Loading...
2005-07-19 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2005 INDEX Site Plan No. 45-2005 Andrea Peek 1. Tax Map No. 227.9-1-11 Site Plan No. 38-2005 Della Auto Group 8. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-5 Freshwater Wetlands No. 3-2005 Della Auto Group 8. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-5 Site Plan No. 19-2002 Angio Dynamics 23. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10 Site Plan No. 41-2005 Douglas Provost, MD; Michael Guido, MD 26. Tax Map No. 309.7-1-55, 56, 57, 62, 63 Site Plan No. 42-2005 Reliable Racing Supply 40. Tax Map No. 302.11-1-2 Site Plan No.43-2005 Gary & Lorraine Mikutel 45. Tax Map No. 296.19-1-1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC GEORGE GOETZ THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT GRETCHEN STEFFAN LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MICHAEL HILL STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-First on the agenda is approval of minutes from April 19, April 26, May 10, May 17, and May 26. Is there a motion for approval? MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 19, APRIL 26, MAY 10, MAY 17, MAY 26, 2005, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ford NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-First on the agenda under New Business – Expedited Review, is Andrea Peek. NEW BUSINESS – EXPEDITED REVIEW: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) SITE PLAN NO. 45-2005 SEQR TYPE II ANDREA PEEK OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 108 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 500 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. SUNDECKS/BOATHOUSES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. A SUNDECK, MEETING ALL HEIGHT AND AREA REQUIREMENTS, REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CAN BE REVIEWED AS AN EXPEDITED MATTER. CROSS REF. NONE FOUND WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/13/05 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-11 SECTION 179-4 BRAD PEEK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PEEK-Hi. I’m Brad Peek. We’re proposing to put a sundeck over our dock to replace an existing roof that fell in April of this year, with basically the same dimensions as the roof, other than no pitch. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any problems with it other than the septic system. Has that been tested recently? MR. PEEK-We just bought the house and closed on it in February, and it was tested, I believe, a year before that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would personally like to see, you know, with the granting of the building permit, you submit proof that the septic system is functioning properly. MR. PEEK-To put a dock up, a deck? I’m not adding any square footage to the house, any bedrooms, any bathrooms, anything. I’m replacing a. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it gives us a chance to look at septic systems. One of the biggest problems with Lake George is septic system failure. It gives us a chance to review septic systems. MR. PEEK-But what does my dock have to do with my septic system? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m requesting that. MR. PEEK-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that. MR. PEEK-Is this a variance, or is this a permit? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not sure. I believe it’s a permit. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s a permit, and the reason why we review all of the docks and sundecks on Lake George is because it’s a Critical Environmental Area. Otherwise, we wouldn’t review the permit. MR. PEEK-But if I’m replacing something that’s already been there. If I went in and replaced my roof with another roof, exactly the same, would I even need a permit? MR. HUNSINGER-I do not believe you would. You would need a building permit to replace the roof. MR. PEEK-Correct. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-But you wouldn’t have to come before this Board. MR. PEEK-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-You had indicated that you had it tested when you purchased it. MR. PEEK-No, I didn’t. I said it was tested about a year before. That’s what the seller explained to me, that he had it pumped and tested, and it was all right. MR. SEGULJIC-How does the rest of the Board feel about that? MR. VOLLARO-Well, Tom, I don’t think that, in this particular case, I understand where you’re coming from up there on the lake, and I agree with you, but I don’t know whether I would be willing to have this man go back and have his septic system re- tested and come back to this Board for just building the dock. I’m in agreement that there are problems up on the lake, and there are septic problems up there. We all know it. We’ve all talked about it, but on this particular application to replace a roof that failed, I don’t believe that I would ask him to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-But doesn’t, once you come in for approval, it open it up to other issues? MR. VOLLARO-I think it does. MR. SEGULJIC-That could be one of the biggest impacts you could have, it is the biggest impact you could have. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if that was the case, and, Tom, I tend to agree with you, I look at this as an expedited review, item, however, and I would have expected that Staff might have picked this up themselves rather than putting this on an expedited review, and the fact that they’ve given it an expedited review characterization, I don’t think I’d be looking at the septic at this point. The SEQRA is Type II. We don’t get a chance to talk to anything in terms of environmental impacts on SEQRA, since it’s a Type II action. So I don’t know whether we’d be overstepping ourselves on this one. MR. PEEK-Can I just say something? I’m going to apply, later on this year or early next year, to tear part of the house down, and at that point, I’m assuming that you’re going to make me do something about the septic. So, at that point, I would do that anyhow. Right now I’m in the process of having an architect draw me up plans. So at some point, I’ll be before you again for something with the house, but this is just something, after I’ve purchased the house and we were there about a month, we had high winds, and there was a roof on it already and it failed, it caved in. It blew over. So all I’m looking to do is basically put it back up so my boat doesn’t get ruined. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just concerned about the lake. MR. PEEK-So’s everybody, including me, but I don’t think I should have to go through a septic review for a deck off my, you know, it has nothing to do with any living space. MR. VOLLARO-If you’re going to modify or do something to the building, then it automatically triggers a look at the septic. That automatically triggers it. MR. PEEK-Everywhere in Queensbury? MR. VOLLARO-If it’s a re-build, in a Critical Environmental Area, in a CEA, and up on the lake? MR. HUNSINGER-In a Critical Environmental Area it would. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but this particular instance, I don’t feel, personally, as one member, because the Board was polled, and I haven’t heard from anybody else on the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-No, we didn’t get passed you yet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You know my position. MR. HUNSINGER-How do you feel about that, Tom? MR. FORD-I share everyone’s concern about the quality of the lake and what goes in it. However, I do recall from our site visit what the issues are there, and I fully expect that we will have an opportunity to thoroughly investigate the septic issue, in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. GOETZ-I can’t see how we can tie the two together. I think it’s good thinking, as far as being concerned about the septic, but I don’t think it applies to this, and I think you’re probably a man of your word, and you’ll be back in front of us later on anyway. MR. PEEK-I take my drinking water out of the lake. So I’m just as concerned as you are. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a comment on this, Richard? MR. SANFORD-No. We haven’t done it in the past on something like this. In fact, on major projects, the last time I recall where we looked well beyond the project scope was Home Depot, and there we checked out the whole Plaza, but I think that this would be a little bit inappropriate in as much as, for all the sundecks and docks that we get, this would be the first time we’d be looking at septic and I appreciate where Tom’s coming from. Technically we have the right to look at the whole project, or the whole piece of land, but from a practical point of view, we haven’t been doing it. I don’t think we necessary have to start now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-If I could ask Staff a question. There was something on the lake that came before us, I believe it was for a deck, either the last meeting or the meeting before, and there was a County stipulation that said they had to do a septic inspection, and we tied it to the building permit. I believe that was also for a sundeck. MRS. BARDEN-If I recall, that was for, where we asked for. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s coming back to me now. It was an existing structure where there weren’t changing a number of rooms in the house, they were modifying it, though. MRS. BARDEN-Right. Re-development, same amount of living space, but it was living space. MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s just like this. There was no change in the number of bathrooms, or, there’s still construction going on on the property. It gives us a chance to look at the septic systems, which are the biggest issue on the lake. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I guess, I appreciate where you’re coming from, Tom. I mean, unless we adopt it, maybe through a workshop, as something that we think is important to do, moving forward. I think it would likely be inappropriate to start now with that kind of a linkage, because the linkage isn’t there. There’s no way, no matter what he does with this dock, that’s going to have any kind of a change, if you will, in terms of usage to the septic system. I mean, I just don’t see the relationship. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Does Staff agree with that comment? I don’t believe you have to have a direct. MR. SANFORD-No, you don’t have to, necessarily, but, you know, again, we haven’t been doing it, Tom. MRS. BARDEN-Right. I think you haven’t been doing it for docks, sundecks, boathouses. Primarily when you’re looking at living space, a change in living space, is when it triggers a look at the septic, and if the applicant is saying that at some point in the near future he’ll be remodeling, that’s maybe when the more appropriate time would be to ask him to upgrade a septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, your concerns are on the record, and think we all share them. If we could move on. Are there any other questions, comments, concerns about this project? MR. FORD-I would like to get the actual dimensions of the deck. MR. PEEK-The deck is going to be 38 by, I don’t have it in front of me. It would be 38 by 12. MR. FORD-You’ve got a couple of different dimensions submitted to us. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You’ve got 14 by 36, and 12 by 30, or 504 square feet against 360. MR. PEEK-12 by 30? I didn’t. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got two drawings here, two renditions, I suspect that you might have done them. I don’t know who did them. Do you recognize those? MR. PEEK-Yes. The one on the left is the one, the 36 by, with the overhang, the dock is 40 foot. So with the two foot overhang across the front, the little roofline, that would bring it to 40 foot, and the posts are nine foot on center. MR. VOLLARO-The deck area itself is 504 square feet. MR. PEEK-Right. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I do have some questions. The rendition shows a 12 foot 10 inches from mean high water. The site development sheet says 14 feet from mean high water. So we’ve got to know which of those two are correct, 14 feet is our Code. That I know, but I’m looking at your site development data sheet. MR. PEEK-I believe those numbers were the numbers that my wife and the person from your office worked out, based on the day that she submitted it, she had to go on line and get the mean high water mark or something. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you’ve got to do that with Roger’s Rock up at Lake George. MR. PEEK-Yes, exactly, that’s what she did, and they took it from that. On the drawing itself, well, first of all, let me say that the dock depicts a land bridge. MR. PEEK-Handicap ramp. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s really got to go. You’ve got to come down from the shoreline to the dock, and then bring an internal stairway up. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. PEEK-We applied for a handicapped ramp there. My dad’s handicapped. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know how that fits into this land bridge thing. We don’t allow land bridges. MR. PEEK-But you allow handicap ramps. Correct? MR. VOLLARO-A handicap ramp. MR. PEEK-It’s going to be a handicap ramp up to that sundeck. My dad’s handicapped. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PEEK-I wrote it in on the sheet. MR. VOLLARO-I see it now. I couldn’t recognize the writing, but now that you say it, it says handicap ramp with deck. MR. HUNSINGER-I had the same question. The drawing, the pitch of that ramp, that does not meet handicap requirements. MR. PEEK-Well, I’m going to pitch it so, I don’t have, I don’t know where it’s going to fall on the land. So if I have to build the land up to make the ramp work for handicap, that’s what I’m going to do. If I have to bring it up, because all I’m working off of right now is the natural contour of the, so I don’t know where it’s going to wind up. I don’t know how long you were going to let me do it. So wherever it winds up to meet the specs, that’s where I’m going to build it up to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PEEK-Because the land goes up like this. If you look at the contours on my map, it goes up, I don’t have it in front of me. So I don’t know, but it goes up quite a ways quickly. MR. VOLLARO-From 324 to about 330. So it’s fairly steep. You’ll have to build it up somewhat in order to get that ramp in there. I don’t know what the specs are on elevations for handicap ramps. I have no idea. MR. PEEK-Neither do I. Pro-Built or somebody like that’s going to build it. So whatever meets Code. I haven’t got anybody to build it yet because they’re backed up, you know, four, five months. I haven’t even got anybody to look at it, really, other than Built to give me those drawings. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, I guess I’ll continue on. Looking at the chart itself, your map, it shows that the closest point that that dock currently comes with your property line is 10 feet. Now I suspect it’s probably pre-existing. You bought the property that way. MR. PEEK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-However, when you look at your side yard calculations, it says 21.2 on the Site Development Data Sheet. You’re 85.5 is okay. You’ve got plenty of room on the south side, on the southern property line. MR. PEEK-I have 14.4 to the middle of the dock. Correct? MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t, the map doesn’t say. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. PEEK-I submitted another piece of paper that showed the dock line with the property at, the center of the dock at 14.4 from the property line, the north side. MR. VOLLARO-Is that part of the renditions that you did? MR. PEEK-Yes, I believe so. Yes, I submitted it. MR. FORD-There’s a 14.2 to the edge of the dock. MR. PEEK-To the edge of the dock? I didn’t have that survey when I did the application. That survey was just completed a week and a half ago. MR. VOLLARO-Whoever did the survey, I took your property line and extended it out into the lake, and measured from the corner of the dock to that extended line, and that measures exactly 10 feet. The spec is 20, but I know that this may be a pre-existing situation, and that may be okay, if it’s pre-existing. If that dock was there, prior to the rules that were set, then it would be pre-existing, but right now, it doesn’t make the 20 foot mark from the property line. It’s 10 feet, even though your Site Development Data Sheet says 21.2. So I don’t know where we are on that. MR. SANFORD-Well, is it or is it not grandfathered in because it’s pre-existing? I mean, we shouldn’t be discussing it. We should just have an answer on that one. MRS. BARDEN-It is pre-existing. The Zoning Administrator looked at this application with the applicant, and decided that no variances were necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he’s not changing the dock. He’s only changing the roof. MR. SANFORD-I’m just trying to understand where Bob’s going with this. MR. PEEK-The dock’s been there since the 70’s. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I understand that. If it’s grandfathered in because it’s nonconforming, in terms of distance from the property line. MR. VOLLARO-You’re right. You’re absolutely right, but it should say 10 feet on this document. It says 21.2. I’ve got a little problem with the fact that the two, this is not being reflected into this. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. VOLLARO-And I’d like to have that changed. These are the kind of things I think Staff ought to be picking up, actually, as opposed to having them debated, and the time it takes on this Board to discuss those kind of things. That 21.2 should have been picked up in the Staff review. Now, there’s a letter here from the Lake George Park Commission that talks about the need of a permit. Do you have, that’s in their July 6 th letter. Have you applied to them or have they given you anything? MR. PEEK-Well, we just applied, because we got the letter on, I think, the 12. So we th didn’t know we needed that until they sent it to us. So we applied as soon as they sent it. MR. VOLLARO-So that would be a condition. I guess the only other thing that’s outstanding, in my mind anyway, I don’t know what the rest of the Board is thinking, is whether or not this land bridge, the fact that it’s got to be a handicap land bridge, can we approve it on a handicap basis? I don’t know the answer to that. That’s quite a slope there. He’s going to have to build that up. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? What’s the Board’s feeling on the handicap land bridge? MR. SANFORD-My feeling is condition it that you have to get a handicap approval, right? I mean, you just can’t build a land bridge and say it’s for handicap use. You have to go through a permitting process for handicap, I assume? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think there’s a permitting process, per se, but there are certainly specs that would have to be met, in terms of the pitch and how it’s built. MR. SANFORD-Well we, as a general rule, have not allowed them, but we’ve never been confronted, since I’ve been on the Board, with someone saying, hey, we’re doing it for handicap access. So my feeling is that, if we condition it, that it will meet all the requirements of a handicap access, then I’m more comfortable with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And also, Dick, this really came about as a result of Warren County Planning, really. A lot of this was Warren County Planning kind of set this in position some years ago, when they said no land bridges. That kind of came out of the County Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-And I wonder if we ought to get, in addition to having what you say, and I think that’s correct, but we ought to get their nod on this as well, I would think, since they were the ones that actually put forth this requirement some time ago. MR. SANFORD-Or at least their explanation for why they have a problem with it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They looked at this and said No County Impact. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think that’s the best we’ll get. What’s your feeling on the land bridge, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, I mean, it’s a policy we have, no land bridges. You can’t all of a sudden grant them. You have to get some approval from someone else. I don’t know what it would be exactly, a waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s really our discretion. I mean, the County makes recommendations. They recommended they not be approved. It’s nothing more than a recommendation. It’s not a requirement. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, on the other hand, can the applicant just build a bridge on the dock? Move the stairway down further. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that doesn’t give him a way to get up to the deck, though, Tom. My original thought, before I recognized this was handicap, was to make the stairway internally, but now I see why he’s asking. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. You could construct the stairway on the dock itself. MR. PEEK-How am I going to get my dad up there? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to have a rather easy slope, I think, to get somebody handicapped up that ramp, yes. MR. PEEK-Yes, up a ramp, yes, but not stairs. MR. VOLLARO-No. Well, I’m inclined to approve it on that basis, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. GOETZ-I think we should move on and just make it conditional that it meets approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-Please condition it, and make sure that it follows the guidelines for a handicap ramp. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-The County already had their chance at it. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, e-mail from the APA today. This went to the APA for review, and they have no concerns with the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I guess I’ll entertain a motion. MS. HEMINGWAY-Excuse me. You need to open your public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone here that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And now I will entertain a motion from the Board. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2005 ANDREA PEEK, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Construction of a 500 sq. ft. sundeck WHEREAS, the application was received on June 14, 2005; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. With the condition that the applicant receive a permit from the Lake George Park Commission per their letter of July 6, 2005; and 2. That all requirements associated with the handicap ramp be applied to this application and that the ramp meets those specifications; and 3. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. PEEK-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 38-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DELLA AUTO GROUP AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, BPSR OWNER(S): FAMIGLIA BELLA ZONING: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 293 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 1610 SQ. FT. SHOWROOM ADDITION TO THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. EXPANSION TO AN AUTO SALES AND SERVICE USE IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. FURTHER, FILLING OR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REF. FW 3-05, AV 89-04 & 62-04 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/8/2005 LOT SIZE: 4.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-5 SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, MIKE DELLA BELLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. FWW 3-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DELLA AUTO GROUP AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, BPSR OWNER(S): FAMIGLIA BELLA ZONING: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 293 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT HAS CREATED A 25,000 SQ. FT. OF ADDITIONAL PARKING/CAR STORAGE AREA TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE 100 FOOT ADJACENT AREA TO A DEC REGULATED WETLAND REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT. CROSS REF. SP 38-05, AV 89-04 & 62-04 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/8/2005 LOT SIZE: 4.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-5 SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, MIKE DELLA BELLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you want to summarize Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-This is a two part application, site plan and freshwater wetlands permit. Site plan for approximately 1600 square foot addition to the front of the building, which a variance was granted for, as well as a half acre gravel parking lot in the rear. A DEC permit is still needed, and there are some concerns from Mike Shaw. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper with Mike Della Bella from Della Auto Group, and Dan Bruno from Rist Frost. To begin with, we’re here for two purposes, to address the front of the building and the back of the site. The front of the building is a rather modest increase in size, but very important to Mike Della Bella. The purpose for the front addition is two fold. GM requires that he have room in the showroom for each of the GM brands that they sell in that dealership, and they require that the front façade be upgraded. In addition, Mike needs to add handicap bathrooms that don’t exist in that facility. So the 1600 square foot addition doesn’t go out too far from the beginning of the building, but it provides those benefits that don’t exist now. We did need to get a variance from the Zoning Board because it’s very close to the property line. However, there’s 125 feet under the NiMo easement that is separation distance between the actual Quaker Road roadway and the property line. So even though he’s close to his property line, there’s no real impact on the community because of the NiMo transmission line. We accomplished that previously with the Zoning Board, and now we’re here for site plan review for the building. In terms of the building addition, Mike Shaw from the Wastewater Department pointed out that there is a sewer line that runs pretty close to the front of the building, and Dan Bruno has met with him. That is actually a one and a quarter inch PVC line, attached to a grinder pump. So it’s a relatively minor line that runs from this building and connects it with the building next door, their Honda building and onto the Ford building. What Dan has suggested is that that can be encased in a metal sleeve and still go right at the edge of the building where it is. Alternatively, if the Wastewater Department required it as part of this project, it could be relocated a few feet in front of the building. There wouldn’t be any problem with that because it’s only an inch and a quarter PVC lines. So we would be happy to agree to do either. Dan can answer any questions about that, but because it’s a very small line, encasing it in a metal sleeve should be fine, and that would be the simplest way to deal with it, and we wouldn’t have to change the easement, but either way is okay. In terms of the area in the rear, the site has been in existence since the 1950’s, and the area behind the building where the gravel was added a few years ago was already a hard surface that was covered with gravel, but Mike added gravel to top dress it, and just clean it up. At the time that that happened, he met with Craig Brown. He met with DEC. There is the wetland in the back, and DEC didn’t require any permits for that. What happened at this point is that, in pre-application meeting with Craig Brown, Craig suggested the small berm that’s shown on the site plan, in the back of the site, and it’s because of that berm, his feeling was that it would make sure that no water went directly into the wetland, and it’s only because of adding that berm that that would require a DEC permit because that berm is within a 100 foot setback of the wetland. I should add at this point that there would have been a permeability issue, because obviously the site is primarily paved because that’s how things were done years ago, but Mike was able to negotiate with the neighbor to purchase the parcel in the back. So that now there’s not a green space issue. That just went away. So in terms of the DEC permit, it’s only because of that berm. The engineers don’t feel that it’s necessary, and it’s absolutely necessary to put that berm there because the way the gradient runs, it runs away from the wetland, but if that’s something that the Board wants, it’s on the site plan. Mike’s certainly 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) agreeable to do that, but that would require, for that aspect of the project, that would require a DEC permit because that berm, which is only there to protect the wetland, is within the 100 feet. So that’s somewhat of a Catch-22. That wouldn’t be a difficult permit to get a wetland buffer permit to protect the wetland, but that’s what that’s about. Beyond that, we looked at the stormwater and talked to Rist-Frost about it. It’s all what’s really existing on the site. Obviously there’s high groundwater. That’s why there’s a significant wetland in the back, but the stormwater that’s proposed is really just what the stormwater plan is now, that it ponds in front and then ultimately infiltrates into the ground and goes into the wetland. We’re not planning to really do anything significant to that. We also submitted a lighting plan that showed the only change in the lighting would be at the front for the new façade of the building, and that that wouldn’t have any impact off site. I could have Dan Bruno walk you through the site plan if you’d like, or we could take any questions at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know about the rest of the Board, but I’m still a little confused on exactly which area of the new parking, where it’s going to be. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s not actually anything new. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re paving what’s there. MR. LAPPER-No. It’s just, there was already gravel added, which Mike just added gravel because it was already a gravel surface. This is all the way in the back behind the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, we drove back there on site visits on Saturday. MR. LAPPER-There’s a paved area behind the building, and this is the gravel area behind the paved area. So he just really cleaned it up, and that’s all it is. MR. FORD-When that gravel area was top dressed, was it expanded? MR. LAPPER-Probably a little bit, just in terms of making it straighter and cleaner, and neater. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. Getting to the berm you were discussing, that’s shown on C-1? MR. LAPPER-That’s shown on the site plan. MR. SEGULJIC-And those are the dashed lines I see in the back? MR. LAPPER-No. It’s a dark line. MR. SEGULJIC-The dark line. DAN BRUNO MR. BRUNO-It’s called out on the drawing, or it’s depicted as contour 310. You see it just wraps around and comes back on itself. MR. LAPPER-The double line. MR. BRUNO-The double line. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. BRUNO-That was to indicate that that’s about a foot higher than the adjacent area. Currently the water, the majority of the water tends, following the topography, it tends to shed toward the east and southeast. Some of it would probably turn a corner, so to speak, and maybe end up in the wetlands. We haven’t had any conversation with DEC yet as to how they prefer to see that water go. Many times they want it to enter a wetland, maybe through a grass filter, you know, vegetated filter, but you need to support the wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-So if the berm wasn’t there, the stormwater, I assume, would flow in a northerly direction? MR. BRUNO-I don’t believe so, not based on what’s shown here, the topography. MR. LAPPER-That’s still higher. MR. BRUNO-That 309 contour, the dashed contours are the existing, and you have a 309 that comes out there, sort of like a little peninsula if you will, and then the surrounding area is 308. So it tends to shed MR. SEGULJIC-Kind of divides it, then. MR. BRUNO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Coming down towards the front of the facility rather than towards the back. MR. SEGULJIC-So, one of the options here is to put, one of the questions is do we want you to put a new berm? MR. LAPPER-Right. The Planning Staff suggested it. So we put it on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-If you put the berm in, that’s going to force the groundwater, the surface water to the southeast. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s going southeast anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-Going southeast anyway. MR. LAPPER-That’s just going to ensure, it’s an insurance to make sure that the water’s not going to go directly into the wetland, which Dan is saying it’s essentially not doing anyway because of the contours, but that ensures it by raising it another foot. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Now I understand. MR. LAPPER-And that’s the only aspect that requires a DEC permit. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that in, I’m just looking over C.T. Male’s response to this, and it says, it would appear that the fill was placed within 100 foot of the wetland buffer. It is our understanding that this wetland is a DEC regulated wetland. Therefore it is necessary for the applicant to apply for a freshwater wetlands permit, Article 24, to perform grading activities within the buffer. Now you’re going to have to answer C.T. Male’s question on that in any event. MR. BRUNO-Yes. I’ve had conversations with Mr. Houston, and, yes, what he’s saying there is that if we do this work, as depicted here, then, yes, we would have to apply for the freshwater wetlands permit, the Article 24. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the berm. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. BRUNO-Right. Whatever we do back there, inside that 100 foot setback, anything we do, grading, berm, anything, we would have to apply for a permit. MR. VOLLARO-And what you’re proposing, or what your attorney is proposing, is not to do that, is that correct? MR. LAPPER-We’re saying we can go either way. Planning Staff wanted it. We put it on the map offering it. It’s just ironic that that’s the thing that this remedial measure is what causes a DEC permit requirement, but, you know, it’s the Board’s pleasure. MR. VOLLARO-Life’s kind of like that. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-One of my questions was, there’s a comment on the drawing that says wetlands as flagged by others, located December 13, 2002, and in the pre-application conference that somebody signed off on, I don’t know whether it was Mr. Della Bella or not, but it said that the wetlands as flagged by others. Now the application conference called for a DEC wetlands delineation in the pre-application conference. Does Staff recognize that as being a requirement here? MRS. BARDEN-The application submitted indicated that a DEC freshwater wetland permit would be applied for. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not talking about the permit. I’m talking about the delineation of the wetland. According to when Craig Brown did the pre-application conference, he required delineation of the wetland, as opposed to the statement on the drawing that says wetlands as flagged by others. MR. SANFORD-You’re wondering who “others” are? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think Craig Brown was wondering who “others” were, too, because he’s asked for a wetlands delineation in his pre-application conference here. MR. DELLA BELLA-They came in, we have a letter from 2001. MR. LAPPER-DEC came in, yes. MR. VOLLARO-It was DEC that did? MR. DELLA BELLA-DEC did it. DEC came in, it was a request from the Town, because I put bigger gravel on top of little gravel. So I didn’t know I couldn’t do that. So I did it just to finish up the parking lot. So the Town came in and said, you can’t do that. You’re too close to a wetland, and I apologized. I sent a letter apologizing, and I called, or someone called DEC, probably the Town. So DEC came in. They did their map and they got a letter saying that you’re too close to it and you shouldn’t have done it. However, it’s so minor and so minimal, we have no problem. We have no enforcement issue. MR. LAPPER-And it also says that they verified the wetland. MR. BRUNO-I think the actual delineation was done by C.T. Male for DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-Does Staff have a copy of this letter? Okay. MR. LAPPER-I think Craig Brown has a copy of that. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we’ll pass it down to you. MR. SANFORD-Well, why don’t we just go along with the berm, let them get the DEC approval because they’re encroaching on the wetland, and move on to the next topic here on this application. MR. HUNSINGER-It works for me. I was going to go through the site plan review criteria. MR. SANFORD-No. I think we need to do that in terms of the other things, but in terms of this behind the building stuff, it seems pretty clear they’re not really doing anything back there, other than some grading, and they need to get a permit to do it. MR. VOLLARO-The only other thing is, Mr. Sanford, is that they get a signoff of the C.T. Male, because they’ll have to discuss this with C.T. Male, discuss this letter from DEC with C.T. Male so that they can get a signoff on this C.T. Male letter of July 13. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t we go through the site plan review criteria. Any questions, comments on design standards? This would include building design, layout, signage, conformance with design corridor standards and Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Questions on site development design, this would be site conditions, vehicle access and traffic patterns, pedestrian access, parking field design, emergency access? Questions on stormwater, sewage design? We already talked about the one sewer issue. Lighting design, conformance with design standards and accessory lighting. MR. SEGULJIC-I do have a question about lighting. On your lighting plan, does that include existing lighting, or is that just the exterior lighting? MR. LAPPER-That’s the new lighting. MR. SEGULJIC-So that does not include the existing lighting. MR. LAPPER-The four lights, it looks like seven light poles that are there, are existing. MR. SEGULJIC-So your lighting calculations do not include the existing lighting? MR. BRUNO-No MR. SEGULJIC-And their lights would be on at the same time, correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. There are actually building lights on the front façade now, and the same lights would used. They would just be moved onto the new façade. So it doesn’t change anything. It just moves it 23 feet closer to the road. MR. VOLLARO-This lighting plan depicts the lights that you’re going to add to the new addition. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Which are the same lights that are there now, but, yes, that’ll be added to the new addition. MR. FORD-There’ll be no additional lights? MR. BRUNO-I wouldn’t say added. We’re relocating existing lighting, and they will be relocated to the new addition. MR. VOLLARO-So if I was to go out there tonight and take a photometric of that, I would get exactly what you’ve got on this drawing. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. BRUNO-You should, yes. MR. BELLA DELLA-What it is is up lighting, and they’re going to move it. There’s the old style big, it’s a big circle, that the lights are in the ground and comes up, all right. They’re going to move those, but now they’re going to put them on, instead of, the building’s going to go over it. MR. VOLLARO-See one of the things we’re trying to do in Queensbury is to eliminate the bright sky. We’re trying to put fixtures that are downcast, as opposed to throwing the light up. MR. LAPPER-We’ve got that. MR. DELLA BELLA-That’s what they’re changing. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what you’re changing. MR. LAPPER-It’s going to be down lights, and that’s on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-That’s that Fixture Type A? MR. BRUNO-Fixture Type A, correct. MR. LAPPER-All of them are fixture Type A. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have the pole mounted lights in the parking lot, almost like floodlights? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Those are staying or those are going? MR. LAPPER-They’re staying. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re staying. MR. LAPPER-No change. MR. SEGULJIC-So which lights are being moved, then? MR. LAPPER-The building lights. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The existing building lights. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And this lighting survey does not include the pole mounted lights? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Those have been there, and they’re not proposed to be changed, but all the lights are the Type A down lights, and that’s on the plan, all the new ones. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to see a new lighting survey that includes both lights, the pole mounted lights as well as the? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, lighting has been something we’ve been following ever since we did Wal-Mart, the new Wal-Mart, where we spent a lot, a lot of time, and learned a lot about how to light up a site, and I, for one, would like to see some lighting program that shows us what the light situation on that is now, but that would be just that, because that whole sweep in there is, all that corridor. MR. BRUNO-The parking lot? MR. VOLLARO-Well, all of it. All the way the way across. MR. LAPPER-The three dealerships. MR. VOLLARO-Honda, all of that, would have to be looked at. I don’t know whether I’d want to look at just this site. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if we can. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I really don’t want to correct Mr. Vollaro, but I think the first project where we really got out teeth into lighting was the Saturn dealer, and, personally, I think it’s one of the best lighting plans that this Board has approved, and I think it works really well because you can drive by the site at night without getting blinded, but yet you can still see that it’s there. We certainly haven’t had any complaints that it’s not lit enough, and, personally, I think it looks really good. It’s kind of difficult to look at the proposed lighting plan in a vacuum, without taking into consideration the pole lights that are on your site, and I think that’s really what we’re wrestling with a little bit here. MR. LAPPER-I guess from the applicant’s standpoint, the pole lights that have been there have been there since the beginning of time, for better or for worse, and we have the 125 feet to the road. So it’s not a question of spillage onto the road because there’s such a distance. So we were focused on what we were going to change, which is to go with the set of the lights that Mike was describing, but to go with the down lights on the building. So we’re improving the front of the building by complying with the Code on the new stuff, but what he has there in terms of those pole lights, it’s the age old dispute about whether you have higher and fewer, like you did with Wal-Mart, or you have lower and more like Home Depot, and what he’s got on there now, which actually is eight poles, and that’s what’s existing. So much like we did with Aviation Mall, because those were existing, he’d like to just leave what’s there for those poles and bring the new building, the new addition into compliance with the Code, and that’s what’s proposed. MR. DELLA BELLA-The new lights, the current lights shine up, and the building is going to come over those lights. So they’re going to relocate them to shine down. MR. VOLLARO-Right. That’s certainly permissible. MR. HUNSINGER-And that is an improvement. We appreciate that. Any other comments, questions, concerns on lighting? MR. SEGULJIC-What is the wattage on the existing lights? The proposed ones are 70, I believe. MR. BRUNO-I’m not sure. MR. SANFORD-Chris, I don’t know if we have an issue here or not, but, you know, this is an opportunity for us to make an improvement, even though that’s not what this application is here in front of for, and so we don’t really know what the existing lighting plan is in terms of intensity. Maybe we should at least have that to look at. Because, I 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) mean, again, that’s how you make improvements to Queensbury is when people come in for improvements, you take a look and say, hey, if you can make an improvement on the lighting plan, you make an improvement on it. I, personally, don’t see from my experience, I do live around that area, Jon. I don’t notice it as an overly lit parcel, but I don’t know what it is. MR. VOLLARO-I, personally, in driving by it myself at night, I don’t find it obtrusive, actually, in terms of glaring back at me too badly, but there’s a great expanse there, between all the dealerships in there. You’ve got Ford, Nemer, Honda and so on. That whole strip right there is pretty well lit for sure. MR. SANFORD-Well, again, what we could do is, obviously, we could ask to see what it currently looks like, and obviously what they’re proposing right now is not going to really impact on that, but we have an opportunity, if we feel that there’s a need for a reduction, while we’re doing this review, we can request that. I mean, obviously, we’ve done it in the past, and that’s just the pleasure of this Board, if you want to go in that direction or not, okay, but I just wanted to point that out. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have the opinion of at least two members. How do the rest feel? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would agree with that. I mean, we don’t know what’s existing now. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. GOETZ-I see where you’re coming from. I just have a certain amount of, I really have a particular problem if we were to try to compare it, make it the same with all the dealerships, because that wouldn’t be fair. I think, as I drive by, I never noticed a lot of light, compared to other places, and I just think it may be adding an excess burden on them that might not be necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. LAPPER-I guess for us, we look at it as this is a very minor site plan, in terms of just fixing up the front façade and adding handicap bathrooms, because there’s only eight poles there, it’s not a lot, what’s there now, but certainly what’s proposed is an improvement, by complying and adding the downcast lights. So I know it’s something that Mike would hope to not have to replace the poles, that that would be a pretty big deal, in terms of the size of the project. MR. DELLA BELLA-When we re-did the lights in the 80’s, if you remember, some of you guys living here, they had all lights, maybe 15,000 incandescent lights on the property, and I took them all down because they created a lot of light, but they were also very expensive, and put the poles up with down lighting. There was a comment made from someone, I don’t know if it was the appeals board or somebody, and we didn’t need a permit at the time, that they wanted to make sure any lights that I put up faced the building and not faced the street. So we changed the location of two or three heads to do that. So if you drive up the road, my Honda store is in compliance, and it looks a heck of a lot brighter than my Pontiac store. So I don’t want to re-do all the lights now at the Pontiac store, other than just move the ones that I have, because they’re the only ones left that go up. Everything else comes down, and they don’t go back. If you notice that there’s nobody behind us anyway. MR. LAPPER-You’re saying that the ones along Quaker Road face toward? MR. DELLA BELLA-Well, I changed the two end ones because of that request, and it wasn’t a formal request. It was, don’t put any lights on facing the road. We want you to 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) put any lights that you’re going to put up facing the building. As a matter of fact, it was the sign people, when I put the sign up, it came before the variance board because I put the sign up. I had two spotlights out there. They didn’t like that, because they were facing the sign up, and they didn’t want that. So we took those down. There were two of those. That was probably eight or nine years ago I would think. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. With all due respect, I appreciate your comments, but the lighting ordinance is fairly new within the past couple of years. So the regulations have changed since the last time that your lighting was looked at. So that’s really what our comments are based upon. We can always come back to lighting. MR. FORD-I have two or three questions. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Tom. MR. FORD-Thank you. I just want to make sure that I’m fully understanding this. We do not currently know what the candle power is there, is that correct? Nor do we know, other than the fact that no lighting is going to be added. Is that correct? It’s only going to be transferred? MR. BRUNO-That’s a fair statement, yes. MR. FORD-Re-located. MR. BRUNO-Yes. These are different fixtures replacing the same number of lights, it’s my understanding, but just a different fixture, mounted on the building as opposed to on the ground. MR. FORD-What would be the height on the building of these? MR. BRUNO-I don’t know, offhand. I don’t know if we. MR. FORD-I’m just trying to get a comparison here. As lights shine from low on the building up, obviously illuminating the front of the building, a light that is high on the building shining down also could be a distraction to a passing motorist on Quaker Road, depending upon the height of that light, and whether or not it is shaded. MR. LAPPER-I think the answer to that, Tom, is that we’ve got, the diagram shows that there’s no spillage anywhere near the road. Just one foot candle in the middle of the NiMo, a tenth of a foot candle, excuse me, in the middle of the NiMo easement. MR. FORD-In the middle of the easement MR. LAPPER-Yes, so it doesn’t get to that road. MR. FORD-So that’s well away from the road. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and they’re 16 feet. That’s what plan shows. That on the building they’re 16 feet high, but it doesn’t spill onto Quaker Road. MR. FORD-That answers my question, thank you. I’m all set on the lights. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments on landscape design? Environmental concerns, wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historic artifacts, wildlife? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only wetlands thing that C.T. Male has to review the stormwater management report. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. BRUNO-Mr. Houston has reviewed it, and I’ve talked to him about that, and his comments. MR. VOLLARO-He makes comments, contains a summary of the runoff and volume, that’s his last comment Number Four. He talks about this management report, but I think one of the conditions on this is we’re going to need a signoff from C.T. Male on his letter. MR. BRUNO-Right. I have to clarify a couple of things to him. They were included in there, but not delineated, if you will, well enough. MR. VOLLARO-Incidentally, I just have a comment that I made on my wetland, and I read the report, but usually I like to see an engineering stamp on a document like that, so that it has some credence. I mean, anybody could have done it, within Rist-Frost. It should be stamped by a PE. MR. LAPPER-We will certainly submit that with a stamp. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments on environmental issues? Neighborhood character? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Any involved agencies or other criteria not reviewed? MR. VOLLARO-I think this comes under SEQRA, doesn’t it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there is a public hearing scheduled. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MR. LAPPER-Well, we have some comments, but I guess we’ll wait until after the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There is a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that would like to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-You said you had a couple of comments? MR. LAPPER-Yes. What Mike is hoping is as follows. The addition to the building is really separate from the wetland issue in the back, because what I didn’t mention is that the area where the small expansion is going to go is already completely impermeable. It’s completely paved. So you’re adding to what’s already a parking lot or a drive aisle, and it’s going to take a number of months to get through DEC for the approval to just add that berm, and what Mike is hoping is that we can go forward and he can have the building built now, because he needs to get that done before winter, and at the same time we’ll pursue the DEC permit and the berm will get built as soon as DEC allows it, and that’s our request. Because these are really independent, and that’s why they’re two applications. The issue in the back, which is really just an improvement to the wetland, 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) and the front which he needs for the handicap bathrooms, and to clean up the front of the dealership, and that’s our request. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s reasonable. The two are mutually exclusive, I think. MR. LAPPER-They really are. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that’s fair. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only thing we’re still a little hung up on is lighting. What’s the pleasure of the Board? MR. SANFORD-Again, the question is, do you table it for review of a lighting plan, or do we waive it, basically? MR. VOLLARO-I just don’t see, personally, I guess, for myself, I don’t a need to table this for a lighting plan. I had, on my famous sheets, site lighting is an issue, need (lost word) site lighting plan, but after I wrote this, and having listened to the dialogue, I just don’t see that, now that I know you’re going to take those up lights and put them in a down mode, I don’t see that I would need. MR. SANFORD-I can appreciate that, Bob, but if it was a renovation to a gas station, and we’ve had them time and time again, where they want to put in new pumps and what have you, we, in a very exhaustive way, look at the whole site, and we try to bring it down into compliance with our new Code, rather than the point of departure being the existing lighting that was there before. Now we don’t know the existing lighting. So I don’t know how you can truly make that judgment. I mean, I recognize that this will not a have an aggravating impact, but we don’t know what the existing impact is. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So, again, I just don’t know how you’d logically conclude you don’t have any problem with it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, normally, when we get into dealing with a gas station, the normal problem is, what kind of lighting are you putting in the overhead there. That’s usually what triggers it, because the overhead light over the gas pumps are usually very bright when we start and we get them down to where it’s within Code, but usually that’s a major revision of a. MR. SANFORD-Conceptually it’s the same thing. We don’t know if this is an over lit site or not. In order to follow your line of reasoning, the presumption is, it is not. I just don’t know that. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t, and neither do, I, but that’s my presumption, that it doesn’t strike me as a bright light in the dark. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-The bottom line, to me, is we’re, you approve it, we’re approving a lighting plan without having all the facts. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. GOETZ-Well, I go back to where I was before, where they’re going to comply with the new lighting. I know from my own observations, as I go by, that there certainly isn’t 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) an overabundance of light now. I certainly don’t equate his dealership with that of a gas station, where the lighting is different and needs to be different, and I would hate to just impose an added burden, financial burden, if it’s really not necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. FORD-I’ve listened, and I understand both points of view here. I wish I had a little bit more information. However, the need for that additional information would not cause me to say, let’s table it and put it off until we have that lighting survey so forth. MR. HUNSINGER-How difficult would it be to get specs on the existing lighting fixtures? MR. BRUNO-Well, I’d have to ask Mr. Della Bella. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, do you know what the wattage is and the heights? MR. DELLA BELLA-No, but when we did the lighting at Honda, we had to have requirements for that, that we had to have certain height poles and certain wattage and all that when we did it, and I don’t know what we did at the Pontiac store, but I can tell you this, if tonight after dark you drive by, you like the Saturn one, right? You drive by the Saturn one and then drive by my one, he’s twice as lit as, maybe three times as lit, as we are, and that’s just from eyes, and I like his lights, and maybe one day we’ll put them up, but I’m just trying to get the showroom so that I can expand it and bring it into compliance. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and the point was well taken by Mr. Lapper that they do have a lot more poles on the Saturn dealership than you do on your site. MR. LAPPER-I think the thing here, what Richard said, which is true, we all know like the gas stations that have come in and have these really incredible light programs that are inappropriate, and you guys have said you drive by, and it just doesn’t appear light, and I think that that’s the thing here, that the Honda, if the Honda dealership that’s approved that met the specs is lighter than the Pontiac, the GM dealership, that’s what’s going on here. Really, this is not a case where there’s a lot of light and he’s really far from the road. His parking area is in the back. So, I mean, honestly, if it had been required when it was submitted, it would have been submitted, but he’s just hoping to get this thing in the ground, to get his bathrooms in and get his front built, and that’s why we’re here asking that it be approved the way it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess the next step would be to go through SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s a Short Form. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, before you do that, there was a Staff notation that the gravel parking lot apparently was not included in the SEQRA form, and I just wanted to call that to your attention, and ask the applicant whether that was intentional. MR. LAPPER-I think, in response to that comment, it should just be added, it should be amended before they do the SEQRA, just to add the gravel. MR. HILL-Okay, and you’re agreeable to including it, then? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I think whoever does the SEQRA should describe the project briefly and then add to it that it includes the 25,000 square foot addition in the rear. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-So noted. Tom’s doing SEQRA. Tom, are you ready? Short Form. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. SP 38-2005 & FWW 3-2005, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DELLA AUTO GROUP, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have actually two separate motions, one for the wetland, Freshwater Wetlands permit and then one for the site plan itself. I would entertain a motion. MR. SANFORD-Well, wait a second, this last SEQRA was for the site plan, correct, not the Freshwater permit? MR. HUNSINGER-Do we do a separate SEQRA for each? MR. SANFORD-I think you’ve got to do a separate one. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-They’re two separate proposals, for sure. So I think we just did it on the renovations, if you will, the showroom renovations and what have you. Counsel can weigh in on that, but that’s the way we’ve normally done it. MR. HILL-We’ve got separate applications for the Freshwater Wetlands permit and for the gravel parking lot and the addition. MRS. BARDEN-I think only one SEQRA. MR. HILL-Only one SEQRA covering. Jon, do you know if your SEQRA covered? MR. LAPPER-It was our intention that SEQRA covered both, and that’s why I was listening to the questions, thinking you were doing both, and we did make the comment before we did the SEQRA, that it had to include the gravel to the rear of the site that was not included by the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-And we did make the comment before we did the SEQRA that it had to include the gravel to the rear of the site that was not included by the applicant. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I’m just confused because the attorney for the applicant, that is, appealed to this Board that we treat them as discreet applications so that we don’t hold up the progress on the renovations. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We do have separate resolutions. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I was thinking the SEQRA was together, but the applications were. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do have separate resolutions, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re looking for a motion, then? I think we should put the berm in the back, request a berm in the back, but I also believe that we should get an accurate lighting plan, because what we now have in our set of plans does not include the existing lighting, so it’s not reflecting site conditions. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, let me ask you a question. Are you proposing to table this because of that? Is that what you’re proposing to do? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I’ve got to believe that to do the lighting plan is not that involved. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the vote’s going to be three to three. That’s why I said I would entertain a motion, and I really didn’t comment on the lighting issue, and maybe I should, and I totally respect Mr. Sanford’s comments, that any time we have an opportunity to upgrade the appearance of the community, that we should try to do that, and I wholeheartedly agree with that comment, but I also believe, in this case, at least in my own mind, I can separate the difference between the proposed addition and the existing site conditions, and differentiate between the two, and feel comfortable that the addition is in compliance with the new lighting code, even if the existing site condition may not be. We don’t know if it is or not. Personally, I don’t think it’s an issue, having driven by it. Whether or not it’s less lit than the Saturn dealership, I don’t really know, but I also don’t feel there’s a problem with it. So that’s my feeling. That’s why I think the vote would be three to three. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Quite honestly, I don’t feel that strongly about this, but I just heard what you had to say, and just from a logical point of view, I guess if you don’t know, then I guess there’s a compelling reason, in my mind, to find out and to know, and that’s, and I think that’s our responsibility, whether we really like it or not, and we’ve 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) done it so many times in the past where we’ve requested that the applicant submit a lighting plan for our review, so that we know for certainty that it’s more or that it is, in fact, in conformity with our new standards, and here we just, Mr. Vollaro spoke, said he didn’t know. You spoke, said you don’t know, but you’re comfortable with that. Well, the next application that comes around, I mean, what’s going to be your criteria for not feeling comfortable with it? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t want to belabor an argument with you. It’s not an adversarial argument, it’s an argument. You’re expressing your opinion. I’m expressing mine. I don’t know that it meets the current lighting standards of the Town. We don’t know that, and I agree with you, but I do know, in a visual analysis, in looking at the site, that it doesn’t present a problem. Now, some of the other sites that we’ve put through extensive site lighting review, like Wal-Mart, we knew were a problem where they were proposed, and this one, it’s not a problem as it exists. There hasn’t been any complaints, and in visual inspections, it doesn’t pose a problem. MR. SANFORD-Well, one of the reasons we knew with Wal-Mart is because they told us what it was, and we knew it was too bright. Here we don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Just exploring this for a minute, could we, in some fashion so to appease, not to appease, but I think that Dick has a point, we don’t know, and what we don’t know, we don’t know. Can we condition this approval that a light plan be submitted so that we can take a look at it. I mean, is that what you would like to do? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We would be agreeable to that, to appease the Board. Mike wants to get it built, but he has no problem bringing it in, if it needs to, we’ll submit it, and if you look at it and you think that it needs to be upgraded. MR. VOLLARO-Because in my mind it would probably pass the Code, just from an eyeball, from me taking a look at that site at night. I don’t think it’s excessively lit, but to satisfy some of the requirements that some of the folks have here, maybe we condition this on the submittal of a light plan that depicts the entire site. Does that satisfy? MR. LAPPER-Could we submit it to Staff and Staff would make that determination, and if they say it doesn’t, then we’ll come back to the Board to look at lighting? MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s a good suggestion, Jon. I mean, in other words, Bob. I mean, yes, I mean, it’s fine if they submit it and again it conforms, but if they submit it and it doesn’t conform, then we need to have the next step, and I think Jon answered that. If, in fact, the lighting plan is nonconforming, then it would have to come back here for review. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SANFORD-And I’m agreeable to that. MR. LAPPER-We’ll agree to a date that we’ll submit it by. MR. FORD-I’d feel comfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I would, too. It’s always easier when it comes from the applicant. Would someone like to pose a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2005 DELLA AUTO GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 1610 sq. ft. showroom addition to the front of the existing building. WHEREAS, the application was received on May 15, 2005; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. Concerning the sewer lateral that may or may not pass in front of the building I would like to see a letter of approval on whatever Rist-Frost recommends, whether it’s a bypass or a steel encasement or whatever, that a letter of approval be received from the Wastewater Superintendent, Mr. Shaw, and 2. The applicant will submit a lighting plan for the entire site, and that lighting plan would be submitted to staff for review. If the lighting plan doesn’t seem to meet the Town Code, then it would have to come back to this Board for review of the lighting plan, and 3. The applicant has to receive a sign-off of C.T. Male Associates letter of July 13, 2005, and 4. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 5. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright. 6. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 19 day of July 2005 by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-Staff has a comment on this resolution that lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright. I just want to make sure that the applicant understands what that means. MR. LAPPER-Yes. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. LAPPER-We can go forward with the construction, even if that’s (submission of lighting plan for review) is happening separately? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. LAPPER-Chris, excuse me. Mike just pointed out, the C.T. Male letter probably goes to the Freshwater Wetlands permit, rather than to building. I’m not sure if it matters. MR. VOLLARO-That’s because he, being C.T. Male, he being Jim Houston, was a little bit confused why there weren’t two submissions here, as he says in his first paragraph, where he says it was our understanding that the installation of the parking lot prompted the need for a freshwater review, as an integral part of the application. Then he goes on to talk a grading plan. He talks more, in this letter, to the Freshwater permit. MR. LAPPER-I wonder if that should be a condition of the second, instead, because he may want to wait until DEC chimes in on that. MR. SANFORD-I think you’re right. I mean, obviously that C.T. Male letter is addressing not the showroom addition, but it is, in fact, addressing the Freshwater permit, and I think what you’re asking that we don’t condition the C.T. Male signoff on the first one, and I agree with. I think an amendment to the minutes to reflect that in the resolution that we’re not looking for C.T. Male signoff on the showroom addition, which would be site plan 38-2005. We are going to look for for Freshwater application 3-2005. Is that correct? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, but I think if we leave it off the first one, that would be sufficient, because I did the first one, which was the Freshwater. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine, you just leave it out. MR. VOLLARO-And we just left it out. MR. SANFORD-But at Staff’s request, we included it, and that’s why I’m removing it at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I think to amend the motion we should take a formal vote, to make sure everyone’s okay with it, reflect it in the record. Do we have a second on the amendment? MR. GOETZ-I second. MOTION TO AMEND SITE PLAN NO. 38-2005 DELLA AUTO GROUP, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: To remove the reference to C.T. Male approval. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll entertain a motion for the Freshwater Wetlands permit. Do we need to have a separate public hearing for that, since it was listed as two agenda items? Okay. Then I will open and close the public hearing for the Freshwater Wetlands permit. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Now we can entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-2005 DELLA AUTO GROUP, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant has created a 25,000 sq. ft. of additional parking/car storage area to the rear of the property. Disturbance within the 100 foot adjacent area to a DEC regulated wetland requires a Freshwater Wetlands Permit. WHEREAS, the application was received on May 15, 2005; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. Subject to C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off, and 2. Receipt of a DEC permit before the wetland berm can be built. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) Duly adopted this 19 day of July 2005 by the following vote: th MR. HUNSINGER-I took the assumption that the berm would be built because we’re entertaining a motion, and it’s on the site plan. So it’s really intrinsic within the resolution, but the point’s well taken. MR. VOLLARO-I think the resolution itself, if you look on Page Two, there’s three question marks alongside the DEC permit, which means that Staff wasn’t really sure what to do with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Good point, Bob. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody, very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. DELLA BELLA-Thank you. We’ll get that lighting thing as soon as we can get it. MR. FORD-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN 19-2002 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ANGIO DYNAMICS AGENT(S): RANDY BODKIN OWNER(S): IDA WARREN/WASH. CO. ZONING: LI-1A LOCATION: 603 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2240 SQ. FT. CONVERSION OF AN UNFINISHED STORAGE BUILDING INTO OFFICE SPACE FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING USE. EXPANSION OF A MANUFACTURING ASSEMBLY USE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REF. SP 25-92 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/13/05 LOT SIZE: 12.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-10 SECTION 179-4-060 RANDY BODKIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes? MRS. BARDEN-Just briefly. This is a conversion from cold storage to office space. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan, and landscaping plan. This is 2400 square feet of office space. MR. BODKIN-Good evening. For the record, Randy Bodkin, Angio Dynamics. MR. HUNSINGER-Hi. If you could just tell us briefly about your project. MR. BODKIN-Yes. This currently is the outbuilding to the south. One of the ones re- sided over when we did the original expansion to the property, and back on last February, I obtained a permit to take an overhang of that pole barn, if you will, and convert it into office space. Permit numbers listed in one of those handouts. Then when I went to modify another portion of that building into a light manufacturing area, I was changing the intent, and it was brought to my attention that it should go for a site plan review. So at the same time, I already have an office space in there that didn’t go through the site plan review. I didn’t realize at the time I needed it. So that’s why it’s 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) kind of joined together here. The recent handout I just gave you, as I’ve done in the past, offered anybody to come over and go through the facility and we’re real proud of it, but you haven’t seen it since we did the major expansion. So I included some photographs so that you can see what it looks like now, and there’s some photograph of what we refer to as a customer service area, is one of the areas in question. What it was before was a dirt floor, pole barn, if you will, and now it’s a finished office space. So our plan is to take a concrete cold storage area, heat it, AC, sheet rock it, so it’s a (LOST PART OF TAPE DUE TO TAPE PROBLEMS) MRS. BARDEN-It’s an expansion of an existing use. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, but I’m trying, in my mind, to see why we do Type II’s on construction, on new construction. A lot of times it’s, you know, something that’s a modification, we don’t do. That turns out to be a Type II, but something like this, which is really a mod as well, has been called an expansion of an existing use. It’s a, I’m trying to get in my mind get how Staff determines the difference between the two. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SANFORD-I have nothing on this one. MR. HUNSINGER-A public hearing is not required for a modification of a site plan. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, did you want a response to the question about Unlisted and Listed and Type II and so on? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just a little confused, because there seems to be sort of a gray line between the two, and I’m trying to understand it. MR. HILL-Well, with regard to that, probably the easiest way to go at this is to look at the Type II list, and see if the project falls within any of the items listed on the Type II list, in which case it would be exempt. I haven’t done that specifically for this project, yet, but I’m happy to take a moment and look down the list and see if it falls within one of those. If you want to give me just a moment, I’m happy to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, with all due respect, probably in the time that that would take, we could run through the Short Form. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, if it’s a Short Form, it’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d rather err on the side of being cautious, I think, than anything else. MR. HILL-And certainly that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-This was just a question for my personal understanding, as to how that’s done, and I know what the list looks like. It’s a question of which one you pick. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there are no questions or comments of the Board, we’ll move to SEQRA. It is a Short Form. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) RESOLUTION NO. 19-2002, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ANGIO DYNAMICS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-I will entertain a motion for approval. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 19-2002 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 2240 sq. ft. conversion of an unfinished storage building into office space for expansion of existing use. Expansion of a manufacturing assembly use in a Light Industrial zone requires Site Plan Review. WHEREAS, the application was received on June 14, 2005; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright. 2. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. BODKINS-Thank you very much. Again, I’d extend an invite if you guys want to stop by and take a tour any time you want. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Thanks a lot. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 41-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DOUGLAS PROVOST, MD MICHAEL GUIDO, MD AGENT(S): HARLEN-MC GEE OF NA OWNER(S): DELWYN & JEAN MULDER ZONE: PO LOCATION: WESTERN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5600 SQ. FT. MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING. DEVELOPMENT OF PROFESSIONAL OFFICES IN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REF. NONE FOUND WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 1.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.7-1-55, 56, 57, 62, 63 SECTION 179-4-020 DR. MICHAEL GUIDO, & TIM DONNELY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is an application for a medical building on Western Avenue. There are some C.T. Male comments, and I believe that the applicant did re-submit plans to C.T. Male that you all have not seen yet, answering some of those comments from 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) C.T. Male. There is also a comment from Mike Shaw about having to extend the sewer connection to the site. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me. I think what he’s saying is basically they need a sewer extension which would trigger the need for a map plan and report. MR. DONNELY-Mike Shaw would be from where? MRS. BARDEN-The Wastewater Department. MR. DONNELY-From Queensbury? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. DONNELY-We’ve made application to the City of Glens Falls to attach water and sewer to their system for this site. Because it is much closer in proximity. MRS. BARDEN-I think there’s a problem with how you want to connect to that. I’ll find it for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We can get into that when we do site plan review. If you could just finish up with Staff notes, that would be great. MRS. BARDEN-That’s about it for now. Parking, stormwater management, lighting and landscaping all submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could state your name for the record. MR. DONNELY-Tim Donnely, Harlen-McGee of North America. MR. HUNSINGER-Great, and if you could just tell us what you’d like to do. MR. DONNELY-What I bring in front of you tonight is a proposed new medical facility for Glens Falls Gynecology and Obstetrics. Basically what they have done is they’ve bought a number of small parcels, combined it together to create this parcel that continues from Western Avenue to Holden, and they’re looking to develop a new office space there. It resides within a Professional Office district. Just to the north of them is a chiropractor who’s now in business, and across the street, there is another doctor’s office. There’s a minimal amount of impact on this, a little less than an acre would be interrupted, or within the construction limits, just typical asphalt parking, all the typical things that go with a normal site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Are you saying that you’re going to disturb less than an acre, so you won’t be required to? MR. DONNELY-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-To be in accordance with the stormwater design manual. Is that correct? MR. DONNELY-Yes. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-That sort of gets rid of, basically, 20 questions from C.T. Male, I believe. MR. DONNELY-Yes. Do you have the new revised comments from Mr. Houston? MR. VOLLARO-No, I do not. MR. FORD-What’s the date on that? MR. DONNELY-I got it July 18, Monday, at pretty close to five o’clock. He’s got five th items left here. If you want, I’ll give them to you and you can take a look at them. MR. VOLLARO-I wouldn’t want to look at that tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DONNELY-But most of what was in that letter has now gone away. Probably the biggest thing left on his letter that he’s asked me for is a deep test, and, well, I’ve done the perc test. I need to do a deep test on the site, in the area where the stormwater retention would be. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, since this is a new item, I think it’s appropriate to go through our site plan review criteria. So if we could start with design standards. I’m sorry, you had a comment first, Tom? MR. FORD-I have a question. For the record, can we determine whether, in fact, this site is on Western Avenue or South Western Avenue? MR. DONNELY-I’m not quite sure which one’s which. MR. FORD-Western Avenue becomes South Western Avenue, as it proceeds south from Sherman Avenue, I believe. All references are to Western Avenue. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, that’s a good point, Tom. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Conformance with design standards, including Comprehensive Land Use Plan, building design layout or signage? MR. VOLLARO-I have comment on that, Mr. Chairman. I’ve taken the liberty to alter your site plan a little, at least a proposed alteration. This is for everybody to see. This flops over. What I’ve done is I’ve taken the building and moved it, turned it 90 degrees, so that the front is facing Western Avenue. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It really doesn’t affect an awful lot, except that you’ve got to kind of move this back a little bit and do a little reorientation on the map, but essentially there’s not much of an impact there, but I think the front of the building ought to face the Western Avenue. MR. DONNELY-I realize what you’re asking me, and I realize that is part of your planning in your Code for that area. The reason I didn’t do that is because of the nature of the business. A lot of the clients, or patients they have coming in to this are pregnant women, and we wanted to keep the walk as short as possible to get them in to the building, considering all the great weather we get in the Northeast. I can offer you, I have a second rendering of what the front of the building would look like. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-It would look more like the front. MR. DONNELY-It would look more like the front, but it wouldn’t include a door. It would give you an arched piece, you know, a piece of hip. It would draw your eye more towards the center, but we would still have the same entrance from the side for patients to enter through, if that’s more agreeable, if that falls more in line with what the outline of what you’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re looking for a façade that looks like it’s a front. MR. DONNELY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Because one of the building’s that’s there, I was in today, is a lawyer’s office, it’s on the Glens Falls side, but the side of the building faces South Western Avenue, and it’s not an idea situation from a viewpoint. So that’s why I spun it around 90 degrees, to see whether or not that would make a difference, and I hadn’t taken into consideration that women have to walk a little extra distance to get there. MR. DONNELY-Is that more in line with what you’re looking for, though? Something to dress up the front of the building? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I wanted to make it look, I want the front to look like the front, you know. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That doesn’t look bad. The rendition looks like that might work. You’ll have to ask, I’m just one of seven, one-seventh of a vote here. MR. SEGULJIC-Just to clarify. The drawing on the bottom is your proposed front of the building? MR. DONNELY-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And the top is the back? MR. DONNELY-The top is the side that would face out to the parking. MR. SEGULJIC-And I would agree. What we’re trying to do is make it look more residential. So putting the hip roof there would go a long ways in getting there. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Others want to comment on that? MR. SANFORD-I just think the applicant’s explanation’s a good one, especially with the icy conditions we have around here. I would hate to have it fronting Western and have someone take a fall. MR. VOLLARO-I agree, but I think what he showed me as an alternate rendition looks pretty good. It goes a long way into solving the view. MR. SANFORD-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments on design standards? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess there were some Staff comments about sidewalks. As I look at it, you’re not proposing any sidewalks in front of the building, at this time. MR. DONNELY-At the present time on that side of the street, there are no sidewalks. If you would like me to provide a sidewalk, I mean, I’m used to doing this in other towns and facilities, I can easily provide that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we get into this a lot. It’s like, who’s first, you know, who puts the first sidewalk in. MR. DONNELY-Right. I see this a lot in the City of Saratoga, and it’s very similar, and I’m used to it down there, and it’s a common request. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DONNELY-Your standards would be the back of the sidewalk would be on my client’s property line, and the rest of the sidewalk would be in your right of way. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Typically it’s a four foot wide sidewalk. MR. DONNELY-Four foot? Okay. MR. VOLLARO-As long as we’re talking sidewalks, I wrote something down on that. When I got out there today, I know there are no sidewalks all the way to Luzerne Road, and I’ll read my note. It says not practical to build an isolated sidewalk. There is a long stretch between this lot and Luzerne Road having no sidewalks. It’s like building a sidewalk to nowhere. I mean, sometimes I look at the practicality of doing things or not doing them. In my view, one view, one seventh of the Board’s view, the Town of Queensbury probably should look into putting sidewalks in, and not, that sidewalk will stay like that for years, until it gets built out as a sidewalk going no place. I just don’t see the practicality of it, personally, in my own view. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I agree with you, Bob. I mean, if that’s going to be the only sidewalk, it doesn’t make any sense. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t make any sense. MR. SEGULJIC-Now it’s the only sidewalk. MR. VOLLARO-Well, by the time the news ones get in, they’ll be all broken up, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, they’ve got to start somewhere. I mean, if that’s the attitude, we’ll never have sidewalks. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s not the point, Tom. To me, there’s a financial burden to putting in a sidewalk that goes no place. I just don’t see putting that burden on an application, when I don’t feel it’s. MR. SEGULJIC-But the applicant agreed to do it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. If you want sidewalks in front of that, as the only sidewalk there. MR. SANFORD-In a weird way, you’ve got to look at it, if that’s the only piece of property that has a sidewalk, then that will not be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. I appreciate the concept of sidewalks, but it’s probably not going to happen for a long, long time. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-By the time it does happen, this sidewalk will probably have to be broken up and made part of the new sidewalk, if it’s very put in. So, it just doesn’t make good sense to me, that’s all. MR. GOETZ-Isn’t there a sidewalk that goes up the other side? MR. DONNELY-There is a brand new sidewalk that runs up the other side on the Glens Falls side of Western. MR. VOLLARO-And I believe that was put in by the City of Glens Falls. MR. DONNELY-From talking to the engineer, yes, it was. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any further comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I think, just to weigh in on this, one of the thoughts would be, for example, there’s a Cool Beans just down the street from there. If one of the workers that worked in this facility wanted to walk down the street to get a cup of coffee, you’d want to be able to accommodate that, instead of forcing them to get into their car and drive down. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but this little strip wouldn’t satisfy that. You’d have to walk or drive anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-No, but it’s a start. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s a start. I can’t deny it’s a start, but I don’t, I certainly don’t think it’s in keeping with the neighborhood, as Mr. Sanford said, and secondly, I don’t think it’s practical. I’m not going to say anymore on the sidewalk. I’m finished. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions on design standards? MR. FORD-I like that second rendering. MR. DONNELY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Site development data, site conditions, vehicle access and traffic patterns, pedestrian access, parking field design, emergency access. We kind of talked about sidewalks. Any other questions, comments? MR. VOLLARO-Not in that area, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments on stormwater, sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think we have to talk about, first of all, the stormwater report now takes care of, C.T. Male’s questions one to twenty kind of go away, but I’m concerned about Mike Shaw’s e-mail of July 11, 2005, when he says it’s not within the sewer district. Now the applicant says they’re going to get the City of Glens Falls to supply your sewer for that, and I have a number here for Mr. Shaw’s office. Have you ever had contact with our Wastewater Department at all? MR. DONNELY-Yes, I talked to him in the beginning of this process, and he told me we were not within the sewer district of the Town of Queensbury. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you and he did discuss that? MR. DONNELY-Yes. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Now you’re planning to bring this connection into this building from Glens Falls. MR. DONNELY-From Glens Falls, yes. The water main runs on our side of the site for this. There’s a 10 inch main that runs down the road. The sewer, there is an existing manhole, or sanitary manhole, that’s south and across the street from the chiropractor’s office. Talking to the engineer with the City of Glens Falls because this road has just been rebuilt. He does not want us to open cut this road to make an extension of that sewer system. So what we’re going to do is jack it, hydraulically, underneath the road and hit that structure, and then core and seal into it, and we’ll do a grind and pump system to get our waste into that structure. MR. VOLLARO-So you’ll be force main? MR. DONNELY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think where C.T. Male says it is uncommon to install a jack or board utility, in this case a sewer force main, at such an angle across the street. Is he still agreeing with that comment? MR. DONNELY-At that time, Mr. Houston didn’t see the added drawing that’s been created called U-1, which shows the connection going to that manhole. At that time, all he saw was it going the road, and didn’t see any of the existing sanitary system that was there. MR. VOLLARO-Are there new drawings associated with this application? MR. DONNELY-There’s a new sheet that’s been added to the package, yes, that shows that connection. MR. VOLLARO-We should have that sheet, I would assume. MR. HUNSINGER-Does Staff have that? Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That hasn’t been submitted to our Staff yet. MR. DONNELY-No, I have not submitted that to your Staff. The engineer from the City of Glens Falls has seen it. I’ve gotten his comments. They’ve already been incorporated in here. I don’t have an official signoff from him, but I have addressed his comments on that. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to ask the Chairman a question. Do you think it would be reasonable for Mr. Shaw to discuss this matter with the appropriate Glens Falls people, so that we have a clear understanding from our own Wastewater Department of what’s being done here. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, as I understand it, you’re going to contract directly with the City? MR. DONNELY-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-For water and sewer? MR. DONNELY-For water and sewer, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think all we’d really need is the approval from the Town that it’s okay. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I want. I want Mike to say yes, I’m okay with this. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think that’s appropriate. That’s an appropriate condition. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know the legality of that. MR. DONNELY-I just did one between the Town of Colonie and Niskayuna, and the way it was arranged is I first had to go to Niskayuna, get a letter from their Board stating that it was okay for them to leave their, within their district to tie in to the Colonie system. It was the same kind of thing. The gravity just didn’t work any other way but to go to Colonie. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. DONNELY-In that case we were splitting systems. This one’s kind of nice because the water and sewer will come from the same municipality. The billing process and all of that is much simpler. MR. HUNSINGER-And the neighbor to the north already uses both systems, the chiropractor, the adjacent property, or don’t you know? MR. DONNELY-I’m not sure what the chiropractor is doing. I would imagine he’s tying in to the water that’s on Western, which would be Glens Falls system, but I’m guessing. I don’t know for sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions. Anymore questions, comments on stormwater, sewage design? Questions, comments on lighting design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a lot of comments on the lighting design. Before I get into them, you have to go to your Drawing C-5. I won’t refer to it, because I’ve got my notes here, but you go to your Drawing C-5. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And your entrance has got five foot candles on the ground, for the entrance, that’s Code, and you’ve got 5.2, which is good. Now the Parking Code is one. You’ve got 3.1 and the sidewalks are one, and you’ve got 1.33, which is okay. However, we have a uniformity ratio. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And that basically uniformity ratio is really derived by the average over the min, and you have that there as well, in your site statistics, average over min. MR. DONNELY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I’ve done to bring you into compliance there, and this is just targeting, for me. I’ve taken your entrance at 5.02, and made your min at 1.2, which gives you a ratio of 4.4 to 1.83, and the parking I’ve raised your parking to two instead of one, and your min to half a foot candle, which gives you exactly 4.1, or 4 to 1, rather, and on the sidewalks, the 1.33 and your min, I have got it down to .32 to get a 4 to 1 ratio. Do you understand what I’ve done so far? MR. DONNELY-I think so. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m trying to give you some targets to shoot at to get to our four to one ratio. It doesn’t have to be right on the nose. I just made them right on the money mathematically, but it doesn’t have to be. It can be close. What we’re trying to do is not get somebody to transit from a high light level to a very low light level where these two things can’t follow it. MR. DONNELY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Are we still on lighting, Mr. Chairman? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I need cut sheets on the M-Co lamps. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now what is the length, overall, of the 20 foot pole, plus the two foot base. It obviously becomes 22 feet, I believe. Our Code is 20. MR. DONNELY-Twenty? Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. As far as light spill over on Holden is concerned, from the parking lot, I consider that a minor light spill. I’m not worried about it, and that’s all I have on this. If you want, you see what we’re trying to do on uniformity ratio. We’re trying to approach a four to one ratio. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have on that, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments, questions on lighting. Richard? MR. SANFORD-I’m just wondering where we’re going with this. If we’re going for approval tonight on this, then I would think that it would probably be prudent to take the approach we took with the prior applicant where revisions to the lighting plan could be submitted to Staff for review for conformity, rather than having to come back to this Board. That makes sense to me. MR. VOLLARO-It just has to conform with the four to one. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I hear what you had to say. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with your approach, Richard. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s all I’m talking about is the approach. MR. VOLLARO-We also need cut sheets to verify, because the reason we use those cut sheets is when those lights are being installed on the site, usually we have somebody reviewing those lights to make sure that they match the cut sheets. Okay. MR. DONNELY-That’s not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have on lighting, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments on lighting? I had similar comments as Mr. Vollaro. Landscape design, planting schedule, buffering, screening, commercial industrial buffer setbacks. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have one. I think that, according to our Code, 179-8-060, we need at least a 10 foot buffer along the western property line between the parking lot and Holden Avenue. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And that can be a planting. MR. DONNELY-Can it be low growing shrubs, just to keep the line of sight down for traffic entering and leaving the site? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the buffers are usually required as site buffers and sound. All I’ve got in mind is to keep any glare at all from the houses on the western side of Holden Avenue, yes. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I noted that you’ve got a turn onto Holden. I was on Holden today, and that’s a 20 foot wide road, pretty narrow. MR. DONNELY-The reason I did that was many times when I do small sites like this, it becomes an issue to get a fire truck in and get it out of the site, and noting that the traffic on Western is heavy at times, I felt it was wise to provide that second access to get traffic out, especially a fire truck out, in a safe path. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody said to me today when I asked a question, I was up there and I was wanting to make sure I was at the right site. So I went down Columbia, and he said, well, a lot of people bypass South Western Avenue and use Holden, because of the traffic on South Western, and he said Holden, in the mornings and at night, gets pretty crowded because people are trying to stay off South Western Avenue. Interesting, I didn’t realize that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, interesting. Other questions, comments on planting? MR. SEGULJIC-One other comment, and that would be additional plantings in front of the (lost word) as well, that’s the front, the portion of the building that fronts on South Western Avenue, because I see you don’t have any plantings in front of there now. MR. DONNELY-No. I don’t have anything in there. You’re right. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we get some rhododendrons or something like that? MR. DONNELY-I can dress it up if you would like. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I had the same concern. I think the way it’s designed right now, the building would be very stark. There’s nothing up against the building like you would see, you know, typically some shrubbery or something. Is that what you had in mind, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I mean, I’m not an architect. I don’t want to pretend to be one, but I’d like to see some plantings there. MR. DONNELY-I could get some plantings in there, yes. MR. FORD-How many of the existing, mature trees will remain? MR. DONNELY-Most of the site right now is covered by three, four inch caliper poplar trees, basically it looks like it was all field at one time and it’s just grown up with poplar. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) The two trees that are existing are on the front this site, right near where the sign is there, just to the left of the entrance. Those are two good size, if I were to guess, I think they’re sycamores and they’re probably about 30 inches in caliper. I’m going to try to save those two, but other than that, there’s not a whole lot left to this site that’s really worth trying to. MR. FORD-It was those trees in particular I was interested in, the poplars. MR. DONNELY-Yes. To get down under the acre of development, the area at the corner of Holden, and I think this one’s Columbia, that area there will stay wooded, and then there’s a small area between the chiropractor’s office and the proposed building that will stay wooded or natural. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s how you stay under your one acre of disturbance? MR. DONNELY-Exactly. The plan that I submitted to you, I showed it all grass, and I took Mr. Houston’s advice and got it down under an acre. MR. VOLLARO-Now, the plan that shows it down under an acre is not the plan that we have. MR. DONNELY-Right, and the one that’s colored up, up there is the one, yes. You do not have it in front of you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s two drawings that we’re missing, the drawing on the sewer connection, and the drawing showing how you got to less than an acre. I don’t have that either. MR. DONNELY-It’s basically the same plan you have, except for the two treed areas. MR. VOLLARO-See, normally we like to have all the stuff in front of us to review. MR. DONNELY-I agree. MR. VOLLARO-Rather than have some up there and some with Staff, and nothing over here. This is the Board that votes, essentially. MR. DONNELY-I agree with you totally. I got a lot of these comments late in the week last week and I moved very quickly to get as much to you as I could. The dark green areas here, this area here and this area here, are the two areas that we’re proposing are going to stay the natural areas with the existing trees that are on them now. This would be the chiropractor’s office. His site is here. The existing residence is in this area here, and the proposed stormwater will be in this area here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re leaving the dark green the way it is naturally and the rest of that site estimates out to less than an acre? MR. DONNELY-Yes. The whole site all together was only an acre and a third. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments on landscape? Environmental questions, concerns? Neighborhood character, neighborhood impacts, health, safety and welfare of the community? Any comments on involved agencies, other criteria not reviewed? MR. VOLLARO-The other criteria not reviewed is we need a C.T. Male signoff on their letter of 7/12, stating that they don’t have any further questions concerning their 28 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) questions, not 28, I guess it was the questions referring to the greater than one acre, I believe, were 20 questions referring to greater than an acre. That’s been eliminated. MR. DONNELY-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-So now we have signoff on Questions 21 through 28. MR. SANFORD-So we’re looking at a conditioning for C.T. Male signoff, and revised lighting plan reviewed by Staff, and is that it? And some landscaping, rhododendrons. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve got to talk to a 10 foot buffer at the rear, in accordance with our 179 spec. I already said that in the rear of the building, there should be a buffer there between, that should be a 10 foot buffer. MR. SANFORD-Yes, 10 foot buffer. MR. VOLLARO-But we haven’t determined what we’re putting in there. He was talking about low growing bushes, and I’m talking about a buffer to kind of buffer out the light from the residential. MR. SANFORD-Arborvitaes, Bob, I think is what we need, right? MR. VOLLARO-Arborvitaes? MR. SANFORD-Arborvitaes. MR. DONNELY-Is that what you would like, something that stays green year round? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And I’m pushing for a sidewalk. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but you might be out on a limb on that one. I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-How am I doing on my sidewalk? MR. VOLLARO-I think you’re out, as far as I’m concerned. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we still have a public hearing, too. Any other questions, comments, from the Board? MR. FORD-We want to specify Rendering B, correct? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Is that what we’re calling that? MR. FORD-However you want to refer to it. MR. VOLLARO-How have we referred to your alternate rendering? MR. DONNELY-My architect put the title on here, optional elevation. So if you want to call it the optional, I’ll know exactly what you’re talking about. MR. VOLLARO-One last comment before we get into public hearing, on the stormwater report, or is this stormwater report now absolutely not used? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. DONNELY-It’s still a requirement, from what I understand, but it is not as strictly adhered to. MR. VOLLARO-You’re using that lower level as your stormwater area right there. MR. DONNELY-Yes. When I had first submitted this to you, I had an area up in here, and I also had an area in here. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. DONNELY-And now it’s all gotten confined down to a small area in here. MR. VOLLARO-Down to that, but this stormwater report refers to the original stormwater plan. MR. DONNELY-Yes, it does. MR. VOLLARO-So we’d need a revised stormwater plan to be in conformance. MR. DONNELY-Yes. I submitted that to Mr. Houston last week, and I figured I might as well, it was so late in the game here, I figured I’d revise all the plans, take care of it all in one shot. You will get a new revised stormwater plan reflecting all the changes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. Mr. Chairman, you recognize that most of this stuff that we’re getting is after the fact. You’re aware of that. I guess most of the Board is aware of that. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things, on any stormwater plan I’d like to see an engineering stamp on it. MR. DONNELY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t have any further comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? Comments from the applicant? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on behalf or against this proposal? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board. Do you want to move forward on a SEQRA? MR. SANFORD-I think so. MR. SEGULJIC-Short Form, I assume? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s Unlisted. MR. VOLLARO-It’s an Unlisted Short Form. It’s not a subdivision. So it’s a site plan, it would be a Short Form. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 41-2005, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DOUGLAS PROVOST, MD MICHAEL GUIDO, MD, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. VOLLARO-I just want to include my reason for the abstention. MR. HUNSINGER-You don’t need to. It’s not a requirement. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I want to. I’d like to say it anyway. We’re going to be getting a new stormwater report and some new drawings and other things that are going to be going to Staff. I just want it to be recognized that Staff doesn’t do those reviews. This Board does, and that was the reason why I’m abstaining on the SEQRA, as a matter of fact, because I think that this Board ought to have the opportunity to review all pertinent information before we make a decision, and it’s not for Staff to make those decisions, and that’s my position. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the will of the Board? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. SANFORD-I think we could move forward on this. I mean, the way I look at it, it’s almost, I’m giving a comment to Mr. Vollaro’s statement. I can’t tell you how many times we condition approval on C.T. Male signoff, and it’s the same thing, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that, Mr. Sanford, but usually we have a conforming stormwater report in front of us, and all the pertinent drawings associated with the application. In this particular case, we do not. MR. SANFORD-Again, this is going to be sewered and all that, and to me it’s a pretty clean project. This is not at all, I mean, compared to some of the projects that we get around here, this looks awful darn clean. MR. HUNSINGER-I think Bob’s point is well taken. We can always table it pending the submission and final review by this Board. It’s up to us to decide if we want to move forward or not. MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess if you’re polling the Board, I’m comfortable to move forward on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone want to offer a resolution? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’ll make a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Richard. MR. SANFORD-Why don’t we take a couple of minutes so we can put the conditions in. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the issue I wanted to bring up leads right into that, and that’s the issue on the sidewalk, and I tend to fall with Tom on this, and one of my thoughts, I know it’s not ideal, but might be the appropriate compromise. Since there is a sidewalk on the other side of the street, perhaps if there was at least a sidewalk extended to the east, from the front of the building, the existing sidewalk, if it were extended to the east, so that you could at least walk to the street, cross the street, I’m not sure that accomplishes anything, but perhaps that could be a compromise that we could consider. MR. SEGULJIC-Clarify that for me, when you say to the east. MR. DONNELY-Basically you want it to follow the driveway, more or less. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Towards South Western Ave. MR. HUNSINGER-So that you could then cross South Western Ave. and use the sidewalk on the other side of the street. MR. DONNELY-Cross to the other side. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I don’t think there’s support on the Board to put the sidewalk in the front of the property, as Tom and I would like. It’s a thought. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re gaining something, but I still think we should start requesting sidewalks. MR. HUNSINGER-I do, too. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. SANFORD-Maybe you’ve got the majority on this, Chris. I’m not sure you don’t. I mean, how does everybody feel on the sidewalks? MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we kind of polled the Board on that already. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m going to vote against it. Let’s get it right up front. I don’t support it, in this chair. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-Unless we’ve got some way of continuing that sidewalk, I’d like to see a sidewalk on that side of the street, for sure, but I don’t see us getting it. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, can I point out something? MR. FORD-Please, go ahead. MR. SEGULJIC-Isn’t that the property to the northwest of the site, directly to the north end, that’s residential. What’s to bet that that’s going to go commercial very soon. If we don’t put a sidewalk on this site, we’re going to be in the exact same position right now, we’re going to say, there isn’t anything there, so why should we request one? MR. VOLLARO-Is this something for our Town Board to take a good hard look at it, putting sidewalks there? I think sidewalks are good there. I’d like to see them there. I just don’t want to build sidewalk going nowhere. I’ve talked about sidewalks before, and this chair has made a vote on sidewalks. So I’m done. MR. GOETZ-I sort of agree with Bob on this. To put a sidewalk going to nowhere doesn’t make much sense, particularly if, I think the idea of taking a sidewalk up the side, at least to Western Avenue, gives the people a chance to go across. My mother was in the nursing home there for quite a few years, and I used to just cross the road and run up Western Avenue on the Glens Falls side without any problem. So, you know, I think to cause an unnecessary expense, again, is sort of not necessary. MR. SANFORD-So the sidewalk doesn’t seem to carry, I guess. MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn’t carry, no. Can we agree to have the sidewalk along the driveway to the road? MR. GOETZ-Yes. I said that, that’s not bad. At least they can go to the road. MR. SEGULJIC-How did the rest of the Board feel about that? MR. VOLLARO-I’d go along with that. MR. SANFORD-I’ll go along with that. Okay. Can we take a few minutes? Chris, you take pretty good notes. Could you work with me to put together a resolution? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SANFORD-Give us a few minutes, and then we can get the conditions down. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2005 DOUGLAS PROVOST, MD & MICHAEL GUIDO, MD, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) The Queensbury Planning Board has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: RESOLUTION NO. SP 41-2005 INTRODUCED BY: Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION: SECONDED BY: Thomas Ford WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 5600 sq. ft. medical arts building WHEREAS, the application was received on May 31, 2005; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. Applicant will install a sidewalk on the northern side of the driveway entrance to connect to the sidewalk on the plan, 2. Applicant will incorporate in the final drawings the optional elevation in terms of the building, 3. Applicant will submit a revised lighting plan that would be in compliance with the Town specs, and again, in keeping with what we did before, if it does not, it would have to come back in front of this Board, 4. There will be planting of shrubs along the building frontage along South Western Avenue, consistent with the planting pattern on the other locations of the site plan. Nothing real low, a visual buffer to the north, 5. Applicant must receive C.T. Male Associates sign-off, 6. Applicant must receive sign-off on the sewer & water connection, 7. There should be a 10 foot buffer along the western property line between the parking lot and Holden Avenue, 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) 8 A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit, 9. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright, 10. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 19 day of July 2005 by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-I think the buffer, Mr. Sanford, has got to be along the western property line between the parking lot and Holden Avenue. MR. HUNSINGER-My mistake on that. Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Yes, you have it to the north. What is it, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-It’s a 10 foot buffer along the western property line between the parking lot and Holden Avenue. MR. SEGULJIC-Should we clarify what you mean by front of the building? MR. FORD-Yes, please. MR. SEGULJIC-Because it’s really along the building frontage along South Western Avenue. MR. SANFORD-Okay, shrubs in the proximity of the building facing South Western Avenue. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And we should try to specify the number, if we could. Does the applicant have a suggestion? MR. DONNELY-Are you comfortable with the spacing that I show in the rest of the planting plan, something similar to that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DONNELY-We’ll do some saw tooth pattern, and I’ll show some mulch and what not. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be great. So we could just say consistent with the planting pattern on the other locations of the site plan. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. MR. DONNELY-The planting on Holden, when you refer to it 10 feet, you mean the same as what is laid out on the rest of the site, right? You mean you want a width of 10 feet with the planting, the same as what I’ve got shown here. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the Holden side is a little different than what we’re looking for, the shrubs in the front of the building, yes. MR. DONNELY-Right, a different plant variety, but still the same, 10 foot wide and the length of? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DONNELY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think it would help for you to look at 179-8-060, and that would give you a lot of information on your buffer requirements. MR. DONNELY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-You have a copy of our Code? MR. DONNELY-Yes, I do. AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you very much. MR. DONNELY-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 42-2005 SEQR TYPE II RELIABLE RACING SUPPLY AGENT(S): JOHN JACOBS OWNER(S): T & M JACOBS PROPERTIES ZONING: HC- INTENSIVE LOCATION: 643 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3024 SQ. FT. COLD STORAGE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. EXPANSION OF A RETAIL SALES/SERVICE USE IN AN HC-INT ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REF. SP 41-03, SV 1376 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/13/05 LOT SIZE: 5.40 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.11-1-2 SECTION 179-4-020 TIM MULLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes. Do you want me to summarize? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Reliable Racing Supply is the applicant for the project. Site plan review for the expansion of an existing use on 643 Upper Glen Street. The property is zoned Highway Commercial Intensive. It’s a Type II SEQR Action. The most recent Planning Board activity was Site Plan 41-2003, approved on August 26, 2003 for the construction of a fence along the portion of the south property boundary. The applicant is proposing a 3,024 square foot cold storage building to the rear of his property. The floor is yours. Good evening. MR. MULLEN-Hi. I’m Tim Mullen. I’m coming in place of John Jacobs who is out of Town for a few days, and I want to talk about our new proposed 3,000 foot cold storage building to go in the rear of our property, and I’ll answer any questions that I might about that. Yesterday, I received a fax with some Staff questions and prepared some notes, yesterday and today, about that, but I haven’t done this Board. So, ask whatever you’d like. I’m here to try to answer them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I think I know the answer. They refer to the building as cold storage. MR. MULLEN-Yes. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. SEGULJIC-What do you mean by cold storage? MR. MULLEN-Just, there’s no heat, there’s no power. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. MULLEN-We store fencing in it and pallet loads of things that you don’t necessarily get into every day. MR. FORD-So it’s not refrigerated. MR. MULLEN-No, it’s whatever temperature (lost word). MR. HUNSINGER-A similar question. My assumption is that those temporary storage containers, for lack of a better word, that are on site, the building is to eliminate the need for those? MR. MULLEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MULLEN-I would like to get rid of the cost of those things and have a building that would look better and work better for us, rather than having to go in and out of those things, sometimes daily, sometimes weekly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-What is the building going to look like? MR. MULLEN-Large tin building. MR. VOLLARO-You haven’t seen this yet, but there’s a rendition here that I picked up from Staff the other morning, and nobody on the Board has a copy of this, I don’t believe. Did you send any of these out, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-There were no other copies. That was the only one that was submitted. MR. VOLLARO-If anybody wants to look at them, you’re welcome to. There is a rendition of the building here. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any reason why enough copies weren’t made for the entire Board? Either the applicant or Staff. I’m not sure who to ask. MRS. BARDEN-It’s unclear whether those were submitted for building permit. They’re very, they’re construction drawings, with the exception of one elevation drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Which was asked for. So there was one submitted, and I think it might have come over from the Building Department. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Is it the will of the Board to go through this site plan review criteria sheet? Or is it pretty straightforward? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m pretty much set with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-I have a couple of questions on it. Looking at the drawing itself, we say that there’s a 20 foot separation between the corner of the building and the southern property line, but it measures 15 on the drawing, if you take a look at it. We’re talking at the corner of your building to the southern property line. MR. MULLEN-I measure 15. MR. VOLLARO-I measure 15 as well. It’s got to be 20. So that building has to move slightly to the north and to accomplish your 20 foot separation. MR. MULLEN-I’m sorry. I misunderstood. Could you show me where that was? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FORD-Right where you marked 20. MR. VOLLARO-Right here. It’s really 15. I measured 15 off on my scale. That needs to be 20. MR. HUNSINGER-To meet setback requirements. MR. VOLLARO-The data sheets are incorrect. The percent that’s non-permeable, that’s on your Site Development Data Sheet, the percent non-permeable should be 35.5, not 14, and the permeability, which is down on the bottom, the permeability that you’ve come up with, is 14.5. It should be 65, 64.5, not 30. MR. MULLEN-Could you repeat that, please? It’s 14.5 and it should be? MR. VOLLARO-If you look down under setback requirements, you have a setback requirement, in your proposed you have 20, but your actual drawing shows 15. MR. MULLEN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve got to make a correction to the drawing for that. MR. MULLEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Your permeability, if you go up to the top of the Site Development Data Sheet and get under percent non-permeable. MR. MULLEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Percent non-permeable is really 35.5. It’s your total non- permeable over your parcel area will give you 35.5. MR. MULLEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And then if you go down to your permeability, on setback requirements, I don’t know why that’s called, but under permeability, you’ve got 30%. It should be 64.5, and not 14.5. The lighting doesn’t really give you anything to do with foot candles on the ground at all. MR. MULLEN-I wasn’t aware we needed foot candles. I’m the one that actually wrote the wattages and down, so forth, for the owner of the building. I wasn’t aware of those needs. MR. VOLLARO-Are you planning on putting any lights back there? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. MULLEN-No. MR. VOLLARO-And it may not, the whole idea of lighting submission may be moot if you’re not going to put any lights back there. MR. MULLEN-No additional power. Just a cold storage to replace our six trailers, about the same square footage as the trailers. MR. FORD-And what is going to be stored in there, please. MR. MULLEN-Fencing, bamboo, large items and pallets of items, which you don’t need all the time that they’re too large to store inside and then you break them apart and move them inside, large quantities of rough things that don’t need heat, doesn’t matter if they’re cold, fencing, fence posts, stuff like that. MR. FORD-You bring fencing and fence posts inside and store them in this cold storage? MR. MULLEN-Yes. Golf mats, things that come in pallets that can just sit there and not, you don’t want them in a way in a nice facility. We just want to have them out where they’re not in anyone’s way, just as they are now in the temporary containers. MR. FORD-Boxes of clothing? MR. MULLEN-No, never. Anything valuable like that would need to be inside in our major warehouse. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments on the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. According to the pre-application conference that was conducted by Mr. Brown, he required parking calculations, and a break down of the building, the square footage in uses to calculate the parking. Now I’m not sure, when I looked at that, I’m really not sure that this is any longer germane, after the applicant talks about putting the kind of things he’s going to put in the building. I’m not sure that either the parking calculations or the break down makes any sense now, to me, even though it was part of the pre-application conference. So I’m willing to just let those go, because I think the type of building that he’s talking about, the type of storage he’s going to use, doesn’t really require that. MR. GOETZ-I might have missed something when I was outside, but those containers that you’re using now, they’re going? MR. MULLEN-Yes. It’s about the same square footage. MR. GOETZ-Okay. So you aren’t going to put this addition up and then say, gee, we need those containers for something a little more? MR. MULLEN-No. We’d really like to get away from those things. It’s not a good long term investment. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? MR. FORD-Basically what you have stored in there now is what will go in the new building? MR. MULLEN-Yes, sir. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled tonight. I can see that there’s no one here to comment. So I will open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II Action. So, no SEQRA’s required. MR. VOLLARO-This is a Type II. They’re going to build a new building, in the back. I mean, you’ve got a previous one where we said it was Unlisted, and this was, I guess it’s Angio Dynamics, we used it as an Unlisted as opposed to a Type II. You see where I’m getting confused now? Here they’re building a new building. They’re just modifying an existing building, and not changing the use, and it seems to me that that one did not an Unlisted SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA doesn’t have to make sense. MR. VOLLARO-I guess not. Okay. That’s a good comment, Mr. Chairman. It doesn’t. MR. FORD-Color of the structure? MR. MULLEN-Light blue to match the one in the front, to match our major warehouse, about the color of your shirt. MR. FORD-Will the metal come that way, that color? MR. MULLEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Our attorney had a comment on the SEQRA. Go ahead. I’m sorry. MR. HILL-The exemption for the construction of the new building is fairly explicit under the Type II criteria. The conversion of an existing building is not quite so explicit. So I think the Chairman had a good idea in acting out of an abundance of caution and doing the SEQR review. It’s possible that the Angio Dynamics application could have been interpreted in such a way to exempt it from SEQR review. It just wasn’t quite as explicit as this. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. Thanks very much, by the way. MR. HILL-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no further questions or comments, I will entertain any motion from the Board. MR. VOLLARO-We do have a prepared resolution for that? MR. HUNSINGER-We do. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my only question is, do we have, since the building renderings were not part of the package, the building renderings were not part of the package submitted. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to have to talk to that, that’s a new drawing, and that drawing happens to be dated 5/16/05. It would have to be made part of our resolution. It would have to be included. MRS. BARDEN-This elevation drawing? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s dated, all drawings on that are dated 5/16/05. MRS. BARDEN-You want the whole packet, not just the elevation drawing? MR. VOLLARO-No, the elevation drawing is fine, but the elevation drawing, the new drawing, the new elevation drawing is dated 5/16/05, to identify it. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2005 RELIABLE RACING, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 3024 sq. ft. cold storage building and associated site work WHEREAS, the application was received on June 8, 2005; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. A drawing entitled elevation, drawing dated 5/16/05 be included as part of this application, 2. Waiver requests have been granted, 3. The Site Development Sheet shall be changed in accordance with the minutes of this meeting and submitted to staff for inclusion in the final plan, 4. The proposed building has to be moved in a northerly direction in order for it to be in compliance with the 20 foot separation between the southern property line and the building itself. Right now the drawing shows 15 feet, and that we’ll delete from the resolution, 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) 5. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright, 6. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. MULLEN-Thanks very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 43-2005 SEQR TYPE II GARY & LORRAINE MIKUTEL OWNER(S): GLENWOOD ASSOCIATES ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 60 GLENWOOD AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 973 SQ. FT. OF THE EXISTING GLENWOOD DAYHAB BUILDING INTO AN ICE CREAM PARLOR. RESTAURANT/FAST FOOD USES IN THE HC-INT ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: 26-94 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/13/05 LOT SIZE: 2.60 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-1 SECTION 179-4-020 GARY MIKUTEL, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-This is a conversion of an existing retail space for an ice cream shop on Glenwood Avenue. This is a SEQR Type II. No other site improvements proposed, other than site lighting, and Warren County Planning Board did indicate that, No County Impact with the stipulation that the lighting plan conform to Town standards. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If you could identify yourself for the record, and tell us what you plan to do. MR. MIKUTEL-Hi. My name’s Gary Mikutel. This is my wife, Lorraine Mikutel. We’re interested in opening an ice cream shop at 60 Glenwood Ave. The annex building that’s right behind the Glenwood Manor. As I submitted, we don’t plan on really changing the front elevation, except adding one window to the left side. I did a basic rendition myself. It wasn’t done by an architect, but the site plan was enough, trust me, but we’re going to put two ice cream windows on the outside, and then we would like to have service on the inside. So we plan on having seating on the inside, with an ice cream service place on the inside. We feel it would be a great asset to the bike trail. I certainly think the look of the building adds to the countryside, to the bike trail, and we certainly don’t want to change that look at all. I think the country look looks pretty good as far as for that particular area. As far as lighting, I certainly heard about the lighting tonight, and my concern was that I thought you thought I’d have too much lighting. So I was trying to put as little as I could, but I do, that 400 watt light on the NiMo pole that I did put down, that can be revised. I could change that, as far as on the lighting plan. I guess I’m just asking for approval. We do meet, I think, the parking requirements. We do 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) have in our lease that we have use of the parking lot across the street, and I’m asking for a site plan approval, certainly with the lighting plan, I think probably better than what I submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I have just a, conceptually, I like the idea. One of the concerns that I have deals with access to the building from the parking lot across the street. You’re going to attract families, small children, and that is a pretty busy thoroughfare that they’re going to be crossing. MR. MIKUTEL-Yes, that was one thing I did think about, and the bike trail, in that parking lot, the bike trail is kind of connected. So there is a crosswalk by the bike trail. I mean, we could have signage, as far as walkway or, you know, certainly direct them so they cross where the bike trail crosses the road, and I have contacted Warren County Bikeway, and I am working with Niagara Mohawk to try to get a right of way where the Bikeway would be an agreement to work with me putting a bridge from the bikeway across the ravine there, and have access from Niagara Mohawk with the right of way. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I didn’t see anything in your application. I mean, I know that the Staff notes talked a little bit about the use of the NiMo property, and I think there was also a comment in Warren County about that. The way I looked at this, in this application, you weren’t looking to use any of the NiMo Corporation property at all. MR. MIKUTEL-No. MR. VOLLARO-It looked to me like everything was on your side of the, you’ve got your nine parking spaces. You’ve got your one handicap space closest to your building, and the overflow, the overflow parking, I don’t know. Tom’s got a point, people running back across Glenwood Avenue. Staying on the NiMo thing, I don’t see that you’ve asked at all, in this application, to use any of the NiMo property at all. MR. MIKUTEL-No, I did not. No. MR. VOLLARO-And if you want to go through consultation with Niagara Mohawk, then you would come back to us, I guess, after this site plan, if you want to add to this or modify this plan, so that you now can use Niagara Mohawk property. That would be, you would come back for a site plan modification, it’s called. MR. MIKUTEL-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Vollaro, part of that crushed stone driving surface is NiMo property. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that, but that’s not something that the applicant put in, is it? MRS. BARDEN-No, but he’s asking to access it. He’s asking to use it as a roadway. MR. MIKUTEL-No, on this site plan I’m not asking any access to that. You can see where the solid line runs to the side of the building. I mean, that is, what I show for parking places, I do not infringe at all on NiMo property. MRS. BARDEN-To get to the employee parking in the rear. MR. MIKUTEL-That’s what I worked out, as far as on the left hand side, it would be employee parking going down the left side of the building. I mean, you can drive on the right side, but you would be going over the NiMo property. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MRS. BARDEN-You can’t drive on the left side, can you? MR. MIKUTEL-Yes. There’s a driveway all the way around the whole building. It’s, exactly what the site plan shows is what’s there. MRS. BARDEN-No, I was there, but I mean, it’s clearly, the roadway is on the right side, because you have the parking there, and it looked like it was just a walkway on the other side. MR. MIKUTEL-It is a roadway. It’s 14 feet as you can see on the front left corner of the building there, where it shows the width of the stone. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the existing owner have permission to use the Niagara Mohawk property? MR. MIKUTEL-I don’t really know. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean because obviously they do use it. They use it for parking on really both sides of Glenwood Avenue. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I thought that sign they had there, Mr. Chairman, that said no parking any time was really related to Glenwood Dayhab. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-I see where they may be using the NiMo, because you’re not occupying the whole building. You’re just occupying the front portion of it. MR. MIKUTEL-Yes, the front third. MR. VOLLARO-The front third of it. Right, and so I see all this reference to Niagara Mohawk being primarily for the Glenwood Dayhab, it seems to me. I didn’t read anything in there that talked about, I want to use or infringe in any way on Niagara Mohawk property. If he wants to, and comes to an agreement with Niagara Mohawk to do so, he can come back for a site plan modification. One of the things I do have, though, is there’s a note on here that says reputed existing sanitary sewer. Now, whoever drew this plan up, this Charles T. Nacy, doesn’t show exactly where that sanitary sewer is hooked up to. It shows a force main coming off a pump and going to a manhole, and then from there going to a reputed sanitary sewer system, and it stops there. Usually we like to see that tied in in some way to the sanitary sewer. That doesn’t show here at all. It probably is today, because I assume Glenwood Dayhab is using that. MR. MIKUTEL-Yes. You can see, they did transfer a pump in the back of the building. MR. VOLLARO-I see that. MR. MIKUTEL-And I assume when they were approved to go in, it seems like somebody would have looked at the sewer system. MR. VOLLARO-I would assume that as well, but the sanitary sewer stops right here. When he says reputed, I don’t know exactly what he means. That means he hasn’t investigated it. It’s hearsay on his part, but that really ought to the sanitary sewer. We ought to know where that connection is. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that, but. MR. MIKUTEL-Well, I think what my thought was, this was a site plan, we weren’t really doing a construction plan. Maybe I’m off base here, but if it has sewer, city and water, it seems like it is connected to the house wherever it goes. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. VOLLARO-I tend to agree with you. It’s just that this site plan doesn’t show that, and usually I like to see, and if C.T. Male, for example, our resident, our hired engineer, was to look at this, it would be the first thing he would say is where is the connection to municipal sewer, and I’m just jumping in on his behalf on this one. I don’t see it. We can certainly make it a condition if the Board wants to condition it on the fact that it is in fact tied to the sanitary sewer, that’s fine with me, but the site plan ought to show that. One other thing I have a question on is the comment that came from the County. There’s absolutely no signature, no date. There’s nothing on the County document whatsoever. Nothing. The document that came from the County, Warren County Planning. MS. HEMINGWAY-These are faxed copies that come from our office the day after the meeting. We don’t get the actual signed ones until much later. This is normal for us. MR. VOLLARO-When I looked at this I said, gee, that’s nice, there’s nobody in the County that signed this document. MS. HEMINGWAY-They don’t. These are faxed. So that we can have them the next day after the meeting. This is a normal course of business. They’re very busy up there and we don’t get the actual originals until many days later, and that goes in the file. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MS. HEMINGWAY-We get a cover letter with this, from Laura Moore. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but there will be a signed. That’s all I have on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? MR. GOETZ-I thought Bob’s comments about the sewer was good, and I think it should be part of, contingent upon that. MR. FORD-What are your intentions as far as the potential for paving? MR. MIKUTEL-None, we’re going to leave it as is. MR. FORD-You’re not going to pave it. MR. MIKUTEL-No. MR. FORD-What about signage? What are your plans in that regard? MR. MIKUTEL-Well, on the peak there, there’s one of the sheets there in your packet. Basically it was right on the peak there. It would be whatever the zoning allowed, but we were just going to have an ice cream cone shape on top of the peak there, and then just the pricing on the front of the building, and as far as the lighting, just to address that, we’re going to, underneath the overhang, there was going to be a yellow lighting underneath the overhang. So the lighting would be just staying where the porch area is. There wouldn’t be any light escaping, and then the pole lights, whatever the requirements are. I heard you talk about foot candles. MR. FORD-The only signage is an ice cream cone. MR. MIKUTEL-Yes. It’s going to say Sprinkles Ice Cream Shop, with the cone on top, and then. MR. FORD-That’s where it’ll go. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Are there questions? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess you have the proposed 400 watt floodlight on pole number seven. Why are you going to have a light way over there? MR. MIKUTEL-Well, initially I looked into, with Niagara Mohawk, they have a program where they charge you $25 a month, and they’ll put the light up for you. You don’t do anything with it. MR. SEGULJIC-Is it necessary? I can understand why, what I get out of this, you’re going to light the parking spots, correct? MR. MIKUTEL-Well, I put that up there thinking that I needed more lighting than less lighting. So that, I was actually planning on scrapping that plan. So if that’s an issue with you, I was going to scrap that anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Scrap which part? MR. MIKUTEL-Putting that light on pole number seven, from Niagara Mohawk. If that answers your question. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I just didn’t see why it would be there. You’re just lighting up the lawn there, from what I could see, right? MR. MIKUTEL-Just trying to brighten up the area. It was a concern a little bit, too, as far as with the street, which you were talking about. That was one reason I had that light there a little bit, to make that a little brighter closer to the street. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, how does everyone feel about that light on Pole Number Seven? MR. HUNSINGER-I was with you on that. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I just don’t see it. MR. VOLLARO-I think we could take that out. I think, if he’s got some lighting under the canopy, that would be fine. That’s what he’s planning to do right out front, I think, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, and I had questions on the proposed light poles that you wanted to put up, the specs. MR. FORD-Could we go back to that one light, before we move on to other lights. I want to go back to my concern about people crossing Glenwood Avenue, after dark, and this may be a poor lighting arrangement, with, what is it, a 400 watt or whatever it is on that pole, but it seems to me that we need additional lighting in that roadway area for crossing the street and doing it safely, but, you know, you can talk me out of that, but that’s my position on that. MR. VOLLARO-The folks that use the bike path, the folks that walk and use the bike path are subject to pretty much the same conditions right now as being kind of poorly lit at night. I know I’ve come around that turn a number of times, and in the evening after this meeting, there are people still out at night biking on the bike path, and I have to stop for them because one of them had no lights on their bike at all. So that pole might serve a couple of things. It might serve to light up a little bit of the applicant’s area, but it would also serve to help where that bike path crosses right over Glenwood. People have to go across that Glenwood Avenue with their bikes or walking, and if they do it at 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) night, they’re subject to that traffic. There’s a stop sign there, but I’ve seen people creep that sign. MR. FORD-It’s a potentially hazardous intersection as it is right now, and you folks hope, as we do, that you’re going to add to that congestion, and I think anything we can do to provide safety for families in that area is appropriate. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure 400 watts, that’s all he’s talking about, 400 watts is going to be well, well underneath our lighting spec. Well underneath, and the only other lights he plans to use are under the canopy, some yellow lights that shine down where people are picking up their ice cream cones. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the question I was about to ask is they show proposed lights and poles on the parking area. MR. MIKUTEL-I don’t have a problem. I think that 400 watt would light up that general parking area, and the lighting under the canopy. These two light poles I’d prefer not putting in them in, to be honest with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, I mean, it’s a question of it’s easier to have NiMo put the light in than do it yourself. MR. MIKUTEL-Right, and it’s a fixed cost and I don’t even have to worry about that light anymore. So it’s an expense I don’t really want to incur if I don’t have to. So I don’t have a problem, if the Board doesn’t have a problem with that 400 watt, passing on these two light poles and just using the lighting underneath the overhang. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would certainly think that’s a better arrangement. Get rid of the two lights that are alongside your nine parking spaces and see if you can get Niagara Mohawk to put that 400 watt floodlight, down lit, so that it’s got to be shielded on the top, but NiMo’s pretty good at that, and that would help that whole situation, I think there, in this area, of course. MR. GOETZ-If I’m coming down the bike trail, to get to, into this location from what I saw today, you just can’t take a left or a right off the bike trail and go in. You have to go to Glenwood Avenue first. Is that correct? And then you have to go in by the auction place, work your way around to your location, and I did take that, actually I did that whole thing just a couple of weekends ago, and I agree with Mr. Ford. That is very dangerous. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot of traffic there. MR. GOETZ-Yes. So I think anything like the light I do support, based on that. MR. VOLLARO-I think so, too. I think the two small poles probably wouldn’t do too much, but that big one, properly lit, downcast lighting and so on, might really help not only the applicant’s site but the general safety of that area. I would lean in that direction. I think Mr. Ford has a very good point. It’s the same kind of point we made at The Great Escape, Route 9. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess we’re agreed to leave Pole Number Seven with a floodlight and take out the two proposed lights alongside the parking lot. Is that where we’re at? 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. I can see that there’s no one here, but for the record, we will open the public hearing, and then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a SEQRA Type II, so no SEQRA review is required. Any final thoughts or comments, Staff, any further thoughts or comments? MR. FORD-Just one question. When do you anticipate opening? MRS. MIKUTEL-As soon as possible. Seeing as how I quit my job already. MR. MIKUTEL-We started this, believe it or not, in April. MR. SEGULJIC-Should we make a motion, then? MR. VOLLARO-I think we can make a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we’re ready. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2005 GARY & LORRAINE MIKUTEL, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 973 sq. ft. of the existing Glenwood DayHab building into an Ice Cream parlor WHEREAS, the application was received on June 13, 2005; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 19, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. The two (2) proposed light poles and the lights located in the parking spaces be removed, 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/19/05) 2. The request for waivers for stormwater management plan, grading plan, landscaping plan, and sewer design and flow rates are granted, 3. A plan should be submitted to Staff to show the sewer connection to Quaker Road. The applicant shall provide this documentation so that Mike Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater, can review the plan. The burden to provide this documentation shall fall upon the applicant, 4. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright, 5. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 19 day of July, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. SEGULJIC-Back to your comment, Bob, about the sewer connections. Do you want that shown? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. It depends on what the Board feels. I feel that a plan should be submitted to Staff showing that connection, or that Mr. Nacy, I guess it is, who did this, ought to, you know, show that connection to the Quaker Road sewer district. Otherwise it’s just hanging out in space. I know there’s a connection, and he should have, I think, put that connection on the drawing. When he put reputed, it means he didn’t want to go check it out, I believe. MR. MIKUTEL-Well, when I had him do the site plan, it was more for the parking spaces than I thought, seeing that there were City sewer and water, I didn’t really push that. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 63