Loading...
2002-08-20 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER LARRY RINGER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FW 1-2002 GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME WETLAND AFFECTED: HALFWAY BROOK AND ASSOCIATED WETLAND ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 213 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ON THE SITE. PORTIONS OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE WITHIN THE ADJACENT WETLAND SETBACK AS WELL AS WITHIN THE WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 12-02, UV 44-92, FW2-92, UV 1226, OPS 21 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10/60-2-6 LOT SIZE: 13.38 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-100 JON LAPPER, HOLLY ELMER & DEAN LONG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-I’ve, since our last meeting, gone ahead and I have a memorandum that kind of addresses the Freshwater Wetlands application and the site plan review, given that we’re kind of looking at them both at the same time, more or less for SEQRA purposes. So I’m going to go ahead right now and just give you our comments that apply for both applications. Since we last met, the plans have been revised and now include a 1500 square foot wetland mitigation area on site. At the present time, the wetland mitigation area has really, it hasn’t been looked at by DEC, and at the same time it’s been shown on the plans, kind of in some rough configuration, and we’d be looking for some more exact locations and dimensions and area of cut and fill, and overall area of disturbance in order to create that wetland mitigation. Also the plans have some information concerning the pedestrian foot bridge, however not enough to really make a decision as to whether or not it’s going to impact any kayaks or canoes or anything that might be flowing down the brook. As you can see in my memo, the Director of Parks and Rec has also signed this memo. It’s his goal to someday have that area of Halfway Brook as recreation, recreational access, and we’d be looking for the bridge to have a clearance of about three feet over the Brook and also in the areas that are going to be disturbed for creation of the walkway and the bridge the plans don’t indicate any silt fencing or any kind of stormwater management that could be used or should be used at the time of construction, and we’d be looking for the plans to be updated as far as that’s concerned. Again, the wetland mitigation that’s proposed, I’m not sure if DEC has looked at it. We haven’t had any comments from DEC on the overall site plan or the overall Freshwater Wetlands Permit that’s needed through DEC, and any other planning comments from our June 25 correspondence regarding flooding, erosion, stormwater management, they still apply, and any th comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during this review. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Holly Elmer from the LA Group, and a number of the members of the Board of Directors of the Girl Scout Council are here as well. To expedite, we’ve been here a number of times on this project. We wanted to come in to the Zoning Board for our final meeting where we received the approval and make it easy for them because it was the first time they were looking at a wetland variance that I’m aware of, and in order to do that, we proposed, for the first time, at the last meeting, to create 1500 square feet of wetland mitigation area to create wetland to make up for the then 1300 square feet that we were proposing to take out, and just to put this in context, in terms of the Federal regulations, in that there’s State, DEC regulations, Federal Army Corps regulations and now Town of Queensbury regulations for wetlands, and they’re all somewhat different, but just to put it in context, in terms of the Army Corps, Federal regulations, if you don’t disturb any more than a tenth of an acre, 4350 square feet, you don’t need to do any mitigation. You don’t have to create anything. If it’s less than a tenth of an 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) acre, you don’t need a permit. You’re just allowed to do that. So we had gotten it down, at that point, to where are disturbance was 1300 square feet approximately, far less than the 4356 square feet for a tenth of an acre, and nevertheless, we proposed to do 1500 square feet of mitigation to create more wetland than we were disturbing, so that we would make it easy for the Zoning Board to see that there couldn’t be an impact. Just responding to what George said, that is all, of course, part of our DEC application because we need a wetland buffer permit from DEC for the same disturbance, but they would not have required it for a State DEC permit. We just threw it in. So we have shown the area, and we’ve described it, and we’ve said that we’re going to create wetland, but it’s not because it’s a requirement of DEC. It was just something that we came up with because we thought it was the right thing to do to make the Zoning Board happy. Since that time, the actual application has been prepared and submitted to DEC, and in order to reduce that even more, the total disturbance is now down to 473 square feet. That was accomplished by replacing the wood chips or asphalt for the walkway that goes down to the bridge with a deck that would be just a little bit above the ground, but it would be on pilings or piers so that the disturbance is just the four by four or six by six posts, rather than the whole, the wood chip area. So that brought it down from 1300 to 473. So we’re talking about an extremely minimal disturbance of the wetland area, certainly the least that we could come up with here, and then we’re going more than three times that much in terms of creating it. So, I mean, I think this is an example of going farther than most applicants would, but, you know, again, we were the first application and so we felt that we had to do it to that extent to make everybody happy. The project hasn’t changed since the last couple of times that you’ve seen it, but I will ask Holly to just quickly go through it. In terms of the conditions that George mentioned, making the bridge three feet high so that there was three feet passing for someone on a canoe and debris during a storm, of course that’s something that we would stipulate to. The actual bridge hasn’t been designed yet. It may not be for another year, because that’s going to take a structural engineer to actually design it and they’re not up to that point yet in terms of the project, but we would certainly agree that we would submit that to the Board, if necessary, but certainly the Staff and engineer once their engineers. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m thinking more along the lines of probably Staff and the Parks and Recreation Department for their approvals, probably would be the way to go. MR. LAPPER-That would be fine. It may well be a year, but once they get underway, once it’s designed, we could certainly do that as a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Couldn’t you just use a prefabricated bridge? MS. ELMER-No. The Girl Scouts want to be able to use the bridge for flying off ceremonies and other activities, for part of their programs, and you want to be able to have disabled people have access as well. So, Ryan Biggs is going to work with us to create the design. MR. LAPPER-So it’s a special bridge, not your catalogue bridge. There is nothing that George asked for that we have any issues with. At this point, why don’t you just go through the plan. MS. ELMER-See, the plans that have been submitted to you show the building in the same location. The building itself is 15 square foot into the wetland, and as Jon said, the impact of the pilings from the walkway, the deck, the rest of the boardwalk here and the bridge, amounts to only 473 square feet. While we were in the process of reviewing this project with the Town, we reduced the amount of parking from 30 spaces to 23 spaces, so that the parking area is completely out of the wetland. Stormwater is still shown to the west side of the parking area, and there’s still some of the planted area here. Also, I think you may have read a letter from the Town Highway Superintendent by now that was submitted. I met with him on the site, and we looked at the proposed plans, which he was very much in favor of. MR. LAPPER-That went to the Zoning Board. They may not have gotten it. MS. ELMER-I think it was in the packet sent to the Planning Board for the submittal. MR. STROUGH-I was looking for it. I thought I misplaced it. MS. ELMER-Okay. Jon’s going to dig one out. I thought it was submitted. Basically what he said was he liked the access and egress being directed to two particular spots, and not having a broad brush open access like there is now. It will make a safer condition. He does like the parking coming away from the front of the building and going to the north side here and to the south side so that people will not continue to back out directly onto Meadowbrook, or even in the shoulder. I think it’s caused too many close calls there. So he likes this idea. He likes the planted area here. He said as long as it’s not curbed, and the Girl Scouts can reseed it after the snowplowing season is over, that’s fine with him, too. There was a stop sign shown in here, and he said as long as the Scouts will own that and it’s for interior use only, that’s fine. He also considered the, on the larger site plan, you can see where the parking area is to the northeast corner of this project site. The whole site is almost 14 acres, and in the northeast corner there is seasonal parking use, use for when there’s more parents or more troops accessing the Girl Scout campground, and if the new building were to be located there, it would have put all the cars back out on Meadowbrook again, which is really becoming an issue, and it’s much safer, it’s been much safer having them park off the road. If they’re out 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) here, they’re parking on both sides of the road, all along the frontage of the Girl Scout property, and you’ve got the children and their parents and siblings in the road shoulder. This road has now been paved and there’s much more development on the north end of Meadowbrook, and he agreed that the seasonal parking area works well because it doesn’t have to be paved, and you don’t create more impervious, and you don’t have to plow it or, you know, it can stay in a natural condition. I think that was the end of his comments. He just said to get a hold of him if we had anymore clarification we needed, and as long as this was proceeding this way, he liked it. If it was going to change substantially, he wanted to see it again. So I think that’s pretty much it. The reduction in parking and the change to a boardwalk back here are the only real changes since you’ve last seen this application. MR. LAPPER-I just want to touch on the architecture. We didn’t ask the representatives of Joy, McCoola and Zilch to come back this time, but you’ve seen their plan and their presentation before. That building that’s there now is sort of unattractive, older ranch building that’s been carved up a few times, and the architecture will certainly be an improvement to the neighborhood, compared to what’s there now. I do have the letter from the Highway Superintendent that Holly was referring to. Should I read it or hand it in? MR. MAC EWAN-George, have you got it? MR. HILTON-I’ve got it. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll let George read it in. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HILTON-Are you talking about the July 9 letter? th MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HILTON-Okay. Yes, it’s from Rick Missita, July 9, 2002, it says, “Dear Ms. Elmer: This letter is written to put into writing the items we discussed at our meeting today at the Girl Scout office site on Meadowbrook Road. I am in favor of relocating the parking areas as shown on LA Group Drawing L-3, Layout Plan. This relocation of parking will improve the safety of the people driving vehicles on Meadowbrook Road and the safety of the people accessing the Girl Scout office. The construction of the bridge over Halfway Brook will improve the safety of the Girl Scout staff and others who must walk between the administration office and the camp ground by keeping them off the shoulder of Meadowbrook Road. I am in favor of using the two stormwater facilities proposed as this will manage the stormwater on the Girl Scout site and will not add to the local drainage issues. The planted island in the town road right-of-way is fine, provided that the island is not curbed and that no trees or shrubs are planted in this grass island. Vegetation taller than grass or flowers will impair the available sight distance from the office exit points. I understand that the Girl Scouts will maintain and re-seed this island if and when necessary. I approve of the two access points shown on the proposed plan. The stop sign shown in the Town right-of-way on the northern exit is fine, as long as the Girl Scouts own the sign and it is used for internal directional signage only. I am not in favor of constructing the office building in the northern part of the site because this would displace the seasonal overflow parking area. This overflow parking used to go onto Meadowbrook Road along both road shoulders, all along the road in the front of the Girl Scout property. The seasonal use parking area has alleviated a situation that has in the past compromised highway and pedestrian safety. The seasonal use of this parking area eliminates the need to pave this area and increase the drainage issues in this area of the town. Please contact me again if the plans change substantially from what we reviewed in the field today. Sincerely, Richard A. Missita Highway Superintendent” MR. LAPPER-I just have one final comment on the Freshwater Wetlands permit. Currently, there are no stormwater facilities. So everything sheet flows from the roof and the parking area into the wetland. Now everything is going to be directed into a detention basin. So the sediments will settle out. So it’s essentially treated before it goes into the wetland. So that, in and of itself, makes up for the fact that there’s a minor disturbance because the quality of the water is cleaner after this project than it is now. Obviously, the wetlands serve to filter out the water, but here it’s filtered before it gets into the wetland. So we feel that the LA Group has really done a lot working with the Town to make this a good project, and we hope the Planning Board agrees. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I don’t know if I have any questions. Overall, the project looks pretty good. I have to apologize. I missed that first meeting, so I might be a little bit behind, but from what I can see, it looks good. I guess my question on the bridge, do you have any idea what the heights of the bridges are on Cronin Road and Meadowbrook? MS. ELMER-No, I don’t know what the height of that is. I don’t know when they were designed or what the standards were there. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. METIVIER-Well, they’re real bridges. I mean, they are traveled by vehicles, and I know the one on Cronin Road is considerably low, although the one on Meadowbrook Road I think is probably close to a three foot bridge. I just can’t picture canoes going under there. MS. ELMER-Also Meadowbrook Road is about 10 feet further down stream which you’re going to have to get out at that point anyway. If you’re on the Scout property and you go under the bridge, you know, just about 10 or 15 feet later, you’ll come to Meadowbrook Road itself, where there’s a culvert underneath, but in a canoe you’d have to get out. MR. METIVIER-That’s what I mean. Yes, there’s no continuous flow. Well, there’s continuous flow of water. MS. ELMER-Water, yes. MR. LAPPER-We thought of that when we saw the letter from the Recreation Department, but that bridge could conceivably be rebuilt some day. So, if we make this bridge right, maybe some day the Town will rebuild that bridge so you can go under it in a canoe, but probably you can’t. MR. METIVIER-And as far as the existing seasonal overflow parking, you really have no proposals for that whatsoever. That’s going to remain as is? MR. LAPPER-Well, you know, because you used to live on that street, where that seasonal overflow parking is. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-So what Rick is referring to is that before that was built a few years ago everybody would park on Meadowbrook. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. LAPPER-The reason that’s discussed is because some members of the Zoning Board had questioned why we couldn’t move the building to the area of the parking lot, and the answer is we’d never be able to put this big parking on the wetland area. So that would mean that we could put the building, if we could fit it, we could put the building in the upland area completely, but it would eliminate the parking, and as Meadowbrook continues to get busier and busier, that’s a big issue in the evenings in the summer when families come, and so we figured we’d be creating a traffic issue to make up for the wetland issue. MR. METIVIER-So you’ll continue to use that overflow parking there as needed? MR. LAPPER-It works really well. MR. METIVIER-What about in the times when it is considerably wet there, and even in the spring, which I can’t recall you ever needing that parking lot in the spring. MR. LAPPER-The camp is only in the summer. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. LAPPER-That doesn’t mean that it would never be used the rest of the year, but it’s primarily used when they have the camp, and it’s a lot drier, obviously. MR. METIVIER-On your diagram you show that the walkway is not asphalt, but you made comment to it being an asphalt walkway. Is it wood chip or is it asphalt? MS. ELMER-It’s going to be a boardwalk actually, a deck, supported by pilings only. MR. LAPPER-It was going to be asphalt or wood chips to begin with, and that just changed. MR. METIVIER-Okay. All right. I just wanted to clear that up. Again, I apologize that I’m probably not up to speed on everything, but overall, I think it looks good. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m still a little confused on the walkway. Will the entire walkway now be a floating wood deck? MS. ELMER-No, it’s not a floating wood deck. It’s supported on piles, piers. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. LAPPER-It’s just going to be low, just slightly above the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-So where it’s labeled on the plans as concrete and wood chip, that will all now be wood? MS. ELMER-That’s right. It’ll be a deck above. So you’ll only have the piers that are in the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-The same location and same dimensions, but just wooden boards just slightly elevated above the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of changing the plan, it’s just a question of changing the label. MR. METIVIER-Can I ask for a second why you changed that? Is that to? MR. LAPPER-To make the wetland permit to DEC an easier lift. MS. ELMER-And the Army. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. METIVIER-That’s what I thought. MR. LAPPER-It’s a more expensive treatment, but it reduces the impact. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I kind of find that interesting that they only would view the four by four posts as impacting the wetland. MR. LAPPER-Because the rest of it is impervious, or is pervious, so that the water will go through the deck and into the ground. MS. ELMER-Still get the wetland benefits. MR. HUNSINGER-I would certainly agree on the proposed access and egress issues that we’re commented on by the Highway Superintendent. I live near Meadowbrook, too, and drive up and down the street all the time, like Tony, and you know, you can come in and out at any point, and limiting the access, I think, is a great idea. I just wonder, in terms of the overflow parking or the seasonal parking, however you want to refer to it, it’s not labeled at all on the plans. MS. ELMER-It’s on the overall site layout, it might be labeled seasonal overflow parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was just checking as we were talking about things. MS. ELMER-It shows the whole 14 acre site. MR. HUNSINGER-If it was labeled, I didn’t see it. It’s kind of a minor point, but I’m just wondering. I mean, I know where it is, from being on the site. Okay. I was just going to suggest if it wasn’t labeled, it might be advantageous to label it on one of the plans. I didn’t have any other questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s beautiful, and it certainly meets, I remember when we did our moving up, a million years ago we had the pond, which was a mirror on the floor and we had a little bridge to go. Now you’ve got the real thing. I congratulate you. It’s beautiful. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I want to just clear something up. On L-3, at least on the documentation that I received, to review this application, we got down to 1144 square feet of intrusion. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-And that was the case, up until we submitted the DEC permit application. MR. VOLLARO-Right, which I haven’t seen. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t know how you got from 1144 down to somewhere near. MR. LAPPER-473. MR. VOLLARO-473. So if you can just take me through that process just one time slowly. I’ve got my drawing here, so I can follow that. MS. ELMER-Let’s see. There’s different components. This is, I’m reading from our letter dated August 12 th this year to the DEC, and it encloses the DEC permit application. The total area of work proposed in the wetland is 473 square feet, and there’s four components. The portion of the building in the wetlands is 15 square foot. The piles for the portion of the deck on the rear of the building, which will occupy wetlands, is 18 square foot. The walkway, posts supported walkway, will occupy 80 square foot. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is that the walkway that was being discussed previously? MS. ELMER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-Now you’re saying that that’s going to be elevated on sort of a piling arrangement? MS. ELMER-It’s more like a dock. It’s just an elevated boardwalk. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there won’t be wood chips and there won’t be any of that? That’s a changed design. MS. ELMER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all incorporated in that letter to DEC? MS. ELMER-That’s right, and the last component was the bridge itself, with its pile foundation that occupies 360 square feet. So the total of those four components is 473 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-I think that that has to be, you know, we have to be able to enter that into the record as part of the. MR. LAPPER-We can submit the application to DEC and the cover letter, if you’d like. MR. VOLLARO-Because I wasn’t able to review that. When I reviewed this, I didn’t have the benefit of that. So I’m reviewing from whatever I’m given to review. When I go into my little knothole to look at all of this stuff, I don’t have that to look at. MR. LAPPER-We have to apologize. We treated this as an additional permit requirement, because it’s the DEC permit outside of the Town requirements, and during that process, it got better, since we submitted to you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, should we submit this to the Town, the letter and the plan? MR. MAC EWAN-It probably wouldn’t hurt to carbon copy the Town on it. We like keeping big files. What else have you got, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m looking at our Ordinance here which, for those of you who have a copy of the recent Ordinance of April of 2002, Page 85, where we’re starting to talk about conditions of permits and standards for decisions, and this is the only thing I can really go on. I try to apply the current Ordinance to most of the stuff we talk about here. I’m still wrestling with a problem that talks, in the standards for conditions, where it says under the Findings, and it’s very, very pointed. It says, no permit shall be issued by the Planning Board pursuant to this Chapter unless the Planning Board shall find that, and it goes on with several conditions, and one of them is that there is no reasonable alternatives for the proposed regulated activity on the site which is not a freshwater wetland that is adjacent to this area, or adjacent area, and during the last time we met here, I had talked about possibly taking a look at an alternate site for this, which isn’t in an adjacent area, but the comment I got back is that there is no reasonable alternative except the site that’s before us, and I always have a problem with that, in terms of what the standards for decisions are under findings. We’ve never really talked about taking advantage of the acreage we have here to do a better job of trying to mitigate some of these wetland intrusions, and that’s one of the things that I’ve been wrestling with all along. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. LAPPER-We did address that on Page 3 of our letter to the Planning Board of July 15, and Holly can th go through that, but in general, the area on top of the rock outcropping, the higher area in the back, is the program area where all of the girls’ programs are. MR. VOLLARO-What was the date of the letter? MS. ELMER-July 15. th MR. LAPPER-So there is an area, it’s just not practical because if you’re going to have a camp, we need the area where the kids are going to be able to have their programs, and if we took that out, if we put the Administration Building there, it would just make it an ineffective camp. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the reasoning that I got the last time, Mr. Lapper, was that they wanted the Administration Building to be co-located. That was one of the reasons for asking for the building to be where it was, was co-location of administrative activities. MR. LAPPER-On the site. MR. VOLLARO-On the site, yes, and that was the reason I got the last time, I believe, the record will show that that’s what the answer was. So I’m still having a problem in that we haven’t really grappled with this wetlands problem as much as we should have on this Board. That’s just my feeling. MR. LAPPER-The easier way for us to present that for you to look at is that, in terms of the disturbance, that now that we’re down to 473 square feet of disturbance, versus 1500 square feet of creation, that when we get done, not only will the stormwater be treated before it goes into the wetland, but there’ll be over 1,000 square feet more wetlands than there is to start with. So I think that should make it an easier analysis. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s a good analysis. I mean, I understand what you’re doing. I still have a problem with my own standards for decision here, that this document is asking me to pursue, and I’ll have to mull this over in my mind. Now, there’s another thing that says conditions of permit. It’s an interesting set of conditions. It says every permit issued pursuant to this Chapter shall contain the following conditions. It looks like they don’t give you very much room there, and it talks about the permit shall expire on a date certain. Now, once we approve or give the wetland approval for this Freshwater Wetlands Permit, even though a permit shall expire on a date certain, we can’t do very much about, once we’ve done this, and once the installation’s in place, that date certain appears to me to be a moot point. MR. MAC EWAN-Hold it. I think Mark wants to break in. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, as long as we’re agreeing it’s moot, that’s fine. The idea behind that is that the permit authorizes the activity to occur, the permit does not exist forever, and the activity has to occur during the duration of the permit. Once the activity has occurred, the wetlands have been disturbed, you’re all set. MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. Okay. Fine, and then there’s other conditions of permit, and I don’t know how the Planning Board can react to some of those. The permit holder shall notify the Planning Board the date on which the project construction is to begin, and the Planning Board’s permit shall be prominently displayed at the project during the undertaking of the activities authorized by the permit. That doesn’t mean that the Planning Board is under any obligation, or does it? I guess I would ask you that question, Mark. Is the Planning Board under obligation to act in some way as a reviewer of this site during its, almost like a clerk of the works kind of thing? MR. SCHACHNER-No. It’s an obligation of the permitee to display the approval, just like a building permit. It doesn’t mean you have to go there. It doesn’t mean you have any further duties after you review the permit application and decide on it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All righty. I guess that pretty much takes care of what I’ve got to say on the permit. I don’t know whether the next application hinges on the permit or not. I guess I’m asking the Chairman this question or maybe Mr. Hilton whether or not, do these things, one hinge on the other, or do we give the Freshwater permit approval or denial as a separate item and then go to the site plan? MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, I’ve been thinking about that. Procedurally, how do you want to proceed on this, from the standpoint of SEQRA? MR. HILTON-Yes. Well, my understanding is that SEQRA is going to be one review to address both applications. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, joint SEQRA. MR. HILTON-Now, when that’s complete, I believe the Board would act on each application individually. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. They’re separate permits, separate approvals, but reviewed together under SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-So instead of making a decision on this permit application, we move right to the site plan, go through that, do the SEQRA, then we can go back to the permit. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s fine, just as you’ve done in other actions that require more than one approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s good. All right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, Mr. Chairman, I’m finished. MS. ELMER-If I could just point out to Mr. Vollaro, in our cover letter to the Planning Board dated July 15, we tried to be very thorough about meeting the different sections of the Queensbury Code for the th wetlands permitting. MR. VOLLARO-Let me go to the letter. I’ve got all the letters here. There’s obviously a volume on them. You try to keep them in your head, you’re doomed to start with. MS. ELMER-Yes. This is the last one that was sent to you, along with the plan, showing the 1,144 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-This is July 31? MS. ELMER-July 15. th MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have a July 15. I’ve got a July 31 letter that goes from 3880 to 1144. That’s one. thst That’s the one I have, but I don’t see one that takes me from 1144 down to your. MS. ELMER-To 473? No. I’m looking at a July 15 letter from us to the Planning Board, and Page Three is th very specific as to what the different alternatives are, and I would hope that you would just take a minute to read that. MR. VOLLARO-Let me try and find it in the maze of stuff I have here. MR. STROUGH-I don’t have it. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have it. My fellow Board member doesn’t have it, two Board members don’t have it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s not even listed in the resolutions. MR. VOLLARO-In the resolution, yes, I noticed that. MR. HUNSINGER-I couldn’t find one either. I looked for it at home. MS. ELMER-It was written in response to Staff notes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. There is a July 15, the Planning Board from the LA Group? th MS. ELMER-That’s right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s listed in the second resolution here. MR. VOLLARO-In the site plan resolution? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Planning Board from LA Group response to 6/25 Staff notes is listed as the July 15 is th listed in the list of materials on the site plan application not the Freshwater Wetlands permit. MS. ELMER-Yes, we tried to be specific to answer each of the sections of the wetland permitting for the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Certainly, had I seen that, and I don’t know, maybe I’m the only one missing it. It doesn’t sound like I am, but I haven’t had a chance, if I’ve lost it, that’s my problem, but if it hasn’t been given to the Planning Board, then I wouldn’t have been able to take a look at these reasonable alternatives. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MS. ELMER-Let me just review them with you and then I’ll give you my copy of it. The property consists of 13 and a half acres, and 7 acres of that is occupied by the Halfway Brook wetlands complex. The remaining lands are bedrock outcropping or areas already dedicated to campground activity. Campground activity occurs on the 1.6 acres of open space that you can see on your plans. Program space is limited, mostly because of the wetland and the bedrock. We did consider putting a building in the northeast corner of the property as we discussed earlier, and that lot is fairly level, but as we noted earlier, that is used for overflow parking, and the Council has plans to use the north central part of that site in the future, and we didn’t want to put buildings and traffic too close to the girls’ activity, and you read the letter from the Highway Superintendent about why he thinks it’s a good idea to maintain that parking area. Two other alternatives we talked about and we did not continue with include building or renting a larger office, not on the campground site. This was not considered to be a reasonable alternative because of the significant amount of interaction between the Staff and the campground staff and the camp attendees, and that’s one reason we are putting the bridge in is to make that connection safer and easier. They also, the architect considered adding a second story on the existing office, but once you look at installing an elevator, and building on two sets of fire stairs, one at each end of the building, you end up with a larger building that’s more expensive and less efficient. So that was no longer a consideration. We just, we noted further in there that we met with the Nationwide permitting program by the Army Corps of Engineers and with the DEC standards for wetland permitting, and we tried to be real specific in this letter about how we were also consistent with the Town’s wetland criteria. MR. VOLLARO-It would have been nice to have seen that. I might not have asked a lot of the questions I asked had I seen the letter that talked about positive alternatives. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Not right now. I’d like to just try and digest what’s in here. No, I’ve never seen that. I know I don’t have this letter. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Good evening. Okay. Now, do you have to get an Army Corps of Engineers permit? I think, Jon, you were mentioning something about that. MS. ELMER-No. It’s under a Nationwide program. We don’t have to get an individual permit. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and is that synonymous with a Federal wetland permit? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I just was trying to nail this down. Wetland here, wetland there, wetland everywhere. Everyone’s got a different version of it. Okay. Thanks. That was my first question. The ramping walkway material is going to be what? MS. ELMER-Wood. MR. STROUGH-What kind? MS. ELMER-I don’t know. Where are you going with this? MR. STROUGH-Not pressure treated, I hope. Well, the big thing is now pressure treated, kids, a lot of the playground areas are going to have to be removed because of the arsenic in the wood. MS. ELMER-Yes. We will defer to Ryan Biggs on that point. MR. STROUGH-And also the deck in back, which is going to be wood, as I understand it, with pilings. MS. ELMER-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-Are we going to avoid pressure treated wood there, too? MS. ELMER-I don’t know. MR. STROUGH-There is a new type of wood coming out. I don’t know what it’s called, but it’s replacing the pressure treated arsenic. MR. LONG-Yes. Dean Long from the LA Group. As far as, you know, the structural supports, you know, even typically right now will continue to be pressure treated. The decking frequently to be most cost effective are going to the manmade materials, the composite cement, wood chip material. So the decking will probably be that because then it avoids a lot of the maintenance issues as far as staining or anything in and 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) over the water, the wetlands themselves, but the under supports will be pressure treated with whichever one is available because they are changing right now again, and historically, you know, the support members, as far as their leaching capabilities into the wetlands have always been demonstrated to be very, very small. So, as far as effects on the wetlands, they’ll be very minor or nonexistent. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So the pilings only. The decking itself will either be the new material or the composite material, but it will not be the arsenic laden pressure treated wood as it’s called? MR. LONG-Right. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I suppose we’re going to use a similar material on the ramp walkway, whatever the composite material or whatever it turns out to be? MR. LONG-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. You did improve your planting, especially, I was concerned about headlight wash. MR. MAC EWAN-John, let’s keep it relative to the permit first. Then we’ll go to the site plan. MR. STROUGH-Well, everything’s connected. Okay. I’ll save my landscaping questions for later. Okay. C.T. Male review. Let’s talk about that, is it going to be a retention or detention basin? I didn’t see a spillway involved in the second design. MS. ELMER-No. It’s strictly detention to collect surface water runoff and allow it some treatment before it seeps back in. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So there won’t be an overspill? MS. ELMER-No. MR. STROUGH-Now, have we done a test pit there? MS. ELMER-We’ve had some test pits in there, yes. MR. STROUGH-What’s groundwater there? What elevation? MS. ELMER-Well, seasonal, one half to one. MR. STROUGH-Foot below current surface? MS. ELMER-That’s right. Yes. MR. STROUGH-And the detention basin is going to be dug down two feet below what the current surface level? MS. ELMER-Yes. I think that’s what the plans show, yes. MR. STROUGH-So that’ll be one foot underwater. MS. ELMER-Well, in the spring everything is under water out there. That’s right. The whole roadway and properties on both sides are (lost words). MR. STROUGH-So the detention basin won’t work very effectively with the spring rains. MS. ELMER-Well, it’s probably going to work better than it does now, and that’s what we’re hoping for. MR. STROUGH-Do we know what the perc rate is? MS. ELMER-I don’t think so. MR. STROUGH-No. Well, I have a serious concern. I don’t think C.T. Male has written off on this basin design, and if you remember from last time, Holly, I almost suggested that everything be diverted to the roadside, and of course that upset some of my fellow Planning Board members, and runs contrary to where I’ve stood on every application before this, but the reason why I said that is because the gullies alongside Meadowbrook Lane are very large and seemingly unused, and so that’s why I suggested that, but, go ahead. You were going to respond? MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. The first response to that would be the zoning requirements tell you you’ve got to keep all your stormwater management on site. You can’t put it off site. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. STROUGH-We’ve gone through this. Let’s get back to the detention basin. That’s what he wants to answer. MR. LONG-Yes. Given the characteristics of the site, the fact that we are in the floodplains. The fact that, you know, during spring high water we are not going to have any separation to the water table, the fact that we did not want to spill water to the adjacent neighbors on the other side lead us to redesign the original program where we were attempting to do a deeper basin which C.T. Male commented on that was probably the more impractical than the ultimate design that we’ve got. The design that we’ve got is a vast improvement over the current situation. It does not conform to your requirements of your separation distances to the 10 year floodplain because we’re in it. So we’ve compromised, and we’ve tried to come up with a situation here that works, and that works for the site itself but then also does not jeopardize the neighbors on the other side, and that was the big problem. We could solve all the stormwater problems on this site, but we would create a stormwater problem on the neighbor’s side. So we decided to make them the best we could with the property we had. MR. STROUGH-I realize the difficulties that you have there, but I remain unconvinced that it’s going to work because I don’t have a perc table. MR. LONG-It doesn’t matter what the perc is because it’s not going to perc. We recognize that. In the spring, it’s not going to perc. MR. STROUGH-If it’s not going to contain all the rainwater in the spring, then doesn’t that also jeopardize the neighbors because of overflow? MR. LONG-No, because it’ll overflow into the wetland. The neighbors are just slightly higher than. MR. STROUGH-I just asked if there was going to be a spillway. MR. LONG-Right. No. The basin has to have an emergency outlet. The floodplain does penetrate it up into here. So, you know, at times, if you have a 100 year, or when you exceed the 10 year, you know, the basin will be full, just as it is full now at the 10 year, just as is the parking lot full at the 10 year. We’re operating within the floodplain and we can’t change that, and the only way we could change that is if we elevated the entire site by a couple of feet, and we can’t do that because then we would increase the wetland fills and we would push all the water off to the neighbors. MR. STROUGH-I realize it’s a less than ideal condition, but something in what you just said makes me feel better, in that you do have an emergency spillway that will go directed to the wetland and not your neighbor’s property. MR. LONG-Yes. It’s slanted and graded so that it, you know, when we responded to the comments, the second set of C.T. Male comments where they pointed out that our pipes weren’t going to work, and we went to an all sheet flow plan, we looked very carefully at our elevations and made sure that we were lower, and the secondary spillway or the swale off of the side of the side of the basin is lower than our neighbor’s. That became our most important design criteria is not to spill water off this site. This site floods, we know that. We can’t do anything about that. That wouldn’t harm all the adjacent properties. So we’ve had to keep that situation stable. MR. STROUGH-And I see where you did make your elevations better. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. All right. DEC’s reviewing this currently probably, right? MR. LONG-Yes, and they have visited the site. I believe the record shows or discusses Al Koechlein has come down, re-reviewed his wetland delineation, walked through the entire project, as far as both the office expansion, the boardwalk, as well as the current nature trails on the parcel. Basically, you know, because it’s a pre-existing building, in the adjacent area, it makes it a reasonable expansion under the DEC permitting criteria. It’s not the type of thing that they would entertain warmly if it was a 100% new building, but because it’s an expansion, it fits better within their permitting criteria. As far as the boardwalk, because it’s going to be post and pile supported, and, you know, will be elevated to a sufficient height in order to pass the floodway, pass the water through the floodway, you know, it’s also compatible as far as the wetlands issues go. Plus with the boardwalk design we are flexible with the positioning, so that we can avoid many of the larger trees and keep the path as short as possible. So all these criteria were the items we discussed with Al out in the field, and he agreed with the approach, and the overall components of the permit application and what the applicant wanted to do here. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to inject one thing, John, excuse me just for a second, but in reading the letter that Holly’s given me, are we talking about that construction will be completed pursuant to a New York State 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) DEC Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which is currently referred to as SPDES. Is that what you’re talking about? This is contingent upon receiving a SPDES permit for stormwater runoff and discharge? MR. LONG-We have to have two permits from DEC. We have to have the Article 24, which is the State wetland permit, and then we have to have the SPDES and water quality certifications from DEC, because over the last year and a half or so, they’ve been, as DEC has become more concerned about water quality protection as it relates to wetlands, is that they were requiring applicants to have a SPDES permit as part of the general permit for stormwaters, and then because of the overlapping jurisdiction and the Federal government under the Federal wetlands, and even under most of the Nationwide permits, they’re required to issue their water quality certification, which is basically a process by which they assure that there’s a stormwater plan, in the simple sense here. MR. VOLLARO-So they would have to be in receipt, I guess, of your stormwater management plan, in order to look at that. Is that correct? MR. LONG-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, John. That’s all I had. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Snow removals, again, just a concern where the melts going to go, and not onto your neighbors. Is snow removal going to be, the piles, the snow piles piled up on the western part of that parking lot, so that they’re more likely to go into that detention basin when they melt? MR. LONG-We have a little bit of room over there, you know, especially since we’ve shortened up the parking lot from the original design, that we can designate for snow storage. MR. STROUGH-And you have less of a need, I would think, during the winter season, because it tends to be seasonal operation. MR. LONG-Right. MR. STROUGH-And I also understand it doesn’t have to be, but it tends to be. MR. LONG-Yes. It tends to be, you know, most of the larger training activities and the group activities at the office, of course, happen in the fall. Cookie sale season is certainly a busy time there. MR. STROUGH-And I see that the parking lot area is all pitched toward that detention basin as well. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s all the questions I have. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? MR. RINGER-I have one question. When Bob was asking Holly questions on alternate locations and stuff, Holly mentioned the one area they didn’t want to touch because the Girl Scouts had future plans for that area. What future plans are? MS. ELMER-They had talked about building an amphitheater up there, with the rock outcrop, and making into crushed stone benches like they do at Shepherd Park in Lake George. MR. RINGER-I know what you mean. The Boy Scouts have that at Wacapomani. MS. ELMER-Yes, using the bedrock that way. MR. RINGER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HILTON-I have a question real quick of the applicant, if I may. The way I understand it, the detention basin on Meadowbrook is not going to have an outlet culvert of any kind? Okay. I’m just looking at some comments here from C.T. Male, July 22. One of their comments reads, the stormwater report includes the nd simulation of a two foot by one foot culvert outlet from the basin along Meadowbrook Road. This culvert is not shown on the grading plan. So I’m just wondering, your report had the culvert, but the grading plan doesn’t show it. So, is there some kind of clarification? I mean, will you have the culvert? Will you not have the culvert? MR. LONG-I believe that’s the alternate culvert that controls the flow of water past the site. So that became one of the mottling points. So I believe it already exists. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, George? MR. HILTON-That’s all I have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-So, George, there’s going to be culvert pipes under the access and exit, I mean, to keep the drainage flow going along Meadowbrook? MR. HILTON-Well, again, in looking at the plans, I’m not sure they indicate that kind of culvert. MR. LONG-Yes, I believe those are all, any of the existing structures on the right of way were just design points. They’re not going to be changed by the applicant. MR. LAPPER-Unless the Town decided to (lost words). MR. LONG-Right. MR. HILTON-I was just asking the question because I’m not sure, like in the stormwater management report actually talked about an additional culvert and the plan didn’t show it. MR. STROUGH-Well, would the Highway Department review that? MR. HILTON-I believe they would, but also C.T. Male has addressed that in a comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you satisfied with that response? I mean, they used it as a measuring point. MR. HILTON-That’s fine. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll open up the public hearing referencing the Freshwater Wetlands permit. Does anyone want to comment on that? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s move on to the Site Plan. SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SFR- 1A LOCATION: 213 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ON THE SITE. ALSO, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A PARKING LOT EXPANSION AS WELL AS A FOOTBRIDGE ACROSS HALFWAY BROOK. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 12-02, UV 44-92, FW2- 92, UV 1226, OPS 21 DEC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10/60- 2-6 LOT SIZE: 13.38 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, HOLLY ELMER, AND DEAN LONG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing has been left open. MR. HILTON-I guess the same comments would apply. We’re looking for some updated information on the bridge, the height above the creek, stormwater silt fencing be shown on areas to be disturbed, DEC permits that are applicable. We haven’t received any confirmation or any correspondence from DEC. We’d just like to know that those permits are in place. Any comments from C.T. Male, engineering comments should be addressed. MR. LAPPER-I’m just going to hand George a copy of the LA Group letter to DEC dated August 12 with th the new drawings that is our application, with a copy of the application as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Holly, did you want to go over the site plan itself? Anything more you wanted to add to it? MS. ELMER-I don’t think so, unless there’s any specific questions. We already were noted the reduction in the parking spaces, the addition of the wetland mitigation area on the western portion of the site and the letter from the Highway Superintendent which speaks to the proposed access point and parking in general. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-C.T. Male’s letter of the 21, were all of those questions answered and do we have a copy of st that? MS. ELMER-What month was that? MR. RINGER-June 21. st MS. ELMER-Yes. That’s an older letter now. MR. RINGER-We got a letter from C.T. Male on that? MS. ELMER-You should have an August 16 letter. th MR. RINGER-I got the 16, but I didn’t think he addressed all the items in this 21. thst MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that, Larry. I don’t think they were addressed. I didn’t see that as addressed on their 16 letter. th MS. ELMER-We’ve been working with C.T. Male over the past couple of months here on this project, had some correspondence back and forth while we met with the ZBA. MR. RINGER-The only thing we’ve got that I see is the June 21 letter from C.T. Male and then the August st 16 letter from C.T. Male. th MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and there’s three things that they still wanted clarifications on, which I think we’ve been kind of getting clarification on here tonight. MR. LAPPER-This is all that’s left. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, would you agree that we need at least a full signoff from C.T. Male, an inclusive signoff on their August 16 letter and their June 21 letter, in addition to a signoff on the thst stormwater management report that’s been submitted to DEC? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think the June letter they pretty much stated here in their first paragraph that they’ve reviewed those plans that they resubmitted. In addition to being okay with whatever issues were in that June letter, they’ve got these three issues that they wanted further clarification on, and I think that’s the only hang up we have here. MR. RINGER-I didn’t quite read it that way. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s kind of the way I’m looking at it. MR. VOLLARO-For example, if we want to get specific on the June 25 letter, that was a response to C.T. th Male’s letter of June 24, when we talked about the depth of stormwater basins in C.T. Male’s letter, there th was really no response from the LA Group on that. It was depth of stormwater basins blank, never talked to it. Then it goes on to depth of cover over stormwater pipes, which was question number two from C.T. Male. MR. HUNSINGER-They’d said earlier that they’re not going to install the pipes. MR. VOLLARO-I know that, but I’m talking about the depth of stormwater basins. That’s the first question that C.T. Male asked, and I don’t see a response to that from the LA Group. MR. LONG-Right. The response was the design change that went to sheet flow. So that we would eliminate the need for the stormwater pipe from the parking area into the basin. So, a lot of these things aren’t necessarily a letter response. A lot of these things were the design changes. That’s the letter that specifically caused us to go from pipes and discharge to the detention basin to sheet flow through the swale overflow. So those, you know, that was the response to that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have some of the same, you know I had written these questions down, and it seems like it’s the same question that Larry has, and I just made a note to myself here, need a full signoff by C.T. Male. I would like to see a brief letter from C.T. Male that says we’re satisfied with this plan, and with the stormwater management report. I don’t get that from the two C.T. Male letters that I’ve got or the responses from, see a lot of this I can see where there’s been a lot of design work done to mitigate some of the 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) problems. I can understand that. Now C.T. Male should certainly understand the engineering mitigations of problems that they’ve raised, and if they agree with mitigation and the way the design changes tend to satisfy the problem, then he ought to be able to clearly state that in a letter to this Board, I feel. I just don’t think that C.T. Male has given me that warm and fuzzy thing that says things are okay. I happen to agree with Larry on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, we’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess my feeling is that the August 16 letter deals with that, because they’re th saying they’ve reviewed the resubmitted plans and there’s only three issues left. So, I guess that’s just my opinion. I guess the only thing that I wanted some clarification on, maybe some discussion on, is how you replace wetlands. MR. LONG-Basically, at this site and many sites, well, all wetland replacement relies on hydrology. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LONG-If you don’t have the water, you’re never going to build a wetland. Fortunately, we have property available on this site that’s outside of the wetland near the adjacent areas, and operating within the seasonal water table and within the stream bed water table. So by going into those areas and removing some of the under story, regrading slightly, lowering the elevation, we’ll intercept the water table at depths that would be compatible with wetland development. We don’t want to have a wetland, necessarily, that has 100% saturation year round. We’re looking probably more at building a, you know, a wetland that’s in character with all the rest of that wetland along Halfway Brook that’s shrub dominated with red maples, red hosier dogwood, gray dogwood, silky dogwood and willows, and that kind of thing. So we only need to probably in most places excavate out six to twelve inches of additional soil in order to intercept the water table at a level that will allow us to have shrub wetlands. So that’s essentially the process. We have designated one area, at least. We have other opportunities on site. We’ve committed to developing the 1500 square feet, and what it gets down to is selecting a site that we can minimize excavation, minimize disturbance of large trees, or have the large trees actually become a component of a wetland. Frequently in the northeast, wetlands are not only, you know, they’re just not a continuous area of wet soils. They’ll have hills and hummocks in them, which have a lot of additional wildlife benefits. So that’s ideally what we’d like to find is an area perhaps that has a few large hemlocks that are, you know, one of the components of wetlands in the region, and be able to work immediately around that area. MR. HUNSINGER-So the plot plans that you have presented, that show wetland replacement, that may not necessarily be the 1500 square feet that you redevelop. MR. LONG-Yes. We have in excess of 1500 square feet available, and our target is to build 1500. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I guess I just want to make sure I understand. Basically all you do is you go in, take some soil out, re-grade it. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you then put in plantings that would be consistent with what you would find within a wetland? MR. LONG-Probably at this site what we will end up doing is utilizing cuttings and plantings from the adjacent undisturbed wetland because there’s so much wetland adjacent areas with the appropriate species, you know, the dogwood species and the willows. So, to augment it certainly we’ll end up buying some, some wetland plants, but since we’re probably going to be dealing primarily with shrubs, we will try to harvest cuttings on site. MR. HUNSINGER-In the process of creating additional wetlands, don’t you impact the existing wetlands? Because when you think about common construction techniques, you put up silt fences and you take all these other precautions to stay as far away as you can. MR. LONG-Right. That’s one of the challenges is to find an area that will convert easily, yet not disturb an existing wetland, yet not deprive an existing wetland of a water source. So, those will be some of the considerations, and of course we want to have something that we can access easily, so that, you know, we don’t, when we’re bringing in a small track hoe, we don’t destroy more than we’re making in the end, and that’s part of the reason we selected the location that we did. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have any further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? Nothing? MR. RINGER-Nothing. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-As far as I’m concerned, everything is fine. I just, can we make some kind of a condition as far as, you guys are really concerned about C.T. Male not. MR. VOLLARO-My feeling, Catherine, is that I haven’t seen a nice clean C.T. Male signoff, and I understand what they’re doing, and I understand there’s some engineering work being done. There’s some mitigation being done that C.T. Male should be cognizant of and should say, finally give us a letter that says they’re satisfied with this. Now there’s some people on the Board who feel that the last letter from C.T. Male satisfied that requirement. I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t necessarily, I didn’t say that. I wasn’t trying to imply that. I think what they were responding to was that June letter, and the response to the June letter I get out of that the issues that were in the June letter they’re comfortable with, except these three outstanding things they’re not comfortable with. MS. ELMER-We actually went back and forth with them in between. We wrote them a letter June 25, after th we got their original comments, and then they sent a letter July 22 to Chris Round, and they copied the nd applicant on it. The design of the parking lot has been revised to show elimination of the catch basin and storm pipe and they go into more engineering details. So there was additional back and forth. MR. VOLLARO-So there’s some additional information that’s flowed between the LA Group, that we haven’t really gotten to see. MS. ELMER-I don’t know if you’ve seen it. MR. HILTON-Just for clarification, pardon me, just for clarification, I have in the file a June 21 letter, a July st 22 letter and an August 16 letter, all from C.T. Male, addressing comments along the way. ndth MRS. LA BOMBARD-So Staff feels that everything has been? MR. HILTON-I can’t say that. I’m reading the most recent comments, and there are three comments, and the 22 has a few more comments that appear to be a little different, and, I mean, I don’t work for C.T. nd Male. I can’t say whether they’ve signed off or not. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it just seems to me like I don’t think it, I would hate to have the applicant have to come back on this, because they’ve certainly addressed the issues. It’s just that we haven’t gotten a response that we would like to hear from C.T. Male. MR. STROUGH-I agree with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could we condition it? MR. STROUGH-We have others. MR. MAC EWAN-We can do anything we want. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I’m saying. That’s the way I would go right now. MS. ELMER-Yes, that sounds like a conditional approval. That’s what we had talked about with C.T. Male, because we can’t do all the floodway work right now, and we agreed that, you know, hydraulically, we can confirm that no elevation increase will occur, and we discussed the others. MR. LAPPER-And we would (lost words) with conditional approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, that’s the way I feel right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, with all that’s been said, I don’t want to just keep pulling this along. I do want to ask a question, though. If you go to your L-3, there’s a note on the L-3 drawing about an existing septic clean out to remain. Is that a septic tank or is that a clean out for the sanitary sewer? MS. ELMER-A clean out for the sanitary sewer. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s no septic tank there? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MS. ELMER-No. MR. LAPPER-The site is completely serviced by sewer. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to, because whenever I see an existing septic clean out, that, in my mind that triggers the clean out to the septic tank, and if that’s not what it is, that’s fine. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No. I have no further questions. I mean, I assume we’re going to have to do a SEQRA on this. No, I’ve just got some potential conditions I’ve written up, at some point they’ll need to be reviewed. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. The only comment I’ll have is on the bridge to make sure it’s, I guess, accessible for canoes. I just don’t know how high that would be. I guess three feet would be acceptable. I’m just sitting here trying to think if I was in a canoe right now how much room I’d have, but, you know, have you even looked at that as far as how high it has to be and if three feet would be acceptable. I assume it would be, but. MR. LAPPER-We’re comfortable having that submitted to the Town and the Town engineers and the Park and Rec Department, once it’s designed. MR. METIVIER-The stream itself is usually a foot below the bank, except on those exceptional days where it’s a couple of feet above it, but. MR. LAPPER-You shouldn’t be canoeing on those days. MR. METIVIER-Yes, well, so I would imagine you’re looking at four feet there, with maybe even more if you have it on, I wouldn’t say blocks, but on platforms. So technically you could be as high as five feet from where your canoe would sit. So I think that would be acceptable. MR. HILTON-If I can speak to the bridge here. MR. METIVIER-Please do. MR. HILTON-Just to kind of clarify our position. I don’t mean to interrupt. MR. METIVIER-No, that’s fine. MR. HILTON-In speaking with the Director of Parks and Recreation, as I’ve noted in my notes, he envisions this area as a kayak, canoe accessible recreation area at some point, and, yes there are certain culverts and bridges out there that limit canoe/kayak access at this point. The intent is to not recreate those situations along the river, like you have possibly at Meadowbrook Road right now. In speaking with him, he was giving me a general figure of around three feet. I mean, certainly ideally, I guess, the Board, or a condition could be placed on it to work with the Director of Parks and Rec to approve any bridge that is built in this location to make sure that access, that it’s still accessible, and also the intent was to not create any impacts of ponding or flooding upstream, and I think that’ll be taken care of as well, but that’s our intent with that comment, and certainly if you work with the Director of Parks and Rec, I think that would be good. MR. METIVIER-Obviously, even if they really wanted to work with it, there’s areas of the stream that have to be, brush has to be removed from it, which obviously isn’t the applicant’s problem, except for any brush that might be on his property, but there’s other areas between Cronin and Meadowbrook there that you couldn’t get a canoe over. MR. HILTON-And there may be plans in place to go ahead on other properties and clear it out and kind of make the channel passable. MR. METIVIER-Right. Besides that, I think it’s nice. It’s a lovely building, much improved. I like the landscape plan as well. I think you did a nice job. Good luck with the grass. MR. LAPPER-I just have one comment, when it comes to the Freshwater Wetlands permit, as Bob mentioned, in terms of the expiration and also on the site plan, they still have to do a fundraising. So we’re probably not going to be in the ground for at least another year. So I would like to ask that both of those don’t expire for two and a half years. The Town Code provides that it’s a year unless you, unless the Planning Board decides otherwise. So here we’d ask for two and a half years. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Did you get that, Mr. Vollaro? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you don’t want what to expire for two and a half years, Jon? MR. LAPPER-The Freshwater Wetlands permit and the Site Plan. We’d like to ask that they don’t expire for two and a half years because there’ll be a fundraising starting immediately after the approvals. They probably won’t be in the ground for at least a year, and it could be more than that, and since you asked, in terms of the Freshwater Wetlands permit, the Town Code provides at site plan that it’s a year, unless the Planning Board specifies otherwise. So we’d like to ask that both go two and a half years, which should be sufficient. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-My name is Jim Piper. I live at 206 Meadowbrook Road, which is diagonally across. I’m also a member of the Board of Directors of the Girl Scouts, and I have lived in the Meadowbrook Road area since 1955. So I’m very familiar with this area. I’m familiar with the wetlands. I found it very humorous that they’re talking about probably a canoe accessway, because right now the Halfway Brook behind the Girl Scouts is running at about eight inches. So I don’t know how much of a canoe access you would have, but by all means, I think what we have in mind of a design of a bridge would definitely be accommodating to any canoe traffic that would pass through there, and I would just like to say that I am in support of this project, and I believe the last time that we were in front of the Planning Board I presented you with a petition of the names of the neighbors who were in favor of this project also when we appeared first in front the Zoning Board back in February, numerous times that we’ve been in front of the various Boards. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I guess we’re going to have to say that they’re not small to medium. They’re fairly good sized, but would be probably sufficiently mitigated by engineering attention, or engineering design, is the only thing I can think of there. This is a heavily flooded area. They’re in a 100 year floodplain here. So this is a heavily flooded area. I don’t think we can just say that we’ve got a small to medium problem here. MR. MAC EWAN-I would concur with that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Does everyone else concur with that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks, Bob. “Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a CEA?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and if yes, explain briefly, please. MR. MAC EWAN-Re-read that question. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will this project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a CEA?” In other words, this is a CEA in this area, and will this project have an impact on the environment of this CEA. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what we’re doing here is we’re developing in, what I consider, and I may be wrong, a Critical Environmental Area. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, you need to understand that the term Critical Environmental Area in this context is not, is a term of art. Those letters are capitalized. A “CEA” or Critical Environmental Area is an area so designated by the legislative body here the Town Board under specific provisions of the Environmental 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) Conservation Law. Lake George has been designated as a Critical Environmental Area and there are a couple of other areas in the Town that have been designated as Critical Environmental Areas, but as far as we know, George is checking. MR. HILTON-Yes, my understanding of this is that this area is not. MR. VOLLARO-Is not a CEA. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not. So you have to understand that it’s a term of art. It’s not an environmental area that you all believe is critical. It’s something that’s been officially designated as a Critical Environmental Area, and this is not one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. In other words, wetlands are sensitive, but they’re not necessarily a CEA. MR. SCHACHNER-Not necessarily, correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Only areas that are, only specific geographical areas that have been designated by official agencies, including the Town, and the Town has designated some critical environmental areas. I think there are some around Glen Lake, for example, and there are wetlands that are critical environmental areas, but it’s only if they’re officially designated by the governing body, and this area is not a CEA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gotcha. Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-Just as a point of interest, where can we get that information, what is or what is not, is that something that Mr. Hilton would have? MR. SCHACHNER-Not necessarily on him, but I’m sure we have that. MR. HILTON-Well, we have a digital representation of it in our GIS. We could certainly print out a map and give it to you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Great. MR. MAC EWAN-So the answer to that is no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Understand that you did not answer each of Questions C1. through C7. in the negative. You answered one in the affirmative. So that requires you to have some discussion, and I think Bob started this, but I don’t know if he finished it, to have some discussion of evaluation of the significance of that impact. Understand that this is a Short Form EAF, so it does not have the actual check boxes, small to moderate, or potentially large, but you have to engage in that same discussion in order to decide whether the particular impact that you did identify is significant or adverse or requires further discussion either in a Long Form environmental assessment form or an Environmental Impact Statement. I’m not suggesting it does. I’m just telling you that you have to answer that question by evaluating the one potential adverse impact that you did identify when you went through C1. through C7. MR. MAC EWAN-And after he made that comment, I kind of polled the Board, and everyone kind of was in agreement that the mitigation can be handled through the engineering that they’re proposing on the site. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And he said it was fairly large impact. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That’s exactly why I’m making this point. That you identified this as a fairly large impact, but I think Craig’s right. Then there was discussion that Bob initiated about that being mitigated. So before you, what I’m suggesting is, in order to fully complete the SEQRA process, before you vote on a motion for a negative declaration, there should be something in the resolution or in your record to indicate how you evaluate that particular potential impact that you discussed. MR. MAC EWAN-So you basically want us to tie it to, and how they’re going to mitigate those problems? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Does that have to be in the resolution, then? MR. SCHACHNER-I think it should be. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, do you want to take a stab at it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that the mitigation is based on the agreement between C.T. Male and the applicant that the applicant has done all that it needs to do to satisfy C.T. Male as an engineering entity. MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess what I’m suggesting is without putting words in anybody’s mouth, if you feel this way, you should evaluate the impact you identified, and if you feel this way, you should indicate that you believe that, due to that mitigation, the impact that you identified will not be large, significant, or potentially significantly adverse, if you feel that way. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think the impact is that great, personally, because it doesn’t trigger the issuance of a Nationwide permit, other than a wetland disturbance permit from DEC. MR. VOLLARO-And a SPDES permit. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s all relative. I mean, I agree with the way you explained it, but, I mean, I don’t particularly see it as a significant impact. It’s easily contained, and the wetlands that are impacted are being replaced. MR. METIVIER-This situation already exists, and I don’t see how this project is going to add much significance to the situation at hand. I mean, the situation already exists. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a difficult site to begin with. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to change your determination on it that it’s a small to moderate impact? MR. METIVIER-I would say it is a small to moderate impact, if any, a small to moderate impact, and that it is a mitigated through engineering review. MR. STROUGH-Should we also put in, along with the mitigation, through engineering review, the nature of the application. I mean, it’s seasonal. I mean, it’s kind of in an environmentally friendly situation there. I mean, should that be taken into consideration as well? MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a sense that the Board wants to change that, then, to a small impact? MR. STROUGH-I would go for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think that what Bob said originally, and whoever mentioned it, is we are in a very serious floodplain here, that, you know, you have the big one, you can have some problem, but I don’t know why, even if you say that it’s a fairly large impact, the point is that, like Tony said, it’s not making matters much worse than what they are right now. As a matter of fact, the new technology and the new design is going to, just the fact that we’re building a new structure and addressing those other concerns, is a mitigation factor, I believe. MR. STROUGH-Well, the structure will be higher than it is currently. MR. VOLLARO-All of what my fellow Board members are saying is true, except that I want the hired engineer for the Town of Queensbury to so state. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. We’re in agreement with that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I’m saying. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s narrow it down to two sentences. MR. VOLLARO-Narrow it down to two sentences, and I think I did that once. I can do it again. MR. MAC EWAN-Do it again. MR. VOLLARO-Let C.T. Male make a complete signoff on this application, including the stormwater report, that all of the engineering that’s being done is, satisfactorily mitigates any problems that C.T. Male may have seen through the process, through the examination process. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. SCHACHNER-Those sound like conditions to me, and those may be appropriate at the time when you issue decisions on the two applications that are pending. Maybe I didn’t explain myself thoroughly about this SEQRA review. You’ve actually taken my suggestion and gone way, way, way, way beyond what I was trying to look for. All I was suggesting is that because you’ve identified one potential environmental impact, in answering questions C1. through 7, part of your discussion and motion, if you’re going to make a motion for a negative declaration, should include some evaluation of that impact as to whether it is, in your opinion, substantial, large, important, or significant. If you feel that the potential impact you identified, even with the mitigation, is substantial, large, important or significant, then SEQRA requires you to either get a Long Form Environmental Assessment Form, or a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. I’m not suggesting you need to do those things. What I’m saying is you should be somehow including words in your motion under SEQRA that evaluate how substantial, large, important or significant the potential impact you’ve identified is. MR. MAC EWAN-So backing up five minutes ago, we polled the Board and the Board said small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s not what we all, we all didn’t say small to moderate. MR. SCHACHNER-There wasn’t really a consensus on that, and remember that, unlike the Long Form, this form doesn’t really call for a small to moderate or potentially large determination. I would suggest you evaluate the impact in terms of whether you feel it’s substantial, large, important or significant or not. MR. STROUGH-Well, we said small to moderate. I thought we agreed on that, and then how about engineering measures. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that we agreed on that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We didn’t agree on that. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see a full Board poll. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the first thing we said was not small to moderate. The first thing we said was fairly large. MR. MAC EWAN-My informal poll I had you, I had Tony, I had Chris, I had at least myself. So there’s four right there. MR. STROUGH-Small to moderate, and the engineering measures offered by the applicant and the nature of the proposal mitigate the identified potential impacts. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. Leave it alone. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. FW 1-2002 & SP 30-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s identify some conditions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. John, you said you had a bunch written up. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, here’s what I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s start with the C.T. Male letter of August the 16. th MR. SCHACHNER-And you’re talking about the Freshwater Wetlands permit first? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we can go back and do that. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t care. I was just asking. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, let’s go back and do that and get that out of the way. MR. RINGER-The Freshwater. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ll introduce a motion to approve Freshwater permit 1-02 as prepared by Staff, with the following condition, that the permit be extended for two and a half years, which in my calculations brings us to about January 31, 2005. MR. STROUGH-I put down January 1. Do you want to review these conditions first or just go through st them? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. We’re not doing the site plan. We’re just doing the permit. We’ll put the conditions on the next one. MR. HUNSINGER-We have to have a date certain. MR. SCHACHNER-I think John is going to propose, correct me if I’m wrong, John, some conditions on the Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. STROUGH-Well, I thought that what we talked about during the Freshwater Wetlands permit, I mean, I don’t know, maybe these might be better on the site plan, but I have culvert stormwater situation should be reviewed by C.T. Male and the Town Highway Department. The applicant must satisfactorily address any and all concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s site plan. MR. STROUGH-Decking, bridge, walkway decks will not be made of arsenic treated, pressure treated wood. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s site plan. MR. STROUGH-All right. The proposal must receive C.T. Male’s engineering review signoff. MR. VOLLARO-Can I make a suggestion here, that we, the condition that we make is that the applicant has satisfied the 179-6-100 wetlands regulation, and that’s a pretty encompassing, if you take the time to sit and read this document. MR. LAPPER-You can’t make that a condition, though. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I was just about to say, you can’t make it a condition. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SCHACHNER-You just suggested, I thought, as a condition that the applicant satisfy. That’s your decision. Your decision is either the applicant meets those criteria or does not. You can condition your decision in any number of ways, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to issue as a condition of approval that the applicant meet those criteria. That’s what you’re being asked to determine. MR. VOLLARO-Well, no, I said he has met. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-In my opinion, after reading this and listening to all the discussions that we have here, and this statement of findings and so on, I believe the applicant has met the requirements of 179-6-100, and that would eliminate a lot of the discussion and a lot of the things that we’re going to be putting into this wetlands permit. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think it shortcuts it. That’s what I’m saying. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Well, I left off, the proposal must receive C.T. Male’s engineer review signoff. Should that go on this? MR. VOLLARO-It should go on the next one, I think, all on the site plan. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The bridge design will be reviewed and approved by the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department. MR. MAC EWAN-Site plan. MR. STROUGH-And C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Site plan. MR. STROUGH-And the applicant must receive DEC permit and SPDES approval, also the DEC must approve the wetlands mitigation proposal. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s part of what he’s doing with his permit. I mean, if we just leave the permit alone, the way it is, and tie Bob’s comments to it, I think we’re safe, because everything else you’re talking about is relative to the site plan. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And extend the two and a half years. MR. MAC EWAN-Who introduced that motion? Did you do that, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Cathy did. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy did. MR. STROUGH-And she was working on the permit date as January 30, which is close enough, probably, for everybody. MR. MAC EWAN-Always tie it to the end of the month. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, the last day is the 31. That’s what I said that. st MR. HILTON-Just to repeat a comment that was made originally, with this Freshwater Wetlands permit application by the Planning Staff, consideration could be given to requiring the issuance of a DEC permit and incorporating any conditions that may go with that permit into our Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine with us. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Does somebody want to amend, do you want to amend your motion, Cathy? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. VOLLARO-I think she can amend it very simply, Catherine, by just saying that it is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got my book open here. MR. VOLLARO-179-6-100 is called Wetlands Regulations, Page 82. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but in other words, they don’t have to. MR. VOLLARO-He’s saying that the issuance of this permit, that they satisfy the requirements of the Wetland Regulations. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The requirements. MR. VOLLARO-And that covers a whole bunch of stuff. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And any conditions that DEC imposes on the permit application be also a part of the Freshwater permit from the Town. If you want to reintroduce that and move it along. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FW 1-2002 GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following, Freshwater Wetlands Permit – FW 1-2002 Applicant: Girl Scouts of the Adirondack Council, Inc. Property Owner: Same Wetland Affected: Halfway Brook and associated wetland Zone: SFR-1A Location: 213 Meadowbrook Road Applicant proposes construction of a 2,800 sq. ft. addition to the Administrative Offices on the site. Portions of the site improvements are within the adjacent wetland setback as well as within the wetland. Cross Reference: UV 12-02, UV 44-92, FW2-92, UV 1226, OPS 21 Warren County Planning: 6/12/02 Tax Map No. 296.16-1-10/60-2-6 Lot size: 13.38 acres/Section: 179-6-100 Public Hearing: June 25, 2002 July 23, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/29/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/19/02; and 8/14 PB from G. Hilton 7/17 ZBA Resolution 7/16 ZBA from CB: regarding 7/15 letter from H. Elmer, LA Group 7/16 Notice of Public Hearing 6/25 PB resolution: recommendation 6/25 Staff Notes 6/21 PB from CB 6/19 ZBA resolution: refer to PB for recommendation 6/18 Notice of Public Hearing 6/12 Warren Co. Planning 6/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 6, Zoning Ordinance, of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 23, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Freshwater Wetlands requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit extend for two and one half years, which brings us to January 31, 2005, and 2. That the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Section 179-6-100 which are the wetland regulations, and 3. Any condition that the DEC imposes is part of the Freshwater Permit from the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about the list of conditions. Have you got some conditions there, Mr. Strough, for the site plan? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I thought now we’re going to jump to site plan discussion. I mean, I’ve already read what we have so far for conditions, but I couldn’t talk about a lot of things because they were site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-We already did the site plan. Where have you been? MR. STROUGH-Gee, when I brought up landscaping, you put the hatch down on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’ve already gone through the site plan review, though. We opened up the public hearing. We did the SEQRA. We closed it, and we’re ready to move to a motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It came back to you in the second go around. MR. STROUGH-Fine. MR. LAPPER-There’s always time for nice comments on landscaping. MR. STROUGH-The landscaping was an improvement over what you did before, by putting in the white spruces, and I wanted to make that comment, and that’s fine. I can live with that. Okay. Now the conditions I have. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, should we go into a five minute on this, to prepare this? MR. MAC EWAN-I want to hear the conditions first. Then I’m going to assign a couple of people to write this thing up, and make sure where we are. MRS. LA BOMBARD-John already gave us the conditions, and we always. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’re discussing it. His conditions might not be the Board’s conditions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m sorry. Excuse me. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’ll gladly read them again and then we can go from there. Okay. Culvert and stormwater situation should be reviewed by C.T. Male and the Town Highway Department. The applicant must satisfactorily address any or all concerns. Number Two, decking, bridge, walkway, decks will not be made of arsenic treated, pressure treated wood, with the pilings being the exception. Three, the proposal 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) must receive C.T. Male’s engineering review signoff. Four, bridge design will be reviewed and approved by the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department and C.T. Male, and, five, the applicant must receive DEC permits, SPDES approvals, and DEC must approve the wetlands mitigation proposal. That’s what I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you re-read your first one. MR. STROUGH-Culvert and stormwater situation should be reviewed by C.T. Male and Town Highway Department. The applicant must satisfactorily address any and all concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Changed that to be reviewed and approved. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Done. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. HILTON-I just want to make sure that somehow, whether it’s in the form of conditions or however you wish to go with this, that we get updated plans. We’ve had discussions tonight about new decking, walkway, updated plans showing that walkway, updated plans clearly indicating the wetland creation area. Again, I’m just looking for some information in the plans. MR. LAPPER-What we submitted to you has it, but we’ll resubmit the final. MR. HILTON-Okay, yes, with the other things. I mean, this is what Staff is thinking anyway. New information that shows the new decking, walkway, updated plans that shows a detailed area of wetland creation, indicating silt fencing and stormwater management measures to be put in place. Again, reseeding and other stormwater mitigation for construction activities, to have that in a new revised plan to be submitted, and that’s what we’re looking for. MR. LAPPER-All acceptable to us. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Introduce your motion. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t get everything that George was putting down. I can’t write that fast. MR. MAC EWAN-The application and plans need to be revised. MR. STROUGH-I’ll get the list from George, and then I’ll have. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to take five? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll take five. All right. I’ll call the meeting back to order. John, what have you got? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Do you want me to? MR. MAC EWAN-Rattle them off. MR. STROUGH-Do you want me to make this as part of a motion? MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC., Introduced John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following, Site Plan Review No. 30-2002 Applicant: Girl Scouts of the Adirondack Council, Inc. Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: Jonathan Lapper Zone: SFR-1A Location: 213 Meadowbrook Road Applicant proposes construction of a 2,800 sq. ft. addition to the Administrative Offices on the site. Also, the applicant proposes a parking lot expansion as well as a footbridge across Halfway Brook. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) Cross Reference: UV 12-02, UV 44-92, FW2-92, UV 1226, OPS 21 DEC Warren Co. Planning: 6/12/02 Tax Map No. 296.16-1-10/60-2-6 Lot size: 13.38 acres/Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: July 23, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/29/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/12/02; and 8/14 Planning Board from G. Hilton 8/16 CT Male Eng. comments 7/31 New Info 7/17 ZBA Resolution 7/16 ZBA from CB: regarding 7/15 letter from H. Elmer, LA Group 7/16 Notice of Public Hearing 7/15 PB from LA Group: response to 6/25 Staff Notes 7/9 R. Missita, Highway Superintendent 6/25 PB resolution: Favorable recommendation to ZBA 6/25 Staff Notes 6/25 PB from LA Group: response to CT Male engineering comments 6/25 Received at meeting: petition from neighbors, In Favor 6/24 Fax to J. Lapper: staff notes 6/18 Notice of Public Hearing 6/19 ZBA resolution 6/12 Warren Co. Planning 6/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9, Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 23, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Culvert and stormwater situation should be reviewed and approved by CT Male and Town Highway Department. The applicant must satisfactorily address any and all concerns, and 2. Decking of bridge, walkways and deck will not be made of arsenic treated, pressure treated wood, and 3. The proposal must receive CT Male engineering review signoff, and 4. Bridge design will be reviewed and approved by the Town’s Park and Recreation Department and C.T. Male, and 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) 5. The application must receive DEC permit and SPDES approvals. Also the DEC must approve the wetlands mitigation proposal, and 6. Final updated plans will include all walkway changes to incorporate new boardwalk and walkway designs. Plans will clearly show the extent of the proposed wetlands mitigation area and the plans will show silt fencing and reseeding of disturbed areas. 7. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 8/20/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you all. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MR. LAPPER-I appreciate it. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 42 BURCH ROAD ZONE: SR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.31 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.725 ACRES AND 1.285 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: AV 51-2002 TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-72 LOT SIZE: 2.31 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-2002, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Christopher Connelly, Meeting Date: August 20, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 2.31 acre parcel into a 1.285 acre lot and a .725 acre lot. The property is in an SR-1A (Suburban Residential One Acre) zone and in a Mobile Home Overlay zone. A variance has been granted by the ZBA on June 26,2002 for the lot width requirements for both lots; minimum road frontage requirements for Lot 2; and the minimum lot area requirement for Lot 1. The applicant has asked for a waiver from the Sketch Plan requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The proposed subdivision would divide the existing 2.31 acre parcel into two lots. Both lots would share an access drive off of Burch Road. Topography: The applicant has requested a waiver from providing topographic contours. The applicant has indicated that no regrading will take place on site. Current site topography appears to be fairly level. Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed lots have access to the municipal water system. Both lots will use on site sewage disposal systems. Drainage: The applicant has requested waivers from Grading and Erosion control plans, as well as a Drainage Report. The applicant has indicated that minimal site disturbance will occur during construction of a home, followed by reseeding after construction. Lot sizes: The area of Lot 1 is shown as .725 acres, the area of Lot 2 is 1.285 acres. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) Future development: The applicant shows a proposed home on Lot 1 to be built in front of the existing home on this property. State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type is Unlisted; the applicant has submitted a full EAF form. Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood 11. A subdivision of this type will result in lot sizes similar to others in the neighborhood, which is identified as a goal under S5.2 of the Townwide Land Use Goals and Objectives section of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 51-2002 was approved by the ZBA on June 26, 2002 granting lot width, lot area, and minimum frontage relief for this property. Staff Comments: The applicant has submitted a request for the following waivers: - Sketch Plan requirement - Topographic contours - Landscape Plan - Clearing Plan - Grading and Erosion Control Plan - Drainage Report No adverse impacts are expected with this residential subdivision. As mentioned before, variances have been granted to allow the proposed lot widths, frontage and size.” MR. HILTON-The applicant is before you as a two lot subdivision, on a residentially owned property. Previous to this, the applicant has received an Area Variance granting lot width, lot area and minimum frontage relief for this property. The applicant is seeking waivers for a Sketch Plan requirement, topographic contours, landscaping plan, clearing plan, grading and erosion control and a drainage report. No adverse impacts are really expected with this. It seems to be a simple two lot subdivision, and as I mentioned, all variances and I mentioned, all variances have been granted by the ZBA for lot sizes, etc. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. CONNELLY-Hi. My name is Christopher Connelly, 42 Burch. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your application? MR. CONNELLY-I was looking to divide, as he said, the 2., I don’t have it in front of me, some odd acre lot into the .725, and what not. One of the, I guess, reasons for doing so, or should I get into? MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us whatever you want. MR. CONNELLY-Okay. As I talked with the Zoning Board, basically the mobile home in the back is existing. It’s kind of unfeasible to remove that. It’s on a solid slab and what not, and basically I wanted to put a house out front. My parents live next door, that’s James and Joanne Connelly, and my father has lymphoma cancer. He’s unable to take care of his yard himself, and by me being next to him, I can take care of both yards, and plow his driveway, plow mine, rake, mow the grass and what not. I had this done up by a surveyor, and there was different ways to divide the lot where I wouldn’t have had to ask for so much as far as like lot width and this and that. Lot width would have been actually the only thing, because I could have created two lots that were one acre each, but it would have put the home behind the other home, which, to me, wouldn’t have looked as nice in the neighborhood, with the house up front keeps everything in line and it’s going to hide the mobile home to begin with, and another thing, when I originally purchased the lot, actually I purchased it from my father. We purchased it when I was in college, and speaking with people in the Building and Codes, I don’t know how we messed up or I misunderstood somebody. They originally told me that we could put one dwelling per one acre, and they left it at that, and we thought the other house was on the second acre. It’s like right in the middle, so that’s why we did it this way, to make it cleaner, and somehow there was a misunderstanding there because they said we had to subdivide it now. So this is what I’ve got. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-No. This is pretty clean cut. The waivers he asked for, I don’t see any problem with that, and the only thing I would think is that when we get around, in the resolution, we want to put in there that condition that an easement be drawn to go with the deed that shows a shared driveway. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. CONNELLY-Right. That’s one thing. MR. RINGER-Other than that. MR. CONNELLY-Right. That’s one thing that we spoke with downstairs. He said it would be better to have one driveway than to make another driveway onto the street. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-You answered my question as to why it wasn’t both one acre. MR. CONNELLY-Yes. It’s just cleaner this way. Instead of chopping it all up. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any, I have a procedural question. Why do we have a Long Form for this, a Long environmental form on this? Is there a reason why it says Long Form on this one? MR. HILTON-Yes. There’s no reason. Some of our older subdivision applications may have had this form attached to it. It’s my understanding that you can, with a statement just say, after finding, if this is what you find, no environmental impacts, and you can state that you find no adverse environmental impacts. You don’t necessarily have to go through each item on the Long Form. MR. RINGER-When we’ve had that before, though, Counsel has suggested since the applicant has filed a Long Form, that we should go through it. Counsel took off, so we don’t know. MR. HILTON-Well, he’ll be back. MR. RINGER-I agree, George, but I know what Counsel has said when we’ve done this before. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It won’t take long, Larry. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. I was just wondering whether the deed does need to talk to, the way the lots are laid out, it looks like Lot Number Two has access to that driveway, that Lot Number One does not? Is that? MR. CONNELLY-Actually, the way Lot Number Two is, the strip, the flagpole is the Lot Number Two, and Lot Number One will have an easement to drive across that, and into the driveway behind the first home. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Gotcha. I understand. All right. That’s all the questions I had. I didn’t have any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-How many acres is it, 2.? MR. VOLLARO-2.31. MR. CONNELLY-It’s .01 I have on the survey. MR. STROUGH-2.01, because someone labeled it as 2.31. MR. CONNELLY-I don’t know where they, yes, I think on mine I had 2.01. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, most of the time it was 2.31. MR. CONNELLY-Yes. I saw that in the letter they sent me and I didn’t think it was right, but I didn’t compare it. I have some copies of the survey map if you want them, but it doesn’t show like where the proposed sewer system was going to be and what not, because I drew that on myself. MR. STROUGH-Okay. No, the only thing I have is to agree with Larry that what I’ve got here must be deeded a full description of the assessment given to Lot 2 labeled shared driveway as per plat plan, survey and map by Charles T. Nacy May 15, 2002 and a copy of this will be submitted to the Planning Department. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, John? MR. STROUGH-That’s it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m all set with this. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HILTON-Just to clarify real quick. The application itself does list one property, the entire property size is 2.01 acres, however, in Staff notes it is printed as 2.31. The Staff notes do correctly identify the resulting lots as 1.285 and .725. So either way, it’s not, the variances have been granted for the undersized lot, and the two acre lot more than exceeds the area requirement for the zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion for Preliminary, and whoever does it please include the waiver request. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2002 CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 13-2002 Applicant: Christopher Connelly PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same FINAL STAGE Location: 42 Burch Road Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-1A Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.31 acre parcel into two lots of 0.725 acres and 1.285 acres. Cross Reference: AV 51-2002 Tax Map No. 308.6-1-72 Lot size: 2.31 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing:August 20, 2002 WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 8/16/02; and 8/20 Staff Notes 8/13 Notice of Public Hearing 8/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183--9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on August 20 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby granted with the following comment: 1. The Planning Board grants the following waivers of Sketch Plan Stage, existing and proposed contours, landscape plan, clearing plan, grading and erosion control plans and drainage report. Duly adopted this 20th day of August 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Motion for Final, please. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2002 CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 13-2002 Applicant: Christopher Connelly PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same FINAL STAGE Location: 42 Burch Road Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-1A 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.31 acre parcel into two lots of 0.725 acres and 1.285 acres. Cross Reference: AV 51-2002 Tax Map No. 308.6-1-72 Lot size: 2.31 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: August 20, 2002 WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 8/16/02; and 8/20 Staff Notes 8/13 Notice of Public Hearing 8/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183--9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on August 20 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. It must be deeded, a full description of the easement given to Lot One labeled shared driveway on the survey and map by Charles T. Nace, May 15, 2002 and a copy of this will be submitted to the Planning Department. 2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. CONNELLY-Just one thing, though. I don’t know if it’s technical or not. The easement should be granted to the first lot, not the second lot, right, because the first lot is going to use number two’s property. He had it the other way around. Or that doesn’t make a difference? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know the facts. Who’s using what? MR. STROUGH-The easement is deed by Lot One to Lot Two, right? MR. CONNELLY-It should be granted from Lot Two for Lot One. I just wanted to make sure that was straightened out before. MR. STROUGH-Okay. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. CONNELLY-The long, narrow piece is Lot Two. So the easement should be for Lot One to use. MR. HILTON-The way I see it, in looking at the map, Lot Two has the driveway, the gravel driveway on it. Lot One will be using that gravel drive. MR. VOLLARO-So the easement is granted to Lot Number One? MR. HILTON-That’s my understanding, yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, it looked to me like. MR. CONNELLY-I think it’s just because it showed so much on there. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought you were saying granted by, not granted to, John. MR. STROUGH-Given to Lot Two, I said. MR. CONNELLY-Given, to Lot Two. So it would be given to Lot One. MR. HILTON-Given to One. MR. STROUGH-Given to Lot One. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-We need to fix that, don’t we? MRS. LA BOMBARD-We have to rescind. MR. MAC EWAN-Rescind your motion and do another one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Or can we just amend it, or do we have to rescind it and do it again? MR. SCHACHNER-You can either amend it just to change that one revision, or you can resubmit and do the whole thing over. It seems to me it would be easier to amend. MR. MAC EWAN-What simple procedure would you like us to do? MR. SCHACHNER-It would be shorter and quicker to amend the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Amend your motion, Mr. Strough. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO AMEND FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2002 CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 13-2002 Applicant: Christopher Connelly PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same FINAL STAGE Location: 42 Burch Road Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-1A Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.31 acre parcel into two lots of 0.725 acres and 1.285 acres. Cross Reference: AV 51-2002 Tax Map No. 308.6-1-72 Lot size: 2.31 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: August 20, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received 7/15/02, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 8/16/02; and 8/20 Staff Notes 8/13 Notice of Public Hearing 8/5 Meeting Notice 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183--9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on August 20 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. It must be deeded, a full description of the easement give to Lot One labeled shared driveway on the survey and map by Charles T. Nace, May 15, 2002 and a copy of this will be submitted to the Planning Department. 2. The amendment is that we change the wording given in the previous motion, we change the wording to Lot One instead of Lot Two. 3. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Now you’re all set. MR. CONNELLY-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks for pointing that out. SITE PLAN NO. 42-2002 TYPE II THOMAS BOLEN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-INT./MR-5 LOCATION: 88 & 90GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE PROPERTIES AS PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, INCLUDING CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE AND ENCLOSED PORCH INTO 912 SQ FT. OF ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES IN HC-INT.. AND MR-5 ZONES REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 49-2000, BP 02- 107, BP 00-450 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-24, 25/61-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4 THOMAS BOLEN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-2002, Thomas Bolen, Meeting Date: August 20, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to use these properties as a Professional Office. As part of the plan, the applicant plans to convert an existing garage and enclosed porch into 912 sq. ft. of additional office space. The site consists of two parcels. The parcel to the east is in the HC-Int zone, the parcel to the west is in the MR-5 zone. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Professional offices are allowed uses in the MR-5 and HC-Int zones with site plan review by the Planning Board. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this proposal. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? It does not appear that any negative impacts of this type would occur as a result of the proposed site plan. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this proposal. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The site is currently developed. The applicant proposes to convert a garage and enclosed porch into additional office space. No new lighting is proposed at this location. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Both parcels have vehicular access off of Glenwood Ave. The driveway on the lot to the west is shown as 12 ft. wide and may be too narrow to allow two way traffic circulation. Consideration should be given to allowing traffic as one way only (in) on the east property and one way only (out) on the west property in order for a safer flow of traffic between both sites. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The total number of parking spaces required for this use is 13 spaces. The site plan provides the required number, with the majority of the spaces being on the property to the east. The applicant wishes to allow the property to the west to use the parking spaces located on the property to the east. This is allowed in the Zoning Ordinance if both lots are under common ownership, which is the case with this site plan. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. A Handicapped accessible ramp is proposed for the building to the west, which will improve access to this building. Overall pedestrian circulation should not be negatively effected by this proposal. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) The site plan does not contain any additional construction or physical changes to the site. The existence or location of any current stormwater drainage facilities is unknown. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. This site is currently served by municipal water and sewer. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. Existing trees and shrubs will remain on both lots. The applicant has not proposed any additional landscaping. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Not applicable to this project. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Not applicable to this project. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 49-2000; res. 7/18/2000 site plan approval for a hair salon Staff comments: Through a cover letter submitted with the application, the applicant appears to be requesting waivers from the following requirements: - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - Stormwater Plan - Grading Plan - Buffer requirements between zones The main issue with this site plan seems to be vehicular access and parking. As previously mentioned, consideration should be given to limiting the driveway on the east property to a one way (in) only drive and the drive way to the west to one way (out) only. In order to guarantee access to the property to the west from Glenwood Ave., language could be placed in the deed allowing access between both properties. The site plan proposes locating the majority of the parking for both properties on the property to the east. The zoning ordinance allows this if the same owner owns all properties, as is the case with this site plan. Again, to further guarantee that parking will be provided for the west property, language could be added to the deed allowing for access and parking between properties. SEQR Status: Type: II; no further environmental review required.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Okay. The applicant is before you this evening for a site plan approval to allow a professional office on two properties. The property to the east on the site plan is zoned Highway Commercial. The property to the west is zoned MR-5, Multi-Family Residential. Through the cover letter, the applicant appears to be requesting waivers from lighting plan, landscaping plan, stormwater plan, grading plan and the buffer requirements the Zoning Ordinance calls for between the HC and the MR-5 zone. The main issue with this site plan seems to be site circulation and parking. Consideration, I guess, should be given to having a one way in only on the eastern drive, and a one way out only on the western drive. Again, the site on the east side has the majority of the parking that’s going to be used by both properties. That’s something that can be done. The Zoning Ordinance allows it. However, the Zoning Ordinance speaks to having easements, cross easements for the parking. We’d be looking for some kind of consideration be given, I guess, for cross easements, granting parking for both lots and access to the lot to the west, because if everybody’s going out 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) on the property to the west, that access is coming from the HC zoned property. We just want to ensure that that’s allowable and a deed or an easement could take care of that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. BOLEN-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. BOLEN-Tom Bolen. I live at 10 Stonewall Drive. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us a little about your application. MR. BOLEN-Yes. Just to reiterate pretty much. I’m seeking approval for professional office usage at 88 Glenwood. I own 88 and 90 Glenwood, Parcels 24 and 25. I met with Staff on several occasions to determine the overall requirements and came away focusing on the parking issues, access and egress for us coming and going with the cars, handicap accessibility and stormwater. On the parking issue, most of the parking is located on 90 Glenwood. I wanted to attempt to minimize the overall impact on expanding the parking lot, and I feel I’ve come up with that, in terms of only needing to increase the parking lot by, I think it’s less than 500 square feet to meet the parking requirements of a total of 13 cars, well, 13 spaces. On the handicap accessibility, the plan is to put a ramp in on the east side of 88 Glenwood and access the building that way, feeling that it would be easier for someone in a wheelchair to access that ramp, as opposed to going to the front of the facility. In terms of access and egress, it was suggested that it be turned into a one way. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, entering on the 90 Glenwood driveway and then exiting on the 88 Glenwood driveway. I guess the point being that there’s only 12 feet on the driveway on 88 Glenwood. The other was stormwater issues that Craig had mentioned I should address, and this wasn’t in any of the information you have. I was able to meet with Tom Jarrett late last week, and he put together a proposal pretty quickly, as relates to addressing any stormwater issues, which I can give that to you now if you want to take a look at it MR. MAC EWAN-Have you submitted it to Staff yet? MR. BOLEN-No. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s his recommendations? MR. BOLEN-To put a swale at the end of the parking lot, right in between where it says existing parking lot and expanded parking lot, and have it go west into a swale or basin behind the existing garage. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Is that how this property slopes? It slopes to the north? I don’t have a grading plan here, so I can’t tell what the slope of this property is. Is it basically sloped to the north? MR. BOLEN-There isn’t any really distinctive slope on that section. Tom looked at the plan that you have now, and his assessment was, well, rather than involve the vacant lot, he felt that it would make sense to put this at the end of the parking lot and access over there. He didn’t think it would be a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Behind the existing garage of 88 Glenwood? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know what that does for the stormwater thing at all. Because I don’t see any grading marks on here, so I can’t tell which way this property slopes. So I think that’s going to have to be submitted to Staff anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-What else do you have, Mr. Bolen? MR. BOLEN-That’s primarily it. I wanted to, my thinking was to address the primary issues of concern, and Craig had mentioned to me, in terms of parking, and the other four issues that I had covered. In terms of the parking, on average, there’s probably about four or five cars there. I don’t think that that, I think that the way this is laid out, it should cover that, more than cover the parking issue. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the nature of the proposed businesses in there? MR. BOLEN-Well, let me give you a little background. I had purchased 90 Glenwood, and there was originally a realtor in the building. I had an office in the front, and there was a hairdresser in the front with me, and Youth Advocate was in the back. Subsequently, a little over a year ago, I purchased 88, and, unbeknownst to me, I thought it was all Highway Commercial. I didn’t realize there was a difference. They 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) had asked, when this came up for sale, they had immediately asked whether or not I was going to be interested in buying it, and I ended up buying it, and they wanted to move over. What ended up happening is, I know Dave Hatin. He stopped by one day, and he said, you know, you need to go through this process, and that’s where this all began. So, Youth Advocate is in fact in 88 Glenwood, and that’s, in my cover letter, that’s why I think I had put respectfully request that they require that they be allowed to stay in 88 Glenwood, and basically what do I need to do to meet those requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Currently, in 90 Glenwood, there’s an insurance business up front, is there, and a real estate at the rear? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And how about on the second floor? MR. BOLEN-There’s a one bedroom apartment. MR. VOLLARO-Is it occupied presently? Is there a tenant up there? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The problem we have with that, or I have with that is that’s in the HC-Intensive zone, and in checking with Staff before this meeting, that that zone does not allow residential. Is that correct? MR. HILTON-That is correct. However, this site plan is not for expansion of that nonconforming use. So my understanding is the nonconformity still stands, pre-existing, nonconforming. MR. VOLLARO-It still stands. It’s pre-existing so it allows that. Okay. That’s been resolved. In the parking lot on the back, in the back of 90 Glenwood, that parking lot, existing parking, that’s that grassed area back there really, isn’t it? Is there a grassed area in back of 90? Is that what you’re using, that large grassed area behind 90? MR. BOLEN-No. The grass is going to remain where it all is. That won’t be impacted at all, with the exception of putting a swale in behind where the parking is. The only expansion to the current parking in the back would be to the east and the west. What’s indicated here, as far as the existing parking, is the dotted line. That’s where the current lot is. It’s been fine. With four or five cars in and out of there, it was simply pulling in and parking along the back, but to meet the requirements, I needed to add, I needed to expand this, so I expanded it to the east and to the west, and came up with this solution. MR. VOLLARO-I was just back in there today, and when I was parked in behind 90, it looked to be like a large grassed area out in the back. Is there? MR. BOLEN-Yes, there is. MR. VOLLARO-That is not what this is, you’re saying? MR. BOLEN-No. That’s not going to be impacted at all. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I’m not relating to what I saw today and this chart, this map that shows me this parking lot back here. MR. BOLEN-Yes. The parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-Is right alongside the existing garage, essentially. Is that what you’re saying? MR. BOLEN-It’s along the existing garage. The parking lot is covered by gravel. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I guess to facilitate the circulation, we’re going to have an in on 90 Glenwood and an out on 88? MR. BOLEN-Yes. That was proposed. MR. VOLLARO-And that’ll be a cross easement between those two properties to allow that circulation? MR. BOLEN-Yes. That’s fine on my end. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it. I don’t have anything else, Mr. Chairman. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Lot Number 25, that is 90 Glenwood? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and Lot 24 is 88 Glenwood. Now, are both buildings going to be used, with the exception of the apartment above, what is it, 90 Glenwood? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-They’re all going to be office space? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And is YAP going to use both buildings? MR. BOLEN-No. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then the hairdresser who is, and I got confused. MR. BOLEN-They’re not there anymore. They were there and right now Canape Insurance is in the front, occupying the front of 90. MR. STROUGH-90 Glen? MR. BOLEN-Of 90 Glen, yes. MR. STROUGH-Glenwood. MR. BOLEN-And Better Way Realty is in the back. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and then YAP will be over in 88? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Finally got that straightened. The parking lot out back, is there any lighting back there? MR. BOLEN-There’s lighting. It’s indicated at FL, Flood Light on the porch, near the porch on 90 Glenwood. MR. STROUGH-In addition to a regular down lit porch light you have floodlights? MR. BOLEN-Well, for the parking lot there’s the existing floodlight, down lit. The other lighting on the property is at entrances. So over each of the doors there’s lighting, in the front and back on 90 Glenwood and the back on 88. MR. STROUGH-Is there any lighting on the proposed office, which is the garage? MR. BOLEN-No, and that was an oversight on my part. I mean, obviously, that would need to be there, and I thought that that would be part of the permit process, but. MR. STROUGH-Well, with that floodlight on the back of 90 Glenwood that is aimed toward the parking area, is that lit up sufficiently for the public to access their vehicles safely? MR. BOLEN-It has been. No one’s complained so far. MR. STROUGH-It just seems, okay, kind of iffy. Is there going to be any additional signage that you’re going to need? MR. BOLEN-Yes, that’s a matter that I’ve been discussing at 90. Both tenants are going to want to put a sign out front and indicate to them that they need to address that process and go through that, or I’d do it for them. MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to do that as a separate process? MR. BOLEN-Yes. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There is a sign on 90 now. MR. BOLEN-At 88. MR. VOLLARO-Isn’t there a sign on 90 at this time, for the Insurance? MR. BOLEN-Right. Well, yes, he hung a temporary sign along the railing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I mean. MR. BOLEN-Yes. Something a little bit more decorative, along the lines of what’s down the street at, I think it’s Ricciardelli, is what the thinking is. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So the signage thing is going to be taken care of additionally later. MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Are you tied in with the sewer system there? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right, and have you ever considered combining the two lots? That would, I think you wouldn’t need all the easements because you’re going to need stormwater easements, too, it appears, because you’re going to be using stormwater runoff from one lot going to another lot, so there’s going to be an easement needed for that as well. MR. BOLEN-If that’s an easier, more practical process, that’s something that I would certainly want to consider. MR. STROUGH-Well, if you combine both lots, you wouldn’t have to worry about the easements. I mean, it’s just something to throw out there for now. MR. BOLEN-Okay. I appreciate that. MR. HILTON-You could do that. I mean, certainly, but there’s a zone line that runs right down through between those two properties. MR. MAC EWAN-Why would you want to with the zone line going right down the middle of the lots? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. MR. MAC EWAN-It wouldn’t be advisable. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I just thought it would help with the easement situation. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I had some questions on stormwater. In the County Planning Board approval, they recommended No County Impact with the stipulation that stormwater measures be implemented to deter runoff toward the Glenwood Avenue, a County road. Is there existing problems with storm runoff running into Glenwood Avenue? MR. BOLEN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-To me, that’s what that implied, you know, and the stormwater mitigation measures that you mentioned from Tom Jarrett, obviously, wouldn’t address that at all, because they would be uphill from, if the water was running toward Glenwood, it would be uphill. It wouldn’t do anything. MR. BOLEN-Yes. I’m not aware of any problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did the County Planning Board give you any additional guidance as to what they meant by that comment? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. BOLEN-No. I didn’t even, I’d asked myself that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because I mean, I didn’t think the stormwater runoff would be a particular issue on this site. I just had sort of the similar question that John had about combining the lots, but, you know, seeing how they are separate zones, that would be a reason not to as well. I didn’t have anything else. MR. BOLEN-I have a letter from Tom Jarrett. It’s something that can’t be submitted? Is it something that you guys can look at now? MR. MAC EWAN-You can submit it to Staff. MR. BOLEN-Staff, and then. MR. HUNSINGER-Did he say anything in the letter about any runoff conditions that would warrant? MR. BOLEN-That in order to mitigate the impacts from increased stormwater runoff, we recommend a shallow swale along the north edge of the expanded parking area, to be installed to convey runoff to a new shallow retention swale/basin located in the grassy field on Lot 88, behind the existing garage, and then he put together a sketch. He indicates that, according to Warren County Soil Survey and Oakville soils are sand and are characterized by relatively deep groundwater and bedrock. He recommends that the stormwater swale basin be at least 20 feet long, 10 feet wide, 6 inches deep. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-The garage that you wish to change into an office, what kind of plans have you got for that? MR. BOLEN-Well, right now I’m sharing space with Better Way Realty. So my plan is to put a small office in the back of the garage and then have a common conference area that either three of the tenants, commercial tenants, could use. MR. RINGER-If he does convert that to an office, he won’t be coming back in here because he’ll already have his approval. I’m just thinking of what traffic is going to be coming in as he brings more tenants into the building and that was the reason for the question, and you answered the question. I don’t have anything other than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Where did the issue of stormwater problems come up? Do you have stormwater problems on the site now? MR. BOLEN-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t understand why, what’s the need for the swale? MR. BOLEN-Well, Craig had suggested that I get a hold of an engineer and have him take a look at what, you know, the parking lot and see if he had any recommendations. My apologies for not having something submitted in time for this, but it wasn’t easy getting a hold of an engineer to come and look at this. I guess everybody’s pretty busy right now, but I was able to accomplish that last week. Beyond that, the only time stormwater has ever come up is when it was mentioned before in County. MR. MAC EWAN-George, are you aware of any site conditions or something? MR. HILTON-Well, no, let me speak to this. It was our understanding that the applicant was seeking a waiver from stormwater plan. This letter from Tom Jarrett and the proposal for the drainage trench and the swale, and, that’s new to us this evening. I understand you’re going to be increasing the parking lot by approximately 500 square feet or so? MR. BOLEN-Yes. I think 427 or something like that. MR. HILTON-To me, that seems relatively minor. Certainly, something in the way of stormwater management could and probably should be put in place. I think what you’re describing would probably work. Certainly you could condition any action on having the plan updated showing that swale and submitting the letter that Mr. Jarrett wrote for him. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you to give that letter to George and let him read that into the record. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. BOLEN-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Make that part of the application. MR. VOLLARO-George, the only problem I see with this is that the County Planning Board’s recommendation talks about stormwater measures be implemented to deter runoff toward Glenwood Avenue, a County road. It seems counter to what Jarrett has to say about putting a swale in the back to catch runoff. It seems that it’s either sloped to the south or it’s sloped to the north. MR. HILTON-Yes, and that’s difficult to kind of get a handle on. MR. VOLLARO-What was the County’s position? How did they get to talk about runoff onto Glenwood Avenue? MR. HILTON-Well, given that it is a County road, I think they’re looking for any chance to improve stormwater drainage out there MR. SCHACHNER-I think there’s a possibility that this was a generic statement made by the County Planning Board, without regard to which way the water flows. MR. VOLLARO-I see. MR. SCHACHNER-I wonder if I could ask the applicant a question. Mr. Bolen, when you were at the County Planning Board meeting, do you know, first of all, you were at the County Planning Board meeting? MR. BOLEN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And at the beginning of the Warren County Planning Board meetings, they read off a whole list of applications that they are not going to address individually, but that obtain what’s called blanket approval. Was your application one of those, or did you receive individual attention? MR. BOLEN-No. It was given blanket approval. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So Mr. Bolen will have no idea what the reasoning for the County’s recommendation was because, as a regular attendee of County Planning Board meetings, I can tell you that if you’re one of the what’s called blanket approvals, they don’t discuss the application. They just make a motion where they list 20 or 30 of the 40 or 50 applications that are before them that month and say, all these applications are deemed to have no County Impact. Is there a motion to approve them? And then one motion is made, and they’re all deemed approved, and two-thirds of the people get up and leave, and then they address, they then specifically address those applications that they feel do have County Impact or that they have certain concerns about. So I’m just going to, this is just conjecture on my part, but it seems possible to me that the County recommendation is just a generic recommendation that the reason that this was to the County was because Glenwood Ave. is a County road, and they said, good, let’s direct stormwater away from it without regard to which way the water actually flows. I’m just guessing. MR. VOLLARO-It has No County Impact with stipulation, and then they go on. MR. MAC EWAN-George, could you read that letter in, please. MR. HILTON-Absolutely. A letter from Thomas Jarrett, dated August 15, 2002, “Dear Mr. Bolen: This letter is to address stormwater conditions relating to 90 Glenwood Avenue, wherein you propose to expand the existing parking area, to serve 88 Glenwood Ave. Our understanding, based on our discussion and on the July 29, 2002 Site Plan prepared for 88 & 90 Glenwood Ave. is that you plan on expanding the rear parking area from 41’ x 45’, to 41’ x 60’ to accommodate additional parking necessary for 88 Glenwood Ave. That is an expansion of 615 square feet. Based on our calculations, we estimate that this could increase the stormwater runoff rate by 0.10 cfs (cubic feet per second) and the stormwater runoff volume by 28.5 cubic feet, during a 50 year, 10 minute duration design storm. In order to mitigate the impacts from the increased stormwater runoff, we recommend a shallow swale along the north edge of the expanded parking area be installed to convey runoff to a new shallow retention swale/basin located in the grassy field on lot #88 behind the existing garage. The attached sketch shows the system proposed. Soils in this area are of the Oakville Series, according to the Warren County Soil Survey, and Oakville soils are sand, and are characterized by relative deep groundwater and bedrock. A stormwater swale/basin that is at least 20 feet long, 10 feet wide, and at least 6” deep in the center, will contain at least 50 cubic feet of stormwater, which is more than the total amount of excess runoff expected during the design storm. If you have any questions, please call us. Sincerely, Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC H. Thomas Jarrett, PE Principal” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. BOLEN-No. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Do either of you guys want to comment? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Stop. We think it’s Type II. You have an Environmental Assessment Form? MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have one? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. This came in the packet. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I’m asking. You have an Environmental Assessment Form? MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good question. MR. HILTON-It is a Type II. We have it listed as Type II. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It is a Type II. MR. HILTON-Oftentimes we have this form in with the application. The applicant decided to fill it out. At that point, when the application was submitted, we hadn’t made a determination that it was a Type II. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So we don’t have to do the SEQRA. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Not applicable. Thank you, Counsel. MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please. MR. HUNSINGER-George, what was the date of that letter from Thomas Jarrett? MR. HILTON-August 15, 2002. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The 15. th MR. STROUGH-I don’t see where there were any waivers requested, but it’s certainly implicit here. MR. RINGER-He requested waivers for lighting, landscaping, stormwater, grading. MR. STROUGH-He did? MR. RINGER-According to the Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Well, again, our Staff notes say that it appears. The applicant submitted a letter, a cover letter with the application, wherein the second to last paragraph it reads, lighting, buffer, stormwater, existing grading, and landscaping will essentially remain the same. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, that can be taken a couple of different ways. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Because an existing site with landscaping already there, why would you want to grant waivers to something that already exists? It’s not a new site. MR. HILTON-Right. Well, it’s my understanding that Planning Staff who met with the applicant indicated that those would be necessary. Now, again, they’re not specifically, the letter doesn’t come out and say, I’m seeking those waivers, but, you know, you may be able to imply from that that they are, and I guess it’s up to the Board to either grant or. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, on many occasions in the past we’ve had a new owner take over an existing site, so to speak, that wasn’t going to change anything, other than the occupancy of the building, and we’ve never required this stuff. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t really see a need for it, myself. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Someone introduce a motion, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And make sure we strike the clause about the SEQRA in Staff’s resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody, somebody. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll take a shot at the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2002 THOMAS BOLEN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 42-2002 Applicant: Thomas Bolen Type II Property Owner: Same Zone: HC-Int / MR-5 Location: 88 & 90 Glenwood Avenue Applicant proposes to use properties as Professional Offices, including conversion of an existing garage and enclosed porch into 912 sq. ft. of additional office space. Professional Offices in HC-Int. and MR-5 zones requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: SP 49-2000, BP 02-107, BP 00- 450 Warren Co. Planning: 8/14/02 Tax Map No. 296.19-1-24, 25 / 61.-1-30 Lot size: 0.26 acres / Section: Art. 4 Public Hearing: August 20, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/31/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/16/02, and 8/20 Staff Notes 8/14 Warren Co. Planning: NCI w/stipulation 8/13 Notice of Public Hearing 8/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on August 20, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) 1. That the applicant have a cross easement between 88 Glenwood and 90 Glenwood, Lot Number 24 and Lot 25 in the deed in order to allow traffic to move from Lot 25 to Lot 24 and the easement should also apply to stormwater traveling from Lot 25 to Lot 24, and parking, and 2. The motion should also include a letter from Thomas Jarrett dated August 15, 2002 that addresses the stormwater conditions relating to 90 Glenwood Avenue, and 3. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 8/20/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2002 by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-With the following condition, that the applicant apply for a cross easement between 88 Glenwood and 90 Glenwood, in order to allow circulation of traffic from one lot to another. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that was even a concern of anybody on the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I was going to say the same thing John did. It doesn’t make sense, Bob, to say the applicant apply for. There’s nobody to apply to. That’s within the applicant’s control. MR. VOLLARO-So do we or don’t we think that we need a cross easement to allow that from one lot to the other. MR. SCHACHNER-The stormwater? MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m talking about. MR. SCHACHNER-The traffic. MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking about traffic. MR. STROUGH-Stormwater, too. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess what I’m saying is it’s reasonable to require that the applicant, as a condition of approval, if you wish, that the applicant provide proof of either cross easements, so that the traffic on one is allowed to go out the other, and vice versa, or proof of having combined the two, merged the two lots into one. That’s fine. I was like John saying it’s not appropriate to tell the applicant to apply for that because he has to provide that. That’s what you were saying, John. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. All right. That’s a condition in the motion, that a cross easement between Lot Number 24 and Lot 25 have a cross easement in the deed, as a condition of the motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. STROUGH-For driveways, parking and the stormwater, right? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the cross easement allows both driveways, it allows the in and the out to be. MR. STROUGH-It’s also going to be a cross easement for parking, and you’re going to need cross easement for stormwater because they’re using two lots. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t understand that one. MR. STROUGH-Well, this parking lot , on Lot 25, is going to drain onto Lot 24. I mean, Lot 24, should that ever be a separate owner. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a stormwater issue, but. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. STROUGH-They could put up a mound right there and prevent the stormwater flow if there wasn’t a cross easement. Do you see what I’m saying? MR. VOLLARO-All right. So the cross easement should include stormwater, and it’s just stormwater, as far as parking is concerned, I think, I don’t see where you need a cross easement for that, either. I don’t know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Put it in, just the same, in case he wants to use it. MR. SCHACHNER-Did you say just stormwater, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. What I’m looking, I’m not so sure I agree with the premise of the stormwater cross easement. MR. STROUGH-You’ve got this draining over here. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what Tom Jarrett says in his letter, I agree, but I don’t know that. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not really creating an easement to go from one parcel to the other parcel. It’s naturally going to run that way, and you’re creating the basin on one parcel. It’s not like you’re making the basin from one to the other. MR. STROUGH-The only thing about it is, if I was to buy Lot 24 from Mr. Bolen, now the first thing I’m going to do is put up a big mound on the north side of my garage and block all that water going on my property. That’s the first thing I’m going to do. MR. HILTON-The swale actually does travel to the west, and theoretically will empty into a basin located on the 88 Glenwood, from 90. MR. STROUGH-Right. So they’re using both lots for the stormwater management. MR. HILTON-And it may be appropriate to allow for some type of easement. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s simplify it and make it as easy as we can, a simple motion. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Cross easements will include, or conditioned on having cross easements for traffic to move from Lot 25 to Lot 24, and the easement should also apply to stormwater traveling from Lot 25 to Lot 24. MR. STROUGH-And parking. MR. VOLLARO-And parking, throw it in there. I don’t see that either, but. MR. STROUGH-Because if you didn’t, the Lot 24 is not going to meet their parking requirements unless they have a right to park on Lot 25. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second? MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t we want to reference the swale as described in the August 15 letter from th Thomas Jarrett? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, note Jarrett’s letter in there. The swale design would be per Tom Jarrett’s letter dated whatever that date is. MR. HUNSINGER-And should be shown on the plans. MR. VOLLARO-May I have the letter from Mr. Jarrett, please. Thank you. The motion should also include a letter from Thomas Jarrett, dated August 15, 2002, that addresses the stormwater condition relating to 90 Glenwood Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-And that the swale be shown on the plat. MR. VOLLARO-It has to be satisfied to the stormwater management plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what we’re asking them to do, Bob, is to install the swale as described. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. VOLLARO-But that’s what that says. If they comply with this Tom Jarrett letter, that’s what’s going to happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Now do we have a second? MR. STROUGH-I’ll second. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Bolen. MR. BOLEN-Thanks. I appreciate your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 41-2002 TYPE II TACO BELL PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN NIGRO AGENT: BOHLER ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 740 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 230 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING TACO BELL AND CONVERSION TO CO-BRAND WITH LONG JOHN SILVERS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1406, SP 38-88, SV 25-95, UV 12-94, AV 21-94, SP 16-94, SV 24-90 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-26 LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES SECTION: 179-9-020 ROB SPIAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-2002, Taco Bell, Meeting Date: August 20, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant plans to build a 230 sq. ft. storage addition to an existing fast food restaurant along with a small amount of driveway expansion for an on site drive-thru. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Fast Food Restaurant uses are allowed in the HC-Int zone with site plan review by the Planning Board. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this proposal. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this proposal. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this proposal. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The site is currently developed. The proposed storage addition is compatible with the existing site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular traffic and circulation should not be adversely impacted by this proposal. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Additional on site parking is not necessary with an addition of this type. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian circulation should not be adversely impacted by this proposal. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The site plan does not include any additional stormwater facilities. The applicant is seeking a waiver from providing a stormwater management plan. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Municipal water and sewer currently serve this site. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. Existing trees and shrubs will remain on this property. No additional landscaping is proposed. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Not applicable to this project. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Not applicable to this project. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 16-1994; res. 5/19/1994 original site plan approval for Taco Bell Staff comments: The applicant is seeking the following waivers: - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - Stormwater Plan - Grading Plan The addition of 230 sq. ft. of storage space at this location seems to be a minor addition that will not have any adverse site impacts. The widening of the drive-thru lane also seems to be a relatively minor change to this site. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) All new signs shown on the plans will require a separate sign permit from to be issued through the Department of Community Development. SEQR Status: Type: II; no further environmental review required.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Before we start on this application, procedurally, tell me why this isn’t a modification. MR. HILTON-Why it isn’t a modification? MR. MAC EWAN-Correct, and when you answer me, I want you to use the same context as you convinced me that Aviation Mall was a modification. MR. HILTON-Well, I can honestly tell you I didn’t convince you that Aviation Mall was a modification, but. MR. MAC EWAN-How does a 230 square foot addition to this thing require a new site plan? MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-New as opposed to a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-As opposed to a modification. MR. HILTON-Yes. Let me introduce the application. You guys, while you’re discussing it, I’ll look in my Zoning Ordinance. I think there’s some language I can find that can speak to that, and I’ll provide an answer for you, but right now what we’re looking at is a site plan that proposes a 230 square foot storage area. It’s a minor addition to an existing fast food restaurant, storage addition along with the co-branding of this, at this restaurant, inclusion of a Long John Silver’s. In addition, there is proposed a slight widening of a drive through access aisle on site. It’s relative minor. No impacts, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Sign permit will be necessary for any additional signage for the new tenant, and that’s all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Everything you just said was a modification. So find me that in the Ordinance where it says it’s a new site plan. Good evening. MR. SPIAK-Good evening. Rob Spiak with Bohler Engineering. As previously stated, we’re looking to add a 230 square foot addition to the existing facility. It’s for freezer and dry storage. We’re proposing to co- brand this facility, and add a Long John Silver’s to the existing Taco Bell. The slight modification to the drive-thru lane is to accommodate a new pre-pay window for the facility. It currently has your pick-up window, which is combined with payment at that window, and we’re proposing to add a pre-pay window to this facility in order just to speed up the drive-thru process. Beyond that, basically everything is going to stay the same with the site plan itself. No change in parking, no change in seating. Signage will be handled under a separate application. I’d be happy to answer any questions for you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Robert, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-I have nothing on this, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I have one. I can’t wait for Long John Silver’s to get in. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it? You’re done? MR. STROUGH-Almost. What kind of traffic increase do you expect by incorporating a Long John Silver’s in with Taco Bell? MR. SPIAK-Not anticipating an traffic increase that would be substantial to warrant any additional parking concerns, site circulation concerns. Generally speaking, Albany’s a test market for this co-branding operation. You’ve seen co-brand operations around at other facilities. MR. STROUGH-Well, like the A & W just went in with Kentucky Fried Chicken. MR. SPIAK-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And their traffic count’s probably increased, but nothing substantial. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) MR. SPIAK-No, nothing substantially. We’re not anticipating that. Generally speaking, you’ll probably see a spike for the first couple of weeks, as something new that you see with any business out there, but generally speaking the site is accommodating of any sort of increase. There’s a lot of parking surrounding our immediate area also. MR. STROUGH-You’ve got plenty of parking, nice landscaping, too. No, that’s it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’ll make it real quick. Taco Bell is probably one of the nicest places on Upper Glen Street. So I commend you for that. The only problem with Taco Bell is that your drive-thru lane is all messed up, and you’re fixing that. If you come around the corner, you always hit your tires, and I’m going to make it quick, because I’m wicked jonsing a burrito right now. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re going to the border after this. MR. METIVIER-I’ve been dreaming about this since eight o’clock. I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I had a similar comment on the drive up lane, saying that it was a good thing that you were widening it. Other than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, this is a no-brainer. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Go for it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Did you find me something? MR. HILTON-I have something. Whether it satisfies your question, we’ll see. MR. MAC EWAN-It probably won’t. MR. HILTON-Section 179-9-020 says “A land use or development involving a use or expansion of a use listed as a site plan review use in Article 9 hereof shall not be undertaken unless or until the Planning Board has approved with conditions such use.” The fact that this is a use that’s listed requires site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but that doesn’t necessarily say that’s another site plan review. MR. HILTON-Whether it’s a modification or not, I think the intent here is that we have a new tenant that has never been represented on any previous application that can be deemed a modification. Therefore, we need a new site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-You and I are going to have a discussion. Big box store at Aviation Mall was never a tenant before on that application, but that’s another topic of discussion. Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2002 TACO BELL, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 41-2002 Applicant: Taco Bell Type II Property Owner: John Nigro Agent: Bohler Engineering Zone: HC-Int. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) Location: 740 Upper Glen Street Applicant proposes a 230 sq. ft. addition to existing Taco Bell and conversion to co-brand with Long John Silvers. Cross Reference: AV 1406, SP 38-88, SV 25-95, UV 12-94, AV 21-94, SP 16-94, SV 24-90 Warren Co. Planning: 8/14/02 Tax Map No. 302.6-1-26 Lot size: 0.48 acres / Section: 179-9-020 Public Hearing: August 20, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/31/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/16/02, and 8/20 Staff Notes 8/16 C.T. Male engineering comments 8/14 Warren Co. Planning: NCI w/stipulation 8/13 Notice of Public Hearing 8/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on August 20, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, Therefore, Be It RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry, gentlemen, you had to wait so long. MR. SPIAK-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-If it was a modification, you would have been out of here a whole minute and a half earlier. Okay. We need to do the approval of minutes, because we didn’t do those at the beginning of the night. CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 18, 2002: NONE June 20, 2002: NONE June 25, 2002: NONE 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/20/02) June 27, 2002: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 20, 25, AND 27, 2002, Introduced THTHTHTH by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone going to be here next Tuesday? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 53