The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-09-27 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 INDEX Site Plan No. 52-2005 Entertronics Tax Map No. 304.17-1-29, 32 2. Off Premises Sign No. 1-2005 Joe McMurry Tax Map No. 296.13-1-6 14. Site Plan No. 49-2005 Stark Group Tax Map No. 288-8-1.5.2 15. Subdivision No. 16-2005 [S] Tra-Tom Development Tax Map No. 290.-1-22.222 37. Site Plan No. 51-2005 Frederick and Alice Schmalkuche Tax Map No. 226.19-1-95 46. Subdivision No. 19-2005 [S] Scott Varley Group Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33 50. 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 9/27/05 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 7:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD ANTHONY METIVIER TOM SEGULJIC MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE GOETZ GRETCHEN STEFFAN LAND USE PLANNER – SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL – MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER – SUSAN HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Call the meeting to order. Tuesday, September 27, 2005. Queensbury Planning Board. Before we get into the regular agenda, we do have proposed tabling resolutions for the following four projects that were scheduled to be heard. I’ll just read them off quickly. Jeffrey Clark, Thomas Schiavone, Clute Enterprises and Luzerne Holdings. We do have tabling resolutions for all those. None of those applicants posted the required sign, subdivision sign in advance of this evening’s meeting. I guess my preference would be to deal with those right up front. All four of my . . . did have public hearings scheduled. The public hearings will be opened and left opened. Having said that, I’d entertain resolutions from the board. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-You should probably do one at a time. MR. VOLLARO-I will. I’ll make the motion to table subdivision 2002, 2005 for Jeffrey Clark to October 18th, 2005 planning board meeting. The applicant will inform staff in writing by October 7, 2005 that the subdivision sign has been posted with the required information. MR. HUNSINGER-Do I have a second? MR. METIVIER-I’ll second it. MR. VOLLARO-I make a motion to table subdivision number . . . MS. BARDEN-Wait you got to take the vote on the first one. MR. VOLLARO-I thought we were going to say yes on the whole bit. MS. BARDEN-No. You’ve got to them one at a time. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2005 JEFFREY CLARK TO THE OCTOBER 18, 2005 PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 The applicant will inform staff in writing, by October 7, 2005 that the subdivision sign has been posted with the required information. Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2005 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Next. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 THOMAS SCHIAVONE CLARK TO THE OCTOBER 18, 2005 PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: The applicant will inform staff in writing, by October 7, 2005 that the subdivision sign has been posted with the required information. Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2005 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2005 CLUTE ENTERPRISES TO THE NOVEMBER 15, 2005 PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: The applicant will inform staff in writing, by November 4, 2005 that the subdivision sign has been posted with the required information. Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2005 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2005 LUZERNE HOLDING TO THE NOVEMBER15, 2005 PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: The applicant will inform staff in writing, by November 4, 2005 that the subdivision sign has been posted with the required information. Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2005 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-And just again for the record on all four projects the public hearings were opened and they will be held opened until the evenings that we will hear them. Next on the agenda is old business. Applicant Entertronics, Site Plan 52-2005. Staff notes, Susan? OLD BUSINESS: 2 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 SITE PLAN SP 52-2005. SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED. APPLICANT ENTERTRONICS. OWNER TREE CARE BY STAN HUNT. LOCATION: 53 & 67 BOULEVARD. TAX ID NO. 304-17-1-29, 32. SECTION 175-5-130. ZONING LI-1A. LOT SIZE: 2.97 ACRES, 1.48 ACRES. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NINETY-FIVE (95) FOOT TALL RADIO MONOPOLE ANTENNA WITH A NINETY-SIX (96) SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. DAVID COVEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MS. BARDEN-I don’t have any more recent staff notes and were presented last week. I do have a CT Male letter dated today. Would you like me to read that to the record? MR. HUNSINGER-It is kind of lengthy. I wonder if you could summarize it? MS. BARDEN-The tabling motion last week, the board requested that CT Male look at some potential health impacts of the proposed radio tower. CT Male refers the board to FCC’s OET bulletin 56 which, I think, you all have and that guides you through the extensive research that’s been done in these areas and especially in the area of health concerns. In terms of the medical device issue such as the impact on pacemakers Bulletin 56 does address this for RF transmitting sources for such a device. The FCC does not indicate any potential risks involved with the operation of pacemakers. Compared to a microwave oven or cell phone, the risk for this type of transmitter appears to be even less of a concern. Finally the potential impact on commonly used household appliances such televisions, radios, or telephones were questioned in the tabling motion. We cannot offer any technical feedback relating to these concerns nor have we ever heard of any such complaints by properties bordering tower sites. The board may question the applicant, however, if complaints of a similar have ever arisen for residences or businesses who border their existing tower on Dix Avenue. There is a petition and a couple of new letters that I need to read into the record later. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could state your name for the record. MR. COVEY-My name is David Covey and I’m with Entertronics Broadcasting which includes WWSC, the station for which we wish to build a new tower. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any new information that you want to present this evening? MR. COVEY-Yes. I launched my apologies to the board. To you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the board and to all present. First I would like to go on record as stating clearly that it is my strong, strong desire to be as certain as anyone can possibly be that there are no health risks involved in building this installation at any level. That being said, I contacted what I was told by people in medicine the three primary manufacturers of pacemakers and got the specifications on these devices. The three manufactures that I was given are Medtronic, St. Jude and Guident. Now I have documentation of all these things that was sent to me but in boiling it down each one of these devices by each manufacturer has its own maximum limit of RF interference, radio frequency, at various frequencies and so what I took, of course, was the frequency of the radio station we are talking about here and they state, Medtronics says seventy volts per meter within our frequency, St. Jude says fifty volts per meter and Guident says two hundred volts per meter and that’s where these manufacturers obviously have looked at what the FCC, the federal government, OSHA and some other agencies considered to be extremely safe radiation levels and I have a letter here, an e-mail actually, from the engineer, a professional engineer, who will file the application with the FCC on behalf of Entertronics for this project and if you would like to hear it, I’ll read it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. If it’s not too long. MR. COVEY-It’s about half a page. This is from Tim Sawyer. He works with Jack Mulaney Engineering and they are down in Maryland. Data is derived from FCC OET Bulletin 65 which is newer than the Bulletin referenced by CT Male. Supplement A evaluating compliance with FCC guidelines for human exposure, that’s August 1997. The FCC maximum exposure limits for your frequency, 1450 kilohertz are as follows: electric field strength for a controlled area that is an area accessed only by workers on the tower is 614 volts per meter. For an uncontrolled, public access, 586 volts per meter. There are two types 3 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 of field strength that the concern themselves with. The electric field strength and magnetic field strength. Magnetic field strength is measured differently for a non-controlled public area the maximum is 1.51 amperes per meter. So when you look at the specifications laid out by the manufacturers of the pacemakers you can clearly see that the FCC and they don’t agree but also when you look further at the curve of acceptable distances set forth by the FCC based on the actual voltages the curve shows that we would be well within at a distance of six to ten feet well within the pacemakers guidelines which are much more exacting and have much lower maximums than the FCC’s. So, what it seems to be is that – what it clearly is according to all of these figures, if we erect a fence that is twenty by twenty instead of my proposed twelve by twelve we would be well outside of any area of concern for a tower of this height, this frequency and this power. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the board? MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’ll just make a statement. Some of the board members know, some may not. I spent about forty years in the radar field in the engineering area. The 1450 kilocycles that you’re talking about – I go back so I call it kilocycles as opposed to kilohertz – is at the far end of the frequency spectrum – the low end of the frequency spectrum. What the pacemaker people are really worried about are stuff up in the microwave region. Your thousand watts is well below. I’ve worked at S band which you understand, I’m sure, at a hundred thousand watts. They’re altogether a different ballgame. This is probably the most benign piece of equipment that I could imagine. Most of the pacemakers that I’ve looked into, and I’ve done a little research that collaborates what you do, have RF screening capability. They build an RF screen around a pacemaker and those are the few things that they do and then they go on and give you a spec to be perfectly safe about it but they’ve already looked into some of the RF transmissions so as far as I’m concerned there is no problem with your – I’m just one member of the board now. The other board members may have different opinions but I’m convinced in my mind there is no medical problem. MR. SEGULJIC-You do not have the FCC license as of yet? MR. COVEY-The FCC will not address my application until I have your approval. They don’t want to use their staff time only to have to redo this application for another site. MR. VOLLARO-I think I read in here that it would be transferred. Isn’t there a statement in here? MR. COVEY-The station is licensed now. What we need is approval is approval to transmit on the new site. MR. SEGULJIC-Does the FCC do a licensing review, review these issues. The health issues. MR. COVEY-The FCC has established these and they do not – well there is an engineering statement that goes in with the application that I must sign and that a professional engineer who prepares the technical part of the application must sign based on what I tell him but it’s all referenced, these numbers and these figures and these graphs that have been sent out by the FCC so if we put a twenty foot fence around the base of the tower we are well within their compliance. That’s all they care about. MR. SEGULJIC-Then they grant you the license based on those figures. What happens if the calculations are wrong. MR. COVEY-There are so many constants here it would almost impossible for the calculations to be wrong. These radio engineers who submit this data to the FCC to set up a license either for a new station or a moved station have done this doesn’t make them perfect but again the numbers are there. The parameters are there. The tower is x number of feet high. It’s going to radiate – it’s a constant. It’s going to radiate a certain voltage at a certain power at a certain frequency. We have found that shorter towers to cause greater voltage because you’re squeezing the same amount of power to a shorter area. But that’s all covered right here with the FCC graphs and with the statement which I read you from the engineers doing the project. MR. VOLLARO-This is pretty much a matter of physics that goes all the way back to . . . Law, so you just can’t mess around with that. The constants are all there and there’s just no 4 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 way you are going to get around them. I won’t try to give you a tutorial on electronic engineering tonight cause it took me five years to understand it. MR. SANFORD-We still have public hearing, right? MR. HUNSINGER-We do. Yes. Any other questions from the board? MR. VOLLARO-I had questions not relating to anything to do with medical. It may be just an oversight but I think some of the things we got were labeled singular if you notice. I think it was in Mr. Baker’s – something that Stu Baker had prepared that had singular on the top and I couldn’t understand why that was but it won’t be part of this – I can’t even find it now but it’s in here someplace. MR. COVEY-I’m sorry that doesn’t sound familiar to me. MS. BARDEN-I think he inadvertently put a little footnote of an old . . . MR. VOLLARO-It was up on the top and singular didn’t make sense to me. That’s a communications tower that we are dealing with. What I did want to do was put no future development on Lot 304.17-1-32. Make sure that there is no future development on that while a monopole antenna is existing and that all. . . MR. HUNSINGER-They couldn’t do that anyway because of the fall zone. MR. VOLLARO-Right. The fall zone’s ninety-five feet. So I didn’t have anything else on this. That’s it for me. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the board? Public hearing is open. I will offer people who have questions or comments to the board, to address the board at this time. If you could state your name for the record and you’re free to make comments or ask questions on this project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TRUDY DIXON MRS. DIXON-Trudy Dixon. And I was here last week and I expressed then that I am not comfortable with the tower going in where it is because of the pacemaker, because of some other health problems that have been brought up and I want it on the record that if, for any reason, I have problems with the pacemaker due to the tower going in there that they are going to be responsible for it. And another thing is our property. I mean, with all these things coming in our property isn’t going to be worth anything. Will I have to pay somebody to take it? I’m not comfortable with it. Just not comfortable. I have a suggestion. Why don’t one of those companies that want all this stuff in there buy us out, take the property and then they can have their industrial park. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON-Can I pass out my . . . , or no? MR. HUNSINGER-Did you already submit it to staff? SPEAKER-Yes. I did. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s up to you if you want to pass it out or not. Staff did say that there was information received since last week and it will be read into the record. RICHARD NORTH MR. NORTH-I’m Richard North, 77 Boulevard. I was here last week. My concerns are dealing with the health concerns so I contacted my niece which is good friends with Professor of Science of Penn State University and she searched for this AM health concern on the internet and it states that it’s within AM radio tower that leukemia death rate is up seventy percent and the cancer death rate is up twenty-nine percent in AM radio tower area. This is a big concern of mine since my property line runs right next to where this tower is going. 5 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 Cancer runs in my family. My dad died in his early forties of cancer. My mom died of cancer. My sister had to have her leg amputate at seventeen due to cancer and my concerns are health concerns about this and if not knowing the total risk of this if this project goes through then I feel no other - anything else to do than to move because there is really no way of taking a chance of health concerns of me and my family. I really don’t understand why something of this nature is proposed for a residential area, well it’s residential, commercial and industrial and that’s why it’s there but why Mr. Covey can’t put this on another tower, an existing tower, like your ordinance say. Look for another tall building to put it on. Queensbury has a water tower right up on . . . Line Road. I see numerous towers in Glens Falls as I drive through. Right next to where his antenna is located now is Adelphia. The have a tower there. I really don’t understand why this is going in our area. We are in South Queensbury and I’ve lived there over thirty years and since I’ve lived there it’s been a spiral downhill as far as commercial business in the area being deteriorated. Across the street I’ve got a rundown warehouse. Behind me I’ve got Stan Hunt. Up on Warren Street we have a junkyard they proposed and put in on the corner of Quaker and Boulevard it’s . . . It’s a dilapidated building that runs down. The neighborhood it’s running down and while the rest of Queensbury is prospering, South Queensbury is really going downhill and this antenna is definitely not going to help our area. That’s about all I have to say. MR. VOLLARO-I notice in the data you collected that they’re talking about 100 kilowatts. That’s one hundred thousand watts – MR. NORTH-I realize that. MR. VOLLARO-compared to the thousand or watt transmitter we’re talking about here. You’ve got differentials of a 100 to 1. MR. NORTH-Right. So where do you draw the line. How close is close and how far is far. All radio transmitters emit EMF and so they’re all potential danger anywhere. The proximity to it is going be the potential danger and right next to where this radio tower is going NiMo has a high-tension wire which is a definite health hazard and so you’re putting a radio tower next to power lines which already is a health hazard and so that’s just compound the problem in that one area. There is a house actually going to be next to Mr. Hunt’s house that he rents is right next to the power lines and the transmitter is going to be right behind there. I can’t imagine living in that house. The health hazard that’s going to be in there. MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you this that where I lived before in Voorheesville many years ago this situation came up because NiMo had to put power lines and the right of way through the school. There was extensive studies because of the high EMF, electromagnetic force, so you know what it is – it’s magnetic. MR. NORTH-I know. MR. VOLLARO-Power going through a line creates a magnetic field. That study was done intensively for about a year and a half to disprove the fact that there wouldn’t be any harm to the children. MR. NORTH-How many years ago was this? MR. VOLLARO-About ten. MR. NORTH-Right. This is an ongoing study and this won’t be done for years. The effects of EMF on the human body. There’s studies done as far as it causing leukemia, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, brain tumors, breast cancer. I mean it just goes on an on. You’re going to tell me it poses no health risks to the children. On my search I went in there and they proposed not to have any cell towers anywhere near schools now that they have cell towers on fire stations and they don’t want them there anymore either. MR. VOLLARO-Cell towers are a whole different story because they’re in a much higher frequency. MR. NORTH-Right. Well yes, I realize that. MR. VOLLARO-See that’s the problem with dealing with the science here . . . 6 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. NORTH-But they all emit EMF. MR. VOLLARO-At very low areas. A light bulb does too, by the way. MR. NORTH-Well yes, anything electrical. Yes I realize that. MR. VOLLARO-It depends on what kind of level you’re talking about of electromagnetic force. MR. NORTH-Right. That besides the fact that it’s going to be a definite visual impact on the area. Last week the start plan – you had a big concern about the visual impact from the Northway. This is going be a visual impact that’s going to there forever. I’m guessing. Once it’s up it’s not coming down. Another concern of mine was on the letter that was sent out to the people. As I went around and talked to other people, no where on that letter that this was an AM radio tower. Everybody thought that this tower was for Mr. Hunt and his own personal use. They had no idea that this was for WWSC. So we probably would have – we may have had a bigger showing of people that really were interested in this being in our neighborhood. That and the fact that it’s a radio tower and in your guidelines state that it only has to be sent to a five hundred foot radius of the site and being it’s ninety foot in the air, this is going to be affected by a lot more people and being a radio tower, it’s going to affect a lot more people in five hundred feet. The ordinance, to me, should be changed so that something of this nature comes up that it should be sent out to a wider range of people in the area. MR. VOLLARO-Right now the ordinance is five hundred feet, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-We actually don’t set the ordinances except for the town board. We are just the body that’s in charge of enforcing the ordinance. MR. NORTH-No. I realize that. I believe it should be changed. I’m saying the next time – this doesn’t come up that often but when it comes up it’s not a land use program where people aren’t going to see it across the street or something, this is a ninety-foot tower, ninety-five foot tower, besides the guide wires and the visual impact. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think there are any guide wires. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, there’s no guide wires on this one. MR. NORTH-No guide wires? MR. METIVIER-Yes. There are no guide wires. This is just a monopole. It’s one fiberglass pole. It’s not – MR. NORTH-Ninety-five foot in the air and it’s going to stand by itself without falling down? MR. METIVIER-Yes. It’s a fiberglass pole but it’s not like the ones that you see with the cell towers or the original AM tower that’s over there at WWOC. It’s not like. It’s just a white pole. MR. NORTH-Right. According to the way I read the ordinance, wasn’t he suppose the document that he looked for other towers to put it on, other tall buildings before he actually – the last thing he does is actually put it – build a tower? MR. SANFORD-I think last week he commented that it’s impractical to put an AM tower on top of a building because somehow or another the effectiveness of the tower works through the ground as well and so somehow the technology wouldn’t enable it to be placed on an existing building. I recall that at any rate so I think, going back to your earlier comments about water towers and things of that nature probably wouldn’t work. We’ll ask the applicant. MR. NORTH-Right. An existing tower that’s already up would work like the one right next to where he has his right now. I did contact the FCC about whose suppose to take care of the health issues and they stated that the community where the tower is being built – because that was supposed to be a concern of Mr. Baker when I called. He said he didn’t know who 7 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 was supposed to take care of health issues of a tower. Obviously it’s the community where it’s being built. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? TEKLA MICHAUD MS. MICHAUD-My name is Tekla Michaud and I live at 144 River Street and my property is directly in back of where that tower is going to be, across from the canal. My question is – I was here last week but I couldn’t wait as long as the agenda came up – I just wanted to know was there was a previous tower that WWSC was using or didn’t they ever have a tower. MR. SANFORD-I believe they had one – the applicant can speak to that – but I believe they had one on Dix and somehow that property is no longer owner by the radio station at this point. I believe we’ll ask the applicant to talk about that when comes up, but I believe that that site is no longer owned by the radio station. MS. MICHAUD-This seems odd. Why would they give it up if they had a tower on there already. MR. SANFORD-I’ll have to ask him. MS. MICHAUD-And I’m worried too about health hazards. Also the property value going down. I do have a home that I’ve lived at over almost seventy years and I’ve always kept it up. I have inherited it from my father and I’ve kept the grounds and everything up. I put it up on the market once or twice. Once I just about sold it but then I got cold feet. I should have really sold it now I realize with this coming up. I mean the trash plant came in way down the other end of my street. We had no say on it. Then DPW Queensbury trucks are at the Ciba-Geigy place. Everything is crowding in and all these garbage trucks that go by they have all the debris and they’re picking up debris from my property about three four times a week even though some coalition was supposed to do that. I’ve never seen anybody picking stuff up. There’s a lot going on. I think that our street has gotten to be worse than what people always said – Oh, West Glens Falls. River Street at one time was a beautiful place and a nice place to live but not any more and now we’re going to face this hazard and I don’t know if I’ll be able to sell the property once this tower goes up. I did have a chance at one time because I have three and a half acres and I believe it’s a beautiful home but everything’s going down so I just was curious to know if they had a tower why all of a sudden are they building another tower. Is it because they needed it. I know you said they sold the property but is it because they wanted more frequency at the tower, a bigger one or – MR. VOLLARO-That’s not the problem. He didn’t own the property. The property was leased where that tower was and the lease has been expired and the owner is going to do something with the property so the gentlemen, who is the applicant, has to move the tower. That’s the problem. MS. MICHAUD-The other gentleman mentioned why is it put into a neighborhood. Why can’t it go where the industrial park is or somewhere like that if they want it in Queensbury. I can’t understand this. MR. VOLLARO-Well we’ll ask him that question. MS. MICHAUD-Well that’s about everything. I was just worried about the health hazards and frequency and the working of TVs and everything. If there’s a lot of interference and everything. MR. VOLLARO-Not at this frequency there won’t be, no. MS. MICHAUD-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else have any comments or questions about this project? Staff, I think you said there were some written comments received? MS. BARDEN-There is a petition and it just says: petition radio tower, against there’s a list of about twenty names and addresses from people on….Okay. So twenty-six names. Folks on Boulevard, Queensbury Avenue, Warren Street, Park Avenue, Lower Warren. This is dated 8 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 September 27, 2005. To Whom It May Concern: My concern regarding the radio broadcasting tower is the health issues. Are these towers dangerous to our health. Are there any facts or guarantees that there isn’t a link between these towers and serious health problems. If not, then in my opinion should be placed in an isolated area. Thank you. Rose DeFour. This is dated September 22, 2005. Dear Planning Board Members, on September 20 I attended the meeting at the activities center but due to the fact that the Entertronics proposal was last on the agenda, I was unable for personal reasons to stay later than 8:45 p.m. and consequently was not able to air my concerns. I understand that this agenda has been reschedule Tuesday, September 27 at 7 p.m. I will try to attend. I am anxious to find out how this telecommunications tower will affect me. I live directly behind Stan Hunt’s across the canal at 144 River Street. My concerns are as follows: are there health and safety hazards involved. How will this tower affect my property valuation. What will be the effect on my television and cellular phone reception. These are just a few of the many questions and concerns this proposal presents. I am sure you can understand how a proposal of this nature could be of a concern to me. As a longtime property owner, I would expect my concerns to be addressed at Tuesday’s meeting. Sincerely. Tekla S. Michaud. 144 River Street, Hudson Falls, New York. This is signed RJ Devine, dated 9/16/05. If the building and tower are located out behind their building, I don’t have a problem with it. If it is going to be placed near the road or in sight of the road I think it would have a negative effect and be an eyesore. Again signed RJ Devine. And Mr. North has a couple of - Richard North, 77 Boulevard, has a couple of information from website. One is entitled “Is AM Radio Harmful?” MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s the one he passed out to the board. MS. BARDEN-Okay. So you have that? MR. HUNSINGER-We do have that one. MS. BARDEN-And another from Earth Matters, entitled “Telecommunications Towers.” Do you have that as well. MR. HUNSINGER-No. We don’t. MS. BARDEN-Would you like me to read that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. BARDEN-I’ll read the section on radio frequency radiation. There have long been questions about the biological effects of exposure to radio frequency radiation. It is experienced by those who live and work in close proximity to cellular towers. HR2835 requires the secretary of health and human services to carry out an independent assessment of the effects of radio frequency emission on human health with grants to appropriate public and private entities. And that’s all I have. I have some pictures. These pictures were taken by Marion Sheloski of Hunt’s property on Boulevard. This is addressed 39A Warren Street and I can pass those down and that’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mr. Covey, would you come back to the table? I guess there were a couple of questions that maybe if we just summarize one because we did talk about it a little bit last week and that is the reason why your seeking to locate a tower there and maybe some of the other sites that you had looked out. MR. COVEY-First of all AM towers for AM radio stations. That frequency and that type of radiation is unique RF situations. The wavelength is very long. The towers have to be very high in order to be efficient at all. That being said, also there is a ground system that is as much a part of an AM transmitting tower as the tower itself. The signal in a sense has to reflect off 120 copper wires that are buried in to ground and are roughly the same length as the tower is high. So putting radials down the side of a building really isn’t practical nor is it sightly. So consider how many AM towers, even in New York City, you see large towers on top of tall buildings. Most of those towers are for FM and television transmission which is totally different. You take an antenna, you mount it on something. The antenna is self- contained. You can take it off the tower. For an AM radio station the entire tower is the antenna. So regarding other possible locations, very quickly. I looked at the existing and in use AM tower on Everetts Avenue owned and used by WBZA, or whatever its call letters are now. There are two stations that use that tower now. Their frequencies are 1410 and 1230. First thing I did was to see if we could use that tower also and triplex the three signals 9 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 together. The engineer said no it’s not possible because 1450 and 1410 are too close. There’s no way we can filter them away from each other to prevent all kinds of interference and problems. So that was number one. Number two was the existing former AM broadcast tower at the end of Big Boom Road out near the recreation field there toward the Northway. It was used several years ago and the radio station that was using it was licensed to South Glens Falls. We can’t use that because at our power level, which is the lowest the FCC authorizes, one thousand watts these days, we don’t cover our city of license with the required minimum signal if we move the radio station out to Big Boom Road. The east side of the city of Glens Falls would not get the required minimum signal strength. So what it comes down to is that we’re limited to a radius of about a mile and a half to be able to move that tower. If we go beyond that radius then we fall into a whole different classification defined by the FCC and they class it a major move. We have to re-license the station to another city. I’ll do that in a heartbeat but the federal government won’t entertain that for five years or so. To answer the lady’s question about the Dix Avenue site. The property was owned Normandy Broadcasting. I worked for Normandy Broadcasting for twenty-seven years. I was its engineer for fifteen years. That property fell into bankruptcy and foreclosure and was taken over by a man from Ticonderoga who consequently sold it to Monty Lou who owns the Chinatown Restaurant on Route 9. Monty’s going to develop that property into something else. A radio tower no longer has a place there. So it’s got to come down. I don’t the tower. I lease the building. The radio station that I own has its studios on Glen Street and the other stations that are there had their transmitters on mountain tops. That’s where you put FM stations. That’s a simple matter. AM is not the same at all. There was another question about locating the tower. MR. SANFORD-Well how about this. What I’m hearing is that I don’t believe there’s necessarily a health safety here but I believe there’s an aesthetic issue and I appreciate any time you get about thirty people who live in a community who have a problem with an aesthetic application like this. If I was the applicant I would go the extra mile to try to accommodate and build goodwill rather than some bad will. MR. COVEY-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-I guess my question to you is if you could locate a more commercial zone where there aren’t residential homes that would seem to be a much more acceptable within your one-and-a-half mile radius as opposed to this location which has a petition circulating of close to thirty people. I understand on your existing sites that you referenced there’s good explanation for not going there but you haven’t exhausted the possibilities. Are you willing to look at additional sites where you might be able to locate this? That is not in the proximity of residential homes? MR. COVEY-Yes. There is a real life problem however in that I have to be off the property where I am on the 1 of October. Because of all the other work that had to be done with st archeology and historic preservation with the state there have been delays and delays and a lot of paperwork and you know all about those kinds of things. So here we are in a deadline. The station is an emergency activation station. It’s part of the network of radio stations throughout the state and the country that is supposed to stay on the air in the event of any kind of an emergency. Local, state and national. So to take the station off the air is not a good thing. I can a temporary license, however, I need to locate something, somewhere without the fear of people of thinking that once I get it on the air I’ll never move it. I am willing to look for another site. The last thing I want to do as I stated when I first sat down tonight is take any chances at all that have to do with human health or health of any kind. Nor do I want devalue people’s property. The station has been spreading goodwill as far as I know since 1946 and its my intent to keep it on the air but not at the expense of people and neighborhoods. So I will be willing to look further. I think even aggressively we’ll approach the FCC and I will go on record as stating that that body is doing absolutely nothing to enhance the chances for survival for stations like WWSC and for people like me who have, as far as know, played by the rules and served the public interest for a very long time. I’ll go back to them and make a lot a noise and tell them I want to move the station to the tower on Big Boom Road and license it to South Glens Falls and that they can make an exception if they so choose. You can tell I’m getting a little animated now. It’s very frustrating to get no support from the government agency that licenses your station. I looked high and low for a good site. There’s another very seriously limiting factor and that is there are plenty of places that are wide open that don’t involved neighborhoods, that don’t involve residences and people and pacemakers and animals and whatever but they are exorbitantly expensive. That station and our group of stations cannot afford to go out and spend three hundred, two 10 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 hundred, five hundred thousand dollars. I’m not here to cry the blues about money. It’s simple math. We’re not going to get that back.. We cannot invest that kind of money without a grant. Would the town of Queensbury consider a grant? MR. HUNSINGER-It wouldn’t be up to us? MR. COVEY-I’ll rescind the comment. I just want to keep the radio station on the air. I want to keep the radio station serving the public interest. I don’t want to do it at anyone’s expense in any way. I’ll be willing to go further. I would hope that whoever I need to try to work with to temporarily keep it on the air somehow with a temporary antenna and a temporary pole. The FCC will allow that. They’ll give me nine months. MR. METIVIER-Would that be a economic hardship to do a temporary? I’m just going on the wim here that if we granted you some kind of temporary approval type thing. How expensive is it to put that pole up and then taken down at a further date. I mean is that even feasible to do? MR. COVEY-That is feasible. The pole tips down like a flagpole. MR. METIVIER-Is is feasible to us where we could do a temporary to keep the radio station on the air and you know at that point I am absolutely not convinced that there are many health hazards to this and I did a lot of research over the week too. I really, really tried my hardest to find something and I’m just not convinced. Comment was made on what type of interference was this going to have on my cell phone and cell phones have ten times the health risk of what this antenna would potentially have. Microwaves. Same thing. They keep talking about microwaves, cell phones, microwaves, cell phones and every bit of research that I looked at and mention was made of AM radio. FM perhaps, but they are on mountain tops so there is really no clear understanding of what the potential risks might be there because, again, there’s nobody around. This tower has been up for years. The one over on Everetts Avenue has been up for years and you just don’t see ill effects. You have more ill effects in South Glens Falls from the power lines or whatever the hell’s going on over there but it’s not a radio tower and every time you stick a cell phone up to your ear you’re absorbing much more radio waves than you are from this antenna and we all have them. We all use them and we all use microwaves. And, again, as I mentioned already there was much more reference made to the dangers of microwaves than there – all the research I tried to do on my own. So my thought is lets put it up. Give a temporary of some kind. I’m not convinced it’s going to be obtrusive because it’s a monopole. It’s a whip that goes up in the air. Just like on your car. A little bit bigger, mind you but not substantially huge. It’s not a cell tower. It’s not the tower that sits over on Dix Avenue. Let’s do a temporary and see what happens with it. You might not ever even notice it. MR. SANFORD-I think that’s the most reasonable approach. I would support the temporary; not the permanent because, again, I agree with you, Tony. I am not particularly after reading the literature concerned about the safety but I’m concerned about the neighborhood and the neighbors and I think they make compelling arguments that the town of Queensbury hasn’t been particularly attentive to South Queensbury and I think this is an opportunity with a temporary permit to allow you to go back to the FCC and make your demands as you just stated and see if they’ll come around and move it to a more appropriate site. This would not prevent you or force you to have to shut down your radio station. MR. METIVIER-And in a year from now or ninety days or six months, or whatever date we so choose, notify the neighbors and we go a thousand feet as opposed to five hundred if that’s what they so desire and see what kind of feedback we get at that time. See what kind of problems there have been. MR. SANFORD-I think the applicant mentioned nine months is what he was looking for in terms – MR. METIVIER-I couldn’t remember – ninety days or nine months – I apologize. MR. SANFORD-So nine months works for you? MR. COVEY-At this point, yes. But who knows what roadblocks we’ll run into. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that cause concerns for legal? 11 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MS. RADNER-Normally you don’t have powers to grant temporary approvals but in this case because the applicant is requesting it. In a manner, what your doing is tabling further review for nine months but allowing him to erect the tower. In the meantime, as long as staff can track it, I don’t think it creates a problem. MR. METIVIER-Can we go back to the neighbors and see if that’s an acceptable solution for now or is it something that we – can they live with that or totally no? I don’t know what to there either. We are trying to appease everybody. I would honestly hate to see this radio station off the air. For sentimental reasons more than anything. I’ll be honest with you. It goes way back. Not that I’m an AM guy or anything like that but you know where I’m going. And I just think that we could come to some kind of – MR. COVEY-An accord here. Would it be appropriate for someone on the planning board and/or the town board to communicate with the FCC about this issue? Make them aware of what we are trying to do. Please everyone. MR. METIVIER-I think the town board could be more. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the town board, I mean certainly the record of this board is going to provide this information as well. MR. COVEY-And perhaps the residents – and the residents as well. I’m going to take it a few steps further and get in touch with Betty Little and John Sweeney and anyone else who will listen to me and take this case to Washington and try to get some kind of an ear for these radio stations as I say are not being supported by the people who license them at all. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s an unused tower that’s in the community that you can use obviously that’s in the best interest of everybody. MR. COVEY-If I want to wait five years according to their current agenda but I’m sorry I don’t accept that. I like to think out of the box. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. Since it sounds like we’re headed toward some sort of conclusion here, I will close the public hearing. Do we want to move forward on SEQR. It’s unlisted action. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I think so. Well, Chris, I guess we’re not really doing an approval of the application as presented. We’re doing a, for lack of a better word, modification or a temporary approval. MR. VOLLARO-An extended tabling. Is that correct, Cathy? MS. RADNER-You could it either way. You can do it as a consideration of an application to have it there for nine months and consider the health risks or, I’m sorry, the environmental impacts of having it there for nine months. Give the approval contingent on at the end of nine months they return for further approvals or remove it. Or you can basically table it for nine months. Leave the public hearing open but allow the applicant to erect the tower temporarily in that nine-month period. I think you’re probably better doing the first in granting the approval for the temporary nine months with the strict contingency that at the end of nine months if further approvals aren’t granted it comes down. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Do we need a SEQRA for that? MS. RADNER-Yes. I would do the SEQRA of just the nine months. MR. VOLLARO-Nine months is not cast in stone yet. I would just assume see it be a period of one year as nine months myself, personally. I don’t know where nine months came from but – MS. RADNER-The applicant suggested nine months. That’s for the – MR. VOLLARO-Well I’ll give you another three months. I know that if you’re going to be dealing with the FCC. I’ve dealt with them. I know what you’re up against. It’s like 12 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 climbing an ice cliff without the help of any tools. I understand what this gentleman is going through. MR. HUNSINGER-It is a short form. MR. SANFORD-Let’s do the short form, Chris. MR. METIVIER-Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Will action receive coordinated review as provided from unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? No. MR. METIVIER-Could action result in adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding problems? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species. SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Communities existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in the use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources. SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 through C5? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Other impacts including changes in the use of either quantity or type of energy? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Will the project have an impact on the environment’s characteristics of an establishment of a CEA. SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? SPEAKER-No. RESOLUTION NO. SP 52-05, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ENTERTRONICS, and 13 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non- significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of September 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan MR. SANFORD-I guess we need a motion. MR. VOLLARO-You want me to? MR. SANFORD-You’re going to take a stab at it, Bob? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2005 ENTERTRONICS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s) Site Plan SP 52-2005 Entertronics Owner(s) Tree Care by Stan Hunt SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s) N/A Lot size 2.97 ac., 1.48 ac. Location 53 & 67 Boulevard Zoning LI-1A Tax Id No. 304.17-1-29, 32 Section 179-5-130 Cross Ref. None Warren County 9/14/05 Planning Public Hearing 9/20/05; Tabled to 9/27/05, Public Hearing left open Project Description: Ninety-five (95) foot tall radio monopole antenna with a ninety-six (96) square foot building. Telecommunications Towers require Planning Board review and approval. WHEREAS, the application was received on 8/15/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 20, 2005 and September 27, 2005; and 14 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Temporarily Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. Staff received written comments and a petition from 26 property owners against this property. Staff provided written documentation from the FCC – Bulletin 56 which states there are no potential health issues or issues or complaints for household items with regards to this issue. 2. Temporarily approved for a 12 month period with strict contingency: At the end of the 12 months the community will make evaluation if this tower has any negative impact for health issues or other commonly used appliances for the people living in close proximity of the tower. 3. Applicant will appear before the planning board after the 12 month period. 4. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. 5. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 27 day of September 2005 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-I would like to thank the neighbors for showing up and voicing their concerns which we all share and I hope that the resolution that we arrived at is in the best interest of everyone. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN-Can I ask you a question that doesn’t concern this? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN-Is there a noise ordinance in Queensbury? MR. HUNSINGER-There is not. MR. METIVIER-But there should be. MR. HUNSINGER-There is not. UNIDENTIFIED MAN-Why isn’t there one? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an issue with the town board, not with the planning board. 15 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. METIVIER-On a Monday night you come to a meeting for the town board and you raise the issue because it’s an excellent question. Excellent question. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t mean to put you off but that’s not something that falls under our jurisdiction at all. UNIDENTIFIED MAN-I realize that. MR. METIVIER-Monday nights, town board meetings. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN-I was curious to know . . . MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a good question. UNIDENTIFIED MAN-You were aware that . . . MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Okay. The next item on the agenda is off-premises sign for Joe McMurry on the corner of Route 9 and Kendrick Road. OLD BUSINESS: OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-2005. SEQR TYPE UNLISTED. APPLICANT JOE MC MURRY. OWNER GAIL DE GREGORIO. LOCATION: CORNER ROUTE 9 & KENDRICK. TAX ID NO. 296.13-1-6. LOT SIZE .25 ACRE. ZONING: HC-MODERATE. SECTION 140-6. APPLICANT PROPOSES AN OFF PREMISES SIGN FOR PLACEMENT OF AN ADIRONDACK CAR WASH DIRECTIONAL SIGN AT THE CORNER OF RT 9 AND KENDRICK ROAD. OFF PREMISES DIRECTION SIGNS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. MS. BARDEN-I have a letter dated today, September 27, 2005, from Adirondack Carwash to the Queensbury Planning Board in regard to the off-premises sign 1-2005 scheduled for tonight’s meeting at 7 p.m. which was tabled from August 16, 2005 meeting. We no longer would like to pursue this permit indefinitely. Thank you. Joe McMurry. General Manager. Adirondack Carwash. MR. HUNSINGER-So should we deny without prejudice? Or can we just accept the letter and close the file? MS. RADNER-I would consider it withdrawn and move on to the next item. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 49-2005. SEQR TYPE UNLISTED. APPLICANT AND OWNER: STARK GROUP. AGENT: JOHN RICHARDS, ESQ. LOCATION: 1545 ST. RT. 9. TAX ID NO. 288- 8-1.5.2. LOT SIZE: 4.96 ACRES. ZONING: HC-INTENSIVE. SECTION 140-6. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-STORY COMFORT SUITES HOTEL AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PLANNING BOARD MAY ENTERTAIN SEQRA FINDINGS ONLY. MOTELS REQUIR SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. JOHN RICHARDS & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Next item is Site Plan 49-2005 for the Stark Group. UNIDENTIFIED MAN-Should I approach the table, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Why don’t you, please. Thank you. Maybe you could summarize, Susan, how we left it last week. MS. BARDEN-Sure. I’m going to read a couple of things because it wasn’t in the tabling motion what you requested the applicant to return with. MR. VOLLARO-Susan, somebody in the audience says they can’t hear you. So I think you’re going to have to bring your mike up a little closer. 16 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MS. BARDEN-The September 21 meeting this application was tabled specifically for the st request of Marilyn VanDyke regarding historical significance of the VanDusen house. Copies of the visual assessment, lighting specifications, uniformity and cut sheets. DOT traffic count for the 9149 quarter, site distances on Route 9. The applicant’s agents I think have provided all of those for you and Marilyn is here as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Gentlemen, the floor is yours. MR. RICHARDS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Sue said, we’re just back to follow-up on some of the things that staff had commented on the board requested from our last meeting and we’ve tried and done our best to supply those things to you MS. BARDEN-Before you go any further can you state your names for the record so that we can keep it clear. MR. RICHARDS-I’m sorry. My name is John Richards. I’m the agent for the Stark Group, the applicant and with me at the table is Thomas Nace from Nace Engineering, who has done the engineering work here and I thought for purposes of this meeting we just follow the same basic format that we did the last time in tracking the staff comments and the other things that the board brought up and the first one of those is the traffic and supplying the traffic counts and Tom, if you want to comment on that and what you submitted. MR. NACE-Sure. We submitted to the board a letter confirming a conversation I had with Mark Kennedy at DOT. To really quickly summarize, he stated to me that it is there policy for any project that generates less than a hundred vehicles per hour not to require a traffic impact study and simply to evaluate the traffic safety of the entry into the project and we supplied a drawing to him to look at site distance. That drawing is part of your package is also the information on it – most of the information on it – was part of the grading plan for the project shows that we’ve cut that front bank back to the south of the entrance in order to provide adequate site distance which includes something that they requested on this one that they normally don’t which is a height or extra depth of area to store snow and be able to still provide site distance over the top of that snow bank. We also contacted Mr. Corbett of DOT who provided the most recent traffic counts for Route 9 in that area. Those counts were taken. There were two different counts. One August 1999 and October 2002. The one in August during the height of the summer season showed an average daily traffic count of just under 16,000. The one for October showed a little over 7,500 trips per day. The peak hour traffic is not quite so different, summer to fall, but the summer was 1,367 and the fall was 1,177 so our trip generation – conservative trip generation – of seventy cars per hour at peak generation time is fairly insignificant compared to those volumes. MR. RICHARDS-We’ll move on the the historic matters. Let me once again just say we are certainly approaching this site with the sensitivity to any possible historic significance and frankly have conducted ourselves accordingly and I think doing the things that Mrs. VanDyke had recommended earlier on as far as investigation. The first thing I did, as you’ll see, I did assemble what I thought were the correspondence from Mrs. VanDyke back from 2003 that she referred to and I referred to in the last meeting and I confirmed with Sue that that’s she could find the files. So I think you’ve got everything that we’re talking about as far as past correspondence. I then made a point to submit that to the two people working for us on the historic analysis from Harkin Associates to make sure that they didn’t change anything that I have been told and represented to this board and they were kind enough to get letters back to me in a fairly quick turnaround after reviewing those to confirm just that. That from an artifacts standpoint there is certainly nothing in the western part at all that even merits a whole investigation. There just aren’t any artifacts. And on the eastern part what they’re finding so far seem pretty insignificant but they’re going to continue to investigate. Should something turn up, they will by all means flag it and deal with it accordingly. With respect to the house. You’ve got the first letter from Mr. Wheeler that I handed out and I just repeated again to be consistent as well as his supplemental letter explaining why he doesn’t think – it’s certainly a candidate for inclusion in any national or state register. Mr. Lucier from Harkin also spoke to Mrs. VanDusen, the former owner, as I did to sometime ago to confirm some things and basically, in a nutshell, this is not the house that was first built. It’s not where the house was that was first built. That house was dramatically altered several times. Moved at least once, perhaps more, and really has no particular significance certainly architectural significance that would deem it worthy to be put on the national register. So for those reasons, we don’t think it’s something that really has to be continued to be part of this plan. That it can be removed without any loss of 17 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 historical integrity. That’s really our position on the history, but I just want to emphasize again we are approaching this very carefully, very thoughtfully and very respectfully and will continue to do so throughout the process. And one final thing, of course, we still, as I mentioned last time, we’ll have to explain this again to the people at DEC when we apply for our SPDES permit. So we think we done a good review and we think we’ve supplied the board with a enough information to go forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-With respect to the visual before I turn it over to Tom to review his assessment – visual assessment report – I took the liberty of adding several letters one of which you’ve already had but basically together they include both owners on the south side. Remembering again the Stark family owns the parcel on the north side. Confirming their support of the project and that certainly from their standpoint the visual impact is not a factor. I’ve also included other letters that the Starks have assembled over time from other area owners also in support of the project. Again confirming that the visual impact is not a factor from their standpoint. But, Tom, you want to follow through with the technical aspects? MR. NACE-Sure. Just briefly. You all should have a copy of the visual analysis report that was done. One of the first things we did when looking at this site was to draw a cross section through the site showing the real elevation differences between the site, the Northway, and NYS Route 9 and to the show the site lines which would occur particularly from the Northway. Since we are applying for a variance, one of our issues was to take a look at what a forty-foot high building, which would fall within the required high limitation, would look like if you put it on top of the very peak of the property, on top of the hill. If you look at the cross section that we drew, that building shows up a light dotted peak roof building on top of the hill and its site line of that building is much above what our site line from the Northway is for the proposed motel. Particularly because the motel is set down off the peak of the hill a little ways toward the east of the peak and its set down in the hill so that from the backside it’s really only a three-story building with a peak roof and then from the lower side, from the Route 9 side, it’s four stories. To see what the site lines really look like in the vegetation – what effect the vegetation would have – we went to the site and flew a couple balloons. We actually flew three, one of them was not visible from anywhere because it was buried in the trees. We flew the balloons at the peak of the building along the peak, one at the south end, one in the middle where the v comes together and one at the north end. The one at the north end was buried in the tree cover well below the crowns of the trees and couldn’t be seen from anywhere. The one at the south end and the one in the middle were visible from particular view ports. The photographs show those fairly clearly if you can see the red balloon through the trees. Photograph 1 is from the edge of the northbound lane of the Northway where the site was most visible and on that I have superimposed the building so that you can see where the roof line of the building would appear within the tree canapé and its obviously well down below the top of the top of the tree canapé from that view port. Photograph 2 was taken from the west side of the southbound lane of the Northway and that shows the balloon, the only one visible there was the one in the center of the building and again its buried well into the tree canapé from that view port. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the distance on Photo 2 from the Northway to the balloon? Roughly. Do you remember what that might have been? MR. NACE-I can give you approximate. It would be three hundred and thirty-five feet plus the two lanes of the Northway plus the median, so it’s got to be around five hundred feet. MR. VOLLARO-Of course these photographs were taken during the summer so some of this foliage will down in the winter time. MR. NACE-This is true. Photograph 3 was taken from Route 9 just north of the northeast corner of the property. The Stark property to be used for this hotel in that shows the balloon at the south end of the building. It’s clearly visible but the height, because it’s set so far back from Route 9 the perspective will actually make the height look shorter than that existing story and a half house that is on the site. Photograph 4 was taken from the top of the hill at the back end of the motel site. The approximate location is children’s play area. It’s looking west toward the Northway simply to show you that the vegetation that you say from Photographs 1 and 2 looking from the Northway would not be vegetation that was removed when the hotel was built. That that vegetation will remain. It’s what you see here looking 18 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 west and will not be taken down with the construction of the project so those are true pictures of what you’re going to see. Of course since we are looking for a variance for the height of the building we’re concerned about the aesthetics. We could make building conform to the forty- foot height if we put a flat roof on it we don’t think that’s going to look very pleasing to anybody and we’ve given you two architectural renderings showing you what the front elevation of the building would look like with peak roof and with a flat roof. It changes the character of the building we think significantly. We fee l that peak roof is much more in character with the Adirondack theme of the building. MR. VOLLARO-In this day and age it’s just not smart to build flat roofs anyway, it seems to me. MR. RICHARDS-If the board is set on that, I’d ask Tom to continue on and do the lighting. MR. NACE-Okay. Lighting. Bob, I apologize we weren’t able to come with a drawing quick enough to get back to by Friday noon that had – MR. VOLLARO-I did see your comments on the drawing however, in the upper left hand corner so you’ve taken the uniformity ratio at the – MR. SANFORD-Just to clarify a point here. In terms of sequencing. We’re looking at this for purposes of SEQRA right now MR. VOLLARO-That is correct. MR. SANFORD-Then if this gets a neg. SEQRA, it goes to ZBA and ZBA looks at it in terms of height variance. At that particular point in time doesn’t it come back to us for site plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Assuming that its approved, yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So why wouldn’t lighting be looked at if and when it is approved by the ZBA because obviously that’s something that’s not going to be a SEQRA issue. MR. VOLLARO-The reason I’m interested in it – from past practice on this board for a long time – once we neg. dec. this it’s practically over. So I want to make sure in my mind that everything that pertains to this application is clear in my mind so that when I do the SEQRA I’m not sitting there and hemming and hawing about yes and no – not know what to answer. I want to know all the answers. That’s my view. MR. SANFORD-I have to respectfully disagree with you on lighting. Lighting is something that we could spend a considerable amount of time on it and if ZBA does not approve the height variance it could be basically time that did not need to be spent. And that’s a perfect topic that is covered in traditional site plan and we’re not compromised through a neg. dec. on the SEQRA through lighting plans. I can’t see how we are. You have an opinion on this, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-I think your point’s well taken. I think in the past when we have reviewed SEQR where we already had a site plan we have been pretty flexible in allowing the board to raise issues that they have but your point is well taken. MR. SANFORD-Well again, I’m not saying we have to go in that direction but I just wanted to see if my understanding was correct in that what we are really trying to do here is to get through the environmental process so that it can then travel to ZBA for variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So we understand that. MR. VOLLARO-I think light pollution tends to be an environmental issue and that’s why I’m looking at the – MR. SANFORD-It is but it’s something we address during site plan. We’re not doing site plan right now. 19 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When we get to the SEQR and we get to that kind of question then we might even want to discuss it there but – MR. SANFORD-We can discuss now, Bob. I just wanted to make sure that we were going to get this back again if ZBA approves it. That was my question. MR. VOLLARO-I think that was understood. MR. NACE-We’ll obviously work with you throughout the process to make lighting conform to your requirements. MR. VOLLARO-Just to continue, I notice you brought the lighting to 5 to 1 at the entrance and that’s okay with me. MR. NACE-And that’s not from a numerical analysis of all the points. That’s from looking at the light contours the way their spaced now and making a judgment call. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. As long as it’s not 20 to 1 which it was before. That was way out of spec. Five, six, seven to one is going to be okay with me. That’s the end of the lighting thing for me. MR. HUNSINGER-Not to belabor the point but my only concern on lighting is the lighting under the canapé. MR. NACE-The lighting under the canapé I could not find you cut sheets within that time limit. I could not find you cut sheets of those lights. We’ll, again, through site plan we’ll work with you on the canapé lighting to make it acceptable. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, I also took the liberty – Tom had prepared a letter to address the CT Male comments. I took the liberty of including that in our package and I don’t know if it’s consistent with what you were just saying, if you wanted to review those now and have Tom go over those or if you would rather wait. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s up to you if you want to comment on them. We all received the letters and have reviewed them. MR. NACE-Most of them are ones we are obviously going to conform with and changes to the plans have not been completed yet for CT Male’s thorough review which will obviously . . . site plan but I wanted to show you that we could comply with them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think the only questions I had on that CT Male response were questions 1, 3, and 19. If we could address those, I’d be happy. MR. NACE-One, because of the infiltration – that in fact we’re using infiltration. DEC’s regulations really don’t address adequately the soils we have in parts of Queensbury. So if I were to fully comply with their regulations, I would have to provide huge amounts of storage, pretreatment storage, before I discharged into either an infiltration base or drywell. It’s just not practical so we don’t necessarily conform with the letter of their law. We will submit it for a sixty-day review and – MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you will have to submit for the sixty days and CT Male is probably in agreement with that I would suspect. Is that correct? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-Yes. You said 1, 3 – MR. VOLLARO-One, 3, and 19. MR. NACE-Okay. Three was the same thing. That’s what I was speaking to – the amount of pretreatment required before infiltration. And 19 20 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. HUNSINGER-It’s related to water and sewer extensions. MR. NACE-Those are still being completed and we will be working with the water and sewer departments to get those districts extended, well the district in the case of the sewer. MR. VOLLARO-I think water and sewer are both in question here because there’s a six bullet items on the water itself. MR. NACE-Right. Water – they’ve told us they will serve us as an outside user, not as a district. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You would be what is called a contract user, I believe. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-What’s with the pump, Tom. Just explain it. MR. NACE-We’re at the very limits of their service pressure zone, OKAY. So – MR. VOLLARO-So the pump is for pressure. MR. NACE-The pump, the fire pump, is required to provide adequate fire protection in a motel. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-Okay that really covers the items we’ve submitted and I would just once again reiterate that we feel that this is an extremely good project. It’s attractive. It’s consistent with the current zoning and the master plan. It’s the infill that we all look for and it’ll add thirty jobs to the community and its supported by our neighbors so we’re enthusiastic about it and we would ask the board, therefore, to pass a negative declaration tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the board? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll have to go back. I was going to comment on things as they went through but I do have some comments on traffic, I think. First of all, I don’t think I have quarrel with the seventy at all. This is an estimate on your part. MR. NACE-ITE has several definitions for motels, hotels and none of them fit exactly so this was taking the worse case condition of those. MR. VOLLARO-The site distances look good on traffic. I think there’s very adequate site distances there. You’ve provided for snow removal and the site distance analysis. What I do notice, though, in the traffic counts themselves . . . . one is three years old and the other one for the August period is six years old. I couldn’t quite get to your figures using these figures that were given to me. I couldn’t quite get to your 15,994. I tried but - How did you get to that. MR. NACE-Okay. If you look in their sheet. I’m looking at the sheet that reads – MR. VOLLARO-Southbound 10/2/02? MR. NACE-I’m looking northbound – the page what should be if it’s stapled together – your sets are stapled together – it should be the third page of traffic counts. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s August. MR. NACE-Yes, there it is – August. It’s northbound, okay? MR. VOLLARO-August is northbound, okay. MR. NACE-If you look down to the last line – not the last line – but down the bottom half of the page it says average weekday hour and then axle factored vehicles average weekday hour 21 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I got that. MR. NACE-Okay. Way over to the right. Average daily traffic is 8164. MR. VOLLARO-I’m on the wrong page. I’m on August - MR. NACE-Yep. August 2, 99. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 8164 is the daily, okay. MR. NACE-That’s average daily traffic. Actual factored. So that’s northbound. Southbound is 7830. Add the two together and you should get the fifteen. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s were you got – you added the two. I was trying to get – MR. NACE-Well because your looking – it’s traffic in both directions. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand what you did. The only problem I guess I have with its date is six years old but whatever the traffic is on that road, seventy cars isn’t going – MR. NACE-It’s obviously going to be more than that but I’m not sure for that quarter what their yearly inflation factor is. MR. VOLLARO-My whole thing on traffic – you know my pitch on traffic. I have prepared a resolution that’s going to go to the town board. I haven’t gotten, by the way, comments from all my board members yet but I’m looking for a total town integrated traffic study. Because everyone of these projects that comes up is another point on the chart to take a look at as far as loading is concerned. We always look at specific projects. We never look at the total and I’m going to be asking the town board to get into a study to look at the total on various roads and intersections so I really don’t have a problem with your seventy. I have a problem with the whole road in terms of what’s happening here. MR. NACE-Is the greater Glens Falls Transportation Council still active? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s within their parameter. MR. NACE-It would seem to me that that would be their . . . MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-We’re asking for a bid to go out and I want to get into that now. The board knows what I’ve done. They’ve all got the e-mail. They’ve all read it, presumably read it, and we’ll see where we go from there. So basically I don’t have any problems with your traffic studies specifically to this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the board? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d be interested in what Marilyn has to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I wanted the board to speak first. MR. VOLLARO-On the visual assessment, I’m somewhat concerned. I think the peak roof is the right way to go. I think aesthetically it looks far better than a flat roof. I’m somewhat concerned about setting a precedent for over forty feet. Because we’ve looked at the Quality Inn, at least I have, looked at the Quality Inn on Route 9, it’s a Sleep Inn. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-The sleep in is all part, I believe of the same corporation. It’s Quality Inn. Is that correct? Am I correct in that? UNIDENTIFIED MAN-It’s Choice Hotels . . . That’s their franchise. We have nothing to do with that but Choice Hotels owns the naming rights of Quality Inn, Sleep Inn, Comfort Suites. 22 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. HUNSINGER-We’re going to need to get you on the record. MR. RICHARDS-I’m going to ask Mr. Stark to come up and put that on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. GEORGE STARK, JR. MR. STARK-Hi. I’m George Stark, Jr. and I’ll be glad to answer anything I can. MR. VOLLARO-The question was we did look into, in fact, Susan Barden looked into it, to see what the height was on the existing Sleep Inn on Route 9. MR. NACE-That’s the one across from Wal-Mart? MR. VOLLARO-Yes and it’s thirty-nine nine. That’s the one Sue looked at. Thirty-nine nine. So there was no variance required for that height. They stayed just underneath and that didn’t include the cupola, it includes the ridge only. My only concern there – You have got a nice looking hotel here, I really do. I’m just concerned about the precedent setting of going over forty feet and that’s something that I don’t have any control over. That’s going to be a ZBA issue. I just wanted to – MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s our issue as well. MR. VOLLARO-It is but I think the ZBA has to take a look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to be the governing board on whether they approve the variance or not. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. RICHARDS-Again. Part of that is the result of the unique terrain here that slopes front to back. You wouldn’t really need a variance if it were all level. MR. NACE-And it makes the impact of the hotel less to be four stories instead three. We could make it three stories and spread it out and then it becomes more impact in other areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Personally, I’m not worried about a precedent because every site is unique. Every project is unique. It has to be reviewed on its own merit. MR. VOLLARO-The next applicant can say well, wait a second – MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you gave it to them why can’t give it to me. MR. VOLLARO-That’s always the story so I was concerned about that. I just have one more comment now and then it will take care of my – on the sewer there was a letter that I never got to see from Mike Shaw to Craig Brown on August 8, 2005 where Mike Shaw talks about the status of the map plan and reporting completion of that. It says in the staff notes that we should look into that letter and I don’t have it. Does any other board member have that letter? MR. HUNSINGER-No. We talked about that last week. MR. VOLLARO-Even if it’s read into the record, I don’t care to see it. I just want to make sure that I know what Mike Shaw is saying about the map plan and report that’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-While staff is looking for that, is there any other questions or comments from other board members? MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Vollaro, I don’t have that letter either and I did speak to Mike Shaw earlier in the summer about this but he didn’t copy me with any such letter. 23 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. VOLLARO-It was in my staff notes that there was a letter from Mike Shaw to Craig Brown. MR. HUNSINGER-It was in an e-mail, if you remember. MR. VOLLARO-Is it in an e-mail? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It was in an e-mail that was in part of our package. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve read all Mike’ e-mails and none of those are the August 8th e-mail. I’m just interested what the status, I guess – Let me open my question up and ask what is the status of the map plan report with respect to completion. Where are you on that? MR. NACE-We’re probably a month away from completion in getting that in front of the board for some action. But that would go to the town board for sewer district formation. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. MR. NACE-We know there’s capacity. We’re know, at this point, there are no regulatory or technical issues that would prevent it from happening. We just haven’t gone that step and we’ll see where we go through the zoning process. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got some easements to go through to get across people’s property and that sort of thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll withdraw that. There’s no sense in belaboring over that. It’s just that when it’s stated in staff notes, I would like to be able to see it. MR. NACE-If you do find that, Susan, could we get a copy of that? MS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-We did leave the public hearing open. I think before we go to the public hearing, I would like to hear from our town historian. We appreciate you coming out to the meeting, as always. MARILYN VAN DYKE MRS. VANDYKE. Thank you very much. I hope I don’t sound too fuzzy headed because I just returned from the Public Historian Association’s conference in Alexandria Bay where I’ve been for the last four days and I picked up some very interesting information concerning preservation of sites that I will try to dovetail into the comments that I’m going to make this evening. I have a number of questions concerning this project that I think we should take hard look at before the final approval is given to it. The first question I have is that I have in my possession several of the papers that were filed in relation to this and I have a 67.20 Appendix A, the full environmental assessment form and apparently that is signed by the project engineer whose name I cannot read. Could you identify who that is? MR. VOLLARO-The project engineer? MR. HUNSINGER-Probably Mr. Nace. MRS. VANDYKE-Is it Mr. Nace? Alright. I just can’t read the name. MR. VOLLARO-Is that part one you’re looking at now? MRS. VANDYKE-It just says state environmental quality review full environmental assessment form 617.20. This is the first time that I have seen this particular form in this form. I do not know if it’s the newly revised form or not but the typical question on one of these environmental assessment forms is are there any archeological or historically sensitive matters related to the site and I cannot find that question in this new form. I want to know if the form has been changed. 24 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. SANFORD-Well I think when we do our SEQRA, Part 2, we ask that question and we have to answer that. MRS. VANDYKE-Alright. MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant does as well, Richard. It’s on page three of twenty-one. Questions six and seven. Is project substantially contiguous to or contain a building site or district listed on the state or national registers and then – MRS. VANDYKE-But that’s not the same thing as answer the question is it historically or archeologically sensitive. That’s a different question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It is a different question and I think what we were partly wrestling with last week. MRS. VANDYKE-And that’s what we are trying to look at. MR. HUNSINGER-At least that’s what I was wrestling with, I should say. MRS. VANDYKE-Sure. I just wanted to call your attention to that and maybe we could deal with it as we go along. The next thing I have are the plans which I don’t know if they are the original ones from two years ago but these are the most recent ones and I had some questions about the plan itself. One is I do not see the military marker noted on this plan and there was a New York state historic marker on the site that was moved and then located and placed back on the site and it’s not on this map and I think it should be to show part of the development of the plan. Then I noticed that there are two houses on the plan and it says and I’m not sure which one the owner plans to remove but it appears that it says on one of those it says: we’ll remove this building. Then the second one that has no label on it whatsoever I believe is the Howe VanDusen house which is the one that we have some concerns over so I think that should be at least indicated as such on that plan. These two questions of history and archeology, it’s sometimes very easy when we are looking at preservation and we want to do a major project to sweep these things under the table in a hurry so that we can go ahead and work on a project and I think we should take time to study exactly what we have on a site before we go ahead so that we glean the most important information from it that we can during the time that we have the opportunity to do a study and before we go ahead with the project. So if you look at the archeological questions here you have within this area a great deal of native American movement in and out of this area over time. Some of it goes back to the early archaic period. We recently had two archeological studies that were done down the road at the site of the Great Escape and they found considerable information there including a native American campsites and other information and artifacts that had been drawn off that study before the hotels going up there. In the area that we have here at the Stark site we are also very close to the Battle of Bloody Morning Scout in the Colonel William’s sites that are just up the road. These are the sites that were predominantly occupied by a significant number of soldiers during the French and Indian War. I think you all know that we are studying the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the French and Indian War. I spoke a couple of days ago with Tom Nesbit who is the major researcher on our study of the old military road that went from Fort Edward to Lake George. This study is being done for the National Park Service and is virtually completed and will be in your hands by December when we submit the final copy to the National Park Service. You are welcome to look at it at this point in time but I don’t have copies for you because we have to get their approval first before we can issue it to public governmental entities but we do plan to do that just so that you know. You’ll have that for future studies of sites that you will be doing but you do need to look at the military road study and how that could possibly have some bearing on this. Now, in terms of historic sensitivity, there are a number of situations here in relation to this particular site. The Howe/VanDusen house was original built in 1851 or 2 by Clark Howe. Clark Howe was the village blacksmith in the French Mountain hamlet and as far as I have been able to determine this house is probably one of the last houses in the hamlet that still remains today in a relatively intact form. A little bit about the Howe family. These are notes that we recently acquired from Smith’s History of Warren County and from Judge John Austin. Clark Howe, Jr., he was in this case, was born in Greenfield, Saratoga County in 1831. In 1851 he settled in Queensbury with all his worldly goods in a handkerchief. He commenced the blacksmith trade which he has continued to the present. He reared his family and has a homestead of eighty-five acres. That was his original lands. I want you to know at that point because I want to say something about that in a minute. There was but one person living in the 25 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 neighborhood who was there at the time of the settlement and I’m reading from a document that was written in 1885. Mr. Howe also served as a constable, an elected assessor of the town in 1884. He was a general blacksmith, carriage and wagon iron and practical horseshoer. He married Miss Jeanette Stanton of Caldwell in 1856 and they subsequently had nine children that resided in the Howe home during the course of the time that they lived there. Judge Austin goes on to tell that Clark Howe, Jr. was – see if I can find it here. I just wanted to mention that when he passed away because he lived to be a considerable age and he is buried in the cemetery in the West Mountain cemetery area. These stacks are interesting because he was not a person of extreme notoriety but he was certainly a person who made a significant contribution to the community. During the course of this study we also have located from the DOT – I don’t know if I told you that the other day where they were from – three sets of maps that show what happened to Route 9 in this specific area. These maps are dated 1904, 1924 and 1931. I have them – they’re very difficult to copy and I have each dated map in two sections and we have to piece them together so what we would plan to do for you is to make that happen and to get adequate copies so you can really read what happened here. But every time that they wanted to do something in that area of Route 9, they had to relocate – showed in the 1876 map as the triangle that came down with the little road going one side and the other and the house living in the middle. So whenever they wanted to relocate those maps they would jockey that around and the VanDusen house would be moved and it was subsequently moved as far as I know right now, three different times gradually to the west to where it is located today. Now I spoke, when I was in Alexandria Bay this morning as a matter fact, to a man named Randall Crawford who is an experienced member of the firm of Crawford and Sterns and he has dealt with a number of issues that have to do with the preservation of old homes and he said that moving a house does not mean that it could not be placed on the national historical register. There might be reasons why an owner or someone would move it. If you change the interior of the house and the architecture and you do different things to the home such as was reported in the inventory, the brief study that Mr. Wheeler made that would not preclude it. So it’s still a question of whether or not this could go on the historic register as far as I’m personally concerned. There are other types of inventories that could be done and studies that could be made so I think one of the things that we might want to do is look at ways that we might be able to mitigate this house and think of the possibility that it might be a house – since it is one of the last homes in the hamlet. It might be house that could be saved. We haven’t saved very much of anything else. The halfway house burned. The cider mill is gone. The businesses that were there are gone and of the fourteen residences this is probably the last one so I think we should give some thought to that. I originally spoke to Mr. Stark about it and asked him the same questions that I put in my original letter. Would he want to consider keeping the house and rehabbing it to an earlier state and having it as perhaps a gift shop to a company, his Comfort Inn. We he want to possibly deed the property to the town of Queensbury with the view to their making it a visitor type of center with interpretation of history of the town which is a doable thing or would he want to consider giving it to possibly a parcel of the land and the house to Warren County Historical Society who might be able to create their office and their own headquarters there, keeping it in a preserved historic site. I do not believe that he is interested in any of those three matters but I haven’t asked him that in recent months so I don’t know since he has seen some of the letters that have come through for in connection with the plan. I think that’s where my office stands is that we need to be careful what we are doing here. Make sure that we’ve study really, really well and that we have as much information as we can gather historically before the hotel is constructed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Could the building, is the building – ready for questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Is the building structurally sound at this point in time? We drove by it and saw it but we didn’t go over and touch it or anything else. MRS. VANDYKE-I’ve been in the house just once and that was when Mrs. VanDusen was residing there and the family was living in the house at the time. To me it seems structurally sound. I would have to have someone like an architectural historian of the caliber of Wes Haines that I mentioned in my earlier letter, take look at this to make a further assessment. Are all the roofs intact; are the side walls OKAY; how is the foundation; will it support weight on both floors if you wanted to do something with it and those answers need to be done by someone has more ability in that field than I do. 26 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. SANFORD-It’s been moved perhaps three times in the past. It is structurally sound enough to be moved a fourth time? MRS. VANDYKE-Someone would have to answer that who is more . . . than I am. MR. SANFORD-Is the building from an architectural point of view – not necessarily historical point of view – does it have a significance. In other words, are there any unique craftsman type of features to this home that stands out in a unique manner or is it a more commonplace type of home. MRS. VANDYKE-Well we have different types and kinds of architecture. One term that they use today is vernacular architecture which would mean a more common type of architecture that would have been built at a particular period. This is probably an example of a sort of a vernacular kind of house. It was a home, a residence. It was not a high end colonial or mid-nineteenth century building of grand stature, with columns, pillars, and so on but it’s a good example of the types of house that would have been built in Queensbury in the period from 1800 to 1850. MR. SANFORD-Obviously, Grant’s Cottage is perhaps famous because of who lived in it. In this case here obviously a reputable individual but a person of relatively low historical significance I would assume, a blacksmith, in other words, not Ulysses S. Grant. MRS. VANDYKE-We have to look at him as having had this specific occupation at a time when blacksmiths were, for example, were needed and then he and his family and several members of his family had that particular occupation. It might be like comparing it to a family of people who were coopers at a certain time. MR. SANFORD-I guess what I am kind of getting at here is I am not sure how issues like this are adequately resolved but I’m looking at what I’ve heard or what I’ve read is the building has been moved a number of times and at least to me that, to some degree, compromises the significance of the building in that it’s not in its original location where it was originally built. We can argue that or maybe I’m wrong on that but to some degree I believe that it compromises the historical significance of the building. The original owner or owners of the house were typical to some degree of people who lived in the community. There’s no great man significance associated with the structure. The building is of average architectural structure and we’re talking about a building of the 1850 vintage. So I guess what I’m really asking here is given the subjective nature of this is this, in your opinion, a very important historical home? MRS. VANDYKE-I think what we can look at and say it probably would be doable to work toward the preservation of the home. Is it highly significant? Is that your question? MR. SANFORD-I guess. Yes. I guess. MRS. VANDYKE-It’s probably is not highly significant but it doesn’t have to be highly significant to be preserved and saved. That’s not a requirement. MR. SANFORD-What is the threshold – the criteria that we need to use to make that determination in your opinion. MRS. VANDYKE-Last week before the French and Indian War battles were fought, I was at the pavilion in Lake George where we reviewed all the applications for placing houses on the national historic register for this year. There was a house that looked similar to the VanDusen house except that it was one story and it was square and it was not painted well. It looked like it was strong enough to stand and not fall down but there was nothing unusual about it. But the reason it was being placed on the register was so that it could be preserved in the context in which it was located in the historic setting that it was in. I guess I might argue that we might be able to raise this issue with this house in terms of saving it for the fact that it is the last significant residence in what was a hamlet area of our community at one time and perhaps it is worthy of saving. MR. SEGULJIC-It is the last residence? MRS. VANDYKE-As far as I know. 27 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. SEGULJIC-You said significant, though. MRS. VANDYKE-The other house that’s on the property I believe although I haven’t done my research on that was also a Clark house. At one time down on where the farm to market starts out the first, or second, third house and then there was a little white house was one of the last ones too but that’s now gone. MR. SEGULJIC-So this is the last – MRS. VANDYKE-I believe so, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-How about the rest of the site? MRS. VANDYKE-The rest of the site? MR. SEGULJIC-As far as archeological significance, historical significance. MRS VANDYKE-I think I mentioned that anything could have happened there because you had thousands of soldiers going through that area for the French and Indian War and you’re not very distant from where the Battle of the Bloody Morning Scout took place. The historic journals that are written from that period say that when a soldier died they were buried where they died so according to Mr. Nesbit, with whom I spoke with last week, it’s likely or at least it’s a possibility that you could find skeletons on that property. MR. SANFORD-But I think artifacts search is sort of separate from what we are talking about here. I think in any event there’s going to be due diligence done in terms of looking for artifacts. MRS. VANDYKE-I guess so. If you have – I don’t know what archeological studies they’ve done there yet. MR. SANFORD-I think that could be distinguished from this structure, I think. In that the structure is to be addressed in a unilateral manner by us rather than the search for artifacts. I believe there is a difference there. MRS. VANDYKE-There’s one thing to consider when you’re talking about the search for artifacts is when your just doing a few random samples of test borings or test holes versus something that is more extensive and I don’t really know what’s been ordered for this site. MR. HUNSINGER-Well they’ve done Phase I tests and they’re looking at those artifacts. In a letter dated September 22 they do say: If final analysis of the artifacts recovered from the Phase I tests indicates the presence of significant archeological resources, we will flag a fifty foot buffer around them to prevent disturbance during construction activities. We will proceed with Phase II evaluation of any significant archeological deposits that cannot be avoided. MRS. VANDYKE-And Harkins doing that work? MR. HUNSINGER-Harkins sent the letter, yes. MR. VOLLARO-It was signed by an Adam Loucier. What I drew from that same letter really in a few words is that the investigation – that particular investigation is not complete. In other words, he talks about continuing on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right and of course if you are in construction they find stuff, you review that. MRS. VANDYKE-Sometime its takes a while to get that back and yes if they were in construction and there wasn’t an onsite archeologist because you didn’t determine that you wanted that and you found something you would have to stop and take care that and notify SHPO and go through the proper procedure and any construction person should know who is building that building. Is this building going to be built by local builders or someone from away, do you know? 28 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if they know that yet. MR. VOLLARO-The key that I had in my notes after reading your letters, Mrs. VanDyke, 8/24, 8/29 and 9/18 and then reading the other letters by Harkin of 9/22 and I guess 9/20 and 9/23. I try to put all that together. The thing that jumps out at me that might be significant is putting an application to place this house on the historic register. If it’s not feasible to do that and you claim that it is, but if it’s not then I don’t know whether I could support this or not, but – MRS. VANDYKE-You can always move toward doing the application but the first thing you would do then would be to contact Lynn Garofilini, our adviser at SHPO. She would come up here; they would do some looking at it. I don’t have access to the property so that puts me at a disadvantage. I have only seen this property once. They would look at it. They would take all of these facts into consideration – the history and the family’s story and other things and help us to see whether we should pursue – go ahead with it or not. MR. VOLLARO-That sounds to me like a logical approach. I would hate to take something down or move it or do whatever is going to be done to it if it has historical significance in terms of being placed on the national register. Other than that I would have to agree with Mr. Sanford pretty much. MRS. VANDYKE-I could have her come up here and we could – MR. SANFORD-What’s the timeline for such a determination that Mr. Vollaro is talking about? MRS. VANDYKE-It depends when you can get the state people here to work with us. It depends on my work schedule which is two days a week. There’s some things that have to happen but very doable. I’m officially on vacation until October 10th right now. I have been for four days. But that’s OKAY. I would be glad to work on it. MR. SANFORD-I’m talking in terms of weeks. How many weeks would this take. Would it take months? I don’t understand the process. MRS. VANDYKE-You have to make out a rather and lengthy application to place a dwelling on the national historic register then it would go down to the SHPO office and reviewed by their staff people and if all the ducks are in a row and everything is fine then at some point it would get on their review schedule and then it would be reviewed and be approved and then if it’s approved at the state level then goes on to the national so it takes a while to do this. MR. SEGULJIC-So it sounds like a lengthy process. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a lengthy process, oh yes, months. MRS. VANDYKE-At least a year and it might be longer. MR. SANFORD-I’m not trying to be argumentative here, why wasn’t this done before? MRS. VANDYKE-Because no reason had come up to do this before. When we talked with Mrs. VanDusen only at the time that she was considering selling her property and asked her a number of questions about considering it. She told me that her husband, her late husband, would be very happy to have it used in some historical way but she herself was not willing to make that happen because she felt she could get a very substantial price for her property. So she sold it and she moved to Lake George. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not something that the community does, it’s something the property owner does. So if the property owner doesn’t take the initiative to have it listed then it doesn’t happen. MRS. VANDYKE-The only other way it could happen is if as a group we decided we were going to create a historic district somewhere in Queensbury and we got a cluster of homes, an area together and we all worked on that together but it’s not something the town undertakes for example. Like if you take the Sanford house over on Ridge Road, Bob and Carolyn Rudolph chose to have their home put on the national historic register and they worked on that with me and with others until they got it done. 29 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know – it’s kind of off the discussion a little bit but do you know how many house are listed on the national register within the town? MRS VANDYKE-In the town of Queensbury I think there are three properties, maybe four. There’s the Owl’s Nest which is the Eggleston home up near the Mountainside Library. There’s the Sanford house. There’s the . . . house. Those are three. MR. SANFORD-There’s a house on Ridge Road that a doctor used to own that - MRS. VANDYKE-That’s the . . . house. It’s just got on the register here last year. We don’t have very many, by the way, and we should have more. We should have more. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions for her? Again, thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-My only question I guess would be if we went to take a look on the historic register what impact would that process on the continuation of the hotel. In other words – let’s look at this way – the hotel starts to get going, it gets built, the investigation is going and the house is placed on the historic register. What does the applicant then do with the house. How does he have to deal with that? MRS. VANDYKE-The applicant himself. Well when you place a home on the national historic register it prevents any intrusion on that property by any federal agency. If you wanted to put a road up through there they wouldn’t be able to disturb that house any further and do that. As far as the Stark Group is concerned they most likely would want to keep the house there because of its historic significance and then they might make some determination as to how they would effectively incorporate that into their hotel complex. MR. HUNSINGER-About the only real advantage to an owner of having your house listed is if your house is listed you become eligible for historic tax credits. MRS. VANDYKE-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-If you make renovations to the property – MR. VOLLARO-Can I do that with my house? MR. HUNSINGER-If you can get it listed on the national register. MRS. VANDYKE-And that might be of some advantage to the Comfort Inn people – that they could treat this house in some given way and perhaps do some restoration with it. They could get grants to do that with after was on the register. There’s some pluses for them. It isn’t all negative. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I was saying the tax credits are certainly a positive thing. MRS. VANDYKE-It’s always difficult when someone buys a piece of property and they have vision of what they want to do with it and then all of a sudden something happens and they have to take a step back and look at it. We got into that with old Quaker B. . . Ground as everybody very well knows. Someone bought something; they thought they were set and they had this enormous, enormous problem. It took us five years to resolve that. We don’t want that lengthy process going on that would hinder things. We certainly want to do the proper kind of study as we go along. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. We do have the public hearing that was held open from last week. Is there anyone that would like to make any comments or questions to the board regarding this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If the applicant could come back up. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, if I could just briefly address the board on a couple of inconsistencies with some of the information that was presented. First of all I want to emphasize again. We are approaching this carefully and diligently. Harkin Associates is the 30 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 group that handles the work, to the best of my knowledge, for Fort Ticonderoga. This is their thing. They do it carefully. There’s been shovel test pits – grid throughout this site and we’ve had an architectural specialist. You’ve seen his qualifications, Mr. Wheeler, and you’ve seen his comments as he reviewed that home and I want to emphasize again it seemed a little unclear, this is not an 1853 home we’re looking at. This is a 1853, 1888, 1930 kind of mishmash. Some of the other things that we were talking about are all 1930 or later that were put on. It’s been moved, Mrs. VanDyke, I didn’t realize that it said three. I thought it was two but it has been substantially moved and tremendously altered to the extent there is an 1850 corner of it or shell of it; parts of it have been taken out added to other parts of the house. Parts that have been discarded; been built over. It’s not an 1853 house. It really does not have architectural integrity and the tripwire, the trigger for having these things preserved or mitigated is if they are eligible, if they meet their criteria for inclusion on the state or national historic register which we’ve had a specialist tell you that it does not architecturally meet it. The only other criteria Mr. Sanford started to mention right in there is that is it is associated with a very prominent person. Is it associated with tremendous event or does it indicate some incredible process that will give light on a architectural or engineering process in history. These things, common sense says, don’t apply. And I use that word common sense because ultimately the standard given by the archaeological – I even have it here – the New York Archeological Council sets forth the standards for archeological work in evaluating these sites and .10 in the Standards is that all of this information is to be applied with good judgment and common sense and that’s what were asking this board to do and that’s what I thing we’ve done and certainly what Harkin has done. If there are issues that Mrs. VanDyke thinks that could’ve been brought up and attempted to be listed that could have been done two years ago when the first . . . was filed and she began her correspondence but we respect her interest, we share that interest. We don’t necessarily feel the result needs to be the same but we all share an interest in the history of the site and we’re out there to make sure it’s investigated properly and I think we’ve done that. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the board? MR. VOLLARO-I guess my only question is – I guess that has to be answered by the applicant but my question would be if we could get it on the register is there any way it could be incorporated into a tourist attraction to the hotel or would it be looked at as a derelict house on the hotel property? I guess that’s my question. MR. RICHARDS-I can bring a representative of the applicant up here to speak to that but it would be totally discordant with the whole site and image we’re trying to project. If you start getting into ideas of museums and entranceways it just totally changes everything we’re doing here and totally discordant with the rest of the . . . too. MR. VOLLARO-The one thing that you are doing that’s really great, I think, and that’s the picture that I’ve been staring at here for probably an hour now is a hotel that’s being built to fit in with the Adirondack theme. MR. RICHARDS-We’re very proud of that it. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s great. I like it. I don’t think that this house is necessarily out of the Adirondack theme. It’s something that we’re trying to preserve here in a community and to me, if we only have a couple, maybe three houses in the whole community that we’re trying to preserve in Queensbury. It seems to me we ought to at least give it a shot. If the applicant is adamant and says ‘look this doesn’t fit; I don’t want it, etcetera, etcetera’, I would like to hear the Starks’ position on that. MR. RICHARDS-Well then I invite them up to explain the position on that but I would just emphasize again our experts tell us it wouldn’t qualify in any event. I’m going to ask Mr. George Stark, Sr. to come up and address the board on that. MR. STARK-My name is George Stark from the Mohican Motel. Bob, would you repeat your question, please. MR. VOLLARO-The question I had was if this was placed on the historical – if there was a way to get it on – would it materially detract from the hotel if you were to use it, for example, as a tourist attraction, museum, kind of emphasizing the Adirondack theme. You’ve done it beautifully with the hotel. Would this in any way detract from that or would you say look it’s something I don’t want on the property, can’t use it, don’t want it. 31 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. STARK-Okay. First of all Wally Wheeler came up and we went through the house. He picked out so many things that you and I would not pick out if we went through it. The only part of the house that was built in the 1850s is the northeast corner on the first floor and he pointed out some structure down the cellar – the beams were different than the rest of the house and the walls were different and so and so forth. The rest of the house was L-shaped around that one corner. In the future a second floor was added, the house was wired, plumbing – indoor plumbing, wiring now, double-hung windows, concrete block foundation, as opposed to the stones. So, I really can’t see if you are talking about a house – do we leave the house in front – what am I suppose to do, take the rest of the house down around that original part or leave the whole house. If I leave the whole house it’s going to look like heck. I don’t plan on taking any trees down in the front. I want to trim some up because there are some beautiful trees around the perimeter of the house – around the perimeter of the property, not around the house. You know the way we run our property. MR. VOLLARO-Yes I do. MR. STARK-The Mohican I’m talking about now, for twenty-nine years. Just the other day in preparation for tomorrow night’s, hopefully, variance, I went and I counted all the five- inch caliber trees that are fifty foot high and I came up with 190 trees on a north, south, east, west. The majority of them are leaf trees as opposed to pine trees. I don’t know how that’s effecting what we’re talking about here but I mean I plan as leaving as many trees as I can. If you looked at our property now all you see is trees. As far as keeping the house, I really don’t want the house there. According to Mr. Wheeler, he says it’s not eligible for inclusion on any national registry or state registry. He’s the expert. He’s got his bachelors and masters from RPI. He is an architectural historian. What do I know – you and I both what constitutes an historic house. I don’t think it’s eligible. If you would like to come and go through the house, I would be more than happy to show you or any member of the board the house. Just make your own determination. I mean it’s been changed so much. It’s got yellow Formica countertops. Everything has double-hung windows. You got wide boards, you got small boards, you got linoleum down. The house has totally been redone so this is a real convoluted to answer your question, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I understand what your driving at. MR. STARK-I’ve spent a lot of money to have the archeologist come up. We did a grid study. I shouldn’t say we – we did a grid study every ten feet on all almost five and a half acres. He digs a test pit of every ten feet square, a foot and a half deep, screens it – what’s he find? He found 134 supposed artifacts. Did you look at the list of artifacts? MR. VOLLARO-No I did not. MR. STARK-Animal bones, a stainless steel screw, an asphalt shingle, a piece of concrete, a broken bottle. I mean, if I dug around your house I would find a piece of asphalt shingle or something. These are the artifacts that they supposedly found on the site. OKAY. If worse comes to worse we can buffer the site. We’re not even going to touch the military road. You know the stone road to the north of this site. That’s a four percent grade. If we were to put the entrance down to where the entrance to the red house is now we would have a much higher percentage grade and it would tough to get in the winter so we’re putting the entrance up just south of that stone road – I don’t know – thirty, forty feet or something like that or fifty feet down, so we’re not going to be touching the military road that’s in front of the red house other than trim some trees and clean up the brush and stuff like that. We’re not going to do any excavation or anything. I don’t know what else I can say except that. MR. VOLLARO-What I draw from that is you’d rather not have the house on the property. I think that’s the bottom line. MR. STARK-Yes. I guess I took a little while getting to it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m satisfied. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. SEGULJIC-How long is it going to take for construction? How long . . . construction – a year? 32 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. STARK-Mr. Adler who works for . . . . who are the builders for it. He estimated that it’s between nine and ten months. The timeline for this is what we plan on doing is if we get the approvals, start the peeling away like ten, twelve feet of the high point of the site. A lot of the dirt stays right on the site to level things in the back somewhat. A lot of the dirt will be going off the site or the fill, I should say. If we could get into the ground November, December, put the footings in, shut down for the winter, start up again in April with the actual construction of the site and the total construction would probably be – they say nine to ten months. I’m figuring eleven, twelve months. It doesn’t really get built on time no matter what they say. MR. SEGULJIC-Now where that house is, is that going to be impacted? MR. STARK-Where the house is? MR SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. STARK-No. Now there’s two houses. The brown house would have to come down MR. SEGULJIC-Which one’s the brown house? MR. STARK-The north house that was built back in the 30’s as far as I know. The red house does not have to be touched. We could buffer it. Put a fifty foot buffer. The building itself starts about three hundred feet back from Route 9. That’s where the actual building starts. While the excavation to level the ground would be closer to Route 9, probably a couple hundred feet back and then we’ve got to shave that hill back. The red house – you could just put those black plastic around it. You don’t have to touch it. I would prefer while its being excavated to do it all at one time but he’s got to come back once the building built and do the landscaping and everything. I suppose he could do things then, you know, as far as the red house goes. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got some time is what your saying. MR. SEGULJIC-We could leave the house there – MR. RICHARDS-To what end is my question. MR. VOLLARO-There’s diametrically opposed opinions here obviously between two people. MR. RICHARDS-With all due respect, there’s only one expert opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-That was paid for. MR. RICHARDS-That doesn’t mean its wrong. MR. SEGULJIC-And we have our town historian telling us differently. MR. RICHARDS-These people have standards. They have to abide by you. You can see the list of his qualifications. But I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt. MR. VOLLARO-I was just using Tom’s position to say that while all that was going on if the house could be preserved for a period of time to see what kind of status it could be gotten for it and if can’t be then you take it down. MR. SEGULJIC-My concern is reportedly it’s the last house of that era, shall we say, of that settlement. That’s my concern. MR. STARK-Okay. Still, again, what I’m saying is come on up I’ll be happy to take you in the front, northeast corner. That’s the only part that was built back. Of the house I would say that’s its probably a three thousand square foot house that one corner is maybe I would say probably fifteen by twenty, twenty by twenty, four hundred square feet, so I should leave the whole house just to preserve that. Let’s say it was eligible that part – although Mr. Wheeler says no – okay that part’s eligible. How do I differentiate that part from the rest of the house. You don’t. You leave the whole house. 33 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. SANFORD-I think your idea is an excellent one. I personally would like to go inside the building. MR. SEGULJIC-But we’re not experts in that area. What’s that going to do for us? MR. SANFORD-Well we don’t have to be an expert to see if what the applicant is representing is in fact the truth. If you look at this and it appears to be obvious that there is such a compromising of the original structure and then we can have that later obviously verified. That says it all. My only real discomfort is trying to pass a judgment when all I did was see it from the outside when we did our site plan visits. I really don’t know what we are dealing with, but – MR. HUNSINGER-You can’t see it well from the road, it’s obvious. MR. SANFORD-No. No. I think we owe to everybody to actually go and take a look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to try to bring the discussion around here to where we’re at this evening which is the consideration of the SEQR and it does appear as though, with all due respect to the applicant’s expert, I think we do have to give equal credence to the town historian who has provided some additional information and insight that Harkin has now provided. I’m not questioning his qualifications or anything else but we do seem to have differences of opinion here. And I would agree with Mr. Sanford if we went and looked at the house and its obvious to us who are untrained that it’s not significant or special then this issue kind of goes away. But what we are looking at tonight is to get through the SEQR process. We’re not calling on the final judgment of this house. We’re just allowing the applicant to move forward to the ZBA for his height variance. I think we kind of deliberated on the historic resource issue enough for us to make a determination. Clearly what you’re doing with the archeological resource, the Phase I and, if you need to, the Phase II. Certainly that is what would be necessary. I don’t think there is any question that you’re doing the right thing there. I don’t think we’re questioning the judgment or the value of how you’re approaching this. I think we’re just kind of stuck with some differences of opinion at this point that could be cleared up fairly easily. MR. SANFORD-I would think so. The way I look at it there’s subjective elements that might make this house of some historical significance and then there should be some very objective ones. The objective ones ought to be able to put down on a checklist and have some expert go in and determine a, b, c, d, e, f – does it cut it? I don’t think it should be an ongoing debate. That’s what I was trying to get at with Marilyn. How important is the owner in terms of his place in history to the significance of the home. I think that probably weighs into it. Also the architect. How was the house built? The techniques used. Are they unique? Are they worthy of preservation? Or are they commonplace? I would think that there should be objective ways for these evaluations to be made. The applicant has represented they have been made and they have found that it is not of significance and I think all we’re saying is we want to make extra sure that those representations are correct. I think we could start by taking a look at it and then if we have to we could bring in somebody to make that determination. MR. RICHARDS-Can I have just one minute to talk to Mr. Stark for a second? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. You can take a recess if you want. MR. RICHARDS-Can we take just two minutes for a recess? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Great. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we’re ready when you are. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to verify something with Mr. Stark before I suggested to the board as a way to make sure everyone’s satisfied with their decision. Obviously we need to proceed and get our negative declaration. We need to proceed and get our site plan approval and I’m just thinking logistically or procedurally what I would suggest to the board at this time is grant us the negative dec. Let us go ahead and get our site plan approval. We will agree to amend our plan with the provision that we buffer that house 34 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 during the course of construction and we don’t remove it until such time as this board approves some objective evaluation of that house. Now what that objective evaluation is maybe something we can discuss as well but I think that at least let us get this very good project under way and going while the board can make sure that it’s satisfied that all the investigation that needs to be done with that house has been done. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that acceptable to everyone? MR. SEGULJIC-That sounds good. MR. VOLLARO-It sounds reasonable to me. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s a very excellent suggestion. MR. RICHARDS-What that objective review is perhaps we can put together at the meeting – the site plan review meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say I don’t think it’s anything we need to hash out right now. MR. RICHARDS-Then we can work with staff and Mrs. VanDyke – we could have her input as well in that interim period. MR. SANFORD-While you were having your conference so was I. I think – so we could all feel comfortable one way or the other somehow engaging an independent expert to do the evaluation and report would be probably a good suggestion or a good idea. Have somebody come in and take a look at that building and then report to this board as to whether or not it is of historical significance. MR. RICHARDS-I just want to say one thing in defense of Harkin. He’s no more a hired gun than I am or that Nace Engineering is. We’re people with expertise in the field and we’re here to present an honest – we’re not doing anything unethical or dishonest. They have standards they have to adhere to. I don’t want to get to a position where we are discounting or treating him as some mindless advocate. These are people that are concerned about history and have standards they have to follow and I would certainly ask this board to give him every bit as much credence as you would me or Mr. Nace or any other expert that appears before this board. MR. HUNSINGER-Point well taken. With that discussion I think I will go ahead and close the public hearing. What we are scheduled to do this evening is to entertain SEQR findings. They did submit a long form. Are we ready to move forward? MR. VOLLARO-I have a long form in my briefcase that I would like to follow if you would just give me a minute to pick it up. I don’t think we got a long form with our application. MR. RICHARDS-There should have been a long form in the initial site plan application I submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a long form, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Part II? This is Part I. This is their answers to questions but I didn’t see Part II which is what we’ve got to do. Part I was the only thing submitted. This is what we got to do. MR. HUSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I’m ready. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Ready, Tony? MR. METIVIER-Alright. Here we go. Impact on land. Will this proposed action result in the physical change to the project site? Examples would include any construction on slopes of fifteen percent or greater or whether the general slope in the project area exceeds ten percent. Construction on land where the depth of the water table is less than three feet. Construction of paved parking areas for a thousand or more vehicles. Construction on land 35 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 where bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than one thousand tons of natural material per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway or other. SPEAKER-No. MR. VOLLARO-The only one there – I think the applicant has said he could complete this construction within one year. MR. HUNSINGER-So the answer is no. MR. VOLLARO-The answer is no. MR. METIVIER-Two. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site. SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVER-Impact on water. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected, existing or new body of water? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff.? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Impact on air. Will the proposed action affect air quality? SPEAKER-No. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s backup for just a second on that. Will the proposed action alter drainage or flows or patterns? I think in that particular question I think engineering has to submit a sixty-day review to DEC for that, in other words, for that pond? The infiltration capability of that? MR. NACE-Correct. But it’s not altering the existing drainage patterns at all. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what the storm water report is for. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. METIVIER-Impact on air. Will the proposed action affect air quality? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Impact on plants and animals. Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? 36 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Impact on agricultural land resources. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Impact on aesthetic resources. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. VOLLARO-You want to read those off? MR. METIVIER-Sure. Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to occurring surrounding land use patterns whether manmade or natural. SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Proposed land uses or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic quality of that resource. SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important in the area? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Impact on historic and archeological resources. Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? These would include proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the state or nation register of historic places. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within a project site? MR. VOLLARO-That’s still under investigation. The letter from Adam Loucier. I think it’s small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a maybe. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s small to moderate. I think it can be mitigated probably by a completion of that investigation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We have the letter dated September 22 where Harkin says that if they find some archeological resource that they will flag it and not disturb it. It’s a small to moderate impact that’s mitigated by further research and evaluation. MR. SANFORD-I mean, Bob, you don’t know if it’s small to moderate or potentially large but in either case it can be mitigated. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-In either case but so far in reading the letter from Loucier of 9/22 it looks like they haven’t found anything significant yet. So that’s why I went small to moderate. If they had uncovered the bone of an old Indian then I’d say we got a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. If they had found something significant I think we would know that by now. MR. METIVIER-Is the proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archeological sites on the New York State Site Inventory? 37 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. SANFORD-Possibly. I mean that’s what we’ve been talking about for the last three hours, right? MR. HUSINGER-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-So again I think we go possibly yes but then again we can minimize that or mitigate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SANFORD-That’s what we’re saying, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-What we’re really saying on this is we’re going to be setting this piece aside. The applicant has said that he’s going to put some protection around it while he works. We’re going to go take a look at it. We’re going to bring an outside source in – archeological significance. A guy who knows what he is doing and then we’ll be able to easily get to this question. Meanwhile, this question – MS. RADNER-Now what you’re discussing are the mitigation measures that could be taken that would negate any potential large impacts. If you feel that there’s potential for a large impact then you have to answer this yes and give it a positive declaration. If you feel that those protections mitigated and will prevent those positive impacts then you can it no. MR. SANFORD-No. We can answer it yes with mitigation and give it a neg. dec. MS. RADNER-Correct. MR. SANFORD-That was one MS. RADNER-Correct. But you can’t say no we’re just going to defer it for further and not address this question. You have to address the question. The way you’re addressing this question is by considering the mitigation plan that’s been deposed which is to say we’ll buffer this house if it’s determined that this house is significant then the plan will be changed so that the house is preserved or somehow saved so that’s the mitigation that they’re offering. If you believe that that mitigation is sufficient to protect and prevent a potential large impact then you can say no and give a negative declaration. MR. VOLLARO-At our last meeting, Cathy, you said that one of these SEQR forms – the SEQR process we could condition it. Is this bordering on conditioning right now? MS. RADNER-A condition is sort of saying that we’re going to impose our own conditions and we’re going to make you take certain steps then there’s additional publication requirements and so forth that come with having issued a conditioned neg. dec. MR. RICHARDS-With all due respect, we do not want a conditional neg. dec., please. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the mitigation measures that the applicant has provided both in terms of buffering the house and then in terms of the Phase I testing are sufficient so that we can say no, but I’m just one out of five here. MR. SANFORD-The other thing that Bob mentioned that I felt comfortable with which is buffer it, say no. Part of the mitigation process is then to bring in an outside expert to do a checklist evaluation on the historical significance. And if you go that far I’m OKAY with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We got it, Tony? MR. METIVIER-Impact on space – MR. VOLLARO-That was a no just for my record. Is that correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 38 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. SANFORD-If it’s a no then how can you mitigate it? Then it doesn’t need to be mitigated. I think we need to say yes, small to moderate, and then we have a mitigation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s fine. MR. SANFORD-So it’s not a no, it’s a small to moderate with a mitigation plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. METIVIER-Impact on open space and recreation. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Impact on critical environmental areas. Will the proposed action impact the exceptionally unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision Sec. 6 NYCRR 617.14G? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-I’m sorry. That was impact on transportation. Impact on energy. Will the proposed action affect the community’s resources of fuel or energy supply? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Noise and odor impacts. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Impact on public health. Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood. Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? SPEAKER-No. MR. METIVIER-I will make a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second that motion. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger. NOES: None. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for your patience. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, one quick question on the procedure. We have the SEQR, we’ve closed the public hearing. Am I to understand that this public hearing obviously covers both the SEQRA determination and the ultimate site plan review so we do not have a public hearing next month we go straight to the nuts and bolts of the site plan review. 39 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. HUNSINGER-I’m going to ask for counsel’s help. It’s my understanding is that the public hearing was only for the SEQR. I see heads nodding. MR. METIVIER-We talked about this last week actually with another application that we have the right. MR. HUNSINGER-Oh yes, we always have the right to have an additional public hearing. MR. RICHARDS-I’m necessarily objecting. I’m just trying to plan the – MR. METIVIER-I’d imagine that we would have a public hearing for the site plan review on this. MS. RADNER-You typically do. MR. HUNSINGER-We typically do. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. AV 62-05 & SP 52-05, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STARK GROUP, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non- significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of September 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan NEW BUSINESS: 40 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 SUBDIVISION 16-2005 [S]. SEQR TYPE N/A. APPLICANT AND OWNER: TRA-TOM DEVELOPMENT. AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP. LOCATION: COUNTY LINE ROAD, 1400’ NORTH OF HICKS ROAD. LOT SIZE: 54.24 +/- ACRES. TAX ID NO. 290.-1- 22.222. SECTION A-183. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1-2004. ZONING SR-1A. APPLICANT PROPOSES 42-LOT CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, RESULTING IN 41 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGNG FROM 0.4 ACRES TO 1.05 ACRES AND THE REMAINING 23-ACRE LOT BEING OPEN SPACE. DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Next on the agenda is Tra-Tom Development, subdivision 16-2005 [S], sketch plan review. I guess they gave up? UNIDENTIFIED MAN-They’ll be right in. MR. HUNSINGER-Oh, okay. While we’re waiting for the applicant to come back in, there was a memo from staff regarding our October meetings and what the preference of the board might be. We deferred to two items from September into October would the preference to the board would be to try to clear up the backlog or to stick with our strict agenda limits? MR. METIVIER-I think we should just add the two on. I mean it’s a heavy, heavy, heavy schedule . . . I can’t believe it, but the problem is going to be is that we are going to run into the eleven o’clock hour and who knows what – MR. SANFORD-Chris, just along those same lines at the last workshop we had I volunteered and Mr. Vollaro volunteered to do completion reviews for setting the agenda an nothing has been done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-I guess my question is what, if anything, do you feel we need to do to get that going? MR. VOLLARO-Marilyn answered that question yesterday. I happened to send her an e- mail for exactly that and she said she’s busy, she was doing sixty plus hours a week work and now she’s back to forty five and that – MR. SANFORD-I got a copy of that e-mail and I think she was referencing your second question, not so much your first question. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the pleasure of the board? Option one, two, or three? MR. SANFORD-I’d like to have completion review by planning board members. That’s my pleasure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I guessed I misplaced that. I’m sorry I don’t have it in front of me with all this paper. Do you have a copy of it that I can look at? MS. BARDEN-Do you need another one? MR. VOLLARO-It’s probably in the stack of paper that I put aside. MR. HUNSINGER-Our applicant is ready. Sorry to keep you waiting. Thanks for your patience. MR. MAC ELROY-I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design representing Tra-Tom Development for the sketch plan conference for a proposed residential development on a fifty- four acre parcel which is located on the west side of County Line Road, approximately twelve hundred feet north of the Hicks Road intersection. The intentions for this development is single-family residential served by public road, municipal sewer, municipal water and on-site storm water management. The applicant is requesting a cluster design and in compliance with the regulations we submitted a conventional design on that acreage and following the procedures for determining density we deducted areas for the public and, by the way, sheet 41 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 four in the package that you have. I do have that on the backside of that board if you want to see that as well but it is sheet four on your plan and that shows, again, a conventional design as it turns out a forty-one lot layout. It’s one acre zoning. Minimum – MR. SANFORD-In terms of your density calculation you’ve said you deducted out road area. How about wetland calculations? MR. MAC ELROY-Wetlands? Correct. Wetland as well. There’s no rock outcrops to be deducted and there’s no area on the site greater than fifteen percent slopes. I think it in the clustering aspect of it but in terms of that density we start with 54.24 acres. The road right- of-way area is 5.78 acres, the wetland as delineated is 4.83 acres, leaving 43.63 acres when we did the conventional . . we located 41 lots within that area. So turning to the clustering plan which is sheets one and two at that scale but also on one sheet there in front of you on the colored board there’s a proposal for a clustered layout of forty-one lots ranging in size from .4 acre to a little over one acre. Again, public road, public sewer, public water. We’ve had discussions with the town board regarding both sewer and water. The site currently is not within an existing sewer district or water district. The water district borders this property so that’s a simple extension. Sewer is a little more complicated but we’ve had meetings with Washington County, Town of Queensbury, Warren County because all those entities are involved with the district in that area. And the plan would be to extend the district to include that fifty-four acre parcel, pump waste water south on County Line Road to a Warren County manhole located at Angiodynamics which eventually flows down the to the Queensbury district and pump station. Again, we met in a workshop with the town board. The town board indicated that they wanted, obviously, the project to go to the planning board for comment and review but I think what I came away from that was there was not an indication that they wouldn’t support an extension of the districts but there was also to have the planning board do your job as well. MR. SEGULJIC-This is Queensbury school system or Lake George? Queensbury? MR. MAC ELROY-Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the board? MR. VOLLARO-I do. I’m looking at 17911030 on the objectives of a cluster. And I’ll read them off. It’s says a development problems which preserves outstanding natural topography and geological features, scenic vistas and trees and prevents the disruption of natural draining patterns including the wetlands. It looks like part of this thing is right smack in the middle of fairly significant wetlands. The fact is a road, the road to the south, the southern most road transverses right across it. And it says a development pattern in harmony with land use intensity transportation facilities, community facilities and objectives of the comprehensive land use plan. I really don’t know what the land use plan use says about this particular area but I don’t think all the requirements of the objectives and it says: in order to realize the purpose of this article a cluster shall achieve – it doesn’t say may – it says shall achieve the following objectives. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets. It looks to me in taking a look at the number of streets here that the conventional system has less streets on it than the cluster. MR. SANFORD-Yes, your right. MR. HUNSINGER-It does. MR. VOLLARO-Then my next question was a conventional subdivision of one acre lots would be preferable in my mind, however. However, due to the wetlands you’ll never get forty-one lots in there. The conventional subdivision would be more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. That was comments that I made on my little thing. The bigger of it all though – we’ve reviewed this property once before and it was Mr. Tessier, I think, came before this board, Lou Tessier and had several comments about it being in the flight path of, I think, 180 a 0 – that being north and south where the main runway runs and there was a cone of influence that I had done a study myself and determined and Mr. Caimano was here and Mr. Tessier was her and in Mr. Tessier’s letter and I have it here and I think I can actually give it to you. I have to go into the previous letter by Mr. Tessier. He sent a letter to this board on this particular property. This property was viewed in the past at 68.88 acres and now its 54.24 so fourteen and a half acres is kind of going away here. 42 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. MAC ELROY-The northern section was subdivided some time ago, some years ago – a couple of years. I’m not sure of the exact timing. MR. VOLLARO-And its north of this property? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Closer to the north/south runway. Is that right? MR. MAC ELROY-No. This property is north of the airport so the property to the north was the fourteen acres that had been subdivided. I can show you on another – MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I got the – If I’m right there’s little indication right here there is the airport runway. Right there. What they were concerned about – I’m looking down south here at the location and I think the north/south one way is directly in line with the property and we concluded at that meeting that anybody that wanted to develop that had to go and take a look at a FAA Form 7460-1 and that was per the testimony by Marshal Stevens which is the assistant airport manager and it was done on 2/17/04 is the last time we looked at this property. MR. MAC ELROY-That form number again, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Is 7460-1. It really would have to do with landings that were being aborted for some reason or other. A guy coming in an not be able to hit his mark. So I think we have to look at that and try and get this letter from Mr. Tessier and give it to you as a reference because I think – MR. HUNSINGER-That really wasn’t from him. There was just testimony. MR. VOLLARO-I see this letter by Mr. Tessier. This is my remark. MR. HUNSINGER-That must have been in the application. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not in the minutes. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not in the minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless I missed it. MR. METIVIER-It’s not in there. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not in the minutes. We could call Lou Tessier up. I’m sure he’s got that letter. I guess I read it but it talks significantly about the fact that there was a cone coming out of the airport. Essentially if you look at it, it looks like a cone. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. And there’s vertical limitations related to heights of trees and buildings and what not. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Those kinds of things. And they’re concerned really about what they call a missed approach on landings that could very well impact some of these if there was a missed approach. That’s what 7460-1 is all about. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from board members? MR. SEGULJIC-I think Bob rapped it up pretty nicely. MR. HUNSINGER-I think so too. MR. METIVIER-How long has the applicant owned this piece of property? MR. MAC ELROY-Excuse me? MR. METIVIER-Do you know how long the applicant has owned the piece of property? 43 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t know that exactly. Probably within two years. I know that at meetings that we had regarding the sewer the previous owner participated. I think that he had made indications to the current owner that districts – or the land was within districts but in fact it isn’t currently but the indication was that extensions could be sought. MR. HUNSINGER-I think staff comments and Mr. Vollaro’s comments were pretty succinct. When you look at the proposed cluster plan, it looks kind of intriguing and interesting but it doesn’t really meet the code. It doesn’t meet the intent of what a cluster subdivision has to entail and that’s really what Mr. Vollaro was saying and what staff was saying as well. MR. MAC ELROY-I think Item A – development pattern which preserves outstanding natural topography and geological features, scenic vistas, trees and prevents disruption of natural drainage patterns including wetlands. That’s part of what the clustering is attempting to satisfy. There are two areas that roads cross that but it doesn’t – I don’t want to say that it doesn’t preclude that from being part of that design. MR. VOLLARO-I think what it says is disruption of natural draining patterns including wetlands. MR. MAC ELROY-Well the pattern of drainage wouldn’t necessarily be disrupted. The drainage wouldn’t be cut off. It would be provided for within the design. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be impacted but not disrupted. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. So that could be accommodated. A development pattern in harmony with land use intensity, transportation facilities’ and communities facilities’ objectives of the comprehensive land use plan. I’m not sure that that cluster plan here does not disagree with that or does not conflict with that. The only neighborhood comment there is in the land use plan deals specifically with Chestnut Ridge Road and the lots that are off of that. This property is at the back or at the westerly edge of it is still several hundred feet from Chestnut Ridge Road where some of the larger lots that are recommended as part of the neighborhood plan in the comprehensive land use plan. Those exist currently. MR. SANFORD-Is cluster – I should know the answer to this but is cluster but, is cluster pretty much a planning board discretionary option or – you follow me? MR. MAC ELROY-It can be requested by the subdivider. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We can request it but there are parameters that have to be met and there are tests that have to be proven. MR. SANFORD-We can request it. I guess, not in this particular case, but a more generic question, can an applicant insist upon it? MR. HUNSINGER-I suppose. If we don’t like it, we’d deny it. MS. RADNER-There are criteria which mandate a cluster subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-And then there are times when its required. MS. RADNER-By slopes and wetlands the degree to which a cluster subdivision would be mandatory. And I can look that up for you. There are thresholds. MR. HUNSINGER-The concept and the typical application of a cluster would be to say well we have this – I forget how many acres it is – fifty-four acre parcel. We’re only going to develop the front twenty acres and the back thirty-four are going to be kept forever wild and maintained as open space. That’s sort of the conceptual – MR. SANFORD-I understand the concept or the philosophy behind it. I guess when I look at this and I look in terms of density differentials I don’t see much of a differential. MR. HUNSINGER-No. And there really isn’t. It’s not intended to be. The lot sizes are smaller to keep the units closer to the road front. 44 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. MAC ELROY-There’s twenty-three acres of open space provided in that. MR. VOLLARO-The problem I see with the open spaces, it’s not contiguous. There’s open space – in other words it is not – MR. HUNSINGER-It’s really very interesting to see the open space on the road frontage so that if you’re driving down the arterial road you see open space which is a little different than I think what the more traditional cluster is. MR. VOLLARO-The idea, I think, of clustering is to allow the people who buy into a cluster operation to be able to use that open space for whatever reason they choose. MR. MAC ELROY-There’s still that potential. MR. SANFORD-I think in terms of infrastructure maintenance you like to think that there’s going to be advantages there and so it is concerning, I think, that you probably have as much road in your cluster configuration as you would in a conventional one and so – MR. VOLLARO-More. MR. SANFORD-More. Okay, so you’re certainly not getting an advantage through clustering in terms of plowing roads and things of that nature. MR. MAC ELROY-And that’s certainly one of the aspects of clustering another is the open space aspect of it and that’s what this was geared toward. Goal number one, protect and maintain rural character and visual quality of the town in the town-wide plan – in the comprehensive land use plan. Establish a greenway plan to protect important natural areas, views and open space. There is certainly an element of this clustering that conforms with the goals of the land use plan of the ordinance as it is. That’s the shape of the plan now. It follows the procedure as far as determining lots by via conventional plan. I don’t know that – Bob, you indicated that there wouldn’t be forty-one lots in a conventional plan and I’m not sure why that’s the case. MR. VOLLARO-Because you’re dealing with one acre lots then you’re into one acre. MR. HUNSINGER-At least one of your lots was less than an acre. MR. MAC ELROY-There are actually two that are .95 and .98. I noticed that today as a matter of fact and you refreshed my memory on it. Those certainly, with a little movement of the lot line, it could meet that one acre so that I’m not concerned about. With or without the opportunity for municipal sewer that conventional plan is something that would be a potential certainly. MR. VOLLARO-Just looking at the roadways of sheet number four and sheet number one, if you start to take or almost do a light table exercise on those you would, from a highway point of view, it would be much easier to maintain sheet number one – sheet number four, rather – for plowing and that kind of stuff. I know that they hate to plow these circles. I happen to live on one so I know what goes on on the circle. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. As long as they are on the radius that the standards specify. That’s the nature of the beast and there’s one in the conventional plan as well. MR. VOLLARO-What happens in my case is a tremendous amount of that snow winds up on my front lawn because he moving quickly and pushing a lot of snow and I get it all. That’s one of the problems that I have. MR. SANFORD-Well where do we want to go with this. This is a sketch. A sketch is a sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to say. I think we want to give him direction. Which one we like better. We’ve heard from Bob and the staff and others. MR. MAC ELROY-Is the concept of clustering is something that’s a negative. I’m not sure I’m hearing that. 45 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. VOLLARO-In this particular case it turns out, in my mind, to be rather negative from the standpoint of the road placement. There’s a lot more road here and one of the ideas of a cluster was to bring the road area down, not up. MR. MAC ELROY-There are ways to approach that configuration that could lessen that road to be certainly equivalent to the conventional layout. As this process goes on, we developed a conventional plan in consideration and in compliance with what the ordinance requires. The first effort on this was to develop this cluster plan because that was the preference of the applicant. It was felt that it was appropriate for this area, the rural nature. It provided that setback – a pretty considerable setback – behind the existing hedgerows that exist out there you see in the darker green color there. The development takes place beyond that. It certainly – not that you wouldn’t notice development in that area but it would obviously be mitigated by the placement of that. It’s relatively flat. Fairly level throughout that area until you get back to the very last couple three hundred feet and then it’s still not significant slopes at all. It’s still less than ten percent for the most part. MR. VOLLARO-How far away from Ridge Road and the bigger lots is this? In other words, I’m looking at that – MR. HUNSINGER-It’s adjacent. MR. VOLLARO-It’s adjacent. MR. MAC ELROY-Ridge Road? MR. HUNSINGER-Chestnut Ridge. MR. VOLLARO-Chestnut Ridge. MR. MAC ELROY-This is the tax map. Here’s Chestnut Ridge Road. MR. VOLLARO-The scale is what there roughly? MR. MAC ELROY-I think the tax mapping should be – Let’s guess two hundred. Yes. So here is some existing lots in that area. All of those lots are existing and developed. They’re three hundred feet deep and this lot which has a residence here. MR. VOLLARO-That flag lot. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct and that’s four hundred and fifty feet off of Chestnut Ridge Road. MR. VOLLARO-Are those people on those few lots would be essentially neighbors with this portion of the folks on the cul-de-sac. MR. MAC ELROY-This lot is contiguous with that section and if you can tell from the clustering plan you’ve got a certain section of open space. There are blocks off the cul-de-sac in here. This is that flag lot area that happens to be owned by. . . . MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-He’s probably been in this seat before several times. MR. SANFORD-I noticed in your drawings that most of this wetland delineation is approximate at this point. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. It was delineated by a wetland – Charlie . . . – under the previous ownership that obviously will go through Army Corp. confirmation and finalization. MR. SANFORD-So you will need freshwater permits here, right? MR. MAC ELROY-Depending on the level of disturbance, there would be Army Corp. permitting. It may or may not be required. 46 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. SANFORD-I can’t speak for this particular parcel but for a lot of the other properties that we’ve looked at around this area there’s a significant issue with water and I’m surprised that this one is as dry as it’s being represented at this point and based on my experience with other properties around there. MR. MAC ELROY-It’s been farmed. It has obviously not been farmed recently except for the northern portion. I happened to walking out there today. It’s hayed and there’s corn in a portion of that but in the areas of the hedgerow there are drainage ways and those are delineated and located. MR. SANFORD-At any rate, I don’t know what needs to be done in addition to what you’ve done but I’m wondering if that will alter the density calculation when its finalized. Are there test pit data here on this sketch anywhere? MR. MAC ELROY-No. Not at this point. I have reviewed the Warren County soils mapping in that area. There’s two different soil types that are predominate in that Charlton soils and HU but certainly that’s all part of the process. MR. SANFORD-It’s a high ground water area because we had that subdivision a while back. We couldn’t even get two houses on it. I remember that. It was really close by. MR. VOLLARO-What this applicant is looking for I guess, Mr. Chairman, is direction from this board. MR. HUNSINGER-I know. That’s what sketch plan is about. I think you got a number of comments from us. I don’t know if it’s as helpful as you had looked for or hoped for. I think in general we do support clusters but maybe not this specific application of cluster. MR. VOLLARO-I’d take a good look at this airport thing as well because I’ll be looking at it if it comes up again because I’d probably call Mr. Tessier and ask him if I could get a copy of his letter. It’s very definitive in terms of what was required in that 7460-1 form. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the board? SPEAKER-No. MR. MAC ELROY-I was just looking for a section in the ordinance here that suggests the – let’s see – clustering zoning, out of zoning, objectives, procedures, plats submission – upon determination by the planning board that the sketch plan utilizing the provisions of this article is suitable. The procedures attendant to and subsequent the sketch plan submission as set forth in Article 3 shall be followed in regular order. I think that’s the section I was looking for. What I’m hearing is that there’s not a consensus that the plan, as presented, is suitable for consideration. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s what your hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The proposed cluster doesn’t meet the definition of cluster. But that’s not to say that it couldn’t. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. And what I think I sense from the discussions – obviously the airport issue is something may or may not place a restriction on here that’s insurmountable MR. VOLLARO-You’ll have to look at that. MR. MAC ELROY-But the length of road is the other technical issue that if it’s – MR. SANFORD-But actually what you just read confuses me a little bit because my understanding is sketch plan is an option an applicant may take to receive feedback. Based on what you’ve read it almost looked like a prerequisite and I’ve never known sketch plan to be required so I’m confused and I think there’s an inconsistency in whoever wrote that rag because they’re making it a part of a required process it seems and sketch plan has always been an option that an applicant can use to come in and get feedback from the planning board. Here it’s a requirement to go to the next step on a cluster. Who would have thunk that they would do something wrong in laying out the logic. Who would have thunk it? 47 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. MAC ELROY-That’s in Section 183 – well, Article 3 under sketch plans. MR. SANFORD-Could you read that again, then, to just make sure that I’m not missing something? MR. MAC ELROY-Let’s not take it out of context because it’s in the section referred to as – this is under 183-7. Submission and review procedures. This would be then – MR. VOLLARO-It says prior to any submission of land the subdivider shall submit to the planning board at least twenty-one days prior to a meeting of the board ten copies of a sketch plan and related elements and information in accordance with this article. MR. SANFORD-Okay. It says it. MR. VOLLARO-We have to do it then obviously. MR. SANFORD-I think if you look under sketch plan – my understanding is that sketch plan was a somewhat informal, optional process that an applicant could undertake. Now their making it, in some cases, a mandatory process. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say I never thought it was optional. When you read sketch plan it says the applicant should present sketch plans required pursuant to this article. MR. SANFORD-They can go right to preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-Under the sketch plan they usually request a waiver. We don’t want to do that. So we say OKAY we don’t have to do that. In this instance the applicant, I think, is taking the right approach. He’s coming in front of us and asking us some questions on the proposal he is making as a sketch plan. I think that’s a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-I do too. MR. MAC ELROY-What I had read earlier was from Article 11 in the zoning ordinance under clustering – Article 11 clustering which then is in subsection 11-050 procedures. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess you’re looking for a more definitive answer from this board as to whether or not you should pursue this as a cluster or as a traditional subdivision and we haven’t really given you a definitive answer on that because the cluster presented doesn’t meet the definition of cluster. MR. MAC ELROY-I guess I can take away from this that if in compliance with 17911-030 Objectives – the three that Bob started with. If it’s in compliance with that and again I don’t know that it’s not A and C, B is a legitimate comment related to the length of road but if the road is shorter or no longer than is B not – are we not complying if we are at equal or lesser length of road. That cluster design no doubt can be tweaked some. MR. HUNSINGER-Well it should be smaller not equal to. MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t mean to be a pest here but what’s smaller – ten feet, one hundred feet, a thousand feet? I understand if it’s that much less then that can be in compliance with that but. MR. HUNSINGER-The whole concept of cluster is to provide developments that are not only less expensive to install but less expensive to maintain. Shorter roads to plow, shorter utility runs. MR. MAC ELROY- and to provide open space. MR. HUNSINGER-And to provide open space. The other thing that we really haven’t talked about is the neighborhood harmony which staff notes did discuss and that is in the comp plan recommendation reads: in an effort to maintain the rural character of Chestnut Ridge the lot size density of the area should be approximately two acres and consistent with adjacent lot sizes. Then they go on to say: the proposed approximate .5 acre lots are not in harmony with the land use intensity objectives in the comp plan for this area. The average lot size for the lots adjacent to Chestnut Ridge is approximately 5.5 acres. So I guess in my 48 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 mind if you bring the development further away from Chestnut Ridge then maybe it’s less of an impact. MR. SANFORD-That’s a good point. MR. MAC ELROY-What is the Chestnut Ridge neighborhood. How is that defined? Is it three hundred feet off of Chestnut Ridge? Is it all the way to County Line Road? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think it is defined. MR. MAC ELROY-That’s a problem I would have in reading this because I certainly was familiar with neighborhood five and what that said. Maintain the rural character of Chestnut Ridge. Are lots that are off or property that’s fronted and developed off of County Line Road fall under that? MR. SANFORD-It’s a good point. I hear your point. MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t think there’s anything clear cut in that that would preclude this configuration and be objectionable to that comment. MR. VOLLARO-What I can foresee – there’s no public hearing on this obviously. This wasn’t posted, I don’t believe, because it’s sketch. I think when it is posted, I expect to see quite a few folks from Chestnut Ridge sitting right out here in the audience. That’s looking downstream a little bit and they fall under this, I think, pattern in harmony with the land use intensity, transportation and community objectives of the comprehensive land use plan which was just read. MR. MAC ELROY-I guess that’s the whole conflict we have everywhere then if zoning is one acre lots is a configuration that has x number of one acre lots therefore incompatible with the character of that area versus a clustered development that provides open space but smaller lots. MR. VOLLARO-In looking at this cluster it looks like your trying to maximize – the way I read it anyway – trying to maximize the utility of the property, to get as many lots on it as you can. And that’s what your client would want to do. It’s pretty obvious to me. MR. MAC ELROY-Do you get any that don’t do that? MR. HUNSINGER-Not pretty often. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-But the way I see it if you really want to plan a nice development out of this you certainly wouldn’t put that many houses in. A lot could be done with this and get into some maybe some conservation easement that made some sense; that really added to the property’s ambiance and utility but right now the open space is kind split up a little bit. It’s not being able to be easily utilized by the property owners, I don’t think. MR. MAC ELROY-There sure is a significant portion in the front. That whole front section. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody just said it. That’s a view that people get by driving by. That’s not necessarily what the property owners themselves would have use of it seems to me. MR. MAC ELROY-What would that – typical of this open space – what would that use be? MR. VOLLARO-Recreational areas, jogging trails, that kind of thing. Walking trails that would. MR. SANFORD-We always get into this. I don’t see it as part of our role to help design a project but every time we get a sketch we tend to cross that line and right now your starting to design the project, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-All I’m saying is that he asked me what’s the difference and I said the difference is there’s no. 49 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. SANFORD-I think the feedback has been pretty well thrown out there in terms of comments on the sketch plan. What the applicant chooses to do with it I guess is pretty much up to him. MR. HUNSINGER-And part of the problem is we don’t have very many good cluster developments around town that we can say go look at this particular project – that was a good cluster. There’s only been a couple. MR. MAC ELROY-It may not have started that way – I may be getting them confused between Cedar Court and Surrey Fields. MR. HUNSINGER-Surrey Fields was the one that was a cluster. MR. MAC ELROY-How is that land, the open space land there used any differently than – MR. HUNSINGER-I think that was just scenic vistas, basically. MR. MAC ELROY-Open space. MR. HUNSINGER-The side of the hill. I wasn’t on the board when that was approved, though. MR. VOLLARO-From the point that that was approved to this day we’ve learned a lot on this board about cluster, open space, about land utilization. We’ve gotten fairly mature on this board. I think all the time in terms of those kinds of things. We really didn’t appreciate some of them. We’ve been to some seminars. We got some ideas of what’s going on in the conservation world and we’re trying to develop clusters like this that have some really neat ideas. Here I see in order to get what I’m looking at you’d have to get bigger lots in here, I think, and less homes. Less houses, bigger lots which would probably not forty-one, maybe, I don’t know, thirty. MR. MAC ELROY-Less density is what you’re saying. MR. VOLLARO-Less density. MR. MAC ELROY-Does that create more open space? MR. VOLLARO-You know I could sit down and design this thing and send it to you and say this is the kind of open space. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not our job. MR. SANFORD-Can you do it before eleven o’clock? MR. HUNSINGER-We have two more items to go. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think the applicant’s got a pretty good idea where we’re coming from on that. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Your welcome. MR. MAC ELROY-I appreciate it. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN 51-2005. SEQR TYPE II. APPLICANTS AND OWNERS: FREDERICK AND ALICE SCHMALKUCHE. AGENT: TOM HUTCHINS, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING. LOCATION: 246 ASSEMBLY PT. RD. TAX ID NO. 226.19-1-95. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 42-89, AV 82-89, SP 47-89, SP 85-90, AV 82-01, SP 63-95, AV 78-95. LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRE. ZONING: WR-1A. SECTION: 179-6-060. APPLICANTS PROPOSE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND PATIO RECONFIGURATION. REPLACEMENT OF RETAINING WALLS AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. 50 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Next item on the agenda is Site Plan 51-2005 for Frederick and Alice – and I’m going to mispronounce this and I apologize – Schmalkuche. MR. VOLLARO-That’s got to be them there. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s you. You can pronounce it when you get to the table. How’s that? Susan, do you want to summarize staff comments? MS. BARDEN-Sure. You’re going to make me pronounce the name, right? MR. HUNSINGER-They said they would. FREDERICK SCHMALKUCHE. MR. SCHMALKUCHE-Fred and Alice Schmalkuche. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s easier than I thought. MS. BARDEN-Schmalkuche. OKAY. This is site plan number 51-2005. Frederick and Alice Schmalkuche are the applicants for this request. Proposed action is site plan review for additional hard surfacing, including a retaining wall and a patio within fifty feet of the shoreline. The property is located at 246 Assembly Point Road and is zoned waterfront residential, one acre. Project is a SEQRA Type II action. Project description: Applicant proposes to replace a railroad tie retaining wall with a segmental block retaining wall on the shoreline. Remove the lower deck and reconfigure the existing patio. Staff comments: the proposed project includes the storm water management and erosion control plan, as well as a landscaping plan. On the site development data page submitted and on the site area statistics block on the site plan the proposed patio reconfiguration adds 164 square feet. However, on the storm water design criteria block on the submitted storm water and erosion control plan new patio and stairs adds 655 square feet of impervious area. The actual area added to the site, including the patio, stairs, and retaining wall, should be clarified. The Warren County Planning Board recommended no county impact for this project with the condition that the retaining wall be made with a compatible material to minimize impacts on the leak. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The floor is yours. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, board. My name is Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering in Queensbury and with me are the property owners Fred and Alice Schmalkuche. The focus of this project is replacement of a retaining wall made of railroad ties. We don’t know the age of it. We do know that it’s in the neighborhood of twenty years. It is failing. It’s not in complete failure but it’s failing, deteriorating might be a better word. The primary focus of our project is to replace that with a segmental block masonry retaining wall in a very similar footprint to where the existing wall is. I don’t know if you had a chance to visit the site. I hope you did and get a look at it and when you do get a look at it I think it obvious that this wall needs some attention. Logistically, it will be a little bit of a challenging replacement. The only access is from the south side of the house and the existing wall will have to be removed. All demolition materials be taken out across the south side of the house which is across the patio area. As part of the project with that in mind it’s proposed to remove a wood deck area as well as an existing slate patio and replace that with a brick paver patio in a very similar footprint to what’s there but it will slightly adjusted. If we take the area of existing deck and existing slate patio that we are removing our new patio results in a net decrease in hard surface area by a 156 square feet and that’s because we are removing 320 square feet of deck and we are adding 164 square feet of patio in addition to the patio that’s there now. As staff mentioned the issue with storm water – the storm water area was calculated at 650 square feet and that is not indeed new impervious area to the project because a bunch of our area is presently impervious but from a rational standpoint it is impervious area that will be contributing storm water to the area that we need to manage that’s why that area was used there. Otherwise I’ve submitted the first sheet shows an existing site plan, as well as the proposed site plan on the same sheet. You can see the proposed wall alignment is a little bit different than the wall that’s there and we’re proposing to remove one set of wooden stairs completely and then another set of wooden stairs would be replaced with masonry stairs that are tied in with a block wall. We’ve submitted a set of elevations, one existing, one proposed. 51 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 I think at this point I’ll turn it over to the board for comments. That’s, I think, a brief overview. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the board? MR. VOLLARO-This is the existing situation now? MR. HUTCHINS-That is the existing situation. I believe the photo date was early June and I think it’s encrypted on there. MR. VOLLARO-June 1. And that’s how it stands today? st MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And then the photo addition of the block. MR. SEGULJIC-With regard to storm water management. You are going to put the storm water chambers below the patio, is that it? CT Male had a comment about that. MR. VOLLARO-Their comment number one. Infiltration chamber? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-It had to do with soils? And I’ve confirmed that the soils are granular in nature. They’re mapped as a granular soil and I’ve confirmed with test holes that there are sandy-gravely material. The criteria is based on Lake George – Queensbury . . . project design criteria which doesn’t really take into account an infiltration rate, per se. It just needs to be a soil capable of infiltrating water which this is. MR. SEGULJIC-All of the storm water collected in this area will go into the infiltration trenches below the – MR. HUTCHINS-Within the patio area. MR. SEGULJIC-Within the patio area. MR. HUTCHINS-Within the area we are changing. MR. VOLLARO-How do we define the condition that the retaining wall is made with a compatible material to minimize impacts on the lake? I’m just reading out of the county planning board recommendation. I don’t know what to make of that. Does anybody here understand what that means? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. What was the comment? MR. VOLLARO-Warren County Planning Board recommends no county impact with the condition that the retaining wall is made with a compatible material to minimize impacts on the lake. I don’t know what that is. MR. SEGULJIC-I think they’re talking about make sure it’s compatible with the water. MS. RADNER-I guess I was thinking that you couldn’t have some kind of cement calcified structure where zebra mussels like to hold onto. I guess that’s what I thought they meant. Or pressure treated woods or not. MR. HUTCHINS-I interpreted it as some kind treated timber, certainly not a railroad tie retaining wall. I think segmental block walls are reasonably common in the area and certainly they’re much more benign and better than what’s there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments? I thought the photographs were really great. You can really see what it’s suppose to look like. MR. VOLLARO-I think the only thing he has to do is answer the CT Male question. 52 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. HUTCHINS-And I did submit a response to them on Friday. I received that, I believe, last Wednesday and I submitted a response on Friday so I’ve heard nothing. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I really don’t have anything else on this, no. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Were you here to speak on this application? Didn’t think so. I will open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing. We do have to do a SEQR. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll have to do a short form? MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s Type II. You don’t have to do anything. I think what somebody needs to do is make a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? The Queensbury Planning Board has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2005 FREDERICK & ALICE SCHMALKUCHE, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Frederick & Alice Applicant(s) Site Plan SP 51-2005 Schmalkuche Owner(s) Same SEQR Type II Agent(s) Hutchins Engineering Lot size 0.21 acres Location 246 Assembly Pt. Rd. Zoning WR-1A Tax Id No. 226.19-1-95 Section 179-6-060 Cross Ref. AV 42-89, AV 82-89, SP Warren County 9/14/05 47-89, SP 85-90, AV 82-Planning 01, SP 63-95, AV 78-95 Public 9/27/05 Adirondack Park Yes Hearing Agency Project Description: Proposed replacement of an existing retaining wall and patio reconfiguration. Replacement of retaining walls and hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on 8/15/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on September 27, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 53 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. That the applicant obtain C.T. Male Associates signoff. 2. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. 3. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 27th day of September 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVSION 19-2005 [S]. APPLICANT: SCOTT VARLEY GROUP. OWNERS: DORIS, GRACE AND CHRISTY DISCENZA. AGENT: GARRY ROBINSON, P.E. LOCATION: DIX AND BELLE AVE. TAX ID NO. 303.16-1-33. LOT SIZE: 15.29 +/- ACRES. ZONING: HC- INT AND SR-1A. SECTION: A-183. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN APPROXIMATE 15 ACRE PARCEL RESULTING IN 11 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING FROM 0.38 TO 2.33 ACRES AND 2 COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 1.23 AND 1.55 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. GARY ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Our next and last item on the agenda is sketch plan for subdivision 19- 2005 for Scott Varley. Staff notes? MS. BARDEN-The subject property is located on Dix Avenue at Bell Avenue. Parcel is split zoned with 3.92 acres in the highway commercial intensive zone and eleven acres in the suburban residential one acre zone. This parcel totals 15.29 acres with proposed development resulting in eleven residential lots ranging from .38 acres and 2.33 acres on two commercial lots 1.55 and 1.23 acres. The existing house site to remain as a pre-existing non-conforming use in the highway commercial intensive zone which doesn’t seem to make sense for the proposed development for the site. That lot was made a conforming commercial lot. A proposed road could be moved to line up with Bell Avenue. The two commercial lots on either side of the alternate locations. Placement of the road now is 110 feet from Bell Avenue and 180 feet from Pine Street with the existing house site accessing from a driveway off of Dix Avenue. It is a regional arterial road. The existing house site is to remain. The access should be off of the proposed road. All residential lots fronting on a collector arterial road shall have two times the lot width permitted in the zone in which the lot is located in Section 179-19-20. The minimum lot width for the highway commercial intensive zone is 150 feet. Lot 1 has approximately 220 feet where 300 feet is required. Only one curb cut should be allowed for parcel. A buffer-type sea is required between residential and commercial uses of 50 feet per Section 179-8-50. Plan shows a 100 foot buffer between commercial lot number 3 and the new residential lots. This should be split with 50 feet between the existing residential lot and commercial lot number 2. And a 50 foot buffer between commercial lot number 3 and the new residential lots. The applicant should show no cut zones for the areas of open space, as well as a zoning line showing the highway commercial intensive and suburban zone 54 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 boundaries. The applicant has acknowledged that variances will be required for setbacks for the twin homes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. Thanks for your patience. MR. ROBINSON-I didn’t think it would ever come. But it’s here. I like it. We’ll be out by midnight. Would you like me to give a little dissertation? MRS BARDEN-State who you are for the record first. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just give us a little summary of your project. MS. BARDEN-Tell us who you are for the record first. GARRY ROBINSON, P.E. MR. ROBINSON-I am Garry Robinson. I am a consulting engineer. I represent the Scott Varley Group. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could make sure you speak into the microphone. MR. ROBINSON-This is the only time I get to do stuff like this. We have about a plus or minus 15.3 acre parcel that’s located on Dix Avenue new Bell Avenue and the front portion is commercially zoned, the rear portion is residentially zone. MR. VOLLARO-Where’s the zoning line? MR. ROBINSON-There’s some parcels that are in the front there that are residential right next to us and the zoning line actually runs, I believe, with that property line that runs right down here. There’s . . . Used Care Sales is right there and then there’s a couple narrow or shorter lots that run across there and those are those residential ones. You can see them right here. Lands of Bennett and lands of Balfour and that’s where that line runs up through there. What we’ve done is we are commercial lot three that last line would be very near that boundary that runs up through there. What we would propose to do is develop the front part into three commercial lots. And in the notes obviously it was saying that the front lot would remain residential. If you look at our description that we put in this submission, one of the requirements of this deal with the owner which that owner lives in that existing house right there is that they stay residing in that house until they die. So that’s why it was proposed to leave that house there. We don’t want to leave it there either. MR. VOLLARO-Where does their driveway come out? MR. ROBINSON-The driveway comes out very near where our road is proposed to go in. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it does not come out on Dix? MR. ROBINSON-It does come out on Dix because there is no road there right now. In the future it could easily come out on the new road. So that wouldn’t be problem. We could do that. No problem whatsoever. As far as the movement of our road to where Bell Avenue comes out. If you go out there and look at it – we don’t have any grids on here yet, but if you come out and look at it what happens is there’s a slight bend as you go east. If we say Dix is east/west there’s slight bend as you go east around a corner and as your coming up to the Niagara Mohawk power easement or power right-of-way that goes through there, the road starts to go up. The road terminates. It’s uphill on or about right where our road is and then it levels off. And what happens is our property is high right here. This house sits quite a bit up. There’s a little retaining wall in front of it. The house sits on a little level above it. Bell Avenue is not in a good location. That intersection isn’t a nice place because of the way the road is coming up and you come out onto Dix Avenue. MR. HUNSINGER-We came out that way. MR. ROBINSON-You would know that if this road moves down closer the site distance to the east becomes lesser. You’re sitting up at the top of the hill here so you have the best site distance both ways so it’s a good location. I would say the best thing would be if Bell Avenue could move over to our location that would be great if we could get an intersection there. So 55 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 that would be the commercial side. What we have is three lots. The other two lots meet the requirements of the commercial zone. There’s nothing planned for them right now so we haven’t shown anything but they would access on the proposed road and each of them would just have one access. We’re not looking for two accesses from that residential lot. There would be just one access there. MR. VOLLARO-I plotted that cul-de-sac road at 975. Am I close? Did you say anything in your write-up about the length of that road? MR. ROBINSON-I think we did. MR. SANFORD-What does it have to be, less than a thousand? MR. VOLLARO-Less than a thousand. I think he’s just under. MR. ROBINSON-I know it’s less than a thousand. MR. VOLLARO-Some place in here you make a statement. MR. HUNSINGER-Eight hundred and ninety-five linear foot they said. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at 975 on my scale, but that’s OKAY. I didn’t have a roller to roll it. I thing I will say where you come out onto Dix it’s twenty-two foot wide. Is that the driving area or is that – MR. ROBINSON-That’s a driving area. It would be a sixty foot right-of-way. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got better than forty feet there then. You need forty feet. These lots need forty feet access onto Dix Avenue. The drive line is about twenty-two. MR. SANFORD-You’re talking about curb cuts? You need forty feet from Bell to the new road. MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m talking about the frontage. How much frontage you need on a road. You need forty feet. MR. ROBINSON-It would be a town road so we would have a sixty foot right-of-way for that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This would be sixty feet wide. What’s the scale of this anyway? MR. ROBINSON-It’s about sixty scale. Again, it’s taken from a tax map. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re exactly sixty feet wide on that road? MR. ROBINSON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROBINSON-Then the pavement will meet the specifications of the town. In the residential area what we would like to do is provide for a cluster there. For a couple of reasons. One, we would like to keep the development down to the smallest area possible. Limit the length of the roadways to service that area. Two, we don’t want to develop close to Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. We would like to stay as far away from that as we can. And we do have some wooded areas. I think I included a . . . photo in there that showed the wooded areas over on the eastern side of the site that we would like to leave there. MR. VOLLARO-How many of those lots make up the 4.1 acres of open space? MR. ROBINSON-There’s one, two, three, four. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It says typically four lots. MR. ROBINSON-Right. 56 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. VOLLARO-That makes to me in that kind of a cluster, that kind of open space makes some sense. In the prior one it didn’t make any sense at all. But in this one it does make sense to me that the open space is contingent – MR. SANFORD-I hear what your saying, Bob. There’s a benefit to the people here. They get a bigger potential back yard. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what it is all about. MR. SANFORD-I hear what your saying. MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing is people on the other side of the road don’t have access to that area. MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s correct. It doesn’t mean that it has to benefit everybody. MR. ROBINSON-That’s the way it’s planned right now is that it wouldn’t benefit everybody. It would benefit those people that are located there but it would be open space – good thing it would still be on the tax rolls being a part of those lots. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know where it says it has to be common area, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-No. I don’t think so either. Besides, if these people are all friendly whatever they do there some folks can, you know, doesn’t mean everybody’s going to packing a gun and saying you can’t go over there. In 1840 that might have been what they did. MR. ROBINSON-The lots. We have quite a variety of sizes for the lots. That’s one of the things that the developer wanted to do. He just wanted to make sure that there was some different sizes for different people that may want different sizes. You know how people are, right? Somebody doesn’t want much grass to mow; somebody wants a lot. It would be served by public water. There’s a water line that runs down Dix Avenue that we would tap off and bring up into the subdivision. Each lot would be served by onsite sewage disposal system. We’ve been out with the health department and looked at the soils out there and surprisingly they were great. Pretty much sand down to as far as we could dig. MR. SANFORD-It’s sandy out that way. MR. ROBINSON-The grading of the lot actually falls off as you get down to this Niagara Mohawk right-of-way but up where the residential areas are and in most of the commercial areas it’s fairly level and its deep. I think the shallowest modeling was like fifty-two inches or five foot two inches, I think. So each would have their own onsite sewage disposal system. Storm water would be handled onsite. We would probably do something in this lot in the buffer area, if possible. If not, then we would look to do it somewhere else on one of the back of one of these lots, some of the open space. MR. VOLLARO-You’re not inhibited by any wetlands on this thing either. So you got a lot a room to play with. MR. ROBINSON-No wetlands at all. We haven’t really taken a good look at storm water yet to see where it would go but the lot is high in the back and low in the front so it looks like we can take everything down and get it to this front area, this break, where we get into the commercial lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Some of these other nearby properties, the ones to the – I want to say west - . . . Kominsky, Jennifer . . . , Linda Bush. What are on those lots? MR. ROBINSON-I don’t know what are on those lots. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just wondering what the uses are. MR. ROBINSON-They are residential. MR. METIVIER-The first one is Dean’s MR. HUNSINGER-They’re on County Line Road? 57 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. METIVIER-Yes and then everyone else there is a house in the back. MR. SANFORD-So they are on – I would call it Queensbury Ave. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes it is. MR. SANFORD-Any idea how this is being received by these adjacent landowners at this point? MR. ROBINSON-I suggested to the owner that he go out and talk to all the adjacent neighbors and I don’t know that he has done that yet. He couldn’t be here tonight. He wanted to. MR. HUNSINGER-You’ve got some small lots there, you know, .38 acres and then it looks like the neighbors have pretty significant lots. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. That’s true. MR. METIVIER-Those lots on County Line Road are long. They go out forever. There’s no trees over there. None. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s part of the reason why I was asking. MR. METIVER-So, it’s going to be an issue. MR. SEGULJIC-It says twin home, town home. What does that mean? MR. ROBINSON-It’s a town house with two of them. So it’s a twin home town home. MR. SEGULJIC-And the property line goes down the middle of it? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. So there’s a – we call it a zero lot line between the units which is why we would have to go to the ZBA to get a variance from the . . . setback for that. MR. SANFORD-That makes sense. Cut it in half. MR. VOLLARO-I think this looks like a pretty good approach to me. I have no problem with this in the general layout. What’s going to happen to lot number 1? MR. HUNSINGER-What’s that, Tony? MR. METIVIER-I just think you’re going to have a lot of resistance from those neighbors there. I truly do. So I would do some due diligence with them to try to – so they don’t get notified by us. Maybe you should get out there and talk to them and let them know exactly what they’re doing because otherwise they’re just not going to be happy. Right now they back up to nothing and it has been like that for fifty-some odd years with no trees over, none. No buffer whatsoever. These people will have people in their backyard. MR. ROBINSON-I did suggest that to the owner. Hopefully he has already done it but if not, I’ll make sure that he does do it before we get to the next step. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t want a whole bunch of irate people sitting out in that audience. MR. ROBINSON-Absolutely not. That’s right. MR. METIVIER-We don’t want a whole bunch of irate people. MR. ROBINSON-Right. We’re a team. We both don’t. Just on the staff notes we would be interested in what you’re thinking about lot one. If you did go out there I think you can understand why we would like to keep that drive where it’s located right now just because of the site distances. MR. VOLLARO-Your going to bring that drive out onto the new road so there’ll be no – you’ll have a curb cut on the new road of about sixty feet wide. 58 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. ROBINSON-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-Getting into driveway separations. This is 1794090. On that road which is a regional arterial – Dix Avenue – you need two hundred and twenty feet if you want to bring anything from lot number one onto Dix and you just about can’t do that. MR. HUNSINGER-No. He said they could have it come up to the new road. MR. ROBINSON-We can make lot number one go over to Dix Avenue. We can do that. MR. HUNSINGER-No. To the new road. MR. ROBINSON-I’m sorry. To the new road. Yes. We can make that come to the new road. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So then you don’t have a driveway separation issue there at all as far as I’m concerned. MR. SANFORD-Have you got room for a radio tower? MR. ROBINSON-Maybe. One of the other things that I wanted to talk about and it didn’t come up when we met with staff. He was talking about the buffer zone and talking about sliding one of the buffer zones down in the area between lot one and two and it didn’t make sense to us because, one, this is an existing residential unit in a commercial zone so I wasn’t sure that would merit a buffer between that and a commercial use. It doesn’t seem to me like it would. It’s existing, pre-existing non-conforming. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a pre-existing lot, isn’t it? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So, I don’t know. MR. ROBINSON-And the person who is doing this – who is selling this and knows what’s going on is the guy who is going to be the one we would provide a buffer for and I don’t think he has a problem with it. He knows that there’s going to be commercial lots next to him. MR. VOLLARO-Once that becomes a commercial lot the need for the buffer then goes away. MR. ROBINSON-Right. But is there a need for a buffer right now? It’s in a commercial zone. I think it would make a lot more sense to have the buffer up between three and the residential units. MR. SANFORD-How big of a buffer are we talking about here? MR. ROBINSON-When we read the regulation we were thinking that it says a hundred feet. That it said fifty foot on each side. But in the staff notes I thought they were saying let’s take and split fifty here and fifty there. One of the problems it would cause us is if we had a fifty-foot buffer here it just makes that commercial lot quite a bit smaller with that buffer. MR. VOLLARO-But there’s no need to buffer like uses, that’s what I don’t understand. MR. SANFORD-No. No. But the first house is pre-existing but it’s residential. I think there probably should be a buffer between that and lot two. MR. VOLLARO-I think what the applicant is saying is the person that is currently living in the existing house understands what’s happening here. He knows that this is going to become a commercial entity next to him. MS. BARDEN-But it’s a requirement that you have a buffer between uses. So the residences is pre-existing non-conforming but you’re bringing in commercial which is a new use. MR. ROBINSON-Is it residences or is it zones? 59 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MS. BARDEN-It’s uses. MR. SANFORD-I think there should be a buffer there. MR. VOLLARO-Between one and two? MR. SANFORD-Between one and two. Obviously you don’t care about two and three. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-What happens when the existing house is plowed under. Is razed and that becomes a commercial lot. Now what do you do with that buffer? MR. HUNSINGER-You don’t need it. MR. SANFORD-You don’t need it any longer at that point. But what we’re talking about here. One thing I heard in the first application is people in South Queensbury they have to live with this mixed-use type of a situation and they’re a little bit concerned that the aesthetics are getting worse and worse. I think the buffer makes sense. MR. ROBINSON-It means that we would plant something there or do something to cause that buffer. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. Because I was going to say there’s nothing there right now. It’s all open where that is. MR. VOLLARO-To make a meaningful buffer there. Something that was meaningful. You’ll have to plant some really pretty good sized trees there to make MR. SANFORD-We do it all the time in other areas of Queensbury, Bob. For the school when they did their home on Dix. We had them put up arborvitaes. MR. VOLLARO-I guess when the commercial lots get developed and this other lot goes away. A guy gets a bulldozer and knocks the trees down and that’s it. That’s what I see is going to happen here. Because there’s no need then for a buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ROBINSON-How about if we get a letter from the existing owner or something, current owner. MR. SANFORD-I think staff is telling you it’s kind of like a requirement. MS. BARDEN-It’s a requirement between uses. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a requirement between uses. MS. BARDEN-If that use changes to commercial then I suppose you don’t need the buffer anymore but while it’s currently residential and bringing commercial in then you need the buffer. MR. VOLLARO-I have no problem except I don’t like to see trees get knocked down at a later date. Because I know that’s what’s going to happen. They’ll bulldoze the whole buffer. MR. SANFORD-This is a pre-existing home and you have a deal with this person. You were saying earlier that they stay here until they die or something. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And then when they die it goes back to commercial, right? MR. ROBINSON-From what I understand when they die then it goes to the guy who owns this who’s is going to own the rest of it. 60 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. HUNSINGER-Could they get a variance for that, Susan? MS. BARDEN-I’m sorry? MR. HUNSINGER-Could they get a variance for the buffer requirements? MS. BARDEN-It could be a . . . MR. HUNSINGER-They need a variance any way. MS. BARDEN-Yes. Probably. MR. HUNSINGER-. . . a variance for that. For the buffer. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. That would be good. MR. VOLLARO-I would if I were him I’d ask for a variance for the buffer. If you didn’t get it then you’d have to put it in but meanwhile that’s what I would do. MR. ROBINSON-Even if we did something – I don’t think anybody has a problem with us putting some arborvitaes along that line. It’s the fifty foot that you’d have a problem with. MR. VOLLARO-The intention of a buffer is for you and I not to see one another. It’s a buffer between us. Now if you put a little bunch of little arborvitaes in here to fill in the wholes on a piece of paper here it makes no sense to me. MS. BARDEN-You could probably, I think, request a variance from the buffer Type C. Say if you want to do a buffer Type B, and could bring you down twenty-five feet or whatever or propose a fence and twenty-five feet of vegetated buffer. Something along those lines. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say the regulations specify what the buffer would look like. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. When we get a ZBA. We do two buffer. MS. BARDEN-You got to go there anyway. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, that’s right. We’ll be there anyway. On the buffer between three and lot thirteen. Is that still a hundred feet? I was reading the staff notes; I thought it was fifty. MS. BARDEN-I thought it was fifty feet. I thought it was fifty feet. You show a hundred feet. I think it’s just fifty. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just fifty. If it’s a Class C, I believe. Type C. It’s fifty feet. MR. ROBINSON-I thought it’s fifty on each use for each use. No? MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s fifty between. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s fifty total. MS. BARDEN-It’s fifty between. And that’s why I was saying slide that fifty down. MR. SANFORD-It’s twenty-five twenty-five on each property. MR. VOLLARO-You’re picking up fifty feet in the deal here. MR. ROBINSON-I know that. I should look right? OKAY. So that’s great. It probably becomes more attractive for us to put some storm water there. I think that was all that I had. I don’t remember anything else in the staff notes that were. MS. BARDEN-Garry, can I ask you something? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. 61 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MS. BARDEN-Because I’m just looking at the aerial I think, for the first time. What is that shadow? Is that a stream? That’s not a stream, is it? MR. ROBINSON-No. That’s a trail that runs back through there. MS. BARDEN-What’s it used for? MR. ROBINSON-The guy accesses it in the back. He’s also got a little golf green back there that he chips onto right in the middle of the property and that runs right next to his golf green so maybe he takes his golf cart out there. I don’t know if he has something way in the back or not. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say you can bet the buyer of your lot twelve is going to have an ATV and ride it up and down the NiMo right-of-way. MR. ROBINSON-That could be. MR. HUNSINGER-Plus they got two acres too. MR. ROBINSON-When we were out there doing test totals one or two ATVs went by us when we were doing test totals out there. MR. VOLLARO-You know where the ATV route is right now is on the . . . property. When I went out looking on the signs all of a sudden I was . . . coming down on me. There were about ten kids, one after the other on the . . . property. MS. BARDEN-That’s because they got pushed off of West Mountain. The western reserve sites. MR. ROBINSON-I wish they had them when I was a kid. MR. VOLLARO-I think we’ve pretty much covered it on this. I don’t see anything else. I think we’ve given the applicant some good direction and he has picked up some pointers. MR. ROBINSON-For ZBA purposes do you guys give them some kind of – nothing. I just go there and ask them, say that I’ve been at sketch plan at. MRS BARDEN-They’ll get the minutes from the meeting and the resolution from this meeting. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. So they’ll know about it. It won’t be new to them. MS. BARDEN-They’ll have a little bit of history. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. Great. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Your welcome. We don’t have a quorum so we don’t even have a meeting anymore. Did Richard leave? MS. BARDEN-Did you discuss next month’s meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-We started to. MS. BARDEN-Right. I guess we don’t need a vote on that. MR. METIVIER-The Stark SEQRA is there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I was wondering about that but then you also see that it’s shown in the discussion he says either way we either have the SEQR or the site plan. So I’m assuming he would just plug in the site plan for the SEQR. MS. BARDEN-You tabled Schiavone and two until November, so I think we’re actually okay. 62 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 MR. HUNSINGER-So we don’t even need to worry about. MS. BARDEN-And Stark is off. Luzerne Holdings and Clute, I’m sorry, you tabled until November and Stark will only be back one time next month so I think that brings us down to – MR. HUNSINGER-Basically the only difference between option two and option three is what happened with Stark and seeing how we took care of that SEQR, we could even do seven and seven if we put off Stark site plan until November. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure now that the SEQR is done he is going to want to push that. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s three of us here. Do we want to review Stark in October or November. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t’ know that we can make a board decision here with three people. I’m not sure we have a quorum here. MR. HUNSINGER-We can’t. We can’t officially. MR. VOLLARO-But we can talk about it. MR. SEGULJIC-What was the question? MR. HUNSINGER-Staff gave us three options. Option one really loads up the meetings. I don’t think anyone wants to do that. The only difference between option two and three is the Stark site plan. MR. SEGULJIC-The interesting thing is that under option two Stark is under twice so it would be seven and eight, so it goes to option two. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is really eight and seven which is option three. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MS. RADNER-I’m going to head out gentleman. Have fun. MR. SEGULJIC-Have a good evening. MR. VOLLARO-It’s hazardous duty in here. MR. SEGULJIC-Go with option two. MS. BARDEN-Go with option two? MR. HUNSINGER-Option two shows the Stark site plan in October. MR. SEGULJIC-On the second meeting. So that means the first meeting we have seven. MS. BARDEN-Yes. That’s right. Because we get SEQR out of there. So that’s OKAY. So then we’re still seven and eight. MR. HUNSINGER-And, of course, it’s also pending what the ZBA does. MR. SEGULJIC-It might be seven and seven. MS. BARDEN-Okay. Why don’t we go with option two and I’ll take Stark SEQR off for now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It makes sense to me. And then the only thing that could happen is if Stark doesn’t get through the ZBA meeting then we’re seven and seven which is what we’re normally are. We only put two items off. That’s not so bad. I guess for the record if the tape is still rolling we are adjourned now. On motion meeting was adjourned. 63 Queensbury Planning Board 9/27/05 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 64