHRODER-It was originally a tent structure. It was constructed in the late 70's, I want to say, and with a demo permit that's since been removed. So the foundation will remain pretty much the same. It'll sit right on it. MR. DUMAS-Basically re-purposing an existing infrastructure. MR. SIPP-Any noise involved? MR. MAGOWAN-I worked there back in '79, too. MR. SIPP-Any noise involved with this ride, music? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Screaming eagles. MR. HOLMES-There, of course, will be the PA systems to address and I guess they're on the ride, but other than that we're not proposing any music to really put on the ride. There are two small drive units that create the rotation, but there shouldn't be any real incremental noise coming from this ride. Maybe some kids screaming, screaming eagles, but at 10 revolutions a minute, I'm not sure how much screaming there will be. MR. SIPP-Closest to Twicwood. MR. HOLMES-Yes, in terms of its physical proximity, it's, overall it's pretty centrally located in the Park. I think compared to many of our other rides, you wouldn't be able to hear this thing above anything else. MR. DUMAS-As far as the direction toward Twicwood, the Country Inn & Suites property that rises at a much higher elevation is kind of between there and the Twicwood property. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything in the engineering comments that we really need to talk about? I mean, they look pretty straightforward, I thought. MR. HOLMES-Yes, there's a couple of them, I mean, I can run through them really quick. I mean, the first one with the comment that I guess my response to it is noted. We have designed it for the 50 year storm, and the stormwater has been designed for the 50 year storm as required by the Town Code. They did have a question here with regards to the layout of our subcatchments. We believe our current configuration of subcatchments is correct. I'll certainly address those with the engineer. They seem to be under the impression there may be some additional drainage areas, but due to existing drainage that's already in the Park, much of that up elevation area has cut the drainage off to that point. Yes. Okay. They talk about where the water runs into the river or the stream. Actually the Story Town train tracks which run right down along what they refer to River Dee in the Park is actually a little bit higher in elevation. So the water will actually run down to the base, the base that builds up the track, and then it's going to run to, kind of in the north/northeast into our stormwater drainage structures, where we're going to provide the treatment. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HOLMES-Four and Five, I'll admit these are a couple of items that we have a bit of a disagreement with the interpretation of the Town Engineer. So I imagine these are going to be some items that we will have to work out. We do have the separation, they talk about being located 25 feet from the structure. In my discussions with DEC personnel, and when applying some professional judgment, that if this was against a structure, which had a full basement or something that potentially could flood, the 25 foot setback is really the intended purpose, and that's why we're encroaching on it because we don't have anything that has the potential for flooding, but there is, that statement does exist in the design manual. So we will have to address that with the engineer, and that's really kind of the same situation we had where they noted the critical separation for the fifth comment from the engineer. Again, we have a bit of disagreement with them, but it's nothing that I don't believe we can't work out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-No. I do want to thank you for this year changing up the music there a little, and I liked it. It was nice hearing a different change, not the same tune day after day after day. So you did a good job there, and I hope the water slide went well this year for you. MR. DUMAS-1 can comment on the music. I've been told that we're actually going to increase our selection a little bit more next year. So it should be an even larger variety. MR. MAGOWAN-That makes me even happier. Where do you want me to sign? MR. DUMAS-That's what I've been told. I won't commit to it right here, but they're telling me they're going to throw a few more songs in the mix. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-Just the lighting on the ride itself. There's not a lot of lighting on it. MR. DUMAS-We've actually declined the light package on this particular ride. Since our operating calendar has evolved over the years, and since we don't have much for nighttime operation anymore, there won't be an actual light package on this ride. Bob, if you want to talk to it, there is one particular light post that we have put on our plans, and that's merely for security and just for access near and around the queue line of the ride. MR. HOLMES-Yes, that's exactly what that is, and that's the main premise why we're asking for the waiver from the exterior lighting. All of it is going to match, the light post is kind of a decorative dual headlight post. You can see that on the drawings we had, that we've given you, Drawing D-2. That's what the picture looks like. It is technically a cut off fixture. It meets the Town standards. It's just that with that single light pole in this project area really didn't make a whole lot of sense to do a lot of the calculations. That's why we're requesting that waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? We do have at least one commenter. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide an opportunity for members of the public to provide comment to the Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to state their name for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website, which is available to anyone at any time to listen to. I would ask that you address any of your comments to the Board. The purpose of the public hearing is not designed to be a debate or a dialogue between the commenter and the applicant, but rather an opportunity to provide comment to the Board. So with that, if you could identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. I'm Paul Derby, 86 Ash Drive, Glen Lake, Queensbury, and noise from The Great Escape is an ongoing problem at my neighborhood. So I'm here again this year to talk about that and to say that it hasn't gotten any better. It's still there, and this year I actually examined the data from The Great Escape sound studies, and I learned that the noise in the Park has nearly every year exceeded the sound compliance threshold set out in the 2001 Findings Statement. This Findings Statement sets environmental standards for The Great (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) Escape and is the guiding document for the Board in its relation with The Great Escape. Section 5G6 reads, quoting, if during compliance monitoring the L-90 levels have been found to increase above five dB over the baseline in any community, The Great Escape will be required to prepare a complete validation monitoring program within 30 days, and the program will determine the source of the sound and who's responsible. The 2012 Great Escape sound studies recorded levels at the Glen Lake receptor during Park operation hours of 7 dB over the baseline, that's over the threshold. In fact, sound levels have exceeded compliance thresholds nearly every year with an average of 8.6 dB over the threshold over the last 10 years. The data clearly demonstrates that at the very least the Park should be required to perform a, quote, validation monitoring program to determine the sources of the sound. This has not been done, and until it happens, I think the Board should not approve this. Now The Great Escape may argue by looking at after hour sound recording that the noise is being generated from Glen Lakers or other sources. This is simply not true. In fact, if you look at the nighttime baseline and annual sound measurements, they are slightly higher than daytime levels at all three neighborhood receptors, Twicwood, Courthouse and Glen Lake. Obviously there are other sound factors in the evening. I won't speculate about what those are, although others have, but I can tell you that the sounds in the evening are not the same category as the noises from the Park. Park noises include music, loudspeakers, announcements, live bands, shows, rides and general and persistent din of noise. In any event, the sound levels after hours are not at issue here and not covered by the Findings Statement. Finally over the last three to four years, there's been an increase in number and level of noise generated from live bands and shows from the Park. This summer I wrote a letter to this Board and to the Town Supervisor, describing the event that took place on July 13th. The noise was incredibly loud and unacceptable and undoubtedly violated the compliance of 5G6, and also Findings Statement 5G12, that reads amplified music shall be limited to interior areas of the Park and shall be directed away from residential receptors to the north, east, and south of the Park. I actually spoke with the sound engineer at The Great Escape that evening who told me that the band was headed right at Glen Lake, which was probably a big reason it was so loud. Again, this violates the conditions of the Findings Statement and triggers additional monitoring measures and mitigation action directed by the Board. There were other live events in, throughout July and August, and then the Fright Night activities this Fall were the loudest ever. So loud I could hear them inside my house, with the windows closed. That's the first time that's happened. So I'm asking the Board to take some action to get The Great Escape to get these noise issues under control. They're not in compliance with the Findings Statement. Aside from the noise, I have no problem with The Great Escape, but it's been an issue and continues to be an issue for myself and my neighbors. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. MANDY DIEFFENBACH MRS. DIEFFENBACH-Mandy Dieffenbach. I live on 84 Ash Drive also, and also, and rather than repeat a lot of what Paul had said, I have to agree with the majority of what he did say. Over the past couple of years, we have been working with The Great Escape on the noise level. It kind of comes, it goes. It's almost like, I feel like we're being just placated as far as, okay, we'll do it for a little while and see if the neighbors go away. We're not going away. We are still here. We are still concerned about the noise level. I do have to agree that it needs to be addressed. We do want to work with having The Great Escape in the area, but at the cost of it interfering with us being able to enjoy the lake, I do, you know, think it needs to be addressed. The new ride coming in, it looks like a good ride, but again, if there's PA systems in there, where are the PA systems going to be located? Are they going to, again, be directed at the lake where we're going to be hearing all the directions of get on the ride, get off the ride, all that kind of stuff. It is an issue, a continued issue on the lake. As far as it not having been addressed over the course of close to 10 years, I'm concerned that it will not be addressed again. So I would like it to be addressed where we can amicably work on the sound system so that we can still have rides that people can enjoy and we can all work in the community together. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any other written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-One written comment. Received yesterday from David and Lorri Graves at 82 Ash Drive. "We are unable to attend the meeting Thursday, December 20th regarding the Great Escape's new ride "Screamin Eagle". We would like to go on record with our concerns. We can clearly hear noise from the Great Escape and are concerned about increasing noise from adding new rides. The last time an EIS was done, I believe, was 2001. The noise over the last 10 years or so show increases of 5 decibels or more above the threshold. I think this would require the Great Escape to do additional studies to find out where the sounds are coming from and do mitigation if needed. We think these concerns need to be addressed before proceeding with additional rides at the Great Escape." 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there's no other takers for the public hearing, if the applicant could come back to the table. Certainly noise isn't a new issue and it's something we've talked about before. MR. HOLMES-No, you're absolutely right, and, you know, we talked about this last year when we were here for the Alpine waterfalls, and at my request, and assistance, The Great Escape did, in fact, undertake to do a validation, monitoring study this past June, in conjunction with the annual sound study, and a number of different receptor locations, six in all, were employed, and the study concluded that there was no direct correlation between The Great Escape and the sound levels being experienced in the Glen Lake area, and I can quote from that. Two week average sound level, each hour through the day and night indicate daytime background sound levels generally peaked in the afternoon at each location, with the exception of Glen Lake. At Glen Lake average background sound levels when the Park was open peaked very slightly during evening hours. The cause for this is unclear, but potential increase in evening noise may be the result of either increase in local commuter traffic on Ash Drive, Route 9, I-87, and background or energy average sound levels due to Park operations. However, no trend was evident showing any increase. Conversely average and sound levels measured when the Park was open were generally lower than the same hours measured when the Park was closed. I think the issue of sound is both quantitative and qualitative. We are all, I think, annoyed by certain sounds. We're annoyed by chainsaws, hedge clippers, lawnmowers. Those are intrusions. The Great Escape offers noise that can be audible and can be heard, but the question is whether it's of a quantitative nature that would cause the Town to want to take action. The 2001 GEIS set ambient levels that have uniformly been consistently received by the Town. There have been isolated instances. I think there was one that Mr. Derby was referring to this summer, and it was an unfortunate incident, and I think the Park is taking corrective measures to make sure that sound equipment isn't oriented in the same way again. That was, I believe, on the evening of July 13th, and there were two complaints received, one from Mr. Derby and one from Lorraine Stein. The Park does keep track of its sound complaints and catalogues those . I have those with me tonight. There were a total of four this summer, two the evening of the 13th that Mr. Derby described, one on May 30th and the other on June 13th Those other two were from Mrs. Stein over on the Ash Drive area. There is not a flood of complaints coming from the residents to the Park and there's, I think, you know, anecdotal evidence of occasional problems, but I think the Park is doing a good job in terms of dealing with it. The validation study that was undertaken doesn't draw any direction conclusions. That ambient noise increase is coming from any particular source, The Great Escape or other activities. I would only, otherwise, point out that the ride that's being proposed this evening would have no direct impact whatsoever, no incremental impact on the operative noise of the Park. MR. DUMAS-This is more of a family ride that the operations of late night or later hours of the Park operations is very limited at best. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, but if you read the name of it you might think differently. MR. DUMAS-You're right. MR. MAGOWAN-You're going to get more of a wee, than a scream. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Screamin Eagle, what do you expect. MR. DUMAS-Contrary to the name, there's no intention that there'd be a lot of screaming. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know that. I figured that out. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't mean to minimize or exaggerate the issues. Certainly there have been some instances where the noise was excessive and, you know, I think a lot of times it's just a question of being able to communicate, and if there is a complaint to be able to call someone and I think, you know, The Great Escape has been responsive to that in the past. MR. HOLMES-I must admit that in my review of the circumstances of the 13th, I think the Park could have done a better job in terms of its responsiveness, and I think operationally, and I think Ray can speak to this, I think operationally the Park is very sensitive the causes of what occurred that evening, and it's really unfortunate because, you know, I think in some of the complaints, let me just. MR. MAGOWAN-The 13th, was that Americade weekend? th MR. HOLMES-That was July 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. Americade's in June. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHRODER-1 can talk to the July 13th event. That was actually a couple of errors that evening, not only in the location, the positioning of the speakers, the direction they were aimed, but also in the location of the overall event, and I brought it up to the event planners who planned this specific event, and it was the very first time that this specific event was ever executed at the Park, and we selected Ghost Town, which, geographically, is high up and also kind of does follow down the chalice of the swamp that leads into Glen Lake, and we acknowledge that putting an event there, although kind of a clean spot for it, was a bit of a mistake from a sound perspective. So we've agreed, of course, and this is talking with the organizers internally, that we would re-locate that event, that specific event to an area where we do events typically and we don't receive issues or anything like that. We have a live and local stage, actually aimed to the west, out toward the Northway, and we typically bring in, you know, like 12 year olds and they have some of their own music and what not, and they sort of self- promote themselves on that. So we would consider another area where we wouldn't, you know, spark any issues. We don't want to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a mention about the Fright Fest being excessively loud. Do you think that was the reason, also, because it was up in Ghost Town? MR. SCHRODER-We did have a few other events in Ghost Town, now that I think about it, this past year during Fright Fest, and that's something we could definitely examine. MR. DUMAS-Part of the problem with Fright Fest might be the fact that the leaves are off the trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DUMAS-That's a considerable buffer and it does make a difference. Sound tends to carry quite distinctly, but, you know, part of this is kind of ironic in a way. Because, in Mr. Derby's letter to the Town, he points out the irony, finally, there's an interesting irony here. The day prior to the concert my neighbors and I were discussing how nice the summer has been because we had heard very little and many days no sound at all from the Park, and, you know, I think that statement and that fact is evidence of the Park's trying to be responsive, and trying to answer the concerns that it heard when we were here last year. I think taking steps and measures, operationally, taking a look at the sound validation study to see if Park operations were, in fact, a significant contributing factor to noise. The other thing is, one of the complaints that Ms. Stein offered in June, the person from the Park noted the Steins did comment that we have made significant improvements this year and appreciate the cooperation. So, you know, I'm not trying to paint over Mr. Derby's concern, because I believe it was legitimate the evening in July, but I do believe that there's been a concerted effort, and I don't believe that this proposed ride should offer any additional concern. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, one of the interesting things is, in the November 29th letter, the submittal letter to the sound monitorings, the peak sound levels have actually gone down since 2002 for most of the measurements. MR. DUMAS-Yes, and, you know, the interesting thing from the validation monitoring that we did there was a couple of curious things where at Glen Lake, the noise, particularly in the early and mid-evening, was louder when the Park was closed than when the Park was open, which it tends to indicate that there are other sources of ambient noise, whether it be air conditioners running or boats, the way it's constructed in the area, sound tends to travel, and be held in that area, and it's unfortunate. I think the Park is doing everything it can to mitigate and minimize. MR. DEEB-That event on the 13th, that was a concert? MR. SCH RODE R-It wasn't specifically a concert. It was actually sort of a beer and wing festival sponsored by Coors Light that evening. MR. DEEB-So is that something that will be done yearly or annually? MR. SCHRODER-1 don't know if that decision has been entirely made yet, to be honest with you, but, I mean, we wouldn't do it in Ghost Town again. That's for sure. MR. DEEB-But you might do it again, but in a different area of the Park. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. DUMAS-It's reasonable to expect that an event of that nature might occur again. It's just a case that, taking those steps to try another location and re-direct and try to prevent that noise. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just don't aim it toward the water. You have the same problem. I live on Lake George. Somebody has a wedding reception just across the bay, I mean, I can hear the whole thing until they turn it off. MR. DUMAS-Sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's the water, and on a calm night, it goes a long way, and that's the joy of living on the lake. MR. MAGOWAN-And, you know, I live right on the back corner, on the other side of the rollercoaster, and when it's all quite, I mean, I even hear the Northway myself. So I can hear the trucks, the bikes, the louder cars. I mean, especially during Americade or the car show. I mean, it really does, and sound does, you know, changes with the weather patterns and the wind and the air and the leaves, but, you know, I listen to the rollercoaster every day and I hear the click, click, click, and the warm ups and the beep, beep, beeps, and, you know, and then the screaming on the backside, and it's just something I've gotten, you know, we just get used to it. People say doesn't that bother you, and I basically say, what, but, you know, like I said, it's a happy noise to me, but I can understand, you know, occasionally you're going to have, like I said, I notice the changing of the music, and if you're going to even do more. I notice that it seemed to be a little quieter, but like I said, certain days it was louder, you know, like I said, but that must have been the change of the wind or, you know, I don't think you turned up the volume on that side. It must be just the way that the air was moving and, you know, however the sound travels differently. MR. DUMAS-And it is recognized that July 13th event was probably a little bit out of the ordinary so with a change in the noise there's a perception issue that it probably very well was disruptive and concerning on their part. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And nobody comments on the fireworks? MR. SCHRODER-Not that I'm aware of. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We have them every night over there on the other side. MR. SCHRODER-1 could run a report and see if it exists. I know where to look, that's for sure. MR. MAGOWAN-No, we really appreciate them. Our neighbor has a (lost word) and we just go up there and sit and relax, and as I say, seeing this report and seeing the numbers go down, and I really do think you're working on trying to, you know, work with the neighboring people. So I commend you for that, and to be honest with you, I wouldn't have even known you put the waterslide in there. I haven't heard any different sounds from that. So I don't think I'm going to hear the swing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean the Screamin Eagle. MR. HUNSINGER-The Screamin Eagle. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, excuse me, the Screamin Eagle. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I was just going to comment the fact that the public understands we do not have a noise ordinance in the Town of Queensbury, and we're not addressing noise in this particular site plan review. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, in their blanket permit there is the noise contingency that was identified. MR. KREBS-Yes, but this specific site plan is addressing this particular ride. I just wanted to let them know that's why we're here tonight is to address that specific ride. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the will of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it's fine. This ride is fine. I see no problem with it. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-1 will close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a, it's part of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and there is a clause in the draft resolution to that effect. You do have outstanding engineering comments that will have to be satisfied, and I guess unless there's something else, we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #81-2012 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes the new ride, Screamin' Eagles, located within park area "A" between the Brown Bridge and Alice in Wonderland themed area. New attractions/rides in the RC zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/20/2012; Previous FGEIS; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 81-2012 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: exterior lighting; 3) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 4) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 5) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 7) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 8) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Just, once again, it is in accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff. MR. KREBS-Yes. AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DUMAS-Thank you very much. Thank you. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2012 SEAR UNLISTED LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC AGENT(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT, P.C. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION GENTRY LANE EXTENSION SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 148 APARTMENT UNITS IN 29 BUILDINGS. MULTI-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION IN AN OFFICE ZONE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100' FEET OF A REGULATED WETLAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AV 43-12 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 28.1 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-2 SECTION 179-9; CHAPTER 94 TOM JARRETT & MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig. MR. BROWN-This is a revised version of the plan you guys saw before. There's been a re- design and reduction in the number of units, re-design to move away from requiring area variances. I guess I'll just kind of read through some of the comments here that Stu put together, and because of the change from the original plan you saw, the plan you have in front of you, we found an inconsistency in the Long EAF, it still references the old project, 176 unit project versus the 148 project that's here. So, you know, that's a cleanup. So we just need to get that portion of the EAF cleaned up, and there's, it looks like maybe eight or ten other comments of inconsistencies, questions that haven't been answered, but, you know, it's kind of clean up stuff. The second major comment is in the narrative, in the presentation it talks about, you know, rental units at this point maybe potentially conversion to condominiums. That's technically a subdivision when you start dividing the ownership of the property. You have to do a subdivision. That would present a significant number of, I guess difficulties with this layout. There's the properties wouldn't have frontage on a public highway. That's a requirement. Lot size requirements. There'd be setback issues to deal with. So there'd be a number of area variances required if it got to that point. That may or may not be part of it, but again, it was part of their submittal. They may clear that up and say, you know, there's no potential for condominiums in the future, but it certainly would not be an easy thing to go through, and I won't go through item for item, but you can see on the second page where I was talking about some of the missing items in the EAF, and basically details on some of the things that are proposed, sound like real little things. We're just looking for some backup information as far as details on the construction and location and the specifics. So, with that, that's all that I have on this one. It was presented to the County. Warren County Planning Office issued a No County Impact with the stipulation basically regarding traffic impacts and they wanted to reserve the right to comment, you know, in the future, if there's another traffic study done. That's all that I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Michael Borgos, attorney for Legacy Land Holdings, here with Tom Jarrett, engineer for the project, and Dan Valente as principle of Legacy Land Holdings, the developer. Nice to see everyone again. You'll recall from Craig's comments that we have been here a few times. I think the first time we were here was maybe Sketch Plan in January of 2012, and we have revised this proposal a few times, generally reduced density as part of that. Originally had 176 units, we're down to 148 now. This has been an exciting journey for us to go through as we've dealt with some opposition from the public, and certainly I need to acknowledge that there are a lot of folks here tonight that probably aren't here to cheer us on, but they have some comments in opposition. We heard a lot of those when we were here for the area variance. So I don't want to dismiss that, and certainly their comments are appropriate, but we do want to let you know that we're here looking for an approval tonight. We think we're at the stage where we're batting cleanup and, as Craig mentioned, we're just addressing these few minor issues that are here. It's been helpful to have different Staff members take a look at it, and I think Craig is probably the third Staff member who's reviewed this, and it's very productive to see that perspective. In reading the Staff comments, I think Stu Baker prepared these, the Long EAF was not something that we had revised as we move downward in density and made those other changes, but it's appropriate to correct those. So we have done that, and Tom is going to pass those out to you tonight, and he'll address those specifically if you wish. The other big issue that Craig has pointed to was the possibility that we've discussed about selling these as individual homeowner units in the future. We don't want to create any ambiguity, so I want to be very clear that tonight we're making this application solely for rentals, and if something changes in the future, like any other project, we would have to come back and present it at that time. So we want to just remove all that ambiguity and state clearly this is for apartments, and I think that's the way everybody's addressed it anyway because that's what the initial usage would have been. Mentioned to you that the EAF has 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) been passed around to you. Tom's going to go through the individual engineering comments that have been made. The turnaround, he'll talk about that, too, the crosswalk, and we look forward to addressing the questions as they come up. I'll let Tom talk about those engineering comments now. MR. JARRETT-Thanks, Mike. There were a total of seven comments. Several of them were very minor in nature. There's a couple of them that sound major but they actually are not, in our opinion. We tend to disagree with the Town Engineer's interpretation of the DEC code. In fact, we've talked with DEC staff several times regarding the comments, and they find that the design we've provided is appropriate and we'll be addressing that with the Town Engineer. I can get into details if you wish, but we have backing from DEC and they said they'd put it in writing. We feel very comfortable with the design we've put together. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you just give us a general idea of what the? MR. JARRETT-Yes, the most substantive comment that we saw was that the vegetated swales should have three feet of vertical separation over them. The Code specifically does not list that. There's no separation requirement in the Code, and the Town Engineer has taken to apply a different section of the Code to these swales, and DEC acknowledges that that's not necessarily appropriate. They feel that they'd rather see a good design, based on sound judgment and experience, and specific numbers in the Code really don't matter to them anyway. There are other ways to provide good treatment rather than an absolute number, but in this particular situation, vegetative swales don't have an absolute number anyway. So, and they back that up. We were wondering if we had missed something in the Code. We checked with them and they said, no, it does not list anything. The bottom width of the swales, which we consider it pretty minor details, we could modify if we have to, we think is so minor that we're going to argue against it, and see what happens, but they're asking for us to comply with the six foot bottom width swale and we have an eight foot bottom width swale. So, to us that's inconsequential. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. To me one of the more significant comments are the comments about the soil types on Comment Two. MR. JARRETT-Very interesting, yes. We discussed this with DEC also actually a couple of months ago. Originally we started out planning this project as if it was C soils. That's what the soil survey lists, but when we did our testing, our actual field testing, and did all the percolation tests, we found the soil conditions were much better than what we originally anticipated, and per NRCS and DEC standards, we can apply A & B soil criteria to this design. That's what we've done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where were those samples taken, in the back or in the front? Because if you drive down Country Club Road and you look over at that area, that's clay. MR. JARRETT-Well, very interesting you bring that up, because could you go to the next sheet, Craig. Well, that'll do. That's the existing conditions right there. If you're looking from Country Club Road, which is right there, you see this wetland swale along the western edge of the property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. JARRETT-That is, indeed, wet, and if you look down in this corner, the southeast corner, it's indeed wet. Our project is primarily up on this ridgeline right here, much higher and drier than the areas that you see. If you go to the next sheet from there, Craig, you'll see that more clearly. You'll see there's the ridgeline where we've developed. The wet areas are back here and down here. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I know that was one of the intentions of the redesign is to stay away from the wetland. MR. JARRETT-Right. Originally we were not impacting, directly impacting the wetlands at all, but we didn't get a variance to be within 75 feet of them, either. So we've modified the design. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you took a cut of that area from Country Club all the way over to two blocks, you know, over Bay Road and kept right on going, that's, through the golf course, that's all just swamp. MR. JARRETT-Especially south of here. Right through here, if you look through there, it's very, very wet. It gets higher as you go to the north, it gets higher and drier. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was watching them build a house there on Country Club, and you couldn't even stand up on it there was so much, the clay was just like glass. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Interestingly, we have silty soils down in this corner, but up here we have sandier soils in the top horizon. DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-The soils change dramatically, even, you know, you look right across the street here, that's sand, in essence, up here. When you go down there, it does change dramatically in a short period of time. Even in the Maple Row subdivision, which I built the houses right against Country Club, that was almost pure clay. As soon as you came back one to two lots, it changed dramatically. It's just the nature of the beast, you know. Natural soils. MR. JARRETT-Are there any other engineering comments that jump out at you that you'd like me to address? MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone on the Board have any questions on the engineering comments? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not engineering, no. MR. JARRETT-All right. Let me address a couple of the Staff comments. As you can see from the EAF that we provided, all of the issues that were raised by Stu on the EAF have been addressed. Basically updated to reflect the lower density, the lower intensity of this development. There was a question regarding the turnaorund for Town trucks on the end of Gentry Lane. Right now there is a turnaround at that, the end of that road that's on Dan's property, is on this project's property, and we could do one of two things, either provide permission for Town trucks to turn around on the project site, which is likely what we'd want to do, and if they won't agree to that, then we'll move one of our stormwater basins and leave that existing turnaround in place. One of those two solutions will be easy to accomplish. MR. VALENTE-There is a paved curb turnaround right now down there. MR. JARRETT-There was a comment brought up regarding the recreation area. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JARRETT-And I don't know as I understand the context of the comment totally. Maybe Craig can speak to that. The Town standards call for a minimum of 1,000 square feet or 10% of the development area to be provided for recreation. We are between those two thresholds. When you combine the recreation area that we have, the play area, plus the walking path, I think we're well within the guidelines of what the Town standard is asking for, and there was another question regarding whether that path will be maintained in the wintertime. We had not anticipated doing that because we think it might be available for cross country skiing or snowshoeing. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MR. JARRETT-There was a comment regarding crosswalks within our project site. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JARRETT-And we can see two spots where crosswalks would be appropriate, and we will add those, and I think that covers what I wanted to bring up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the average rental? MR. VALENTE-Dollar value? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. VALENTE-I haven't set an exact number at this point, but it's probably going to be, at the low end, $850, the high end $1200 a month, depending on the two or three bedroom units. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I have a problem with the access to the site. I think that, you know, when you look at it, the only way, the way you've got it designed, because you don't have a way to (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) come in from Country Club Road, but you've got to go through another housing development to get there. What you introduce is a lot of traffic to that area, and depreciates their property, and then when you get back into the area, you've got two dead ends, which is the worst possible thing you can have, from a public safety standpoint, and apartments have a lot of traffic, and they do have fires and they do have kids. I don't know, it seems to me that the access to this is a problem. MR. VALENTE-The access has been, that has been intended that way for 30 years. It's 30 years since the conception of that project. Baybridge was always going to be that way. It had never differentiated, I haven't differentiated from what was there, and access out to Country Club I think is counterproductive. You don't develop any true intersection when you hit Country Club Road. You actually have Orchard Drive coming down to Country Club. You have Maple Row Farms exiting out to Country Club. You have a three offset intersection there. It's counterproductive. It's really not feasible to go that route. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is counterproductive, too. MR. VALENTE-I'm sorry, I beg to differ. MR. JARRETT-You'll notice that there's really two access points for egress from our site, one here and one here. So most people in Baybridge, all but a couple of buildings are going to see only a portion of the traffic, not all the traffic. So, the commercial development down here sees all the traffic. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. JARRETT-Because Fairfield is a commercial development. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But that, you're saying that most of the people are going to go left. MR. JARRETT-I think they're going to take the easiest route out. So they're going to either go straight out this route, or straight down through here, and so nobody in Baybridge, except for a few homes down here, is going to see all the traffic. MR. VALENTE-And you also have Walker Lane as another access, not that they would use that, but there is another access there. MR. BORGOS-I'd just like to point out that I believe we have a comment from the Fire Marshal from the Town and he's approved this design with no objection to it, and furthermore the questions about the appropriateness of the traffic generated by apartments is something that's more of a zoning issue from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint, and that's been recently reviewed by the Town. The Town Board has adopted what we currently are doing with this project is in full compliance with that. We're not seeking any variances for use. So in the scheme of things, that has been taken into consideration. The access is from Town roads, as many other projects are, it does have access to Town highways currently. MR. HUNSINGER-Since you mentioned traffic, could you comment on the traffic report? MR. JARRETT-In general. MR. HUNSINGER-Just in general, yes. MR. JARRETT-What we've done, based on the maximum build out that was anticipated some years ago, we've downsized the project twice since then, and that study showed that there was really no impact on the road corridors in the Town. Okay. Most of the traffic, they feel, would be turning right out of here, and does not warrant any upgrades to any of the road network. So they didn't feel it was a problem. MR. BORGOS-And that's about a 20% reduction in density from the (lost words) design. MR. JARRETT-Actually more than that, because it was more than the 176 the study was based on. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess what I was looking for a little more clarification on was the assumption that most of the traffic would be turning right coming out, because what the report said is that a signal may be warranted, but since most of the traffic would be turning right, then a signal would not be warranted. So I just want to try to understand better. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. JARRETT-Refreshing my memory, they said eventually that intersection is going to be, a light will be warranted. I think it's going to be warranted from across the street, as opposed to on this side, because most of the traffic exiting here is going to be turning right. That's what the. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's mostly traffic going in that's going to be making the left turn. MR. JARRETT-Right, but they did not see that it was warranted. I'm not a traffic engineer. That's why we conducted a traffic study by a licensed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the accident reports will show that. MR. VALENTE-And I've been on the record when I was in for Fairfield, the subdivision then, I don't have a problem contributing to a light when it comes down the road, but I don't want to be the onus be on me. I mean, we have ACC expanding. You have another subdivision possibly across the way here. MR. JARRETT-And that was discussed with this Board. MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. JARRETT-Some time ago, we made that clear. MR. VALENTE-We have County road improvements. We have multiple subdivisions. I have been on the record before saying I'm willing to contribute, but I don't want to be the only one contributing. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. VALENTE-I don't want to see anybody getting killed out there, either. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VALENTE-So our report, we don't trigger the light. We don't warrant the light at this stage, but again, I'm on the record for that. I'm willing to put my foot forward. MR. KREBS-Well, isn't the light a County thing, too? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's a County road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's a County road. MR. VALENTE-Just one thing I'd like to point out is what we have for green space on this project. We're almost at 80% green space, at least 79 and change, 78.93. MR. JARRETT-Yes, we're almost 79 right now. We were almost 76 with our prior design, and the requirement's 35. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VALENTE-Yes. I mean, I exceed every requirement. We've done every study. We've done archeological. We've done traffic, and all the delineations. The Army Corps permit we have in hand. We've done our due diligence here. It's a good project. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you speak about the elevation? Because I notice in the new submission you didn't re-submit the elevation. Is it the same? MR. VALENTE-It is the same. MR. HUNSINGER-And the building layout inside the same? MR. VALENTE-Yes, similar. Tweaked some inside stuff. We'll continue to do that as we develop it. I really haven't progressed too far with that until I know where I stand. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VALENTE-But nothing has changed from that aspect of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. JARRETT-You said that would be the basic elevation. You might add a little bit of flair when you got into it, but you haven't run away from that basic design. MR. VALENTE-Right. We have the opportunity, with that design, to go to a four unit, a six unit, or an eight unit, with the same units, we can step the building in certain places to give it some more character with the topography of the land if need so. So, you know, we can get more creative with it. MR. JARRETT-And vary in colors, vary in colors by unit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we had talked about that last time as well. MR. JARRETT-And that was definitely acknowledged, definitely planned, but we didn't re-submit it. On the record we acknowledge it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Can I get a show of hands for how many people intend to address the Board? Okay. Typically when we have a fair number of people that wish to comment, we limit the comment to three minutes. We do have a timer here. If you're up presenting to the Board and you hear the timer go off, I would ask that you conclude your comments, and so that way give everyone an opportunity to speak their mind. I would also ask that if you do intend to comment that you, you know, once a specific issue has been identified, that you try not to reiterate the same comment over and over. I think that will help you to say everything that you wish to say within the three minute time period, and with that, who would like to be first? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KARLA BUETTNER MS. BUETTNER-Good evening. My name is Karla Buettner. I'm an attorney at Bartlett, Pontiff Stewart & Rhodes. I'm here representing probably three-quarters of the individuals behind me. So it makes a little sense to have me kind of layout for you what's going to happen, and sitting with me here, and for that reason, I would ask that I be afforded a minute or two more, especially since I have with me a hydrogeologist who also intends to speak to this issue. I don't want to take a lot of your time, but just so that everything is out. The Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association is a majority of the individuals behind us, and they have been working with Mr. Valente and Valente Builders for year and years and years. Valente built their development. They want this Board to know, first and foremost, that they are not against developing the property behind them. They would like it done with proper planning, and so what my job tonight basically is just to lay out for you some of the concerns. Now I submitted yesterday to Craig a fairly extensive packet, by e-mail. I think it was around 60 pages, and God bless you if you had the chance to read it, but if you haven't, I can appreciate that as well. Within that packet, you will find a variety of things including a number of letters from the homeowners addressing concerns, a report from Mr. VanVleet, a hydrogeologist, a report from our own quasi-traffic study, and a report from a professional engineer. Mainly the concerns, as Mr., and I'm going to pronounce your name wrong, and I apologize it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Schonewolf. MS. BUETTNER-Okay. As Mr. Schonewolf addressed very adequately is traffic. Traffic is a huge concern. This access into Baybridge is, into, off of Baybridge and Gentry is very concerning for the individuals that live in Baybridge. As far as we know, it's the only place around where you access a development through another development. I would like the Board to take note on the sheet, and I'm sure it was just a mistake, but within your packet, the map identifies the Ruth Dorlon Trust owning property adjacent to Country Club and Mr. Valente's property. In your packet you'll see that that property actually is owned by Legacy Land Holdings. So there is potential for access to Country Club Road through property owned the applicant, and I'm sure it was a misunderstanding on their part or a mistake not putting that in the packet, but I felt the need to make it known to you. Aside from traffic, there's safety issues that will be addressed by a variety of the individuals. So I'm not going to go through that. There's groundwater issues, and Mr. VanVleet, is here tonight to talk to you a little bit about the groundwater concerns that have been raised. There's stormwater issues, and we're not here with an engineer. However, we have had an engineer review the engineering plans, and in my narrative to you, which is in the e-mail, I've addressed some of his concerns. I would just ask that some of the concerns that I've raised in my letter, which is part of the record, be brought to the attention of Chazen and brought to the attention of the applicant. They may be minor, but I think they need to be addressed. You'll hear, tonight, some environmental concerns. You'll hear about flora and fauna, and you'll hear about the buffer. The buffer is a concern here that 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) hasn't been addressed between the two developments. These are developments that are going to be right on top of each other, and I understand Mr. Valente said that he has 80%, 79% green space. We commend him for that. However, it is a smaller area and as you see the maps you're seeing a 20 foot buffer of ragweed, which is, as we know going to be gone in the wintertime. So we would just like some of those things to be taken into account. Mainly what we're asking the Board today is to hold the record open, to allow and to listen to the public comments, because you're going to hear a lot of personal comments, different comments from individuals that do live in Baybridge. I believe you may also hear from individuals that I don't represent from perhaps Country Club Road itself, Brown's Path, other places. This is a project, contrary to what Mr. Borgos said, they're not at cleanup here. There's additional traffic studies that need to be done. There's nowhere in their traffic study where it indicates any impact on Baybridge or Gentry. It talks about the impact, the external impact on Bay. It doesn't talk at all about the impact within the development. That is not addressed. So I think these are things that, this is not just, we don't like this development. This is, he can develop, it's his property and we appreciate that, with proper planning and with the safety and the best interests of everybody in the Town, and at that point I appreciate your letting me jabber on a little bit, and I'd like to turn it over to Kirby VanVleet who is a hydrogeologist, to explain something I really don't understand, but I'm sure that you folks will be able to. KIRBY VAN VLEET MR. VAN VLEET-Hi, I'm Kirby VanVleet, hydrogeologist with Hansen VanVleet, specializing in groundwater. I've been asked to take a look at the proposed project with respect to potential groundwater impacts to the Baybridge townhouse community. Historically the Baybridge townhouse community has been impacted by high groundwater, especially in the spring or after significant rainfalls. There's a number of the townhouses that have had flooded and wet basements, crawl spaces. Over the years they've done some engineering work to try to rectify that, but they're still being plagued. The applicant put together a very extensive stormwater plan, and we're in total agreement with the applicant that there's no additional water being introduced to the site. However, there are impervious surfaces and water is being re-directed to stormwater devices. Our big concern is that while their test pits and perc tests showed adequate soils at the surface, we do have shallow groundwater table and shallow clay type soils. The applicant actually stated in their stormwater management plan that the devices are shallow to avoid the deeper, siltier clay soils and the seasonally high groundwater, and that's basically the potential issue here. Our concern is that the stormwater devices may cause temporary groundwater mounding, which is basically a piling up of the groundwater on the impervious layers or on the existing high water table that may spread laterally and cause more elevated groundwater conditions in the Baybridge community. Looking specifically at the site, to the west of Baybridge Drive, there's a number of small devices. They label them F-1, G-1, H-1, 1-1, J-1, and L-1, that are immediately west of units at the end of Baybridge and Walker Lane. The test pit that was dug in that area, Test Pit 22-2, encountered clay type soils at 35 inches, and after four hours had a foot of groundwater percolating into the test pit. There's a couple of other structures to the west of Dorlon, DD-2 and EE-1, that are as close as 50 to 60 feet from townhouses, and those townhouses, 38-40 to 48, in that range, they have experienced standing water immediately behind the houses as they currently exist. Test Pit 22-15, which was excavated where EE-1 is proposed, that, again, encountered clay type soils at 13 inches, and then as we move a little bit to the southeast, they had two test pits that encountered bedrock at 40 and 47 inches. So basically we think that the applicant should look into the potential for groundwater mounding and the potential for impacts to the existing houses. There is definitely a way to do a groundwater mounding analysis, and I think that is warranted in this situation, just to confirm whether there will or will not be any potential impacts. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Who would like to be next? BRIAN REICHENBACH MR. REICHENBACH-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. REICHENBACH-Gentlemen. My name is Brian Reichenbach. I am with Stafford, Carr, and McNally in Lake George, and I represent Andrew and Cheryl Heinz and Mary McCasland. My clients, gentlemen, live at the north end of the proposed project. They all live on Brown's Path, and they're properties are immediately adjacent to the north end of the proposed project. We're here asking for time. This project is going to affect my clients in several ways. Their backyards currently look out on a very thin buffer, if you see at the north end of the project there, they have an open backyard there, patios, there are great room windows, their family room sliding glass doors all look out in the direction of the project. They're going to go from a wooded area, a meadow, a low, wet area, now, to student housing, apartment houses. If you look at the (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) proposed plan, you'll see that there's a building plan for exactly the end of that north end of the property there that would face my client's property directly. It would only be a few feet from their property lines. What they purchased was houses with backyards and an unspoiled natural area, and what they're now going to get is apartment houses behind them in their backyards essentially. We don't know if those are going to be ACC off campus housings or otherwise. That's not what they bargained for. Their property is most assuredly going to be impacted by this project in a huge ways. Emotionally, the quality of their life, the quiet enjoyment of their property, and economically as well. We don't know exactly how that's going to impact their property. We don't know how much that's going to impact their property. We have engaged a professional, now, to measure some of those metrics to determine exactly how much it's going to affect them, in what ways, physically and environmentally and economically. Because of the modification to the project and notice we've had, we have not had an opportunity to have that study completed yet. We do not have a report to offer to the Board. We definitely do want to have a report to offer to the Board. We feel that those issues are issues that should be addressed by the Board and the Board should have additional information to review based on the Town Code Section 179-9-080 subdivisions F, H and L. I think those are all within those purviews and we want to offer that information to the Board as it debates and considers the project. We will join the Bayberry homeowners in the concerns about the water issues. I was not able to tell from my review of the plans today what stormwater issues affect that northern end there between the ends of that northernmost building on my client's property. We'd like to have an opportunity to review that in more detail. What we're asking, gentlemen, is to keep the record open for the public hearing so that we can have that information for the Board. We want to complete the investigation so there's a complete picture for you when you consider the impact of this proposal on my client and their families. It's a project they're going to have to live with likely for the rest of their lives. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Sir? ARTY SCHWAB MR. SCHWAB-I'll be short and sweet. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SCHWAB-My name's Arty Schwab. I live at 28 Gentry, and what I want to bring up is, whether the Board realizes it or not, if this project ever went through, most of our senior citizens who walk and exercise up and down our streets here, there aren't any sidewalks, and it's going to be additional cars. You're talking about 140 some odd units, probably two cars to a unit, over 300 some odd cars coming up and down our streets. Now Gentry Lane itself is settling, has many tracks in it. I don't believe it was meant as a permanent road with concrete underneath. I don't know how it was built, but I'm concerned that there's no sidewalks. We have to walk in the street to get our mail, which is up by Dorlon, around the corner, and I'm afraid some of our elderly citizens probably would and could get hit by a car. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, ma'am. BARBARA DELSIGNORE MRS. DELSIGNORE-Okay. My name is Barbara Delsignore, and my husband Al and I live on 14 Gentry Lane in the Baybridge complex. My husband and I bought our single family home, which was the model home Dan Valente, Jr. built, and we've resided there a little over 12 years as its first and only owners. We are certain Dan Valente will build a beautiful development known as the Cottage Hill townhouses, but will it be compatible to our Baybridge development? That is our concern. Dan Valente sat in our living room, within the first year of our residency, and assured my husband and I when he added on to the adjacent property to our neighborhood it would be a complement to our already well developed private community and not change our development. Mr. Valente is proposing 148 townhomes, townhome units in 29 buildings, a walking path, a natural playground, which does not in any way coincide with the conversation he had with us in our home. It indicates heavy traffic, an entirely new generation of residents and renters instead of homeowners. This is certain to change our living conditions, and the value of our homes. Change is inevitable, but at this stage of our lives, as seniors, we expect our developer to consider his good intentions to us when he built our homes, because the fact is we purchased our homes based on his word. Please take these facts into consideration because our lives and neighborhood will change, and not for the better. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. JOHN DAVIS (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. DAVIS-Good evening. My name's John Davis. I live on Gurney Lane. I've lived there for 35 years. I'm not a resident of Baybridge townhouses. While I don't live there, I've spent considerable time there in the past three years or so. I'm a retired professional engineer in both New York and California and I formerly served as a member of the Queensbury Environmental Committee, when it did exist. At the request of some of the residents of Baybridge townhouses, I reviewed the subject application kind of as an interested party. In addition, I attended the earlier Zoning Board of Appeals hearing and have the following comments to offer. My comments are primarily restricted to my review of the traffic evaluation submitted by the applicant and observations of the current traffic situation in the development. The traffic evaluation performed by Creighton Manning and submitted to the applicant by letter dated May 21, 2012, deals only with the macro or the external aspect of the traffic impacts, as I believe Karla Buettner has already mentioned. It does not address several very practical but non- technical issues internal to the existing complex. It should be noted the complex is made up of many elderly people, as has been mentioned before. The primary way they can negotiate their way around the neighborhood is to drive or walk in the roads, as there are no sidewalks, as has been mentioned also. Some tend to walk slowly and they're sometimes unable to move quickly to avoid approaching vehicles, thus making it imperative that nothing be done to lessen their safety. Their mailboxes are in a central location on the north side of the Baybridge Drive, thus necessitating that they either walk, drive, or cycle to the location to get their mail. Some of the residents drive their vehicles to their mailboxes. Frequently considerable traffic congestion occurs in this area along Baybridge Drive as there is no parking by the mailboxes, other than along the road. The residents tend to congregate in this area while sometimes waiting for their mail to arrive or just to socialize. Adding traffic, as many as 148 new apartments, will make this congested area an even greater safety hazard. Some of the residents ride three-wheel adult tricycles or bicycles. They travel throughout the development and sometimes ride to the east end of Baybridge Drive to its intersection with Bay Road. In this section of Fairfield office complex, Baybridge Drive has several curves to slow traffic down while at the same time it makes it more difficult for vehicles to negotiate, thus to some extent increasing the hazard factor especially for elderly people cycling in the roadway, as there are no sidewalks there either capable of accommodating cyclists. Again, increased traffic from 148 apartments will exacerbate this problem area. Some school buses do not drive up Walker Lane or Baybridge Drive. Parents drive to the end of these roads and congregate to meet the school buses to drop off or pick up children. I've witnessed considerably congestion on Walker Lane when parents drive their vehicles to that point as there is no place to park except along the roadway. This situation has already gotten worse with the addition of the apartment complex on the east side of Walker Lane. It is obvious that this will become even more unsafe and intolerable with the addition of 148 apartments. Other congestion occurs as the result of lawn service. Every Tuesday there are many vehicles, lawnmowers and the like, and also trash service every Thursday and those vehicles come in, and the roads, as you know, are not very wide. Legacy Land Holdings owns property connecting the proposed development of Country Club Road. Most of the aforementioned problems would not be worsened if only ingress or egress to the development were to Country Club Road rather than to Bay Road. The Planning Board should suggest this as an option for the applicant to consider over the current proposal in the interest of increased safety and to resolve other problems associated with this proposal. A comprehensive study should be performed to evaluate the above issues with development of the proposed measures to resolve these internal congestion and safety problems. I have some general comments that I'll try to go through quickly. Several actions by the applicant should be brought to the attention of the Board. When the original development was taking place, the purchasers and prospective purchasers of the homes were lead to believe that the final phase of the development would be the same character and nature as the original. I believe that's already been mentioned. While it may have been their current proposal was conceived months ago or years ago, now the economy has started to improve. New housing starts are up, local real estate values and sales have picked up considerably. So, you know, this leads one to believe that the original proposal of the owner occupied units may be viable again and should be considered by the applicant and the Planning Board. In light of this, it's difficult to justify this bait and switch approach by the applicant to justify apartments over owner occupied units. In addition, they're proposing apartments, the applicant has stated that the ultimate plan is to sell these apartments to convert them to owner occupied units. This is unlikely as it, again, would be next to impossible to obtain approval from the Town of Queensbury as Craig has previously mentioned, just because of the number of variances that would be required. So leading the current homeowners to believe this conversion will take place in the future is very misleading. In reviewing the project plan accompanying this proposal one is lead to believe that the Legacy Land Holdings does not own land connecting the proposed development of Country Club Road. The 3.53 acre lot directly west of the north end of the proposed development incorrectly notes that the owner of this lot is Ruth B. Dorlon Trust. Further research has revealed, I believe as Karla has already mentioned, that this lot is now owned by Legacy Land Holdings and is designated as Tax Map 296.11-1-18.2. This would make a direct connection to Country Club Road possible, as previously suggested. This would resolve a tremendous number of the traffic 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) problems and I wish the Planning Board would take this to heart and give some consideration to having the applicant modify the proposal to that extent. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? DAVID KING MR. KING-My name is David King. I live at 22 Gentry. I'm a retired engineer. The traffic evaluation that Mr. Valente commissioned, which, as you know, was strictly to look at traffic lights at Bay, and to do that they used the numbers out of this ITE Trip Generation handbook, and they used the rush hour numbers in the morning and at night, which is an appropriate thing to use for congestion at traffic lights. We retired people try not to rush too much, and so we're not so interested in rush hour traffic. We're interested in the traffic throughout the day. Well the Trip Generation handbook has a third number for each type of building, and they call it week day trips or essentially it's the number of trips for the whole day. So I just did this quickie evaluation using those numbers, and if you start out with 72 units of senior adult housing attached, 252, and you come up with 251 trips a day, and then using the 220 apartment, which was the same classification that was used in the other traffic study, 148 units, that ends up with 984 trips a day for a total of 1235. So if you take 1235 and divide it by 251, what you get is just about five times the amount of traffic. So essentially the addition of Cottage Hill is going to result in five times as much as traffic going through Baybridge, and that, to me, is going to significantly change the character of the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. SHARON HENDRICKS MRS. HENDRICKS-Good evening. I'm Sharon Hendricks. I live at 46 Dorlon Drive in Queensbury, and I'm on the Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association board. Residents purchased homes at Baybridge with the understanding that the adjoining property would be developed with quality privately townhomes or individual homes. In 2002, the Association turned over to Valente Builders a connecting 300 foot parcel of land at the end of Gentry Lane, with the understanding that the property would be developed with single family homes. We consider Dan Valente a quality builder. We accept that the zoning laws were changed in 2005 to include rentals. There is, however, a moral obligation to the residents of 86 units who bought from Valente in good faith and that their investment be honored. In addition we believe there should be a moral obligation by the Planning Board to consider losses the Baybridge community would suffer due to the proximity of additional rental units, regardless of who the developer is. Number Two, please. Traffic safety is our main concern. Streets are narrow with no sidewalks. Pedestrians walk on the road when traveling to and from mailboxes on Baybridge Drive. Walking for pleasure with dogs during the day or evening is also happening. Snow conditions narrow the roads so the snow banks make parking more difficult. Number Three, please. People visiting park with two wheels on the road and two wheels on the grass. Driveways hold two to three vehicles. This causes narrowing of the road for vehicles and pedestrians when traveling. Has the Board considered the Code of 24 feet which is required for vehicles for a Town road because of safety issues such as a fire truck? Baybridge is 21 feet wide. When entering Baybridge community, when you first come in it's 24, where the offices are, but it goes down to 21. With the proposed density, as explained by Dave King report, the increased traffic brought to Baybridge Drive, being the main ingress to access this plan, this site plan, could cause a traffic problem and hamper safety of residents. We do not want to become a driveway for the Cottage Hill project. Number Four, please. Lawn care and garbage pickup is once a week each, lawn care vehicles and mowing equipment dominate the roads, as do disposal and recycling trucks. You pass with caution at a low speed. This is mainly from April to November. In winter, we deal with snow equipment cleaning driveways. Many residents have to move second vehicles to the road. Number Five. Rentals with existing plan will likely bring school children, especially with the rent monetary value. The present school bus pickup is at the Baybrook apartments. With this plan for Cottage Hill, pickup will be at the end of Gentry Lane or Baybridge Drive. Now this is Walker, because we don't have, this, we took these pictures earlier. Parents are required to be present to drop off and pick up their children from K through third grade I believe. This could create a traffic problem at peak times of the day. Number Six, please. At present there are two dental practices in Fairfield Professional Park. At least six cars are parked in each lot, coming at peak times of the day. The potential is for 14 more offices, which could easily bring 96 cars as this development progresses. This also offers a route to Country Club Road, going up Baybridge Drive, and then through Cottage Hill project. Number Seven. The turn onto Gentry Lane, particularly if cars are parked in front of residences. The road is in need of repair. This will continue to deteriorate with winter plowing and large equipment used by the developer. ARC, which is located on Gentry Lane, meets approximately one a month. At that time, approximately eight to ten cars will be parked on the road. Number Eight. We did discuss this a little before. The buffer between Baybridge and Cottage Hill 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) development should be the responsibility of the developer, and at present it is field with just golden rod and ragweed which will die off in the wintertime and be barren. A berm should exist between property lines with tree plantings to give privacy and distinction of property lines. The plantings should resonate the existing community's landscape, with shrubbery and trees with height to give privacy. Residents of Baybridge are not against development, provided it is compatible with the existing Baybridge community. To the best of our knowledge, there are no other apartment rentals that do not have their own ingress and egress instead of driving through an existing established residential community of 25 plus years. If Cottage Hill would create their own ingress and egress, this would eliminate traffic issues and the need to widen Baybridge Road and provide sidewalks for safety. There is property owned by Mr. Valente, which you already know, that exists on Country Club Road to exist, made to create this. We live in a beautiful residential community at Baybridge, with townhomes and private residents offering complimentary green areas. The Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association has endeavored to maintain its beauty through proper maintenance of buildings, driveway, and landscaping. We are an asset to any developer. I invite anyone to drive through and observe this. Thank the Planning Board for their time and interest in addressing our concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. TERRI DE ANGELO MRS. DE ANGELO-Hi. My name's Terri DeAngelo and I live at 32 Gentry Lane, and one of the letters that the Board received in that packet from Karla was a letter from me, specifying some of the concerns and views that I have, and I'm a homeowner in Baybridge, currently, but I'm also a realtor of 21 years in the Queensbury area, and I know that it has since changed, but the original letter from Jarrett Engineers, dated December 1St, 2011, to the Zoning and the Planning Boards, commented on how the project was going to be developed as rental unit rather than individually owned townhomes, and they cited the current economy as the reason for that. Two points I'd like to make just on that, and I know that they've altered it to the rental, you know, (lost word) otherwise, but, you know, the current real estate market is fairly strong right now. You all have a copy of the statistical reports that I printed up from Multiple Listing Service, but as further support I refer to a Post Star article dated October 9, 2012, that stated that the August sale spiked 69% from 2011 to 2012. Sales have increased tremendously. Regarding townhomes in particular, I mean, you take a look at the number of townhomes that Amedore and Michaels Group has sold over on Haviland and Meadowbrook, and they have succeeded pretty well. The only one that has had a little bit more difficulty has been Turnberry on Bay Road, and typically a two story townhome with no garages are not the most desirable for a townhome purchaser. I mean, most, more than 90% are empty nesters, and seniors, and they prefer single level homes. Having a garage is an absolute necessity. Turnberry was just a little bit different design. You either had a first floor apartment with someone over the top of you, or you had a second floor apartment where you then need to navigate stairs. So the project's gone a little bit slower than maybe a townhome would be that Mr. Valente would build, you know, and has built in the past. Also in a meeting with Dan Valente and the members of the Baybridge community, a few of them, he mentioned rental amounts, which he mentioned tonight. At that time he mentioned $800 to $1200 a month, and in my experience as a realtor, an $800 rental is not a quality rental, and it has a real close proximity to ACC, and I would assume that it would undoubtedly attract college students and more transient kind of renters. On a personal note, though, you know, and a recent Post Star article talked about a subdivision on Sweet Road that's going to be developed by Cerrone Builders, and that parcel is a similar acreage with 26 acres, and the discussion is for 25 to 31 homes, and that project has a vision that's complimentary to the area, and to the surrounding homes that are already existing there. Plus there's an ingress and egress onto Sweet Road, not through an existing community as the Cottage Hill project now shows. So now, on a personal note, my primary concern is the fact that apartments rather than single family homes. Apartment complex was not the original vision of the Valente family, as that letter showed. In 2002 they basically reinforced and reassured that they were going to go forward with single family homes at that point. I believe one of the questions on the SEAR form asks the specific question about whether the new project will have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and communities. The answer was no on the application, but I have to respectfully disagree. I have yet to find one positive impact this project's going to have on Baybridge or any of the homes along Country Club Road, or any of the homes along Brown's Path. With the Schermerhorn apartments on Walker and then the addition of Cottage Hill, our Baybridge community is going to be almost entirely encompassed by apartments. It's going to have a direct detrimental impact on us. The values of the Baybridge homes are going to be affected because apartments have historically and statistically proven to reduce market values of nearby homes. It's just a fact, and knowing that, what possible positive result can there be by sacrificing our neighborhood for another? And I don't know about tax consequences, but I would think that an apartment complex on one parcel would not equal the revenue for the Town as 20 plus individual units would. I thank you so much for your time and that's all. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. JOYCE SMITH MRS. SMITH-My name is Joyce Smith, and my husband Pete and I live at 30 Gentry Lane in the Baybridge development. We've been there more than 11 years in a home that we purchased new, and at that time we thought that when Gentry Lane was eventually expanded it would be privately owned single family homes with probably larger than ours. I did also notice that in Item Seven on Page Twenty-One of the SEAR form there's nothing even said that there are single family homes in Baybridge, but we have 22 of them. Most of Gentry Lane is single family homes. I'll try not to repeat too many things that have been said before, but the thought of squeezing in all those rental units is really quite distressing to us, and everything surrounding this area is private owned single family or townhomes. We've got serious concerns about property values, water displacement, noise, environment and so forth, but to my husband and myself, our biggest impact that we're concerned about is safety. I'm among a number who live in Baybridge that go for a fairly lengthy walk every day. Many others, as has been mentioned, walk to get their mail at the gazebo or walk their dogs. My husband has some physical disabilities that he rides an adult tricycle for five miles a day on our roads whenever the weather possibly permits, or he goes for a walk with a four wheeled walker on Gentry Lane, and there have been others that have used walkers like that in the past. We have a home, as has been mentioned, ARC on our street, where some developmentally disabled women live. Several of them at a time will go out for a walk with a caregiver, and they are not able to be as safe on the street as some people might, and need constant watching. It's been mentioned that most of us in Baybridge are retired. We tend to back out of our driveways, turn and drive more cautiously than probably many younger drivers do, but we watch out for each other and we're patient, and we know that the amount of traffic would increase dramatically on both Gentry Lane and Baybridge Drive under the current proposal. Getting on and off Bay Road even right now is very difficult. To try to turn left to go to the College is next to impossible. People often drive down some place and go to Lowe's or somewhere and turn around and come back because they just can't get out, especially if the College is in session. It's the whole idea of a development that we would like to see that more or less mirrors what's around it now, something that's privately owned and would fit with the character of what's all around, rather than impose a huge amount of private rental residences. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. PATRICIA DECKER MRS. DECKER-Good evening, gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MRS. DECKER-My name is Patricia Decker and I live on 48 Dorlon Drive, and I have lived there for almost 22 years. I purchased my house from Dan Valente, Sr. and Liz Valente. When I moved in, and I am scheduled to be directly next to the road that Mr. Valente is putting in. When I moved in, I immediately had water in my cellar. Dan, Sr. would send Dan, Jr., as Dan knows, to try to move some of the soil around the house, but the water persisted the cellar was unsuitable for storage of any kind. Over the years, the trees around my house have grown and water in the cellar has dried up. I spoke to Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Water Keeper, and she explained that trees take in amazing amounts of water. She said, and I called her again today so that she could clarify that, that a mature tree will soak up up to five, 50,000 gallons of water. Now that's a mature tree. The trees around my house are not mature. They are only 22 years old, but Kathy assures me that they are absorbing thousands of gallons of water, especially in spring when the leaves are coming out. I feel the removal of these trees for construction of a road would lead to a deluge of water in my cellar and those of my neighbors. In the back of my house in some places the water table is only 12 inches deep. This strip of land where the proposed road is to be built will lead to the destruction of a whole eco system of flora and fauna. This area abounds with wildlife, from insects to dozens of species of birds, amazing varieties of butterflies, some blue, probably not Karner blues, to frogs, rabbits, fox, pheasants, grouse, wild turkey and deer. This nursery of nature should not be destroyed. Danny Valente has the right to develop his property. He does not have the right to develop this property to the detriment of 86 other property owners. He does not have the right to make our neighborhood unsafe. He does not have the right to deny Pete Smith, who lives at 30 Gentry Lane, as his wife said, the ability to ride his adult tricycle in a safe environment so he can add to the more than 10,000 miles he has already cycled in Baybridge since 2001. Dan Valente does not have the right to deny those like Charlie Yasko, who lives at 20 Baybridge and uses a walker to get around, to safely walk in the neighborhood. He does not have the right to create such unsafe traffic that those living in the ARC home, as Mrs. Smith has already said, at 37 Gentry, will be unable to take walks. He does not have the right to make it unsafe for the hearing and visually 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) impaired, which we have in our neighborhood, to walk in the neighborhood. You, each and every one of you gentlemen, on the Queensbury Planning Board, has the ability to make this applicant do the right thing. You have the ability to make sure that those who live at Baybridge are safe and their way of life not destroyed by this applicant. Thank you very much for listening. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? DORA SEIPEL MS. SEIPEL-My name is Dora Seipel and I live at 22 Dorlon Drive. I actually was going to speak. I've been on the Board of Directors since 1991, and we have turned over, conveyed two pieces of, easements and the 300 foot parcel of property to Mr. Valente during that time. We deliberated extensively before we made these decisions to turn over the easements and the 300 foot property until we were assured that whatever was going to go in behind us was going to be compatible with the Baybridge community. So anyway, I'm not going to say any more about it. you've seen the letter from Liz Valente. We had conversations with our President in 2007, which was very much the same type of conversation. It was going to be like Baybridge. It was going to be high end, it was going to be whatever. I did want to say one more thing. Our President was going to be here tonight to talk about the rain event we had on October 19th which was all over Queensbury. Just wanted to back up all of the other comments that have been said about water on the property. Baybridge was totally drenched. It was totally saturated. You couldn't walk anywhere without squishing down somewhere. There was ponding at all the low levels, huge, huge areas of ponding, and there was another drainage area between Walker Lane and Baybridge Drive that we installed, a trench with pipe and stone drainage. That whole trench area was complete full with water all the way down to the brook. Four houses on the south end, on the southwest end of Gentry Lane had basement water, huge problems with one of them, and we had to install another drainage area between two of the houses at the low point. So anyway, I just wanted to add that. Thank you very much. Yes. MR. KREBS-Can I have a question? MS. SEIPEL-Yes. MR. KREBS-Are any of you, or do any of you have anything from Valente's in writing that assures you that they're going to be using that property for similar purposes? MS. SEIPEL-Just the letter that you saw that was up there, that is posted on Sharon's, the letter that was dated in 2002. Other than that, all we had are verbal assurances. We went through that whole process, and as I said deliberated at great length, and in the last conversation we had with them, there was nothing said about rentals or we might still be deliberating. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, ma'am, if I could ask a follow up question? MS. SEIPEL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned some deliberations at your Board meetings. Do you keep minutes of those meetings? MS. SEIPEL-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Are there, can you check, or might it be valuable to reference those minutes and see if there are references to the discussions that you described? MS. SEIPEL-I do have those. I looked at them this afternoon. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MS. SEIPEL-And I called our President, John Owens, who was President at the time, to verify that my information was correct, and there was nothing said about rentals at that time. We did, this is the best we could do. I mean, all we could get were assurances. That was the best that we, that was the best bargain we were going to get. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. SEIPEL-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No one else wishes to comment this evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I've got a question for one of the attorneys. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Ms. Buettner, is Ms. Buettner still back there? MS. BUETTNER-I'm still hanging out. Do you want me to come up? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Where did you say that there was a possibility to enter where the apartments are from Country Club Road? There's been a change in ownership over here, and there could be? Could you explain? MS. BUETTNER-Yes. On there, right there, that's actually owned by Legacy Land. That's been owned by them since 2006. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What is all the Dorlon Trust or just the right side of the Dorlon Trust? MS. BUETTNER-That, but that parcel there, I guess, Tom, is that your? MR. MAGOWAN-To the left of that is Paul Kruger's. He owns that and down around the pond. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. So Brown's Path Road is that one right there with all the brick homes on it? MS. BUETTNER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MS. BUETTNER-And it's my understanding, and I'm sure Mr. Valente can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that that property is up for sale and has been for quite some time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. Yes, well, it's no secret that apartments aren't compatible with those brick houses there that the attorney's talking about. They're worth $400, $500,000 a piece and then you're going to put apartments next to them. That doesn't work. MS. BUETTNER-I agree with you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But the other thing I wanted to point out to you is, for the people living in the apartments, if you had a connection from Country Club Road, you would have connections for your emergency services. You don't have that now, and I can tell you after 50 years in the emergency services that the difference in time for your fire apparatus from Central and your ambulances from West Glens Falls is about two and a half to three minutes, if they've got to come the other way, and go through the other neighborhoods, and if you're in cardiac arrest, that's the end of it, and if it's a fire, that's twice the damage. So you might want to think about that. MS. BUETTNER-I do just want to add, actually, since you let me come up, I do want to add one small thing. The comment is likely to be made from Mr. Valente that there will be a cut through if he goes through Country Club from Bay Road to Country Club, you can cut through Baybridge right through. That can easily be fixed by either not allowing it as a cut through, not connecting whatever road is from Country Club and Baybridge, or you could do one way or you could offset it. So I just want to say that I'm sure that that comment was going to be made, but thank you, unless you need me again. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You never know. MS. BUETTNER-I'll be in the back. MR. BROWN-While you're at the table, it has to do with the public comment. We did receive it for the record. We don't prepare copies of this and distribute it to the Board. We don't do that with any public comment. MS. BUETTNER-Okay. MR. BROWN-The Board does accept, if you want to produce copies and submit it to the Board. I think they'll do that, but we didn't do that. So you made reference to it. If you want to prepare it and submit it to them, I'm sure they would accept it. It's in the file. It's part of the record. MS. BUETTNER-I can present, I can have copies made and sent to them. I was just trying to save some paper here, Craig. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. BROWN-I know. MS. BUETTNER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anyone else that wished to comment this evening? Okay. Then we will conclude the public hearing for tonight. MR. BROWN-I have one other written comment from Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I can read it, unless she'd like to agree that she covered the points that are in her letter? MRS. SMITH-1 wrote that in September, and pretty much covered those things. MR. BROWN-Okay, then we'll just note that it's in the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will, then, conclude the public hearing for this evening. If the applicant wants to come back to the table. I don't know if any of these comments are new or came as any kind of surprise. I don't know if you want to respond or comment on some of them? MR. BORGOS-I'd just like to make mention for the record that the submission that Craig was just mentioning, we didn't receive a copy of it, either. I'm sure Ms. Buettner is looking to save those papers as much as possible. I don't think there's anything new in there, either. If it's a little import to the conversation, I think we have to have that perspective again. It's very important to hear from the public, as a Planning Board, and have that input in the comment period. However, this is not a project that has been foisted upon the public without adequate notice. Mr. Reichenbach brought up the point that he wished to have additional time. The request for additional time, I think, is clearly inappropriate because, as we've mentioned, and I think as Ms. Buettner referenced, the original letter to the Planning/Zoning Boards was from 2011. We were here in January. There have been multiple notices, meetings. In fact, we've met with the Homeowners Association on at least two occasions. We attempted to work with them on increasing buffer because this is a project that has always been known to occur. As everybody's referenced, they knew that there was going to be another phase, and every phase always impacts those that came before. Every house that goes on a street impacts those that were there before. That's the basis of the nimbyism that we're hearing tonight, and as much as they tell us that they're not against development, they are. Everything they've talked about is against development. Every car additional is going to impact those roadways. What is the number that is acceptable? If we allow the opposition to dictate, it's going to come down and down and down and to zero, because that would be their wish. Certainly for those neighbors to the north that have properties abutting this, their wish is to preserve the natural state of the land, but that is not what is allowable under our system of laws and our Town Zoning Ordinances. Property owners have rights. Anybody who buys property has their due diligence requirements to investigate what might happen around them, and while they're owning that property, they have the obligation to monitor what's going on in their township. Attend public meetings, participate in the drafting of zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans, and voice their opinions, and certainly apartments are what is being opposed here. They don't want to see apartments. Whether or not it's economically viable is a guess. We don't know what's going to happen. The Mayan's don't think we're going to be here to worry about it, but we know that we're making an educated guess as to what the market will bear, and Mr. Valente had determined that apartments is the way to go. That's his right. He's going to be investing in our community and improving it from a dollar investment in the ground standpoint to say, this is what it is. Not everybody is going to agree with whether or not that's beneficial. A lot of opposition said there's nothing positive here. Again, every time somebody else builds on the street or adds to the community, there's maybe not a positive gain for the people who have been here before. That's an arbitrary decision. That's an aesthetic view, something that's unique and personal, and we've heard a lot of those personal comments tonight. I remember growing up in Queensbury and watching the development along Aviation Road. There was Sylvan, Buena Vista and Kylie Lane, and then, I don't know if it was Sycamore but the Pines were developed beyond that, and people kept cutting through Sylvan and Kylie Lane and they continue to do that today. Those neighborhoods that were there before were severely impacted by that, but that's normal. That's a growing, developing Town. Baybridge in particular, there were phases that were well planned out and part of the original maps. They were a lot more density than what is there currently today, and everybody in this room will admit to that. What I'm hearing over and over again are things that I think, complaints or issues that would be raised by any property owner with greater density going in around them. You have nothing unique when it comes to more children getting on school buses and parents driving to pick them up parking on the sides of the road, things of that nature. If the roads are too narrow with cars parked on either side of it, well, that's a complaint that could be addressed by the Town Board. They could make a request for one sided parking only or perhaps no parking on the turns if that was required. There are 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) ways to address it, but that's the existing municipal highway. This is not a gated community, and a lot of the requests we were hearing sounded like they wanted to protect this enclave and force the development to go another way, or not to happen at all, and any request to stall or delay at this point, I think, is with that ultimate goal of stopping the development, and as we have indicated at the outset, we think, over the past year, we've submitted enough information for this Board to make a determination. We're not looking for any waivers. We've complied or exceeded every requirement there is in the Town Code, and certainly, you know, there may be members of the Board that have strong feelings about whether or not this is appropriate or not, but if you look at it in the Code, there's no regulation that says you can't do this. We think we've given this a lot of thought and a lot of careful planning. Dan Valente is not doing something that he's intending to harm the neighborhood with. He's going to do whatever he can to enhance it, but the comments in opposition seem to be simply, we don't want it because it's more people, and it's going to affect what we have now, and quite honestly that's not something that this Board could really factor in, if everything else is met. We've got see if it was well planned to the best of what it is, but no matter what goes in there, it's going to affect people in one way or another. MR. MAGOWAN-May I say something? That's very well put, and I have to say it was well said. I believe what the people are saying, though, is that they're not objected to building out. There was a common build out plan that has been discussed, and I think they have all bought in thinking that this is going to be their retirement home. This is where they're going to grow up, you know, and live happily ever after, and they're not saying we don't want to see people move in there, but you're really concentrating, I think I got from the concern you're just concentrating a lot more than what was actually anticipated when the Baybridge project was being built. Because I remember, you know, working with Dan, Sr. on the first ones up Baybridge and siting them, you know, years ago, and Dan, Jr. was, you know, coming up the ranks. I think still in high school, and I remember the concept that Senior had, and I don't, you know, like I said, I'm not saying that, you know, it's too large, but what the people, I think, are saying is that they, you know, the plan was to grow to in the same, what am I trying to say, you know, in the same common growth and not all of a sudden changing it to an apartment complex. MR. BORGOS-1 know Dan wants to address that. So thank you for bringing that up, but before I let him do that, I just wanted to also point out that it's kind of an unusual situation that it is a related property owner. It's not the same property owner as developed earlier. Now this is another generation. It's a different entity. It could very well be somebody from Staten Island. That's somewhat, I understand it's relevant to agree and understand that that's what the expectations were perhaps and what their belief structures were, which lead to a lot of the emotion we see here. However, from a legal, planning aspect, I'm looking at it and saying, well, if it were somebody else, is there anything that binds that current owner? There isn't. Dan's going to talk about a little bit of the changes and how they came about. MR. VALENTE-You're in for it now. MR. KREBS-Well, that was exactly why I asked the question, was there anything in writing? MR. VALENTE-Yes, well, there's two sides to every fence here, folks. I mean, I have a 25 year history. I grew up with this subdivision. I don't know if people have selective memories or just most of them I don't know have been there from the onset. There's a very select few, I think, at Baybridge that have the full history of that subdivision and the goings on with that subdivision. The parcel that they are talking about, that 300 feet with that, first of all, that was conveyed to my parents. I have a separate company. I did buy the property. It was done a decade ago, regardless, but that piece was mistakenly transferred to them, okay. There was a parcel behind the Gentry Lane units that was originally set aside for a swimming pool tennis court area, a recreation area with the Baybridge community. At the time during the development they were, as my father was developing the entire system there, they decided that that was not something they wanted to maintain. That area, they did not a pool. They didn't want the liability, and they didn't want the maintenance of that area. So the agreement was that they would transfer the property over to them so it would become their property, and stay green space. He couldn't use it. In the event of doing that, now this is going to get convoluted. Like I said, you guys opened up the can of worms here. While we were building our Gentry Lane, I was building the individuals, we had converted from the townhouse style to the individual single families, due to the economy. We couldn't sell the townhouses. Went to the single families. They started to sell. We were getting permits from the Town. I had contracts. I issue, at the tail end of Gentry Lane I issue for permits and the Town says I can't give you anymore permits. I have signed contracts. I'm in the middle of building. I have multiple buildings going, and they said I can't do it. I said, well, why. Well, we changed the zoning. It doesn't allow single family homes in that zone anymore. So I had to go into the Town, with my attorney, and sit down and the agreement was that they would allow us to finish out to the end of the paved road, which is where Gentry Lane ends now. The phase was originally approved for another 300 feet out, and there's a 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) hydrant out there. That 300 feet is what accidentally got conveyed to Baybridge with that recreational area. The attorneys actually, they didn't break off that 300 foot connection between the end of Gentry Lane and the end of that phase that was originally approved. So it was an accidental thing that happened, and during this whole process, Baybridge was threatening to sue the sponsor of the offering plan, who is my parents, for all unpaid dues on all unbuilt units throughout the entire subdivision. Now if I'm paying dues on unbuilt units, they probably would allow me to build 186 units back there, but in this case, they were two and a half years back and forth, and when they were talking about they were deliberating, that's what they were talking about. Two and a half years, and they finally released that 300 feet of parcel back to them, after they had negotiated, of course there was money that transferred hands at the time, you know, and I'm jumping around a little bit, but that is the gist of that story. Among that same time, there was arguing amongst the Homeowners Association because the people in the multi-family units were arguing that they were paying dues that are supporting the single family unit's maintenance because the single family units have more lawn care and what have you. They were starting to in-fight. They told us at the time they did not want any more single family homes at the end of that. I don't know what else to do here. All right. So, there's two sides to every fence. These people are you getting one side of the story, 90% of the people behind me I'm sure don't know any of this stuff that has transpired, okay. I have other comments on the water. We can deal with that as we go. I don't know if that clears up some of this, but there's nothing legally binding. There's nothing in my deed that makes, and Joyce Smith, respect her, respect her husband, respect for all the people that we've done homes for, and I'm sure, during some of the conversations I'm sure my intent at the time was to build out, continue to build out with those single families. It became a non-allowable use, and it was for at least a couple of years, and the economy changed again. So a decade old statement, our intention was, I don't know how much I can be held for that. Okay. I don't think this is out of character with the neighborhood or the subdivision. There's townhouses, multi-family townhouses there. This is the same theory. Yes they're rentals. A lot of people buy Baybridge townhouses and rent them out as an investment. It's not uncommon. We sold many of them to investors, and that's what they did. I was a renter one day, at one point. I don't know, probably everybody here was a renter. Just because you're a renter doesn't mean you're a bad person. It doesn't mean you're a detriment to the community. The stigma needs to go away. Rentals are going to be the norm for the long term. It's very hard for people to make a good living nowadays and accumulate any funds to buy a home. That's my opinion. Everybody's giving me their opinion. I'm going to give you mine. So I'm a little frustrated with the whole thing. MR. HUNSINGER-I'll give you mine for what it's worth, but, you know, as we sit here as a Planning Board, we don't differentiate between rental and owner. The Zoning Law doesn't differentiate between ownership and renter, except in the case as was pointed out in Staff Notes if this were to be a condominium, then it would also have to be a subdivision. MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-But in terms of the land use, residential is residential. It doesn't really matter if it's ownership or a renter. MR. VALENTE-Right, and I agree, and I agree. That's why I'm here. I think it's, you know, I think, like I say, when you have a multi-family townhouse style building, that's where it's in, it's in there, and, you know, I know there's people that we back up to, I built some beautiful homes back there. I've kept the buildings off the property line. I'm allowed to go 20 feet to the property line. I'm 75 feet from the property line. I'm three times what I'm required to be, you know, we'll put some plantings. I want to protect them, too. They're going to be tastefully done. I'm going to be able to control who goes in there. I'm a very picky individual. So, you know, I have to be given some, again, I have my rights, too, and, you know, everybody has their rights. They have to know what their properties are around them, you know, when they do. I don't know what else to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-Being a homeowner and being president of a homeowners association, you are bound by votes, I guess, to do what you think is best for your community, and in the process you make some enemies and you make some friends. I agree with the fact that homeowners tend to look down on renters, which is a bad situation, and we have in Courthouse Estates some renters now, which we never had before, and there is some backlash that has come about from that, and I hate to see that, because we've got to look at both sides of this problem and see what we can do to make it better. You put in a walkway on that first, the dentist's office. MR. VALENTE-Yes. MR. SIPP-Down the front of him and out onto Bay Road. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. SIPP-Why can't you do that or look at that as a solution for the width of the roads, where the roads are going and so forth? This is not a paving, but revise a walkway or bicycle. MR. VALENTE-Well, we have, you know, a walkway around the back, entire back side of my project, but Baybridge is obviously clearly privately owned. The roads are Town owned, you know, they have plenty of green space to improve their own subdivision to some extent. I mean, I can't be obligated to, you know, at what point does my obligation stop? There's a lot of complaints about walking on the road. They can make a walking path themselves. They spent a lot of money on attorneys and hydrologists and engineers. The money, they can spend some money on putting in some walkways. There's nothing, they have plenty of space to do that. If they need a parking area, they've got room to do that by the mailboxes. They have an island that there's no buildings in at all. So, you know, I don't know at what point the onus stops on the developer and, you know, to improve somebody else's property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You said that letter you had from the Fire Marshal, that's just for the roads where the apartments are, right? I didn't see a copy of that. What did it say, 20 feet? MR. VALENTE-No. MR. JARRETT-Originally the project was reviewed by the Fire Marshal and, or turnarounds were addressed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I noticed he added the turnarounds, yes. MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. JARRETT-And then we've addressed that, and I believe the Fire Marshal then put a note in the file saying everything's been addressed to his satisfaction. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. So 20 foot roads. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That means no parking. MR. DEEB-One of the concerns I have is I'm just wondering why you're so adamant about going out to Country Club Road? I mean, as sort of a compromise. MR. VALENTE-Well, I think it's a detriment to do that. I don't think it's a positive. I don't want to, Number One, it is a nice, viable building lot for myself. It's three and a half acres, single home, you know, but it's really not advantageous to go that way. It just isn't. MR. DEEB-Why? MR. JARRETT-We originally discussed it internally and 1, personally, felt it was going to be a cut through between Country Club Road and Bay Road. I know it would be a tendency for me to use it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's too much going around and around and around, plus it's going to be too tough to get out on Bay Road. MR. JARRETT-I don't agree with you. Now I may be wrong, but I don't agree with you. I felt it was too much of an opportunity. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can go down Blind Rock Road if you want to make that. MR. VALENTE-Well, I mean, also look at that, at what point. So you're talking the last, probably the last four buildings would head that way. The other buildings would head down to Bay Road, I'm sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. It would be ideal, if you were going to do it, to have it right in the middle, but there's no property available to. MR. VALENTE-Right. So a connector road, which personally I have no interest in doing, Number One, that's Number One. Number Two, I'm sure the people at Maple Row aren't going to be real appreciative of that, any more than what we're doing as it is, and, Number Three, you're going to service three or four buildings at the most. It's not. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, no, about half of the people will go that way when they go out. The biggest problem you've got here is you've got those small little roads in the development in the front, and those roads are not safe. They're not wide enough. MR. JARRETT-I don't think it's any different than any of the developments you have in other locations where you just have a full phase build out at one time. It's just that this phase wasn't built within the first 30 years. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There are better developments in this Town with better roads. MR. VALENTE-Are you talking about the Baybridge roads themselves, within the Baybridge community? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I mean,just looking at those, I can just see what people do. MR. VALENTE-Well, and again, you have to understand, it's been 30 years, almost, you know, the Town criteria changes and there was wings then there wasn't wings then there was wings. I mean, we go back and forth daily. So it is a Town road. The Town can approve them. MR. JARRETT-I would not propose widening the roads because that's proven not to be a safety measure. You get traffic calming with narrower roads. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Absolutely. MR. JARRETT-So that's not an issue that anybody should bring up as a solution. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But if you have parking on that road, you don't get traffic. MR. JARRETT-Parking's an issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And it's an issue because you can't bring emergency vehicles through there, and it's not so much a big problem with emergency vehicles if they're not going any further than those four roads. If they're going all the way back to serve apartments, that's an issue. MR. VALENTE-You also need to remember that I put in the Fairfield second connector there, that road in, intentionally, prior to asking for this subdivision, or project site plan, Baybridge was all funneling down one road at that time. I have not heard, obviously we improved the egress tremendously and probably 90% of the people run down that road now. They were all getting pushed to one way. Nobody was complaining at that point. So they were really being squeezed, and now, yes, we're adding to it, but I've improved it a lot, too. So, you know, to alleviate that stress. MR. JARRETT-And at that time this project was discussed as being, that was the forerunner for this ultimate development. MR. DEEB-I'm just a little concerned about the exit, the egress from the, on Bay Road. The study shows the cars turning right. MR. TRAVER-Not all, but the majority, enough to not warrant a traffic light there now. MR. DEEB-And I think there wasn't enough study on the internal traffic. MR. TRAVER-Well, studies of that nature are typically quantitative in nature, and the road network has the capacity to handle the cars that we're talking about. Qualitative reviews, social reviews, those kind of issues, are not typically addressed in those kinds of studies, and so that's why everybody's perceiving this as an external review only, but in reality that's what gets reviewed is the external capacity or capacity of the road networks, as opposed to the social impact, quote unquote. MR. VALENTE-We know there's going to be an impact. There's going to be more traffic, you know, but again, this was always intended to be developed this way. This is not any different than what we originally were planned. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it's going to be huge. MR. VALENTE-The Baybridge, you know, that's a great question, like you said, to ask yourself. This was originally all part of Baybridge community. Why is it not part of Baybridge anymore? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) Because of the lawsuit threats and because of all the rigmarole back and forth and the self- created issues there. I mean, it was at the point where we just said, you know, that's it, we're done. Baybridge is now on its own, and they took their offering plan and they've done what they wanted with it, but there was so much, you know, conflict there, this was originally all part of that subdivision, which obviously it just wasn't working. Of course, you know that was a long time ago, but. MR. JARRETT-Not to digress, but a lot of the other technical issues are really not new in nature and we think we've adequately addressed those. We don't feel there is a groundwater mounding issue. Stormwater follows exactly what the Town Code and the DEC want. We spread stormwater out over the entire project so it does not concentrate water in any particular locations. We don't feel there's an impact there. So I think those issues have been addressed and I think they've been addressed satisfactorily. MR. BORGOS-And I'm just going to conclude by reminding you of where I started. We are not asking for any waivers. We're not asking for any variances. We've backed away from those. We've reduced the density more than 20% below what it was originally. The review is not whether or not you like this or like what we're going to be doing or the rental versus ownership. Those are legislative questions that the Town Board has passed on. This Board does not review those. This Board was going to look at whether or not we meet the criteria, you know, are we, you're going to hold this plan carefully under the light, scrutinize it, evaluate the expert reports. We've got the expert traffic report. We've got a professional engineer with nearly 40 years experience, I couldn't wait to use that, nearly 40 years' experience, for the record. You see Mr. Jarrett here all the time. He's very well respected, and he's putting his name on this project because he believes it's the right thing to do under the Code. If you don't like what the Code allows, well, that's a different office, a different Board to sit on, it's a different process, and that's a difficult thing, sometimes, to reconcile. I understand that, and there are a lot of very valid points and concerns that have been raised by the community. I respect all those opinions, and if I lived there I'd probably feel the same way, but the law is what it is, and this is something that is allowed and I think the community is lucky to have a developer like Mr. Valente who will do the responsible thing in what is allowed. I think that's what's before you here. So we look for a vote to approve the application. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, one thing, if we're going to go with the proposed motion, we have to eliminate Number Three, because we are not granting any stormwater, grading, landscaping or lighting. Okay, just so everybody knows that Number Three has been eliminated from the motion that we have submitted. MR. VALENTE-The letter I just handed out to you, Craig, you'll read that in, or no? Will you, if you don't mind? MR. BROWN-If you look on your public comment (lost words). I can read it if you like. MR. VALENTE-Okay. If you don't mind. MR. BROWN-It's up to the Board, if the Board would like to hear it. It's a letter from. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We got it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, he gave us a copy. MR. VALENTE-Yes, I gave everybody a copy. MR. JARRETT-I didn't read it, yet, but basically you can summarize it quickly, if you want. MR. VALENTE-Craig was going to read it in, I thought. I'll just explain what it is. MR. TRAVER-We've all received it and I think he said he was going to include it as part of the application. MR. VALENTE-Okay. All right. That's fine, but it's generally a letter. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not dated, is it? MR. VALENTE-Yes, it's dated as of December 2, 2002. It's a letter from Warren County Soil and. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, okay. If I read the first sentence, I'd have got that. MR. VALENTE-Soil and water. There was a woman on Walker Lane at the time, back in, you know, back in 2002, complaining of water issues and what they determined when they did the site visit and more or less, and this is a common problem at Baybridge, that, you know, they don't keep their perimeter, every building there has a perimeter drain around their cellars, and, you know, it comes a point, you know, at that point the subdivision was probably already 15 years old or something quick, I don't know, but, you know, if you don't maintain the infrastructure, you're going to end up with problems. I have pictures of all these patios that they've added over the years, that were done privately, not by the developer, with two by's around the patios that act like pools, swimming pool. The water comes off the roof, sits there and it creates a water issue. It's no different than if I built you a home and you go in there and nail an interior door shut and then call me saying you're having a problem with an interior door. Am I responsible at that point? You know, you self-create a problem, the developer shouldn't be liable, and these are the cases. I had a call on October 21"from a gentleman, his mother-in-law lives on Gentry Lane, I believe 11 Gentry Lane, I'm not positive. Steve was his name, and he called me, he said, over the weekend, left a message on my office phone. I returned his call Monday morning and we had a conversation saying, we were having water in my mother-in- law's cellar, and the water was actually coming from underneath. So, I said to him, has this happened before. He said second time in six years. She wasn't the original owner. She had bought the building, and I said only in a heavy rain. I said your drain field is blocked. I said, he goes, there's a drain field out there, I said, yes. Go out, I told him where to go. I said go locate it, check and make sure it's clear. That's the first thing you do. So two days later I called him back and said, how did you make out, and he said, we found the drain. It was filled with roots, blocked solid. So they end up digging up the drain field, the like first 30 feet of it, apparently, and they replaced it. I called him back the other morning, it might have been this morning, actually, and just said I know we had a pretty heavy rain the other day, did you have any issues? He said no. So, you know, for years, we have to warranty these products. So for years you don't have problems, and then all of a sudden you start to have problems, it becomes an issue of maintenance. So, you know, there's a documented history here. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable moving forward? MR. TRAVER-Well one of the concerns, Mr. Chairman, I have is with regards to SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's a Long Form. MR. TRAVER-And I know that, and Tom has explained the traffic study and so on, but there, I think in this case, because of the nature of the pre-existing homes and so on there, I'm not sure that we have enough information on safety and community character without some additional information, and I understand it is not routine to get information about the impact of traffics within such a community, but I'm just not certain that we have enough information to answer those questions with regard to SEAR. I mean, I understand the engineering aspects of it, the water issues and so on, and I think those can be addressed, but I do think the safety issues are, and the impact to the community character are things that are probably issues that are most relevant in terms of SEAR, and I'm wondering if we need additional information before we can competently. MR. JARRETT-With all due respect, I think that is largely a perception issue. It could be studied 27 different times and come up with 27 different views and 27 different conclusions. It's a perception, and that's why we have a Planning Board, as a matter of fact. I sit on a Planning Board myself and I know how difficult these issues are. MR. TRAVER-So your response would be that we do have enough information to proceed? MR. JARRETT-Well, I hope you do. The issues that were raised tonight are internal quasi- safety issues, convenience safety issues, and they're not going to be quantitatively addressed at all. I'm not sure quite what information to gather for you. MR. TRAVER-Well, one example, and this is just purely hypothetical, but we talked about an entrance with County Club Road. Now, what impact might that have? What would the traffic look like, what would the impact on the community be if that connection were made, for example? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well that's my issue, too, and I don't think it's been explored. I think it's not. MR. KREBS-Yes, but let's assume that Mr. Valente didn't own that piece of property. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm not talking about who the owner is. I'm talking about the impact of the vehicle activity. MR. KREBS-I know, but I'm saying if he did not own that property, if somebody else owned that property, that wouldn't even be a consideration. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it would be, it would be a no vote from me. MR. KREBS-A no vote because? MR. SCHONEWOLF-If I can't get out of there another way, or at least explore it and see if I can work something out, and not just pass it by because financially it's not attractive. MR. KREBS-Well, but let's take an example. The Michaels Group up here. There's only one entrance and exit from that townhouse we approved. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean the one right here? MR. KREBS-On Haviland Avenue. MR. VALENTE-It's commonplace. It really is. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-But how many units are there? MR. SIPP-Courthouse Estates only has one entrance. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But I don't think it's as big as, you've got a lot of apartments here, and you're going to have a lot of people, and a lot of young people, and you're going to have a lot of traffic. Apartments generate traffic. I've been in other towns and gone through this time and time again, and every time we put the apartments in it turned out to be a mistake because of the traffic and they didn't properly plan the roads, and this is a carbon copy of that. I'm not going to make that mistake, I'm not. That's just my opinion. These people have their own opinions. MR. BORGOS-1 think we've provided for two access points here with the extension that Dan did through Fairfield on Baybridge, and we've talked about that, and I don't think there's anything in the record from the engineers or the Fire Marshal or any other submissions that indicate that there's a deficiency from an access standpoint. So I'm not quite sure I understand your comment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well it's my opinion that there is, okay. MR. BORGOS-Based upon emergency response times? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Based upon the number of people and the way you're forcing them through another development to get there and get out, and it's no winner to come out on Bay Road, believe me. It would be much better to come out on Country Club Road and go up this. When I go that way I go down Blind Rock Road and down Country Club because it's easier and there's less traffic. They don't have to go through the lights, and it's also better for emergency services for his apartments. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think we can agree that our perception, you know, our, you know, our perception in the absence of specifics would seem that it would be sensible that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We get some specifics. MR. TRAVER-Well, I mean, it appears in general that, the implication would seem to be that it's going to be, that this is an issue, internal traffic is an issue, but that's not enough. I mean, we could be right or wrong about that, and I'm just wondering, is there information that we could obtain that would not make it a matter of opinion, not make it as subject. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm sure there is. MR. TRAVER-We'd be able to clarify that issue and say, no, it's, in fact, not a problem. We know, as the applicant pointed out, it's been anticipated there would be a build out with this property anyway. So we already know there's more traffic, but in terms of how that traffic is handled, is a different issue. The issue isn't, you know, is it appropriate that they build it out or is there a consequence going to be increased traffic? We know that the case. The question is, 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) you know, if there are multiple ways that the project can be designed, is this particular design going to cause a hazard that could be avoided by a different design? And if so is that just a general sense. If so, that's probably not enough to go on, but it can be quantified in some way, or can be eliminated. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think our Code addresses that, though, and the way the Code addresses it is to say dead end streets longer than a 1,000 feet shall not be approved. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, and I think that's the attempt of the Code to quantify that specific issue, you know, and the assumption there is that if it's more than 1,000 feet at a dead end, that that's too far to have it safe for emergency access. In fact, I was thinking of that answer when the question was first raised. Sometimes I think the difficulty that we get into is we say can we as a Board make a project better, but that's really not what we're charged with. We're charged with reviewing a project that's been submitted. MR. KREBS-Relative to the Zoning Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say it kind of goes to your comment that if the applicant didn't own the lot, we wouldn't even be having the conversation, maybe, maybe not, but, you know, our job is to review the project that's before us and say yes or no. MR. BORGOS-If I could just jump in and add a comment there. I was thinking along those same lines. If you keep taking this argument further and further, you get into the public policy discussion of eminent domain. If it were advantageous to have another access, halfway through the development, do you take somebody's home, bulldoze it and put a road through it there, and where do you stop? Where you stop is where the project has been proposed. This is what's been proposed. This is what is before you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you stop before you get to eminent domain. MR. VALENTE-Yes, but you suggested that it would be better in the middle of the subdivision. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But that's impossible. So I'm not offering you that as an alternative. I understand that. MR. BORGOS-Yes, by taking the other lot (lost words) that's not part of the application. That's a step towards eminent domain because it's taking something that's not been put forth as part of the project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not if you own it. MR. VALENTE-It's not even the same zoning, either. I mean, not that you have to have that zoned for a road, but it's not. MR. JARRETT-Let me go back to the discussion we had a few minutes ago that the three alternatives we looked at when we first put this project together were accessing the way we did with the two, basically two entrances onto Bay Road. We did look at or consider a second access onto Country Club Road which actually would make a third, and lastly we considered even a sole entrance onto Country Club Road. The sole entrance on Country Club Road would be no superior to what we have right now in my mind. The Baybridge people would love it, but you'd have a lot more traffic on Country Club Road which is a lower volume road than Bay Road, and you'd have all of it as one entrance onto one County road, which is not superior in my mind to what we've got right now, and lastly the alternative of two entrances. You would split the traffic somewhat. There would be a diversity of traffic. Some would go to Country Club Road, as Dan said, not at a high percentage in his opinion, and I tend to agree with him, and a percentage would go to Bay Road. I still contend that there would be a significant cut through of traffic between Country Club and Bay, and I think that's the unknown. That's the problem that we would encounter and Baybridge would suffer if we were incorrect and assessed that it would not happen and it did, they would suffer. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you're right about one thing. Most people that are coming to this development are coming from the west. They get off the Northway or they come down Quaker Road, and they're going to come down Country Club Road and come in and spare the people over here with them driving through their existing development. That's what's going to happen. Nobody's going to go on up to Bay Road and go through those two lights, as badly timed as they are, and have to wait. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. JARRETT-People coming out of Glens Falls would probably come straight up Bay Road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Or maybe not. They might come down Glen, take a right, or take a left. Yes, you can take a right on Bay Road, but you've still got to deal with the lights. MR. MAGOWAN-Just off the wind, you know, since we're on the Country Club Road access in that, if you actually cut off the road that brings you down Baybridge Drive, and make it come down Country Club all, so you'd have to go all the way through and then come all the way down Gentry to go all the way out to Bay, make it a longer loop, which people would say, what the hell, I might as well just go up to the light. MR. VALENTE-Well, that's it, and I understand everybody's, you know, everybody has their opinion. I have my opinion. I thought this was the best design for what I had. This is, again, you know, my vision of what I thought was the best thing. We've reduced this thing down. We've done all the studies, you know, at some point, I don't know what else to. MR. DEEB-Well, I think one of the things, as a Board, we have to consider is do we really have a right to say you have to take your property and use it, because if it were somebody else's property, it's like you'd have to go out and buy a piece of property anyway, and I don't know if that's our purview to say we're going to force you to use your property to do this, when everything is within Code. So, I mean, it's a tough decision that has to be made. MR. KREBS-Yes, but the other thing we have to do as a Board is we have a Zoning Ordinance. This particular project has come before us. They're asking for no variances and it meets the Zoning Ordinance. I mean, why do we have a Zoning Ordinance if we're just going to listen to the public and say, if you don't like it we won't do it. We can't do that. Not only that, I'll tell you right now, if I were the applicant and we refused this, the next thing you would do is you would see me in court. Because I don't think we have a legal right to refuse this because it meets every requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. I mean, I may not like it, you know, I think he made an improvement when he put in Fairfield, he put the extension in. That then gave Baybridge people two roads versus when they used to have only one road in and out, but, you know, I don't know how I can vote against this when you meet all the requirements of the Ordinance. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if that was the case, we could just sit here and read people the Ordinance back and forth. We're supposed to use a little judgment. MR. HUNSINGER-That's true. MR. TRAVER-Well, at this point I think we have to take the Chairman's point that we have the application before us and we either have to be yes or no on what we have. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, or ask for more information, you know, that's kind of where I started. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's what I was trying to get, I didn't know what information to get, but I just don't feel comfortable with what we have. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-See my main concern is the safety of, you know, all the cars and the traffic. That's, I mean, like I said, if it was a lot more younger people sitting out there, no offense, all right, you know, I'd say, you know, but I am concerned of their safety because I've, you know, I know the apartments over there with my brother-in-law, Rich. I've done a lot of work all over the area, and like I said, I've been through the development and I know people over there. So I really, I'm caught on the safety issue with all the traffic. MR. KREBS-And on Meadowbrook, Rich has how many apartments off of Meadowbrook with one access to and from Meadowbrook. MR. MAGOWAN-That's true, but it doesn't go through an established development. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right, it comes off a street. MR. JARRETT-Well, if this was all built at one time, we wouldn't be going through one established. MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. JARRETT-It was all intended as one project. The phase just got delayed. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. VALENTE-Right. Because it's been separated, but if this was all one. MR. KREBS-But the point is Meadowbrook existed before those apartments. MR. VALENTE-Yes. MR. KREBS-And there were people who lived on Meadowbrook, and they weren't used to as much traffic as there are now, because you've got all those apartments. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a straight road all the way down. You have two dozen houses there, and all of a sudden you're going to through this in a development. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's also a wider road, Don. MR. MAGOWAN-And like I said, you can't compare that to these, and that's really my only concern. I think the design and everything is wonderful. My only concern is really the, you know, the roads leading out and the safety of the people there. MR. KREBS-Okay, Brad, what number would you allow in here? How many housing units would you allow here? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd let a traffic engineer tell you that. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I don't think that's a fair statement to put me on the spot like that. I'm just saying my personal opinion is that, you know, in my position as sitting on this Board, do I think of the safety of the people that I'm representing here, or am I wrong? MR. VALENTE-But listen, and I agree. I'm concerned about their safety, too, you know. I don't want to see anybody get, listen, they have ample area to put in a sidewalk. I mean, come on, you want to walk, that's fine. It's a Town road, legally, they're not supposed to be parking trucks to do maintenance on the Town road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where are they going to park them? MR. VALENTE-They have tons of spaces to make a little pull off area. They have tons of room. You guys are looking at me to continue to do things, so how about it comes back to them improving their own subdivision. I don't know, you know, but I can't be looked at to continually study and study and study. I don't know what other aspects I can do to improve, you know what I mean? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think we need to pull the discussion back to, you know, what we can quantify and discuss, and I think that brings us back to the Code, and I think we need to be careful about some of the comments that were made, because, you know, there's nothing in the Town Code that says, well, if you have a predominantly elderly population you make wider streets or if you have a predominantly younger population you make wider, you know, the Code doesn't address that. The Code says a Town road shall be built to this spec, and, you know, this width shall be considered to be the minimal width of a Town approved road. So, the roads were built to the specs of the Town. They're being maintained by the Town. They are what they are. I mean, I tend to agree with the comment the applicant made, and there's been various studies and, you know, people have now come full circle on the whole issue of street width and they're saying, hey, narrower streets slow down traffic. They act as traffic calming. So is that a safer situation than a wider street where people are going faster. I don't know the answer to that, either. MR. TRAVER-I don't know the answer to that. I wish I did. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think that's the problem is we're debating things where we're making emotional or subject responses rather than going back to the Code, which is very subjective, and very clear about certain issues, and we can talk about safety. I mean, of course we're all concerned about the safety of the people that live there. So what information do we ask for from the applicant so that we feel comfortable, and if we don't know the answer then I think, you know, were compelled, then, to say, well, there isn't any information that we need. At some point we have to render a decision. MR. TRAVER-I agree with you. MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, the charge I'm asking the Board right now is if there's additional information can we ask for that's reasonable, that we can quantify, that we can then weigh this more favorably? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I wish I knew the answer to that. I would just say, and I admit it's subjective. I just have a discomfort because I do know that, as with any other type of project, there's going to be an increase in traffic, and therefore you can argue that along with that comes a certain decrease in the safety of people that are using the existing road. I mean, it's inevitable. My question is, you know, obviously it's a matter of degrees with regard to SEAR and so on. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And I would just feel, again, I suppose it is subjective, but I would just feel more comfortable rendering a decision on SEAR if I had more specifics on what is the exchange in the safety, what is the, internal traffic, particularly with you have the option of having a slightly different design with another exit, you know, comparison between the two, but I understand that information isn't out there. MR. KREBS-But, Steve, three, four years ago, when did you put the extension in for Fairfield? MR. JARRETT-Four or five years ago. MR. KREBS-Four years ago these people lived with only one road to get out of their subdivision, okay. They bought their places. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a dirt road. MR. JARRETT-There was a dirt road. MR. KREBS-Oh. One maintained road, okay. MR. JARRETT-It certainly didn't fire and safety standards. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. VALENTE-It wasn't even, the emergency wasn't supposed to use it. I think we actually blocked it off. MR. KREBS-Right. It was not a public road. So when you bought your property, there was one public road to your property, and I don't care whether you used it or not, there was one public road. You were trespassing on somebody's property when you were using the dirt road. MR. TRAVER-That's not before us. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Well, that's exactly what I just said before. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is the same argument, Steve, that we had over the diner. Right? We knew that it was legal. We knew it met the Code, we know there's going to be an accident. MR. TRAVER-I can see your point. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Craig, go ahead. MR. BROWN-Yes, I'm just looking, like you are I'm sure, to try and make some progress here and be productive for the applicant as well as for the Board, and I know Steve was talking about some additional information. I kind of kept a short list of things, as a lot of the public comment was going on, as probably many members did, and that gets to an interesting point. There's, you know, we talked about this 50 or 60 page public document that was submitted for the record that you guys don't really have yet. So what more information could you have to use to consider to make a decision. In fairness to the people that submitted it, maybe in fairness to the applicant, you may want to see it and make comment to it and react to it and maybe make some of those things better that are brought up in that public comment, you may want to take some time and get that in the record, get that in the applicant's hands so they can respond to some of that stuff. Ask for other specific information. I think that's where you were trying to go, Mr. Chairman, is to get, you know, somebody to come up with a specific list to give it to the applicant so they'd have some clear direction. The few things that I had written down here that may or may not be on somebody else's list, is the traffic concern, the cut through stuff, and I get the ownership issue and that may or may not come into play. I'm just reading some things on my 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) list. You have a list of six or eight or ten engineering comments. You may want to look for that to be a little flatter, as far as being answered before you enter into SEAR. You're talking about the stormwater issues and the potential to mitigate those issues. If you have the engineering taken care of, mostly, you've pretty much answered the mitigation question. You can deal with the impacts of the stormwater. School buses were talked about, do you want to ask about, you know, have they contacted the school, is the potential to run the school bus through here rather than have a bus stop. If there's going to be a bus stop, is there a plan for a bus stop? Public transportation. Those kinds of questions you might want to ask. If you're looking to get more information, those are just some things that I've put on my list so far, and I'm sure you guys have some things to add to it, and, Mr. Traver, one of your big concerns was SEAR, and that's a question I was going to talk to, or at least ask the applicant's agent, is I'm just reading through the Long Form, and I apologize. I didn't do the specific review on this application, but it looks like there's a disturbance of 14 acres in your Long Form, and I see on the agenda it's been classified as an Unlisted action. It doesn't really change the type of SEAR review that they have to do. I think it would change it from an Unlisted to a Type I. There aren't any other involved agencies, so it really doesn't change anything. I just want to make sure, when you guys get to do SEAR, you classify it correctly so it's the right decision for both you and the applicant and the public, everybody knows what's going on, but just an effort to try and start making a list. MR. HUNSINGER-Clean the record up, yes. MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, it's almost 11 and everybody's starting to lose a little bit of focus, and it's very difficult, and this is both for the Board and the public if you could, please. It's difficult for Maria to transcribe the record when 20 people are talking at the same time, and I'm sure, you know, the public hearing will likely be left open, and there'll be a chance for more comments to be made. So if you want them to mean something, be patient, get them on the record, come to the mic and we'll get them all on the record. That's all. MR. VALENTE-Just in quick numbers, based on units, they had 82 existing units at Baybridge. I'm asking to add 148, and originally they had one point of exit with 82 units. If you take the 82 and the 148, add them together and divide by two, because now you have two points, it's 110 units per exit if you want to look at it that way. I mean, you know, there's not a huge increase, really, if you look at what improvements were to made to adding that extra. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a big difference between apartment traffic and single family home traffic. MR. JARRETT-Well, you brought that up, but interestingly there's a diversity here. We've got a lot of retired people in Baybridge and apartment dwellers are going to be a different demographic. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's just what I said. They're going to be moving around because they're going to be younger. MR. JAR RETT-Different times. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Different times, that may be true. MR. JARRETT-So there's a lot of different arguments. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There are, but I also think the, I think you've got some good points, and I think that, I really do think that we ought to take a couple of weeks to review it. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, I wonder with the suggestions that Mr. Brown made are excellent. Thank you for that. When we get some of this information together, we have the written public submittal to take a look at and we have the engineering questions. I'm sure we're going to have additional public comment once that's available for further review by the public as well as ourselves and the applicant. Might it be worth considering having a special meeting so that we have adequate time to spend on comment and we're not having these discussions at 11 o'clock at night? I mean, I'd just put that out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I'm certainly open to the suggestion. MR. BORGOS-I think that's an excellent suggestion. It would be appropriate for that, certainly for the convenience of anybody who wanted to comment. MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm just thinking that we would be able to do more in one meeting, rather than have you be one item on an agenda and then. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. JARRETT-Well, if there had to be another meeting, I guess we would certainly entertain a special meeting. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well it does sound like there's some additional information that we're looking for. MR. BORGOS-Can you specify what that is? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's what I was trying to get the Board to focus on. I mean, we could always hang our hat on the engineering comments because clearly there are outstanding engineering issues that need to be cleaned up. We have not had a chance to review the 50 or 60 page public comment that was submitted, nor have you. MR. VALE NTE-Exactly. We talk about being fair, but we got this dropped on us. This is the second time, and who's to say we're not going to get it a third time at the next meeting, you know, it is a little redundant, to say the least. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand, yes. I mean, my personal inclination is that in and of itself would not be enough to warrant a tabling of an item, but I'm not feeling that the Board's ready to move forward. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would table it, but I wouldn't take too long with it because I think we can resolve this issue in some fairly quick time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Don? MR. SIPP-One item meeting? In other words, that will be the only item discussed at that meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the suggestion? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it's an option that we've exercised in the past, and I think because of the time that this project deserves, in terms of our discussion, the applicant having an opportunity to thoroughly discuss and answer any questions, both from ourselves and for us to listen adequately to the public, you know, it's, I don't think it's required, but it might be something we want to think about. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BORGOS-Could we entertain it for the 10th of January? MR. HUNSINGER-That's a Thursday. One of the things that we never know is the room availability. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We can maybe pick two dates and then target one as the preferred. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any input on that, Craig? MR. BROWN-You hit it on the head. I don't know the availability of the room. We can look into it. I mean, if you want to pick that week we can probably find something there. I'd like to know if we're going to have them submit some additional information, when, what the deadline for that would be, so we'd have a chance to disseminate it and get it to you so you guys could be ready for it. I wouldn't want it to come in on the 9th and have a meeting on the 10th, because nobody would be prepared, but, you know, you've got holidays and everything, and an impatient applicant. So we've got to mix all that in there. MR. VALENTE-It sounds like you just want to have an opportunity to digest what's been thrown at you. MR. DEEB-It's a lot. MR. VALENTE-And I think we would like, obviously, to look at their report that, you know, in general, that 50, 60 page item that's been dropped on us tonight. MR. MAGOWAN-I think it would help all of us. A lot of stuff just came on all at one time tonight and it's late. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. VALENTE-Yes, and I agree, and again, you know, can we, I don't know, do we get more surprises down the road here? Or how do we minimize that? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, certainly we've met with this kind of issue before, you know, which is why we take public comment the night of the meeting and then we consider it the night of the meeting. Craig, is there an easy way for you to scan that document and make it available to the Board? MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, we can certainly scan it. We scan packets. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. So maybe that's the easiest way to make it available, or the quickest way to make it available. MR. JARRETT-Does that go to the website or no? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they've been posting everything on the website lately. MR. BROWN-Yes. Typically we don't scan public comment. The only thing we're required to scan and put on the website is the packet that the applicant submits. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and you also have been putting up the Staff Notes and engineering comments. MR. BROWN-We don't typically do public comment. MR. TRAVER-One comment I might make, for the benefit of the applicant, I know that, you know, I was wondering if there was additional information out there of some kind that we could have with regard to traffic or various other things, which at best is unclear that it would be available. However, and we have, as the Chairman pointed out, we've had situations with other applications where there've been various options to look at different ways of accomplishing the project, and something to be thinking about, perhaps you already are, between now and when we next discuss this, is that of all the public comment that we heard and all of the questions and concerns or potential concerns raised by members of this Board, I began to think at some point, and I think some of the other members were, too, that some of those issues might be alleviated by the option of the connection to Country Club Road, and I know that you're resistant to that idea for your own reasons, and we have an application before us, which we obviously are looking at, but certainly one of the things that I think if I were,just speaking for myself, if I were in your position, I would be re-examining that and wondering, re-evaluating whether that might alleviate some of the concern and the questions, and I'd just throw that out there for you to think about. I'm sure you probably will be thinking about that anyway, and that's not going to address all the issues, but, you know, it might have an impact, for what it's worth. MR. KREBS-Of course, you know, there's a negative part to that, too, and that is that if it gets to be a cut through, you're going to have people who don't live there who are going to use that road, who are going to be less careful than the people who live in the apartments who are natives, okay. MR. VALENTE-And I'm going to be brutally honest, okay. I don't like the idea. I haven't liked it from the onset. If I did, I would have put it in, and, you know, it's really not something that. MR. TRAVER-I'm just saying it's something to be thinking about. I would be thinking about it. MR. BORGOS-It's a great point to consider for the Board members, maybe take a drive over there, take a look at where that would terminate on to Country Club. You'll see the sight lines there present some hazards, particularly with the intersection of Wincrest across the road. It doesn't line up, so you can't go directly through, but that, again, is going to present traffic issues for that neighborhood. Some people cutting through Twicwood over to Glen, or they're going to make the left and go up Sweet Road and over to the Wal-Mart area. Just going to be a real dynamic change there, which will present a lot more issues, especially with a lot of the traffic which, and my office is on Glenwood. So I've seen the traffic growth in the past 10 years, as ACC has grown and expanded. People have made Glenwood the new cut through. Much higher flows. They've now got the No Parking signs up on both sides across from the Town Court because people were parking there and it was causing traffic hazards, but that flow has increased due to the College crowd. They're going to take the shortest route to whatever their destination is, and I think a lot of it is the commercial corridor up by Wal-Mart, they're going up to the Northway. So, you know, that's going to be something, I think, that I'd be more concerned about as a resident, because the younger drivers are generally the less experienced drivers by definition, and often tend to go faster. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. KREBS-And not only that, but they're texting. MR. BORGOS-And they're texting while they're talking on their phone. MR. HUNSINGER-And drinking their coffee and smoking a cigarette. MR. TRAVER-Those are all good points. MR. JARRETT-We will consider it and address it in our. MR. HUNSINGER-I always remember the comment that was made when we approved your business park. I always remember the comment that the woman made during the public hearing when we approved your business park about, it's not the amount of traffic, but it's the drivers, and she said, you know, it's the ACC student who gets in the car and wants to go from zero to fifty as fast as they can while they're texting and smoking a cigarette and drinking coffee at the same time. MR. JARRETT-Well, certainly residents in a neighborhood are a lot more careful in that neighborhood than outside. MR. VALENTE-I can tell you, too, just by watching the traffic coming out of Baybridge down that new road at Fairfield, they come whipping down through there. The way this development is designed, they're not going to be coming out of our, that site area too quick. It's a very curvy, twisty road. So they're going to be slow. They're not going to be going any faster than these people are right now, I'll tell you that, coming out of there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but they'll be on their cell phone and they won't even notice the curves. MR. HUNSINGER-So we need to pick a date to table this to. MR. BROWN-We need to pick a date. Since it's a special meeting, you guys have to set that meeting by resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, we do, yes. MR. BROWN-And probably a special meeting date as close to January 10th as possible kind of resolution would suffice, and then we'll do what we can with the meeting room and the availability. I think you can pick a date for when you want them to submit information. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the big concern that obviously we're going to have is if we pass a resolution that says a date on or about, how is the public going to know what the date is? MR. BROWN-Right. Well, I mean, we can certainly send out the 500 foot notices again for the special meeting. Whoever got the notices in the mail, we could send those out again. MR. BORGOS-And it could be no sooner than the 10th. That way if there was any adjournment, just like if there was a snow adjournment like could be happening tomorrow, it would be easy to push it off and let them know about that. They'd know the 10th is the earliest they could be prepared. If it has to be adjourned, it's adjourned. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that we've done in the past when we wanted to table an item to a specific date is we've picked a date that we knew was available, like the 15th or the 22nd, and I don't know what we've already tabled to those dates, though, and then actually the special meeting then became the regular meeting. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And the, we held the special meeting on a regular meeting night. I know we've tabled stuff to the 22nd and I'm pretty sure we tabled things to the 15th. Do you have any idea how many? MR. BROWN-The 15th agenda is loaded to the point of being overloaded right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I had a feeling. MR. BROWN-The 22nd there are three projects on that agenda that are probably significant projects that you don't want to put another night like this of three hours. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, only do this applicant on the 22nd, and then the items that we were going to do on the 22nd do on the other, do on the special meeting night, if they weren't tabled to a specific date. MR. BROWN-Yes. I know we tabled one to that meeting tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-I'm pretty sure we've got quite a few things tabled to the 15th MR. BROWN-Either way, you still need to set a date for a special meeting because it's not on our your regular calendar, and if it's that, as close to the 10th but no sooner than the 10th kind of resolution, I think that'll work. That gives us the flexibility. MR. JARRETT-Then everybody in the room is hearing that it'll be the 10th or later, and it'll be on the website as soon as it's firmed up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, well, which conceivably will be tomorrow. I mean, you'll know tomorrow the availability of the room. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And he'll send out the notices so that the same people that got noticed are going to get noticed again. So that would be no problem. These are the people that have an interest in it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. So I guess before we table this I'll need to entertain a motion to hold a special meeting on or about January 10tH MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION SETTING A SPECIAL MEETING SP #59-2012 FWW 4-2012 LEGACY LAND MOTION TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING NO SOONER THAN JANUARY 10, 2013 FOR SITE PLAN NO. 59-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4-2012 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: MR. BROWN-Do you want me to make that no sooner than the 10tn? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That was what the motion was. MR. BROWN-I just want to make sure everybody knows it's not going to happen before the 10tH MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry did I say no later? MR. BROWN-No, you just said on or about the 10tH MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No sooner than the 10tH MR. SCHONEWOLF-No sooner than the 10tH AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-And now we will need a motion to table this applicant to the special meeting date, which will be no sooner than the 10tH MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. MR. BORGOS-Any specific information you're looking for? Could that be included in your motion, or is there some other direction you can give us? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, certainly the engineering comments, and really to address any of the comments that were submitted by the concerned neighbors, because we haven't seen that document yet. (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/2012) MR. BORGOS-I'm thinking of Mr. Traver's comment about another, Mr. Traver brought up a question about some other type of study. Was there any resolution to what that study would be or any quantification that we could look to? MR. TRAVER-I think that the resolution was that to our knowledge there is no information or study that would not be subjective and therefore not really valid for us to use. I guess my comment turned out to be more wishful thinking. MR. JARRETT-You asked us to address it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think, you know, there certainly was a lot of public comment regarding traffic and related safety and, you know, you know how to respond to those comments. MR. JARRETT-We'll go back and re-think. MR. BORGOS-1 just didn't want to fail to respond next time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, Tom, you know sometimes we'll ask an applicant to consider something, and then, you know, you come back and you say, okay, we considered it, and these are our concerns or this is what our thoughts are. MR. KREBS-Just come back as clean as possible, you know, resolved with the engineer so we don't have to look at those features and then. MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of the actual resolution. I mean, the only definitive things that we can point to are the engineering comments and then the public comments. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And so the motion would be to table the Site Plan 59-2012 to the special meeting date which will be no sooner than January 10tH MR. KREBS-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 59-2012 FWW 4-2012 LEGACY LANDHOLDINGS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4- 2012 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Tabled to a special meeting date no sooner than January 10, 2013. To address the engineering comments and to address any of the comments that were submitted by concerned neighbors. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just for members of the audience, again, you know, we welcome your comment. There will be a public hearing. The public hearing was left open. We will take public comment, again, at the special meeting, and we will consider your comments at that time. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourn. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman