Loading...
2008.01.22(Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 5-2003 Coby McDonald 1. Tax Map No. 93-2-14, 15/308.12-1-4, 5 Site Plan No. 62-2007 Great Escape Theme Park 3. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20, 295.12-1-3, 4 Site Plan No. 60-2007 Everest Enterprises 6. Tax Map No. 296.17-4-46.1, 46.2, 47 Site Plan No. 55-2007 Kenny Properties/David Kenny 10. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-21 Site Plan No. 64-2007 Brian McCall 14. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-39, 38 Site Plan No. 50-2007 The Glen @ Hiland Meadows, Inc. 30. Tax Map No.296.8-1-3 Site Plan No. 1-2008 Queensbury Quaker LLC 35. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-12 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 01/22/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN TOM SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT GRETCHEN STEFFAN STEPHEN TRAVER TANYA BRUNO GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning nd Board, Tuesday, January 22. The first item on our agenda is an administrative item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 5-2003 COBY MC DONALD COBY MC DONALD, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here? Can you come up to the table, please. I don’t know if everyone on the Board received the e-mail that went out yesterday from Staff, and then my follow up. This was something that was brought to my attention last week and Craig asked me how I wanted to deal with it, and I said since we have a meeting scheduled, I didn’t think it would be a big deal to have the applicant come this evening. Could you just explain what your request is, you know, without going into a lot of detail with the project, and please introduce yourself for the record, first. MR. MC DONALD-Hi. My name is Coby McDonald, and I just wanted to continue on and get a business extension. Pretty much I’ve just followed the Site Plan and I just need more time to continue on with their project that we’ve already laid out. MR. SEGULJIC-What do you mean by business extension? MR. MC DONALD-Just, I just haven’t had enough time to build it out. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, because we have one year I guess. Is that what’s happening here? MR. MC DONALD-It was a five year. MR. HUNSINGER-We had given him five years to complete his plan, and he hasn’t finished it yet. What would be your expectation for how much longer you would need? MR. MC DONALD-Probably, I guess as long as you would give me. If I could have another five years, I don’t know if that’s possible. Mainly it’s a lot of the bull work’s been done, like the excavating, the grading and the tree and stump removal. Mainly it’s just the small business. It’s me running it, and it’s kind of the seasons interfere with when I can actually work on it. The busy time of year interferes with when I’m building it. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you understand that usually you have a year to complete a site plan. So, you know, five years was already about as far as we’ve ever gone. MR. MC DONALD-Okay. Yes, just mainly it’s, you know, financial and time is what it comes down to. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HUNSINGER-George, I know you didn’t prepare any Staff Notes for this evening, but is there any issues, from an enforcement perspective, other than just needing more time? Has there been any problems with the site or anything? MR. HILTON-Yes, none that I know of. It’s just the request for the extension of the approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-How long do you think it’s going to take you? MR. MC DONALD-It’s just kind of a, I guess it’s my life, you know. I’m not a major corporation. So it’s kind of a, it’s different. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What do you have left to do? MR. MC DONALD-Establish some greenhouses, finish some of the, like more of the finish work, just to make it look nicer. Maybe erect a building, a couple of buildings, and that’s where, you know, with the Code Enforcement, they would make sure that you’re continuing on to follow your plans. MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m correct, most of what you, you said finish building the greenhouses, they’re all behind, in the back of the site? MR. MC DONALD-Yes, they’re behind the buildings, so you don’t really see them from the highway. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s your, the sooner you get those up and running, the better off you are, I guess. MR. MC DONALD-A lot of it, it’s just been, you know, that was about 10 foot deep, the soil there, and I had to remove that, you know, the trees and everything, but mainly, the next thing was heating them, how to heat them, because all the heating fuels are going up, you know, and to have natural gas installed, it was going to be like $10,000. So that really wasn’t an option. So I had to look at a different. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see any issue. The only issue is how long do we give him. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Usually it’s one year. MR. SIPP-Have you made any progress from what you started with? MR. MC DONALD-Yes, tremendous progress. Yes, it’s starting to show up where things look nicer. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I don’t have a problem in having him come back. I certainly think five years, an additional five years, would be excessive. MR. MC DONALD-The other thing, too, not to interrupt, but if the business stays in my hands, you know, it hasn’t changed hands or anything like that, and that’s not something I’m looking to do. At that point, I know, initially, that was a concern, well, what if he sells it and then somebody wants to continue on at that point. Then, at that point, someone else would have to come up and present it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you have an approved Site Plan. So as long as they continue the approved Site Plan, they could go ahead and finish what you started. If they wanted to deviate from what was approved, then they’d have to come back before the Board for Site Plan Review. MR. MC DONALD-Okay, but I know I can’t get it done in one year. MR. SEGULJIC-Two years? MR. MC DONALD-Maybe a couple of years, maybe two or three. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and if he’s not done, he can come back and, it sort of forces him to, and it forces the Town to keep on top of the project as well. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have a resolution here? MR. HUNSINGER-No, there’s no draft resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-No draft resolution. So we just make a motion to extend the approval for st five years, no, I’m sorry two years. We’ll say February 1, 2010. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be fine. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. MC DONALD-Yes, that would be okay. Yes, that helps me. MOTION TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN NO. 5-2003 COBY MC DONALD, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Until February 1, 2010. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. MC DONALD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Yes, thanks. SITE PLAN NO. 62-2007 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS SEQR GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER, LLC OWNER(S) GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK; SIX FLAGS, INC. ZONING RC-15 LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN – FENCING. COMMERCIAL FENCNG REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE FGEIS 7/11/02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/12/07 APA/DEC/CEA DEC, CEA LOT SIZE 237.6 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20, 295.12-1-3, 4 SECTION 179-9-050 JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, the floor is yours, gentlemen. MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Board, my name is John Lemery, counsel to The Great Escape. With me is Don McCoy, President of The Great Escape properties, and Bob Holmes, who is a principal of the Jarrett-Martin Engineering firm. We were here regarding the modification to the fence plan, at the last Planning Board meeting, and it was tabled because one of the adjoining property owners had some issues with the fence alignment and some concern that it would somehow impact his signs and detract from pedestrians and traffic on Route 9 from having the ability to clearly see his business and his signs. We’ve made a modification, Mr. Chairman. We provided it to the Planning Staff. The engineers have, the Town Engineers have looked at it. We think we’ve addressed those concerns which were brought forth. We have some photographs of some graphics as to what this would look like as put in place. So, unless there are any questions, I’d ask Bob to describe what we’ve done and how we think we’ve met the concerns of our neighbor. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. BOB HOLMES MR. HOLMES-Thank you. Again, for the record, Bob Holmes with Jarrett-Martin Engineers. The application before you, just a quick overview, we were looking at four different fences along the Route 9 frontage of The Great Escape, and from the last meeting, it was primarily two fences that really became of concern for the Board and for the adjacent landowner, which is what we referred to as Fence A and Fence B on our Site Plans. After that meeting we took a step back and went out and looked closer to 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) how those fences would appear along the road, and on Fence B, we actually have come back with a modification. By the frontage along Route 9, we have shortened it, lengthwise that is, by 48 feet, bringing the fence away from that property line that adjoins Northland Sports Outfitters. In doing so, that does open up visibility for the bottom of his sign that you can see it as you’re just passing The Great Escape entrance into their front parking lot, his sign becomes visible and can be seen. Also along that, on the north side of the property, again, there was some concern with regards to diminished visibility of the property. The renderings that we have put together show the fence at its increased height and really there’s no diminished, in our opinion, no diminished visibility when approaching from the north. So, again, we have provided a modification to Fence B and Fence A we’re just wishing to demonstrate to you that the visibility is not diminished, and no changes to Fences C or D. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Just quickly in summary. So Fence B you’re going to shorten by 48 feet? MR. HOLMES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then Fence A you don’t propose any modification. Is that correct? MR. HOLMES-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HOLMES-But we have provided, hopefully, some clarification for you, demonstrating how that appearance of the fence would be. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We did drive by the site several times when we did site visits, a couple of Saturdays ago, and I’m sure other members have gone on their own before and since then as well. MR. SIPP-Yes. The biggest block you have there is that maple tree on the north side, as you come down from the north, until you get within a couple hundred feet. The maple tree does more blocking than the fence would. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’d be interested to see what the public has to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The public hearing was continued from December. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment on this project? If you could just state your name for the record, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DOUG BAERTSCHI MR. BAERTSCHI-Doug Baertschi. I’m representing Northland Sports Outfitters, 1204 State Route 9. I’ve seen these drawings, these new renderings, and I disagree 100%. If you look at the angle where that sign is coming from the north, you can see through it, but if you notice, if you’ve gone driving by the sign itself, it looks like a solid sign. If you look at it at an angle, it’s different. Coming from the south, where they’ve shortened the fence, that’s all fine and good. However, in order to see my sign, you’ve got to now be th right on top of it again. At the meeting of the 20, Mr. Lemery stated that the reason for that fence was to keep pedestrians from crossing and jumping over the fence to be using the pedestrian bridge. Nobody jumps over that fence there. I’m there all the day, all day long. That fence is basically designed to keep cars from going out there. Why would anybody cross the road there and want to jump that fence when all they have to do is walk down the sidewalk another 150 to 200 feet and walk right in? I mean, the fence has been four foot ever since they put that thing up. I don’t know why it has to be higher than four foot now. I don’t have any objections, like I said at the other meeting, I don’t have any objections of that type of fence, but it shouldn’t be any higher than four feet. MR. HUNSINGER-So you don’t think the compromise submitted by The Great Escape satisfies your concerns? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. BAERTSCHI-Well, as you can see, I’m not sure what fence they’re calling that, the one that’s coming from the, when you’re coming from the south, where you see the Trapper sign, I mean, they’ve got that, I call it a green fence, this calls it a black fence, but anyway, at that angle, you can see through it, but if you’re on Route 9 coming up, parallel to the fence, it’s like a solid fence. I mean, I’m sure that you’ve noticed that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I see what you’re saying. MR. BAERTSCHI-So, even though they’ve shortened that, I mean, before they see my sign, they’re right on top of my drive. I sell primarily Boy Scout and Girl Scout uniforms, and basically that’s a lot of word of mouth, you know, people say, where do you get your uniforms. I’m the only dealer, besides the Scout offices, from Albany to Plattsburgh. I have people quite often tell me they’ve driven by three or four times before they could see me. Basically what it is is there’s a lot of distractions. They’re looking at the new Hotel. They’re looking at the pedestrian bridge, the roller coaster, whatever. So by the time that they see me, they’re by me. My whole point is, my business right now is visible from when you pass underneath the pedestrian bridge. With that fence there now, it’s not going to be visible until you get right on top of me. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How high is that fence? MR. BAERTSCHI-The one that’s there now is four feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but the one that they’re proposing. MR. BAERTSCHI-Six feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Thank you. Anyone else in the audience want to comment on this application? Okay. You can come back to the table. MR. LEMERY-We don’t have anything to add, Mr. Chairman. We’ll abide by the determination of the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand what Mr. Baertschi’s saying, but I don’t know if I can agree with what he’s saying. I mean, I think as it’s designed it’ll work. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, me, too. MR. SEGULJIC-I hate to be a bearer of that, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any public comments, George? MR. HILTON-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA is not required as it was covered under a previous SEQRA and Environmental Impact Statement. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? We do have a draft provided by Staff. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2007 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification of approved site plan – Fencing. Commercial Fencing requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on12/20/07 Tabled to 1/22/08; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2007 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: In accordance with the motion prepared by Staff, with the following notes. Number Two, the date of 1/15/2008 should be changed to 1/22/2008. Item Four complies. Number Five complies. Number Seven, Eight and Nine do not apply to this. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. LEMERY-Thanks very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. SITE PLAN NO. 60-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED EVEREST ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) MICHAEL SCHREIBER, CLA OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 900, 906 RT. 9 SLEEP INN, PIZZERIA UNO DISCUSSION ONLY APPLICANT PROPOSES A GROUND LEVEL EXPANSION FOR A BREAKFAST, STORAGE, & JACUZZI AREA, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION AND SWIMMING POOL. WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 LOT SIZE 4.13, 2.90, 1.72 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-4-46.1, 46.2, 47 SECTION MICHAEL SCHREIBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, the floor is yours, gentlemen. (DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH APPLICANT’S MICROPHONE, SOME OF THIS RECORD WAS NOT ABLE TO BE TRANSCRIBED) MR. SCHREIBER-My name is Michael Schreiber. I’m a I’m a professional with DLA Sign, representing (lost words). We’re doing this plan for discussion. My client is looking to consolidate a couple of parcels, that would the Sleep Inn and the Pizzeria Uno on Route 9. They want to connect the buildings with a pedestrian walkway, expand off the existing interior pool area to create a sauna area with a Jacuzzi in the back (lost words). Essentially we’d be looking at about 3600 square foot of building footprint expansion, and we would actually be increasing pervious surfaces with landscaping. th MR. HUNSINGER-Did you see a copy of the January 14 letter from the Town Historian? MR. SCHREIBER-Yes, I did. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comment on that? MR. SCHREIBER-My comment would be that it’s my understanding that Blind Rock is actually on a parcel behind these two, and not on either of the parcels in question, and it’s my understanding that Mr. Kapoor’s spoke with Councilman Strough, I believe, they had a conversation (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If we were to consider this further, I’d just like to get that verified. Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I notice that the Fire Marshal has a question about access. I mean, that problem was there before you brought this to us, but is there any possibility of remedying that? Because that is a problem. You cannot get a piece of, a pumper or a aerial over that thing. MR. SCHREIBER-As it is, there’s a drive island in the main entrance, between, (lost word) and the property, but it exists essentially between the two buildings. Our client (lost words) see no reason why we couldn’t eliminate that island. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That would be a good idea. PETER LOYOLA MR. LOYOLA-Yes, Peter Loyola with CLA Site Principals. The reason why we put that median in in the first place, obviously, was to do a right only, and, you know, at the time it seemed like it was mandated, by the Planning Board, the fact that we have a light and, you know, at the Pizzeria Uno, it made good sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you, then, propose to eliminate that curb cut? MR. LOYOLA-No, we would still need to have the curb cut for the individual Sleep Inn, absolutely. Talking with Jay, he’d be willing to take out the median. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I think the Fire Marshal is intent is they need that access, too, depending on what’s going on. MR. LOYOLA-For the most part, because of the light, and I think this bears out in the history of it, is, if they want to take the left out, they typically go to the light and go across 9. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-If it would be possible, I’d like a new landscaping plan, to see a plant list, species and sizes. Also, is there any possibility, between you and the bakery, of putting in a buffer? Now, I assume that, they way this parcel looks, you extend to the north five feet beyond the driveway. MR. LOYOLA-I’m not quite sure where you’re referring to. MR. SIPP-If you take this driveway around here, going out onto Sweet Road, this area through here, now, is this your property, to the dotted line? MR. LOYOLA-Yes, sir, between parking access and the adjoining property, there’s about five feet there. MR. SCHREIBER-I think some of the trees, though, as I recall, are not on our property. There’s some that are, but I don’t think. MR. SIPP-Well, it would look a little better maybe to hide that side of the bakery, if possible. MR. SCHREIBER-Okay. We’ll take that into consideration. MR. SIPP-I assume you use salt on your driveway? MR. SCHREIBER-I believe they do. MR. SIPP-I’d look up some salt resistant plants. Because you’re awful close, if it’s possible to get any shrub or anything in there. MR. SCHREIBER-There is a pretty slope going up from the bakery from there, as I recall. I can’t remember from the topo how many feet, but that’ll help. MR. SIPP-Yes. Stormwater goes in this retention pond. Is this just an enlargement of what you had before? MR. SCHREIBER-No, that is the (lost word) existing. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. LOYOLA-Yes, we’ll do the calculations on the impervious surfaces. They’re pretty close to what is there now. Most of it’s all paved area, and in fact I want to say we’re actually increasing the landscaping. MR. SCHREIBER-We are. We’re reducing the total, 4,368 square feet of impervious surface, and replacing that with proposed landscaping. MR. SIPP-Now, you still will be able to drive around from the restaurant and actually you go from Route 9 over to Sweet Road, am I correct? MR. SCHREIBER-Correct. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. MR. SIPP-Now these service windows, they’re still going to be in operation. Is this a take out kind of thing? MR. SCHREIBER-No. It does not have a service window. People go in and pick up their orders. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. LOYOLA-The service window that you might be referring to is the patio area? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LOYOLA-And that’s just going to be for pedestrian, anybody that’s at the (lost words) that’ll be for access, but not vehicular pick up. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re combining the two things. Pardon me, and I know I’ve seen this place a million times, driven by it, but your streetscape along the road, how many, do you have trees spaced every 35 feet along Route 9? MR. SCHREIBER-Yes. It’s in the planting plan. It’s adhered to to the fullest extent MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because all of a sudden, I’ve driven by it a million times, and all of a sudden I can’t recall, and I think a lot of it is because I don’t see it on your landscaping plan. Well, I guess you do. All right. That’s one thing I’d be looking for, is just making sure you’re adhering to our landscaping, Route 9 corridor, I believe it’s Upper Route 9. MR. SCHREIBER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think it says a tree every 35 feet. MR. SCHREIBER-Yes. I can’t recall. I mean, it’s been so long since we did the first project with this, but I do know that we did include whatever was in the planting as part of the first project, all that planting was established and it got signed off. MR. SEGULJIC-Just so you know, it’s under 179-7-050. MR. SCHREIBER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the other issue somewhat related to that is lighting. I think you probably know that, since you put it on your proposed site plan, the discussion on lighting. MR. SCHREIBER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-We’d want to see how the lighting would be changed as a result of the. MR. SCHREIBER-(Lost words) Craig Brown. He kind of went through all the checklists on the Site Plan (lost words) for the Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-It looks good to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other comments from the Board? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SCHREIBER-One question I had, in terms of the architecturals. I mean, for Site Plan approval (lost words) discussion with Craig on providing elevations of the building. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, they’ll need floor plans and elevations. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I mean, really, there’s not much change in the floor plan. It’s going to be the ornamental fencing. MR. SCHREIBER-Well, there will be some with regard to expanding this kitchen area in the back, pedestrian connection between the two buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. You’re right. Thank you. MR. SCHREIBER-That would be required. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-One of the things, as I think about is, is this expanded dining patio going to affect parking requirements? MR. SCHREIBER-I have the parking numbers. Currently required for both the Sleep Inn and the Pizzeria Uno combined requires a total of 140 spaces. There are 185 existing with both sites in mind, and the proposal would eliminate 14 spaces. So that leaves us at 171 spaces, which is 31 above what would be required for both establishments together. MR. SEGULJIC-Less is always better, if you ask me. MR. LOYOLA-Right. Yes, we have a sea of parking in the back of Pizzeria Uno, and that very rarely gets used. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just going to ask how often is it full? MR. LOYOLA-Never. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s over Code. Yes, we find that a lot. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Less is better. MR. LOYOLA-The old calculations for parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other concerns we want them to address? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, stormwater will come up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you mentioned that. MR. SEGULJIC-We talked about the lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Talked about landscaping. Just fill in some of the details and I think we can get going on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHREIBER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing we discussed is the Blind Rock, verify if that’s on your property or the other property, that’s important to us. MR. SCHREIBER-Yes. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. HILTON-Yes, as far as that’s concerned, I’m looking at a map right now, and I can pretty safely say that it is on another parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on this parcel? MR. HILTON-It’s on another parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-On another parcel, okay. Thank you. MR. SCHREIBER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 55-2007 SEQR TYPE II KENNY PROPERTIES/DAVID KENNY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1454 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF A COVERED ENTRY TO HOTEL, REDESIGN OF COURTYARD AREA, EXPANSION AND ADDITION OF OUTDOOR POOL. MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE HC-INT ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 28-95, 7-96; AV 8-96, 55-04, 18-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/14/07 LOT SIZE 3.40 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-21 SECTION 179-4-020 DAVID KENNY, PRESENT th MR. HUNSINGER-This project was tabled from November 27. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. KENNY-Good evening. MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, I have to recuse myself. Is this possible, or do you want me to sit? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m not going to make you sit if you aren’t comfortable. MR. SIPP-Well, I won’t take any part. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess we can discuss this and not vote, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what’s going to happen, unfortunately. MR. HILTON-You don’t have a quorum to discuss. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we even discuss without a quorum? MR. KENNY-I currently live in Courthouse Estates. I know Mr. Sipp lives in Courthouse Estates. My brother-in-law lives in Rolling Ridge, my daughter lives in a development up off of Pickle Hill, and my son lives in Lehland States. So I guess anybody that lives near there has got to abstain? We’re not neighbors. We just happen to live in the same development. If that causes him to step down, if he feels that way, but I really have a concern with being on a Board when I have my brother, my son, my two sons living in some of the largest developments in Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not trying to put you on the spot, Mr. Sipp, but what do you feel is your conflict? MR. SIPP-Well, I don’t feel I can take part in this. I’ll remain here. MR. KENNY-Is the reason because we both live in the same development? MR. SIPP-Well, if I were to vote yes, somebody might say, it’s because he knows him. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I apologize that we’re under quorum this evening. MR. KENNY-I’m just trying to get this through. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I understand. Okay. Well, George? MR. HILTON-I guess I’m concerned, Number One, that you may be discussing this without a quorum. I’m not an attorney. I can definitely tell you that you can’t act on this tonight with just three. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that I understand. MR. HILTON-So I don’t know what your pleasure is, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I had a couple of questions and comments that he might want to address. I don’t know if other members do, but it’s unfortunate that he’s here, we can’t act on it. We ought to at least give him the benefit of the doubt of saying what some of the issues are and we could put it on our first item in February. MR. HILTON-I understand that. I guess I’m still just wondering about the question of, without a quorum, can you even discuss it? I don’t know the answer. MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you’re saying. If we don’t have a quorum, it’s not an official meeting. MR. HILTON-That’s my understanding, I guess. Yes. I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-I have nothing to offer on that. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t, either. th MR. SEGULJIC-Other than to say that maybe we could put him on the 7. MR. HUNSINGER-For Schermerhorn? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We could do that. MR. SEGULJIC-As the first item that night. MR. KENNY-We can’t discuss the concerns? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s the quandary we’re in. MR. HILTON-I guess, ultimately, if you chose to discuss, just, obviously, as we talked about, you certainly can’t act without. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, obviously we can’t act on it. I mean, if that’s the position, we can’t even really officially table it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, but we could ask him to come back at a particular time. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Well, be it official or unofficial, there were some comments from the Town Engineer. Have you received those comments dated January th 18? MR. KENNY-Our engineer sent them, I believe, (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KENNY-Those concerns, I think, have been addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, but just to clarify here, I guess. You got C.T. Male to look at it. They corresponded with VISION Engineering, and they came to an agreement on the issues, but we haven’t seen the letter from the. MRS. KENNY-Staff gave me the copy from VISION Engineering this morning that said that they were satisfied. Their last sentence says, Once recommendations are included 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) on the drawings with associated details and specifications, the Applicant will have satisfied all of my previous requests/comments. th MR. KREBS-Is that that January 18 letter? MRS. KENNY-Yes, it is. MR. KREBS-Yes, we’ve got that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what I was asking them about. Were there any other comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-That was my only issue. I’m sorry to say, but we can’t grant approvals or anything like that tonight. So, we can’t even table it. Right? We can’t take any action. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll just have to continue it. We did have a public hearing scheduled, though. So I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-And we’ll table the public hearing until the applicant can be heard again by the Board. MR. KENNY-There was one other comment I would like to address. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, go ahead. MRS. KENNY-This was the Staff comment. MR. KENNY-It says to make sure the next time, this is a Staff comment, it says Plans are not designed or stamped by a professional engineer. Now, the plans are signed by a professional design, certified designer. Generally that’s what Site Plans are designed by. (Lost words) He’s a professional designer, and he does Site Plan work. Engineers do more building work. Once it’s approved, then I would take it to an engineer to have the building plans engineered. Usually you have designers that make sure that we (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it says here that you have engaged C.T. Male, and he’s been in discussion with. MR. KENNY-For the stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Only for the stormwater. MR. KENNY-For the stormwater. Well, since the building is built, I’m building a carport on it, I had it designed by a designer to aesthetically look, to meet the rest of the building design. Once it’s approved, and typically, you know (lost words) down in Saratoga (lost words). A designer would do a Site Plan, not an engineer. They don’t do drawings to make things look aesthetically pleasing, generally. MR. HUNSINGER-I see Staff, George, looking through his. If you read the tabling th motion from November 27, it reads, the Planning Board has granted a waiver for grading, but the Planning Board has not granted waivers for professional engineered plans, landscaping, stormwater management and lighting. So I think that’s why Staff made the comment to bring it to our attention that we asked for it and it wasn’t provided. Now it’s up to the Board to deal with it as we see fit. That is something that we can waive, George, or is it a steadfast requirement? MR. HILTON-That I don’t know. I was looking for that Section, but I agree with your comment, and I was going to say that it was something that this Board either hasn’t granted a waiver, or, either way it hasn’t been provided at this point, but, yes, I’m looking for that Section, and hopefully I’ll. MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m sure that’s why Staff mentioned that is because that was something in the tabling resolution. The tabling resolution states that we granted a waiver for grading, but we did not grant a waiver for professional engineered plans, landscaping, stormwater management, and lighting. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MRS. KENNY-I think the issue is we provided you with landscaping, lighting, stormwater. The question was, is it stamped by an engineer or not. We provided the plans. Only stormwater didn’t (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I don’t want to sound like we’re splitting hairs. I’m just trying to explain why it was in the Staff Notes. MR. KENNY-I’m hearing two things. I don’t want to come back and say, well, you didn’t have a professional engineer do your landscaping plan. I don’t believe landscapers. MR. SEGULJIC-I can recall several plans that weren’t stamped by PE’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but he had a professional engineer do the stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KENNY-Yes, it was just raised as a comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Understood. I’m glad you did. MR. KENNY-Is what we have sufficient? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I can only speak for myself. I can’t speak for the Board, but as one member, I’d be satisfied with it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay with it, too. MR. KREBS-So am I. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’ve got three of the people that are here. MR. SEGULJIC-No guarantees, however. I can guarantee you we can’t take a vote tonight. MR. KENNY-So the soonest we’re talking is? th MR. HUNSINGER-It would be February 7. That’s going to be a Special Meeting that has not yet been formalized. So that’s my only hesitation. I know I got an email from Staff saying the room was available that evening. MR. HILTON-For which evening, I’m sorry? th MR. HUNSINGER-For Thursday, February 7? MR. HILTON-We are working on that. Right now it appears to be available. We’re working on setting up a Special Meeting for that night. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. What’s the outstanding issue? th MR. HILTON-For the 7? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILTON-That is the office development. Primarily that’s going to be heard that evening, the proposed office development on West Mountain Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILTON-And then that’s all we have scheduled at this point for that meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-So if we were to continue, notice I didn’t say table. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-If we were to continue this application until that evening? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HILTON-I mean, that’s your call. Depending on how long you think that this would take. Because, you know, the other item is going to be quite lengthy. th MR. SEGULJIC-I see no problem with it. We’ll put them first on the 7. MR. KENNY-One other question. I don’t believe the timeframe is an issue, is it? Is it 60 days or 90 days? MR. SEGULJIC-No. As far as public hearing is still open. MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing is still open. MR. SEGULJIC-If we close the public hearing, then we have to make a motion within 62 days, I think, but we haven’t closed the public hearing. So you’re good to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the public hearing was opened and continued. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m only speaking for myself, I don’t see this taking much time on the th next meeting, hopefully on the 7. th MR. HUNSINGER-So we will continue this on February 7. You will get a confirmation from Staff, and if there’s any change in that, I imagine we’d have to re-notice the meeting, but that could be the only issue. MR. KENNY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sorry. MR. SEGULJIC-Sorry about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 SEQR TYPE II BRIAN MC CALL AGENT(S) ALBERT MUGRACE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 274 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF THREE WORK BAYS & STORAGE FOR TIRE WAREHOUSE. AUTO REPAIR AND RETAIL USES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV -07, SV 59-01, SP 44-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 LOT SIZE 0.58 ACRES 0.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-39, 38 SECTION AL MUGRACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, gentlemen, the floor is yours. If you could identify yourselves for the record, and tell us about your project, what you’d like to do. MR. MC CALL-I’m Brian McCall. This is Bob McCarthy, and this is the architect, Albert Mugrace. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you tell us what you’d like to, what you’re here for? MR. MC CALL-Yes. We’re looking to construct a two bay addition to an existing building, and it’s about 2500 square foot, and it’s needed just due to increased business. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? ALBERT MUGRACE MR. MUGRACE-Okay. The addition will be in the rear of the building, as you can see in the blue shaded area. It’s approximately 34 by 75. Seventy-five feet is the full length of the existing building. Obviously it’s an HC-Intensive, and there are some issues there, but we tried to resolve the issues, such as parking, circulation, address the green space, and plantings, which, as far as the green space is concerned, we have actually increased the amount of green space there. The site right now, it’s pretty much impermeable all the way through. So the addition actually is going to present some improvement to the impervious areas, and we’ve address, as best as we could, those issues. We came up with, I think it’s 14 spaces, parking spaces, which satisfies the requirement for parking. There is really no change in the lighting, exterior lighting requirements, except that we are going to put a couple of wall packs in the rear, and 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) generally speaking that’s about it. I’d like to send it back to you guys, see if you have any questions. We’re here to answer them. BOB MC CARTHY MR. MC CARTHY-Just a couple of more issues. There is required a ZBA approval, and we did go before the ZBA Board last week, and they wanted us to come here for your interpretation of the plan. You need approximately a foot and a half from the back on spacing for the right and left property lines. As you can see, currently, the top of the building, the existing building, as you can see, it’s a perfect rectangle. The existing building, there’s 24.7 on one side, 23.5 on the other, which is short one and a half foot, give or take. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MC CARTHY-The building is going to be a perfect rectangle. So the variance is just going to be just squaring this, well, not squaring it, rectangling it out, and that’s currently before the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-So really, what we’d be doing this evening, is making a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR. MC CARTHY-That’s correct. The Zoning Board wanted to hear what this Board had to say about the project before they go forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MC CARTHY-All of the parking is taken care of. The ingress and egress is taken care of. There is an easement onto the other side of the property, another existing property, plenty of room for getting back there. Additional parking spots. The property works. There’s enough room back there. There’s also, as you can see, there’s a proposed easement. I don’t know if this Board’s aware, with regards to the Town that’s working on some sewer and water issues, water runoff. If need be, that is in the process now of possibly a catch basin here, brought it into the line that’s going to be designed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s the culvert that the Town’s going to replace? MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, they’re talking about, and we’re part of the whole transaction. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. MC CARTHY-And that’s something that we can address as a global plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Town Engineer also brought up the steel containers. Where, I don’t see them. MR. MC CARTHY-Those would be gone with regards to this project. That’s actually why we need, you know, for the actual storage space. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-I’m confused about that building to the east. That has nothing, nothing’s going to happen there? MR. MC CARTHY-This building? MR. SIPP-No. MR. MC CARTHY-That building? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MC CARTHY-And what is your question? MR. SIPP-Well, is that part of this property or is it not? MR. MC CARTHY-It’s not. MR. SIPP-It’s not. It isn’t used for any storage. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. MC CARTHY-That’s not our property. MR. SIPP-Well, who does it belong to, do you know? MR. MC CARTHY-Lands of Murray. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the Murray’s liquor store. MR. SIPP-I wrote down something someplace, the question why it was even on this, then. MR. MC CARTHY-Site Plans traditionally have both properties, to the left and to the right. MR. SIPP-When is the timetable for that culvert in the front to be? MR. MC CARTHY-Well, we’ve been involved with the Town for probably since the summer, give or take, August. I know an agreement was circulated between all the parties. I don’t know if it’s fully signed yet. I got it maybe a month ago, give or take, about all the parties that are involved in it signing off. MR. SIPP-And your stormwater is going to use that as its? MR. MC CARTHY-Well, that’s something that we can discuss. We don’t believe that it needs to be, but it’s something if we need to tie in, we can tie in. We believe, based upon the permeability of the property right now, and based upon the way it’s designed, there’s not going to be any additional water runoff. However, if it becomes an issue, we can address it. MR. SIPP-That’s not the best soil in the world, in that area. That whole area tends to be wet, back to Homer Avenue. MR. MC CARTHY-And I think that’s probably why the Town is putting the money into this system. MR. HUNSINGER-So is your site designed now to drain all the stormwater to the rear of the property? MR. MUGRACE-Well, there is some, the whole site is just about impermeable now. In other words, there’s no permeability there to speak of. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. MUGRACE-We don’t anticipate a lot of additional runoff, you know, pre-existing conditions there are pretty much what it is. If there is any additional runoff, we have an engineer that’s doing a stormwater management report at the moment, and there might be a possibility that we could tie into the new line. MR. SEGULJIC-Just flesh it out for me. So someone is looking at the stormwater, then? MR. MUGRACE-Someone is looking at the stormwater, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The runoff from your site, besides the culvert? Okay. MR. MUGRACE-Well, it’s, we know already that there’s very little runoff generated there, but just to be on the safe side, we have someone checking that out. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Just a couple of notes here. I guess Staff pointed out that your application says three bays. Actually it’s only two, if you could just clean that up. MR. MC CARTHY-That’s correct. MR. MUGRACE-It’s two bays. MR. SEGULJIC-Two bays, and the bays are going on the back of the building, correct? MR. MUGRACE-Yes. Well, they’re actually going on the side. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. MC CALL-But it’s the back of the building. MR. SEGULJIC-Back of the building. Okay. All right. So you’re doing like tire changes there, oil changes, that type of light duty stuff? MR. MC CALL-Yes, light automotive service. MR. SEGULJIC-So how is the site working now for parking and access and things like that? MR. MC CALL-Good. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s no problem with that? MR. MC CALL-No, we have plenty of room to park our customer cars and everything. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How do you drive around the building, go around the other side? MR. MC CARTHY-You can loop around. If you can see, there’s enough way to get all the way around. MR. MUGRACE-There’s a driveway, and there’s plenty of space to go around like this. Right now there’s a couple of containers there. MR. MC CALL-Right, which will be removed. MR. MUGRACE-But they will be removed once the addition goes on. MR. SEGULJIC-So all your doors are on the perpendicular side to Quaker, correct? MR. MC CARTHY-Right there. MR. SEGULJIC-So does the customer drive them in or do you guys drive it in? MR. MC CALL-We drive the vehicles in. MR. SEGULJIC-So they just park in front and then you guys drive around and drive them in and you bring the car back out front and then they go. MR. MC CALL-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So just a clarification now. So they went to the ZBA. The ZBA said come before us, just for discussion. We can’t take any action until the ZBA gives you the approval. MR. MC CARTHY-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and you’re going to get a stormwater report done. MR. MC CARTHY-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Which is good. I guess my only other comment would be landscaping. Now, if I recall correctly, and that’s the kind of place you’ve seen a million times and you just kind of, do you have any trees in front of it? MR. MUGRACE-There’s some vegetation along the front of the building that’s existing. This is the (lost words) right here. MR. MC CALL-There is landscaping out in front of the property now, a few evergreen pine trees. There’s a lot of, right in front of the building we have flower beds with nice shrubs. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess that’s one of the things I’d like to see is what you have for landscaping. Maybe Staff can jump in, but there is, along the street, what is it, one tree for every 250 square feet, I believe it is, no, one tree for every 250 feet. I’m looking at 179-8-040. I personally like trees. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, I mean, that’s not a major issue. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. MUGRACE-As a matter of fact, we’re proposing to put a few trees here, in the rear, you know, of the property. Some property over along here and here. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So what I would ask is you follow 179-8-040, which is the landscaping requirements. I’ve seen the site. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, I don’t know if it meets it at this point, either. MR. SEGULJIC-So just, I’d like to see what your vegetation looks like, trees are good, vegetation is good, and you’re getting a stormwater plan at some plan, which I’m pleased to see. As far as traffic flow, I mean, to me, it looks like it would work. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. When we were out on site visits, we drove all the way around it, without any difficulty. MR. SEGULJIC-Especially if they’re driving them around. If the customers were driving around, I could see some issues. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think even the proposed landscaping in the rear of the property will really help a lot. MR. MC CARTHY-We have no objections to putting trees. As I said, I mean, I’ve been to the site many times, too, but I can’t tell you what’s there and what’s not there. You just see it. MR. SIPP-Are you going to change your sign? Is that in the works? Is your sign going to be changed? MR. MC CARTHY-There’s nothing before the Board at this time. MR. SIPP-You have some plantings up front. You don’t identify what they are, but I assume they’re low growing annuals or, right across the front. MR. MC CALL-Yes, there’s some, like a, I’m not really good with trees and everything, but like balsam trees out right in front of the property, in planting beds, a lot of different shrubs. They’re like evergreen type, and then it’s all around the front. If you drive by, you can see there’s a lot of. MR. SIPP-You’ve got a lot in the back, you’re going to be adding, I see. MR. MUGRACE-Yes, this was all existing, and this will be all new. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MUGRACE-Landscaping and green space. MR. SEGULJIC-One other issue is lighting. Any proposed lighting, new proposed lighting, or is it just the existing? MR. MUGRACE-I have a couple of wall packs in the rear here, one here and one there. Everything else is going to remain as is. MR. SEGULJIC-Downcast? MR. MUGRACE-Yes, wall packs. MR. SEGULJIC-And, once again, I’ve driven by there a million times. I can’t recall the site lighting wise. I mean, is this something we want to look at? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think they ought to at least give us the specs on the wall packs. MR. MUGRACE-Yes, I don’t know if I submitted those in the package. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t think they were. MR. MUGRACE-It’s not there? I can provide those to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s basically standard. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. MUGRACE-The wall pack itself? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MUGRACE-It would be non-glare directional type of a wall pack, you know, the ones that normally are used for highway standards. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, although I’m not really sure why, now. We do have a written comment. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? Okay. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JEFF MEYER MR. MEYER-Good evening. My name is Jeff Meyer. I’m an attorney with Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth, and I’m here on behalf of Robert Doin, who is the owner of Adirondack Wine Merchants, formerly Murrays. He’s not the owner yet. He has a lease, purchase agreement. It’s supposed to close in a week or so, but, by the time this is over, he will be the owner of the property, and unfortunately the rosy picture that the applicant painted is not actually the case when you’re on site and you’re actually working and using the adjoining business. The proposal is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the community, and we’re going to make a finding to help you show that. Foremost, you know, we need to see a stormwater plan. Everybody recognizes there’s this massive stormwater issue. There’s no grading or anything that’s going to show, you know, where the water is going to go. They say, you know, the site’s already impervious, but you’re changing the direction all the water’s going to run. As opposed to the water pooling on top of the storage containers, which are there illegally, or somewhere falling on the back, they’re now going to be directed off the pitch of this roof, and it’s going to be directly toward my client’s property. I want to have the Board do its due diligence to make sure none of that water is leaving the site, and as the, further into the water leaving the site issue, the culverted portion, the dotted line of the Site Plan, is actually part of Halfway creek. It runs from Crandall and joins up with the remainder of Halfway creek, just south of Cronin, Cronin Road, and actually in the middle of Quaker Road it officially becomes a DEC wetland, and this is another massive wetland complex, a culverted stream that is recognized by the DEC as a protected, not necessarily as protected, but as an area of concern. It’s my understanding that the Town has actually commissioned a study to look into Halfway creek and any ecological impacts and stormwater impacts of further development along this area. I do have copies of a portion of a USGS Topo that I’ll provide to you guys which clearly shows the presence of the stream. The other aspect of the stormwater that is a major concern to my client is snow removal. The lot is undersized. They need a variance for the Floor Area Ratio because it’s too much development for too small a site. Presently the applicant has a tendency to plow some of the snow onto my client’s property, which isn’t acceptable and we’re in the process of addressing that. Regardless, there are no provisions for snow maintenance. Hopefully it’ll appear in the stormwater plan that they submit and we can get a better understanding of how they intend to deal with the snow and the impacts that creates. Because, you know, plowing it into the right of way, and we’re actually, you know, that portion of Halfway creek, as it’s channeled in front of all these buildings, you know, certainly is not an acceptable solution. The structure is a pre- existing, nonconforming. That’s been discussed. They have the wired storage sheds that are located on the property. They’re not depicted on the map. I believe there’s four of them located in the back where the proposed addition is. It’s completely unacceptable and we request that the Board actually require this violation to be cured before they proceed on this application, and also the applicant never complied with their previous Site Plan approval which was granted in 1998. It required a great deal of landscaping in the front. It required the removal of four parking spaces that actually appear on this Site Plan and are currently being used, and it also had a different location for the dumpster. The dumpster was supposed to be located in the absolute rear of the lot, and not where it currently resides. Additionally, the location of the sign, they just went ahead and built it. In 2001 they were forced to come back to the Zoning Board to get a variance for the location of the sign. It seems to be the practice to kind of disregard the rules and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. We hope that you hold them to a higher standard because of that. As to vehicle circulation, the property is too small for it. They consistently disregard our boundary, which is the boundary to the east on the existing building. You cannot get a large truck, or even a medium size truck, into those loading bays on the eastern side of the building without encroaching on my client’s property. Were we to put up some kind of boundary, a fence, a wall or something, you know, they 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) wouldn’t be able to have easy access to that. They generally park their vehicles out, meaning, it’s further restricted, the 20 feet. So now you’re down to only 10 feet, or depending on the size of the truck, to actually circulate and drive around that. There’s no way to access the dumpster. They’re not going to be able to empty it with the size truck that’ll be required to empty the dumpster without, you know, going on to my client’s property, and similarly those parking spots next to the dumpster, if the vehicle’s of any size, or if there’s snow back there, you know, again, they’re going to be forced to leave their property in order to navigate that turn. I believe the Minogue’s are here. So I will allow them to discuss the access problems on the other side, but just looking and noting the map, the four parking spots, pointing toward Minogue’s, encroach on that right of way. I doubt that is permissible in the right of way, but I’ll allow them to take that up, and also with the access is, though presently all of the properties have, you have a clear shot from Minogue’s to Cool Beans without going on to Quaker Road, but there are no rights of access. As of right now, it’s my understanding that’s just been by permission only, and, you know, any one at any point in time could stop that. Getting, expanding on the parking, the parking is insufficient. They stated at the Zoning Board meeting that they have eight employees. If you have eight employees park there, that reduces the number of available parking spots to six, and if you remove the four that shouldn’t be there, based on the previous Site Plan, and we hope you take a harder look at those this time, then, you know, you’re down to one or two parking spots. One of the reasons I believe that those parking spots were removed is because, you know, it restricts access. It makes it nearly impossible to travel to the bays without traveling onto the lands of Minogue. It’s my understanding the Town isn’t in a policy of condoning trespass. Further, parking lot number seven is directly in front of the doors. I mean, from what it appears is, you know, that it seems to violate safety laws and restrict egress from the building, you know, without proper dividers, there’s nothing to stop a person from pulling directly up, and if it’s a handicap person, there’s no way for them to safely maneuver around a car if it was parked in space number seven, and further, you know, our permit (lost word) there’s no room to store equipment. There’s no room for construction workers. There’s barely enough room for employees to park. Where’s the equipment going to be stored? Where are the construction workers going to park? A couple of years ago, the DEC did some work on the site, and they needed permission from my client just to park the equipment in order to perform their work, you know, because of the restrictions of the site. There are a number of issues with the site, and we, at a minimum, ask that you require this additional information before you take any action or recommendation, but ultimately we hope that you deny this application when it comes before you, and issue a negative recommendation. I have a copy of my remarks for your review, and I also have copies of their original Site Plan from 1998 that shows what I’m talking about. I know the Town has a more complete map and a better map, but I just brought it today in case it wasn’t here, and I have no idea why it actually would be here. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. ROB DOIN MR. DOIN-I just want to introduce myself, gentlemen. I am Rob Doin. My wife is Tina Doin. We bought that business, or we are currently buying the business from the Murrays, and we got it in July of ’04. We’ve been there for what is three and a half years now. I have had several conversations with the McCalls in regards to, specifically Brian, in regards to the use of our property. It is a, it’s a situation between Minogue’s, the Tire Warehouse, and Adirondack Wine Merchants, where the Tire Warehouse, as their building sits right now, with the storage containers behind it, cannot operate without trespassing on either or both of the Minogue’s and our property. It happens daily. It happened this afternoon. I have pictures on my cell phone, after we were here in front of the Zoning Board and had this very same discussion. For them to sit here in front of you all and say that there are no parking issues and no drive issues, no traffic issues, is a bit offensive. We are in the process of delineating that boundary for our own investment that we’ve made into that property. I don’t know if any of you have been into our building, but we did some serious modifications to the inside, strictly aesthetics. We’re going to be doing them to the outside as well, and in doing that, I need to secure my property, so that the excess use is by my customers and my clients. As much as I don’t want to cut off access between the Minogue’s property and our property, for ease of access and strictly from a business standpoint, that beer and wine go together on a party day, I have to do that. Because the McCalls refuse to listen to anything, do not want to have any negotiation. In fact, won’t even have a conversation. On top of that, if you were to drive over there, and take a look at just our, and I’m just talking about my side of the building, now. The Minogue’s can talk about theirs. We plowed a wall of snow between the two properties. Mr. McCall had his guys, after I left, plow an opening in the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) front and an opening in the back. So for them to sit here tonight and tell you that this property, it works as it is, is ridiculous, and you can verify that by just driving over there tonight. Why, I’m not opposed to any positive business. I’m pro business, and they should be able to do whatever they want on the confines of their property. However, stormwater issues, especially given the Homer Avenue, which I don’t even need to talk about, the parking and the accessibility of that business, if he was to increase the ability of that business to do more cars per hour, it is absolutely, without a doubt, going to have an impact, both negatively on myself and Rob Minogue, and probably on the actual traffic flow on Quaker Road, for people only being able to exit out of his driveway. It’s inconceivable that the number of cars should be allowed to be increased, that go through there. So I guess I’m really through. I just want you to understand that where we’re coming from is our property will not be allowed, if we have anything to say about it, for their use, and therefore, keeping in mind the property line between our property and their property will not be accessible. So their only entrance and exit will be from Everts Road on the egress in the back and their driveway off of Quaker Road. MR. MEYER-Do you have any questions for us? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just one question. You talked about stormwater. MR. MEYER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What does the stormwater do now? MR. DOIN-When we had that large flood, and it was, the culvert backed up, the water actually was coming down through between Minogue’s and the Tire Warehouse, and it also came around the back of Tire Warehouse, pushed around those four containers, and actually went all the way around my property. To the point where I thought I was going to have to barricade, not barricade, but block off the back door with box wines, because they’re wrapped in cellophane. I was going to use those to dam up by my back door. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, other than that unusual event, is there current problem with stormwater runoff from their site onto your site? MR. DOIN-I wouldn’t say, I would say no. I would say no. The biggest issue is traffic, snow plowing, I guess using our property when we have given them no right, and certainly would not want them to do that. So I guess trespassing is probably the biggest issue. I don’t have an issue with an addition, as long as it meets your requirements for stormwater and it meets your requirements for parking. I have nothing. I don’t want to stop him. If that’s fine by you guys, it’s fine by me. I don’t want anymore use of my property. So really why I’m here tonight is to explain to you guys that that property line is going to be defined at some point, sooner than later. I have to wait for it to get into my hands before I can come to you guys, but we’ve already got drawings, plantings. I’ve been with Van Dusen and Steves. Matt Steves has done some drawings for us. So I’m going to be coming to you soon, based on that, that property line being defined and no access across the front. That’s why I don’t think it makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-You are aware that the Town Code recommends access between properties? MR. DOIN-And they’ll have access on the back. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DOIN-There is that Everts Road ingress, egress. I’ve already talked to the Fire Marshal as well. He had an issue about the snow plowing, and I spoke with him, and he said as long as he could get within, I believe 50 feet of the building, he’s fine. I said I have no issue with them using our property at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DOIN-So that’s why I’m here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to comment? Again, if you could state your name for the record, after you sit down. JACK MINOGUE 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. MINOGUE-My name is Jack Minogue. I’m the President of M T Minogue Incorporated. ROB MINOGUE MR. MINOGUE-My name’s Rob Minogue. I manage the store on Quaker Road, Minogue’s Beverage on Quaker Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. R. MINOGUE-Good evening. A couple of things. I’m going to probably go over some things that have been mentioned, as well, problems with the proposed variance and the existing conditions. There’s inadequate designated customer and employee parking spaces for the Tire Warehouse. There is inadequate area for pulling cars and trucks into and out of the existing bays. MR. J. MINOGUE-I’d like to elaborate a little bit on the parking, we want to go back and reinforce those four parking spaces on the east side of the building. Those are not even supposed to be there. They’re currently and continue to be used since 1998 when they were given the, when they were supposed to have been removed. At the time I believe there was also supposed to be a sign posted on that side of the building, stating no parking because it restricts the flow of traffic between the buildings, and over and beyond that, the bays that they use to service the vehicles, pull their vehicles in and out, they cannot even pull a vehicle, a decent sized vehicle, in out of that building without crossing on to our property. So the number of parking spaces, they stated they have 14 parking spaces. You can eliminate the four on the side. So now they’re down to 10. They have stated at the Zoning Board meeting that they have eight employees. So now they’re down to two. They’re consistently and regularly parking employee cars on our property in our back parking lot, and customer cars after they, before they service or after they service the vehicles, without our permission, and it just goes on consistently. MR. R. MINOGUE-I have pictures, as most recent as this morning, with cars parked in those four parking spaces in between the building as well. To continue, there’s an inadequate area for tractor trailers to maneuver when coming to pick up the used tires that are stored in the permanent storage containers in the rear of that building, and the tractor trailers have to cross over the right of way easement, and pull onto our property to be able to back up into that storage container. I’ve had a couple of instances, as most recent as last week, where I’ve had to go out, speak to a truck driver about finding another way to do it, and the one that happened here just this past week, it was a truck driver’s request. My employee came in and knocked on the office door, telling me the truck driver wanted me to move my personal vehicle, as well as our business truck, which was parked on the side of our building, we were loading it, so that he could move in, back in to unload the tires from the storage bins. I told him absolutely not, he’d have to figure something else out. The Tire Warehouse compensate for these inadequacies of parking by encroaching on Minogue’s property at their own discretion. The proposed addition setback would infringe upon Minogue’s property line. The height and setback would alter the passage of vehicles through the corridor, enough so those vehicles would have to compensate by driving on Minogue’s property to safely navigate the corner of the building. That corner, that building being proposed would also narrow the line of sight for passage of vehicles, making it difficult, Everts Avenue, for difficulty passage. That would especially be worse during the winter months. There is no area with this proposed building to create more green space and address the designated parking concerns as they already exist today. The Tire Warehouse does not currently have sufficient parking areas designated for employee and customer parking. The proposed addition would only compound the existing problems and concerns. The multiple storage containers that currently occupy the rear of the building have created vehicle passage concerns, especially during the winter months, because of their lack of open space to place snow. In addition, the storage containers have created a disconcerting visual impact for the adjoining properties and the passage of their collective customer base through the corridor. The removal of the existing storage containers at the rear of the building would provide for an open space area which possibly may provide enough open space to accommodate the Tire Warehouse customer employee parking, and snow placement concerns, as it is required. Again, the current conditions do not provide for this. The proposed addition will create additional problems, making it that much more difficult for the adjoining property owners to successfully operate their respective businesses, and there are five containers that are on that property. These are pictures of the current permanent storage containers that have been there since, most of them since 1998. They’re wired with electricity, which means they’re a more permanent storage facility than a temporary. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. R. MINOGUE-With the proposed building, the only way that they could feasibly back into the bay to unload or load inventory would obstruct the right of way. You take a 48 foot tractor trailer, 48 foot trailer, put it on a tractor, back it up, it’s not going to fit. MR. J. MINOGUE-A year or so ago, when the DEC came in to do some sort of a study on that property, they also contacted and requested from us permission to park vehicles and equipment on our property at the time, because there was no space there for them to bring in their equipment and do their, whatever they needed to do. So that just goes to show that the State agency came there to do some sort of a study and they couldn’t find parking for, and space for the equipment that they needed to do their job. So what would happen, even if this were approved, and the construction vehicles necessary to build this addition, this, the same thing would happen, and I think somebody brought up earlier tonight, too, something about, you know, the passage of emergency vehicles, like fire trucks and stuff like that, I think would be totally or restricted, or further restricted as far as passage between our building and their current building with an addition like what is being proposed. The other footnote I want to make here is that on that side between the Tire Warehouse and our building, the east side, the bays, when they pull out, they can’t take a decent size vehicle and pull in and out of that, those bays without coming on to Minogue’s property. So what also has happened here, too, is that they tend to take vehicles, park them in front of the bays, the length of the building, work on the vehicle outside of the building, therefore obstructing the easement right of way between the two buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? I did have a question for you. The right of way that goes out to Everts Ave., do you have rights through that right of way as well? MR. R. MINOGUE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that in your deed, too? MR. R. MINOGUE-I have a copy of our deed, too, if that was required. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I was just asking. MR. R. MINOGUE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it shows it on the map, but I wanted to make sure. MR. R. MINOGUE-That was an agreement, that easement was an agreement between ourselves, Bob Nolin, who owned the cable company in the back there, ourselves. I think there was maybe a Mr. Gray that he was the original owner of our property and the property where this building exists now, and the other property owners. We did that so that we could have, so that all the businesses could have access to Evert road, exiting onto Evert road, rather than constantly going out onto Quaker Road. So that’s in our deed also, we have a copy of that with us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience want to address the Board on this application? I know you said you had a written comment. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You can come back to the table. If you could read the written comment. MR. HILTON-Sure. I’ll just read this really quickly. It’s a letter to the Planning Board from Tammy Sullivan. It says, “In connection with the above referenced matter,” being this Site Plan, “I oppose approval for any and all construction on this property or any property in the immediate area. Please be advised that the applicant and other parties are defendants in a civil action which I commenced relating to flooding/stormwater issues related to this property and surrounding area. Specifically, the repeated flooding of my property has been caused by an inadequate culvert which passes underneath a portion of the applicant’s property. I believe approval on this project will increase flooding in the area as the existing culvert is inadequate to handle the present flow of water. Unless the applicant is planning to address the culvert /flooding issues currently being litigated, prior to the proposed construction, I request that approval for any further construction of any kind in this area be denied. Very truly yours, Tammy Sullivan 18 Homer Avenue” 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. You can come back to the table. MR. MC CARTHY-Just a couple of quick comments. The stormwater, as I said, would be addressed, and part of stormwater is usually snow removal. The other couple of comments just, unfortunately, don’t make sense. There clearly is enough property, turnarounds on 23.5 and 23.7 is enough for a turnaround of any vehicle. Now, I think it’s pretty hypocritical to think that some of their customers don’t go on our property. Quite frankly this gentleman in the back said that I think wine and beer go together. They go together. They go together often, straight across, from one to the other. It happens on a regular basis. We’re not happy about it, try to be good neighbors, don’t make fuss over it, but clearly the vehicle can come in and out of here and meets all the necessary setbacks, DOT setbacks and so forth, to get in and out of that. As I said, the stormwater would be resolved. The reason we’re here for is to get rid of those things in the back, those storage containers, so we can get the space that we needed to operate, but, you know, a couple of feet here, a couple of feet there on the property, I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but it happens both ways. It happens on a regular basis that their customers. Fourth of July weekend, I was there, cars all over the place. They park where they can because if you look at the property, it’s just basically open. There’s no dividers. If either property wants to put a divider up, fence up, anything, we’d have no objection, and it would at least eliminate us going on their property, their going on our property, and most of the time it’s customers. Customers will come in. We have really no control over where they’re coming in and where they’re parking. I mean, obviously we have control, but, I mean, that’s something that’s after the fact, but there’s enough turnaround through all of the bays for any type of vehicle. MR. SEGULJIC-But if a fence was to go along the eastern property line, no, the western property line, and you had the cars parked in spots nine, ten, eleven and twelve. MR. MC CARTHY-It would be over here. There’s a right of way. So they’d have to put it on the right of way out here on this property. So, clearly you’d still have enough space to get back. You have 23 plus, 23 feet plus whatever the rest of the right of way is. Do you see the right of way? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. MC CARTHY-So we would be able to back in. The spots would be on our spot, on our side, and pulling out onto the right of way, which we’d be permitted. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess how could you get a car around back to get it into the bay? MR. MC CARTHY-Through the right of way. There’s plenty of room, even with the parking spot, there’s plenty of room around, behind the parking spot to get into the back. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s 23 and a half feet plus the. MR. MC CARTHY-The right of way. MR. SEGULJIC-Five or eight or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-What about the comment with regards to the previous Site Plan approval in ’98. MR. MC CARTHY-That I’d have to look into. I don’t know exactly what that is. MR. SEGULJIC-If you could look into that for us. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess, how many employees do work there? MR. MC CALL-Eight. MR. MC CARTHY-Eight. MR. SEGULJIC-Eight, and are you going to increase that at all? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. MC CALL-No. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re going to stay with eight? MR. MC CALL-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the other issue that was brought up was the truck access. MR. MC CARTHY-There’s plenty of access for a truck to get back there. MR. SIPP-Are your tires delivered by tractor trailer or? MR. MC CALL-No, a 15 foot box truck. MR. SIPP-I hate fences, although Robert Frost said they make good neighbors. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, I mean, obviously, we don’t want a fence either, but unfortunately, you know, there are some issues that the neighbors have, but they’re the same issues that we have. MR. SIPP-Yes, but to cut off access between Minogue’s and this gentleman’s property I think is crazy. Because that makes them go back out onto Quaker Road, which is not what we want. MR. MC CARTHY-That’s right, and we haven’t made one objection to them driving over our property on a regular basis, and it happens daily, and that’s not what we’re here for, you know, they continue to do it and we have no objection. They get out here. They go across and they go to the other places, but unfortunately when possibly someone of our customers do it, that’s the problem that we’re here before the Board. MR. SIPP-Is snow removal done by three different outfits? MR. MC CALL-Individually. MR. MC CARTHY-Individually, each unit. MR. HUNSINGER-Where do you put your snow currently? MR. MC CALL-Our snow gets pushed to the front of the property here and to the rear of the property here now. As you can see, it’s a small lot size. There’s very little snow that we do produce at the property. We do not push our snow onto our neighbor’s properties as they’re alleging. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the thought of the Board here? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I mean, what are we supposed to do here? MR. HUNSINGER-The Zoning Board had asked us for a recommendation on the proposed Area Variance. I guess if you’d like to comment, you need to come up and get on the record and get on the mic. MR. MEYER-I’d just like a couple of quick points and clarifications. We’re not objecting to customers and we never have objected to customers, you know, traveling across the front of the lot. It’s mainly an issue with the owner and the owner’s employees, and secondly, I have a copy of the right of way for the Board. It’s a 20 foot right of way. Hopefully that’ll help clarify some of the issues along the eastern side of the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know where the 20 foot, is it depicted accurately on the Site Plan? MR. MEYER-I haven’t plotted it, but I believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you could give your submission to Staff. It is plotted on there. That’s why I’d asked the question earlier, if they had the reference in their deed as well. MR. MUGRACE-It’s also part of the survey that you have there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, first one they talk about looking to see what evaluation is of stormwater management. They indicate a stormwater plan is going to be prepared. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s something we’d like to see. The next issue with regards to the, they talk about traffic flow and parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I’ve got to say, I do have an issue with parking spaces nine, ten, eleven and twelve, and I’ll just read the Code in Section 179-4-040. Each off street space shall consist of at least 162 square feet, and shall be at least nine feet wide by eighteen feet long, except that lots in excess of 200 spaces may devote up to five percent of their area to spaces that are eight and a half feet wide and eighteen feet long. Each parking space shall be reached by an access driveway at least twenty four feet clear in width. So clearly, as depicted on this plan, there’s not enough width in the spaces behind to pull out. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because there’s about thirty three feet to that, and if the parking space is eighteen feet, thirty three and eighteen is about fourteen feet. MR. HUNSINGER-If the right of way is twenty feet, you might be thirty eight feet, which is, you know, I don’t know, it might be close. It might not be enough, but there’s no way to tell, from the information that you’ve provided, if that is enough at this point. Okay. If those four spaces are insufficient to qualify under the Code. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess that goes back to the original ’98 approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that’s what we have to see, too, is what was approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Did Staff get copies of these? MR. HILTON-I don’t know. I’d have to see it to, but I just have a comment, a couple of questions, maybe. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, George. MR. HILTON-You’re referring to spaces nine through twelve on the western side? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILTON-They’re existing spaces. If they’re existing spaces, it’s my understanding that certainly that Section of the Code applies, but if this is part of a previous approval, or an existing condition, you know, that’s something that is, again, is a previous approval or a previous condition from a long time ago. That’s not to say that potentially this could be in violation of a previous Site Plan. I guess ultimately what I’m saying is you may, as a Board, wish to ask for some clarification as to whether there are any outstanding violations or anything with the existing improvements or, you know, existing aspects of the Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. Good point. I guess we would ask that of the applicant, to verify that. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, we’d also, just for clarification purposes, we would be back again. So requesting these wouldn’t preclude them from approving them now. Is that accurate? MR. HUNSINGER-Can we approve them if they’re not, if they don’t meet Code? MR. MC CARTHY-No. I’m saying, if they meet Code. The point was, someone had brought up, well, they weren’t supposed to be there for, in the 1999 approval, and I’m not saying they were or not. Quite frankly, I don’t even know if they’re there, but my question is, if we’re proposing them, it doesn’t preclude us from proposing them at this Site Plan, for modification of this Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s correct. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HILTON-Except that if you’re proposing spaces nine through twelve, then it’s my understanding that they would require a 24 foot wide access aisle behind that. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, they’d have to meet whatever the requirement is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’ll need to meet Code. MR. HILTON-If not, a variance would have to be granted. MR. MC CARTHY-I was just asking if you were saying that we were precluded because in 1999 they weren’t there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Any other comments from the Board, Board members? Obviously we will leave the public hearing open, as all we’re doing this evening is making a recommendation to the Zoning Board. What’s everyone’s feeling? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, personally, I can’t make a recommendation unless I get more information clarifying. I mean, is this something we can say that the Zoning Board should look into and then? MR. HUNSINGER-Is this scheduled to go before the Zoning Board? What’s the date? th MR. MC CARTHY-March 19, I believe. th MR. HUNSINGER-March 19. So if we table this to a February meeting. MR. MUGRACE-We should have the stormwater done by then. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d feel a lot better about it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but, or can we just say that these are our concerns and then have the Zoning Board, do you know what I’m saying? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The question is who’s going to do what. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Who’s going to do it first. Is it our job just to raise the issues to them so they can consider it in their variance? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that’s what they did to us. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s what they’re doing to us. So they want us to say we’re satisfied with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So then we’ve got to wait, then. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we say to them we’ve got issues, and here’s what they are. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How quickly can you get the information in that we’ve talked about? MR. MC CARTHY-Just clarify stormwater. You want the trees issue, the lighting issue and the four parking spots issue. Is that it? MR. SIPP-Are all three properties involved with this stormwater? Are all three of these properties? MR. MC CARTHY-I think it’s the two. I think it’s coming down the, on the west side of the property. MR. SIPP-And just the Tire Warehouse and Minogue’s are the only ones involved. MR. MC CARTHY-Correct. I think in the lawsuit that they refer to, I think those are the defendants. I don’t know if there’s anyone else. MR. HUNSINGER-I believe Mr. Minogue has a comment. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. R. MINOGUE-I can speak to that. The parties involved in the culvert issue are ourselves, the Tire Warehouse, and the Time Warner Cable, and the Town of Queensbury obviously. At this point right now, there is an agreement in which all parties are going to share in the expense of the culvert improvement. I can’t tell you if all parties have signed it. I can say positively that I have signed it, and I also believe the Town of Queensbury is totally on board with it, and I believe that Time Warner is. I can’t speak for Tire Warehouse. I’m not sure if they’re on board totally at this point in time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CARTHY-And that resolution will obviously help out on any stormwater issues. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess would it make sense also to have our, the Town Engineer, VISION Engineering, look at the site access and give us comments on that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did we have comments yet from VISION Engineering? MR. SEGULJIC-I could be mistaken, but I don’t believe we. MR. HUNSINGER-He really didn’t comment on. MR. SEGULJIC-But I’m talking from a site access issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think one of the things I would like to see depicted on the Site Plan, based on the comments this evening, it is a Town requirement to show, to have an interconnection between adjoining parcels. So, seeing how there’s nothing formal at this point in time, I would ask you, as the only current applicant before this Board, to identify possibly future interconnects to each side. I mean, even though right now there’s sort of free flow between the properties, but if there’s something that’s shown on a Site Plan, then, in the future, if one of your neighbors comes before the Planning Board, then at least there’s some place to start, and again, it is a requirement of the Town Code. Am I way out of line here? MR. SEGULJIC-No, I think that’s a good idea. MR. SIPP-Contours. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that would come in stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-That would come under stormwater. I mean, I think there’s some obvious natural places where those interconnects would occur, but I don’t want to dictate where they should be. MR. SEGULJIC-And then just one clarification. So the containers in the back of the building, if this addition goes through, there will be no containers? MR. MC CARTHY-Correct, and they’re not permanent containers. There’s no electric to them. MR. HUNSINGER-Staff, George? MR. HILTON-I guess just my opinion, but this seems like an awful lot to ask to get turned around pretty quickly for our Town Engineer to review in time for a February meeting. If you think, if they think they can do it, and you’re willing, that’s great, but I would leave enough time for the Town Engineer to review it and get comments back prior to any scheduled meeting. Just my comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MC CARTHY-So why don’t we leave it to that meeting, and obviously, if we can’t get it, we’ll contact this Board and have it adjourned. Is that agreeable? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, typically what we would do is we would set a deadline for you to submit the materials, and then obviously if the materials aren’t submitted in time, then the problem that we typically run into is the deadline is after we post the agenda. I know when the agenda meeting is, but when would be the last date that you would contact newspapers to provide public notice for the meeting agenda for February, the meeting dates for February? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HILTON-Well, I believe it’s 10 days, maybe 7. I’m just thinking more in terms of the engineer. For instance, which meeting in February are you thinking of? th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, obviously we’d put it on the 26. th MR. HILTON-The 26. st MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m thinking of a submission deadline of the 1, which would give, you know, 25 calendar days. MR. HILTON-I mean, I think that’s something that, I don’t want to speak for the Town Engineer, but I think that’s something that we could work with, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That seems pretty reasonable, wouldn’t you think? Okay. Is everyone agreeable with that? Would anyone like to make a motion to that effect? MR. SEGULJIC-We also have to list what we’re looking for, I assume, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I thought you had read them off already. MR. SEGULJIC-I was just writing them down. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, stormwater. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Details on the wall packs, the lighting. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Landscaping. Parking spots and the proposed interconnect. Anything that we forgot? MR. SEGULJIC-And the previous approvals for the site? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the burden’s on the applicant to show those, you know, they are on that plan that they provided. MR. SEGULJIC-But also from a landscaping perspective. I thought there was a comment that they did not meet the requirements of the landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s kind of a question of Staff, almost, if there’s been any enforcement actions or, you know, to research if the site meets with the existing most recently approved plan. MR. HILTON-That’s fine. Yes, I mean, that’s something we can do. MR. SEGULJIC-We’d have to do a motion now, a tabling motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we’d include those elements. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m sorry. What is the date again? st MR. HUNSINGER-Submission of new materials by February 1, and it would be tabled th until February 26. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: thst To the February 26 meeting date, with submission of information by February 1. We request that the following additional information be submitted: 1) A stormwater plan for the site. 2) Details of site lighting. 3) That site landscaping be in accordance with current Town Code. 4) Provide proposed site interconnects to the two adjoining sites. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) 5) The Town Engineer to review the parking spots nine, ten, eleven and twelve as listed on the site plan, as well as review site circulation. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-And again, just for benefit of the neighbors, we did keep the public hearing open. You’re certainly welcome to submit any written comments that you may have between now and the next meeting. You’re certainly welcome to attend the th meeting on February 26 to make additional comments. Gentlemen, you’re all set. MR. MC CARTHY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED/PUD THE GLEN @ HILAND MEADOWS AGENT(S) DAVID WENDTH OWNER(S) BEECHWOOD, INC. d/b/a EDDY PROPERTY SERVICES & GFH RESOURCES ZONING PUD LOCATION 39 LONGVIEW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWELVE ADDITIONAL LIVING APARTMENTS AND RELATED SITE WORK. CROSS REFERENCE AV 34-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 45 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.8-1-3 SECTION 179-12 DAVID WENDTH & NICK NORTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Gentlemen, whenever you’re ready, the floor is yours. MR. WENDTH-Good evening. My name’s David Wendth. I’m with Northeast Health and the Eddy. With me tonight actually in the audience is Barbara LaBeof, who’s the Executive Director of the Glen at Hiland Meadows, as well as Nick Norton, their Facilities Manager. To my immediate right is Len Angerame, he’s the project architect from Angerame Associates, and Tom Hutchins is our site engineer from Hutchins Engineering. The plan that’s before you was filed with this Board back on September thrd 11. We first appeared before the Board on the 23. If you recall, we were here at the request of the Zoning Board for an advisory opinion on some variances, as well as to initiate the Site Plan Review for the project. The very next evening the Zoning Board of Appeals did approve the variances which were side setback and reduced parking, and we are here this evening to continue with the Site Plan Review process and the scheduled public hearing. As previously mentioned, 100% of these units are sold. Sales means that future residents of The Glen have put down a significant deposit on their respective apartment, and at this time as I had mentioned previously to this Board, our residents are obviously very anxious, looking for a construction schedule so that they can begin to plan the rest of their lives as far as downsizing, packing up, and getting ready to move into their new community. Just as a way of background, Hiland Meadows was opened in 2001, on the 45 acres on Haviland Road. The original project included 62 independent living apartments, 18 cottages, and 44 assistive living units. The project plans that were approved by the Town in January 2000 included areas of future build out. As indicated by us at that time, all future build outs would require us coming back to the Town for separate Site Plan Review. Since the opening, Hiland has continued to see increased demand for independent living apartments, and so to address this demand, the initial phase is being pursued. As far as the project summary goes, it includes 12 independent living units. All units are one bedroom with den. They will have patios and balconies, be it first or second floor. Location is off the southeast wing of our building, which is in the southeast corner of the main campus. The proposed addition reflects the original intent of the approved Site Plan, maintains the architectural integrity and style as well as massing of the existing buildings. We do have the minor site improvements which provides proximity parking for those residents near their respective apartments, and basically a stormwater management system is being designed to direct water into the existing stormwater system. So that being said, that’s our quick summary. Certainly, if you’d like us to review the plans with you further we can. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions from the Board. I’ll start with a question. I did forward to everyone a copy of an email that was received today from, actually it came directly from Dan Ryan. Did everyone get that? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t recall. nd MR. SIPP-From the 22? MR. HUNSINGER-I sent it at 2:51 pacific time. I don’t know why it always does that. I thought it was this morning, but anyway, there’s, basically, the applicant was responding to the engineer’s comments, and then Mr. Ryan says, as discussed, due to the problems in the area, with the expanded pond size, you’ll have satisfied my concerns as an additional pond for the parking area. Additionally it’s true that the volume requirements apply to the Lake George basin and it would be difficult to attenuate volumes with the highly impervious soils present on the site. Once I receive your revised documents from the Town, I can formalize my subsequent review. Basically saying that what the applicant proposed they would be satisfied with. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but they’re not in the Lake George basin, I don’t believe. MR. HUTCHINS-No, that’s what he’s saying. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what he’s saying. Okay. Yes, because you’re not even close. My main concern would have been, as we discussed with you last time here, is the study really we’re waiting on. If I’m reading his letter correctly, he’s saying you’re going to have, will not have any adverse impact. That was my main concern. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. This area ultimately drains toward the golf course instead of toward Meadowbrook Road. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess that’s the only issue I really had. MR. HUNSINGER-There were some comments, when we had the October public hearing, about water coming into, I think the dining area. MR. WENDTH-And actually, if I may, I believe that was one of the engineer’s comments regarding eaves trenches that you cited. Actually, and I know I brought this to the attention of the Zoning Board, I believe, when we first started talking and the whole issue of SEQRA came up. The proposed addition is going to be slab on grade construction. That’s consistent to what we have in the rest of the building. There are no basements. That being said, an existing site condition that we found out after we had built the original building was hydrostatic pressure underneath the slab. So we have since incorporated perimeter drains around the building to get the water away. Likewise, that’s what these eave trenches would be. They would be a perimeter drain that ties into the stormwater management system and takes the water away from the building. Therefore, no water coming in. MR. HUNSINGER-So I take it that problem’s been addressed? MR. WENDTH-It’s been addressed, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MR. WENDTH-I do have, just, if I may give to Staff, I provided 19 copies, but it’s a response to both the Staff comments as well as Town Engineers. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes, if you could pass them out, I guess, we’ll look at them quickly. There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is Beechwood the parent company? MR. WENDTH-No. It’s, actually this project is a partnership, 50% joint venture, if you will, partnership between the Glens Falls Home and the Eddy, down in Troy. The Eddy is the long term care division of Northeast Health. Also acute care side is Samaritan Hospital. In Troy, Albany Memorial Hospital. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SCHONEWOLF-It has nothing to do with Beechwood in Buffalo or Rochester? MR. WENDTH-No, no, no. Beechwood, Inc. is actually the Eddy’s property corporation, if you will, holds title to the property. MR. HUNSINGER-I see on Page Three of your comments that you just passed out, you do address the lighting question that the engineer raised. MR. WENDTH-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you just walk us through that quickly? Those fixtures that are proposed. MR. WENDTH-The fixtures that are proposed along, actually I can show you right along. The fixtures that we are looking, there are three shoebox fixtures along the roadway here, again, just to provide light into the parking lot for the residents, and then there’s one decorative fixture located here. These fixtures, the shoebox as well as the decorative, they are identical fixtures to what we have currently on the project. MR. HUNSINGER-So those would be new lamps? MR. WENDTH-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That are currently there. MR. WENDTH-As far as the lighting plan, excuse me, E-101 SL was provided with the plan, and that is the, the lighting plan. MR. HUNSINGER-And you said obviously the architectural design will match the existing building? MR. WENDTH-Yes, actually, Len Angerame can discuss that if you’d like. LEN ANGERAME MR. ANGERAME-Basically the architecture will match the existing building. The biggest addition that we did was adding the terraces and the patios. As you can see here in this evaluation, this is basically the line of the existing, this is the new, and we kept the architecture basically the same with the addition of the patios, which we then added out another roofline, created a little more interest in, but basically it all blends in with the existing very nicely, and this is the end of the building which, again, is a replicate of the opposite end on the east wing. So it all ties together very nicely. The materials are all the same. Shingles are the same. MR. WENDTH-As far as the Staff comments, I think Comment One we agree. Comment Two, which related to the water report, we assume that everybody has seen a copy of that. As far as stop signs, stop lines at the egress, we will add them to the project. No issue there. Likewise with the crosswalk and appropriate signage as requested. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WENDTH-Stormwater wise, Comment Number Three for VISION, they talked about future parking. I just want to be clear as to what that relates to. We put that in the initial plan or on the Site Plan, only from the standpoint as creating that land bank to suffice when we went before the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. WENDTH-Our intent is not to build that now. The stormwater management report does not take that area into consideration. So certainly if we come back to, or find demand changes with the parking, we will come back before this Board for Site Plan review, amend the stormwater management report accordingly, to get approval. I just know in the past intent such as that has flagged and did flag some issues with the Building Department with closing out a project that you didn’t do the, it was shown on the drawing you didn’t do it. The intent here is clearly it’s not part of this project. MR. HUNSINGER-It is clearly labeled, right, future parking only if necessary. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. WENDTH-Right, yes. That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then just for clarification. So you did get an email from Dan Ryan saying he was satisfied with? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, it’s not really a signoff. So, I think we would, yes. I don’t know why it came to me and not to Staff. I did copy Staff on my forward. I forwarded it to everyone on the Board, as well as, George, yourself, Pam Whiting and Stu. So, you should have it. MR. HUTCHINS-On correspondence with Dan, I’ll just let you know what I’ve had. Dan and I have discussed his concern, and it’s, the only real substantive concern with respect to stormwater had to do with basin sizing and what parameters you use in your initial mottle, in mottling the runoff to the pond. What we agreed to do is go ahead and take the most conservative approach and enlarge the area slightly more than we had proposed to enlarge the area in the submission to you. Okay. We’ve agreed to do that. It basically eliminates all judgment or interpretation or various types of mottling, and it’s the most conservative approach, and we’re fine with doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And I think Dan’s email to you may be a response to mine because I forwarded him that information to him by email, and I don’t know if that’s what that is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what it is. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SIPP-You’re not having any spillway in your large area, the pond. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the spillway still remains, but what we do is we mottle it so, at the 50 year event, according to the stormwater mottle, the liquid level doesn’t reach the level of the spillway. MR. SIPP-All right. That’s what I mean. You’re increasing it by approximately 7,000 cubic feet. MR. HUTCHINS-The volume, yes. MR. SIPP-Yes, and that’s enough to take both 25 and 50 year events. MR. HUTCHINS-Without even reaching the spillway, yes. MR. SIPP-I know some people that live over there, and this has nothing to do with this end of it, but the cottage area tends to be slightly wet, I guess. I don’t know. Is this all going to run towards the golf course, towards the south, southeast? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, this area drains easterly. MR. SIPP-Easterly. MR. HUTCHINS-The outlet is towards the golf course, and it meanders, it goes easterly off this property, and then it meanders to the south and ultimately to Halfway creek, but it does that on the eastern side of, especially right along the golf course border next to the Hiland Springs apartments. It kind of meanders through there. MR. SIPP-Some of those cottages, although they start up on the level, that’s almost the same as the road going in, the access road. Some of them are down below the level, and I guess they’ve had some wet lawns at high water times. MR. WENDTH-This is Nick Norton. He’s in charge of the facilities. NICK NORTON MR. NORTON-I was going to say, the only concern I’m having about cottages is the residents always want the sprinklers turned on. So I’m not quite sure where their water problem is. There is, behind the cottages you have the wetlands with the cattails and things of that nature, but as far as up on the lawns, there’s. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SIPP-This is one of the residents that I. MR. NORTON-But, no, I mean, nothing. MR. SEGULJIC-So, are we ready to move forward? MR. HUNSINGER-I am, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we have to do SEQRA, right? MR. HUNSINGER-We do not. MR. SEGULJIC-We do not. MR. HUNSINGER-We do not. This is part of the Planned Unit Development. SEQRA was done by the Town Board. MR. SEGULJIC-So all we have to do is a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think the only condition I see is the signoff from the engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-The signoff from the Town Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So with regards to Five in the motion, we’d just say does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Previously, actually the Town Board approved the SEQRA, as part of the Planned Unit Development, and it’s a modification, SEQRA requirements have been considered and the proposed modification does not result in any, you know. Six does apply, obviously. Seven obviously applies. Seven, I mean, we’ve never asked for a letter of credit, or, I’m sorry, Eight doesn’t apply, or Nine. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2007 THE GLEN @ HILAND MEADOWS, INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of twelve additional independent living apartments and related site work. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/07 & 1/22/08; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board and, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. 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 MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2007 THE GLEN @ HILAND MEADOWS, INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five, the Town Board previously approved SEQRA. SEQRA requirements have been considered, and the proposed action does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts. Number Six, applies. Number Seven applies. Number Eight does not apply, nor does Number Nine. The one condition we do have is that the signoff be obtained from the Town Engineer. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen, and good luck. MR. WENDTH-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 1-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED QUEENSBURY QUAKER LLC AGENT(S) CLARK R. WILKINSON OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 118 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES FAÇADE IMPROVEMENT AND ADDITION TO BENSON’S PET STORE. PARKING AREA RECONFIGURATION. MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE HC-INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE SP 32-03, AV 111-89, SV 9-91, AV 17-90, AV 26-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 LOT SIZE 4.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-12 SECTION 179-4- CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson with Paragon Engineering, representing Queensbury/Quaker LLC on this project. I’ve submitted a bunch of information, including some colored renderings of what they want the addition to be, that should have been included in the packet, yes, they are. I’ve received the Staff Notes and the comments from VISION Engineering. Basically I’ll just go over the project quickly. The project entails the addition of 2,000 plus or minus square feet on the end of Benson’s Pet Center, the end being the eastern end towards the east. MR. HUNSINGER-Glenwood. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and as well as that addition to account for more spaces, we’re reconfiguring the parking lot at the rear, which has been, on a previous Site Plan it was cut off. It’s not used, in my opinion it wasn’t used properly. It wasn’t reconfigured at that time, and there’s an aisle where you could park and I just made it more efficient, and taken some of the asphalt out of there to compensate for the addition, and for some of the losses of green space along that east side of the building. We’re here, again, here tonight to try to get a Site Plan approval on this particular project for the addition. Again, since I’ve decreased the impervious area under the proposed condition, I think there’s not really an issue with stormwater. There are a bunch of drywells on the site that seem to be functioning adequately. I’ll address the, or at least go through the points from Staff comments. Amending the zoning district boundaries and names, I’ll take care of that. That’s a minor thing. I probably put down a wrong name. That’s the first two. There’s an Army Corps wetlands on the adjoining site that they wanted us to note. We can certainly put where the edge of the water is and if there’s any flagging out there, we can show it, but it is on the adjoining site, and since it’s an Army Corps wetland, there’s no buffers 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) with an Army Corps wetlands, only DEC wetlands. So I personally don’t think that’s a major issue, but if they want it shown, we’ll try to do some research and get it shown. Details of the lighting, the lighting is not changing from what’s there now, and that’s why I didn’t provide details with that. We’re leaving the same number of poles and all the lights in the same location. The only additional light will be underneath the canopy. They’ll have probably a can style recessed light to light up the sidewalk underneath it, as the rest of it does now. MR. HUNSINGER-So there would only be new lighting on the addition? MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. Underneath the, just to light that sidewalk. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-All the rest of the existing poles are going to remain. MR. HUNSINGER-And it would match the lighting that’s? MR. WILKINSON-That’s in the rest of the plaza. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. WILKINSON-As far as the landscaping comment on the lot tree for each fifteen parking spaces, I’ve proposed four or five trees out at the rear. We can put a few more trees in. The only question or comment that I have to the Board is that if you’re familiar with the plaza, this whole area in front of the O’Toole’s and Benson’s Pet Center, that whole parking lot is a relatively tight fitting parking lot, and we would ask that we not have to put any islands or trees in there because of the configuration. It makes traffic patterns, it will make traffic patterns a little bit more difficult than what are there now, plus the plowing and things. There isn’t much place to put snow, and that’s one of the issues I have there. As far as any other locations on the site, I’ll count up the proposed trees and the existing trees to make sure that we meet that Code requirement, and if we have to add a few trees along a side or the rear, we can certainly do it, and are willing to, again, I think, I can’t remember the total number of spaces, I think it’s 180 something, which would be like 15 trees. I believe we have more than 15 trees on the site, but we’ll double check on that. The last is the project is in the 100 year floodplain. We are well aware of that and we’re prepared to give the certification for the finished floor elevation when we go to building permit, as noted. As far as the comments from VISION Engineering, I will double check the handicap parking requirements with the Code to make sure we meet that. If we need to add one, we can add one. I believe that we may be short one, when I recounted, after I got this comment, and if I have to add a handicap space in, I will. The west parking area be resurfaced. How does it appear the grading changes. I have added grading lines because we’re just resurfacing it. So the elevation is actually going to rise and that’s what I was trying to imply with those grading lines is that we’re just raising that asphalt. I think it’s going to be a two inch asphalt that they’re putting over it. They’re smoothing a few spots and putting a two inch overlay, and that’s what I was trying to show with those contour lines is that it’s actually being raised up at two inches. That’s where I showed new lines. The monitoring wells in the front, none of the monitoring wells have been removed at all. They’re all still there. I turned off that layer under the proposed condition so that other things would show up better. If the Board wishes, I can make sure that that layer is turned on, so that they’re all showing, but they do show on the existing conditions plan, and they are to remain. We’re not taking any out. The monitoring wells are from a previous owner of that site. Apparently there was a gas station at some point in time that took out tanks and that had to have monitoring wells in there to make sure the groundwater wasn’t contaminated with any petroleum products that were on that site years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. SEGULJIC-Was the site closed, do you know? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, but the monitoring wells had to remain. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-How often are they tested? MR. WILKINSON-I think it’s five years. I don’t know for sure, but they’re all there. We’re not taking any out, and they’re all going to remain. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, if we have that information, we might as well capture it. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, exactly. It just shows that there’s either still nothing or. MR. SEGULJIC-Because it’ll probably come up again some day. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, it could. So, no, I have not removed any monitoring wells. I just turned that layer off under proposed conditions. The existing light pole in the rear, we’re relocating it. There’s one in the rear that we’re relocating to the edge of the pavement, because I’ve expanded the pavement a little bit in one area, but taken other pavement out in another area, and it didn’t fit within where I was doing it, but that was the intent. He is correct about the existing fire hydrant in the front. It will be too close to the building, and I’ll coordinate with the Queensbury Fire Marshal to make sure we move that to a location that’s accessible to the fire, when they pull into the site. Right now it’s actually behind a hedge and sitting kind of low and difficult to get to, but we will make sure that that gets changed. I’ll add the typical length of spaces on the detail. I believe I did dimension them as a typical on the Site Plan itself, too, but that’s, again, a minor thing, and I put the catch basin and trench details in there because I don’t know if Dan Ryan caught it, but on the Site Plan I do have the addition of one catch basin in the exit only lane next to the Trustco Bank, and there’s an existing ponding problem that’s in that exit lane right now. If you go out there after a rainfall or snowfall, it ponds right in that area. I proposed a catch basin to pipe back into the existing drywell on the site. That’s why I included those two details, and that is shown on the Site Plan that way. I’ve also spoken to Warren County DPW, and we’re working together with them to improve the situation on the slip ramp coming off of Quaker Road. There’s a concrete island in the middle that some cars have apparently gotten hung up on, and Warren County has received calls, as well as the owner of the plaza has received calls that somebody wants them to replace things on their car. So we’re working to try to remove that. It appears as though it’s an old barrier that was left in place that had the poles on it that are reflective. All the poles have been removed and the concrete barrier is still there, but it’s low enough that you can’t see it, but high enough that it can catch the low rise cars. So we’re going to remove that and put a bull nose on there and also a sign that tells people there’s a bull nose here, you’ve got to keep right or left, and that’s what I show on that as well, but I’m working with Warren County DPW on that. I believe that covers all the issues at this point I’ll open it up to questions, comments, issues from the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-That last comment, is that that crazy exit from Quaker Road? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, the slip ramp. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s crazy. MR. WILKINSON-It’s crazy, but it works, and it actually works really well, because it gets the traffic off the lane when you’re slowing down, and that’s what they’re supposed to do. If it were to come in front of the Planning Board to do that today, I don’t think Warren County would let them do it, but it’s existed, pre-existed, and everybody’s used to it. So that’s what remains. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and I think the other thing, it’s designed so that you can only come in from the right hand lane. MR. WILKINSON-Come in, that’s right, you can only come in. MR. HUNSINGER-You can’t come in from the left. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. You have to go around the light, or come in off of the side road. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Well, I was going to say, what’s interesting is when people come down Country Club Road, when you come down to the end of Country Club Road, the signs direct you either left or right, and it’s almost a straight shot. MR. WILKINSON-Into that ramp. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it’s interesting to see people try to. MR. WILKINSON-Try to make it across. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HUNSINGER-It’s almost a U-turn to come in. MR. WILKINSON-And they’ve done it, and there’s been a few accidents there. MR. HUNSINGER-I see it all the time. Yes. MR. WILKINSON-I’ve seen people get clobbered there because of that same thing, trying to cross all four lanes, and it’s like, no, get out into the lane, use the traffic light and go around the corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, we don’t always do that. MR. WILKINSON-I know. In a hurry. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve been known to do it myself. MR. SIPP-Where are you going to relocate the hydrant to? MR. WILKINSON-I’m thinking, I’ve got to pull out the plan to refresh my memory, because I already looked at it. I’m thinking in that island right next to it, just flipping it over from the main and using that island right next to it, and I think that that’s big enough, and I’m going to also, again, raise it up, because right now it actually sits low. If you walk out there, it’s ditched down to it, and as soon as you get a heavy snowfall and try to get that asphalt path cleared, the hydrant gets buried. So I want to get it out into that island and raise it up so it’s more usable. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is it going to be eight or a six inch line? MR. WILKINSON-It’s a six inch coming in with a hydrant on it. MR. SIPP-In the, on Glenwood, you’ve got two signs located, on the east side of the addition. What kind of signs are these? MR. WILKINSON-Where is that now? MR. SIPP-On the east side, on the west side of Glenwood. MR. WILKINSON-West side of Glenwood. Those are traffic signs. MR. SIPP-Those are traffic signs. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. The one in the right of way is actually a traffic sign. I believe, it may be a speed limit. I don’t recall exactly what it is. I think it’s a speed limit sign, that first one. MR. SIPP-Could be. Could be. MR. WILKINSON-But that’s the one that’s in Glenwood itself. That’s the speed limit sign. The ones on the site are directional signs for the Bank, for the drive thru, and also for parking. One of the other things that the owner of the plaza has done is told all of their clients or their leasees that they want all the employees to park out in the rear parking lot, and they’re trying to free up more spaces for customers in the front lot, and they believe that part of the problem is that a lot of employees park out there, and it uses the good spaces for people that want to come in and out. So they’re trying to push all the employees out into the rear parking lot, and right now, as a matter of fact, the O’Toole’s people do park out there and also park along that rear access where the dumpsters are. They park along there as well. So a lot of the O’Toole’s employees are already parking out back. MR. HUNSINGER-I always knew the covered atrium was there, but I didn’t know there was parking back there. MR. WILKINSON-I didn’t, either, until I got the job myself. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Nor did I. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HUNSINGER-I almost wonder if there should be a sign in the atrium that says additional parking or something. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, there is a sign, but it really can’t be in the atrium, that’s where it is. It needs to be out when you first pull in, additional parking in rear. So that when you come in you see a full parking lot, you go out into the rear, because quite frankly it’s almost as close, if you park over here by Trustco, it’s just as close to O’Toole’s parking in the rear because you’re all under covered area, than parking way over here. So, and that’s probably the biggest user. Benson’s has the biggest turnover. They have the most customers per hour turnover, but the O’Toole’s has the most customers. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I agree, that parking lot is tight. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, it’s tight. MR. SEGULJIC-So the proposed addition is going to match the existing? MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-And they’re proposing to change the color. That’s what is in the color renderings that I gave you. The color, right now, on the building is white, and they’re going to an earthy, tan tone. MR. SEGULJIC-So does that mean just Benson’s? MR. WILKINSON-The entire plaza, and they’re also taking out, there used to be wagon wheels up in the peaks. They’ve taken those out because they’ve found that the water from rain is getting in behind it and actually popping out on the columns, and they’re getting seepage on the columns. So they’re trying to seal those off, and they’re putting crown molding in there as well. So they’ve taken it and touching it up with some crown and trying to dress up the whole plaza. MR. SEGULJIC-I remember a few years ago they used to have that really pretty, there were awnings. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. They were blue, weren’t they? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, blue neon. Actually it was kind of aqua color. It looked like Miami. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, I guess, my whole thing is I like trees. We’re in the northeast. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And I can agree you can’t really do much in the parking lot, but can we do something in that spot that’s between those two crazy turns on and turns off, that’s along Quaker? MR. WILKINSON-Probably can put a couple out there. I proposed a couple of bushes and things out there. MR. SEGULJIC-Because really, I mean, I don’t think that’s going to affect any of the traffic because you’re either coming in or going out. MR. WILKINSON-I agree. Well, how about three, can I put three out there somewhere, or do you think there’s room for more? MR. SEGULJIC-Three what? MR. WILKINSON-Trees. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. The more the better. MR. SIPP-If you started right on the beginnings of that in lane there. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, along the front, along O’Toole’s, you’re talking? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-In the front of there? MR. SIPP-Right. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. They’ve got the two over on the side, but the stuff in front, they have some hedges along that patio. They just recently trimmed them down because they were so overgrown they were actually hiding the whole building. They’ve trimmed them down to a height of about six feet, and that’s why they want to try to keep them as nice and trimmed at a six foot height. So you can’t see in the patio from the road, but, you know, it gives you a buffer, and that’s what that planter is, is all bushes right now. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we put one, I think Mr. Sipp was talking about right off to the northwest of the patio, do something there, and then three in that no man’s island there? MR. WILKINSON-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Between the crazy in and out. MR. WILKINSON-You have a preference, flowering versus deciduous? MR. SIPP-Flowering would be nice in there. MR. WILKINSON-In the front, I think flowering would look better against the building. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. So flowering there. MR. SIPP-And then it would give you a little better, something to look at as a patio. Now, as you go in towards the east, those planters, is that where you’re talking about the shrubs are now? MR. WILKINSON-Yes. I believe, if you look on Page Two, yes, Page Two, there’s, I’ve got a whole bunch of hemerocallis, is that how you pronounce that, but they’re daylilies, actually, but the hemerocallis is the Latin name. The daylily is the common name. This particular plaza owner owns probably 50 plazas throughout the Capital District area. They’ve found that the daylilies actually fill in very nicely over time, and they try to, they told me put a lot of them in, because what they do is they vary the specific plant to different types of plants, and some are a little higher and some are a little lower, but they fill in real nice, and, after the winter, when you pile snow on them, they still come back. MR. SEGULJIC-Daylilies are amazing. They grow everywhere. MR. WILKINSON-That’s what they said. They’re amazing. So they’re putting those in there, and then I have, also have the burning bush in that little corner area to try to fill out that little corner area where you first come in off of the slip ramp, there’s five burning bush in there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SIPP-Okay. That’s good. MR. SEGULJIC-Now how about this area down. MR. WILKINSON-In between the in ramp and out ramp that you’re talking? We’ll try to put three in there. You’ve got power poles, too, so I can’t get anything too big, and power lines, because NiMo will cut them. That’s why I didn’t put trees out there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Maybe Mr. Sipp will be able to give me some advice on that. MR. WILKINSON-Okay, but I think three will fit out there nicely, but we’ll make them a shorter type of tree, so they don’t get up in the power lines. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SIPP-Right. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SEGULJIC-How about down in this area here? MR. WILKINSON-Which is. MR. SEGULJIC-The southern portion of the site along Glenwood Avenue. MR. WILKINSON-Where the spruce are down there? MR. SEGULJIC-To the east of the yes, and to the south of the spruce. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. Yes, I’ve got three pines and then two spruce and another pine over there. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we extend something further down in that area? It’s my understanding that’s an open void there. MR. WILKINSON-Again, I’ve got to worry about the ditch that’s in there, but on both sides of it we can probably do something. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-I’ll look at that, at least a couple. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I mean, that’s one thing in the northeast we can grow trees pretty easily and they make things look a lot better. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and it really does dress up the site, and again, I told my client, I said, if you’re spending the money putting all this paint and everything in, you’ve got to put plantings in, too. Because it’ll dress it up even that much more. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I’d really like to see some in the parking lot, but I know what you’re saying. MR. HUNSINGER-Pine or spruce? MR. WILKINSON-Either or probably. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Pine or spruce. MR. WILKINSON-Down in there. That’s a wetish area down there, that gets a lot of drainage. So I’ll look at what, it’s right next to the ditch. MR. SIPP-Well, red maple will grow. Your pines will grow. MR. WILKINSON-The spruce or pine, an Austrian maybe. MR. SIPP-I’d rather see the spruce than I would the pine, yes. MR. WILKINSON-Spruce. MR. SIPP-Spruce tends to keep lower branches longer than the pines. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, the pines will just grow straight up. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then, are we all set on the landscaping? MR. HUNSINGER-So we’ve got four flowering trees and two. MR. WILKINSON-Three shorter trees, a flowering tree up front. MR. HUNSINGER-And two spruce trees. MR. WILKINSON-I’m saying up to four. I’m going to try to fit four, but I don’t know if I can, up to four, in that area down there, and I added five in the rear. MR. SIPP-What is this brick wall stone ditch? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. WILKINSON-That’s all the control structure for the pond, for Hovey Pond. MR. SIPP-Okay. That’s the dam? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, that’s the overflow, and. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s actually your property? MR. WILKINSON-It discharges onto this property. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you made a comment about the wetlands? MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess a comment to Staff, isn’t Queensbury now within 100 feet? So please riddle me that. MR. HILTON-If there is construction proposed within 100 feet of any wetland, it requires a Freshwater Wetlands permit from the Town Planning Board. So, I’m not sure where the construction is in relation to that wetland. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. Remember the cinder path is right on the edge of Hovey Pond. I would say that rear parking lot, even though we’re just resurfacing it, does that count as construction? That’s definitely within 100 feet, but the addition itself is not. MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess I would seek a clarification probably personally from the Zoning Administrator. I don’t think that resurfacing would count as construction, but you may want to condition it on getting some kind of, I don’t know, opinion, and follow up if required. I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-So clarify for me. So it’s anything within 100 feet within any wetland. MR. HILTON-Any wetland. MR. WILKINSON-Any wetland, not just DEC, any wetland. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess we should denote that on this plan and get clarification from the Zoning Administrator. MR. HILTON-Sure, and if need be, obviously follow up with a Freshwater Wetlands permit application prior to any construction. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. Does the Freshwater Wetlands application have to come back in front of the Planning Board? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But I would assume everything’s existing. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, it’s all existing, and again, what we’re doing out in the rear is mostly just resurfacing. We’re changing the boundaries a little bit, but it’s just for a slight configuration change. MR. HILTON-Yes. I think with resurfacing, my opinion is it’s probably okay, but again, I would just maybe condition it on getting an opinion from the Zoning Administrator. MR. WILKINSON-Okay, because the addition itself, where we’re adding on to the building, is not within 100 feet of that discharge area or any wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, just to clarify, all you’re doing is just resurfacing the parking lots and putting this 2,000 square foot addition on the end of the building? MR. WILKINSON-Resurfacing the rear. Actually they’re going to resurface the front, too. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-And I didn’t show that in any way. Put the 2,000 square foot on and some minor reconfiguration of that parking lot. We lost two handicap spaces, and that’s why Dan Ryan made the comment to double check handicap, make sure we have enough, because I lost two, and again, that’s an easy thing. I can fill him in, and we left the parking lot to the west of where the addition is going pretty much the same, just re- striping it so that it fits and has an access, a handicap accessible right on the end of where the covered walkway is going to come out. If you look on Sheet Two, I’ve put the handicap spots from the side over to there, so on the end of that covered walkway where it’s coming down along the front of the building, I’ve got the handicap ramp out in the parking area. I always like to place my striped areas in front of the sidewalk so it leaves it open, so people can access it easier. That’s how that design’s working, but, yes, that’s virtually it. Resurfacing, re-doing the re-painting and crown molding to the façade, the trees that we talked about, and the addition to the Benson’s Pet Center. That is the whole project. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Are all the other buildings going to be re-faced? MR. WILKINSON-The entire plaza is going to be re-faced to look like that. MR. SIPP-Look like that. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and that’s why I submitted that. MR. SIPP-You’re going to put the hills and mountains in the background. MR. WILKINSON-But you notice the mountains look the same from every view. Somebody just made a mistake on that. MR. HUNSINGER-I noticed that. MR. WILKINSON-Because we got an angle in, from standing over in front of O’Toole’s looking at Pet Center. Then we got in front of standing by the Bank looking at Pet Center, and then the last one is standing on Glenwood looking at what would be the addition to the end of the Pet Center, but the entire plaza’s going to be re-faced and looking like this, with the brown colors and I think the red roof, red awning, red or gray, I’m not sure. I think they’re going with the gray, the blue/gray. MR. HILTON-I guess part of Clark’s response answered my question, but I guess I would ask that the Planning Board get some kind of clarification as to which colors are going to be used for the roof. It seems like there are two different, a red and an off blue, if you will. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, it’s the blue/gray. MR. HILTON-And if you’re looking for some kind of combination of the two or you’re looking for one in particular, just be clear, I guess, in specifying which one is going to be approved and used. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. The blue/gray is the one that they’re using. The last elevation showing from Glenwood, the roof color was not changed to match the other one, and that was a mistake that we found after I submitted, but it’s the blue/gray. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. SIPP-When that snow plow comes down through there. MR. WILKINSON-They throw that snow back. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SIPP-Yes. I don’t know. MR. WILKINSON-I can keep them close, like three to five foot off of the curb in the parking area, try to keep them closer so that the plow doesn’t affect them as much, but I still have to get something, like you said, it’s got to be something hearty, and it’s got to be something low, and I would prefer, in that location, I personally would prefer a deciduous versus an evergreen. I don’t know plants all that well. I just know enough to get me in trouble. MR. HUNSINGER-Which tree, which plant are you talking about? MR. WILKINSON-The ones in the front, underneath the power lines, they have to be a low profile, but they’re also close to the road, and we were talking about how hearty they have to be, because of the salt. MR. SIPP-Dogwood. MR. WILKINSON-Dogwood, that’s actually a good one. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually I thought we just said flowering trees. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, say flowering trees. MR. WILKINSON-Dogwood flower, but the idea is that the flowering are usually lower. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, as far as notes I have. MR. SIPP-These flower, but they’re tough. MR. WILKINSON-They are, they’re very hearty. MR. HUNSINGER-But can we do a procedural thing? Public hearing. There’s no one here, but we do have a public hearing posted. So I will open the public hearing, and since there’s no one here, we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Now we can talk about stuff. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Signoff from the Town Engineer. I had, I wrote, I mean, I’m just going to read to you what I wrote down. Four flowering trees along Quaker Road, one at the northwest corner of the O’Toole’s patio, and then three between the nose down curb and the egress onto Quaker Road. At least and up to four additional spruce trees at the southern end of Glenwood Avenue. Roof color to be the blue/gray as shown on two of the three renderings, and it’s conditioned on opinion from the Zoning Administrator that the applicant does not require a Freshwater Wetlands permit. Does that cover it? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll do it, if you want. I’ll make a motion, I found it interesting this is our Site Plan 1-2008. I will make a motion to approve. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I could. I don’t recall, did you do a SEQRA on this? MR. WILKINSON-There’s none required. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s not required for a Site Plan modification. MR. HILTON-Is this a modification? Well, okay. It’s a new Site Plan number and it says Unlisted. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. It says Unlisted action. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HILTON-Yes, I think there’s a Short Form in the. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, I submitted a Short Form just to be safe because I’d rather include it and not worry about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the applicant submitted a Short Form. Good catch. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: QUEENSBURY QUAKER LLC, 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 Type I 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. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2008 QUEENSBURY QUAKER LLC, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes Façade Improvement and addition to Benson’s 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) Pet Store. Parking area reconfiguration. Modification of previously approved projects in the HC-Intensive zone requires Site Plan Review. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/22/08; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 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. 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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. 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 MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2008 QUEENSBURY QUAKER LLC, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. With the following: Item Four, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies. Number Five, we adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Number Eight does not apply. Number Nine does not apply, and it’s approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant obtain a final signoff from the Town Engineer. 2.That the applicant depict four flowering trees along Quaker Road. a.One at the northwest corner of the O’Tooles patio b.Three trees between the nose down curb and the egress onto Quaker Road 3.That the applicant provide at least two, and as many as four, additional spruce trees at the southern end of Glenwood Avenue. 4.The roof colors shall be blue/gray as shown on two of the three colored renderings provided, and 5.The approval is conditioned on an opinion from the Zoning Administrator that the applicant does not require a Freshwater Wetlands Permit. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other business? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. HILTON-Other than discussing, I believe you may have seen an e-mail that was just kind of thrown out, a potential February schedule, if you care to discuss that or not. That’s the only thing I have. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we already talked about the 7 as being the proposed date for Schermerhorn and now Brian McCall, or, I’m sorry, not McCall. MR. SEGULJIC-Kenny. MR. HUNSINGER-Kenny. MR. HILTON-Kenny, yes. thth MR. HUNSINGER-We then have regular meetings on the 19 and 26. We had talked th about a workshop which the last date that was being discussed was February 13. th MR. HILTON-13, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I was discussing with Mr. Schonewolf, and I guess I’ll convey the same to Mr. Krebs. We do site visits on the Saturday morning before the first Board th meeting. So that would be Saturday the 16 of February, this coming month. So it’s a busy month. MR. HILTON-Sure. I guess, in the email, I recall seeing some discussion, at least, as far th as, after that February 7 meeting, potentially having a special meeting after that for the Schermerhorn meeting, I don’t know if that’s the pleasure of the Board or not. I mean, there is an option that if, you know, let’s say that the application does get through the SEQRA review that evening, that you could put it on a regular meeting, assuming that, you know, you potentially would have ironed out most of the items in SEQRA anyway. As it is right now, it looks like we’re going to have four meetings. If you throw in a special meeting for the Schermerhorn application you’re up to five, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILTON-How many meetings can you go to in a month, I guess, and I know that there was also a discussion of an organizational meeting, potentially. th MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that was the 13. th MR. HILTON-Are you sure? Was the 13 the one that had to do with Takundewide? Is that? MR. HUNSINGER-That was a different issue. MR. HILTON-Right. Exactly. I was going to say, either way. MR. HUNSINGER-And now I’m glad you brought it up, because I wasn’t at the discussion of Takundewide. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And actually that was one of the issues in the email was whether or not we wanted to try to get that onto a workshop with the Town Board. So I’ll defer to Tom or Don. MR. SEGULJIC-I wasn’t at that meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-You weren’t there either. MR. SIPP-Well, I think what was discussed is the fact that, along with their sewer situation, we also need to discuss the problems with the Town stormwater facilities in that area, and do them both at the same time, get a plan out so that we can accomplish both things at the same time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but our engineer said that they were two distinct questions and two distinct different problems. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) MR. SIPP-I agree, but they’re right in the same area, and they could be worked on basically at the same time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And then the Town agreed to do the second half of it. They’re going to do the drainage issues. I can’t understand how that affects the Takundewide project which is kind of approved by the Town and the Town said, the Town Staff says it’s a separate thing. It confuses me. MR. SIPP-Well, that’s true, but we’re looking for cleaner water in the lake. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I understand that. MR. SIPP-And therefore, in order to do that, they’ve got to do something about what the Town stormwater system is right now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. SIPP-So let’s do it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I thought the Town said they were going to do it. MR. SIPP-When? MR. HILTON-Well, I simply brought it up because as I recall the last meeting, the Takundewide meeting, the discussion was let’s have the Town Board have a meeting with the neighbors and the engineer and everything, prior to any future Planning Board meeting. I’m just bringing it up for scheduling purposes, that, you know, you’re looking at one, two, three, four, five. MR. HUNSINGER-So it wasn’t a suggestion that the Planning Board hold a workshop with the Town Board? MR. SIPP-Yes, it was. MR. HILTON-Well, I recall that, I’d have to go through the minutes, but my recollection is the Town Board members that were present at that meeting said we’re going to shoot for a workshop, and I think the intent was to invite as many people as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-So, the Town Board’s going to hold a workshop to talk about it, and they would then invite members of the Planning Board? Or would it be an official meeting of the Planning Board, too? MR. HILTON-That I don’t know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They put the onus on Takundewide that if you want approval of your project, which they didn’t have any problem with, is that you have to have a meeting with the Town. That’s the way I understood it. Right? MR. SIPP-Well, they have to get permission from the Town. The Town has to agree to let them form a transportation corporation, which just means the system of getting the effluent up there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Correct. MR. SIPP-From there, then they go back to the DEC. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. SIPP-But in the process, we’ve had stormwater problems in that area which have caused some problems with septic systems in that area. So why not address them, or make an attempt to address them at one meeting, and get everybody together to understand what needs to be done. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Fine. I think that’s, I would like to see what the Town’s going to do about it, because, you know, I’ve pumped out a few cellars over there, too, but if the Town’s going to solve that problem, I feel for the guys from Takundewide who are saying, look, we’ve got to get going because there are certain time limits they have to meet on the gravel and everything else, and if we don’t get going then we’re going to 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) have another summer where we’re not going to do anything and one of those systems goes bad, then we have put it in the lake. MR. SIPP-Yes, but their approval has to go through DEC before it can go through us, and DEC is the one that, after they get this transportation corporation set up, which is a State law, then it goes back to DEC. Now they made no reference in their letter as to approval or not approval. These steps have to go in order. When DEC approves it or disapproves it, it comes back to us. I see no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s where it’s at now? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Waiting on DEC action? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Don’t they have DEC approval? MR. SEGULJIC-The DEC gave the transportation corporation approval, as I understand it. Now they have to come back to the Town, and now the Town has to agree to be a party to that agreement, I believe. If Takundewide goes belly up, the Town has to go in and maintain the system then. MR. HILTON-I honestly can’t answer these questions. I’m just bringing it up for scheduling purposes more than anything, this evening. I really wasn’t prepared to answer questions. I wasn’t prepared to get into more discussion of the application. MR. SEGULJIC-So we don’t know what’s going on with the Town Board, then. MR. HILTON-Well, at this point, no. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just the two guys that were there at that meeting that got up and said that they had been over there that day and that they were going to take care of it, and I thought was this Board was going to do was approve Takundewide, subject to a meeting with the Town. MR. SIPP-We can’t. DEC’s got to do it first. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they didn’t say that they didn’t have DEC approval. They didn’t say they had it either. MR. SIPP-No, but the letter from DEC just says we are not approving or disapproving of this system until the Town Board takes action. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I didn’t see that. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess, again, I’m looking at it from scheduling more than anything, and perhaps, Chris, tomorrow I can start by either calling you or emailing you and we can kind of just get a handle on how many meetings we truly are going to have, and what we’re going to do in February. MR. HUNSINGER-What time are the Town Board workshops usually? Are they seven? MR. HILTON-Yes. Well, actually, I don’t know with the workshops, because there was one this evening and it was earlier than seven. So I don’t know what time the workshops. The regular meetings are usually at seven. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of January, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/08) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 51