Loading...
2007-01-23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 40-2006 MT Associates, Inc. 1. Tax Map No. 288.-1-59 Subdivision No. 3-2007 1093 Group, LLC 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 1-2006 1093 Group, LLC 5. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55 Site Plan No. 50-2006 Craig Burrows 14. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-5 Site Plan No. 13-2004 David Menter 14. MODIFICATION #2 Tax Map No. 295.8-1-9 Site Plan No. 1-2007 Linda Casse 21. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-62 Site Plan No. 64-2005 Jeffrey Kilburn 25. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Fresh Water Wetlands Jeffrey Kilburn 25. Permit No. 5-2005 Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 DISCUSSION ONLY Stewarts Shops Corp. 39. 777 Dix Avenue Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61 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 01/23/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY TANYA BRUNO STEPHEN TRAVER BARBARA LAVIN, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY SITE PLAN NO. 40-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MT ASSOCIATES, INC. AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): DANIEL LOMBARD ZONING: HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1477 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,135 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE STORAGE W/FAST FOOD VENDORS, A 3,160 SQ. FOOT FUEL ISLAND AND A 1,025 SQ. FT. CAR WASH. CONVENIENCE STORE/GASOLINE STATION/CAR WASH USES IN THE HC-INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-06, AV 54-89, UV 74-89, SP 35-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/11/06 LOT SIZE: 1.99 ACRES [2.43 RPS] TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-59 SECTION 179-4-020 MR. HUNSINGER-We did receive a letter dated today, received today, asking that the project be tabled for tonight’s meeting. I would entertain a motion for tabling it, and the reason they gave is that there’s a lengthy response letter from the prior Town Engineer that has to be addressed, along with revised site plan drawings, and they’re looking to th table it for the first meeting in March, which would be the 20. Would anyone like to make that motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2006 MT ASSOCIATES, INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: In response to the letter received from their counsel. This will be tabled to the March th 20 meeting which is the first meeting in March. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Lavin, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp th MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing will be held open until the 20 of March. th MRS. BARDEN-And submission by February 15? th MR. HUNSINGER-15, and that’s what they said in their letter they would do. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2007 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC AGENT(S): WILLIAM PALADINO OWNER(S): MARY JANE CANALE ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 724 UPPER GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 6.786 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.6 AND 5.1 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE SP 1-2006 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.786 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55, 59 SECTION A-183 WILLIAM PALADINO & TIM O’BRIEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is a two lot commercial subdivision. The application is for Preliminary and Final Stages. The location of the project is 724 Upper Glen Street. The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel resulting in lots of 5.2 and 1.6 acres. The required posting of the sign noticing the public hearing was not witnessed on site. The Board should discuss how to proceed with this application. The Board will have to consider and possible waive the Board’s requirements, applications for subdivision Sketch, Preliminary and Final Stages will not be heard at the same meeting. Additionally a waiver of the required submittal of a Sketch Plan subdivision is required before proceeding to Preliminary and Final Stages. An approximate delineation of Army Corps of Engineer wetlands should be identified on the plat. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen, the floor is yours. MR. PALADINO-William Paladino with Ellicott Development Company, address 295 Main Street, Buffalo, New York, here as agent for the 1093 Group, LLC. MR. O'BRIEN-Tim O’Brien with BL Companies. We’re the site engineers. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours, thank you. MR. PALADINO-We’re looking to, with regard to the subdivision, subdivide this over six acre parcel for a Rite Aid Pharmacy, to develop a Rite Aid Pharmacy along Route 9, along the Route 9 corridor. This parcel we’re looking to subdivide we would take a roughly 1.64 acre portion of an over six acre parcel that’s currently, or was owned by Mr. Bill Canale, and Mr. Canale would retain the remaining 5.15 acres in the rear, including a senior activity center that does exist behind the main building that you see presently up in the front along Route 9. That senior building would remain. The rest of the property would remain vacant, in its present state, until Mr. Canale, at some time in the future, decides to do something with it. Presently, as of even a month ago, our last discussion, he still had no plans for the property, nor did was he entertaining anything. We did, with regard, there was a question with regard to wetlands. We did have Miss Deb Roberts, I believe her name was, research it and you should have received a letter from her, the Town regarding the wetlands, and that is not near, anywhere near what we’re looking to do here, our project. Mr. Canale’s property, I guess it would be along his north property line, on the property that mostly fronts off of Lafayette, that’s where there is some potential, I guess, right along the rear property line for some things, but it is more than 300 feet away from what we are proposing to do along Route 9, and it is not on the property that we are proposing to re-develop. It is on the property Mr. Canale will retain into the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. PALADINO-Regarding the subdivision, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any members of the Board want to ask questions of the applicant or have comments to make? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just wondering, what’s the status on the, why wasn’t the subdivision posted? MR. PALADINO-I don’t know. It was probably just an oversight on our behalf, actually, or Mr. Canale’s behalf. I don’t remember personally seeing something. Maybe one of my staff had it and didn’t know what to do with it. I don’t know why it wasn’t posted. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Staff, do we have a copy of the letter from Roberts Engineering? MRS. BARDEN-From Roberts Engineering? MRS. BRUNO-Regarding the wetlands. MRS. BARDEN-Regarding the wetlands. That’s what I’m actually looking for. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HUNSINGER-How does the Board feel in moving forward on the subdivision without the applicant having properly posted the sign? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think that we can do that because that is part of our zoning. It’s a requirement, and it puts people in the community in a situation where if we approve something that they weren’t aware of, I think it sets a bad precedent, in my opinion. MRS. BRUNO-I agree with Mrs. Steffan. We just ran into this last week, and we tabled the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from members of the Board on that particular item? MR. TRAVER-I agree as well. I think we need to be consistent on that issue. MRS. LAVIN-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the waivers that we’re being asked to consider, the requirement for Sketch, Preliminary and Final Stages? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they have been in front of us several times, and so I don’t think I’m as concerned about that. The waivers, though, the driveway spacing waiver, that’s a tremendous request, the difference between, the proposed separation distance to the south is 15 feet where the requirement is 330 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s actually on the site plan. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry. That just jumped out in the Staff Notes because that’s pretty extreme. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MRS. BRUNO-I actually have to say when I read the waiver request I found it rather confusing, the wording, and I needed to re-read it a few times. I’m not even sure that I’m completely clear on it. I basically see that everything was requested, and I understand that you have been before us, and we understand most of the intent of the projects there, but what jumped out at me, and perhaps, again, I’m reading this wrong, the way that the sentence was worded, and therefore have not sent to New York State DEC our SWPPP, but will be in the near future. I don’t think we can vote on a final subdivision without that. MR. PALADINO-Well, that typically, once we have the final sketch plan review and everything from you and our plans are finalized, which C.T. Male has advised us that everything is in order, at that point, we’d send everything to DEC. We are doing a pond. It will be a five day review, and there will not be any problem, and C.T. Male, I think, confirms that for us. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. PALADINO-So that should not be an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess what I’d like to do, seeing as how they are listed as separate items on the agenda. MR. PALADINO-One other comment on the subdivision. I guess a mistake probably made on us and the previous property owners, and it’s our mistake and our problem in a way, that the subdivision wasn’t done, but because of time constraints, we did take title to a portion that we are discussing here of Mr. Canale’s property, though under zoning laws it seems to be an illegal, what we did do, because we did split the property and what we were buying, but because of Mr. Canale’s time constraints, and our contract and ability and how long this process has been in the Town to get our approvals, we were forced to do that with Mr. Canale and we have done so at this point, but we technically do own his building that is up in front on this property, as it’s situated now, according to the surveys and all the maps that have been provided to me. So it is, I guess, a technicality that we’ll have to deal with, and at the last meeting it seemed that everything was going in order and it wasn’t going to be an issue, and now we just hope that it won’t be, but the subdivision obviously is a part of that process to complete that. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. I guess my feeling is since the Board is not comfortable moving forward with the subdivision application, because the sign wasn’t posted, that 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) perhaps tonight we could basically treat this as, for lack of a better term, the Sketch Plan. So that if there are any particular issues that Board members have on the subdivision, we would, you know, address those with you right now. MR. PALADINO-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-And then we’ll move forward with the site plan, understanding that we can’t obviously approve the site plan this evening either without the subdivision being approved as well, but we’ll treat that as a separate item, after we finish with the subdivision, if that’s okay. Were there any additional questions or comments from the Board on the subdivision? I was going to say, if there are, we could go through the review criteria. Okay. Well, since the sign wasn’t posted, we do have a public hearing as well. MR. O’BRIEN-I do have a copy of that letter regarding Roberts Environmental. I could submit it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you find a copy of it, Susan, in the file? MRS. BARDEN-We don’t have it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I would ask you to give that to Staff for the record. MRS. BARDEN-That would be great. MR. HUNSINGER-And then Staff will make sure that we get copies for the next time this comes before the Board. As I mentioned, there is a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that came to speak either for or against this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and I will leave the public hearing open. MRS. BARDEN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I do have one public comment, written public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Would you like me to read it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, please. It’s dated today, January 23, 2007, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. “To Whom It May Concern: It is our understanding that as part of the development and/or subdivision of parcels associated with the proposed Rite- Aid store that a driveway/roadway is planned to extend to Lafayette Street. We have recently purchased parcel ID # 302.6-1-53 known as 736 Glen Street which is approximately a 1.5 acres parcel that adjoins the remaining lands of Mary Canale and have a very strong interest in being able to utilize such a means of egress and ingress to the rear of our parcel or to the rear of the parcel immediately north of the Rite-Aid parcel currently owned by P L Decoglen, as we have an easement right-of-way over the portion of that parcel which also adjoins Mary Canale’s parcel and could access the roadway/driveway accordingly should that be a necessary alternative. Being we just purchased our parcel last Tuesday and we were made aware of the potential for this roadway/driveway in a discussion with David Hatin, we realize there is a tremendous opportunity to improve current conditions associated with traffic on Route 9 (Glen Street) and to help minimize the number of vehicles entering from and exiting on to Route 9 from our plaza. This is a very congested and very busy multi lane section of roadway and in working with the Town Planning Board, Rite-Aid, and Mary Canale, we are very confident we could improve existing conditions with gaining access out to Lafayette Street. While we are unable to attend this evening’s meeting, we are hopeful that should an accommodation be made available for us to participate and benefit from this development, we would be improving the existing situation with guidance from the Planning Board. We eagerly await the opportunity to work with the Town and understand a financial commitment would most likely be required of us and if given the chance we would fully support and financial participate in this development. We recognize our getting involved may be too late but we strongly believe an effort should be made, if at all possible. Very Best Regards, 736 Glen Street, LLC By: Steven B. Jackoski, Member” MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. MRS. STEFFAN-That complicates things a little bit. MR. TRAVER-Do you know where that property would be? Which parcel would that be? MRS. BARDEN-I can try to locate it for you. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-It’s this parcel right here. Here’s the Rite-Aid parcel. I think the letter said that they have a right of way across, so they would be interested, what Jackoski is trying to say is that he would be interested in going across here with an easement. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to table, and we’re only tabling the subdivision. We’ll bring up the site plan in a second. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re just tabling for the public hearing requirement? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it would be tabled for the posting requirement, as well as for review of the ACOE wetlands letter that was provided. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2007 1093 GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Tabled until the first meeting in March, thth which is March 20, with a February 15 submission deadline, and it’s tabled with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant meets the posting requirements as defined in our Zoning Code in the Town of Queensbury. 2.So that the Board can get a copy of and review the Army Corps of Engineers wetlands letter. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Lavin, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-The posting requirement is that the sign be posted a minimum of 10 days before the public hearing, the meeting of the Board. So you need to make sure it’s th up no later than March 10. MR. PALADINO-Did you send something that we post, or do we post something? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s something that you do, and if you need more information, you can contact Staff for the specific requirements. It is in the Town Code, what has to be included on the sign, as well as the dimensions of the sign. MRS. BARDEN-We a have a template, and we can send it to you. MR. PALADINO-Please do, if you could, we’d appreciate that. SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC AGENT(S): WILLIAM PALADINO OWNER(S): MARY JANE CANALE ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 724 UPPER GLEN ST. DEMOLISH EXISTING TELEPHONE STORE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 11,153 SQ. FT. RITE AID PHARMACY AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW RETAIL USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 48-90 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/8/06 LOT SIZE 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55 SECTION 179-4-020 WILLIAM PALADINO & TIM O’BRIEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-If you could summarize Staff Notes, Susan, please. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MRS. BARDEN-One thing, Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry I was remiss on. You might want to go ahead and table Craig Burrows as well, Site Plan that won’t be heard tonight. He th had a letter that he didn’t meet the January 5 deadline for additional information that he was tabled for, and he requests a February meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m sorry. Is there anyone here that came for the Burrows application? Okay. We’ll wait until we’re finished with the 1093 Group to deal with that. Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-All right. MRS. BARDEN-This is site plan review for construction of an 11,153 square foot Rite- Aid Pharmacy with associated site work. Most recently this application was heard at the th October 17, 2006 meeting and tabled to the December 19 meeting. The applicant’s submittal for the December meeting was unresponsive to the tabling motion and was further tabled to January. The submission includes C.T. Male signoff, a Long Environmental Assessment Form, copies of letters to the adjoining property owners regarding interconnections and Preliminary and Final subdivision applications, all conditions of the tabling motion. The conditions relative to site signage and possible elimination of the left turn out of the driveway onto Route 9 have not been addressed and should be at the meeting. The submitted Environmental Assessment Form identifies 95 maximum vehicular trips generated per hour. However, the peak hour trip provided by the applicant previously is 81. This should be clarified. Waivers that are requested, applicant requests a waiver from the driveway spacing standard, the proposed separation distance to the south roadway is 15 feet where the required is 330 feet. The applicant also requests waivers from the interior and exterior parking lot landscaping requirements, and finally signage. The proposed reader board should be eliminated per tabling motion of October 17, 2006. In addition, proposed signage should be consistent with adjacent properties. It is indicated on the site plan that variances will be sought with regard to proposed signage. The Board should provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board with regard to site signage. MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, are they on the ZBA agenda yet? MRS. BARDEN-No. No application has been submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Susan. MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gentlemen, if you want to summarize the project and where we are right now, that would be great. MR. PALADINO-Right now, except for, I think we’ve addressed all the issues concerning engineering and site plan, C.T. Male as expressed by Staff, and I think pursuant to our last meeting we’re both going to take a look at Route 9 a little bit more and the signage and the driveways and those are really the two issues that we were going to discuss a little further. I apologize, my traffic engineer, because of weather, was unable to get out this way again, but we did talk about it some more, and he feels his study took into account everything out there, and he doesn’t think, he doesn’t anticipate us having any issues with what we’re trying to do out there, and he brought to my attention a few more things which I looked at today when we were out there. When you look at everyone else’s curb cuts, there are a few that are restricted out there, but it seems the only reason they’re restricted is because that’s where the turn lane is not provided to its fullest, or people can’t make the left hand turn lane, such as Taco Bell and such as the bank, which is up next to Mobil I believe. Because the turn lanes for the adjacent plazas interfere with those, they seem to be restricted to their left outs. With regard to everybody else, it seems everyone else, their main access point into their drive is not restricted at all, and that’s, I guess what we’re asking for the same. We have a large piece of property here that’s ultimately probably going to service as something else in the rear to be developed in the future. We’re taking two curb cuts. We’re eliminating one along Route 9, only going to have one. With regard to the spacing of it, we’d be willing to move that over towards the front of the store to get further away if we have to, though it seems like it would disrupt some of the flow in the parking lot if we were to do that, and that’s why we’re asking for the waiver. We think a lot of the traffic, being a pharmacy, you get a lot of the same customers. People come that patronize your facility. They usually stick with the same pharmacy and therefore once our customers get used to using this facility, we think they’re going to sort of find their own way out of the site being, 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) and realizing that Lafayette’s probably an easier way to go and realizing that the existing building there is upwards of 20,000 square feet. We’ll only have 11,000 square feet here. So we’re going to minimize I guess the potential uses for the site with our use, and our traffic patterns with the pharmacy and existing customers, typically it’s an in and out all day long. It doesn’t really have peak hours in the morning or at night. It’s a pretty consistent business. People from the area utilize the business, know the hours to go to that makes the most accessible for them. It’s a business that people have to have. It’s not where they just drive by and they feel like they want to go to a pharmacy one day. The majority of the business, two pharmacies. It’s customers that need them on a regular basis and they’ll utilize them on a regular basis. We feel the access Mr. Canale was willing to allow us out to Lafayette Street will make a tremendous improvement on the site and help our business tremendously, and because of that and the elimination of the curb cut on Route 9, we feel that we’re really not, asking for a full access curb cut is really not an unusual request given our circumstances here, and given the range of everyone else’s uses on the street. There seems to be a curb cut every 10, 20 feet on the street, and we think what we’re doing here is really improving the situation, with our use and with eliminating one and having the access onto Lafayette, and as we’ve said before, we’re willing to, obviously in the rear with Mr. Canale’s approval, because we won’t own that property at the end of the day, but with regard to where they connect on our site, anything that is safe we are willing to allow those connectors in between in the areas that we’ve described. We feel they’ll be safe places to provide them, which would further improve the congestion on Route 9 currently and into the future. With regard to signage, once again, signage, there’s a lot of reader boards. It would probably be the biggest is that their main competition over here has even an LED board on their sign, which is, it’s real tough for them to swallow not having the same type of signage, plus Wal-Mart has sort of like a reader board on theirs, and there’s many up and down the street. I guess in terms of signage, they’d probably be willing to go with a little less total square footage so long as they could keep the sign, the reader board, and with Mr. Canale we would like to have an area for him on that sign, too, and for whatever he does propose in the back at some point in the future. With regard to Lafayette, we are willing to go with a monument sign, some type of monument sign that would meet Code, with the same, I guess, criteria. It would be more of a directional sign for Rite-Aid on that sign pursuant to your Code, and it would be, Mr. Canale, at some point in the future, would be able to place signage for whatever business he has on there, on that sign also, and we’d like, based on the signage, conditioned on showing you the actual picture of the monument sign and our final sign, if indeed that sounds acceptable to you, we’d like our, I guess, approval conditioned on that and just showing you and being acceptable to you, meeting those standards, and the sign height, we were agreeable at the last meeting to reduce the sign height from 23 to 21 feet. We would even be willing to go to 20, which would be a minimum requirement of us, if that indeed would help the Board overcome some of our other issues. We have provided letters, like I said, from the adjacent property owners. As I said, the SEQRA, C.T. Male, all their questions have been satisfied at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-What’s your building height? MR. O'BRIEN-It varies. This one the architectural features make it a little different. I believe it’s in the 28 foot range. It has a few additional architectural features that give it a little more height. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add before we start asking some questions? MR. O’BRIEN-C.T. Male, they’ve gone through the drainage quite extensively. So right now all we really have to do is submit an NOI, Notice of Intent, to DEC, which should be a five day review, but everything else is in line. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'BRIEN-As part of the submittal to them, they did review the SWPPP. MR. PALADINO-And we would like, we’ve been going through the process here and submitting a lot of information, and we would like the Board to consider a conditional approval possibly based on the signage issue, if you feel you’re able to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have anything else to add? I guess I’ll open it up for questions from the Board, and I think since we have kind of a short list of items, I’ll just, 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) you know, let people ask questions as they have them rather than go through the site plan review criteria. I’ll just open it up for general comments or questions that members have. So feel free to jump in. MRS. STEFFAN-I have an opinion versus question. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. MRS. STEFFAN-The Lafayette street monument sign, I think that that’s a good choice. It fits with the character of the neighborhood. We, on our Planning Board drive around, we looked at some of the signs in the area, the Dunkin Donuts sign that we all thought was too tall was at 25 feet. Then there’s some others in the neighborhood that are 17 and a half, 18, and 20, and so you’re willingness to move the sign height down to 20 feet, that would be most welcome, and I think it would fit with the area and look good. The reader board I’m still, I’m having a hard time budging on that because I think we made a bad decision in our Town by allowing one and I’m very concerned that we shouldn’t allow any others. So that’s my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just elaborate on some of the comments. One of the things that we did notice during the drive around is the variation of the sign heights up and down Upper Glen Street and some of the ones that, you know, sort of in our minds looked the most out of place were those where the signs were actually taller than the building, which is why we asked what the building height was, and I think, you know, I think just to concur, I think that a 20 foot sign is a big step in the right direction. MRS. BRUNO-We were also saying that not only because of the look of the sign, the signs by the buildings and along the road, the inconsistency that we have, but just from a practical standpoint from a customer driving down the road, we were noticing that the taller signs, you obviously almost have to crane your neck, whereas the more comfortable ones at 17, 18 feet, were still within the top portion of your windshield. I’m just offering that out there, and I wanted to ask you, what was the other sign that you were mentioned, you said, besides, you said that Wal-Mart was like a reader board. MR. PALADINO-CVS was the big one that was a problem for us. MRS. BRUNO-Right. Okay. I thought you were referring to one on Glen Street, and I couldn’t picture one. MR. PALADINO-We just want it to be large enough so that it’s visible when people drive by. We do have a lot of frontage. It will be set back a great distance. I don’t know if every sign on that street has the setback that we’re at right now. It seems some seem a little closer to the street possibly. Maybe they’re older signs. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sure there were variances granted, because they don’t fit. They don’t fit a pattern. They don’t fit a normal pattern on Glen Street, and actually when we were driving down the road and looking at all the signs and their placement, I mean, it’s visual spaghetti. There’s no doubt about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have questions or comments they want to bring forward? One of the items that you didn’t discuss that’s in Staff Notes is the minimum interior parking lot landscaping requirements. You didn’t comment on that at all. MR. PALADINO-Well, we obviously are trying to meet your parking requirement, and in doing so, the minimum interior, it’s sort of tough to get if we had maybe four lanes of parking to a side, you know, we could have a big bunch of green space in the middle, but except for along the edges of our site, we’re really at a lack of area to have those. We tried to put trees and, you know, carve out some areas here and there in the front of the site and in the middle to break up the parking a little bit along the Wendy’s side, and also at the end of the building. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the last time you were here you talked about that and we were trying to come up with a scenario to increase it. It’s difficult. MR. PALADINO-We’ve tried out best to increase it as much as we could, but if we do anymore, we don’t meet your parking requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-How do members feel about the left turn out of the driveway onto Route 9? That was something that was discussed before and not really resolved. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MRS. STEFFAN-I know, and I have to admit while I was sitting here, and I’m not trying to be negative, but every traffic study that we ever get we’ve said that there’ll be no traffic impact and any of the restrictions we want to put left turn, obviously won’t be a problem, but living here and trying to get out in that area on a busy Saturday morning, it’s very difficult to go out and pull counter traffic, and so I’ve got some concerns, and now with the additional letter that we just got this evening on a new owner for a lot two lots down and then shared access to the driveway, and yes they’re talking about shared Lafayette Street access, but you know that they’re going to turn, you know that folks that are going to be using that right of way are going to use the Glen Street access, and so. MR. PALADINO-Well, I mean, that property has much larger curb cuts, if I remember, than we, their almost whole frontage is one big curb cut on that property. So I don’t see any reason why’d they come over to ours and use ours, which is much more restricted. It would probably be difficult for them to circumvent our lot, rather than just come right out the front of their building. I think what they say regarding Lafayette is probably true to access, probably to help with the traffic in their lot but also to realize their customers have a much easier time going out to Lafayette. I think it would be much more difficult for them to come from that building over to our property and try and get out, and I realize traffic studies, you know, they are what they are, but we’ve tried to be, you know, with our use, I’ve tried to explain and be practical with it. We have a use that’s a constant use all day long and it’s people that they don’t necessarily have to come to the pharmacy in the morning or have to come at night. They’ll usually come when it’s most convenient to them and the place is most accessible. There are a lot of elderly people, and as you know, they don’t like to drive in a lot of traffic. So they are cognizant of that, and just given the pure size of our lot here, I just think it would be such a hardship on us to restrict our access in any way, given that we do have the access onto Lafayette, too, and like I said, it is such a large lot right now. MRS. STEFFAN-And you will be closing the store in the shopping plaza? MR. PALADINO-That will close, but based on what I hear, they’re going to have no problem re-leasing that. There’s already been a lot of people looking into it. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-See, actually I came away, not to be argumentative with my fellow Board member, when we went there on site visits, it was a Saturday morning, and we did take a left coming out of the driveway. We had to wait for, I don’t know, 20 seconds maybe, but there was plenty of distance and plenty of time to get out safely. So as long as you don’t mind the delay, it wasn’t a difficult turn. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it was the beginning of January it’s not a problem, but I’m just thinking of the busier times of year, summer, and if it were December. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-I think, or at five o’clock when somebody’s stopping in to pick up their prescription after work or something. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. PALADINO-I was concerned about being close to the Wendy’s, too, and most of those people do make a, they seem to just make a right out. When I see that drive through, most of the people using that just seem to zip out to the right. Even though it’s 15 feet, when you take it from the actual curb line, when people queue at our lot, we’re a good 30 to 40 feet away from where those people would be, where they stop and will wait to pull out into traffic. It isn’t like they’re going to be that close when they actually come out. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think that is where the conflict is is from the Wendy’s. MR. PALADINO-Like I say, I mean, I was just at Taco Bell after work, at six o’clock, they’re packed. At Rite-Aid you’re not going to see that, when a place like a Wendy’s or Taco Bell are crowded. Rite-Aid’s not crowded then. MRS. BRUNO-I actually think that because of the Lafayette entrance and exit that if we were to restrict the left hand turn going out to Glen Street I don’t think it would end up turning out to be that much of a hardship. I understand what you’re saying, but I think those people who are concerned, those people that need to go out in that direction would 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) probably pull out into the Lafayette Street and then go down to the light. I’m just thinking of even Glens Falls National or actually perhaps even more relevant is the current Rite- Aid coming out into that light as compared to going out to Lafayette Street now. I know I’ve done both, and I will tend to go towards the back way. MR. PALADINO-Well, people are different. I mean, it’s a convenience, they are a convenience business and it’s a convenience issue, I guess, and that’s where the real hardship, and just the fairness of it all, because it seems like everyone else is allowed on the street to have it where they are able, and the only people that aren’t able, like I said, are the Taco Bell and the Bank and that’s why it seems they’re restrictive. MRS. BRUNO-Well, one of the things about ending up with spaghetti around Town, visual or traffic wise or anything, is that any opportunity that we, when someone comes in front of us, we hopefully take the opportunity to improve, rather than continue a bad precedent or something that may not be working, and I’m not trying to be intentionally difficult. I just want to make sure, safety wise, you know, we ran into this in a number of other streets, and it comes up over and over. Queensbury’s getting much busier, and that was just my opinion I guess, in terms of the Lafayette. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from Board members on traffic access? MRS. LAVIN-I have a question, probably for my Board members. As I’m a new member of the Planning Board, Lafayette, is that part of your parcel, or is that cooperative with someone else? MR. PALADINO-Lafayette will be all retained, ownership will be retained by, or is retained right now by Mr. Canale and we have an easement to utilize the road out to Lafayette. MRS. LAVIN-I was just concerned if he changed his mind one day, what would you do without Lafayette? MR. PALADINO-He can’t. We have an easement in perpetuity that he cannot change. So, I mean, we can both agree to change it, but he can’t change it. MRS. LAVIN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to speak about this project? I’ll open the public hearing and for the time being we’ll leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-My name is Bob Sears. I’m a realtor involved with the project. Just to go back to one fundamental idea. The Rite-Aid project is a very mild use compared to what could go there under the current zoning. You do not have a whole lot of traffic going in and out of there at any time of the day. Most of it is moderate traffic. They have improved the accessibility immensely, both to the Rite-Aid building and also to the accessibility out back, and so perhaps the Board could compromise maybe some of their feelings about the left hand curb cut. That’s it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SEARS-I appreciate your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Anyone else? Okay. What’s the feeling of the Board? It seems like we’re left with a couple of issues that are sort of unresolved. One of the comments that I wanted to make about a left hand turn out is the difficulty in enforcing that, and also in terms of designing the site. The only places where it seems to really have worked is where we had some sort of an island, and where you could carve the island so that it was almost impossible for someone to take a left hand turn out or in, and probably the best example being Lowe’s, where left hand turns are prohibited both into and out of the site onto Quaker Road, but you still, daily, see people doing that anyway. They make sort of U-turns to come in, make a left hand turn into the project site, which clearly is illegal. One of the other places where left hand turns are prohibited going out is the Northway Plaza on the Quaker Road, and you still see that pretty routinely, maybe not as often. So I mean, it does become an issue of enforcement as well as safety, 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) practicality if you will, so I just wanted to add that, for what it’s worth. I don’t have as strong feelings as some of the other Board members about a left hand turn out, obviously. MRS. STEFFAN-C.T. Male did sign off on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we do have SEQRA. Are we comfortable moving forward with SEQRA? Susan, a question though, how far can we go on the site plan review without subdivision approval, and does one presume the other? MRS. BARDEN-I’m not sure that it’s a great idea to go forward with the site plan conditioned on the subdivision. Simply because until that’s approved it’s a lot that doesn’t exist. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. BARDEN-But it’s totally up to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-The other note area is the total area, the Army Corps wetland area on the site, is not identified in the EAF, and so it’s probably not a good idea to move forward with that. It would be premature. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, given that, would anyone like to make a motion to table it? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make the motion, but we have to identify the conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the first one would be the subdivision approval. MRS. STEFFAN-How do we feel about the left turn? MRS. BRUNO-You do have a point, in terms of the, how well it would work without it, having the island with the longer turn. I’m thinking even more closely, I think they just changed their name, the gas station right up the street, and it’s on the corner. They’ve got three curb cuts, and those are definitely at an angle, and I still see people sneaking around. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of the things that we could do to, I don’t want to use the word discourage, but one of the things that we could do is require a sign saying there’s access off Lafayette Street. So if we’re concerned about too much traffic onto Glen, you know, without mandating something, we could encourage patrons to use the Lafayette Street entrance and exit. So that might be one way to think about this, instead of, you know, more of a negative approach, but rather to say, you know, if they could post a sign saying, and I’m not sure where you would put it. MRS. STEFFAN-It would have to be inside the store. Otherwise it would be (lost word). MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, or near the intersection someplace. MRS. STEFFAN-Most locals will know. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PALADINO-We could post the curb cut on the way into the site, people turn in, like have it right there, before they go park and go in the store they’d see it right there. Rear exit/entrance on Lafayette or something along those lines. We’d be okay with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I know there’s similar signs like that at Exit 15 where you can’t make a left hand turn and it’ll say, you know, in order to make a left hand turn go down such and such a street and use the lights. MR. PALADINO-I’ve seen signs like that. MRS. BRUNO-Do we need the variance for the sign at 20 feet? MRS. BARDEN-No, 25 feet is the maximum. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How about the waiver on the driveway separation? Actually let me back up on the EAF. There has to just be a notation change. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I’m sorry, did we get an answer from the applicant on the difference in the maximum vehicular trips, the 81 versus 95? Maybe we can get that clarified, too. MR. O'BRIEN-Generally speaking, with the Rite-Aids that we’ve been doing, it’s usually, the numbers that we’ve been using in the past are basically between those two between those two numbers. MR. PALADINO-The BL Companies does traffic engineers for Rite-Aid also. They haven’t done this study. MR. O'BRIEN-We’ve done about 30 stores for them. So depending on the size of the store and the location, we usually have a number right between there. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess what we’re looking for is which number is it, and let’s be consistent. So if we can just get that clarified. MR. O'BRIEN-To be consistent I would use the higher number since it’s already been. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that would be my inclination as well. MR. O'BRIEN-That traffic report probably also took into consideration the building out back. So that 95 is probably good. MRS. BRUNO-The smaller building. MR. O'BRIEN-Yes, the smaller building. MR. HUNSINGER-What else did we still need documentation on? The wetlands. MRS. BRUNO-I think we’ve agreed pretty much on the landscaping that that was all right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and a waiver on the driveway separation. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we either approve it or don’t. MR. O'BRIEN-With the driveway waiver, as this fellow pointed out, from the right turn out for the neighboring property to our drive lane it’s approximately 40 feet or a little more, and that’s also the lane that we would be bringing the truck in. So if that curb cut was to shift a little, it would be harder for the truck to get into the site and pass the store. So actually it’s a good location the way the site is set up. It also gives direct access to the back of the site for the smaller building and also for future development. MRS. BRUNO-I thought we had talked at the previous meeting that the trucks are going to access it from Lafayette. MR. O'BRIEN-What you do is we always try and show the worst case scenario on the plan. Worst case scenario is if the truck misses, and it does happen, and the truck misses the access for Lafayette Street, they’ll come up and they’ll turn right into the site. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. That was actually going to be my next question if we could cut that back to just the one curb cut on Glen, and then that kind of automatically, well, not necessarily automatically, but it could scooch the one entrance away from Wendy’s. MR. O'BRIEN-We do have, right now we do have one access. We’ve eliminated all the other ones. MR. PALADINO-We only have one access. MRS. STEFFAN-Didn’t we talk about that you also use big trucks and smaller trucks? MR. O'BRIEN-We use both. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. O'BRIEN-Depending on the site. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. PALADINO-They’ll see what, the big truck will come the first time. If it has a problem, they’ll use smaller trucks, but there is only one curb cut on Glen Street. MR. O'BRIEN-What you might be seeing is the existing curb cut. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the northern one’s going to be eliminated. MR. PALADINO-The site plan’s overlaid over a survey. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. MR. O'BRIEN-And we did add quite a bit of green space between the road and the parking which wasn’t there on the existing site. MR. HUNSINGER-I would be remiss if I didn’t comment on the building design. I know it was something that I brought up at one of the earliest meetings, and I really want to commend you on a good building design. I think it will look well. I think it’ll blend well with the character that we’re trying to encourage in that area, too. MR. PALADINO-I think the whole site will. I mean, right now it’s a sea of pavement with a big building block in the middle. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So we do we have everything we need, Gretchen, do you think? MRS. BRUNO-I’ve just got a curiosity question, in terms of the Rite-Aid that’s going in up in Lake George, the size of this one compared, I know you mentioned it before. MR. PALADINO-That one’s 14,673. This one’s 11,153. Pretty much site constraints is what’s dictating the smaller store. MRS. BRUNO-Right. It’s much easier to visualize when you can see one and picture the other. th MR. HUNSINGER-And we will table it until the March 20 meeting. So it’ll be the same th as the subdivision. Submissions by February 15. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 1093 GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Barbara Lavin: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We would like to table this until the March th 20 meeting. Deadline for application materials would be February 15th. This is tabled with the following conditions: 1.For further consideration of the subdivision. 2.To revise the EAF for vehicular trips generated to the 95 maximum. 3.To revise the EAF so that the Army Corps of Engineers wetlands are denoted. 4.We also would like to have the plan revisions reflect the signage changes for the Lafayette Street monument sign for elimination of the reader board. 5.That the Glen Street signage will be at 20 feet tall and inclusion of the Lafayette exit sign. 6.Waivers granted for driveway spacing and parking lot landscaping requirements. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Lavin, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. PALADINO-Thank you very much. MR. O'BRIEN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks for your patience. SITE PLAN 50-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CRAIG BURROWS AGENT(S) BERNARD DUVAL OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC INTENSIVE LOCATION 287 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ENCLOSE 126 SQ. FT. PORCH FOR INTERIOR SHOWROOM, 50 SQ. FT. WILL REMAIN AS OPEN PORCH AREA. EXPANSIONS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 49-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/13/06 LOT SIZE 1.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-5 SECTION 179-9-020 MR. HUNSINGER-As mentioned earlier, prior to the meeting the applicant did request thth that we table this discussion until the February 20 or 27 meeting. I will open the public hearing, since there was a public hearing scheduled, and we will leave that open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a tabling motion. Is there, I haven’t seen the tentative list of items yet. Is there a preference, Susan, do you think, for which meeting thth would be most appropriate, the 20 or 27 of February? th MRS. BARDEN-February 20 is what we had tentatively down for Craig Burrows. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-He has his materials in? th MRS. BARDEN-He has them in, but he didn’t make the January 5 deadline. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to table this application th until February 20 at the request of the applicant? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2006 CRAIG BURROWS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: Based on his request to move his meeting date to the first meeting in February, which will be February 20, 2007. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Lavin, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 MODIFICATION #2 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID MENTER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 1130 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATIONS TO STORMWATER, LIGHTING AND ADDITION OF A STORAGE BUILDING. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 5.95 AC. TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-9 SECTION 179-4 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is, again, a site plan review modification for a previously approved site plan to the, the property is the Country Inn and Suites located at Route 9 and Round Pond Road. The applicant proposes modifications including a lighting plan, stormwater design, and the maintenance of an existing cabin to be removed. The applicant has submitted a revised lighting grid incorporating the site changes of the pole lights in the parking area and the addition of four new fixtures at the front entrance of the 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) building. However, cut sheets for the different pole light fixtures, the triple mounted in the rear parking lot area, and for the four new fixtures at the front have not been provided. The description provided of the latter up lights would suggest that these are nonconforming fixtures. The most notable change to the parking lot lighting is the relocation of the three pole lights surrounding the pool in the back of the hotel to the parking area at the rear of the site. The lighting grid provides a table specifying statistics for the parking area which maintains an average 2.75 foot candles. The Code requires 2.5. The Board may request the same for the front of the hotel. The minor changes to the stormwater design have been signed-off by the Engineer, Environmental Design Partnerships, and, with that, addresses the deficiency stated in Bruce Frank’s site inspection report dated September 14, 2006. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we know if there’s anyone here representing the applicant? MRS. BARDEN-I think I just saw Dennis MacElroy. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Menter’s right outside the door. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. DAVE MENTER MR. MENTER-Good evening. I’m Dave Menter. I own the property at 1130 Route 9, the Country Inn Suites, and with me is Dennis MacElroy. This is a totally different Board than originally saw this. MR. HUNSINGER-Just about. MR. MENTER-Just about, not completely. Throughout the process of building we had some changes that, for different reasons, needed to occur, and right now that’s the reason we’re here. I kind of wanted to wrap up these hopefully minor changes, and be done here. There’s, the first one that is probably the trickiest is lighting. We had a few changes on the lighting, which I’ll describe the process that we went through as we needed to make these changes. First off, in the back parking area of the property my builder found that the lighting as planned could not be installed because of it’s proximity to this retaining wall that we needed to construct right along the edge of the parking lot. There’s a retaining wall that went from zero to eight feet tall for quite a section, and the space between the parking space parking lot and that retaining wall was only about two feet. So to sink that lighting in there, the piers, the light poles was going to undermine the wall and it was just not feasible. So what he did was worked with his lighting guy and they utilized the islands and reconfigured the pole locations. Part of the, so it entailed moving those. All the fixtures are the same type of fixtures that we ended up with. There’s a slightly different photometric. One of the things he did, if you can see, do you have both plans, the original and the new one? MR. HUNSINGER-We do, yes. MR. MENTER-He put that three head fixture in that island, and incidentally, the Staff comments noted that we didn’t provide cut sheets for these new fixtures, but they’re the same fixtures. There’s no difference. It’s just the mounting, and in that case, for instance, there’s three of them on one pole to cover that, you know, large area. So there’s no difference in the fixtures themselves, and I think that’s, I think that answers that question about the cut sheets. I think they’d be the same. The other lighting change back there, that the Staff refers to and that we’re asking for, is that there were three poll lights, smaller 100 watt lights that were around the pool, and we came with, our concern was the amount of lighting at the northeast corner of the building where those sidewalks are was very low. So what he recommended I do is move those lights, since we didn’t need them in that pool area, our pool is not open at night out there, move those three smaller 100 watt light poles to that area on the northeast and that corner of the building. So one actually was on the north side and I think two of those are on the east side. So rather than that section being lower, in terms of foot candles, then everything else turned out to be slightly higher, which he saw and we saw as a good thing. The other change that we made, as far as the lighting goes, was around front, and it was not originally on the plans, but we wanted to provide some building, you know, some lighting of the building itself, not a lot, but something, and in our discussions it was recommended by my architect that because of the relative location of the building to the road, it would make sense to use lighting coming from below rather than up in the eaves coming down, which are, you know, typically the options that you have when you want to do that. Because if you put lights in the eaves coming down, not only would the light be visible on 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) the building, but the actual lights would be visible because you’re looking at it from down below because the road is so much lower than the building itself. So that’s the reason that that’s the type of lighting used for that location. Originally we had two lights installed above the porch on either side of the entrance, just shining up onto the building, and then two lights on either side of those lower ground lights shining up, and at one point I know, I think it was in September, I don’t remember the exact date, but Bruce Frank was out there and one of the lights was just turned, totally spun around and shining off into the trees. What I ended up doing was actually removing that light and its matching light on the other side, and it’s now, and it’s probably been since the end of September some time. I’m not sure exactly the date. I did that, but there’s one light above the porch on each side and one light off to the side of the porch on the ground on each side. So there’s a total of four lights, two up above the porch and then two on the ground shining up on the front, and I do have, and the Staff Notes are correct in saying I didn’t supply the cut sheets on that, and I just totally just didn’t do it, but I do have them with me right now for those specific fixtures, and I can give those to each of you if you’d like to look at that. I do have to note, though, that there is one difference in the letter that I wrote, I believe it was a 12/1 letter describing the three changes, the three overall changes that I was making. That letter, and I’m not sure how this happened, but that letter said that these are 250 watt fixtures, and they are each 400 watt fixtures. MRS. BRUNO-Were they each 400 watt fixtures before you took? MR. MENTER-Yes, they’re the same fixtures that were originally installed. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. MENTER-But it’s just that they were mis. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s actually on the plan. MR. MENTER-Okay. Right, and that was actually just put in there for clarity, for me, and I took it off that information, you know, I just wanted to put it on the chart with all the lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought they were the same letter. They’re not the same letter. Okay. MR. MENTER-And the only thing I would add to that as far as the lighting goes is that in both cases at those locations where we did increase the lighting of those areas are both essentially facing The Great Escape, although the northwest face of the building, which faces Route 9, faces north towards Route 9. The other is totally hidden by both the hill and the building from the road or any visibility from any public areas off the site. The only place it might be seen is from The Great Escape itself. There’s not a lot of light that’s going to be emitting off the property from either one of these. MRS. STEFFAN-I have to comment on the up lighting of the building. Since, actually, your building opened, and that up lighting was on the building, I thought that, I actually thought, how could we approve that, because it was just so bright. MR. MENTER-Well, it was extremely bright. You’re right. MRS. STEFFAN-And there is a remarkable contrast between your hotel and The Great Escape. It’s almost dark sky when you’re driving towards The Great Escape. If you’re driving in the other direction toward Wal-Mart on Route 9, your hotel is like a beacon, and the lighting is just very extreme, as far as I’m concerned, and one of the things that we’re trying to do is model dark sky, and your hotel doesn’t do that. So I have great concerns about that. MRS. BRUNO-Is that something that has been discussed at the PORC meetings, the Planning Ordinance Review Committee meetings for the dark sky compliance? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it is. Well, it is, and really the current lighting standards are fairly new, and where they have been used correctly, I think, you know, the results have been satisfactory. So I don’t, there hasn’t been any changes proposed, you know, unless someone wants to step forward and say we need to do something differently. I think the inclination right now is to continue with the current standards, and there’s several examples that I think Gretchen or myself could point to where I think it has been used correctly, and, you know, with the intent of the Code. One of the ones that I’m quick to point to is the Saturn dealership, where, you know, when you’re on the site at 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) night it’s fairly well lit, but when you’re driving down Quaker Road, it really doesn’t stand out. The Wal-Mart parking lot, I think would be another one, and we worked real hard to get that one correct, and there was a lot of back and forth in discussion and negotiation with the Wal-Mart developers on that. So I think those would be probably the two biggest examples of the proper adaptation of the Code, if I could say that. MRS. BRUNO-I have a couple of questions for Mr. Menter. I understand that your pool isn’t open at night for use, but what kind of illumination is there for safety since you’ve moved some of the fixtures over to the side parking lot? MR. MENTER-Well, there’s nothing out there but a fence. It’s fenced in. The only thing in that section of the lawn is if you look at the drawings there, that entire patio area is fenced in, okay. So there’s nothing on that lawn, really, that, at this point, there’s no recreational facilities of any kind on that lawn. So it’s basically an unlit. MR. TRAVER-The pool itself doesn’t have any lights built into it? I know some do. MR. MENTER-Actually it does, yes. Actually it does. MR. TRAVER-And is that left on at night? MR. MENTER-No. Actually at this point that’s never on, and in the future, if we do use that, I imagine what it will entail is, you know, low lighting of some type. MRS. BRUNO-You have, the play set is actually in that corner right below the pool area. MR. MENTER-At the end of the building. MRS. BRUNO-You’ve got one fixture there. All right, and that looks like that was also left without any lights once you moved the lights into the parking lot. There’s nothing really there either. MR. MENTER-Yes. The play fixture is actually not, the play fixture is off the south end of the building, as opposed to the back of the building. So those lights really would not have come into play there, and the lighting out there is actually the entry lighting, that’s it. It’s only five feet from that door. MRS. BRUNO-I’m curious, given what Mr. Hunsinger had said, in terms of the zoning and what we require for the lighting, these lighting requirements were in play at your first planning meeting, right, Chris? How long have they been in action, at least four years, haven’t they? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. I want to say yes, but I can’t be positive. MRS. BRUNO-What I’m getting at is that you mentioned that in the portion of the parking lot where you were saying you thought it was a little bit too dim, my calculations put it right at 2.5, which is what a parking lot should be, and my calculations with the new plan, well, first of all your engineer had given the averages of 2.76, which is already above our Code, and my calculations put it at a 2.9 which brings that portion of the parking lot a little bit brighter. So that’s a minor, in my respect, that’s a minor concern, but the up lighting I think because it’s not incorporated into your photometrics, and because it is not dark sky compliant and it is just still quite bright, even though you’ve removed some of the lights, I still have a real issue with how bright it has made the sky. It does, it stands out there. MRS. STEFFAN-And I can’t argue that it does make your building look beautiful, but it just isn’t compliant with the standards that we’re trying to set for the Town, and your hotel is lovely, however, that up lighting is something that I have a hard time supporting. MRS. BRUNO-Can those fixtures be retrofitted with a smaller wattage? MR. MENTER-Yes, I certainly could replace them with a smaller watt fixture. MRS. BRUNO-Have you approached your engineer in terms of updating the photometrics including those four fixtures? MR. MENTER-Yes, actually the, I did actually, when we updated, when I got this photometric, which I did from the lighting supplier, he said that that is a totally different, that that’s a totally different set of lighting parameters, because you have up lighting and 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) down lighting, you know, you have different types of lighting, and the photometric just can’t do both. It’s not my specialty. So I said okay. MRS. BRUNO-There’s a real science behind it, and I don’t even pretend to try to understand it. Maybe I am pretending, but. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the other lighting issues are fine with me. They all make sense, but I’m stuck on the up lighting. MR. MENTER-Could you sort of enlighten me as to the specific, you know, the Code itself? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The section of the Code that deals with lighting is 179-6-020, and I was looking to see, I thought it actually said that up lighting is not allowed, but I’ll just read to you what it says regarding fixtures, which is really where it comes from. All lighting fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with the primary building. Fixtures shall be shielded and have shell cut offs to direct light directly to the ground. This must be accomplished so that light dispersion or glare does not shine above a 90 degree horizontal plane from the base of the fixture, and then it goes on, you know, to provide some others, but it’s pretty clear to say that the light should be directed to the ground. I see you’re following along. That’s in Item D if you didn’t. MR. MENTER-That really specifically addresses site lighting, then, not necessarily building lighting, although the ones you have concern with obviously are ground mounted lighting shining up on the building, but the Ordinance doesn’t necessarily address lighting that’s mounted on building. It seems to specifically talk about pole mounted lighting or those fixtures with down, cut off lights. MR. HUNSINGER-No, you’re right. It doesn’t differentiate between site lighting or building lighting, it does not, no. I can tell you, though, that in other applications, applicants have asked for up lit, you know, either to shine onto their building or to shine up across the face of their building, and we have denied those requests in other applications. Probably the most notable being Wal-Mart, and, you know, it’s just not something that we have approved in the past several years. MR. MAC ELROY-And just trying to think of a potential middle ground or solution for the applicant as to whether that either down size the lighting that is there, unless it’s absolutely out of the question, and that’s what Dave needs to know, or some other building mounted lighting that would be down cast but maybe perhaps provide some of the identification of the building that he was looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-And we certainly have allowed that. We’ve allowed, you know, wall mounted sconces, or, you know, similar types of fixtures provided they were directed downwards, and that certainly is consistent with the Code, and if you were to, you know, you’d obviously need to re-submit a lighting plan that would take into account the additional wattage that those lights would provide. MR. MENTER-Okay. So, up lighting of any type is off the table. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s contrary to what we’re trying to accomplish, and also if we allowed you to do it, then it would be going against our policy and we would have folks trying to re-apply. MR. MAC ELROY-And we certainly respect that, although it doesn’t necessarily specifically say that in the Ordinance. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you’re right. It doesn’t say up lighting is prohibited. I do know that on signs we, it does say specifically that up lit signs are prohibited. MRS. STEFFAN-I do know that if you had come to us during site plan review and those were proposed, you would have gotten no. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I made a point of saying we have not approved those before. I mean, we would certainly be willing to entertain a revision in your lighting plan, if you think there’s some sort of compromise that could be reached. I know a couple of members had commented on the parking lot lighting, but I don’t think we got a consensus on that. I guess I would just add to the prior comments that I certainly don’t have a problem with the changes that have been made in the parking lot lighting. So I think you’re okay there. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MRS. BRUNO-I was using it merely as a segway that it is, it’s just a, it is slightly above what our Code says, but I was kind of trying to describe that it wasn’t quite what the front was or is. I’m okay with it. Especially towards the back portion like that, for safety reasons. MRS. STEFFAN-I think when we looked at the site plan, most of us who were on the Board at the time, thought that there would be more trees that would be left in the back, but there really isn’t anything on Round Pond Road that would cause a problem with additional lighting in the back of your facility. It’s not, you know, even if it floods over, it’s not really going to make a difference. MR. MENTER-I’ll tell you, it was a struggle to keep that many trees, with the topography. MRS. STEFFAN-I drove by during the site development, so it’s very steep. MR. MENTER-Okay. If we could, then, why don’t I have Dennis move on and go over the stormwater issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Dave. I guess during the course of construction, or toward the end of construction, when Bruce Frank was doing his normal duties, there was some recognition that there was a slight modification to the stormwater as constructed in the front section of the property. We had done a modification, or during construction Dave had come to us and asked, there was a suggested location for the sign that was different than on the original site plan and because of that location, and perhaps it had something to do with the franchise requirements or whatever, but in addition to the fact that the DOT owns the corner and certain setback requirements that there are for signs in Queensbury, that, what turned out to be the best location for the sign was on the original plan there was a certain stormwater component that was there. So Dave had asked us about it, and we, just in doing a quick review, determined that it was a not a critical component of the stormwater in terms of capacity or volume for the design. It was, without bogging you down with details, it was sort of a secondary safety factor for, you know, the unlikely potential of a clogged pipe and it would give a secondary back up so that that overflow, in the event of a blocked pipe, didn’t go onto the drive of the project and then down into what is the low point of the existing motel units. So in addition to eliminating that, it was suggested to put two drywells in the existing stormwater components that are in that same area. Again, what was modified here was not something that was necessary to achieve design parameters in terms of volume, and the quality treatment standards are taken care of through the four bay and the main storm basin. So I had written a letter back in November which went to the Town just indicating that same scenario, how that occurred, and how we were signing off on the fact that it wasn’t a loss of any design integrity certainly, and so we’ve modified that plan for submittal with these other items. So we’re perfectly comfortable with that modification and quite happy the way the construction of the design turned out. MR. HUNSINGER-Any Board members have questions on the stormwater changes? MRS. BRUNO-I’m personally comfortable with Mr. MacElroy’s signoff. I’m just curious from a, the way that the Town usually does it, do we usually require that our Town Engineer sign off on this, or am I strictly confusing it with subdivision? MRS. BARDEN-The Town Engineer signed off on the original approved plan, and it was requested that the design engineer sign off on the modifications to the plan. MRS. BRUNO-So we don’t necessarily need the Town’s Engineer to sign off on that. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other general questions or comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Not on the stormwater. Just the accessory structure. Is everybody okay with that? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we haven’t talked about that yet. So, any questions or comments about the accessory structure that they wanted to retain? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. TRAVER-We noticed when we went on our drive around it still is the log cabin design from the original structure that’s there. Are you planning on leaving it that way? MR. MENTER-Sure. Actually it’s an authentic log cabin that building, you know, it’s a great building. Part of the reason I had wanted to maintain it is because I need the storage, and we kind of used it through the construction project as a construction office. It was in a great location. It wasn’t affecting anything we were doing on site, and it just made a lot of sense to utilize it, and when we got done, I said, why tear this beautiful building down. It’s tucked away over here. I’m way below my square footage thresholds. It’s not in the way of anything, and why get rid of it, and so that’s why I want to keep it. MRS. BRUNO-No one can ever have too much storage. MR. MENTER-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think the only thing that’s holding us up is the up lit lighting on the façade. MR. MENTER-I just wanted to cover the other issues, and I think I would like the opportunity to look at it. Maybe come up with a different proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of the things that might be helpful is if, and I don’t want to lead you into a certain direction that you might not be going, you know, I think what you’ve heard from the Board pretty clearly is the way it is now is unacceptable, and I don’t know if changing the wattage would help or not, because, again, we’ve never approved up lighting. I didn’t know if there was an easy way to change them and we could visualize, you know, we could take a visual review of the site to see if maybe that’s acceptable or not, and I’m just kind of talking, you know, off the top of my head here, sort of out of line if you will, but that might be one thing that if you’re considering it that we could look at it, and then if you were to submit revised plans with wall sconces or something else we would have those, and maybe there’s a way to compare the two or something. I don’t know. Again, just thinking out loud. MR. MENTER-What would that mean, relative to this application? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think where we’re headed is to table this anyway, and we’re going to table it pending submission of a revised lighting plan. MR. MENTER-Yes, because I’m not sure what the options are. I don’t know what the lighting options are, frankly. So I kind of have to go back and get some information and see what’s available and what might or might not work. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-There’s a lot out there. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s part of the problem, I think, is there are almost an infinite number of options. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we just table it for the lighting plan and go from there. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 DAVID MENTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Tabled to the March 20 meeting with a th February 15 submission deadline with the following conditions: 1. For the applicant to revise the lighting plan to meet the conditions of the Zoning Code, 179-6-020, and 2. To eliminate upward lighting on the hotel. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lavin, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MENTER-All right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN 1-2007 SEQR TYPE II LINDA CASSE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR- 20 LOCATION 318 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 1038 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS NEEDED AFTER GRANTING OF A USE VARIANCE. WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/10/07 LOT SIZE 0.68 AC. TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-62 SECTION 179-4-020 LINDA CASSE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This is an application for site plan review for a retail use. The subject property is located at 318 Ridge Road, and is zoned Single Family Residential 20. The applicants propose 1,038 square feet of retail space in addition to other uses on the site. The applicant obtained a Use Variance for the retail sales use in November 2006. The existing 3,192 square foot building supports a personal service use and a professional office on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor. These are all pre- existing, nonconforming uses in the Single Family Residential zone where the permitted uses are restricted to single family dwellings only. The applicant proposes to utilize existing interior space only and use the site as it exists. Therefore no site improvements are proposed at this time. The parking calculation provided on the plot plan identifies 14 spaces required to support all of the existing and proposed uses on the site. It is unclear whether or not the corresponding proposed future parking area identified on the survey will be constructed. It is currently green space. The existing lighting on the site should be discussed. It appears that one flood light on the building illuminates the parking area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? MRS. BARDEN-No County Impact from the Warren County Planning Board as well at th their January 10 meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record and just tell us what you’d like to do. MRS. CASSE-Okay. My name is Linda Casse, and I purchased the property at 318 Ridge about two years ago, a little over two years ago, and have been trying to get a gift shop opened, and ran into problems trying to get the Use Variance, which I finally got that in November, but this is a space you’re probably familiar with. There’s been many businesses there previous to what I’ve been trying to do. There was a diet center, a liquor store, an ice cream shop, a consignment shop. There’s been a number of different businesses in that little spot that I’m trying to open up the store, and I got a list of all the neighbors, which you probably have in your packets, who are for the gift shop. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have that, Susan? She said there was a list of neighbors that are supporting the project? MRS. BARDEN-Was that for your Use Variance or for the site plan? MRS. CASSE-Yes, I had it for the Use Variance. I didn’t know if we included it in this packet. MRS. BARDEN-Would you like to just read the statement and then the number of signatures? MRS. CASSE-Okay. It just says, “We support Linda Casse’s application for a variance from the Town of Queensbury which will permit her to operate a gift boutique next to the beauty salon known as Advanced Hair Design at 318 Ridge.” And there’s Jackie Merritt. I can’t read some of these names. Carol Vannier, Kim Gillis Collette-Brenneisen, Emma Johnson, Jody Lynch, Gary Duval, Mary and Mildred Gray. They’re both on Meadowbrook and Ridge. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. One of the, I mean, you heard Staff comments read to you, as well as to the audience. One of the comments was about parking. If you could maybe clarify? MRS. CASSE-Sure. There is existing parking alongside the building which probably parks anywhere from six to eight cars, but along, I had a fence erected along the property line, and the fence is, actually there’s 230 feet from Meadowbrook to Ridge, and the fence is approximately 190 something feet, and I actually thought it was 12 feet per car and I guess you only need 9 feet per car. So I could fit a lot more than the 14 in there. MRS. STEFFAN-And would you only put those in if you needed them? MRS. CASSE-The parking? Actually people park there all the time as it is. They just, you know, they’re going to the hair salon or they just kind of, there’s no, you know, it’s not paved. There’s no parking designation spots, but they just pull in along the side and park, and there’s a lot of parking there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I’ll just open it up for questions and comments from members of the Board. MRS. BRUNO-The first thing that pops into my mind, just discussing the parking, I’m thinking of the handicapped parking that would be required. If it’s not paved, I would think that signage would, you would need to have some signage there. MRS. CASSE-Well, what I could do is, there is parking right adjacent to the building, and I could certainly put a handicap spot right there, which would make it easier, and closer to the entrance. MRS. BRUNO-There’s a certain formula, and I don’t remember it off the top of my head. Perhaps Staff could direct you, and I’m guessing with the size of your building that one will probably be more than sufficient, but the square footage of the building to the number of parking spaces that you need for handicapped. So that might, you might just need to double check on that. MRS. CASSE-Well, the square footage of the shop is 1,038, and from what I understand, the retail parking you need I believe it’s four spaces per 1,000 square feet. MRS. BRUNO-Four regular spaces. MRS. CASSE-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-There’s a certain percentage of that, though, that’s why I’m saying that I’m sure that one is enough, but we’ll just need to double check that, just for the record, the handicapped. MRS. CASSE-What I’ve pulled up from the zoning laws was the apartments needed two parking places. The office space, the hair salon actually because it’s only 300 square feet, only needed one, and the office space needed three. MR. TRAVER-Do you know how long that existing structure has been there? I mean, I can remember going back probably 20 years ago and there was an audio store, I think I bought an old reel to reel tape recorder in that store years and years ago. I see there’s no comments regarding changing the building structure at all. MRS. CASSE-No. I’m not. I don’t want to change anything at all with the building. Again as you can see, that’s the original part of the building, the old brick part, and the part that I want to open the retail space in was the addition that was built by the Clements, and they built that, I think, back in the 60’s, and that was originally built to house the liquor store that they had and the little ice cream shop, but the home itself was built back in the 1800’s. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the other Staff comments was about lighting, and currently there’s only one flood light to illuminate the parking area. What are the proposed hours of the gift shop being open? MRS. CASSE-I was anticipating opening like 11 o’clock until 5:00, 5:30. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re really not staying open much into the evening. In terms of, does the flood light illuminate the parking area sufficiently? MRS. CASSE-Actually I just had a flood light put up about a month ago, and it’s a very bright, I’ve had two flood lights put up actually. I had one on the other side of the building, so that it illuminates the front to the south side, and then the part of the building that we are just looking at, that flood light illuminates that side. You can’t see it right there, but it’s pretty bright, and then there’s street lights. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. CASSE-A lot of street lights that light it up as well. MRS. BRUNO-The lighting on the back is a downward pack light, I think, if I remember. I thought I saw one there. I guess that was more of a question to the applicant. The one on the back is kind of a square down light? MRS. CASSE-The flood light? MRS. BRUNO-Yes, on the back. MRS. CASSE-Yes. I guess, but it’s really bright, as a matter of fact, I’m not there at night, and when I pulled up the other night, it just automatically comes on at night, and it’s very bright. MRS. BRUNO-The one on the front that you mentioned? MRS. CASSE-No, the one there, right there on the side. MRS. BRUNO-Right. I’m sorry I confused you, but the one on the front, could you describe that one also? MRS. CASSE-It’s the same. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. LAVIN-Are you a previous business owner in Town? MRS. CASSE-Not in Town, no. No, I’ve run a restaurant previously in Lake George. I’ve had an antique shop years ago in Florida, been in the real estate business, and this is sort of my retirement job. MRS. BRUNO-It sounds exciting. MRS. CASSE-Yes. I’m buying myself a retirement job. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that came to speak on behalf of this application, either for or against? I will open the public hearing and I will also close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Since there are no comments. It is a Type II SEQRA. Members of the Board comfortable in moving forward on SEQRA? Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a Type II, we don’t have to do one. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Anyone comfortable in moving forward with a resolution? MRS. BRUNO-I have one question. The Floor Area Ratio, is that required in terms of, what I’m thinking of is if she decides to go for more parking in the future, I’m just concerned about the amount of infiltration into the green space. Would she have to 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) come before us again before, or would she be able to just go and add on to the parking lot? Do we need to check right now to make sure that we have enough impermeable surface or permeable, excuse me, I said that backwards. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, she did submit the site development data, the site plan review sheet that shows that there is 33% non permeable, which is, yes, which is within the Code. If she were to want to change the site plan, she would have to come back for site plan modification. MRS. BRUNO-That answers my very long winded question. I wasn’t very concise with that, but thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Is this connected to sewer? MRS. CASSE-It’s on sewer. MRS. BRUNO-It’s a great spot. I had always wondered why, in the recent years, there wasn’t really anything there. MRS. CASSE-Yes. The fellow had an accounting office and I guess his wife ran a bookstore until the end of 2004, and they left. I think he bought his own spot over on Bay Road. I think he bought a building over there. That’s what I was told. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? MRS. BRUNO-No, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2007 LINDA CASSE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 1038 sq. ft. of Retail Space and associated site improvements. Site Plan Review is needed after the granting of a Use Variance. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 1/23/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code Chapter 179, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code based on ZBA granting a Use Variance. 5. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. 6. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and, if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2007 LINDA CASSE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following notes and condition: 1. Paragraph Four should read pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code Chapter 179, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code based on ZBA granting a Use Variance. 2. Paragraph Five, this is a Type II Action, so SEQRA review is not required. 3. Strike Paragraph Six because the property is already connected to 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) the sanitary sewer, 4. Approved with one condition, that the plan has a denotation that there is a handicap parking space to be provided. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lavin, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MRS. CASSE-Well thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. MRS. CASSE-I have a question. I’ve run into so many roadblocks, I need to know before I get my hopes up to go and open the doors, what else do I need to do? MRS. BARDEN-Get your CO. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The only thing you need now is your Certificate of Occupancy, and that comes from the Building Department. MRS. CASSE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-They’re downstairs in the same location. They’re all in the Community Development Department. MR. HUNSINGER-But before he gives that to you, you’re going to have to show on the plan where your handicap parking spot is, and you’ll need to put up a sign. MRS. CASSE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 64-2005 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 5-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY KILBURN AGENT(S) JAMES MILLER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION FOX HOLLOW LN., BETWEEN #22 & #24 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF A DEC WETLAND. FILLING OR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. FRESHWATER WETLAND PERMIT: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A DEC WETLAND. APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED INFORMATION CONSISTENT WITH THE TABLING MOTION OF 4/18/06. CROSS REFERENCE SB WESTLAND SECT. 15 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 12.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-30 SECTION 179-6-060, 94-5 JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. The applicant requests a wetland permit and site plan review for activity within 50 feet of a DEC wetland. Subject property is located at 11 Fox Hollow Lane. The applicant proposes a 3,177 square foot single family dwelling. Grading and filling associated with the construction of the access road is within 50 feet of a wetland. The project for a single family dwelling includes the construction of driveway, 2355 square feet of which will be within 50 feet of a DEC wetland. The most recent submission satisfies the Board’s tabling of April 25, 2006, “So that DEC can come in and confirm the existing wetland delineation”. A September 27, 2006 letter from DEC stated, “The reason for the wetland boundary verification, was to show that the wetland boundaries are correct and the drive does not at anytime enter the wetland only the 100’ adjacent area”. Staff confirmed with DEC that the Freshwater Wetlands Permit does not need to 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) be modified or reissued unless any additional work in the adjacent area is proposed. Additionally, at the April 25 meeting the Board determined the action to be an Unlisted SEQR designation, with that, the applicant has submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form. The proposed leach field is approximately 100-feet from the wetland, this is the minimum separation distance from an absorption field to a stream, lake or watercourse as identified in Appendix A in Section 136. However, “If percolation rate is zero to three minutes per inch, this distance becomes 200 linear feet”. The percolation that was done indicates a stabilized percolation rate of 2 min., 45 sec. per inch. Therefore, the soils will either have to be modified to render a perc rate of 3 min. per in. or more or the leach field will have to be moved to meet the 200-foot separation distance. The 35 foot no cut buffer zone shall apply here and should be denoted on the plan. Any presumed dead or diseased trees within this buffer area should be tagged and verified before removal. The limits of clearing should be denoted in the field by orange th construction fencing, and as indicated in the tabling motion of February 28, the final site plan shall carry plat notations stating no further subdivision and the Planning Board or its designated Staff member shall have the right to inspect the property from time to time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with the applicant Jeff Kilburn and project landscape architect Jim Miller. It’s been a while since we’re here, and because there are new members, we thought we would start off walking you through the site plan, but just to cut to the chase on this application, Jeff and his wife are planning to build their house on a 13 acre parcel. So you have to ask why we’re here to seek a variance so that we can build the driveway within 50 feet of the wetland. It’s not certainly in the wetland but just within the wetland buffer, and the reason is because to put it in this location is to utilize a long pre-existing logging road, logging path that’s on the property, and to move the driveway to the west would require pretty significant site disturbance. I remember that was an issue that Gretchen last time thought was important, because we’d be taking down trees and grading natural topography to move the driveway, and given those two choices, we feel strongly and Jim feels strongly that it’s better to leave the site undisturbed and address the stormwater drainage issues for the road which we did as the Board had asked. We have gone as far as to get an actual DEC buffer permit in this case. So it’s not that they’ve reviewed the application, but they’ve issued the permit, and then the tabling condition last time was to ask DEC to come out because the plan had been modified to make sure that the DEC permit was still valid and they came out and verified that the permit is still valid, with the changes in the plan. So that’s why we’re here. We think that this is the best way to develop this site, even though it does require the Freshwater Wetlands permit. I’m going to hand the mic to Jim and ask him to walk you through the site plan. MR. MILLER-Thank you. Good evening. The site is located on Fox Hollow Lane at the very back loop of the property, and the lot is just slightly under 13 acres. Here’s where it enters onto Fox Hollow Lane. About two acres of the site is part of the wetland behind Indian Ridge, and you can see from the Northway that it comes back up and ends in this area on the site. There’s a series of trails on the property. Most of the site is wooded and it’s got a rolling topography, and right now there’s houses on both sides of the 50 foot access way, but there’s a dirt trail that comes back through the property, actually there’s a series of them, but the main one comes back onto the site and actually it was graded into the side slope that slopes down towards the wetland in this area, and as Jon was saying, we looked at some different sites for locating a house, and Jeff and Candice picked the location back in this area, basically overlooking this wetland. So the proposal was to improve that existing logging road back there. That would require some grading. We actually had some stone wall along the one side in this middle area, but improve that road back to the building site, and what that would allow us to do is maintain the existing vegetation on both sides, including the steep hillside, in this area, as well as the vegetation along the, I believe it’s the west side of the wetland, and in addition, we talked about the buffer area. We even indicated that we would increase that buffer area in this area to guarantee that nothing would be cleared along this shore of the wetland because that’s one of the more visible sections of this wetland. The original plan, we came back and we had a looped driveway where the residence was located, and as some of you may recall there was some discussion about the amount of earthwork and clearing and things that would occur to accommodate that. So what we did is we went back and we modified that loop driveway and basically created a turnaround area which substantially reduced the amount of grading into the hillside back in that area. This driveway, just as a point of interest, is about 800 feet long to the house out to Fox Hollow Lane. As part of the, there was a list of, I think, 13 questions that we had to respond to, and I just wanted to highlight a couple of those I think were important. One of them talked about earthwork, and I think that was a Staff comment also. What we did is we looked at the 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) grading, the amount of earthwork. I believe the concern was whether, or much fill we’d be hauling into the site or taking off the site. Well, we looked at it, it would be constructed in two phases. The access road, obviously, would have to be constructed initially, which will allow us construction access and then there’d probably be some overlap, but the second phase would actually the development of the house site, and when we did the earthwork calculations, I think in the letter that I had submitted to the Planning Board, the calculations based on our grading show that we had in excess a cut along the road of like 70 cubic yards, and then we did the grading in the back site it showed that we needed about 120 yards. Well, actually, when I first did it, with the original grading plan, we needed quite a bit of fill. So what we did is it ended up being a very helpful exercise, so we ended up revising the grading plan so that with the revised grading we had like 120 foot of fill required. So we were like within 50 yards on the site between balancing the cut and fill, which would be easy to do. That’s why, on the Environmental Impact Statement, we answered the question that there’d be no material removed because that’s a small amount. That’s five truckloads. At that small amount we’d be able to balance on the site. The calculations aren’t really that accurate. So we’ve got it graded to the point where it’s close to a balanced cut and fill, even though we’re pushing some dirt around on the site. The other issue that was discussed was the septic system, and if you remember way back when we got the signoff from C.T. Male, in the area where the proposed septic system is, there’s an existing slope there now that’s going to be leveled when the house site is graded and when the original test pit and perc tests were done, they were done on the low end. So it was like at existing grade, the closest we could get to grade where the septic system was going to be, and C.T. Male had some comments about that test pit saying that, well, those soil conditions may not be indicative of what’s going to be on the other end of the field when we grade it. So if you recall we added some notes to the plan saying that when that leachfield area is graded, before the construction would happen, additional test pit and perc test would be done to verify that, and then the most recent comment we got from Dave Hatin said that our perc test was two minutes and forty-five seconds. So we’re underneath the three minutes, and he’s correct. What we would do in that case is amend the soil which is standard. We’re only 15 seconds off. So it’s not a very rapidly perking soil, but it’s still under the three minutes. So what we would do is amend that soil, but it was agreed previously that we would wait until the grading was done before we did any of that amendment, but that’s normal practice. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you elaborate on what you mean by amend the soil? MR. MILLER-What we do is if, you know, the Code says that if the soils, actually because we’re near the wetland it’s increased to three minutes. Typically if it’s under one minute, but what you have to do is, in the area where your leachfield is going to go, you have to excavate the existing soil out and you have to bring in like two foot of a different kind of material that is a slower perking. Typically what you do is you get a sand that’s got more fine material in it so it restricts the flow more than, you know, typically when you get a rapid permeability it’s a course sand. So you need something that’s got more of a mix that slows it down, and the whole intent is to provide proper filter. So, you know, that’s fairly standard, and we would agree to do that and we would add those notes to the plan, but that was something that we’ve kind of discussed early on. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. JEFF KILBURN MR. KILBURN-I’m Jeff Kilburn. A point of clarification. I live on Fox Hollow at 11 Fox Hollow Lane. So this property isn’t actually at 11 Fox Hollow. It’s an unnumbered between 22 and 24. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open up the table for discussion, comments from members of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-I actually think it’s amazing that you got DEC to the site. MR. MILLER-Well, I just wanted to say something about that. The delay was, it was peculiar. Robin Holovinsky was the person I was supposed to meet, and I was leaving her messages for the longest time, and I finally called Rich Spiedel who’s the permit officer, and I said, I’m not hearing back, and he said, she’s not here anymore. So I don’t know where my messages were going. So that’s when Lucia Harold came out, and as a matter of fact she came out within a couple of days and she walked the site. I just 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) wanted to mention that she walked this, as a matter of fact, we went out there and we walked the whole boundary of the wetland, and she reviewed the flagging, and she did add two additional flags. So if you went out there, you’ll see there’s two orange flags there that are orange, says wetland boundary. Those were the two flags she moved, and what we did on the most recent plan we submitted is we showed, the old line that was flagged was in there, and then, you know, we showed those two new lines there, and that’s why there was an increase of, you know, it doesn’t change our design. It just moved that wetland line a little bit closer. So the amount of impervious driveway went from 1260 square feet to 2355, but when the DEC reviewed that they said that that has no impact on their permit, that they were fine with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-The last time that you were here, Mr. Kilburn, you were not pleased with the condition that we wanted no further subdivision, and so I guess I’m asking how you’re feeling about that right now. Because that’s one of the conditions that came out in the Staff Notes as part of our discussion. MR. KILBURN-Would it be unreasonable to ask what the thinking behind the no further subdivision would be, since I’m only here today asking to build one house on my 13 acres. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m going to speak for the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I think we’ve had this discussion before, that the concern was that this is right next to a Critical Environmental Area, and just because of the very sensitive nature of the property and where it is, we were concerned that this would be part of a larger subdivision. We’ve seen this before. Folks will come in to build one home, and then shortly thereafter it’ll be sold off and then subdivided, and part of the consideration of this particular parcel is for one house on it. So that’s why we were adamant actually about the no further subdivision. Because we don’t want it to be part of a subdivision. MR. KILBURN-I recognize where you’re coming from and I understand the problems I would face if I were to try to subdivide from Fox Hollow. So I’d be very pleased to give up any future subdivision access from Fox Hollow. MRS. STEFFAN-But we did talk, when you were here before, about the possibility of land behind this being sold off at some point and there maybe other access. MR. KILBURN-Yes, but I think Jon should speak. MR. LAPPER-We’ve talked about it, after we saw the Staff Notes, and I guess what Jeff’s thinking is not that he’s intending to do anything, but if after he’s gone or whatever would happen, just in terms of the value of the site, and he’s certainly offering to compromise. What he was thinking is that there might be a value at the very back end where it’s all owned by Finch Pruyn and that’s been for sale. That’s not the section that’s near the wetland. It’s in what would be the northwest corner, that if that land got purchased by Finch Pruyn, you know, there might be maybe one or two house sites back there that wouldn’t be near the wetland, and so what he would be offering as a condition is that there wouldn’t be access to another house, to more than one house from Fox Hollow, and that there would never be more than a maximum of three houses on the 13 acres, which is still far less than what the zoning would allow in a one acre zone. I mean, to really develop this site, to put 10 houses or something, you’d be knocking all the trees down and clearing it, which would be horrible, and he has no intention, and he would be willing to certainly give that up, but what Jeff would offer would be no more than one driveway accessing from Fox Hollow and no more than three house sites maximum, and he’d ask that you consider that as a condition. MRS. BRUNO-Susan, could you please put up an aerial. MR. KILBURN-And that I would never do the subdivision. As long as I own it, I have no interest in subdividing it. I want to live there and enjoy. MRS. STEFFAN-See, that’s the note that I actually have here. Based on all of the meetings that we’ve had, and I know we’re supposed to be looking at zoning and our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, all those things. It’s obvious that you and your wife love 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) this property, and you want to live there. My concern, as a member of the Planning Board, is that what will happen when you don’t own it anymore, and so those are some of my concerns. MR. KILBURN-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-And those are some of the lessons that I’ve learned on being here for a few years is that what appears in front of you is not always the ultimate reality of an application or a parcel. So I am trying to think forward. MR. MILLER-One thing if there ever was a subdivision, we’d certainly be back before this Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And we could always say no. I’m just trying to imagine where any additional access would come in. It’s really a waste of time to talk about any further subdivision off Fox Hollow because there’s only one 50 foot wide access and you need at least 40 foot on the street to have a buildable lot. MR. LAPPER-And that’s why Jeff will immediately give that up. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, he gave it up before he said he gave it up, is what I’m saying. MRS. BRUNO-And I think that’s important to have it on the record because if per chance you should sell your house and someone were to think, I can go for a variance so that I could use that, and 20 years, 10 years down the road, it’s a different Board. MR. HUNSINGER-So there is value in that statement, yes, you’re absolutely right. I shouldn’t have been so quick to make that comment. MRS. STEFFAN-That was in my mind. In a lot of the applications that we’ve been looking at lately, there’ve been shared driveways, and all I could think of is this driveway being shared and then some kind of a dispute over who maintains it, how it’s maintained, what’s put on it, because we’ve had discussions about what would be put on it for ice and snow and those kinds of things. MR. MILLER-Well, typically, a shared driveway, though, you still have to have the 40 foot of frontage for a legal lot. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s correct. MR. MILLER-Even though you’re driveway is shared. I mean, in this case, the frontage is only 50 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but as was pointed out, they could always seek a variance and, you know, go before the ZBA and get a variance on the road frontage requirement. MR. MILLER-Highly unlikely, though. They’re a tough group. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Ten years down the road it might be a completely different group, 15, 20. MR. MILLER-Well, that’s the thing Jeff’s concerned with. MR. LAPPER-He would be giving that up as a condition of this approval, that there would be only one driveway, one house access from Fox Hollow. If you want to open the public hearing, we could look at that afterwards. MR. HUNSINGER-I will take the Counselor’s advise here and open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wanted to speak? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICK HAAG 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HAAG-Rick Haag. I live at 15 Fox Hollow Lane, two houses away from Jeff’s current residence and around the corner from the proposed new house. I’m probably the oldest, or the longest, I should say, maybe the oldest, too, but the longest resident of that area. I lived on Gilmore Avenue back in 1970 when the end of the paved highway stopped at Gilmore. When Jeff Kelley opened up around Gilmore to Sunset, I moved around the corner and built a house and was there for probably 15 or 18 years, and then when Jeff opened up the Fox Hollow Lane area, back in the late 80’s, I purchased a lot and built down in that area. So I’ve been in the area since 1970, and I’ve seen quite a few changes go through the area, as well as over in Indian Ridge, and probably I think we all sometimes think, well, somebody’s going to change something so drastic or so different that it’s really going to be of less value or of some kind of unknown kind of thing that makes it a project that shouldn’t be considered too seriously, but I’ve known Jeff and Candy for quite some time as neighbors, as responsible as they are for taking care of their current property. Back a year ago when the proposal was put forth, I was downstairs looking at the materials that were put on file with the Building Department, and a month ago when the hearing was scheduled, I was here to check to see if there’d been any changes in the basic plan that was put forth. I guess my main consideration, I used to ride motorcycles down in through that area. I’ve hiked there with some of our older daughters. I was concerned, just in terms of the construction. I know, having known what the trail system was there, from hiking it and riding motorcycles way back when, and looking at the plan that was downstairs, and after now hearing Mr. Miller talk about the way that the road is going to go back through to the property or to the house actually, really I guess that was a concern that I had initially, what would happen when they started cutting the road back through. I live a little bit away. There are two people here that are living right next door that I think could realize maybe that, or wonder what was going to happen, but seeing what has been proposed, it’s certainly a responsible and a good plan to get back to the site. As much acreage as there is there, I can appreciate Gretchen’s thought as to what might happen in the future, but predisposing some of this stuff to some questions I don’t think serves the Town as well as it might because knowing it’s going to have to come back to you folks for any changes that might be considered in the future, I think the overall plan that I looked at downstairs is meeting all of the things that would be a responsible review and a consideration that everybody should feel that it’s going to be worthwhile. As I say, I’ve lived in the area a long time. I’ve seen the development of the whole vicinity, and it’s a nice, the whole area is such a convenient and nice area. I can understand. I have known a number of people, when Jeff Kelley owned the property, that were interested in it. Some of them I know were, in terms of consideration, were thinking about trying to develop it to have more than one home, one residence on it. So I was very pleased to see what when Jeff purchased it, actually after noticing that the For Sale sign was down and that there was a sign out there posting it for not entering, I found out that Jeff owned it and it set my mind at ease because I’ve known Jeff a long time. He was one of the people within our group at Fox Hollow Lane that took a serious look and position about the development over in Indian Ridge, and I think Jeff is responsible and has the best interest of that area at heart. So I would certainly speak on his behalf to say that it’s something that, and as a neighbor for a long time, and a resident of that area have no problem with what is proposed for this evening or what’s been put down with the Planning Department or Building Department. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HAAG-You bet. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MARY FRANCES KUSIOR MS. KUSIOR-Mary Frances Kusior. I live at 22 Fox Hollow Lane, the uphill side, and I agree with Mr. Kilburn’s proposal, no reservations. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MIKE MULSHINE MR. MULSHINE-Mike Mulshine. I live at 24 Fox Hollow Lane, which is just to the bottom left there, that property to that side of it, and I agree with the proposal as well. I feel that it’s a reasonable use of the land. We’ve lived there for six years, and the considerations or the concerns we would have had would have been if a developer had bought the land and tried to get the Board to agree to more extensive development of the property, but especially in light of what we’re hearing tonight about the willingness to make it just one access for one home, but having the right to potentially sell the back of the property, 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) subdivide the back of the property some day in case there was access from the other way, from the other property, I hadn’t heard that before, but I think that’s an excellent idea, just because, you know, I’ve known Jeff for quite some time. He used to work in the office with my current accountant, and I think that I can take him at his word, and I believe that he really wants to, you know, even if he were to sell the land, if you guys agree to this type of plan, then the character of our neighborhood wouldn’t change that much at all, and to the point, Mary Frances Kusior and I share the biggest brunt of this for anyone because in the current scenario what looks like a driveway is the grass that I mow, all right. Okay. My kids learned how to play baseball there. Jeff tells me he doesn’t care if they play baseball over his driveway. He’s not putting big things at the road. It’s almost like if you’re looking at a private drive, and then going into the woods, and we can live with that because, you know what, it’s America and you have the right to use your private property. This is a reasonable use of it. So from that perspective, the other piece, as far as direct impact on me particularly, where my home is, my home faces this way, and so looking across the wetlands out here, and so every day I can, well, except in the summer when the trees are full and you can’t see his house at all, this fills in completely, but in the winter, if he has a light on up here, I’ll be seeing it, okay. We can live with that. Okay. We’re the only people that will see it. Nobody else goes there. This is a part of the wetlands that goes around here, well, you can see it better. It goes out to the 200, you know, several hundred acre wetlands by the dam that keeps getting busted down by somebody, if you can’t figure out, back where they want to make those trails back off the cross country trails and stuff like that, and essentially as it stands right now, this is the only visible, the people that see this are really us, like my family, and Mary Frances sort of sees it from the side, but she doesn’t get a direct view from her home. All right. So I’m here to say that I’m the most directly effected by this, and if it’s as it’s outlined right now, I have no problem with it, because I think it’s a reasonable use of the land, and I guess that’s all I have to say for now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. BARDEN-I have one public comment from Mary Kusior from last, or excuse me, December’s meeting. Would you like me to read this, your statement? MS. KUSIOR-It’s redundant. It’s the same statement. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, and we did get the computer to cooperate. MRS. BARDEN-I guess I don’t have orthophotos for that section. Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It’s the piece to the north that is owned by Finch Pruyn. MR. MILLER-You can see there’s like a road that stubs onto the larger piece that borders us to the north, and it’s my understanding there’s actually been some subdivisions proposed. I don’t know if anything’s ever been approved, but that’s the Finch Pruyn piece that they’re talking about where if something were to happen there, you know, there may or may not be some reason that the rear portion of the lot could be included into some development there. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Miller, could you remind me. This has been designed to a major project, right, in terms of the stormwater? MR. MILLER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. MILLER-Yes. As a matter of fact, when we submitted this project to DEC for the wetland permit, they submitted it to the division of water, and Bill Lupo was in charge of the stormwater review and he reviewed it and had some comments, and that’s why the intent was, you know, we had the infiltration trenches and things along the road so everything would be infiltrated and not drained into the wetland. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. That’s what I thought, but it’s been a while. MR. MILLER-It’s been a while, yes. I had to spend some time with this this afternoon to try to remember myself. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. BRUNO-I do have another one. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MRS. BRUNO-This is actually one of the Staff comments. On Number 18 in the EAF, you put that, yes, you will be using an herbicide or pesticide of some sort, and that’s got to go. MR. KILBURN-I would assume that what the yes answer is referring to is simply fertilizing the lawn. MR. MILLER-It says herbicides and pesticides, though, but, you know, I checked yes, but because there’s been other times where I’ve checked no and I was told by the Board, well, people are going to use that. So you better check yes. So I don’t know where Jeff stands with that, when he does his landscaping, how heavy he is with the chemicals, but that’s why we did that. MR. KILBURN-Well, my original hope was to have very little lawn and to have trees and a forest floor, primarily. I went out there on Columbus Day weekend and the kids had had a party in the punch bowl there and left all their beer cans, but when I was walking back out of the woods, I found a tick under my arm. Then Thanksgiving weekend I went, and that night I was watching football and I felt something on my head and I had a tick embedded in my head, and so I’ve decided that I may need to have a little more than forest floor. I may need to have a little bit of lawn around the house in order to keep the ticks off me, on the property. So it’s larger, in my mind, than what I had originally envisioned, and in this neighborhood, you can’t maintain a lawn without a sprinkler system, and the grubs in the sand are terrible. So it would be very difficult to have a lawn without having some grub control, but I would certainly like to use the same process I use at my house now which is very minimal, only what I need to do and not massive, and certainly I understand the Board’s concern and I’ll live with any condition that you set, but it is a very sandy soil, and it’s prime country for grubs. MR. HUNSINGER-I always wonder how many people in Queensbury don’t have problems with grubs, to be honest. MR. MILLER-Well, the people who use the grub control don’t. That’s why I checked the yes, because it’s always been sort of the opinion of the Board on that question that if it’s residential use people will use some over the counter types of controls, but, you know, I always questioned whether or not that was the intent of that question in SEQRA form. I always used to interpret that was looking for something abnormal where you were doing a nursery or something where you were using extensive pesticides or an orchard or something like that, as opposed to somebody putting grub control. So I always sort of had a question whether or not, you know, what was the intent of that question. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the concern from the Board is that the pesticides or herbicides will end up into the wetland and then course into Rush Pond. So I think it’s a well founded concern, and, you know, maybe there’s some limitation, I don’t know if you had a suggestion of like, you know, maybe distance from the wetland or something, where nothing would be applied. MR. MILLER-Well, I mean, the septic requirement’s 100 feet, and that’s going to be the closest lawn to the wetland is actually in the septic area. So there would be no lawn closer than 100 feet. A lot of the things, like a lot of the grub control you use is a time released, which is a lot different than a lot of the older, you know, stuff they used to use in the old days, they put it down, it dissolved and it was gone. Now a lot of the things, you know, it’s season long grub control and it’s encapsulated, so it’s released very gradually. Part of the reason for that is it’s more effective but also it’s a lot less problems with leaching off into wetlands and other things because it’s released so slowly. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you feel comfortable if we limited that to within, you know, outside of 100 feet of the wetland, which sounds like that’s what the applicant’s offering? MR. TRAVER-Jim, could you show us where 100 feet from the wetlands would be, near the house? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, it’s actually on the map. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. MILLER-Yes. It is. Here’s the edge of the wetland here. The 100 feet is back up top of the hill here. MRS. BRUNO-Let me ask another question, since this would be introducing something else into that environment, the aquatic environment there, maybe it’s irrelevant, but, Mr. Miller, how do you feel about, I think it’s like a nematode handling of the grubs, an application of another natural force that would? MR. MILLER-I’m familiar with the practice, and, you know, my understanding is that it’s not as effective, but I’ve never really seen any first hand experience. MR. KILBURN-I used it in Fox Hollow once, and then I had to replace it with the chemicals. You go around and put it every, it’s in a grid format, and it didn’t solve the grub problem. MRS. BRUNO-It didn’t solve it. MR. LAPPER-But 100 feet is acceptable. MR. KILBURN-I can live with that top of the hill there. MR. MILLER-Well, I think, too, I mean, the grass area you’re talking about is essentially close to the house. Like part of the area where we’re grading on the other side of the driveway is fairly steep where we’ve shown some erosion control and things like that, and the intent, if you look at the detail, the intent there was that we weren’t planting a real finished lawn in those areas. We’re planting a courser grass seed with a mixture of clover and trefoil and things, and the intent was that that area, on the slopes and things, would be allowed to naturalize over time. So I think we’re just talking about the immediate area around the residence itself. MR. LAPPER-So that would be 100 feet. MR. MILLER-Yes. It would be well within 100 feet. MRS. BRUNO-Where does your grass grow best in your yard right now? Do you have one spot? MR. KILBURN-Where it’s shady. MRS. BRUNO-Where it’s shady. MR. KILBURN-Where it’s not in the direct sun all day long. Because the sand is, the water goes through the sand too quickly, even where I’m sprinkling on the lawn, and so in the shadier areas where I’ve got the trees it’ll grow best. Not completely shady, but where they’re tempered. MR. MILLER-Well, what typically happens in the sand, the grass will go dormant in heat, and then that’s when the crab grass and the weeds come in and it’s very hard to grow grass in the sand. MRS. BRUNO-Well, I’m personally more pro wetland than I am grass, and I mean, I have property myself that has both woods and grass, and I can tell you that I’ve personally removed three embedded ticks from family members this year, so I know where you’re coming from, but because this is so close to Rush Pond, I would have to say that I wouldn’t be able to vote yes, for just that one thing. I think you put a lot of time and effort into the driveway and making sure that we don’t infiltrate extra water and everything, but I would just hate to see extra organisms growing or maybe less organisms growing than currently there is naturally, and I know you would, too. MR. KILBURN-What’s your proposal? What are you suggesting? MRS. BRUNO-The use of no fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides. Just deal with the grubs, or, I don’t know. AUDIENCE MEMBER-What are your qualifications for saying that? MRS. BRUNO-My personal qualifications for saying that? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) AUDIENCE MEMBER-Are you a scientist or chemist or an architect or an engineer? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think there are guidelines that have been put out by the Lake George Association, actually all of the lake organizations, and it is all based on science and the leaching effect when you put chemicals, herbicides, pesticides on lawns and it leaches down and adds nitrates that filter into the lake, and that causes algae growth and it causes an imbalance in the water systems, and so the recommendations are fairly stringent on no pesticides or fertilizers used around water bodies, and we’ve been putting conditions on approvals all around Lake George for the three years I’ve been here, all of the development projects have that, and the Lake George Association has gone as far as, has published and asked all the Planning Boards in the area to put a condition of approval on site plans on the water bodies that there is vegetation buffers between the lake and any building development, so that there’s no siltation infiltration of these kinds of nitrates into the water bodies. So it is based on a lot of science actually. MR. KILBURN-Would this include organic fertilizers? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because they still have the same, the nitrates still leach in and it encourages algae growth. So it encourages growth that is not normal. MR. LAPPER-I guess the question we don’t know is whether 100 feet is a reasonable amount in terms of a buffer. MRS. BRUNO-And because we don’t know that, that’s why I’m having. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, one of the difficulties with any of the Planning Board recommendations we make, we can put those conditions on any kind of approval, but there’s the enforcement issue, and I understand Tanya’s point of view, and she’s actually talking about some of the things we’ve talked about, but some of our past practice, past history is that, how do you enforce it? And so our recommendation that folks don’t use fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides, I don’t know if that’s the best we can do or the most realistic. MR. LAPPER-Well, we would agree to an absolute condition, but we’d just ask that it be that 100 feet, especially since there’s not going to be a lawn area within 100 feet of the wetland. So that would be easy to tell in this case physically you’d see it. AUDIENCE MEMBER-If you follow the directions that are supplied by the manufacturer, whether it’s Scotts or whatever (lost words) they tell you apply it to a certain standard, which you consider their people who are developing and designing that particular product know what they want. So it’s not too much. It’s not too little. MR. TRAVER-But I don’t think the manufacturers intended the product be used in a sensitive wetland. That’s, I think, what we’re really talking about here. This is not a typical piece of property. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. TRAVER-And we need to have, I think, some reasonable recognition of that, the fact that this piece of property is so close to a very sensitive wetland, and that’s really what we’re trying to address. (AUDIENCE MEMBERS SPEAKING FROM AUDIENCE, NOT ON MICROPHONE – UNABLE TO TRANSCRIBE) MRS. STEFFAN-When I said around the lake, I’m talking about lakefront property. MR. LAPPER-We have a suggestion that maybe is a compromise that Jeff would agree to give up fertilizer, which is the nitrates, but that pesticides, if he needs pesticides, like termites or if he has a serious grub problem, he would minimize the use of pesticides and obviously you don’t use pesticides if you don’t need to because they’re not healthy for anybody, but he would give up fertilizer and only use pesticides if there were pests that required it, as minimal as possible, if you could live with that, and also outside of the 100 feet from the wetland, as a compromise. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that seem reasonable? MRS. STEFFAN-We can recommend it. We can’t enforce it. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I know. MRS. LAVIN-Well, since there’s so much talk here in the area, are there any, for lack of better words, lawn service carriers in the area that are willing to work specifically with the homes that are near wetlands or the lake that have any type of alternatives to offer the folks that are moving in? I don’t know if anyone’s come to the table and said that that’s the latest and greatest, that any of the local? MRS. STEFFAN-I think that those options are available, Barbara, but, you know, I think it comes down to individual preference. Usually the organic or the non-chemical solutions have a price tag associated with that, and so it becomes a personal choice what individuals would like to do, and I don’t think we can regulate that. MR. HUNSINGER-If we’re going to have more comments, we’ll have to re-open the public hearing, and get you up on the mic, because they’re not going to be able to differentiate comments. MR. LAPPER-We’ve offered that compromise, and hopefully that’ll take care of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anyone else that had another comment? MR. MULSHINE-I’m Mike Mulshine, 24 Fox Hollow. Okay. Anyway, what most people consider to be Rush Pond is north of this body of water that’s right near the property. Just to clarify that for Tanya, and what I want to point out is, as we’re talking about things like the compromise that Mr. Kilburn’s offering on chemicals is to put this into perspective to what’s really happening to the wetlands, all right, which all of us are actually concerned with. In the upper right hand corner, I mean, I guess that would be the northeastern corner of the wetlands, there was a natural dam, okay, and somebody, we have our ideas, but we can’t spread rumors and such, routinely goes back and busts up the dam. It keeps getting built up by beavers and then the dam gets busted out by people, and other people have built it back up, you know, I’m assuming neighbors. Now this impacts these wetlands way more than anything you’re discussing with Mr. Kilburn. So what’s happening is the wetland is becoming just a beaver meadow. If you go back and you look at the back end of it, it’s filling in with mud, it’s becoming a beaver meadow. All right. Canoeing used to be possible on a very routine basis. It’s no longer very good right now. Where we are, the dam was built up a year ago, and everybody, including Mr. Kilburn, noticed that, boy the water was real high, and that’s why I see his little dock here and stuff, awesome, right. Then it was broken again by people, and now it’s very low, even where we are. It’ll never be gone where we are because there seems to be some springs there and such, but it’s 40% lower or something. It’s easy to imagine this eventually just being a marsh, not even a marsh, but, you know, so my point is I just wanted to put that in perspective that the issue of what he’s trying to do 100 feet up and with his lawn actually pales in comparison to what’s happening to the wetlands because of people decimating the dam constantly, and when you consider how much money the Land Conservancy and the School and the Town wants to put in these trails and possibly a little causeway on the other side of the wetlands and how awesome the wetlands would be if you could canoe it all, which you used to be able to do and now you really can’t. The end where we’re at it wouldn’t even occur to someone to, there’s no place currently in the wetlands that anyone would plunk a canoe in and feel real comfortable that this is one of the better places to go right now, but in the past it has been, as short ago as like a year, and then before that the dam was broken. The only relevance is just I want to put this in perspective that there’s mounts and mole hills, so to speak, and what Mr. Kilburn’s proposing in my mind pales in comparison to what people keep doing to the wetlands physically, which is a lot worse than, you know, what we’re talking about at the moment in terms of his compromise, but thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Okay. Any further comments or questions from members of the Board? MRS. BRUNO-I’m curious, has Bill Lupo been notified? I think he would be the proper? MR. MULSHINE-With DEC. I called him up. I actually talked to him years ago about the dam when we noticed it was being busted up, and they told me at the time, the DEC told me at the time that they really couldn’t do anything about it, per se, that they’d have to catch somebody doing it. All right, and then I said, well, what if somebody went back there and fixed it? And they said, well that’s not allowed either. So, basically we have to wait for beavers to come back and fix the dam, so anyway people who I won’t name went back and fixed the dam, okay, several times over the years, and I don’t know them. So the point is that, you know, I think the Town, the Planning Board ought to consider, with 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) all the other monies being spent by community money, etc., on what’s behind the School and for this wetlands and the trails and investment, there were going to be bird stands back there and all this kind of stuff, which is great, that right now it’s not very attractive looking back there at all, and that this might be a situation for the Planning Board, they might not even be aware of it, to talk to the DEC and say, look, this little dam, it’s easy to go back there, right by the Northway, at the end, and look where the dam keeps getting broken. It’s a natural buffer and it’s busted right through, and just get it, I mean, this is an exception where the Planning Board can say, let’s make this a permanent dam, put a sign and say you’re not allowed to bust this, or maybe have small amount of water egress from it so that it doesn’t flood it, which is easy to do, and then you’ll actually have a beautiful wetland. It’ll be worth going out on little stands to look at birds and people will be able to canoe, and all you have to do is take a walk back there and you’ll see what I mean. So, anyway, I did talk to the DEC and that was their response. MS. KUSIOR-I agree also. I’ve lived there over 15 years, and 15 years ago you could canoe easily, and it’s almost dried up, all the water, because people break the beaver dam. So it’s something you should be aware. Plus we used to get a lot more snapping turtles and painted turtles. There would be dozens of them that would cross the road to lay their eggs and you just don’t see that much anymore, and the frogs are even less, too, the noise of the frogs. So that’s a good point. MRS. BRUNO-So what we’re hoping to do, hopefully, down the road, we’ll be able to get that dam so that it is not removed, and then at that point when we have the water filling up this area, we want to make sure that the water stays a good natural quality for all of those critters that you’re talking about, and, you know, this is perhaps a smaller issue, or could be a larger issue, but it is one that, like Mrs. Steffan so eloquently put, it’s something that does keep coming up, and it sounds like we’re all on the same page in terms of protecting our Town and our environment, and that’s where I’m coming from. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? Are we ready to move forward on SEQRA? It is a Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-What was the perc test on this? What was the depth to groundwater? MR. MILLER-The groundwater is basically the elevation of the wetland. So where the test pit was done it was excavated down eight feet. There was no water. MRS. BRUNO-The elevation of the current wetland or prior to? MR. MILLER-Well, if you look around the edge of it, one of the neighbors commented that there’s a lot of springs, and basically the type of wetland this is, if we’ve got gravely, sandy soil and it’s underlain by, you know, rock or something more impervious, and the water moves through that sand, then it moves laterally, like if you look around the banks you’ll see where it seeps out and that’s typically where the wetland conditions start. So that groundwater is pretty consistent, you know, in that area with where those springs are, you know, probably I would guess in the area where the septic system is it’s probably 12 to 14 feet, below where the system’s going to be. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MILLER-DEC requires two feet, or the Health Department, not DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we ready? MRS. STEFFAN-I think we’re ready. MR. HUNSINGER-Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you have to close the public hearing before we do SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Will the proposed action effect any threatened or endangered species?” 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HUNSINGER-One of the concerns is, and I’ll just read what it says, application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. So if it’s not agricultural purposes, would that be lawn? MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So should we say small to moderate impact? Well, I mean, he said that he wouldn’t use it except as required. MR. LAPPER-We’d agree to not more than twice a year on pesticides, certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-You’d have to put that in as a condition. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s mitigated by project change, or controlled by project change. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 64-2005 & 5-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Barbara Lavin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEFFREY KILBURN, 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. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Lavin, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Bruno ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Is anyone ready to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s going to take a minute. MR. HUNSINGER-What was the offer that you made on the subdivision? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. LAPPER-That there would only be one driveway to one lot from Fox Hollow and no more than a total of three houses on the property ever, three lots, I’m sorry. MR. TRAVER-Does the number of lots mean anything, since there would have to be an application I’m thinking for any other? I mean, I guess the value that we would be seeking would be the one access road from Fox Hollow, or would we be implying that we would consider up to three? MR. LAPPER-We’re giving up, as a condition, that we could never ask for four, or a future owner could never ask for four, because the applicant’s agreeing to that condition, and to get somebody, a future Planning Board would have to agree to waive that condition, which is pretty unlikely. So the applicant’s agreeing to a condition that would be a condition of the approved site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2005 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 5-2005 JEFFREY KILBURN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Barbara Lavin: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 3,177 sq. ft. single family dwelling and improvements to an existing log road. Portions of the filling associated with the driveway occur within 50’ of a DEC Wetland. Filling or hard surfacing within 50’ of the shoreline of a wetland requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Freshwater Wetland Permit: Applicant proposes a 3,177 sq. ft. single family dwelling and improvements to an existing log road. Portions of the filling associated with the driveway occur within 50’ of the shoreline of a DEC wetland. Applicant has submitted information consistent with the tabling motion of 4/18/06. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/20/05, 2/21/06, 4/18/06 and 12/19/06; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. 7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and, if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit; and 8. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2005 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 5-2005 JEFFREY KILBURN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Barbara Lavin: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, this was an Unlisted Action with a negative declaration. The motion is approved with the following conditions: 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) 1.That the applicant agrees that no further subdivision off Fox Hollow Lane will occur. 2.No more than three lots on the property at any time in the future, understanding that further subdivision of this property will be subject to site plan review. 3.That the Planning Board or their designee will have the right to inspect the property from time to time. 4.The limits of clearing should be denoted in the field by orange construction fencing and inspected by Staff prior to site work. 5.Additional sediment and erosion control measures should be in place and field verified by Staff before a building permit is issued or any construction activity takes place. 6.The applicant must comply with Section 179-6-060 of our Town Code. 7.That the Planning Board recommends that no fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides be used on the property. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Lavin, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Bruno ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. KILBURN-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN DISCUSSION ONLY SEQR TYPE NOT NEEDED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. AGENT(S) TOM LEWIS OWNER(S) QUAKER & DIX NORTHERN DR., LLC ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 777 DIX AVENUE DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,250 SQ. FT. STEWARTS SHOP WITH SELF SERVE GAS. ALL USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. FLOOD ZONE C [PANEL 350890029B] CROSS REFERENCE SP GRJH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.51 TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 SECTION 179-4 TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-I guess there really aren’t Staff Notes. MR. LEWIS-Hi. Folks. My name is Tom Lewis. I’m the real estate representative of the Stewarts Shops. I want to thank the Board for allowing me to make a short pre- application meeting and explain why I’m in a bit of a Catch-22, which is why I asked to be here. I’ve got a handout. We’re in the HC-1A. We’re 1.5 acres. There’s only one acre needed. We’re at 43% green space. We only need 30%. We meet the parking. We meet the signage. It was difficult not asking for Area Variances, but we were able to do it. Now, this site was approved before for another convenience shop with gas, and you have that in your hands now. MR. HUNSINGER-I think actually twice before, if I’m not mistaken. MRS. STEFFAN-We were kind of wondering if anything would ever get built there. MR. LEWIS-Well, we’re hoping to build something there, and after meeting with Craig Brown and Susan, we’ve reduced the four curb cuts down to two. So here and here are the existing two there and then there’s one there and there’s one there, and what was 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) approved before has four. There are two full accesses and a right in only and a right out only, and we’ve eliminated that. We’ve appeared before this Board a number of times before, I know some of you were here before last time I was here. Some are new, and we’re hoping over the years to try to figure out up front what Boards usually ask us to do and hopefully have one meeting instead of four meetings. We’ve improved on the shared cut that McDonalds uses by we’ve moved this one here more north, and that’s the shared cut there, and you can see that on the site plan. So what’s my Catch-22 here? Upon site examination, there’s substantial bedrock. There’s a lot of additional side costs. Because of the bedrock, which is why I think the last folks backed out. I don’t know this, I never asked them, but I know we almost backed out, because the sewer now has to be brought down because there’s not enough room for a septic and the underground tanks. So there’s a lot of additional costs here, which I know is not the Board’s difficulty, but it’s our difficulty, and we’re just saying why we’ve thought seriously about walking from it. We are the kind of a company that is motivated by that ugly word “profit”, and we’re happy to make an investment if there’s some return. If the costs just escalate and escalate and escalate, then we just don’t do it, and there’s also a lot of pollution. We know that, factually. So now here’s the hard part. There are more leans on the property than we’re paying, and this’ll be the second most expensive site I ever bought, and I mean I’ve bought over 100 pieces of land. So obviously this is a very good market. We want to be here. There’s lots of cars and lots of people. So we can’t begin negotiating with the people who are owed money on this. The bank alone is owed more than we’re going to pay, and then there’s other people. So you can’t negotiate that until we have an approval, and we don’t want to invest a whole lot of money in engineering and my time and cost, yadda, yadda, in order to do everything necessary to get a vote. So I’m here just to hopefully walk out of here feeling warm and fuzzy, thinking that this Board will say someone’s got to make something ugly into something nicer, that we hopefully have a relatively good rep with the Town. I recognize Mr. Hunsinger, and I think I recognize Gretchen. Not the other three of you. So, at our site at Ridge and 149, I mean, there was this big deal about the lighting and we gave the Board exactly what they wanted, and it’s easier for me to say yes than no. MRS. STEFFAN-We actually use that as a model for other convenience stores. MR. LEWIS-Happy to oblige. What also we’ve had discussions of architecture in a more residential neighborhood off of Exit 18. We’re hoping that the Board will, in this case, accept our mansard roof. It’s a very commercial location. The Hess opposite is roughly the same. I mean, it’s not a residential. So at least there’s some costs we can modify without expensive architecture. In a more sensitive neighborhood, happy to work with you. So that’s just basically it. I’m here to ask, I never take a Planning Board for granted. I’ve done too many of these things. So I would like to ask to informally ask the Board, does this look like something, as proposed, is acceptable? What are the problems? What issues might there be that I haven’t thought of? MR. HUNSINGER-I think we actually like to be able to do this. I think it saves everybody a lot of time and money. So I really appreciate you coming in for this sketch plan discussion. I think it will really be helpful. I guess I’ll just open it up for questions or comments from members of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-I happen to like the plan with the reduced curb cuts. This particular site reminds me of the site that’s Downtown on Broad Street. You have a “V” shaped lot there, and I’m always concerned because it’s oddly shaped and you have cars coming and going in a couple of different directions, and that site works very well. I’ve never seen an accident at that location, you know, with folks coming and going, and the Dix Avenue site has a lot better sight visibility than the site that’s Downtown, and so I think with the reduced curb cuts, this is a very good idea. MR. LEWIS-Great. I’m one-fifth the way there. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. LEWIS-This is a seven member Board though, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’re down a couple this evening. MRS. BRUNO-I think your request for maintaining the typical Stewarts architecture versus slightly more residential look is completely appropriate for this area. I actually think what you’re doing as a whole cleans up that area like Mrs. Steffan said. MR. LEWIS-Landscaping, I mean, that’s not on there. It’ll obviously be landscaped. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MRS. BRUNO-Right, and I think, although you and I have never met, I was able to review one other Stewarts plan, and I found, it was an engineer that you had come before us. MR. LEWIS-Probably Brandon Myers. MRS. BRUNO-I don’t recall, but whomever it was, they worked very well with us. It was Aviation Road. It went smoothly, so I’m not worried. MR. LEWIS-Great. I love smooth, or smoothly. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It certainly sounds as though you’re proposing an improvement to this particular part of Town which is a valuable piece of property, and I think, you know, properly developed can be quite profitable. MR. LEWIS-I hope you’re right. MRS. LAVIN-You mentioned earlier about the bedrocks and the gas tanks or fuel tanks in the ground. Was that at one time a gas station there? MR. LEWIS-Yes. It’s been for years. MRS. LAVIN-So I’m sure whatever’s in there is coming out, but is there, there is an ability to elaborate on whatever is in the ground so that you won’t have as much heartache as starting from scratch? MR. LEWIS-No. We know we will be able to put the tanks and where they are proposed. We’ve done extensive site examinations or borings, and where we have the tanks proposed will work. MRS. BRUNO-And that’s a new tanks, is what she’s asking. MR. LEWIS-They’ll be new tanks, yes. It’s different. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m last. You kind of read my mind. One of the comments when I first looked at this was, you know, you could do a better design, see the store on Corinth Road, but I think I can go along with your argument for this location that what’s proposed is okay, with one exception, and that is the south elevation, because that’s the side that you will see when you’re traveling east on Route 254. MR. LEWIS-Want that brick? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LEWIS-Done. MR. HUNSINGER-Or something other than just the metal. MR. LEWIS-Brick’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can understand the east elevation, you know, because that faces really nothing. Well, I shouldn’t say nothing. It faces McDonalds, but you know the other one you will see from the street, and then the only other comment I had was Gretchen mentioned the lighting. Without the benefit of an actual lighting plan, my comment was that the lights under the canopy might be too bright, but I really don’t know. MR. LEWIS-Not a problem. We’ll work with our lights. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you know what our Code is. You’ve done it before. So I’m not concerned. MR. LEWIS-Yes. The Code out on 149 was different than the Code here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is different. Yes. MR. LEWIS-We will meet the Code or exceed it a little bit. I mean we’ve again, and I 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) said this before, we don’t need a lot of lights. I don’t know why my competitors feel just compelled to light it to death. As long as cars aren’t hitting each other, they can see me. MR. HUNSINGER-I can tell you one gas station that we reviewed under the newer lighting Code where it is definitely too bright, and that is the Cumberland Farms on Quaker and Ridge. That one I think is too bright. I used to go there a lot when I used to live in that neighborhood. The one you have on Bay Road’s fine, and I think that one came under the new lighting standards. I think that was the first project that you brought before this Board that I was on the Board. MR. LEWIS-Yes, the first one I did. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the one on Bay. So I think, you know, I think if you’re within the thresholds you had there, I think you’d be okay. You know what the Code is. So as long as you come within the Code, I think we’ll be okay. MR. LEWIS-No problem. Great. MR. HUNSINGER-I reiterate what everyone else said about the curb cuts. I think that would be a, I remember when this was a gas station, because I used to go there and buy cigarettes all the time. They had the cheapest cigarettes in Town, but getting in and out of there was really tough, and with just two curb cuts. That’s a huge improvement. MR. LEWIS-What I find interesting as an applicant, you know, one has to decide, do you want to go in with the plan they want or do you want to go in with four cuts and make them say we only want you to do two cuts, and go through the dance, and then end up doing it, and here we just said, let’s just do what they want. Hopefully they’re not going to say we want no curb cuts. That’s happened. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what Dunkin Donuts would say. MR. LEWIS-We have an existing site in Saratoga Springs where they actually want us to eliminate cuts and use someone else’s accesses, on Circular Street and Broadway, opposite the Holiday Inn. To eliminate our cuts and use the neighbor’s cut. MRS. STEFFAN-Who’s driveway do they want you to use? MR. LEWIS-Fred McNiery. We have two existing cuts on Circular. We’re losing our tenant so we’re doing new tenants. So we said let’s improve the lot, add more parking, shut a curb cut. No, we want you to close both cuts. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, while I’m looking at this, I forgot the name of the garden center across the street, Quaker Farms. That curb cut of theirs is now closed, if I’m not mistaken. It barricaded off. Well, if it was an active curb cut, I may feel strongly about having you line up your curb cut with theirs, but since that curb cut is closed off, there would be no reason to do that. MR. LEWIS-And we would understand lining up cuts. MR. HUNSINGER-And I didn’t see it until you handed out this. MR. LEWIS-Great. Thanks. We’ll do our stormwater report and what have you and file everything and hopefully be here at the March meeting, we hope. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The deadline’s February 15. Okay. Good. We’ll do our best to get you on the agenda, too. MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I did have one other item before we adjourn. I got a call from the Town’s Attorney this afternoon with a question of the Planning Board, and I thought it was best to pose it to the whole Board than to try to address it myself. The attorney for the Golden Corral has asked if the Planning Board would be willing to meet with the applicant and reconsider that application. MRS. BRUNO-At the same site? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. TRAVER-Well, there’s an Article 78. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That’s why, yes, in an effort to settle the Article 78. MRS. LAVIN-What does Article 78 state? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we denied their application. The representatives of the developer said that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. So they have sued the Town, to the effect, to get our decision overturned. That’s what an Article 78 is, and basically the attorney said, you know, to save everyone the time and expense of a lengthy lawsuit, would the Planning Board be willing to meet with the applicant to reconsider the application. MRS. BRUNO-Now is that implying that they may change portions of the application to better meet some of the things that we had talked about during the meetings, or is it coming to us saying? MR. TRAVER-Yes, is it the same application? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-He didn’t elaborate. I did ask that very question, and he said well certainly if we were willing to meet with them, you know, that is something that we could bring up or discuss. It’s not unusual for this to happen, and I recall in the past, and I couldn’t tell you when, all I know is it was when Craig MacEwan was Chairman. There was a similar situation, and he brought it to the Board, and the Board basically said our position is our position. They know what it is. There’s no need for us to further elaborate, but I just didn’t feel comfortable, especially being on the minority on that decision in making a comment either way, and I really thought it was something that should be brought to the Board for your consideration. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m feeling very much the same as you are, Chris, because reconsidering the application, I just don’t know whether it would be appropriate or whether it would be fruitful, based on the five to two vote. If it was split, that would be different, but it was five to two. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. The other thing that the attorney did say is that we could discuss this in Executive Session with the tape off if people would feel more comfortable, because it is a pending lawsuit. So we could also do that, if we wanted to. MRS. BRUNO-I think it’s appropriate, too, and I don’t know how this would typically work, in not undermining, well, you’re no longer an alternate, but the importance of our alternates that maybe we need to have the full Board here, the full portion of the active people that voted on it. MR.TRAVER-I think at the very least, I mean, it doesn’t seem as though, and maybe the attorney would contradict, but there were, and I wasn’t on the Board, nor an alternate at the time that this was rejected. However, you know, it might be a useful tool to, as a review, perhaps, to have the concerns, the items that the Planning Board brought up as objections, and their responses in the intervening time, saying, here’s what the Planning Board felt were the problems, and here is how they are addressing them. Either they’re not going to address them at all and they just object to the concerns, or perhaps there are some concerns that they are going to come back and say, well, here’s our response to those concerns, at the very least, and then that might be a way to see where everybody still stands of the original players. Either everybody is, well, we’re not going to budge on this, or we are, and here’s where we can compromise, here’s where we can’t. Maybe we can at least take some issues off the table. I don’t think there’s any risk of adding any, but it might be a way to see, how does everyone still feel about some of these issues. MRS. BRUNO-And who are you suggesting, it sounded just like a report, that we go through that or that they do that? MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m not sure how, again, with the litigation still pending, I’m not sure if our attorney, I mean, I’m not an attorney, but I don’t know how our attorney would feel, if that would be a good idea or not. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think, you know, some of your comments, I haven’t read the filing, but I think that’s basically what the lawsuit does, is exactly what you’re saying, and, 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) you know, it argues the applicant’s case for why they should have been approved, and for why they felt that our decision was, you know, usually the term that’s used is arbitrary and capricious. So, you know, you may get that just in reading what was filed. I don’t know. I haven’t seen it myself, as of yet. I have not been given a copy of it yet. MRS. BRUNO-But that is something that, is that public? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Absolutely, yes. So, I mean, we could do that first, and, you know, we don’t even need to get back to them either. Our attorney, he said, look, you know, they asked me to ask you, so I’m doing that. You don’t have to consider this if you don’t want to. You don’t have to act on it tonight. We can think about it until our next meeting. We can do whatever we want. I do know that, you know, three of the people that voted to deny it aren’t here right now, and I didn’t think that through when I said, well, I bring it to the Board at tonight’s meeting. I didn’t realize that that was going to be the case initially. I mean, I did know that Tom Seguljic was not going to be here and Don, but until I sort of saw the names, I wasn’t sure. MR. TRAVER-Well, I mean, certainly, you know, it might be good for us to get more information as far as, you know, what are our options without taking a position that puts the Town in jeopardy or, you know, in some way detracts from the position that’s formally been taken, you know, is there any review or research or additional expert witnesses, if you will, that can come in and address some of these, clarify some of these things, to determine whether or not the objections are, in fact, you know, valid. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe what we should do, then, is ask our attorney to be here at the next meeting, and we can discuss it then. MR. TRAVER-I guess my first thought it, first do no harm. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-But on the other hand, I think if there’s a way that we can help mitigate the circumstance, I think we have an obligation to take a look at that, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? MRS. BRUNO-No, that sounds good. MR. HUNSINGER-People in agreement then? Okay. MRS. BARDEN-So at your next meeting you’d like a discussion and Executive Session to discuss pending litigation? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I mean, could we do it at a workshop or something, other than a conventional? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t see much changing. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I could think perhaps they’re thinking, all of a sudden they put our a lawsuit and now are thinking, maybe we could make the restaurant three quarters of the size or something, but I don’t really think that that’s going to happen. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it wouldn’t be changing anything. It would just be reconsidering the application as it was presented. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s what I’m saying. What are they coming back with? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t want to over analyze it or whatever, but the question was pretty simple, you know, is the Planning Board willing to meet with the applicant to reconsider the application, and when I asked the question, you know, would that be in the current form or would there be changes made, he said, well, you know, that would be up for discussion and consideration. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you for bringing it to us. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think that they have come forward and said, well, if we scale it back, would it be approved, which seems like what you’re saying. MRS. BRUNO-Well, that’s what I was wondering, if there was any kind of give and take like that or if it was strictly the same application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. To the best of my knowledge, there was no specific proposal offered. So, I guess I’m, at least Gretchen suggested that there’s really no need for the attorney to be here to discuss this. I just want to make sure how everyone else feels and get a feeling from the majority. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, that’s fine. I don’t think we will come to a different decision if we meet with them and so I don’t see the value in it, but of course I’m one voice. MRS. LAVIN-Well, I wasn’t here for the duration, but I suppose if you could figure out whether or not their plan is as it was, then probably there’s no reason to go forward with a meeting, but if they were going to alter their plan, would they not have to resubmit it here, or is that something they do at another time? I mean, if they really truly alter their plan with a plea at the last minute? MRS. STEFFAN-My understanding is that a denial has to come back as a brand new project. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they have to make another application, yes. So, again, that speaks against any value in really meeting with them in some kind of informal way. I’m not sure what value that would be, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we still want the attorney to come and brief us on the status of it? MRS. STEFFAN-That would be helpful. MRS. BRUNO-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we’ll go ahead with that, then, and we’ll go from there. MRS. BARDEN-This is a discussion with the attorney, not with the applicant? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-If it’s before the Planning Board meeting, maybe we should do it before the Planning Board meeting, so that we don’t incur the cost of having the attorney here the whole time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-That’s true. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll schedule it first on the agenda. MRS. BARDEN-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-How hard is it to get people out of the room? The only time I’ve been on the Planning Board that we’ve gone into Executive Session, we’ve done it at the end of the meeting. MR. TRAVER-Could we meet like at six or something? I mean, the public session starts at seven? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, you certainly could meet earlier and do an Executive Session, or you just, you know, ask the public go out into the other room while you go into Executive Session. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Well, I think we leave the start time at, I mean, it would be posted on the agenda that that was the first item, Executive Session, and I don’t think it would be a difficult thing to ask people to leave the room. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/23/07) MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think we could really start earlier because they have those exercise classes, don’t they? MRS. BARDEN-That’s true. I mean, before what we’ve done is we’ve gone into the craft room, a small group for a workshop. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We could do that, too. MRS. BARDEN-Or we could go to the Supervisor’s Conference Room. MR. HUNSINGER-Either one would be fine. MRS. BARDEN-But at seven? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’ll meet at the regular time. Is there any other business before the Board? If not, a motion to adjourn is always in order. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 46