Loading...
2008.11.18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 44-2008 Northern Broadcasting Co., Inc. 1. SEEK LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 289.14-1-27 Site Plan No. 46-2008 Angio Dynamics 2. SEEK LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 290.-1-7, 8; 297.8-1-10 Site Plan No. 43-2008 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings 3. COLOR SCHEMES Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.5, 27.4 Special Use Permit 36-2008 Michel & Monique Julien 4. Tax Map No. 240.9-1-2 Site Plan No. 13-2008 Lake George Campsites, LLC 10 Tax Map No. 295.12-1-6 Site Plan No. 37-2008 Steven Cardona 11. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-34 Subdivision No. 3-2008 Ronald & Linda Ball 20. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.10-1-31.1 Site Plan No. 45-2008 Brian Granger 26. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-60, 61 Site Plan No. 47-2008 Nigro Companies 37. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-22 through 26 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THOMAS SEGULJIC, ACTING CHAIRMAN DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD TANYA BRUNO GRETCHEN STEFFAN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll call tonight’s meeting to order. Two administrative items. First on the thrdth agenda, approval of the September 16, 23 and 25 Planning Board minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 16, 2008 September 23, 2008 September 25, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 16, 23, & 25, 2008, Introduced by Donald Sipp who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: th Duly adopted this 18 day of November 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Traver ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 44-2008 NORTHERN BROADCASTING: SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SEQR PURPOSES MR. SEGULJIC-They’re asking us to Seek Lead Agency. There’s a motion prepared by Staff. Any discussion with regards to that? Anyone wish to put forward a motion, then? MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SEEKS LEAD AGENCY STATUS WITH REGARD TO SITE PLAN NO. 44-2008 AND USE VARIANCE NO. 79- 2008 NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan and Use Variance application for: Site Plan: Applicant proposes placement and operation of a 195 foot tall Telecommunications Tower / Broadcast Tower. Telecommunications Towers require Planning Board Site Plan review and approval. Use Variance: Relief requested from placement of a Telecommunications Tower outside an industrial or heavy industrial zone. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals MOTION FOR THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY REVIEW WITH REGARD TO SITE PLAN NO. 44-2008 & USE VARIANCE NO. 79-2008 NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO, INC., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 46-2008 ANGIO DYNAMICS: SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SEQR PURPOSES MR. SEGULJIC-Anyone wish to put forward a motion with regards to that? MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SEEKS LEAD AGENCY STATUS WITH REGARD TO SITE PLAN NO. 46-2008, FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2008 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2008 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan, Freshwater Wetlands Area Variance applications for Angio Dynamics: Area Variance: Applicant proposes demolition of existing building and construction of a new 92,580 sq. ft. 3-story office building with associated site work. Relief requested from dimensional requirements (height restrictions). Site Plan: Applicant proposes demolition of existing building and construction of a 92,580 square foot three story office building with associated site work on the corner of Hicks & Queensbury Avenue and on the corner of Hicks & County Line Road. Construction of an office building in a LI zone requires Planning Board Site Plan review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands permit is required for disturbance within 100’ of an ACOE wetland. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status and commence SEQR review. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: Zoning Board of Appeals, TOQ Town Board, TOQ Wastewater Dept., Warren Co. DPW and NYS ACOE. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 46-2008, FRESHWATER WETLANDS 13-2008 & AREA VARIANCE 69-2008 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan SITE PLAN 43-2008 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS: COLOR SCHEMES TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW PER PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION DATED 10/28/08 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper. This was the building that was approved last month behind Rich’s office building on Bay Road, behind the medical buildings. So I’ve got a brick sample, and we had talked about earth tones. This is a, it’s called pearl, a neutral color that Rich thinks will work nicely with the buildings that are already in that complex, and then, and I’ll pass this up, and then a driftwood roof color that goes with these two. MR. SEGULJIC-Anyone have any comments with regards to that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s pretty much what he said he was going to do. His buildings look good. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. It looks fine, to me. I guess, just for the motion, we’ve got to have. MR. LAPPER-I’ll give you the details. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Okay. Anyone have any comments with regards to that? Staff, do we have to open that up to public hearing, public hearing with regards to the colors? MR. OBORNE-One more time. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have to open a public hearing with regards to the color schemes? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It was a condition of our approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So, anyone wish to put forward a motion? I guess I’ll just do it, then. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, it’s basically an approval of a condition that you made on their original Site Plan approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So basically you can state, and not to put words in your mouth, that you have reviewed and you approve their colors submitted. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE THE COLOR SCHEME FOR SITE PLAN NO. 43-2008 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: In accordance with the color schemes presented at the meeting, which were Red Rand Brick and Heritage SWB Brick, Georgia Pacific Vision Pro Siding, the pearl color, and the Owens Corning Driftwood color. The applicant will submit the color schemes to Staff. th Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. SPECIAL USE PERMIT 36-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHEL & MONIQUE JULIEN OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 10 ANTLER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLASS A MARINA USE. CLASS A MARINAS IN THE WR- 1A ZONE REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/10/08 APA/DEC/CEA L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-2 SECTION 179-10-060 MICHEL JULIEN, PRESENT MR. JULIEN-My name is Michel Julien, and I’m appearing here, back from the meeting in September when my request was tabled for additional requirements from the Board. The Board was asking for a pump out letter, which I have obtained from Harris Bay Marina, and I’ve included in the papers I submitted to you. Then you wanted to have a plan with the location of the trash can, which I have also provided to you. You were also asking for an inspection of the septic system. I had IBS Septic and Drain perform that inspection and I submitted their report to you, and you were also asking the submission of evidence that the docks were in continuous use without interruption since 1981. On that item, I went back to the Lake George Park Commission requirements for docks, and there is only one item in their documentation that requires pre-existence of anything, and that’s for a dock that is provided for parasailing. Anybody who wants to have a dock for parasailing has to have been in existence prior to 1991. Other than that, there are no such requirements that the dock had been in continuous use since 1981. Nonetheless, I tried to do my best effort to provide you with that documentation, and the best I could do is, we found a photo of the dock that dates back to 1984 from the Assessment Board of the Town of Queensbury, and I submitted to you a copy of the regulation, I think it’s 646 or 645, 645, the rules and regulation for obtaining permits for a Class A marina, and I think I’ve fulfilled all of the requirements that we had at that time. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Just one clarification, and correct me if I’m wrong, Staff, and that is that you it’s the Lake George Park Commission requirements. It’s the Queensbury Code that has a date of continuous use since 1981. So that’s where that’s coming from. That’s in the Queensbury Zoning Code. Okay. MR. JULIEN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Does anyone have any questions at all? I’m satisfied with everything here. I guess the only thing we need to decide is if we’re going to go with permanent, temporary, or, what’s the other one? Permanent, temporary, or renewable. Those are the three options the Code gives us. Any thoughts on that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, for a residential, why not make it permanent? I can’t see making it renewable. MR. JULIEN-What’s the difference between those three? MR. SEGULJIC-Permanent is indefinite. Temporary permits a specific use continuance until a specific date, at which time the Special Use Permit shall automatically terminate. MR. JULIEN-So that would not apply. MR. SEGULJIC-And then renewable would be, permits a specific use continuance until a specific date, and then you have to renew it. MR. JULIEN-And what procedures do you have to follow? Submit the same request for a Special Use? MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Correct. MR. OBORNE-Typically, depending on how the Board wants to go about this, if you’re going to go for a temporary, let’s say, or you could require them to come back at a certain date. Typically it’s at the end of the boating season or just before the boating season you’d set that date. If you do it to 2012 or whatever date you want. I’m not advocating any date. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Does the Board have any feeling on that? MR. TRAVER-I do. I think we should have some period of time after which we would re- review, perhaps three years. I’d just offer that as an amount of time. MR. SEGULJIC-Any other thoughts? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d make it permanent. I think it’s such a small issue to make them go through the process again and again and again. MR. SIPP-I tend to make it permanent. MR. SEGULJIC-Permanent? I guess, does anyone recall what we’ve done for other marinas? My only concern about making it permanents is then we can’t get back in, if something should arise. MR. JULIEN-Well then make it a long term renewable. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, make it renewable for eight years or something like that. MR. TRAVER-Well, I suggested three. How about five? Five years. MR. SEGULJIC-Five years? MR. JULIEN-Eight? MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, how about six? But you have all the information now. The only other question is, since the Code says 1981, as I read it. MR. JULIEN-That means that nobody else can submit for a? MR. SEGULJIC-It just means that the, as I read it, the use of the property and associated properties has been continuous to the date without interruptions since prior to 1981 for marinas. So does that mean we should waive that requirement, then, just to be, since he only provided information indicating up to 1984. MR. OBORNE-Not to be, I want to choose my words carefully, but not to be in the dark about where you are in the Code, but what are you referencing? MR. SEGULJIC-179-10-035 B(2). MR. TRAVER-Which basically provides for a permit as opposed to a variance. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Should we waive the 1981 date, or does it matter, do you think? MR. OBORNE-I am looking as to what a tile exemption is. It looks like A says it’s substantiated pre-existing use shall be exempt from the Comprehensive Planning Board review. Now you are, obviously he’s in front of you for a review, and, yes, it looks like you’re going to have to do that, but also keep in mind, you do have a public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So we’d have to waive the 1981 date. MR. OBORNE-That’s what I’m, that would be my opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So, with that, we have a public hearing. Does anyone wish to comment to this application? Mr. Salvador? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I’ve prepared some comments tonight, but before I start, there is a very, very significant meaning and purpose for that date in 1981, and I don’t think it’s something you can waive. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. SALVADOR-And if you should, if you need to, you should table this hearing until you find out what the significance of 1981 is. It is a very important date with regard to zoning in this Town, and the subject of marinas. I have another question, if you could put that plan on the, is the structure a single “U” Shaped dock as is shown on the plan, or it looks like there two “I” Shaped docks. If those docks aren’t connected, you’ve got two structures in that roughly 100 foot width lot, which I think needs a variance. MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else? MR. SALVADOR-Have you determined, which is, the photograph or the plan? MR. SEGULJIC-You bring up a good point. We’ll have to ask the applicant, because the drawing does show a “U” Shaped dock. That shows two individual docks. MR. SALVADOR-All right. Okay. I’ve prepared these notes, and I’d like to read from them. For your record, my name is John Salvador, and I have been a resident in North Queensbury, north of the blue line, since early in 1973. I have operated a marina continuously since that time, which has lately been termed a Class A marina. Since your last meeting, I have taken some time to study the lineage of this parcel of land, since its creation in 1973, for which no subdivision plat or Town Board approval exists, or can be found. I must tell you that in this process the Juliens might better be considered victims rather than applicants, victims of an ever shifting set of standards for marinas, changes in definitions and word usage from time to time, lack of enforcement, overlapping jurisdiction, secret interagency MOU’s, etc., etc. There can be no question that as of 6/3/88, the effective date of the newly created identity on Lake George of a Class A marina, is in every sense a commercial undertaking. Before that date, we called just plain marinas and everyone from the DEC, the DOH, the OGS, the APA, the Town, the County, and even the Lake George Park Commission have always regulated these marinas as commercial undertakings. As such, Mr. Julien is making application for a permit to continue an illegal commercial use in a residential zone. The commercial use did not pre-exist the Code restrictions and in addition there is a deed encumbrance going back to 1973 creation of the lot. Quote, that said premises shall be used for residential purposes only and that said premises shall not be used for any commercial purposes whatsoever. Does Mr. Julien have standing to make this application for a commercial undertaking? Consider that there is no. MR. SEGULJIC-If you could just wrap it up in the next minute. MR. SALVADOR-Consider that there is no exception from the requirements which Class A Marinas must meet, depending on size, that is the number of boats docked. We’ve talked about, as you know, I operate a Class A Marina, and there are standards which we must meet, and have always been required to meet. On the issue of toilets, the Code says that the toilets must be open at all times. Ours, for instance, are open 24 hours a day. Each member has a key, can access the toilet any time of the day or night. We’re required to have him and hers toilets, men’s toilets are usually equipped with urinals. Women’s toilets are equipped with sanitary facilities. These are requirements of the Code. Handicap access is a requirement. 1986 we were required to equip our facilities for handicap access. This Town required us to do that. Parking. Parking is a sales taxable item, especially when it’s reserved and the parking is for overnight or longer periods of time. Either the parking is separately stated and sales tax is collected on, and you recall the issue of The Great Escape years ago, okay, it’s the same thing. If it’s not separately stated, all of the revenue collected is sales taxable. We are required to have a sales tax number in our business, an ID number, and all revenues is to be reported against that. Insurance. We carry marine insurance. It’s very expensive. We’re inspected by OSHA, by our insurance carrier, and we have to meet certain standards. I don’t know if these other Class A Marinas are required to do that. Workman’s Comp is something that must be carried, and this permit that’s issued is a requirement, and you’ll see it on the bulletin board downstairs at the Planning Office, that an application be made to the Workman’s Comp Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Salvador, if you could wrap it up. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Finally, there is a Property Classification Code for assessment purposes, Number 283, and I’d just like to read to you from it. The 200 series Property Classification Codes are residential. 280 is a sub code, residential multi-purpose, multi- structure. 283 is residence with incidental commercial use. A residence which has been partially converted or adapted for commercial use. Do you know how many 283 property classification codes we have in North Queensbury? Zippo. None. Now there’s the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) problem. We’ve got to be careful how we issue these permits. Now, Mr. Julien is not alone, and I hate to pick on him, and I don’t see how you can deny him this permit, since you’ve given it to everyone else, improperly. That’s all I have to say. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? MR. JULIEN-With regard to the shape of the dock, I re-surfaced the dock, and I have the material to complete, to join the docks together to make it back into a “U” shaped. I just haven’t gotten back to it. I haven’t had time to get to it. MR. SEGULJIC-So it was a “U” shaped dock? MR. JULIEN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-On the drawing it is a “U” Shaped dock. MR. JULIEN-On the photo it shows the “U” Shape. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JULIEN-On the photo you can see that, and that part I haven’t re-done yet. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Is everyone comfortable with this, ready to move forward? MR. SCHONEWOLD-Let’s move forward. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s an Unlisted Action. So I need some to do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ll go with the five years, if that’s what you guys want. MR. SEGULJIC-We’ll go five years. MR. TRAVER-Before the season of 2014. st MR. SEGULJIC-May 31 or something. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Would you like to do SEQRA? MR. TRAVER-Sure. st MR. JULIEN-Can you make that January 1? Because I’d like to have the renewal in hand before I go talk to the boaters and renew them. MR. TRAVER-Yes, you can, the intent would be, if the permit were to expire before the boating season of 2014, you could renew it before then. We were expecting you would. MR. JULIEN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So what we’re talking about is an expiration date, not the date that you could apply for a renewal. MR. JULIEN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Like you typically renew your car registration before it’s due. MR. JULIEN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-SEQRA, the Short Form. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-No. “Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. TRAVER-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. 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?” No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-No. “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-No. “C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-Then I’ll make a motion that we find a Negative SEQRA determination. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 36-2008, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MICHEL & MONIQUE JULIEN, 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. th Duly adopted this 18 day of, November, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. OBORNE-Did you close the public hearing? MR. SEGULJIC-With that I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-Does anyone have a motion ready? MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 36-2008 MICHEL & MONIQUE JULIEN, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a Class A Marina use. Class A Marinas in the WR-1A zone requires a Special Use Permit review and approval by the Planning Board. 2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 9/23/08 & 11/18/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 36-2008 MICHEL & MONIQUE JULIEN Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a. The site plan is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) b. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Planning Office before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. b. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. c. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and d. If applicable, Item __ to be combined with a letter of credit; and e. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f. That the Special Use Permit will expire May 1, 2014. g. The Planning Board also waives the pre-existing use condition. MR. TRAVER-The Planning Board waives the pre-existing use condition. MR. JULIEN-I may actually meet that requirement. I just can’t document it. MR. TRAVER-I understand. We just can’t document it. Duly adopted this 18th day of November 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MR. JULIEN-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a special note before we move on. SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 SEQR TYPE I LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1053 ST. RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CAMPSITE OPERATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR APPROXIMATELY 340 CAMPSITES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES INCLUDING A NEW FIELD HOUSE, RESTROOMS, POOL AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR ALL USES REQUIRING A USE VARIANCE. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE USE VAR. 10-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/12/08 LOT SIZE 38.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-6 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me for one second. There’s been a request to table Lake George Campsites. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Until when? MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve got to check with Staff. One second. Staff, just a question. I figured it would be best just to let everybody know that the Lake George Campsites is being tabled. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-What date should we table that until? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) thth MR. OBORNE-I think the request was to the 16. The 16 is full. Per my telephone th conversation with John Lemery, we did agree on a date of the 18. th MR. SEGULJIC-18. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Of? MR. SEGULJIC-Of December. th MR. OBORNE-And he might not recall that, but the 16 is full. th MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So December 18? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Would someone like to make that motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to the December 18th meeting. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and with that, the next application is for Steve Cardona. SITE PLAN NO. 37-2008 SEQR TYPE II STEVEN CARDONA AGENT(S) KEVIN MASCHEWSKI OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 175 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND TWO SEASONAL CABINS TOTALING 2,303 SQ. FT. WITH A NEW 4,046 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, SEPTIC SYSTEM & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEVICES. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT, AND AS SUCH, PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. CROSS REFERENCE AV 58-08; SP 32-06, SP 62-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/10/08 APA/DEC/CEA LG CEA, APA LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-34 SECTION CHAPTER 147 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-Any Staff comments? MR. OBORNE-Bear with me. I have very few comments. Again, we’ll go through this. This is Site Plan No. 37-2008. The applicant is Steven Cardona. The requested action is applicant requests Site Plan Review for a Major stormwater project for the proposed raising of an existing 780 square foot single family home with two seasonal cabins and the construction of a 4,046 square foot single family dwelling. The location is 175 Assembly Point Road. The existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description was noted above. Staff comments. The only real comment that I had was a little ambiguity to the permeability. Besides that there was some VISION Engineering comments, and I’ll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Thank you. If you would just introduce yourself and tell us about your project. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. Good evening. My name is Kevin Maschewski, and I am the project architect. To my right is Steve Cardona, the property owner, and to my right is Dennis MacElroy of Environmental Design Partnership, involved with the site engineering, stormwater management and septic system. We are in front of the Board again this evening, from a tabled Planning Board application, Site Plan application, on thth September 27, resubmitting application or revised drawings for October 15, and hopefully we did satisfy the Board’s comments, concerns, engineering concerns, relative to stormwater management and septic system. On that note, I would turn over the microphone to Dennis MacElroy, more involved with the septic design and stormwater management site work. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) DENNIS MAC ELROY MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Kevin. As Kevin indicated, there were comments that came from the tabling resolution. Those included a requirement to respond to VISION th Engineering comments and Staff comments. In October, October 15, we submitted information that responded to those items, and included with that some revisions to application pages and stormwater management report, and the Site Plans themselves, and that’s what’s included in your packet that was received in October, or submitted in October. I think that we’ve addressed, there were 12 comments that were part of the tabling resolution. Again, the first two included satisfying the comments of Staff Notes, which I believe we have with the, there’s one clarification that Keith has pointed out, that’s, I think simply a difference between Kevin’s chart and what we put on the Site Plan. Both areas certainly are within the range of acceptable permeability. So perhaps the one Kevin has on the chart is the adequate response. The second comment had to do with VISION Engineering comments, and there were, Dan’s comments, there were 12 different comments there as well, and we responded to each of those. He has th subsequently issued a letter dated the 14 of November. We received that. Keith gave that to me yesterday afternoon, and we’ve, there were three issues within that comment th letter. I would assume you have that in your file, the November 14 letter. We’ve addressed those in this last 26 hours here. We’ve tried to resolve those issues. I was at Dan’s office at 20 after 6 getting his final comments on that. I don’t believe, certainly, Staff had gotten any feedback from him, but he’s told me that he’s satisfied with the outstanding issues, how we’ve addressed it. We had e-mailed information today. That was e-mailed both to, first of all, it was e-mailed to the Town with copies to Dan Ryan. So I think that we’ve adequately addressed those, or Dan’s comment when I left him at 6:30 was that, you know, there isn’t anything that’s not resolvable, and those items, and primarily there were a couple of comments about the septic system. Then your subsequent comments in the tabling motion had all been responded to in, again, our th letter of the 15. So I think that, with the revisions, or additions to the plans, we’ve addressed the outstanding issues. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-What you referred to as Number Three of his comments, which is a perpendicular site topography and system should be revised and placed parallel to the ground slope of the site, (lost words) referring to. MR. MAC ELROY-That’s one of his subsequent comments that were part of the letter of th the 14, and we haven’t repositioned that. We’ve just shown more detailed information about the elevations and, you know, how it is an in-ground system. It’s a shallow absorption system. I’ve provided him cross sectional information as requested today. It’s not, it is true that common practice would be to position that field parallel to the contours. It’s not that significant a slope that it necessarily warrants that. Both, the entire system is in-ground. So it’s not deep on one and sticking out of the ground on the other end. We provided that information in the cross sectional information, again, that I provided him today to document that. So, again, I think that these, full disclosure, he did comment that he thought it would be better the other way, but this way is also, I think that I’ve documented that it can work this way as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you haven’t, you submitted us this drawing here tonight. Correct? MR. OBORNE-Those were e-mails that I received from Craig that you had sent him. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. OBORNE-And I went ahead and printed them out and gave them to the Board. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-And they have the 50% reserve area on there? MR. MAC ELROY-That’s on there as well. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So that addressed one of the comments. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, that was Number Two, and Number Three was the, again, the detail or added additional detail on the. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. SEGULJIC-So, I guess, just clarify for me, because he’s saying the system as proposed does not have cover, and the trenches are shallow on one end, and the above existing grade, and above existing grade at the other. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. That’s what he said in that letter. MR. SEGULJIC-So he’s saying the system as proposed does not have adequate cover. MR. MAC ELROY-It’s true that’s what he said. It’s not true that’s the way it is. MR. TRAVER-So you feel confident that you can get an engineering signoff on the design as submitted? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, what is he missing then? MR. MAC ELROY-He didn’t have the details of the elevation. If you see on the October th 15 submittal, there weren’t detailed elevations of the invert elevation of the pipe within the system. Quite frankly, I’m not sure how he could make that comment that he made, but, because he didn’t have the elevation information to make that judgment, but. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Regardless, you know, there was some information that he could benefit from. We provided that today. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Any other comments from the Board? All right. I just have a few. It was my understanding that there were three existing septic systems on site? MR. MAC ELROY-Two. There were three cabins, but as it turned out, they were serviced by two systems. There were two tanks. MR. SEGULJIC-So then the third building didn’t have one? MR. MAC ELROY-No, it was combined with, it was shared with, right, with another. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-And on the Site Plan information provided, probably Sheet S-1, there’s an indication of where those two tanks. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. You have the two located. Okay. Now what are you going to be doing with the existing leaching fields, then? Or whatever disposal system there was? MR. MAC ELROY-Not disturbing them. Or if they are disturbed through the course of their location, then they’ll be, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I believe we had requested that you remove those? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, yes, unfortunately I wasn’t at the September meeting. I was away out of Town, but I understood there were comments related to that. It’s not common practice on a residential system to remove the disposal field. MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s not common to build in a CEA, either. So, I mean, why wouldn’t, you already have all the equipment there? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Can Steve Cardona? He knows more on what’s there, because I think there’s a little confusion. STEVE CARDONA MR. CARDONA-Yes. We’re not building over the top of any of the leaching fields. I, as I said in the earlier meeting, I physically exposed the one in the main house that I presently live in, in order to put a clean out three years ago when I moved in there, and I can follow the leach line going out the end of the tank, and it probably, talking to some of the neighbors that have been there for years, you know, there may be a few lines going in some directions, but none of them, I believe, are going to be over the top of where the proposed structure is going to be, other than just digging up the whole property and 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) following line after line, you know, the tank will be removed, the feed to the tanks will be removed, and then even some further excavation to follow the end of the line or where it may go into some type of leach field that’s probably old Clayburgh pipe or something that’s in there, that’s probably nearly disintegrated by now, but none of the existing fields will go over the proposed structure, or the proposed structure will go over the existing fields. MR. MASCHEWSKI-More on the construction base, being that I am the builder, as Dennis MacElroy did indicate, on a normal basis, even on commercial sites, the existing tanks are pumped. A pumping company comes in, pumps them out. There’s no known excavator that can excavate or will excavate a sewage tank that has sewage in it. So the tanks are pumped out when they’re found, and notified the owners if there’s any issues with leakage or anything like that, but generally they’re documented, how many gallons were pumped out, and then the tanks were removed. On a normal construction, that’s pretty much as it goes. The leach fields on these old camps, they’re not really known if there are any. They might just be leaching into soil or into the strata. I mean, there’s really no known, not like we think of septic leach fields. So if we find them when we’re excavating them, definitely we’ll take out the pipe, but we might not even find any pipe, any evidence of pipe. It might be just old rotted soil, or rotted piping and what not, but if we do locate it, obviously we’ll be taking them out. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else? Okay. The other thing is, when you were here, I know I had asked for some more trees in the back. MR. CARDONA-We had added some trees on the. MR. SEGULJIC-I think you added them in the front, though. MR. CARDONA-Yes. It’s a little tough for some of these in the back because we have our second spill area for the stormwater management. MR. SEGULJIC-Which it looks like your stormwater management area in the back increased in size, based on looking at the contours. MR. MAC ELROY-Changed from the reduced drawing that you have there? MR. SEGULJIC-From the two drawings. MR. MAC ELROY-It changed in configuration to respond to a comment that Dan’s office had made about setback from the expansion area to the absorption field. So that shape of it has changed. The storage capacity or volume has maintained. MR. SEGULJIC-And your proposed stormwater basin’s going to go right where a septic tank is, correct? MR. MAC ELROY-Potentially, yes, I guess there was one in that location, sure. That tank will be removed. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So I don’t see what the problem is. That’s just a relatively small area to put trees back there. MR. CARDONA-The plan’s not showing some existing trees that are already back there. I mean, mind you this whole property is a clearing in the forest. It’s heavily wooded to the very rear of this property. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s heavily wooded back there? MR. CARDONA-Yes, and actually some of that, my property extends about maybe 20, 25 feet into the woods there, that they’re not showing right now, but you can see it’s, to the back of that property it’s a heavily wooded area. MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s not your property where it’s heavily wooded. MR. CARDONA-No, it extends into the wooded area. I mean, if I was to count the trees on my property, there’s still quite a few. I mean, that picture doesn’t show very well. MR. OBORNE-There are deciduous trees in the rear of your property. MR. CARDONA-Right, that’s correct. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because we had asked you to denote the large trees on your site, and you didn’t denote any in the back, because we wanted to protect those. MR. CARDONA-Yes, because right now they’re along the property line. The trees run between the two property lines, and then along the back. MR. SEGULJIC-Because condition ten says to denote large trees on the site, and you just said there’s large trees in the back, but you didn’t denote any. So that leads me to believe there are none. MR. CARDONA-Well, to speak of, I mean, there’s really, right there along the line. Well, there is presently some trees back there. I don’t know if I’d say they’re large trees, but there’s some trees that are on that particular piece of property. Again, like I said, there’s, it’s hard to say where any may be placed at this time, especially with the stormwater pond there going in. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the stormwater pond isn’t that big. I see you ducking and weaving around this thing. We asked you to denote the trees. You didn’t denote any trees. Now you’re telling me there’s trees. I’m not sure what’s going on here. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, we tried to stay, as you can see on the project Site Plan, I mean, we tried to keep any proposed clearing within the limitations, any proposed landscaping within the limitations of clearing, and not going out in the back property. Really there’s no construction zone back there at all. Other than, you’ve got from the septic system to the stormwater management pond. Beyond that is really just going to stay existing the way it is. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, as I look at the plan, there’s no trees back there. MR. SIPP-What it shows on the photograph is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, there are. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, there are trees. There’s, I mean, the surveyor might not have gotten it on the base map. MR. SEGULJIC-So what we asked you to do is denote those trees on this map so they stay preserved. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. Sorry about that. MR. CARDONA-Any of the trees are within that 20 feet boundary. There’s nothing in the middle or any of the building site. Any of the trees might just be a few feet over the border of the next property line. MR. SEGULJIC-On your property or not your property? MR. CARDONA-On my property. There’s a few trees on my property, and they’re shared. The property line to the south, the trees weave in and out. If you see the stakes, one may be on my property. The next one in a row may be just over the line onto the neighbor’s property and so on. They’re not symmetrical on his, on the neighbor’s or my own. They stagger. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Would it be in line, as part of the construction parameters of a request from the Board to stay within your clearing limits of no disturbing additional trees or existing trees. We know there’s trees out there. We’ve got clearing limits to. MR. SEGULJIC-And to protect those trees. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Right, and we’re not going to go, we’ve got clearing limits clearly stipulated on the site plan, and we’re not to go outside of those. I mean, that’s part of the construction. So I guess, in a roundabout way, making a requirement for us to stay within the clearing limits and do not disturb trees beyond that, it would be my hopes of accomplishing what you’re asking us to do, and not having them located and sending a surveyor out there and so on. I mean, we’ve got clearing limits. We know we’re not going to go beyond those. So having a requirement, I think would kind of supplement what you’re asking us to do is do not disturb any trees beyond your clearing limits. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because I mean as far as I can see on that drawing up there you only have one tree in the backyard right now. MR. CARDONA-Yes, that’s about what’s in there is about maybe one tree that you can see on there, that’s in the back. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now the other thing is, the last time you were here, I believe we discussed the fact that your rain garden doesn’t have a, and I’m not an expert on this, but doesn’t have a, you should have some passage to the groundwater for those times in the wintertime, almost like a dry well. MR. MAC ELROY-Unless the storage volume of the device can accommodate the required storm event, which it does. That was a comment that was in Dan’s, or VISION Engineering’s most recent letter, and we responded to that. The report indicates that, that if you can’t expect infiltration, such as times when the ground is frozen, then the volume, the capacity of that storage, should provide for that, and if you can follow through the nuts and bolts of the hydroCAD report, then it indicates that there’s no outflow. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then what you’re saying is Comment Eleven addresses that, then. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-But he says also provide calculations for your revised design. MR. MAC ELROY-It’s already there. It’s in the report. Whether he didn’t see that or overlooked it, but I provided some clarification of that today, and, again, in my discussion with him today, he’s satisfied with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else? All right. Anyone wish to comment to this application? Please come forward and identify yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Good evening. Kathy Bozony, Lake George Waterkeeper. Most of these comments are based on the fact that this .8 acre parcel, about 40,000 square feet, will be cleared up to the $15,000 maximum limit, and basically the comments that were submitted in September, I don’t know if any of them were addressed or questioned by the Board as well, as from the Waterkeeper. Basically where that Stormwater Management Area Number One will be placed is right where the existing one story wood frame cabin exists. So you’ve got compacted soils, and it was asked whether or not amended soils would be brought in for that infiltration area. The rain garden is required to have about 12 inches of amended soils in order for it to infiltrate and treat the water properly, as it goes into the, recharges the groundwater. The issue of the infiltration trench that is running along the driveway, I didn’t see any of the new plans, but as it stands right now, it is underground. It’s two to three feet, and the question is, how does that stormwater, which has leaders coming off the roof, how does it get to the rain garden, on the elevation where the rain garden actually is. Does it daylight anywhere and then enter the rain garden, or is it expected to go to the rain garden underground, which is not normally the typical way to do that? On the southern side of the property, it appears that stormwater is actually flowing onto the neighbor’s property, based on the elevations, and I’m wondering whether some vegetation, a vegetated swale might be appropriate to put in that area, and I didn’t see any stormwater management report. I know there was, Dan Ryan had indicated that there was a narrative, but I didn’t see one in the file, so it was difficult to actually evaluate the stormwater, and I, too, am interested in the existing septic system and whether any or not any of the contaminated soils will be disturbed or removed. In addition, to the submitted comments in September, that I don’t see any change in the plans, I’m curious what the concrete pad is that’s next to the road, and the four foot walkway, whether that is, it says it’s to remain, but I’m curious why that’s there. The on site wastewater treatment system was designed with an Eljen shallow fill, and it’s for a four bedroom capacity, and I’m wondering whether it has any additional capacity, based on the size of the house, based on the possibility, again, it’s over the garage, it’s labeled a gym, but it’s, you know, quite a few bedrooms could fit into that area, and there’s a bedroom that potentially could have some bedrooms in. I know they’re not identified at this point. So I don’t know if that four bedroom Eljen system is max, or if that has a lot of capacity to it. I, too, look at that grass swale in the backyard 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) and wondering whether that could be some sort of a rain garden and/or a vegetated swale. Vegetated swale would treat the water a lot better than it currently would be on grass swale, and that would add some vegetation to the backyard. On the planting plan, there’s existing trees that say to be removed, but those existing trees are still on the planting plan. So I’m curious whether or not that, we’ve decided to keep them in, and whether that’s even a possibility they can remain on site. There are three of them. One’s underneath the new foundation. Obviously that’s a moot point. There are two in the front yard and one on the side yard that, at least the two in the front yard were slated, originally, to be removed, but they’re still existing on that planting plan, and that’s it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Excuse me. When people come before this Board, they usually give their name and their address. What is your address? MS. BOZONY-Well, I work for the Lake George Waterkeeper. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t care who you work for. What is your home address? MS. BOZONY-Well, I live in Porters Corners, New York. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, and you don’t live in Queensbury, then. MS. BOZONY-I don’t. I work for the Lake George Waterkeeper. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I don’t care if you work for an water keeper, an inn keeper, a bee keeper, it doesn’t matter. I’m, you know, surprised that somebody living in Porters Corners would come down and make comments about something in Queensbury. MS. BOZONY-Well, I’m very interested in the lake. The lake is very important to me. I do not have property on the lake, but the lake is a, I’m passionate about it. I spend all my life working with the lake, in the water, under the lake, and I’m here to try and promote preservation and restoration of Lake George water quality. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you’re an employee of an advocacy group. MS. BOZONY-I am. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MS. BOZONY-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. MS. BOZONY-Thanks. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else wish to comment? Okay. There are a few comments, if you could address those. The compacted soil. Are you bringing any amended soils on site? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there is a detail of the rain garden on the plan. Yes, 12 inch minimum topsoil that typically in that zone of the amended soils that are brought in for an organic mix type of thing. MR. SEGULJIC-Where is that? MR. MAC ELROY-I’m sorry. That’s on Sheet S-4, the detail for that. MR. SEGULJIC-Under what comments. MR. SIPP-Up on top. MR. MAC ELROY-That detail, the rain garden. There’s some notes associated with that as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then there was a comment on the. MR. MAC ELROY-One thing I do remember was the area of disturbance was under the, just under the maximum 15,000. Well, there’s not a maximum. That’s the threshold for a minor or a major and we are already a major. So it’s over 15,000. A stormwater management report was done. Part of the Town file. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Then there was the comment about the piping, stormwater piping into the rain garden. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. That’s I think probably best shown on Sheet the Two, the Utility Plan. That storage, within the trench actually is sort of bonus area, because it’s not even computed or indicated as additional storage as part of the stormwater management report. We’ve added that. That would, if, in fact, that volume filled, that would, by gravity, flow into the rain garden area. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s just the trench that it empties into. It’s not a pipe that’s below ground. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Correct. There are pipes that lead into that, from roof leaders and what not, that lead into that trench. That becomes the vehicle of transport to the rain garden. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now the other thing, going back to the last tabling motion was we asked that the applicant clarify the test pit data to ensure it met the Town requirements. Because if I recall, you were outside the Town requirements. th MR. MAC ELROY-No. It was done in late June, and June 30 is the date that Dave Hatin has determined. I don’t know if he does this on an annual basis, but that’s the date that’s been in place since the regulations were modified to include that particular window of time, and it’s not to say that you can’t do test pits beyond that date. It’s just that then they have to be observed by the Town Engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but I don’t think it’s late June. I think it’s. th MR. MAC ELROY-It’s June 30. That’s exactly what it is, and Dave Hatin has told me that on several occasions. We double checked. Kevin double checked before we did those at that point in time. So we certainly are within the timeframe that’s allowable in the Town of Queensbury. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, it would be Chapter 136, Appendix F. MR. SEGULJIC-And what’s the date there? MR. OBORNE-That is the window. th MR. SEGULJIC-So June 30 is within that? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Because there was no comment on that. There was no follow up to that comment. MR. MAC ELROY-Not by, I think that, that was one of your comments, so, right. We responded. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anybody have anything else? MR. SIPP-Going back to septic system removal, you’re leaving that steel tank in place? MR. MAC ELROY-No, the tanks certainly, they’d be pumped and removed, any of the tanks, and that’s very common. That is standard practice. To get involved with the disposal area, the absorption field, in whatever form that is on this older property, older system, is not typically done. MR. SIPP-All right, but you have no idea where the field is. MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. SIPP-So it could be in the stormwater pond area? MR. MAC ELROY-Potentially, but the use is discontinued. MR. SEGULJIC-So if it was in the stormwater pond, you would remove it, then. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. MAC ELROY-The tank. MR. SEGULJIC-No, the leaching field. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, whatever that happens to be. In these older properties, older systems, it could be. MR. SEGULJIC-A 55 gallon drum, I realize that. MR. MAC ELROY-It could be a cess pool. It could be a pipe leading into the ground. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and that’s the problem, why the Lake George water quality is fading, because of those practices, using 55 gallon drums for septic tanks. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Fortunately there’s very few of them here, and getting rid of three camps and trading it off for a good septic system is a good deal for the people up there, and I assume the retaining wall is staying because you want to maintain the grade. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MASCHEWSKI-And that actually, you know people don’t realize that retaining walls actually are a good stormwater management device. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s true. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, especially, that road is going to undergo, I don’t know if you know it or not, but there’s going to be a lot of test bores next year and then something is going to be done, probably re-pave, whatever, but you’re safer with a retaining wall then you are the other way. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Is everybody comfortable with this? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Does anyone want to put forward a motion? MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, I think you have to close the public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-With that, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Okay, and this is a Type II. So we don’t need to worry about SEQRA. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2008 STEVEN CARDONA, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes replacement of existing single family dwelling and two seasonal cabins totaling 2,303 sq. ft with a new 4,046 sq. ft. single family dwelling, septic system & stormwater management devices. This project has been classified as a Major Stormwater Project, and as such, requires Planning Board review and approval 2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 9/25/08 & 11/18/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) Declaration; OR if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2008 STEVEN CARDONA Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: a. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Planning Office before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. b. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. c. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and d. If applicable, Item 3 to be combined with a letter of credit; and e. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f. Final signoff must be obtained from the Town Engineer Duly adopted this 18th day of November 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Good luck. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RONALD & LINDA BALL AGENT(S) CHARLES SCUDDER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A/RR-5A APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1 ACRE & 7.05 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNNG BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 8.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10- 1-31.1 SECTION A-183 CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, Charlie Scudder representing Ron Ball and Linda Ball. I live in Queensbury at Goldfinch Road. I should say that Mr. Ball’s not here tonight because he had knee surgery this morning and is in the hospital. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. If you could tell us about your application. The floor is yours. MR. SCUDDER-The last time I was here I said that I didn’t feel that we ought to ask the Board for a waiver on the road slope. If you’ll notice, in Mr. Ryan’s recent submittal, he suggests that the Board ought to consider allowing a 12% slope in order to diminish the amount of cut we have to make when we leave West Mountain Road. Now you see on the Site Plan that we’ve had to make a rather lengthy and elaborate big sweeping curve in order to achieve that 10% slope, but to do that, if you look at the profiles that we submitted, you can see that we have some fairly deep cuts even to do that, which means 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) that we’re going to have to cut quite a bit beyond the carriageway itself in order to have room for the side slopes that are going to be required, and I really wonder if, taking it all around, if this is to the advantage of the project and to the advantage of the Town, and for that reason, I’m going to ask the Board to consider letting us use the existing driveway, and we can do that at about a 14% slope, which would require just a minimum amount of grading and it would require a three percent slope, or something like that, down at the foot, but only for a short distance, and we could put, erect walls on either side of that cut and maintain the grade there, maintain the slope there, and in our view it would be eminently drivable, even though it exceeds the Code requirement. Now, the arrangements for grading and drainage are all contingent on the configuration of the driveway, and so for that reason we’ve deferred finalizing those arrangements, but the main issue here, as far as I can see, is the configuration and slope of the road. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, should we discuss the driveway, then? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess overall I just don’t like it. MR. SCUDDER-You don’t like? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think if we, you said something, it’s going to be up to 14%? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, about 14%, maybe a tad less. MR. SEGULJIC-I can just see a lot of issues. From a safety issue of access to the site. I mean, I like the idea of cutting less trees and going up an existing driveway, but my bigger issue is going to be, is that I can hear people saying now, you allowed a 12 or 14% grade on that site. Can’t we have that on this site? And that’s my biggest fear actually. MR. SCUDDER-Of course you know that there are many, well, I say many, there are a number of driveways and roads in the Town that exceed that slope, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I can understand that. MR. SCUDDER-It’s probably not relevant to this project, but it is a fact, nonetheless, and they’re eminently drivable. I mean, they work. MR. SEGULJIC-The Code does say 10%. MR. SCUDDER-It does. MR. SEGULJIC-And, I guess, how does the rest of the Board feel about that? MR. SCUDDER-But it also says you have the capacity to waive that. MR. SIPP-I think 14 is just too steep. MR. TRAVER-That, and also I think the location of the existing driveway, not only the steepness, but the location of it on that slope, I can see in the wintertime not only providing access issues, but, under frozen weather conditions, in snowfall and icing and so on, I can see a stormwater event of tremendous magnitude coming down and impacting West Mountain, simply because of the combination of the placement of the existing driveway on the existing slope and the steepness combines. It’s really asking for a problem. MR. SCUDDER-Well, I thought that’s how you’d feel, and I felt that I had to bring it up and give it my best shot. Okay. So the submittal is for the driveway with the big sweeping curve and so forth and so forth. MR. SIPP-Yes, well, I’m not through with that, either. You’ve got 560 feet in length. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. SIPP-That’s a lot of snow plowing. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. SIPP-And in the sense of cutting, you’re going to have to cut quite a bit in order to keep that down to the 10% slope. MR. SCUDDER-We are. We don’t see how that can be avoided. MR. TRAVER-How are you going to stabilize the banks of those cuts? MR. SCUDDER-It’ll have to be done with a combination of stonework and vegetation. Even if we go back, you know, we have cuts, if you look at the profile sheet, if we were to go back at 3% from West Mountain Road for 50 feet as the Town Engineer originally suggested, we’d have a cut at the 50 foot station of 7.6 feet based on the existing topography. Now if you have that kind of a cut and you have to go back, say one on two, you’re looking at 16 feet of bank on that one side, to say nothing of the other side. Well, then Mr. Ryan, when he was out at the site, we talked about this, and he said, well, maybe 25 feet would be better, and I think maybe he mentioned that in his report. Well, it would be better, but it’s still going to require, you know, a fairly substantial cut, and a fairly lengthy cut. We can do it, and Mr. Ball’s prepared to do it, but we were kind of hoping we wouldn’t have to do it and that you’d let us go up the existing driveway and we wouldn’t have to do anything to it except some fine grading and build a wall down at the bottom. Now your point is well taken, you know, and I expected somebody to bring that up, and we’d have to figure out how we’d handle that. MR. TRAVER-I think even with the modified access, the new driveway you’re proposing, some of those issues remain, but I think they’re more easily manageable. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, no question. Right, that’s right. Yes, we agree with that. MR. SIPP-Yes, but in order to make the longer driveway, you’re going to have to cut a lot more trees and spread this out. MR. SCUDDER-That’s right, which we don’t want to do. If we could use the existing driveway, we wouldn’t have to cut any trees. MR. SIPP-Yes, but then you’d lead us down the path of, he did it so why can’t we. MR. SCUDDER-That’s what my grade school teacher used to say to me. If I let you do it, I’ve got to let everybody do it. However, you do have the capacity to do it, and in mitigation I would say we don’t have to cut any trees down or disturb the existing ground. We don’t have to tear up the topsoil or the. MR. SIPP-At 14% you’re going to have a nice runway for snow melt, and that snow melt coming down that slope. MR. SCUDDER-Well, we’ll have to deal with that. We’ll have to deal with that, and we can deal with it, but it’s still going to be 14%. It’s drivable, and it’s manageable, but, you know, the point you’ve already made is a valid point. MR. SIPP-The thing that I can see is some snowy night a fire in the house or a garage and the emergency vehicles trying to get up that 14% slope on a snowy night. MR. SCUDDER-Well, that’s an interesting point because when the Town Engineer was out there, when we did the soil work so he could inspect it and write his report about it, his colleague was with him, and I raised that question about fire trucks, and he said, fire trucks aren’t going to be coming up there. The fire trucks are going to be down on the road, on the West Mountain Road next to the fire hydrant, and they’re going to pump the water up through a hose. MR. SIPP-Well, who’s going to carry the hose up? MR. SCUDDER-Well, not me. Anyway, I don’t want to belabor it beyond this point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s really no room at the bottom of the existing driveway for like a flat area, is there? MR. SCUDDER-No, we’d have to cut into the bank to do that, and then line the driveway with stonework, and stonework is right up my client’s alley. That’s what he does. He’s a Landscaper and that’s what he does, that kind of thing. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. SCHONEWOLF-If he had a flat area down there where you could five or six cars, it wouldn’t be a problem. Because you wouldn’t go up there sometimes if you didn’t get it plowed. MR. SCUDDER-Well, that’s a possibility I suppose. We could probably create such a place, on the north side of the driveway. As a matter of fact, maybe some of you have noticed that Niagara Mohawk has been in there, since we were here last, cut down a lot of trees along the road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, they’re cutting a right of way down. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-See, if you had something like that and you drained it, you know, you drained the parking area, that answers the questions of that water down and shooting out onto the road. You can’t let that water go out onto the road. You’re going to have a skating rink. MR. SCUDDER-We could do that. That’s right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you’ve almost got to give emergency vehicles a place to park, because then they can do what they said they can do. Although with the drop down chains on those big trucks, they’ll try to go up there. MR. SCUDDER-But you can see by looking at the contours on the north side there, it would be relatively easy to create such a space for vehicles, but you’re still going to have a 14% driveway. There’s no getting away from that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I agree with Mr. Sipp. I think cutting the one around the right and taking down all those trees is really not an acceptable solution. MR. SCUDDER-We don’t want to do it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I understand that. I was looking for another solution. MR. TRAVER-Do you see any issues with any of the other of the most recent comments th from VISION, on the November 14 letter, other than the slope issue? MR. SCUDDER-Well, they have to be dealt with, but I don’t see any problem with it. As I said at the outset, that we’ve deferred that. We know we have to deal with it, and we will deal with it. All of those issues, and I have, if I could just take a moment to look at this. The driveway cross section is obvious. I mean, we’ve talked about it, but it’s obvious. He talks, in the second item about, to minimize the amount of cut, grading, and land clearing and to maximize the three percent end distance, no less than 25 feet, in parenthesis, consideration should be given by the Planning Board to allow a 12% driveway grade. Well, the Town Engineer suggests the Board consider 12%. We’re asking for a maximum of 14%. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. We’re not going to, I don’t see that the County’s going to require a culvert. There’s no place for a culvert to go. I mean, if you put a pipe in the ground, it’s going to drain to nowhere, because there are no, there’s not a ditch there or anything, but we’ll have to clear that with the County anyway. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCUDDER-The erosion and sediment control measures, certainly we’d have to deal with that. Those things are dependent upon how we configure the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SCUDDER-And the final grading, there was some Staff comment about the grading, and we understand that. That falls into the same category. A 50% reserve area for the septic system. Well, we have all kinds of room for that, and we need to show it. Stormwater. There’ll be some increase in stormwater runoff because we’re going to have a house and a driveway and so on. So I believe that we’d have to show what we’re going to do with the difference between pre-construction and post-construction runoff, which we’re prepared to do. Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen are 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) finished. The engineer suggests that we show some details about the water line for frost protection. Well, that has to be down five feet, the lateral has to be down five feet, as a minimum, for frost protection. If we were in the Town road, it would have to be five and a half feet in Queensbury to the top of the pipe. Well, we can put it down five and a half feet. What’s the difference? We’ve got to dig the trench anyway, and dimensional location of the proposed house. Well, that’s, I guess, referencing it to the property line. So these are all things that have to be done, but they’re just routine things. The main issue is the driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Absolutely. MR. SCUDDER-And always has been. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think it will continue to be. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So what’s the thinking of the Board? There’s a lot of, I mean, if you wee to go with this driveway, this loop driveway, shall we call it, we’ve got to see a lot of details in the stormwater controls. MR. TRAVER-Yes, right. MR. SEGULJIC-Question for Staff, we can’t, for us to do Preliminary approval, we’d have to do SEQRA, correct? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Personally I’m uncomfortable with doing SEQRA. So I don’t think we can give Preliminary approval at this point, because we have a lot of big issues we need to resolve. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s really. MR. SEGULJIC-All I can see is tabling this. I don’t know what the rest of the Board thinks. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s almost like we’re a half step beyond Sketch, where we’re kind of agreeing on an overall plan, and then we’re going to have to take a look at all of these other impacts before we can do the SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. TRAVER-But I think the applicant can easily address those, you know, once we deal with the driveway issue. MR. SCUDDER-That’s right. That’s exactly right. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, you picked a very hard site to work with. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, and I wish I hadn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s on record. MR. TRAVER-My feeling, Mr. Chairman, is I certainly, you know, the applicant, you know, makes certainly a case from his viewpoint in preference to reducing the impact on the property and by doing the existing driveway. In this case, I think we have to sacrifice a few trees, in the interest of making that driveway compliant. I don’t see how we can really go anyway around it. I mean, he clearly wants to develop the property and he’s prepared to do it. We know that the applicant has the resources and the skills to probably generate the stormwater and the landscaping and so on that will manage this long 10% driveway. It’s my feeling, I also don’t want to see a lot of trees cut down, but it’s my feeling that if the applicant is going to be able to fully utilize his property, which clearly he wants to do, I think sacrificing some trees in the interest of safety and compliance is what we need to do. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, does anybody else have anything? All right. So I guess we should put together a tabling motion. Does anyone have anything beyond the VISION Engineering letter and the Staff comments? The other thing I would say is, I can’t think 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) of anything, but is there anything else you can do, besides those two options? I mean, I don’t know. MR. SCUDDER-Believe me, we have tried. Yes, there is something else we can do. We could take this driveway and run it way to the north, you know, at a 10% grade, and then push our curb or our switch back to the north. We could do that, but it would lengthen the driveway more and it would require more cutting. MR. TRAVER-Yes, what would be the advantage? MR. SCUDDER-There isn’t any. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Right. I thought not. I wondered why you just offered that. MR. SCUDDER-And it would be a sharper curve also. We’re thinking about, you know, if we took it out to the north and then came back along the contour there, but. MR. TRAVER-Actually I have a question. Again, on the existing driveway. Are you, once this project is completed, as part of the landscaping plan, are you going to restore? MR. SCUDDER-I think so. I know Mr. Ball talked about using that access straight up the hill, doing his construction, and then abandoning it and re-vegetating it and so forth. MR. TRAVER-Yes, again, I think that’s going to be a stormwater issue. We’re going to need to see the stormwater management during the construction phase, and I think that, again, using that is going to be very problematic. MR. SCUDDER-Well, maybe he shouldn’t do it. MR. TRAVER-Well, and what I’m saying is, beyond that, I think we need to plan for restoring that existing driveway. So that it’s still not a path of erosion, and, you know. MR. SCUDDER-The condition it’s in now is the condition it’s been in for many years. MR. TRAVER-I understand. MR. SCUDDER-There was a farmer or somebody who used it for decades. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCUDDER-But, your point is well taken. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So anyone ready to put together a tabling motion, unless there’s any other comments? Anyone wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With that, we’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. SCUDDER-Did you open the public hearing, Mr. Chairman? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I just did. No one commented. So we’ll leave it open. We’ll have to table this, as I see it, unless anyone else. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think what we have to do is address the engineering comments and the Staff comments, because I think between the two of them, the engineering comments address the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Because they say you have to show mitigation details on the plans. So I think between the two of them it should cover everything. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think so. MR. SEGULJIC-Would you put forward a motion, then. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD & LINDA BALL, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: So that the applicant can address the Staff comments, VISION Engineering comments, and submit a Preliminary Stage plan for the property as discussed. Tabled to January 20, 2009. th Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-What date? thth MR. OBORNE-Well, it would be in January. I mean, the 20 or the 27 of January. th MR. SEGULJIC-Table it to January 20. MR. TRAVER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Thank you very much. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. SITE PLAN NO. 45-2008 SEQR TYPE II BRIAN GRANGER OWNER(S) BG LENDERS SERVICE, LLC ZONING MU LOCATION 20 & 18 NEWCOMB STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,146 SQ. FT. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN THE MU ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 6-05, NOA 1-06, BP 04- 494 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZE 0.16, 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-60, 61 SECTION 179-4-020 MARK NOORDSY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to read this into the record as this is a new applicant. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 45-2008, Brian Granger is the applicant. Site Plan Review for office in the Mixed Use. Location is 18 and 20 Newcomb Street. Existing zoning, again, is Mixed Use. This is a Type II. No further action required for SEQRA. The Project Description: the applicant proposes a 1,146 square foot professional office. The site is located on two parcels of 0.15 acres and 0.43 acres. The site contains an existing six foot tall chain link privacy fence where repossessed cars and company vehicles are stored. The business also calls for a processing and redemption area for cars being returned to their owners. This is accomplished in the enclosed area adjacent to the house. Staff comments: According to the applicant letter dated October 14, 2008, B.G.Lenders Services LLC will be moving the storage portion of the business to another location. This is the result of a determination from the Zoning Administrator that the storage portion of the business is considered an auto use and as such is not allowed in the M.U. zone. What follows is Site Plan Review, and I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Thank you. Can you identify yourself and tell us about your application? MR. NOORDSY-Excuse me. I’m Mark Noordsy. I’m an attorney with the law firm of Lemery Greisler, representing the applicant, and Brian Granger, the applicant, is here with me. I’ll go first and give you a little overview, and then Mr. Granger is going to describe the premises. The first thing I wanted you to know, just for the record, is, as you know, or as you may not know, but this was an ongoing matter during 2007, and as you know, I was with the firm that represented the Town during 2007. I never had any dealings with this matter, but I just wanted to note that if you had any questions. I don’t think I have a conflict, but. Going over the history of the matter, Mr. Granger bought the property in 2005. He did what he thought he was his due diligence and contacted the 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) Town and was under the understanding that this was an allowed use, that his auto repossession business would be an allowed use and therefore he went ahead and purchased the property. After the closing, he found out, by way of a letter from the Zoning Administrator, that this was not an allowed use, and that in order to continue his use, he would need a variance. He appealed that to the ZBA. He appealed a subsequent decision to the ZBA. They upheld the Zoning Administrator. That resulted in an Article 78 proceeding that basically said that since you didn’t appeal the first ZBA decision, you’re out of luck. Given that situation, he then put the property on the market. It’s really difficult to proceed without, his current situation, to continue the current situation, but the property hasn’t sold yet, and in order to cooperate with the Town and where we stand now, this Site Plan application was submitted, which would result in the storage of the repossessed vehicles moving to a different location, for which there is another Site Plan application that’s been submitted, that is not on for tonight. So the storage would also require a Site Plan approval. So that the use of the property would be for the office use, which is an allowed use, as well as the parking for employees, customers, and for the automobile redemption activities when someone comes to get their car back. Looking at the Staff Notes, I think Mr. Granger will address the, you know, just show you the stormwater when he goes through the diagrams here. He’ll be adding the handicap ramp, and on the engineer’s comments, it was a little confusing to us. He referenced Chapter A183, which appears to be applicable to subdivisions and not Site Plans. We’re not really sure where he was going on that one. So Mr. Granger will go through and describe the property to you and I guess will answer any questions and I guess we’ll answer any questions, and appreciate the opportunity to respond to any comments that come up during the public hearing. BRIAN GRANGER MR. GRANGER-I’m Brian Granger. I live at 63 Wincoma Lane in Queensbury, and I own the property at 20 Newcomb Street. The determination has been upsetting for me for the last three years, and we’re trying to work something out and I’ve basically been trying to sell the property and we’re doing this to move the cars off site someplace else. This is a temporary solution until the property sells, until I can put the two together. The cost of operating two locations is just not going to be economically feasible for a long period of time. The way it’s laid out is that the parking area is basically 80 feet by 90 feet now. That’s going to also be used for company owned vehicles as well as a redemption area for people to get their cars back, and just use the office as it is, for an office. I’m open for any questions. MR. SEGULJIC-Comments from the Board? So for now you’re just going to be parking your vehicles on site? MR. GRANGERS-Vehicles, and if someone redeems their car, I mean, if the cars repossessed, if they’re going to get it back, they’re going to get it back at that location, on Newcomb Street. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So how many cars at a time are we talking on site? MR. GRANGER-It varies. It’s not going to be that many. The activity right now, as it stands, is less than five cars per day, as of right now, is what we’re doing now. obviously the storage part is going to be moved off site. It’s going to be even less than that, but the activity, the number of cars that I do does not relate to the property on hand here because we pick up a lot of cars that go directly to the auction, directly to a transporter, or directly back to a credit union, but the activity that’s going on right now is less than five cars a day. So it would be less than that. MR. NOORDSY-If they don’t come to pick it up that day or the next day, then it’s going to go to the storage place, then come back from the storage place when they come to redeem. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. GRANGER-You can’t see them where the fence is, and I can’t give you a specific number because things are fluctuating. Right now obviously with the economy, things are busy, but that’s going to slow down next year. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How many people work in your office? MR. GRANGER-Two people in the office. I have as many as eight people out on the road. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. SEGULJIC-And the gravel parking area I see, that’s where the cars are parked? MR. GRANGER-That’s for the, that’s to go into the office. The parking area that’s on your plan, where the cars would be, it’s behind the fence, that would be to the right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But they both come in, you come in from Newcomb Street. Correct? MR. GRANGER-Correct, from Newcomb Street. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned that your visits to your office are by appointment only. MR. GRANGER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So I’m wondering, if someone makes an appointment to come and collect their vehicle, would it not be in time for that appointment that a vehicle would be moved from storage to your office? In other words, why would you need even say five vehicles there, if it’s all done by appointment, you must have someone who’s going to be transporting vehicles from, to storage, for example. MR. GRANGER-I’m trying to limit that to the morning hours so that I don’t have to have someone there all day long. Again, this is the added expense that I’m going through. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. GRANGER-I’m a small business. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. GRANGER-I employ 10 people at the high side. My business way of making money is out there picking up cars. It’s not having someone sitting at the office waiting to see if someone’s going to show up at four o’clock to get their car the next morning. So I’m trying to do it economically. MR. TRAVER-Right. Sure. About how many appointments per day would you say that you would typically have, where somebody might come in? MR. GRANGER-A lot of it’s personal belongings. I would say no more than 10 a day. We’re under a lot of regulations with the Federal and State, and what not, personal belongings, license plates. The EZ Passes we’re now responsible for, redemption. Somebody could pay at the bank and have their release in 30 minutes and they’ll want to come and pick up their car. That’s what I mean by appointment. It’s not they call today and they’re getting their car back tomorrow. It’s usually, you know, I just went to the bank and they’re sending my release over. I’m on my way. Where do I go? MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. GRANGER-So that’s why I’m trying to be fair. MR. TRAVER-So about how many cars per day would you expect that people would be coming and picking up? MR. GRANGER-Average, three. MR. TRAVER-Three, okay. MR. GRANGER-It depends on what’s going on, and the percentage of what gets picked up, 25% of vehicles are voluntary, you know, they’re come and get them, deceased, lost job, whatever it may be, goes right to storage. The another 25 to 30% of, you know, we meet them there and they’re like, yes, I knew it, let me get my stuff out of it. So they’re not going to be falling to play. Yes, I knew it was coming. I’ve got this Dodge truck that gets eight miles a gallon. Take it please. So it’s just this small amount of cars that I want to be fair. MR. TRAVER-Sure, and you’re not planning on operating this business from this location any longer than you can. It sounds like you have it for sale now. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. GRANGER-I have it for sale. I’m moving. I can’t, you know, I’m not looking for permanency here. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, I guess, Mr. Chairman, I’m wondering, and perhaps for Staff, might there be some way that we could issue like a Special Use Permit for a time period, rather than go through a whole site, have a precedent of an alternative use for this site, why not just permit a Special Use, for a time limited period, give the applicant an opportunity to get out from under the property, and that way we’re not setting a precedent for an alternate use for this location. MR. OBORNE-The applicant has stated that he is, and correct me if I’m wrong, Brian, has stated that he is looking to sell his, your current office, and to combine an office and a storage area. In the Town of Queensbury, the Town of Fort Ann. I’m not sure where it is that he wants to do it, and that is what we’re here for right now. We’re not here for a Special Use Permit. We’re here for a Site Plan at this point. A determination has been made by the Zoning Administrator that the storage aspect of his business is considered an auto use, which is not allowed in the Mixed Use zone, and that’s something that the applicant did not agree with at first, and, you know, he’s here now to try to set things right, and all he’s looking for now is to get his office, a Site Plan Review for his office, at this point. At a later date, in fact it’s probably next month, it is next month that he’s coming to have Site Plan Review for his auto use, the storage for his auto use. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. GRANGER-To be clear on it, we found a site, on Big Boom Road at the North American facility. It’s zoned Light Industrial. Out back where the mini-storage buildings are, Mr. Mabey has some more property, and we’re basically, the fence goes like this, and we’re cornering off a corner, and that’s where the storage parcel is going to be. It’s close but it’s far. It’s going to be an inconvenience. It’s going to be a headache. I don’t want to say there’s going to be, you know, only one car at a time at Newcomb Street. It’s not fair. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. NOORDSY-That’s the main concern is to be able to, if a number of the owners or former owners are calling up quickly, and you’re disposing or they’re getting their car back right away, the need is to not have to go store that overnight, and that’s the main concern. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I feel your pain. Any other comments? Can we open it up to public comment, then? MR. NOORSDY-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we’re going to limit the comment to four minutes each person, and if you could come forward, sir. Identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WILLIAM GATES MR. GATES-Hello. My name is William Gates. I reside at One Glenwood Avenue in Queensbury, and just by coincidence, I happened to be having a conversation with Brian on the day he went to make his determining visit on that property before he bought it, and he asked me if I wanted to go along with him, and I said I would, and we got there, to be honest with you, it was a bit of a discouraging thing to look at. If you look at the chart up here, you can see that on the southern property line there’s a large old barn that was dilapidated, almost in front of part of the home office there, and the rest of it was all just fields and brush and a couple of dead trees, and I wasn’t going to discourage him, because he was enthusiastic about it. So I changed my next bit of conversation with him to the zoning, and the realtor had shown him the property with the understanding that it was zoned for an office and parking, and I looked around the neighborhood. There is a tow truck company kitty corner across the road, and to the south of him an empty field with dirt piles. There was a house trailer behind it, in pretty rough shape, which has since burned down, and that’s empty, and the road that kind of works its way into the back, and a boat construction business down the road and I felt that if Brian was able to do all the he dreamed to do with the property, that it would be a good fit, and recently he’s told me that he’s had some difficulties over the property, which I guess I’m not really that informed about all of the zoning to the property or what’s gone on back and forth 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) with Brian, and whoever, but it seemed to me like it was a good fit for the neighborhood and for Brian, and his office, in my layperson’s eyes, was an office and his storage area was parking. In fact, he even put a fence up behind it, so that it looks actually one of the nicer looking properties, no offense to any neighbors that might be here, because there are some nice homes on the street, too, but it’s one of the nicer looking properties on the street. I guess that’s all I really have to say. I hear, tonight, that there’s a plan that he’s discouraged, he wants to sell the property and move his vehicles to another place and everything and personally I think that’s unfortunate, but of course the zoning is whatever the zoning is, and the determinations are whatever the determinations are going to be, but storing the cars behind that fence, in my mind, I still have it sort of stuck in my mind as parking. I guess, I don’t know, I would think that the benefit of the doubt should go to the person who is employing people and maintaining and constructively using Queensbury property and paying his taxes on it. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else? DON DANIELS MR. DANIELS-I’m Don Daniels. I live on Aviation Road, Gilmore. I own several pieces of property on Main Street, Newcomb, Richardson. That property that Brian has there was really a trash heap and the house was kind of a shack. So it’s all been improved there, and I’ve been watching him. I’ve known Brian since he was a little boy. His grandfather helped to build my house that I’ve lived in for 40 years, and his father’s been my friend for a long time, and everybody in this community and throughout all these little towns are always wondering where the young men and women grow up and leave, and this fellow wants to stay here. With the Town harassing him over a little thing like this, he’s not repairing cars. I wouldn’t call it auto use. I mean, Craig Brown has his interpretations of what auto use is, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s been kind of quiet there. Main Street has 25,000 cars a day that go up and down there, and even with Brian on Newcomb Street, I don’t think there’s 100 cars a day that go through Newcomb Street. So as far as I’m concerned, I think he should be allowed to stay there and not put any limits on him to force him to sell that. The climate for selling property right now is terrible. I’m a real estate broker. I own Glens Falls Realty, and I’ve had a broker’s license, and been licensed for over 40 years, and it’s not too easy to sell properties and he’s probably going to take quite a dump financially, and rather than just squeeze him into a year or two years or some kind of a time limit, I don’t think I would do it if I were you, but obviously you have the power to do some of these things. So I’d just let him stay there and operate and not cost him a lot of money to keep operating. He is hiring people, and that’s kind of encouraging in this climate that we have now. Thank you. KEN WHEELER MR. WHEELER-My name is Ken Wheeler. I live at 16 Richardson Street, and I also operate a business there, and if you look on the map, you’ll see that it’s exactly one block east, I believe, of Mr. Granger’s property. I’ve been there about 21 years. I also own the property at 15 Newcomb Street, which is directly across the street from Mr. Granger’s property. I can agree with the other people who’ve spoken tonight. Brian’s done a great job in improving that piece of property on Newcomb Street. There’s no question about it, and I also think that the type of business that he has in that area is a fine fit for the neighborhood and the area because of all the other commercial development that’s there. As a businessman in the Town of Queensbury, and my experience with working with the Boards and working with the Zoning Administrators over the years, there used to be a time when you could go into the Zoning Administrator’s office and sit down at their desk and say this is my property, this is what I’d like to do with it, and they would say, well, let’s get the zoning law out and see how it fits, and if there was a gray area, an area that fell into interpretation, they would interpret it in favor of the property owner. Now that doesn’t seem to be the case here. From what I’ve gathered from Brian and some of the problems he’s had, he wouldn’t be here tonight if the Zoning Administrator had seen and made a determination in his favor, which is a very small, minor thing in my estimation, and to be honest with you, I’m at a loss as to why he didn’t. I don’t know why people have to be, have to find that the Town and the government to be against them in situations like this. I think you ought to look at that. Thanks. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. JOE VALENTE MR. VALENTE-My name is Joe Valente. I live at Uncas Street in Glens Falls. I have a business in the Town of Queensbury. I’ve know Brian since he was a teenager. He’s 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) always been a very hard worker, and anything he’s ever done has always been first class. He had paving business and blacktop sealing. You’d never know there was any blacktop around because everything is, the equipment was immaculate. His home, his office, everything was always immaculate, and looking over on the Newcomb Street, he’s done a beautiful job over there. You’d never even know there’s a car there because of the high fence and the quality of the property. I’ve been familiar with Newcomb Street for many years, and again, no reflection on anybody over there, but it’s really been upgraded. Brian’s done, had a real big part in doing that, and as far as storage, I am in the storage business. Brian’s not storing cars, he’s parking cars for just a few days, and if you’re in the storage business, you’re there for a lot longer than a few days. So, the tough economy, and the fact of what he does for us, what he does for the County and for the Town in bringing in income, I certainly wouldn’t want to discourage him. So the only thing I can say is if it’s going to be done right, Brian’s going to do it right, and he has done it right. Thank you. EARL LUCCI MR. LUCCI-My name’s Earl Lucci. I’ve resided in the Town of Queensbury for 29 years. I live on Helen Drive. I’ve known Brian for 25 years, and I’ve known his father, and I’ve never seen him to be any different than upstanding and quality type of guy that I’ve always know for the last 25 years. When I was first brought to his property, I couldn’t find it at first, because I thought it was a, I didn’t even know it was an office. I didn’t even know there were any cars there, the way the fence is constructed and the height and what he’s got going through the fence. I don’t know what it is, it’s kind of a tarp of some sort, a green screen that you’d never even know from the street that, and the way he’s got it fixed up and the paint and the shrubs and the landscaping that he’s done. I can’t see any reason why he should be denied any kind of variance, if it’s even needed. Like the previous people have said, that, you know, he shouldn’t even be at this point, I don’t think. I think it’s just a, I don’t know what you’d call it, but I think he deserves to stay there. He’s an employer. He employs ten people, and to be jostled around from one area to another, it’s just going to cost him money, and create layoffs. I think that the Town of Queensbury should let him stay there. Thanks. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else? AL MERCHANT MR. MERCHANT-Hello. My name is Al Merchant. I live on Cormus Road in Queensbury, and had a business on Main Street in Queensbury as well. I’ve heard all the character witnesses about Brian. I think it’s kind of important for you folks to realize the running businesses out of Town. I was on Main Street, went through the same process that Brian’s going through, interpretation of the zoning law, and went to the point where I had a professional submit a Site Plan. The Zoning Board sent back the check saying I didn’t need Site Plan approval. Went ahead with my project, which is just a little updating here and there, and then had Mr. Brown stop by and put a halt to my project, which then forced me to be in Brian’s shoes where, at that point, the project cost me so much money that I had to put the business up for sale, at 39 Main Street. It took me two years to sell that property. I paid $60,000 for it and got reassessed at $144,000 in two years, and subsequently I had to lay off two people in my office and seek temporary shelter in an office suite and then move to South Glens Falls where obviously you can basically do anything you’d like to your building and they’ll deal with it later, and your taxes are much lower. So, again, I’d just like to attest to the fact that this Zoning Board and the Building Department is running small businesses out of Queensbury, and I find it amazing that Brian’s project is not going through, because also I have a small plow route and I plow Mr. Daniels’ property for probably four or five years. That was always a night time thing, saw the parties that went on at Brian’s current place, and here and there I would plow out the church parking lot, which is across the street, and it really was a very tight, tight, in terms of quarters, property, and Brian was always very gracious to come over with his backhoe and move the snow banks at the Triumph Auto Glass place where I was doing the plowing for, and now you can obviously see what he’s done with the church parking lot. That was a major thing for the church. The church always needed more room because of their different activities, and that parking lot was awful. So I think, again, just to attest Brian’s character of doing a complete and good job, he is a fine neighbor, and can’t believe that he’s getting the run around of the mill like some folks in this Town are doing to him. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. GARY FISHER 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. FISHER-My name’s Gary Fisher. I’m an Elder at the Community Chapel in West Glens Falls. I do live in the City of Glens Falls. However, I’ve been a member of the church and the Community Chapel in West Glens Falls for some 40 years, 50 years, I’m sorry. I represent, I’m an Elder. I represent the Board of Session, and the congregation of the Community Chapel. We own the Chapel, the residence at 57 Main Street, and the property directly behind 57 Main Street, which borders Mr. Granger’s property. I don’t know if you all have read this letter or not that I wrote on behalf of the Church. It has been brought to our attention that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board has issued an order to BG Lenders Services, LLC, Brian Granger, President, to cease business operations at their Newcomb Street location. Mr. Granger’s business at its current location has become an asset to the community. Let me just mention a few things that Mr. Granger has done. Number One, he’s cleaned up the premises of the business location from its previous condition. He’s installed a privacy fence so business operations are not visible from the street. Mr. Granger has offered assistance on several occasions to the Chapel. He came to us. We didn’t go to him. He does snow removal at no cost to our small parking area. He’s cleaned snow away from the church where the Town trucks have plowed the winter storms against the building, because the Church’s building is directly on the street, and if it doesn’t get taken care of immediately, we end up with water in our basement. He’s offered to have people come and clean the snow off of our Sunday school roof, which is a large, flat roof on the Church. Most recently Mr. Granger cleaned out a mess of leaves and debris that someone had thrown in the corner of the Church’s parking area, and removed an unsightly fence and some scrubby trees. He replaced the unsightly fence with an eye pleasing split rail section of fencing. He located and uncovered a drywell that had been covered for many years that was put in by the Church in the parking lot. This benefits our Town as well as our parking area. Mr. Granger spent what must have been a tidy sum grading and filling several potholes in the parking area, the result of many years of plowing. A large pile of snow located on the property of Brian Granger provides a safe place for local youngsters to slide during the winter months. The operation of Brian Granger’s service at their Newcomb Street address in West Glens Falls has been an asset to the neighborhood. The people who work there and those have businesses have always been kind and courteous. In closing, I sincerely hope that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board finds that Mr. Granger’s business is very much an asset to our neighborhood. Any amicable solution to keeping Brian Granger’s business intact at their location would be in the interest of the Town of Queensbury, and I submit this, not as my own words, but I wrote these from the congregation’s, at the congregation’s request, and like it’s been said many times here tonight, Brian Granger’s an asset to the Town of Queensbury, and he’s done a very, very good job of cleaning up the premises where he purchased and it would, like somebody said a little while ago, it was run down, and it would be a travesty to make him endure such an amount of money to move the business. I don’t know how well any of you are familiar with where the auto glass was, right behind the Chapel, well, you should take a ride by there today. You’d think that the junkyard down on Lower Warren Street was a mansion. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else? MATTHEW HUNT MR. HUNT-Hello. My name is Matthew Hunt. I’m a current resident at 71 Connecticut Avenue in Queensbury, and I am employed by Brian Granger at BG Lenders Service. I’ve known Brian Granger since I was 13 years old. I have actually been working for him since then, doing yard work and etc. The only difference between then and now is the pay is a little bit more than a ham sandwich and some lemonade. Actually, in all seriousness, he actually pays me more than most college graduates make after five years being out of college, and I’m very grateful for that because, unlike most people, my family doesn’t have the financial backing for me to go to college, and I’m very grateful for him giving me that opportunity to help run his office and make a successful business. Not only do I speak on my behalf, but as well as my co-workers and colleagues. I would hate to see Brian have to move to another city, seeing as how he’s a taxpayer in Queensbury at multiple, he’s paying taxes on multiple parcels of land. I’d hate to see him go, and I’m here to support him through and through. I hate to get repetitive, but I, as well, don’t believe that his land’s being used as auto use. He is parking and storing three or more vehicles. He’s allowed an office area as well as a parking lot which, that is all that is on those two pieces of property at 18 and 20 Newcomb Street. Again, I don’t want to get repetitive, so I’m going to leave it at that, and thank you for your time. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anyone else? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) PETER FISH MR. FISH-My name’s Peter Fish. I live at 6 Newcomb Street. I own 5 Newcomb Street and 8 Newcomb Street, too, and I also run Fish Brothers Marine Service at 6 Newcomb Street. I sympathize with the zoning thing. It seems to be a moving target. Your man put me through a lot of misery over there for trying to make a living. I mean, I went through thousands upon thousands of dollars in attorneys. Every time I go there there’s a different answer, a different this and a different that, and I don’t think you ever get a straight answer out of that guy. He’s done a nice job down there for what that used to be. It was a dump, and there were 15 cars there all the time then. I don’t know where they all were, but there was always, you know, 10 or 15 cars there. The place was falling down, and it’s a great improvement, and I don’t know why they’re giving him such a hard time. I realize it isn’t zoned, but, like I said, I mean, that zoning seems to be a moving target, especially when you ask for something. I guess that’s all I’ve got to say. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else? JACK BALFOUR MR. BALFOUR-My name is Jack Balfour. I reside at 51 Cunningham Avenue in Glens Falls. I’m also a Queensbury taxpayer. I own property in Queensbury, and I’ve know Brian since he was 17 years old. He worked for me at The Great Escape. I worked for Charlie Wood for 30 years, and Brian and his brother worked at the Park a long time, and I’ve known these guys forever, it seems like, but I just wanted to stand up and be counted, and you ought to give this guy a break. End of story. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else? It appears we have a number of, could you just summarize them? MR. OBORNE-Well, I’m going to, I have two petitions here. I have 20 plus single letters. All of these are in favor of Mr. Granger. I would like to get a good portion of the names on the record if I may. If I miss any names, I apologize in advance. I have culled out, as best I can, with the people that spoke already. First of all, there’s a petition. It starts off, “To keep BG Lenders Services at its current location.” It’s about, 22 or so. “The undersigned are signing on behalf of Brian Granger and BG Lenders Services at 18 & 20 Newcomb Street. BG Lenders is a benefit to this neighborhood, as a good neighbor, employer and a taxpaying citizen of Queensbury…We are petitioning to allow this business to remain at the current location and to with parking and storage of vehicles. We understand this is a mixed use zone that allows for parking and storing three or more vehicles. The business causes no interruption in our daily activities and we would like to see Mr. Granger and his business continue to operate in The Town of Queensbury at this location.” Respectfully submitted by I want to say Denise Cartan, 42 Luzerne Road, if I butchered your name, again, I apologize. I cannot read this, but it’s 40 Luzerne Road. 57 something, Jolene Hayes, 57 Main Street. Bonnie, 57 Main Street; Bruce Runnalls, Sunnyside Road; Sue Benway; Mark Posniewski, 9 ½ Main Street; Lena, and acquaintance of his, the same last name, 89 and ½ Main Street. Eric Harrington, Peter Fisher, Bill, it looks like Thompson, Wayne Runnalls, 104 Sunnyside Road; Susan Port, Daniel Synder, Bradley Rye, Daniel Doster, if I said it wrong, it’s 8 Sheridan Lane, it looks like. Okay. I have another petition that I’d like to read into the record, dated November 24, 2005. “Dear Neighbor: As you may already be aware, there is a meeting scheduled with Town of Queensbury Zoning Board on 11/23/05 to discuss zoning approval for 20 Newcomb Street. In order for me to get a better understanding of my neighbors’ views on the zoning of 20 Newcomb Street, I would like to offer you the opportunity to state your feelings on my occupancy and whether you approve or disapprove of my business existing at 20 Newcomb Street. I welcome any comments you may have, good or bad. We want assure that we are not creating any hardship or inconveniences for our neighbors. Therefore, if you have any concerns at this time, I would like to address them immediately and take action to resolve them. Thanks for your time and consideration. Brian E. Granger” Brenda, I can’t read your last name, 12 Newcomb Street, she says “No problems at all. Very nice people.” Wendy Taylor, “Looks nice, neat, clean, quiet.” “I live across the street”, John, 17 Newcomb, “I live across the street. It has been very quiet and no noise. Very nice guys.” Holly Wheeler, “Brian’s business does not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. He has cleaned up and improved the property.” Ken Wheeler,” I am also own #15 Newcomb Street, and I am pleased that Mr. Granger has improved the property which is directly across from my #15 Newcomb Street property. I hope this improvement will be infectious. Please approve.” This is Triumph Auto Glass. I believe the gentleman had already spoken. If not, Steve Reynolds, “Grounds look much better than before. Good business activity, no complaints. Good neighbor.” Kelly Dwyer, 16 Newcomb Street, 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) “Looks good.” Kim LaTour, 18 Newcomb Street, “It has been very quiet and they have been very polite.” Lindsay Carruthers, 18 ½ Newcomb Street, “No complaints. Looks good.” Peter Fish, 6 Newcomb Street, “Greatly improved appearance of property.” I think suffice it to say there is a marked amount of support for this, and again, this is for the approval of his office on Newcomb Street. Many other comments here, and they’re all in favor. Many of these are duplicates, but, nevertheless, not all. There are many here that are not. Mr. Spinelli, Mr. Davis, Holly Wheeler, and I’ll finish up by running off just the names of support. Amy Breault, Earl Lucci, Susan Kelleher, Jeffrey Hafner, John and Ann Davis, Paul F. Spinelli, Vince Potter, Paul F. Spinelli, again, John and Ann Davis again, Holly Wheeler. That’s all I’ve got. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. What do we wish to do? I don’t see any issues with this. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I rode by, I looked at it, and I couldn’t figure why it was coming up, but where is the boundary between MU and Business? I take it Main Street is zoned Business, right? MR. GRANGER-Can I answer that, if I could, please? The reason why I’d like to answer it, I was the one working on it for three years. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Be my guest. MR. GRANGER-There’s no set zone for a repossession business. So as Mr. Brown and I have sparred with, so to speak, that you tried to look for a fit, and that’s what I did when I went to buy Newcomb Street. I wasn’t sure if it was a fit or not, so I called up and I asked. The zone states you can have an office or a professional office. It also says you can have a parking area. Parking area is defined in the book as any parcel lot used in whole or in part for storing or parking three or more vehicles. So when Mr. Brown made the determination, I didn’t know Mr. Brown at the time. I spoke to one of the Use Planners. So when I got to Mr. Brown, I had already bought the property. So when I said, okay, what am I doing that’s auto use, I never got a direct answer, and that’s where this has always been. Well, I did get an answer, I’ve made my determination. That was my answer that I got, and that’s where we’ve always been. So you have to draw a line in the sand on how much money you want to spend, no offense to the man sitting to the right of me, on there. So I’m trying to work this out, and if my neighbors were against me in any way or I was disturbing a neighbor, I wouldn’t go before this Board and ask for any approval, but the issue has been the storing of the cars now is apparently the issue. So we’re looking to move the storage elsewhere, and I just wanted to reinstate that if any neighbors were against me, I wouldn’t be asking for any approval whatsoever. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the only issue is an office in the MU. MR. GRANGER-It’s the storage. MR. NOORDSY-The office is allowed in the MU. MR. TRAVER-How many vehicles are you looking to park on this? MR. GRANGER-Worst case scenario, high side, great week in the repo business, 25. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but that includes the number that you would have in storage as well? MR. GRANGER-No, that wouldn’t include the number I have in storage. MR. TRAVER-This is for the possessing and redemption? MR. GRANGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’re processing them through. MR. GRANGER-Processing, too. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s not storage. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. GRANGER-That’s not storage. I have other locations. I mean, the auction in Clifton Park has allowed me 25 spaces there. I have another location in Schenectady. I have a transporter in Amsterdam that basically has an area for me as well. Everything of what I do does not come back to Newcomb Street. So those eight employees that go out on the road go do other things, and they come back and report back. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and before coming before this Board for Site Plan Review, what has been your practice in terms of the number of vehicles that have been there, from a practical standpoint? MR. GRANGER-Practical standpoint? As many as 50. MR. TRAVER-Fifty, okay. MR. GRANGER-In that area. They’re all in that area. Nothing’s out front of the case, and that’s lined up, like a New York City parking lot. MR. TRAVER-But tonight you’re asking for 25. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I must be missing something. Did you buy both pieces of property at the same time? MR. GRANGER-Yes. They’re two lots. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They were two separate lots. MR. GRANGER-Yes, I didn’t do anything, well, you really can’t separate the buildings. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You bought them at the same time? MR. GRANGER-Yes, sir. MR. SEGULJIC-This happens occasionally. All right, and it looks like you have plenty of room to park out front, because I understand your plan, you have 2400, that gravel area is like 2400 square feet. Is that correct? MR. GRANGER-Yes, that’s for the employees and somebody’s coming and going, picking up their personals. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, I’m assuming we want to approve this, and the only thing, should we waive a lot of the, waive stormwater, waive, that’s just my opinion, waive lighting, because I think we want to do that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-We’ll grant a waiver for landscaping, grading stormwater, buffering and lighting requirements. MR. SIPP-Is there lighting there now? MR. GRANGER-The only lighting that’s on all the time is one porch lot, and then there are a couple of spotlights if the guys are coming in and it’s dark, but we rarely use them. We don’t leave them on all the time. We don’t want to disturb the neighbors. There’s one porch light on the front. That’s it. MR. SIPP-And the storage. MR. GRANGER-There are a couple of spotlights on the building, but we rarely use them. I don’t leave them on. They’re not on at night. MR. SIPP-But what about in the parking area for the cars? MR. GRANGER-In the front there’s just one porch light. There’s nothing out in the parking area. MR. SIPP-No, I’m talking about what you’ve got in the rear. MR. GRANGER-In the rear, there’s a couple of lights that are on the building that shine onto the parking area, the storage area we’ll call it, but they’re not left on. They’re off all 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) the time. The repossession business, I have a non-published business phone number. I have no sign. I don’t want anybody to know we’re there. That’s the whole thing. You remember Batman with the cave and the brush would go, that’s what I’d like to have my fence. You don’t know I’m there. That’s the whole purpose. MR. SIPP-Before I forget, let’s correct one misstatement that was made during the hearing. MR. GRANGER-It wasn’t the Planning Board. MR. SIPP-It’s not the Planning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. The only thing is parking as I see. I mean, there appears to be ample parking out front. MR. OBORNE-Yes, there’s ample parking. He has handicap designated areas. One thing I do ask, as a condition, if you will, is to have handicap access, and Brian and I have discussed that. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. How do we want to word that handicap access? What do we say? MR. OBORNE-A condition of approval is to ensure handicap access is available to any patrons. MR. TRAVER-That’s in the Staff Notes I believe. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. GRANGER-Everything’s there except for one part of a ramp. MR. SIPP-Until you sell this property you’ll operate there. You have a lease on a piece of property in South Glens Falls to store. MR. GRANGER-No, I’m looking at Big Boom Road. Big Boom Road. I’m coming back before you next month. MR. OBORNE-This is for the office aspect. MR. SEGULJIC-So to have handicap access. MR. OBORNE-Please, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, you have to close the public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2008 BRIAN GRANGER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 1,146 sq. ft. professional office. Professional Office in the MU zone requires Planning Board Site Plan review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 11/18/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) 5)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2008 BRIAN GRANGER Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five does not apply [deleted]. With the following conditions: a. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Planning Office before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. b. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. c. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and d. If applicable, Item 3 to be combined with a letter of credit; and e. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f.That there will be handicap access. g. That the Planning Board will waive landscaping, grading, stormwater, parking, buffering, and lighting requirements. Duly adopted this 18th day of November 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MR. GRANGER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. SEGULJIC-Good luck. MR. NOORDSY-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN 47-2008 SEQR TYPE II NIGRO COMPANIES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) UPPER GLEN ST. ASSOC., LLC ZONING HC-INT, HC- MOD LOCATION 735-751 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING 6,546 SQUARE FOOT VIDEO STORE INTO A RESTAURANT, HAIR SALON AND GAME STORE WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RECONFIGURATION OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 98-3257, 98-3256, 98-5244 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZES 0.39, 0.46, 0.48, 1.0 & 6.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-22 THROUGH 26 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & STEVE POWERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-If I could, because it’s a new applicant, I’d like to read it into the record, sir. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 47-2008, Nigro Companies, Site Plan Review for the reconfiguration of a commercial building. Location is 751 Upper Glen Street. Existing zoning Highway Commercial Intensive and Highway Commercial Moderate. It’s a Type II SEQRA. No further action is necessary. Project Description: The applicant proposes conversion of an existing 6,546 square foot video store into a restaurant, hair salon and game store with associated site work. I do want to do a little bit about the Staff comments. The Code Enforcement Officer has issued a Site Plan Inspection Report dated November 5, 2008 in relation to Site Plan 47-2003, Tractor Supply Modification, 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) concerning deficiencies from an October 2004 report that has gone uncorrected (see attached). The remaining deficiency from that report appears to be with the parking configurations. The parking that currently exists is not in compliance with approved Site Plan 47-2003 dated January 25, 2005. Further, the application materials submitted for Site Plan 47-2008 appear to be conflicting with the approved site plan. The following will need to be clarified: 1. Parking calculations for the entire site, not including the reconfiguration of the Hollywood Video store, will need to be clarified. 2. The number of parking spaces calculated in the Setback Requirements page will need to be clarified. 3. Calculate all parking based on specific uses and put in table form for clarification purposes, if you will, and that is it. I turn this over to the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Thank you. If you could identify yourself and tell us about the project. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, project attorney. On my right is Steve Powers, Vice President from Nigro Companies. On my left is Steve Boivair, project engineer from Bergmann. We’re really pleased to be here in this crazy economy with three tenants to re-tenant this vacant space, and we require Site Plan Review because it does need a building permit. We’re not changing anything on the footprint of the building, obviously. There are some handicap spaces that are deficient that we’re proposing to add, and to clean up the site we re-located the dumpster farther away, sort of in an awkward position in the middle of the parking lot, but in general we’re here to just fix up the building. We’ve submitted elevation drawings and tenants are ready to go. So we’re hoping that the Board sees this as a minor project, but that said, when we got Staff Notes and got into it, what had happened was that Bruce Frank, Enforcement Officer, looked at the original resolution and thought that there were deficiencies, and what had happened was that we went in, when we did Tractor Supply, after they got started, we went in for some modifications, because they needed an outdoor unloading, dock area and some outdoor storage. So we did come back to the Planning Board, and everything else that was on his deficiency letter were all covered by a subsequent Planning Board resolution to modify the original approval. The only thing that remains deficient is that at that time we got a parking variance for, I believe the number is 569 spaces for the entire site, and we agreed, in order to accommodate those spaces, to re-stripe, and part of it is that that area where Tractor Supply has their outside display area was previously parking spaces. So we were adding a display area, which required parking spaces in Queensbury, because it counts as retail space, and at the same time we were losing spaces because that area was taking up what was previously the parking lot, but it turns out that Tractor Supply, although it’s a lot of square footage, it really isn’t that huge a demand, in terms of parking, and there’s plenty of spaces any day on what would be the west side of the site, so in that case where we did a variance to have fewer spaces than what the Ordinance required, it turned out to be fine because we certainly have plenty of spaces and we’ll certainly have plenty of spaces. It’s a shared, between all the different uses, the medical use, the retail use, the restaurant uses that are there, the bank, you know, shared parking concept that they all have different peaks, and there’s really plenty of spaces around the Hollywood Video building and behind it, something like 80 spaces altogether, which should be way m ore than we really need for this, and mostly because the medical clinic isn’t that big a parking demand. So what needs to be done, in this whole discussion with Planning Staff, is that the parking lot never got re-striped, and it needs to be re-striped. So when we submitted this, and part of this was new engineering firm trying to get copies from the Town of what had been submitted last time. What we submitted to you is a rendering of what’s existing on the site, the parking spaces, but not what needs to be re-striped, and the difference is only a few spaces, but that is something that we have to accomplish, and what we’d like to do on that issue, it’s not that there’s problems, there’s not enough spaces. There will be. We’d like to have until the end of May, just because it’s going to have, the spaces that are there are going to have to be blacked over and the new spaces reconfigured and re-painted and it’s just too late in the season to accomplish that, but we would argue that we’re not creating any problem there because there’s not a parking issue at that plaza at all, but that is something that should have gotten done and it didn’t get done. The Staff Notes then went on to talk about our calculation for the number, and in looking at that, the simplest way, if you look at the Staff Notes on the second page, it talked about, or Keith calculated what’s necessary, and I think it comes to 38 spaces. The restaurant 23 spaces, the hair salon six spaces, and Game Stop eight spaces. Twenty-three and eight, thirty-one and six, thirty-seven spaces, and if you looked at the existing vacant Hollywood Video building, which is thirty, I’m sorry, 6500 square feet, at five per thousand, is 33 spaces, and so the difference between what we require and what we have is four spaces. So then I’m looking at the Section of the Code, which is Article Four, 179-4-040, Parking and Loading, B(9), which essentially says that if fewer than 10 spaces are required by a change or a series of changes in use, the requirement for such 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) space shall be waived. So the difference of four spaces doesn’t require new spaces to be added, and because, their example, parking around the building, we feel that’s a non- issue, that we don’t need to add four spaces to accommodate this, and that’s just one of the flexible provisions in the Queensbury Code that when you change an existing use to different use, that if it’s not 10 spaces, you’re okay, but most importantly we want you to see that there’s plenty of spaces around there, and I’m going to ask Steve to get up and just show you the Site Plan and show you what we’re proposing. MR. BOIVAIR-As Jon was mentioning, the revised Site Plan shows the previously approved spaces that need to be re-striped. We’ve done that on the revised plan. We’ve got some revised plans for you here tonight. We’re talking about the former Hollywood Video store. Typically we’re going to renovate the inside for the three new tenants, re-locating the dumpster from this location to a new location, and provide an enclosure. There’s a grease trap associated with the new restaurant as required, and we’ve provided the calculations on the drawings. We also have addressed the engineering comments relating to the stormwater management and maintenance. So we’ve added some notes on the Site Plan to address those issues, and as Jon mentioned, the net increase for the use for parking is only four spaces. We are re- striping the spaces in front of the existing building to accommodate for the required handicap spaces, and we also will be providing the handicap ramps associated with those spaces around the renovated building. If you’ve got questions. MR. LAPPER-Any questions so far? MR. SEGULJIC-Anything from the Board? MR. TRAVER-With regard to the situation back in 2004, in our packet is a letter from October, talking about going back, and you mentioned, Jon, going back to the Planning Board and getting, and in our Staff Notes it states that the deficiencies from October 2004 have all been addressed with the exception of the parking issue. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Right, yes. MR. TRAVER-So the issue of the. MR. LAPPER-The outdoor loading. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the loading that the trailer sales, and so on, all of that’s been taken care of? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So the only issue, now, is the, essentially the re-striping and the four spaces that you just explained. MR. LAPPER-Right, the re-striping from then, and the four spaces from now, and we certainly recognize that the re-striping has to be done, and in terms of, what I’d like to propose as a condition, that we will, what Steve just showed you, that we’ll re-submit this with the correct spaces, and that will be the final Site Plan that shows what the parking that needs to be re-striped, as the final Site Plan for this project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When do you plan on finishing the renovation and opening for business? MR. LAPPER-They’d like to be in, in 60 days. So this is a, you know, get in tomorrow with the building permit application and get going. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you’d be operating without the, because it’s winter you’ll be operating without the markings on the pavement. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that’s really, the majority of those changes are really over by Tractor Supply anyway, and so there’s ample spaces by this building. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, Jon. Did I understand that you’re going to re-pave this whole area? MR. LAPPER-No, not re-pave, but just re-stripe. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. TRAVER-Okay, and probably do some repair and so on along this same time. Just kind of renovate the whole parking area? MR. POWERS-Again, Steve Powers with Nigro Companies. Obviously if there’s any repairs that have to be done, we’d have to take care of that before we re-stripe, but either we would make those repairs and re-stripe, or make the repairs and then sealcoat or something like that before we did the striping on there. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and in terms of traffic, or the new use of the building, the restaurant, can you talk just generally about the type of menu? What kind of flavor is this restaurant, if you will, this Five Guys. MR. POWERS-Five Guys, we have them I think in around four locations right now. It’s a Washington, D.C. based company. They have no freezer. There’s no microwave. It’s basically hamburgers, hotdogs and French fries. MR. SEGULJIC-Lots of French fries. MR. POWERS-Lot of French fries, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, a lot of potatoes. MR. POWERS-So it’s a very youth friendly type thing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So no alcohol, that type of thing? MR. POWERS-No, nothing like that. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and Game Stop, is that like a rental, game rental type, and sales? MR. POWERS-It’s for videogames and Play Station type games the kids use today that they go in, they buy the game and they can bring it back and trade it in for another game. They’re actually, it’s a company that has about 8,000 stores across the country. MR. TRAVER-Wow. Okay. MR. POWERS-And then the other is Super Cuts, which is a hair salon, men and women. MR. TRAVER-And there was some discussion, too, about the parking requirements based on the Super Cuts being personal service? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that’s correct. I mean, we didn’t use that, and that is correct, but when I gave you the number of, what was that, 37? MR. TRAVER-From the Hollywood, right? MR. LAPPER-No, the 37 is with the new requirements. The four extra spaces, when you take into account, so that gets you up so it’s only the four space difference, but that, yes, that’s correct. Because Keith figured it out based on the one per three hundred for the personal service, and that got us up to that number. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So there’s 33 there now, which you would like to retain, as opposed to the 37 that is required? MR. LAPPER-Well, when you say that, because it’s a shopping plaza, and it has all these different uses, there’s this vast field behind this building. MR. TRAVER-There’s no shortage of parking. MR. LAPPER-There’s no shortage of parking. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But just in terms of the requirements. MR. TRAVER-But in terms of the application. You’ve got 33 you’d like to keep, but the Code says you need 37. So you’re looking for an out for four. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. LAPPER-Right, and because it’s less than 10, we don’t actually have to ask for a waiver because the Code provides that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-But that just clarifies it. It took us a little time to figure that all out, too, but it was helpful to have the Staff Notes, and then, in the last moment in the negotiations with Five Guys, they would like to add a door on the side where the parking lot is, which is on the north side, farthest from the road, and the sidewalk is already there. So all it would be would be pouring a sidewalk between the door, I’m sorry, between the existing sidewalk and the building where the door will be, which is a last minute, but minor change that we just found out about. So we’d like to be able to submit the drawing that shows. MR. TRAVER-And your submitted plans will reflect that change? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and there was talk about a 1500 gallon grease trap. MR. LAPPER-We’ve made all the changes that the engineer, well, I’ll let Steve talk about that. MR. TRAVER-No, I understand that. I guess I’m just wondering, well, yes, that’s a lot of French fries. Although that’s bio fuel these days, but anyway, but seriously, isn’t that going to require a tremendous amount of, massive renovation to the building to accommodate that? MR. BOIVAIR-It’s actually going to be situated outside. MR. TRAVER-Outside? Okay. MR. BOIVAIR-Yes, in the pavement area right back in here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see. MR. SIPP-And that will be maintained monthly? MR. BOIVAIR-Correct. MR. SIPP-About the landscaping, you’ve got one tree, I think, proposed on the front, additional. MR. LAPPER-That’s actually what’s existing. JAIME MARSALA MR. MARSALA-We’re not proposing any new landscaping. The only thing we’re showing is actually the approved landscaping plan that was implemented back as part of the Tractor Supply application. We just wanted to show landscaping that was, actually it’s existing. MR. SIPP-Is it in existence? I don’t think there’s much landscaping on that building. I mean, on the plan. MR. LAPPER-Is this an actual photo? MR. MARSALA-Yes. This actually shows the pylon sign, but this is the photo of what we superimposed, what the pylon would look like, but those landscaping, this is an actual photo. MR. SIPP-Yes, one tree. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there’s a few trees in this area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s trees in the parking area. MR. MARSALA-There’s shrubs out front. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, overall I have no problem with this project. The only thing is, I like trees. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-As a matter of fact, the Code says, as I understand it, because you’re in the Lower Route 9 Streetscape, and it says you should have a tree every 35 feet on center along the road. MR. LAPPER-Tell us what you’d like. MR. SEGULJIC-As much as I like trees, I don’t know much about them. I guess the one tree that’s there, I think out front you have a pear tree, right? That’s a PC? MR. SIPP-Yes, that’s what it’s designated as, and I don’t think that’s a pear tree out in front. MR. LAPPER-You know what it is, this is a pear tree, I’m looking at the leaves. It’s just that, which is on the north side, and those look like pear tree leave to me. MR. SEGULJIC-But you know what I’m talking about, along the road. That’s what the Code says, every 35 feet on center. Staff, if you could verify that. MR. OBORNE-Yes, but where are you going to put it, though? That’s the question. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we already have the one there. Can’t we put it in line with that? You have these. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You could put them inside the stanchions for the parking lot. MR. LAPPER-I think that there’s two trees, based upon the photograph, one on the north side and one on the south side. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess what I’m saying is you could put one right here. You already have. MR. LAPPER-There are two, even though the plan shows one. MR. SIPP-You’re saying that that’s a pear tree on the north side. MR. LAPPER-That’s the pear tree, and that, whatever that is is existing. MR. SIPP-How about down in here? MR. SEGULJIC-What I’m saying is you’re showing a tree here. Put one there. You can put one there. You can put one there, and you can put one there. MR. MARSALA-What we’re saying is there’s already one here and then that pear tree is this tree here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, (lost words) your plans show. You just show this tree. MR. MARSALA-What we showed was, again, what was approved as far as the 2004. We didn’t do an as built on the landscaping. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That leads to confusion. MR. LAPPER-Tom, Steve’s willing to add two more trees on either side of the sign. So there’d be four trees across the front, if that would make you happy. MR. SIPP-Yes, that would be a lot better. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’d have four trees along the front? MR. LAPPER-There are two now, we’ll add two in the middle. MR. SEGULJIC-Beautiful. Trees are good. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. LAPPER-Now what kind of trees? MR. SEGULJIC-How about, well, you’re saying it’s a pear tree there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What do you want, an apple tree now? MR. BOIVAIR-Jaime’s got to maintain it, so he’s saying a weeping cherry. MR. MARSALA-Right next to the plaza, you put two weeping cherries. They don’t grow up real tall. MR. SIPP-Right. MR. MARSALA-It’s a very decorative tree. MR. OBORNE-But are they salt tolerant, though? That’s the question. I don’t think they’re part of that list. You might want to look into that. I know red maples are salt tolerant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The salt that comes off the road. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we say ornamental trees, is that what it is? MR. LAPPER-Yes, pear trees are ornamental. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t we just say two ornamental trees. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just make sure they are salt tolerant. MR. SIPP-Now, the sign, let’s get into the sign business. You’re saying one sign out front. MR. LAPPER-There’s one sign out front and three signs on the building, and we have a new, this is the front façade of the building, all four sides, but it shows the front façade with the sign panels. So each tenant we’re proposing a conforming size and location sign, and the pylon sign is existing in front. MR. SIPP-How tall? MR. LAPPER-It looks like 25 feet to me. MR. SIPP-No. We’ve got enough, it’s too high. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We’re listening. What would you like to see? MR. SIPP-Eight foot. How about a monument sign 12 feet high? MR. LAPPER-I talked to Steve about replacing this with a monument sign, and if that’s what you’d like, we would be happy to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-He’s the sign man. I’m the tree guy. MR. SIPP-Now, I didn’t, what’s the size of the on the building sign? MR. LAPPER-We’re allowed 100 square feet each, and we don’t have the sign panels for the façade signs because we haven’t gotten to that level of detail with the tenants. So if you would like to see that, what we can offer is that if we can get this whole thing done, we’d be happy to come back next month with the signs, as long as we can get started constructing and we can bring you the actual signs in December on the façade. MR. SIPP-Do you have to go to the Zoning Board? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. OBORNE-That’s if they’re compliant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’ll have to use their logo and fit it inside the, whatever you’re allowed. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. LAPPER-So we’d drop the pylon sign to a monument sign along Glen Street, and we can come back and show you that, and come back with the three façade signs with the actual messages. MR. SIPP-Would that have the three? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Unless there’s a name for this plaza? Is there? MR. LAPPER-No, not here. There’s a name up on the north end by the traffic light. MR. BOIVAIR-Yes, it’s very important, particularly to the restaurant because they’re on the inside. We were able to convince them to take the inside so that they would be closer to the parking. So in return for that they would have their ability to put their sign on the monument sign or the pylon sign out front. MR. LAPPER-This is a pre-existing sign, and we would just drop it down and do some landscaping around it. That’s a condition. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want them to come back with the sign? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else? MR. SIPP-We don’t want any flashing lights. MR. LAPPER-No flashing lights, no prices. MR. SEGULJIC-So what I have is, engineering comments. There are a couple of minor engineering comments I think. MR. LAPPER-And we agree. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we’ll just say sign off for that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You’re going to, a question for Staff. They’re proposing a door on the north side. Is that going to change anything from a Site Plan perspective? MR. OBORNE-Well, it will change the Site Plan, absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So it’s going to change the Site Plan. So we want to see that. Do we want to see that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you only had a common door for all three stores, didn’t you? I’m surprised the fire code. MR. LAPPER-No, there’s one common door and one separate door. MR. BOIVAIR-There’ll be a door for each tenant. There is a second door on the side. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you’re going to put one in the back. MR. OBORNE-Well, there is one in the back for Five Guys. MR. LAPPER-That’s not the back. We’re talking about facing the plaza, the west side. MR. OBORNE-Okay, and that would be coming off the side of the building, then? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. What’s the purpose of that? MR. BOIVAIR-Just another entrance. MR. LAPPER-Because that faces the majority of the parking lot. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that where people are coming from? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Is there any way you can do anything about the location of the dumpster? MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve moved the dumpster all the way away, and I know you pointed out that it’s about a 200 foot walk, but that dumpster also services the other buildings in the plaza, the other uses. MR. OBORNE-You’re talking about the restaurant industry, and, I don’t know, I’ve worked in that industry for many years, and I know the amount of waste that they produce. MR. LAPPER-I guess, your point is really correct, but we viewed it as maybe it’s an inconvenience for the restaurant, but it’s better for the site to move it away from the parking area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The insurance company will love it back there, because it’s a fire hazard, especially coming out of that restaurant. MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand what you’re saying. MR. OBORNE-It’s what the will of the Board is. MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand what you’re saying, too, but being a restaurant, that’s probably going to be a smelly dumpster, because there won’t be any grease. MR. LAPPER-Where it’s proposed, even though it’s a little bit remote, it’s not near anybody. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any problem with that. All right. Then the re-striping of the parking lot, so with regard to the re-striping, what are we going to say? You’re going to re-stripe it in accordance with the? MR. LAPPER-With the existing approved plan, and we’ll resubmit the plan to show you that, which we’ve done, but we’ll just re-submit it formally. MR. TRAVER-And that’s going to be done in May? st MR. LAPPER-We’re saying May 31 would give us plenty of time, after the weather changes. st MR. OBORNE-Are you stating that that will be re-striped by May 31? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We’re committing to that. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll say in accordance with the existing approved plan. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You have to address the VISION Engineering comments. MR. LAPPER-And we’ve made those changes. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re pretty minor. Now, the trees, you propose putting two more out front. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Where do we want to put those? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. LAPPER-On either side of the sign. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess I just, you know how it is, Bruce Frank’s got to go out and look at it, and then make sure we meet, I guess, could you come up here and just draw them on here where you’re going to put them, and then we can describe it. Because we don’t want Bruce Frank going out there, and then they’re not there and they get a violation letter. MR. MARSALA-(lost words) right in front of the sign itself. Right here’s the building. Right here’s the sign. If you put them right on the side of it, now we’re dropping this large sign down to a monument sign and the monument sign is only going to be eight feet high, maximum. So if we put any tree right on the side of it, it’s going to kind of block it a little bit. So with the sign being dropped down, we just thought to put it back to the building. Right where you have them now. These are existing trees now, I believe, that are here. If we set these back closer to here, towards the front, the smaller tree. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you put a tree over here? MR. MARSALA-Over here, right here? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. MARSALA-Yes. I’ll gladly put it here. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we put a tree down here? MR. MARSALA-Absolutely, and we’ll put in the two trees right here. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you said there’s already one tree. MR. MARSALA-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to put one here. MR. SIPP-Is the Bank part of your property? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So that’s three trees. MR. MARSALA-Absolutely, yes. That’s no problem at all. MR. SIPP-Now, right in here, can we have some low growing? MR. MARSALA-All this is a various species of shrubbery and bushes which are growing south, and actually are doing very well. If you go there and look, all these plants are doing great. They’ve actually wrapped around here, and then there’s even more on this back right here. MR. SIPP-This is all glass. I’m assuming it will stay the same. MR. MARSALA-Yes, well, this right here is solid full of bushes at this point. So we’re looking at putting the three trees right here? MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, sir, could I get your name for the record? MR. MARSALA-My name is Jaime Marsala. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So this is a Type II. Correct? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Since we’ve been talking about the trees, it’s better to have that as part of the record to show you what’s there now. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll open it up to public comment. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-No public comment. With that I’ll close the public comment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Is anyone ready a motion for a motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We’re ready. MR. SIPP-Go ahead. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So for conditions I have submission of sign information for the December meeting, for the store and monument sign. MR. LAPPER-Excuse me, Tom, but it’ll be approved tonight, but that’ll be a separate condition? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. LAPPER-When do you need that submitted? th MR. OBORNE-Well, December 15, for a January meeting. We’re locked and stocked. MR. SEGULJIC-I can’t imagine this taking very long. MR. OBORNE-This is for Planning Board. MR. LAPPER-That that would be okay. We can be in in January. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. For a January meeting. th MR. LAPPER-So we’ll submit December 15 the sign panels. It’ll be the façade. MR. OBORNE-That’ll get you in on the first January meeting. MR. LAPPER-That would be great. th MR. OBORNE-The 20 of January. MR. SEGULJIC-The only problem I have is describing where these trees are going to go. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would put as a breed. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but Bruce Frank’s got to go out there, and he’s going to say. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, not until they submit the plan back to us. MR. LAPPER-We’ll resubmit this week. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then we’ll look at that. MR. LAPPER-And that’ll be the one. MR. TRAVER-It will be that plus the sign. MR. LAPPER-To show that just was agreed tonight. MR. TRAVER-And the door, the extra door. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that okay? MR. LAPPER-Well, as a condition, we’re going to resubmit to show, just for the final plan will be changed to show the parking as it’s going to be re-striped, and we’ll show the trees that we agreed with the Board to add, and that the existing pylon sign will be dropped down so it will become a monument sign with shrubbery. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. TRAVER-And the added a door. MR. LAPPER-And the added door. MR. POWERS-Just one thing about the trees. Obviously it’s probably not a good idea to plant trees now. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. POWERS-So that just wouldn’t hold up the CO or anything? MR. TRAVER-No. That’s just part of the Site Plan process. st MR. LAPPER-Do you want to say May 31 for that as well, that the trees will be in? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, no, we never really say when your trees will be in, do we? st MR. SCHONEWOLF-May 31. MR. LAPPER-We can commit to that. MR. SEGULJIC-Isn’t the vegetation, like the planting part of the occupancy permit? So, I mean, we don’t have to put a date as to when the trees will be planted. MR. OBORNE-Well, you’re going to want to put some sort of date to tighten it up, I would th imagine, June 15? st MR. LAPPER-We can offer May 31, just so it’s in the resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We’ll get a temporary CO because it won’t be, it would be finalized after st the trees go in. I mean, as a condition it wouldn’t be required until May 31 anyway. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2008 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes conversion of existing 6,546 square foot video store into a restaurant, hair salon and game store with associated site work. Reconfiguration of a commercial building that requires a Building Permit is subject to Planning Board Site Plan review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 11/25/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2008 NIGRO COMPANIES Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five does not apply [deleted]. In accordance with the following conditions: a. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Planning Office before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. b. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) c. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and d. If applicable, Item 3 to be combined with a letter of credit; and e. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f.That VISION Engineering comments be addressed. g.Submission of store signs and monument signs and trees added as th agreed, and that information will be submitted by December 15 for our th January 20 meeting. h.That the parking lot will be re-striped in accordance with existing plans by June 1, 2009. i.That the plans for the additional door on the west side of the building will also be submitted. Duly adopted this 18th day of November 2008, by the following vote: MR. LAPPER-If you’d just clarify one thing, because we’re going to get you plans this week that show everything but the signs, so that we can have this done and we can submit for a building permit and the sign will be treated as a later condition, like you’ve done with some other applications, if that’s okay. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s okay. Is that okay? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Do I have to change anything? MR. LAPPER-No, as long as it’s in the record. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. LAPPER-Thanks. We really appreciate being able to get this thing going and get the tenants in. MR. SIPP-When do you plan on opening? st MR. LAPPER-By February 1, and everybody says the burger place is great. MR. SEGULJIC-One clarification. You had submitted the note for the Mall, to table that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have any date in mind? MR. LAPPER-No, because they said that we’ll get it, you know, just with everything going on, they’re just being careful. They said the plan will be in by the end of the year. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess as far as the meeting goes, do we do anything? MR. LAPPER-I would just table it indefinitely, but we’re expecting to have it submitted in December. MR. OBORNE-So eventually if it doesn’t get submitted, we’ll probably have to. MR. LAPPER-It’ll be pretty quick. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/18/08) MR. TRAVER-We’re probably still going to want to have a Special Meeting, just in view of the. nd MR. OBORNE-The December 2 meeting will be cancelled. MR. LAPPER-We’re not going to get it in until later in December. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So it would be a January meeting, most likely. MR. SEGULJIC-So should we table anything now? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think there’s anything that needs to be tabled at this point. I think th all you need to do is follow proper protocol. Submit by the 15 of December for a th January meeting, or January 15 for a February meeting. You may want to table that. You may want to make a motion to table that and say that. I think that would be clean. In fact, if you could, Mr. Chairman. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, what was that again? MR. OBORNE-To make a motion to table. MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the Site Plan? MR. SCHONEWOLF-We’re supposed to table it to a specific date so we can tie it to when the stuff has to be in. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a number. MR. OBORNE-You don’t have a number. I don’t have it. MR. LAPPER-It’s the Pyramid Mall Site Plan application. MR. OBORNE-We could clean it up next week. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t we do that, and we can have the Site Plan number. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Let’s clean it up next week, and we’ll just use that letter for next week. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Thank you very much. MR. LAPPER-All right. Thanks. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Thomas Seguljic, Acting Chairman 50