Loading...
2003-04-22 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of quick announcements. First, we’re going to table Subdivision No. 17-2002 Western Reserve, LLC. I’m not sure what date we’re tabling that to because they’re going to have to re-advertise that. So it’ll be in the newspaper and there’ll be notices out, I guess, on that. Also we’re going to table, under New Business: Freshwater Wetlands Permit FWW 5-2003, Queensbury Partners, pending a legal determination as to whether the site plan has been voided because of no activity within the year of approval. MR. HILTON-Just a note, we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening on that Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to leave the public hearings both open. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-On Western Reserve, which is Subdivision No. 17-2002, and leave the public hearing open. I’ll open it and leave it open for the Freshwater permit as well, and hopefully, Jim, we’ll have an answer for you within a day or so. MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, does that mean that anybody who might be hear to speak to either of those applications can speak or? MR. MAC EWAN-They’re certainly welcome to, but I would encourage them, until we find out exactly what the standings are, especially on the Freshwater Wetlands permit, whether the site plan is actually still legal or not, I mean, if anybody wants to comment on either of these applications, you’re welcome to. All right. We’ll leave it open. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WESTERN RESERVE, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: WESTERN RESERVE & T. RAWSON AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: WEST SIDE WEST MT. RD. SOUTH OF POTTER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 34.8 +/- ACRE LOT FOR 6 SINGLE FAMLY LOTS AND 26 TOWNHOUSE UNITS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-01, AV 22-02, NOA – 1-03 TAX MAP NO. 300-1-19, 20/87-1-21 LOT SIZE: 34.8 +/- AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NEW BUSINESS: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FWW 5-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY PARTNERS PROPERTY OWNER: GARTH ALLEN AGENT: QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LP ZONE: PUD LOCATION: CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING UNITS, GRADING AND WETLAND CREATION WITHIN 100’ OF REGULATED WETLANDS. HALFWAY BROOK/NYSDEC GF-19. AREA OF WETLAND: 2.0 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: PUD SP 8-2000 DEC, ACOE WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-2,3 LOT SIZE: 31.12 AC., 65.71 AC. SECTION: 179-6 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 8-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED ANGELO & ANNE CATALFAMO AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: PO LOCATION: 667 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF BAY ROAD APARTMENTS TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES IN A PO ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SPECIAL USE PERMIT 102 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-14 LOT SIZE: 3.78 ACRES SECTION: ART. 9 TOM JARRETT & TRENT MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-In response to the last tabling of the Planning Board regarding this application, the applicant has supplied new information, including a lighting plan. The lighting plan shows cut sheets for the two types of lighting proposed. However, cut sheets for the existing wall mounted lights and the location of the wall mounted lights does not appear to be shown on the plan. The lighting plan as a whole shows minimal spill off the site onto Bay Road. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan identifying existing trees and shrubs. The only comment Staff has is that limits of clearing should be shown, if any are proposed, and quite possibly a note being added to the plans stating that existing mature trees along Bay Road will not be removed. Revised stormwater management report plan has been submitted to C.T. Male for their comment, review and comment, and any comments that they may have should be addressed. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. CHUCK CATALFAMO MR. CATALFAMO-Chuck Catalfamo. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. JARRETT-Two months ago when we were here, the Board had a number of comments, and we have attempted to address those comments and have resubmitted plans to you. Their comments included correctly identifying the zone that the site is situated in. I think we’ve done that. Modifying the stormwater plan to include asphalt paving in lieu of crushed stone. We have done that. You asked us to document the landscaping that is present on the site, including any improvements that Chuck is proposing, or has completed, and we have shown that. We’ve moved four parking spaces from near the entrance, near the existing dumpster area, westerly to the end where the new parking is proposed. I believe now we’re in compliance with Town standards. The lighting plan, we were asked to show that we meet the four to one uniformity coefficient. We believe that we do. We’ve revised the lighting in several areas to accomplish that, and later, depending on your comments on our lighting plan, we would like to propose an alternate for consideration. We were also asked to extend the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) walkway to the west end of the parking area, which we have done, and there was a question raised regarding the septic system, and we have done our best to look at that, at least in a theoretical fashion, and we can answer any questions you have on that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Rich, we’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-I really don’t have anything. I’d rather wait and see what other comments come out. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. The comments from Staff in regard to lighting, you saw the Staff comments. Do you have any? MR. JARRETT-Yes. Lighting, cut sheets for the existing lighting I believe were included in the application. We do have cut sheets in the materials that were submitted in the materials that were submitted to the Board. Apparently you did not get them. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re in our packets. MR. JARRETT-You do have them in your packets? That is the existing lighting that’s out there. Existing lighting does not quite meet Town standards, and Chuck has asked to match that lighting. MR. HILTON-In the file I have the cut sheets for the pole mounted, and I have a cut sheet for the area lighting, I think, that’s going to be used to light the sign. My comment is that the wall mounted fixtures, we don’t seem to have that in the packet. MR. JARRETT-You’re correct. We did not submit cut sheets for the existing wall packs. MR. VOLLARO-From what I can see the 1700 watts on the wall packs aren’t included in the overall lighting plan either. I don’t see them included in there. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So there’s 1700 watts standing out. MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s all within the court yard area. It’s not anything to do with the newly created parking area, or revised parking area. The lighting plan that you see is for the revised parking area. MR. VOLLARO-There’s now a revised plan for the whole site? MR. JARRETT-It does not include the courtyard area, which is, I shouldn’t say that. We have, that illumination is from the new pole mounted lights, yes. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t include all the lights on site. MR. JARRETT-The existing lighting is essentially doorway lighting, in the courtyard. It’s all wall mounted. MR. RINGER-The new lighting in the parking lot, there’s no spill on that out of the? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct, no spill, I beg your pardon. Onto the right of way, there is spill right near the entrance, and it is a contour of .25, I believe. At the entrance road itself. You’ll see that on the plan, on the lighting plan. There is a contour that extends, not to the road pavement itself, but within the right of way. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, one of the questions was about the clearing. Are you planning any additional clearing at all? MR. JARRETT-No. We could certainly document that on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How about the trees along the road? They won’t be disturbed at all then? MR. JARRETT-They will not be taken down. MR. CATALFAMO-I cleaned up some dead stuff that was there. Some branches. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and since I wasn’t sitting on the Board at the time this came through originally, these are currently been for residential purposes, you’re going to turn them into commercial, I mean, office building, professional office. MR. CATALFAMO-Office buildings. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you going to do anything with the buildings at all? MR. CATALFAMO-I’ve already cleaned them all up. MR. SEGUJLIC-But they’re going to, because your dumpster area, the area we have as dumpster is quite a structure there, and the buildings are going to remain the way they are? MR. CATALFAMO-Yes. Everything is going to stay the same. MR. SEGULJIC-Nothing’s going to change, but the façade. MR. CATALFAMO-Just the interior, no. It’s all pretty well done on the outside. I’m going to do the interior of it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CATALFAMO-Finish that up. MR. SEGULJIC-And then with regard to the landscaping plan, now this is what’s existing on site? MR. CATALFAMO-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Yes, and we have some photos, if you’d like to see them, that more clearly depict what’s in the courtyard and along the front road. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s it for me for now. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay, Chuck. We stopped there last week. Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just looking down at the lighting plan on the floor here, because it’s too big to put up on the table and make any sense out of it there. I guess what I was looking for is more of a distribution of foot candles on the ground. This is not a kind of a lighting plan I’m used to looking at, and I guess my comment before is the 1700 watts from the wall packs are not included on that, and I don’t know what it will do if we put those 1700 watts on, probably not much, from what I can see. I don’t think it’s going to increase it much, but it’s not on the plan 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) now. The only thing that’s on the plan are the two, you’ve got, the lighting fixture schedule on there doesn’t include that 1700 watts either, I don’t believe, or does it? MR. JARRETT-I believe that, the fixture is labeled B. MR. VOLLARO-17 existing. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s what it says. Of course that’s on the lighting schedule, and that ought to be included. Once that schedule is on there, the lighting plan ought to include everything that’s on the schedule, I would think. I don’t know. I’ll see what the rest of the Board members feel about that, but I think there’s a piece missing from the lighting plan, but I also don’t think it’s going to modulate it much. That’s just personal opinion. 1700 watts among what you’ve got there isn’t going to do much. The second question I have is, we asked for a statement from Building and Codes on the existing system. Now, the reason we asked for that the last time was because of its prior use. This was used by students as a student quarters, I guess, or student housing. We thought it was a good idea of the Building and Codes inspector took a look at that, because how long has that septic system been working under the old? MR. CATALFAMO-Nineteen years. MR. VOLLARO-Nineteen years. MR. CATALFAMO-It was a fairly modern raised leach. I have one picture of it, when it was done. MR. VOLLARO-How many times have you pumped the tank? MR. CATALFAMO-I have two thousand gallon tanks. They’re up in the courtyard. MR. VOLLARO-Are they ever pumped, in 19 years? MR. CATALFAMO-Yes. Sure. Every other year I pump them. They’re two thousand gallon tanks. MR. VOLLARO-And I’d like to ask Staff the question, has Building and Codes been contacted on this and asked to take a peek at this? MR. HILTON-Well, I spoke to the Director of Building and Codes, and he said that this is in terms of septic and sizing of septic systems, the conversion to office is actually a less intense use, and as far as any failures or anything on, specific to this site, they haven’t received any information and they don’t, they’re unaware of any failures out here. MR. VOLLARO-As long as Building and Codes puts their impermata on it, I’m happy. The landscaping plan reflects existing conditions on the site from 2002. I was in there tonight. I drove around. It looks pretty good to me. The landscaping, I could see where you cleaned up the front. You’ve got some new landscaping around, and the façade of the building doesn’t look bad to me, the new stone. I don’t know whether that’s new stone or just cleaned up stone. MR. CATALFAMO-It’s new. Last fall. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So the buildings themselves don’t look bad. I guess the main thing on this site is the building of that new, the new walkway and the new parking lot extension, and it looks like C.T. Male has come up and talked about that he’s happy, provided that the soil information provided as a basis for the infiltration trench system do concur with the County soil and survey data, County soil survey data. Other than that, they feel that the comments have 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) been adequately addressed. Now, what is the implication of that? What does C.T. Male mean by that? Does he want something from Soil, County soil survey? MR. JARRETT-If I could jump in. We had promised to do test pits to confirm that data, which we’re ready to do now, but we had promised to do that, to confirm that. We will get that back from both Staff and C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll probably have to make that as a condition of whatever we do, if we do. I guess that’s the only thing I have. I didn’t see anything else on here that I wanted to look at. I think C.T. Male has pretty much satisfied all the requirements based on your February 14 letter to them, and I don’t see anything else. You’ve satisfied their April 16 letter. th So I’m happy with it the way it is now. Except for this lighting thing. We can talk about that a little bit, when the rest of the Board members get finished. Mr. Strough’s got to go yet. He might have a word or two on that. I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, as far as the lighting goes, and you may have said this already. I’m sorry if you did. What are the pole heights? MR. JARRETT-The pole heights are 18 foot high. MR. STROUGH-With a two foot base. MR. JARRETT-Yes, 20 foot maximum. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So they will not exceed the 20 feet? MR. JARRETT-They will not exceed the 20 foot height. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, as far as the lighting, I figured I’d let Bob handle that. You kind of just breezed over that one, Bob. The only other comments, now the sign that’s currently there, is that going to stay? MR. CATALFAMO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’s not going to change. MR. CATALFAMO-That’s not going to change. I have a new lettering coming for it, but I didn’t want to (lost words) my final approval. MR. STROUGH-So as you get tenants you’ll add it to that monument style? MR. CATALFAMO-No, that’s it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. CATALFAMO-Just the sign lettering inside is all I’m going to do. MR. STROUGH-Saying it’s something offices? MR. CATALFAMO-It’s going to say just the names of the people in it I believe. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I mean. As you get your tenants, you’re going to. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. CATALFAMO-It’s going to have six little bars in there and it’s going to have six different tenants, or one tenant. It depends on who I, it won’t be more than six. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’s going to not be changed, with the exception of just the addition of the new tenants. MR. CATALFAMO-Just the names. MR. STROUGH-Now, I’m willing to condition this that, as identified on Drawing C-2, there’s a notation referring to the existing mature trees along Bay Road, and it says 20 to 25 large diameter trees existing. I’m just going to condition that those trees remain. Is that okay? MR. CATALFAMO-Sure. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. CATALFAMO-They may not be on my property. I don’t know. I don’t know where the. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but you’re not going to take them down. MR. CATALFAMO-No, I’m not. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, the ones that are on the highway right of way. They may take them down. We understand that. Yes. Now, the only thing that we have is the last thing we got C.T. Male’s notes from today. How do we show that the soil data concurs with the County soil survey? Just condition it that you’ll check that, or Staff will check that out. MR. HILTON-Yes. My guess is that you could add a condition that says that they provide the data at the time, with the final set of plans, and that we would have to check that it concurs with the soil survey. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, that’s all I have. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Before I open up the public hearing on this, let’s discuss that lighting a little bit. I agree with Bob. I don’t think it’s a big issue. However I do believe it should be noted on the plat. The plat should represent exactly what’s on the site. MR. SANFORD-The other thing is, did you open up with your comments that you had an alternative lighting? MR. JARRETT-We did. The plan that we submitted meets the Town criteria, and then we showed it to Chuck, and he asked that we move one of the poles to avoid conflicting with the courtyard, so that it wouldn’t impede the view of the courtyard, and we had it on the plan. It does meet Town standards in our opinion. It would be subject to Staff review, obviously, and if you’re willing to consider that, I’d throw it out. MR. SANFORD-It’s up to the Chairman and the rest of the Board, but if this is a little bit deviate, and you have an alternative that’s completely in compliance, I guess we might as well accept the one that’s in compliance. MR. JARRETT-If I could jump in, I’m not sure the alternate is any more in compliance than the one that was submitted. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Are you talking the pole right in front of the parking area at the beginning and the front end of the courtyard? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. CATALFAMO-The one that goes in the courtyard. MR. MAC EWAN-Where do you want to move that to? MR. JARRETT-Well, we’ve actually moved two poles to be able to do that. One of them moves to the. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about the one that’s right in the courtyard. Are you moving it toward Bay Road or away from Bay Road? MR. CATALFAMO-You mean the Bay Road side? MR. JARRETT-The one that’s in the courtyard, we’re moving away from Bay Road. MR. MAC EWAN-And whereabouts are you moving it to on the site? MR. CATALFAMO-We’re moving it toward Bay Road. MR. JARRETT-This is Trent Martin of my office. MR. MARTIN-What we did is that light right in the parking lot, we moved it towards Bay Road, and then we’ve moved it both east and north and then faced it into the parking lot, so that we won’t have any spillage going out toward Bay Road from it, and then. MR. MAC EWAN-So like in the corner of the parking lot there? MR. MARTIN-Yes. In the corner facing west. MR. MAC EWAN-In this area right here. MR. MARTIN-Yes, sir. It’s actually going to be right here, and facing this way. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Going that way, though. MR. MARTIN-What we did is we took it from the courtyard, moved it east and then north, and then faced it in towards the parking lot here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Yes. MR. MARTIN-And then we had a second light that was right in front of this most westerly building here, and we’ve moved that slightly to the east, so that it’s off the corner of the building now. Right here. So it’s still not going to impede the courtyard. MR. MAC EWAN-So it points in that direction? MR. MARTIN-Yes, it does. MR. VOLLARO-This is a plot, an ISO plot, of the new proposal, versus this one. MR. MARTIN-That is correct. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. SANFORD-This is the proposed alternative. MR. MARTIN-It’s the same number of lights. It’s the same lights. It’s just moved slightly. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Just so you guys know, I’m not real comfortable about doing this this way. MR. JARRETT-We understand that, and that’s why we throw it out for discussion. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I mean, having this huddle up here at the table, only just so we can share it with the public, that’s all. MR. RINGER-You just did that today, Tom? MR. JARRETT-Within the last few days. MR. RINGER-That’s why Staff hasn’t seen this either. MR. JARRETT-Right. Exactly. We know the Board doesn’t like to confuse the issue at Board nights or meeting nights. MR. RINGER-And we always like to have Staff see the plans before they come to us, too. MR. JARRETT-Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-But that revised plan still doesn’t show your wall packs on the buildings. MR. JARRETT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-If you choose to entertain the alternate, we can go back and include the wall packs in that lighting illumination schedule, illumination plan. MR. MAC EWAN-And how many wall packs are we talking, two? MR. JARRETT-There’s 17 existing wall packs, on each door, basically. MR. MAC EWAN-On each door, and they put out how much? MR. JARRETT-They’re 100 watt bulbs. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 1700 watts, Craig, is what we’re. MR. JARRETT-They’re like carriage lamps on the side of the. MR. MAC EWAN-How much of an impact is that going to be? MR. RINGER-Not much. MR. CATALFAMO-Just in front of the door. MR. VOLLARO-Not much. MR. MAC EWAN-I support this revised plan they‘ve got here. I think that’s an improvement, but I would also want something, if we condition this approval, something submitted that shows the wall pack, reflective of what the site actually is. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. VOLLARO-The new plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Just add the wall packs to it. MR. VOLLARO-Add the wall packs to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That would be a sensible way to go. All right. I’ll open up the public hearing on this application. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-John, we need to do a SEQRA. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Doing a Short, right? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Short Form. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-2003, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ANGELO & ANNE CATALFAMO, 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 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) 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 22 day of April, 2003, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. What have you got for conditions first? MR. VOLLARO-Three. I’ll read them off. One, that the soils shall concur with the County soil survey data prior to the signing of the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t sign site plans. MR. VOLLARO-Well, prior to. MR. MAC EWAN-Issuing of a building permit. MR. VOLLARO-Issuing of a building permit. MR. RINGER-There’s no building permit, is there? MR. HILTON-Yes, I don’t know if he needs a building permit. MR. STROUGH-Well, I put down the applicant will provide, with the final plan submission documentation to show that the soil information provided as a basis for the infiltration trench system concurs with the County soil survey data. Staff must approve the submitted documentation. MR. VOLLARO-The second one would be, we’ll take John’s for the first one, and the second would be submit new lighting plan to include 17 existing wall packs, a total of 1700 watts, and that plan shall be submitted to Staff for their records. MR. MAC EWAN-What was your third condition? MR. VOLLARO-All trees presently located along the Bay Road in front of this property shall not be removed by the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-As identified in Drawing C-2, labeled 20 to 25 existing large diameter trees. MR. VOLLARO-As identified. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you do if he miscounted and there’s 30 to 35 trees? I like Bob’s better. It just tells you not to disturb anything. MR. HILTON-A note should probably be added to the plan. MR. RINGER-Yes, the way I’ve written it, a note will be added to the final plan that existing mature trees along Bay Road will be retained. MR. VOLLARO-Well, as identified in what drawing, C-2? MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if everyone wanted that, yes, as identified in Drawing C-2. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. VOLLARO-C-2, that should nail it down. We’re going to leave everything that’s on C-2 in C-2. MR. STROUGH-Run with it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2003 ANGELO & ANNE CATALFAMO, 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 No. 8-2003 Applicant / Owner: Angelo & Anne Catalfamo Type: Unlisted Zone: PO Location: 667 Bay Road Applicant proposes conversion of Bay Road apartments to professional offices. Professional offices in a PO zone require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: Special Use Permit 102 Warren Co. Planning: 2/13/03 Tax Map No. 289.19-1-14 Lot size: 3.78 acres / Section: Art. 9 Public Hearing: February 25, 2003 [Tabled, PH left open] April 22, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 1/14/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/18/03, and 4/22 Staff Notes 4/17 C. T. Male engineering comments received 4/11 CB from Jarrett-Martin: replacement page for SEQR page 1 3/17 New information received: Stormwater Man. Reports dated 3/17/03, site plan review application, magazine cuts for lighting, SP C1, C 2, C 3, D1 revised 3/13/03 2/26 Applicant from GH: request for additional items 2/25 Draft PB minutes 2/25 PB resolution: Tabled to 4/22 2/25 Staff Notes 2/19 CT Male engineering comments received 2/19 Public comment received from M. O’Connor, BRB Group 2/18 Notice of Public Hearing 2/18 TOQ from Jarrett-Martin: Stormwater Man. Report, reply to CT Male letter dated 2/13/03 2/13 C. T. Male engineering comments received 2/13 Stormwater Management report received from Jarrett-Martin 2/13 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact 2/5 Meeting Notice 1/29 Applicant from GH 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 February 25, 2003 and April 15, 2003; 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 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) 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 Agency 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 applicant will provide, with the final plan submission, documentation to show that the soil information provided as a basis for the infiltration trench system concurs with the County Soil Survey data. Staff must approve the submitted documentation. 2. The applicant will submit a new lighting plan to include the 17 existing wall packs for a total of 1700 watts, and that will be submitted to Staff for the final documentation. 3. All trees presently located along the Bay Road shall not be removed by the applicant. Those trees are identified in Drawing C-2, as identified in Drawing C-2. 4. Waiver requests granted: Grading Plan and Landscaping Plan 5. 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 4/22/03 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. CATALFAMO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. For anybody who just recently arrived, you may have missed our earlier announcement, Subdivision No. 17-2002 for Western Reserve is tabled tonight, as well as Freshwater Wetlands Permit FWW 5-2003, for Queensbury Partners is also tabled for tonight. Old Business, we have a letter from Jon Lapper requesting an extension to Site Plan 16- 2002, which was approved last year for Larry Brown for office space at Jerry Brown Auto Parts. Why is he asking for the extension, he just hasn’t begun the building down there? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess. The approval expires tomorrow. So I think they’re just still working on construction or whatever. So, they need the time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, and grant the extension to April 30, 2004? Anybody? MR. STROUGH-Can we have a description of what it was? MR. MAC EWAN-Jerry Brown’s auto body when we approved the addition on the back of it? MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Yes, I don’t have a problem with that. MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 16-2002 LARRY BROWN, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To extend until 4/30/2004. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FWW 4-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHEMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, TOM NACE ZONE: PO LOCATION: LOT 6, BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,800 SQ. FT. PROFESIONAL OFFICE AND PARKING. AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION THE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION/DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF REGULATED WETLANDS. CROSS REFEERENCE: SB 8-00, SP 19-03, AV 31-03 DEC, ACOE WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-24 LOT SIZE: 82.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-6 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit FWW 4-2003, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: April 22, 2003 “Project Description: The applicant is seeking a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit in order to allow construction/disturbance within 100 ft. of existing regulated wetlands. Proposed construction activities are in association with a planned 8800 sq. ft. office building to be built at this location. Staff review and comments are based on consideration of the criteria for considering a Freshwater Wetlands Permit according to Section 179-6-100 E of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Staff comments: The applicant’s proposal requires a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit because the plan proposes construction within 100 ft. of existing wetlands. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) The requirements for granting a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit are outlined in § 179-6-100 E (2) of the Zoning Ordinance. These requirements are: 1 – The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the policy of this chapter to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom, to prevent the despoliation and destruction of freshwater wetlands and to regulate the development of such wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetland, consistent with the general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the town. 2 – The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the land use regulations applicable in the town pursuant to § 24-0903 of Article 24 of State Environmental Conservation Law 3 – The proposed regulated activity is compatible with the public health and welfare 4 – The proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary 5- There is no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity on a site which is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area. 6 – The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed regulated activity will be in accord with the standards set forth in this subsection. A reasonable alternative may be to reduce the number of parking spaces that are proposed. This would increase the setback from the wetland and would remove the need for an Area Variance to allow more parking spaces than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends that any approval of a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit include a stipulation that the applicant apply for and receive a NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit, and that any NYSDEC requirements be included in the Town of Queensbury Wetlands Permit. A copy of the required NYSDEC permit should be provided at the time of Building Permit for this proposal. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted; Applicant has submitted a short form EAF” MR. HILTON-The applicant is seeking a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands permit. The project also involves the site plan following this item, Site Plan 19-2003. It involves an 8800 square foot office building to be built, just east of Bay Road on Willowbrook Drive. As far as the Freshwater Wetland permit goes, the Town permit, it’s required, based on construction within 100 feet of existing regulated wetlands. I’ve outlined the requirements for approval that are listed in the Zoning Ordinance, and just a note that a reasonable alternative may be to reduce the number of spaces that are proposed, removing the need for an Area Variance for the excess parking that’s shown on the site plan. In other words, Staff recommends that any approval of the Freshwater Wetlands permit include a stipulation that the applicant apply for and receive a New York State DEC permit, and the conditions of that New York State DEC permit be included in the Town’s approval. That’s all we have for the Freshwater Wetlands portion of this. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name’s Jim Miller, Landscape Architect representing Richard Schermerhorn. You’re going to hear this one first, and then the site plan following, or are you going to do them together? MR. VOLLARO-Pretty much together. I think. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to have to do the SEQRA together. So we’ll go through the Wetlands permit. Then we’ll jump into the site plan. MR. MILLER-The project borders on the existing day care center. This is the new road that’s being completed, Willowbrook Drive. The Freshwater Wetland runs along Old Maids Brook to the rear of the site, basically leaving this triangular area to develop. The Zoning Board has granted two variances related to this, one was for parking. Rich has a tenant who’s a cardiologist and has requested that he needs 45 parking spaces for his business, and what’s allowed by zone was 36. So with the Zoning Board had granted the additional parking spaces. The other variance that was required, there’s a small farm pond that’s overgrown in this area and was pointed out to us that that was considered a shoreline, and we needed to get a setback variance for that pond. George was being particularly difficult that day. Basically, none of the building is within the buffer area. A bit of the back corner of the parking area falls within the buffer area of the wetland, and part of the reason for the permit is that the storm drainage is taken to a long swale and a pond to the rear of the site where it’s released by a filter dam into the wetland area. So most of the reason for the permit is grading for that detention to accept our stormwater. We tried to avoid any of the existing trees that were there, with the exception of some in this area as a response to some comments from C.T. Male to define that swale a little better in that area. So that’s the extent of the wetland permit. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-One of the requirements is an alternate plan. What would an alternate plan be here, if you didn’t get the Freshwater permit? MR. MILLER-Well, we’d be in trouble. I mean, this is fairly standard with, you know, the wetlands that we’ve been dealing with on this project and on this total site with DEC, the buffer areas we use to put the sedimentation and stormwater detention areas adjacent to the wetland, and then that way the buffer is actually being utilized to protect the wetland. MR. RINGER-I felt I had to ask the question, because (lost words). I didn’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-What is the, you said a filter fabric? MR. MILLER-Filter dam? MR. SEGULJIC-Filter dam. MR. MILLER-It’s stone, and basically allows the water to flow through the stone and filter the stormwater, in the event that the pond fills, it also acts as an overflow spillway. MR. SEGULJIC-So it also filters the water as it goes through it? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So most of the stormwater is going to be, from all the parking area, is going to be directed into the detention pond? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Then flow through the filter fabric. MR. MILLER-The filter dam, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The filter dam, and then into the wetland area. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. That’s basically what happens at the site now. The existing drainage from the site sheet flows off into that wetland. So what we’re doing with that detention basin is we’re collecting the stormwater, basically allowing any sediment to filter out into that basin and then release it gradually into the wetlands, as it currently exists. The runoff from the roof will go into stone eaves trenches. The site has got to be built up in the area around the buildings, but the fill material that will be used will be a gravelly, well drained material. So eaves trenches will be used around the building to collect the runoff and infiltrate that into the soil. MR. SEGULJIC-So that will infiltrate directly right along the edge of the building? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Into the ground. MR. MILLER-Yes. There’s no basement in the building. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In response to Staff’s comment, in looking at this, is it feasible to move it to the rear, I didn’t think that it was. You wanted to just reduce it? MR. MILLER-Are you referring to the building location, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’m referring to the parking. MR. MILLER-Let me address that. When we looked at that, there were obviously only two options. One was to move the building against this property line, and then get the parking behind it. One of the problems is that the building setback line along that property line, which would move the building closer to the wetland. So, if we did that, most of the parking would end up within the buffer area of the wetland and we would disturb more of the wetland buffer area. The other thing, from Staff’s point of view, and in discussions with the client, if we did that, we would put the entrance, this isn’t like the other building on Bay Road where you see it from Bay Road, but you enter it from a side road. You’d be looking at the back of the building as you approached, you know, so anybody looking for this building, they wouldn’t see the entrance around the back and they wouldn’t see the parking. This way, as you can see from that small location plan, this way, the road as it comes down and curves, we’ve got the better elevation of the building and the entry of the building facing down that way, we’re adjacent to a parking area, and we’re going to, you know, have landscaping between the two, and this slopes away. So that parking, you’ll see some of the cars, but between the planting and the grade there, a lot of that pavement area will be buffered, but you’ll have a better view and a better approach to the building, and also the circulation and, you know, fitting the program of the site development, minimizing the impact on the wetland buffer. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I agree with the way you’ve got it now, and I also feel that a berm in front of the building might detract from the building architecture a little bit. I mean, Staff has suggested a double peak, which I thought was a good part on their part, but I don’t see putting the berm up in front of that because really what we’re doing is we’re facing the day care center anyway, and your point of not facing right on Bay Road is good. I mean, Willowbrook Drive will be eventually a Town road, a dedicated Town road, I guess. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And so I have no, really, objections to the way this thing is set up at the present time, and I wouldn’t, you know, try to berm the front of this at all. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. STROUGH-How about a hedge? MR. VOLLARO-A hedge, put something like a hedge in front of it, but even that, I’m not sure that I don’t want to see the architecture of that building. MR. STROUGH-No, a hedge. MR. VOLLARO-Low. MR. MILLER-John, are you talking about along the parking lot? Because I think Bob’s talking about in front of the building. MR. STROUGH-No, never mind. Yes, you’re right. MR. VOLLARO-If you want a hedge something around the parking lot, that’s probably a different story, and that can come up. MR. MILLER-Well, there is some planting between the day care center parking lot and our parking lot. We use a combination of trees and some evergreens. MR. VOLLARO-I see that, and I looked at it and said I thought that might be satisfactory. Sometimes overdoing the plantings around might sometimes detract from a nice looking building, and with the double peak it’s going to be a fairly nice looking building, I think. MR. HILTON-Just for the Board, just for my clarification, I guess. If we moved into the site plan discussion, I have additional comments I can certainly provide. Those comments that. MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m trying to do here is just work them both together, because you can’t separate them out. MR. HILTON-No, absolutely. I can certainly provide the additional comments. MR. MAC EWAN-You can jump in any old time you want. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Go ahead. You might as well do them now. SITE PLAN NO. 19-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, TOM NACE ZONE: P O LOCATION: LOT 6, BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,800 SQ. FT. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND PARKING. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES IN PO ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: FWW 4-03, SB 8-00, AV –03 DEC, ACOE WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-24 LOT SIZE: 82.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-4 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-Well, you mentioned the second peak on the building, something a little more residential in appearance. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I thought that was a good. MR. HILTON-Street trees on Willowbrook, you know, maybe some additional ones to kind of keep the them of what’s proposed. The lighting plan looks pretty good. It’s what’s been submitted with us. It’s what’s been submitted with other lots within the subdivision, and again, any approvals should be conditioned, or we would recommend a condition that a New York State DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit be applied for and received. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Go back to your comment, like two comments prior to that. What did you say about more streetscaping? MR. HILTON-Well, if you look on the applicant’s plan, they’ve proposed two shade trees on Willowbrook, the extension of Willowbrook Drive, and the potential exists for one or two more trees to be included that would kind of continue that theme and possibly some additional nice street trees along that road. MR. STROUGH-I like that idea, too. Give it more of a boulevard. Well, I guess we might have a chance to do it with some of them on the other side. MR. HILTON-Absolutely, but that’s all we have for additional comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to make sure that the memo from Mr. Shaw of April 2, 2003 be, so long as it’s in the record, it’s in the record, but I think it’s important for people to know that there is going to be a sanitary sewer transportation company, now, that will contract with the central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District for sewer disposal. I think that’s something this Board should be aware of for any future applications as well along the Bay Road, because I think, in separate conversations I’ve had with Mr. Shaw, indicating that he would not be entertaining another sewer district extension along the Bay Road, so long as this transportation company was in place. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I agree with Staff about the roof, and I guess the applicant’s willing to, I don’t know exactly, what are they going to create, like a double roof over that smaller doorway? MR. MILLER-Well, to tell you the truth, do you have the building elevation? Rich submitted the building elevations and never left me a copy. MR. VOLLARO-You can put it up. There’s a peak there now, and Staff had put another peak. MR. MAC EWAN-See the large peak? MR. MILLER-I’m not sure where you’re talking about. MR. STROUGH-Well, Cathi, can we just submit this, it would look like something along those lines? Or no? MS. RADNER-What you’re showing is a picture that you’ve drawn on showing that you’re going to take the peak that’s on the left side of the drawing and try to mirror that look over the entrance to the right side of the drawing. MR. MILLER-I think we could just do it to be, you know, reviewed by Staff, and we submit it, because that drawing will be revised and resubmitted, because I know if we try to describe it, we give it to Rich, we’ll never get it back again. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll take like a five minute recess to pen that resolution. Streetscaping, Staff’s comments on streetscaping, adding a couple of more trees? MR. MILLER-Two more trees. MR. MAC EWAN-I know you’ve got that retention pond down there. You’ve probably got room for maybe two. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. MILLER-Yes. I think so, closer to the property line. The only reason we didn’t extend them down there, because that’s where the wetland area is, and that’s treed, but I don’t have a problem with adding a couple of street trees up by the right of way line. MR. MAC EWAN-Same species, same caliper? MR. MILLER-Yes. Yes, that’s what we’ve been using along this road is Summit Ash, the same size. MR. STROUGH-It’s a Pin Oak, right? MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s an Ash. MR. MILLER-No, Summit Ash. MR. STROUGH-It’s Summit Ash? Okay. The Pin Oak’s later. Okay. Well that’s good. Now, I didn’t see any lighting cut sheets. I saw, you know, an example of the style of lighting. MR. MILLER-Okay. We didn’t submit any. Actually, we’re going the same ones that he has had down there, the decorative ones. I believe they’re already there at the day care center and he’s putting them in at the medical office building. MR. STROUGH-So we’ll just condition it they’ll be the same size. MR. MILLER-It’ll be the same. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I think he said that, when he was back here with that medical office, that theme was going to carry throughout. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I just wanted to make sure. Just double checking. Okay. Now the Staff did mention something about putting an additional, and this is where I thought Bob was, and I’m sorry for jumping in, but an evergreen hedge, or a berm, but I’d prefer just the hedge along the parking lot area between the day care center and this project. MR. MILLER-In addition to the evergreen, and things that are there, the Pin Oaks. MR. MAC EWAN-Why would you want to do that, John? MR. STROUGH-Well, it was kind of to mask the parking lot a little bit better, because, according to the Bay Street design standards, we’ve requested that the parking lots be placed in back of the building, that the parking lot not be the main presentation of, you know, the look. This is not directly on Bay Road, so that’s somewhat of a mitigating factor, and Staff, you know, mentioned the berm or hedge as something they might like to see, to keep it in line with the Bay Street standards, but let’s go ahead. MR. MILLER-The only thing I would ask you to take a look at is the small key plan. Quite a bit, the whole back portion of this parking lot is really, as you come in from Bay Road, is really behind the day care center. That extends quite a bit back, so, I mean, the area that’s visible in all is just the front section there, and I guess, you know, our only concern with adding more buffering there is, like Bob was saying earlier, you know, we really don’t want to screen the front entrance to the building, but I mean, we could add some lower shrubs in there. MR. STROUGH-Well, I just meant like some Yews or just a low hedge. MR. MILLER-I would rather not do a hedge. I’d rather keep it more informal, if that’s all right with you, and do the same thing. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t hear a lot of clamor here. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just thinking about what you’re saying, and we’re talking about the Bay Road design corridor, and I interpret that as buildings that are adjacent or abutting Bay Road, where the parking would be in the rear, not necessarily a building that’s set off Bay Road. MR. STROUGH-More so I agree with that assessment, Craig, but. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know that, my thoughts as to whether a hedge is something that I’d be crazy about, I mean, there’s already plenty of plantings there. You have the issue of snow removal, too. Are you talking about berming that, John, and putting plantings on top of a berm or something, or what? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MILLER-Some of those plants are existing. So we can’t go in and berm it now. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, you don’t have a lot of room there along the property line even to put a berm. MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s the Town Code. Just so you get a look see. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve looked at it before. MR. STROUGH-It’s what they suggest if you’re going to have a parking addressing the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but that’s the Bay Road corridor design. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-And I interpret that as being buildings that are actually on Bay Road, not buildings that are off Bay Road. MR. STROUGH-Well, okay, that’s a judgment call, and I don’t disagree with you. So, it’s not a big issue with me. It’s not that important, and if it’s not that important to other people, let’s move on. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you said something like more informal plantings? What did you mean by that? MR. MILLER-Well, we’ve got some evergreens there and we’ve got some Pin Oaks. We’ve already got some plants there, and if you, I think if the Board felt that we needed more buffering, we could add some shrubs between the groups of evergreens or something to maybe fill in some areas you may feel are open. MR. RINGER-Kind of like overkill. MR. STROUGH-I think we’re all right. MR. VOLLARO-I think that would be excessive. MR. MILLER-We’re okay? MR. STROUGH-Staff mentioned it. I brought it up, but I think the general feeling here is we’re all right. MR. VOLLARO-I think this plan as presented is adequate, as far as I’m concerned. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. HILTON-Pardon me, just for clarification. The Bay Road design area is a defined area that not only takes into consideration the parcels directly fronting Bay Road, but some that are off Bay Road. It’s a corridor, it’s a defined corridor. I understand your comment about this being removed from Bay Road itself, but, again, just for clarification, the actual boundaries don’t just include the parcels directly on Bay Road. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess, philosophically, how far off Bay Road does one go with that design corridor before they say, gee, we’re far enough off Bay Road itself? MR. HILTON-Well, like I said it’s an existing defined area, but again, I understand, you know, appreciate your comment about properties directly on Bay Road versus those that are set back a ways, but again, just to let you know that there’s a definite boundary. MR. STROUGH-And I think if you had provided no vegetation, we might have an issue, but you did provide some landscaping along there. So it’s not like it’s, you know, out there bare. MR. MILLER-I think it’s a, you know, buffering and screening’s a good idea whether you’re on the corridor or not. It’s just a matter of how much you need. MR. STROUGH-I wondered, since it’s a medical office, if we should have more handicapped spots than what we have. I think there’s only one or two. MR. MILLER-Well, there’s two, what’s required by Code, that are designated. MR. STROUGH-You know, as a medical office, isn’t there, wouldn’t you just, I mean, it just seems to make sense that you would have more handicapped spots. MR. MILLER-Well, you get a medical office, they’re empty, just like they’re empty everywhere else. I mean, you know, there are places, you know, somebody like a cardiologist, it’s not. I mean, typically, if somebody comes in, they’re having some kind of problem, they’re assisted. The only times we have instances where we do extra is like when we did the Independent Living Center. I mean, they are, you have a concentration of people. MR. STROUGH-Well, this isn’t going to be just a cardiologist, is it? MR. MILLER-Yes, that’s my understanding. MR. STROUGH-Really? 8,800 square feet, just one doctor? MR. MILLER-Well, yes, no, I don’t think it’s just one. I don’t know exactly, but. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I don’t know. In a medical building I just thought extra handicapped spots would be the right thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know who it is, offhand? MR. MILLER-No, I don’t. Sometimes my clients are a little secretive about these things until we get things approved. MR. MAC EWAN-Leases to deal with. MR. STROUGH-All right. Now we haven’t had a C.T. Male signoff, have we, on this? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we do. MR. STROUGH-We did? MR. VOLLARO-We got it tonight, John. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. STROUGH-I didn’t see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Two items. Two punch list items. MR. STROUGH-All right. Mike Shaw comments, you already mentioned that, Bob. The only other thing that I have is a lot of these stormwater devices are going to be on what’s eventually private property. So I drew up this, and I just, as maybe a failsafe, just little bit of extra protection, I’m going to hand it down for the Planning Board members to consider, and I made up some extra ones so that the, you know, and this is not particularly aimed at you. This is aimed at, my concern here is just for the future preservation of these stormwater devices that, should this property be sold and re-sold, that what carries with the land is a kind of duty to maintain these stormwater devices, and not become a burden of the Town, that we can show that, you know, this is tied in with the application. This is your responsibility. You have to clean out those detention basins, or you can’t let the vegetation grow in there like that because it hampers what they planned to do originally. So, you know, this is kind of a boiler plate thing that I stole from Bolton Landing. MR. RINGER-Did you run it by Counsel? Did you see it, Cathi? MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t want to incorporate this in tonight’s approval, if we’re so inclined to approve this project, pending Counsel’s opportunity to review this. MS. RADNER-I’ll just repeat my cautions that I’ve given in the past, that I think it’s a bad practice to get into to provide language to applicants. I think that it should be the applicant’s duty to bring suggested language to you, if you think that’s what’s necessary, and then have it preserved. MR. STROUGH-Well, no, I think that, you know, as a condition, that we make it very clear that these stormwater devices are going to be up to the owner of this site to maintain, like I’ve stated. MS. RADNER-With the proviso that this is an example of one that you’ve taken from another facility. I understand what you’re trying to do, but I would caution you that you really shouldn’t be the one who’s determining the division of duties between property owners, lessees, etc. MR. STROUGH-But this is a kind of boiler plate I want to use as a general rule for all these stormwater devices that are coming before us that are on private property. MR. RINGER-As a question, Cathi, when we approve a plan, and there is a stormwater management plan that does require some kind of maintenance work, isn’t this automatic that whoever installed that or owns the property is responsible for maintaining that, because it’s part of the approval, and if that system fails, they would have to? MR. STROUGH-If it is, I don’t see it in the Town Code. MR. RINGER-I’m asking Cathi a question. It just seems an approval would assume that, if they’re the ones that submitted the stormwater plan, and there is maintenance required, that they would be responsible for that maintenance. MS. RADNER-I think it’s like any other property maintenance issue. There’s sort of a presumption that property owners are going to maintain their property. So you don’t include a condition that every building has to be painted. It’s a presumption that the property owner is responsible for upkeeping their property and doing the things that are necessary, such as pumping septic tanks that are necessary to make the system function, and if a property owner neglects his property to the point that it no longer functions and creates a problem, either there’s going to be a problem based upon site plan review that they’re no longer in compliance, 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) or they’re going to be in violation with other areas of the Town Code, because they’re causing pollutants or because they’re causing washouts, things of that nature. So, in appropriate circumstances, yes, you might want to condition it that there be a plan in place, or that there be a condition imposed that the property owner will be responsible for maintaining stormwater devices, but there is a level of presumption that property owners are responsible for maintaining their own property, and I think it’s a judgment call you’re going to have to make at what depth of telling them, you know, flush your own toilet, do you want to get into. MR. RINGER-Well, I think it’s different in regard, like painting a building, because that’s not part of a site plan approval, but a stormwater plan is part of a site plan approval, and if maintenance is required to maintain that stormwater, then I don’t, it just seems like it would be automatic that it would follow, and if the system fails, the applicant or the owner of the property at the time would be responsible for making sure that the maintenance was done, or if not, then the Town would have the right to make them do it, or do it and bill them back, whatever. I don’t know how that system works. MS. RADNER-Yes. I don’t believe we have anything in our Town Code that would authorize us to do it and then bill them back, unless it got into a health hazard issue or a blight issue. MR. STROUGH-Well, how about this, Cathi. We say in a condition, that, and you just happened to be the applicant that this works. MR. MILLER-I’m just lucky like that. MR. STROUGH-That we say that the applicant will submit, on a final plans, a maintenance program, similar to that suggested by the Planning Board, with the final submittal. MR. VOLLARO-That kind of puts the burden on us. MR. RINGER-Yes. Who’s going to monitor that? MS. RADNER-My concern is that down the road, you’re going to create liability for yourselves or create problems because you’re the one who decides these conditions, and you’ve failed to consider one, or because of the conditions because of a condition you imposed, you create a problem on a neighboring property, I think you want to look at a site plan, following the criteria set forth in the Town Code, make sure that safeguards are in place, to perhaps condition it on maintenance of those systems, but I don’t think you want to get into the position of writing their agreements or writing their landlord/tenant contract, things of that nature. MR. MAC EWAN-John, let me take this from a different angle. The reason why you brought up the suggestion is obviously the concerns that you have over maintenance of stormwater management plans that we approve or will approve in the future. Are you aware of any that have failed that you know of, or issues that have brought you to want to come up with this language? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’ve noticed that other towns do this. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking about the things we’ve approved. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know about everything, and I can’t say yes or no. You know what I do know is I was up to Home Depot four times, and that the installation of that CDS System wasn’t exactly according to plan. I mean, there was a lot of silt being run right into that runoff stream, right into the pond in Pineview Cemetery. So that didn’t go according to plan. So, yes, when construction begins and all is said and done, sometimes things don’t go according to plan, and I was just ensure and assure that the stormwater devices that are presented to us will stay working as they were designed, and that becomes a burden of the landowner and not the Town. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. VOLLARO-There is, my recollection is on some of the stormwater management plan that Mr. Nace has done just recently, he has a maintenance section right on the plan. I’ve seen it. MR. MILLER-Well, that’s a new DEC regulation. As a matter of fact, Bob was just talking about the new DEC regulation that came into effect in January, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The purpose of that is specifically to address runoff and stormwater pollution during construction. So, part of that requirement, we’ve been doing a separate drawing, and part of that requirement is there’s supposed to be an engineer’s report filed neatly, showing that all systems are working, and if not, they’re under a DEC permit. They’re in violation of the permit. So, I mean, during construction, it’s very strict now with DEC. MR. VOLLARO-John is talking about the long term maintenance of an operating system. There’s some validity in what he says. MR. MILLER-There is, but I think that every site plan, though, there’s an enforcement side of it, and I’ve had clients that put their dumpster in the wrong place, and we had to come in for site plan modification because they didn’t have a dumpster where it was on the site plan. So I think that, you know, if there’s a violation, there’s an enforcement side of it where they certainly could be made to come back to the Planning Board or, you know, the only thing that worries me about it is, you know, you’re singling out, you know, the stormwater prevention. What about landscaping? If trees die, you know, it’s like how many of those caveats do you want to have on the plan. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, but trees can die, and that won’t adversely effect the neighboring property, other than well maybe visually you might argue, but you know stormwater, to me, is more important of an issue, but you’re point’s well taken. MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-Just for your consideration, what about a condition, just a general condition, I guess, that would say the applicant shall keep their stormwater facilities in good repair as indicated on the site plan. I understand what you’re saying that there’s an enforcement side of it, and I agree, but maybe a simple condition like that gives us all that much more ability to go out and. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s basically what I said in the handout, only a little wordier, a little bit more specific, but that’s basically what I said. MR. MAC EWAN-A lot wordier. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m good at that. MR. MILLER-Well, one of the things I’ve seen in many towns is they have a section of standard notes that have to be on, you know, Wilton does and Saratoga Springs does. They have standard notes that have to be on a plan, and sometimes they refer to inspections or something, and I mean, you know, you certainly could do that. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, the issue is that Jim was referring to. I mean, if we have plantings that don’t get on the plan, either come in and ask for a modification, or in the case that I’m aware of recently, on application we approved a couple of years ago, new owners took over the business, cut down all the trees in front that we asked be planted, and they have to replant all those trees. So, I mean, there are mechanisms in place, safety nets, to catch these things, and if someone has a failed stormwater management system, we refer back to this application or any other application where it’s clearly spelled out in here what they’re going to do. Our Zoning Ordinance gives criteria of what they need to do. State DEC law gives criteria of what they need to do. I mean, there’s so many safety nets here that to bring someone back into compliance would be, to me, a relatively easy thing to do, without us getting burdened down 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) with spelling out and writing the language to put on approvals when there’s so many other safety nets already in place. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know if I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. I just say the property owners will receive a copy of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board approved stormwater management plan. Should this ownership change, the owner will get a copy of this. Now, we’re not guaranteed of that, the way we’ve got things currently worded. I’ve also said that the property owner shall not build or modify a stormwater control measure without first receiving a permit from the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me respond to the first comment first. There is no guarantee that any new owner of an approved site plan will get any of this information that goes through these deliberations we do, but the safety net here, and the example I’ll give you, is that business that cut down the trees that were part of a landscaping approval that we gave a prior business owner. New owners come in, cut the trees down, now they’re finding out, hey, they weren’t supposed to do that, now they’ve got to replant those trees. So there is a safety feature working right there. It would be the same view of someone with a stormwater management plan. There’s no guarantee, even if we put it on a plat, that says the owner is supposed to get this thing. MR. STROUGH-Well, it doesn’t have to be done tonight. I just introduced it, and I explained to the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe Counsel could take what you’ve got and put something very generic together for us for future consideration. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that sounds good. MR. RINGER-That’s what I was going to suggest. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, I don’t have any other opportunity to introduce an idea other than at a meeting like this. MR. RINGER-We have workshops, and that would be a perfect workshop. MR. STROUGH-Yes, what workshops? MS. RADNER-I think if you’d look at his (lost word) that might just cover what you want to do, if you look at John’s (lost word) on his note. MR. STROUGH-So, anyway, yes, let’s have a workshop on that. Maybe we could have a sixth meeting next month. MR. RINGER-It doesn’t have to be this month, either. MR. STROUGH-No, it doesn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. STROUGH-All right. So where did I leave off? I left off with that, and that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Okay. I guess I might stand alone here, but I actually appreciate the Staff comment about reducing the number of parking spaces that are required. I certainly would feel much more comfortable, as a better justification for the amount that’s there. I, a number of years ago, used to administrate a health care facility, and so I understand how you can’t have, 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) or at least the perception is you can’t have enough parking, but this is not an urgent care type of center. There would be appointments all scheduled for the people, and depending upon the number of practitioners you can count on in a practice like this, probably no more than three encounters per hour, and most of the cardiologists will be doing their work at the hospital. So if you have three cardiologists in the actual professional office, say even four, you’re talking about traffic of about 12 cars coming in per hour, plus staff. I may be way off, maybe they’re going to have more cardiologists working there than what I’m suggesting, but since you’re closing in on wetlands and it’s a variance, I would certainly feel more comfortable if there was better justification for the variance rather than just to say, well, the cardiologist want it, so we’ll give it to them. So, that’s my feeling on it. I would certainly like to know more about how many people are going to actually practice in any given time in that building, before you move forward. To me that’s a minor request, but if we can cut off six or so parking spots and keep a little bit more natural turf there, rather than pavement, why not. Am I alone on this on the Board here? MR. RINGER-I thought they got their variance already approved. MR. MILLER-Yes. We did. MR. RINGER-They got a variance already approved for the. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Getting a variance doesn’t necessarily mean that this Board would approve it. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. MILLER-Well, I think, Jon Lapper presented the argument of a variance, whatever documentation everything he had for that, he presented, and I wasn’t part of that presentation. So I can’t say, specifically, how many doctors or whatever that criteria was. All I know is that the tenant has specifically, as part of their lease agreement, requested 45 spaces. Rich agreed, applied for the variance and got the variance. I think that, you know, the spaces we’re talking about are the few in the very back end of the lot, that’s basically being constructed in a cleared meadow type area, and the site, you can look at the calculations, is almost 80% green space. So we’re only utilizing 20% of the site. So, you know, if you go from 80% green space to 81% green space and tell the tenant he can’t have what he wants to pay for, you know, I’m not in a position tonight to agree to a lesser amount of cars, because I know that’s part of the agreement. MR. SANFORD-I’m not necessarily suggesting that you agree to a lesser number of spaces. I’m asking you to merely explain the justification for that number of spaces. I mean, if you’re talking three encounters, let’s say you need nine cars per staff. I don’t know how many you’re going to need, but let’s say you need nine cars for staff, and if you’re going to have three or four practitioners there, times three, there’s 12 more cars. If you add them together you’re talking in the low twenties. I don’t know where you get the 45. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, you’re out on that limb by yourself. MR. SANFORD-I’m all by myself? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all by yourself on that one. MR. SANFORD-Well, let the record show I’m all by myself. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. SANFORD-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t mean to steal your thunder. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. SANFORD-I just don’t see the need for it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-No. I think we’ve pretty much covered the gamut here. 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-We need to do a SEQRA. The SEQRA is going to go hand in hand. Then we do the approval, if we’re so inclined to approve, or consider approval, we’ll do the Freshwater first. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to ask a question on the Freshwater before we go into that. Just quickly. Are the permits for this application similar to, for example, Queensbury Partners where Article 24 for DEC permit, which is a blanket, pretty much of a blanket permit, Article 24. MR. HILTON-Well, it’s my understanding that they have, the applicant has received an Army Corps permit for the entire subdivision. The New York State DEC Article 24 is unique to this application, and they haven’t secured that yet. That’s why we’ve suggested that they. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve seen this Article 24 in a lot. MR. HILTON-Right. I think that references the Environmental Conservation Law, the New York State law, the Section of the law. MR. VOLLARO-So this is pretty much going to be standard to every one of these Freshwater Wetlands permits. Is that correct? MR. MILLER-That’s correct, but the permit is actually site specific with, what you get is a standard permit, but then they have a Special Conditions section, where they can put anything particular to your project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see this Article 24 jumping out a lot, and I just wanted to, for my own edification, know what that was. That’s all, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, are you ready to do a SEQRA? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Now this is going to be a SEQRA for both? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-At the same time? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. FWW 4-2003 & SP 19-2003, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, 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 22 day of April, 2003, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Site plan. MR. STROUGH-No, we have to do the Freshwater. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry, yes, you’re right. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FWW 4-2003 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Freshwater Wetlands Permit – FWW 4-2003 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Guido Passarelli Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Tom Nace Zone: PO 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) Location: Lot 6, Baybrook Professional Park Applicant proposes construction of an 8,800 sq. ft professional office and parking. As part of the construction the applicant proposes construction/disturbance within 100 feet of regulated wetlands. Cross Reference: SB 8-00, SP 19-03, AV 31-03 DEC, ACOE Warren Co. Planning: 4/9/03 Tax Map No. 296.12-1-24 Lot size: 82.22 acres / Section: 179-6 Public Hearing: April 22, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/17/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/18/03, and 4/22 Staff Notes 4/17 C. T. Male engineering comments 4/15 Notice of Public Hearing 4/9 Warren Co. Planning: NCI 4/2 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 April 22, 2003; 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 Agency 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. That the NYS DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit be submitted at the time of building permit for this proposal. 2. Applicant shall apply for and receive a NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Permit. Any conditions of the NYSDEC permit shall be included in the Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit. 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: 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 4/22/03 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Site plan. Mr. Strough, what have you got for conditions before? MR. STROUGH-Well, I haven’t added the one about the trees on the road yet, but I do have the parking lot and sidewalk lighting fixtures will be of the same or similar type as used elsewhere in the Baybrook Professional Park, and I’ve got that the issues mentioned in the April 2, 2003 memorandum from Mike Shaw will be addressed by the applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit, and what I didn’t get to was the additional trees along. MR. MAC EWAN-Two. MR. VOLLARO-Two. MR. MILLER-Two additional. MR. MAC EWAN-Same species, same caliper. MR. STROUGH-So I’m going to need a minute to work out the, do you have the language worked out, Larry, on the trees? MR. RINGER-No, I was working on. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll take a four minute recess. What’s your conditions there, Mr. Strough. MR. STROUGH-Four of them. First one will be the parking lot and sidewalk lighting fixtures will be of the same or similar type as used elsewhere in the Baybrook Professional Park. Condition Number Two, issues mentioned in the April 2, 2003 memorandum from Mike Shaw will be addressed by the applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. Three, an additional two Summit Ash trees will be added along Willowbrook Drive placed northeast of the two Summit Ash current shown on the drawings, and, four, the applicant will add a second peak to the southern end of the building, of similar size and dimension as shown on the western elevation drawing. MR. VOLLARO-Sounds good to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Introduce it. MR. STROUGH-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2003 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 19-2003 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Guido Passarelli Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Tom Nace Zone: PO Location: Lot 6, Baybrook Professional Park Applicant proposes construction of an 8,800 sq. ft. professional office and parking. Professional Office uses in the PO zone require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: FWW 4-03, SB 8-00, AV -03 DEC, ACOE Warren Co. Planning: 4/9/03 Tax Map No. 296.12-1-24 Lot size: 82.22 acres / Section: 179-4 Public Hearing: April 22, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/17/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/18/03, and 4/22 Staff Notes 4/17 C. T. Male engineering comments 4/15 Notice of Public Hearing 4/9 Warren Co. Planning: NCI 4/2 Meeting Notice 4/1 Water Dept. comments 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 April 22, 2003; 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. The parking lot and sidewalk lighting fixtures will be of the same or similar type as used elsewhere in the Baybrook Professional Park. 2. Issues mentioned in the April 2, 2003 memorandum from Mike Shaw will be addressed by the applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) 3. An additional two (2) Summit Ash Trees will be added along Willow Brook Drive, placed northeast of the two (2) Summit Ash currently shown on the drawing. 4. The applicant will add a second peak to the southern end of the building of similar size and dimension as shown on the western elevation drawing. 5. A copy of the required NYSDEC FW permit to be submitted at the time of Building Permit for this project. 6. 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 4/22/03 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MILLER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome, Jim. SITE PLAN NO. 20-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED AFTAB BHATTI AGENT: JARRETT- MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 8,000 +/- SQ. FT. FREESTANDING HOTEL BUILDING. HOTEL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 25-02, 55-02, 85-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51, 52.13, 392.5-1-52.13 TOM JARRETT & TRENT MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-2003, Aftab Bhatti, Meeting Date: April 22, 2003 “Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of an additional 8,000 +/- sq. ft. hotel building with additional parking, lighting and landscaping at the site of the existing Econo Lodge on Aviation Rd. 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? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) Hotels are allowed uses in the HC-Int zone with Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. The applicant has received a variance from the ZBA to allow a front yard setback less than 50 ft.; and for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) above .30. 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? No adverse impacts on public services are anticipated as a result of 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? No adverse traffic impacts are 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 Site Plan. 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 proposed building and parking appears adequately sited and arranged to fit with buildings and parking on site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Overall, access appears adequate. Staff has some concern about the parking space in the southwestern corner of the site (adjacent to the entrance/exit) and the potential impact on circulation. This issue will be discussed further in the Staff Comments section of this document. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. For the most part, parking appears adequate. Further comment will be provided in the Staff Comments section of this document. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. It appears that pedestrian access will be provided from the existing and proposed parking area. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. A stormwater management plan has been forwarded to CT Male for their review and comment. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. This site is served by municipal water and sewer service. Adequate capacity is available to 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. Comments on proposed landscaping/buffering will be provided in the Staff Comments section of this document. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. It appears the proposed expansion would not have a negative impact on emergency services at this site. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. hotel building at the existing Econo Lodge on Aviation Rd. The new building would be constructed to the east of the current hotel building and would replace an existing older house. This site currently contains three separate parcels, which the applicant has indicated will be merged into one lot. The ZBA has granted area variances for front yard setback relief as well as relief for the Floor Area Ratio requirements for the HC-Int zone. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan and cut-sheets as part of the Site Plan. The lighting plan shows a series of contours indicating proposed light levels. It appears that the lighting contours represented on the light plan do not provide proposed light levels. Without light levels it is difficult to determine if any light spill will occur onto surrounding properties. The lighting plan does not indicate the location of the proposed wall pack lights. It is also difficult to locate the 5 proposed 175-watt aluminum reflector lights on the lighting plan. The 5 proposed freestanding lights should have lenses flush and direct light directly to the ground. The parking space at the extreme southwestern corner of the site (just to the west of the access point for this lot) is shown as being partially off site and could present a conflict for vehicles exiting this site. Staff recommends that this parking space be removed and that this area of the site be converted to green space. Removal of one parking space will provide enough parking to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff recommends that any removal of the southwestern parking space, as mentioned above, be converted to green space. Consideration should be given to placing a shade tree from the list in the Zoning Ordinance where this new green area is to be created. Staff also recommends that the two pear trees shown on the Landscape Plan along Aviation Rd. be replaced by shade trees as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The landscaping plan does not contain shade trees in the interior parking lot as required in § 179-8-040 D. Staff recommends one shade tree be placed on either side of the parking area to the north of the proposed building. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) A Type C landscaped buffer as outlined in § 179-8-060 is required from adjacent residential properties. The applicant proposes a mix of new landscaping and existing vegetation to be used as a buffer from surrounding residential properties. The Zoning Ordinance requires that tree heights within a type C Buffer be 10 ft. Tree heights within the proposed buffer should be identified on the Landscaping Plan. The proposed limits of clearing should be identified on the site plan. In order to provide safer pedestrian access on site, Staff recommends that the existing on-site sidewalk, (in front of the existing hotel building) be extended around the eastern edge of the proposed parking area and in front of the proposed building. Extending the sidewalk in front of the building may require the relocation of a proposed eave trench that is shown lining the west and north sections of the proposed hotel building. As previously mentioned, the applicant proposes to merge all three existing lots into one. Proof that all three lots have been merged should be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application. SEQR Status: SEQR Type: Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a short form EAF.” MR. HILTON-Okay. The proposal is for the construction of an 8,000 square foot hotel building addition to the existing Econo Lodge. The site currently contains three separate parcels which the applicant has indicated will be merged into one. The lighting plan, as a general comment, does not appear to show the light levels. The contours are there, but the light levels don’t seem, seem to not be shown. Therefore, it’s kind of difficult to determine if any light spill will occur onto surrounding properties. Well, specific note that the parking space at the extreme southwestern corner appears to be somewhat off the property, and also, within the drive lane, and Staff recommends that that space be removed. The plan would still meet required parking. Staff recommends that that removed parking space be converted to green space, and consideration should be given to placing a shade tree in that area, as well as the existing, or the pear tree shown on the landscaping plan along Aviation being planted as a shade tree as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes a buffer, some buffering from the surrounding properties. As a note, a Type C landscaping buffer is required 50 feet from the surrounding residential properties. Proposed limits of clearing should be identified on this plan, and also for safer pedestrian access, Staff recommends, or would like to look into having a sidewalk, the existing sidewalk, be continued around the parking area and around the proposed building. This may require some redesign of their stormwater plan. As a note, you know, roof drains could be used. You could put some kind of stormwater infiltration in that proposed buffer, something to consider. Any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during this review, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett and Trent Martin of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. Sam Bhatti, the owner of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, just before you begin, so we don’t get bogged down in a lot of conversation on this application tonight, you’ve got this April 17 letter of C.T. Male, ten punch th list items that have got to be addressed? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you responded to them with C.T. Male? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. JARRETT-We have not had a chance to respond to them. We assume that you’ll wait until we respond. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Just based on this alone, we don’t want to spend a lot of time getting bogged down in a lot of discussion on this thing tonight. We can do an overview on it, ask what questions we need to ask, and we’ll table this thing until the end of the month already. You’re probably looking at June right now. MR. JARRETT-Well, we understand the Board’s position. We would like to just get a feel for where the Board’s coming from and give you an overview of what we’re trying to do. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. That’s a good idea. MR. JARRETT-Mr. Bhatti owns the Econo Lodge on Aviation Road, just to the east of the Silo, and what he’s proposing to do, with two adjoining lots to the east, is combine all three lots into one parcel and build an expansion of the Econo Lodge as a detached building, and that would replace an existing residential structure that’s dilapidated on that property right now. Parking for the expanded motel would share the existing parking as well as expanded parking behind the new building. Lighting, we’ve proposed to reuse the existing wall packs on the existing building, but then install new pole mounted lights and two new wall packs, as well as the light under the proposed carport, to illuminate the site in conformance with Town standards. From the stormwater perspective, there are five, I believe, existing drywells which are functioning adequately. We observed those this winter during a heavy melt period. We propose to expand that system by adding two drywells behind the new motel building, and then provide what we call a triple infiltration trench through the buffer area, which will give us infiltration of stormwater which is one of the preferred methods for stormwater management, as well as potentially irrigate some of the landscaping that’s proposed. We’re proposing to leave the existing residential site to the rear, to the north of the property as totally undisturbed. You’ll see two tree lines that are delineated on the plan right now. The reason for that delineation is that there’s a pathway through this site, and we’ll allow that to grow up. It will be fully treed in the future. We’ve also provided a 50 foot landscaped buffer along the east boundary, in accordance with Town standards and Jim Miller has provided the landscape plan that you have in your package. As far as access to the site, we’re eliminating the curb cut to the existing residential property, combining all the access for the properties to one existing curb cut that’s expanded. C.T. Male has asked us to modify the radii on that curb cut and we’ll discuss that with them. The curb radii that we utilize fits this site better, but we’re acknowledging what they’re saying and we will discuss that with them. Municipal water and sewer are available for this site. Mike Shaw has commented that this property is not within the sewer district right now. Sewer service is available. We’d have to extend the district which we can do. There is probably an existing lateral that has to be verified. We will reuse that, if possible. That, I guess, is our project is a nutshell, and I’d like to get some general comments from the Board tonight, so that we can go back and address the specifics prior to next meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll get to my comment rather quickly, and that’s on Mike Shaw’s position on that. I think what Mike Shaw said in there, that a map plan and report, essentially a new district has to be extended, a district extension has to be conducted. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That means you’ve got to do a map plan and report, and that map plan and report has to be approved by the Town Board. Eventually you’ve got to get a resolution approving the sewer district. Now in the past what we’ve done on this Board for other applicants that have had the same problem, we’ve asked them that they wouldn’t get a building 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) permit until the resolution approving the sewer district extension was accepted. I think that that’s something that we’ve been doing as a Board right along, and that would apply to this. So you’d have to take a look at the timeframe that elapses from there to the time you actually get a sewer district extension approval. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you understand that. That’s my only comment, until they come back. I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Now Lot Three is going to be forever wild? MR. JARRETT-Lot Three being the northern most lot? Yes. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and what I noticed, too, was the landscaping, and that 50 foot buffer zone between the proposal and the Glen Acres subdivision. There’s a lot of Pin Oaks and such, and I was just wondering if, you know, because that doesn’t provide much visual screening during the winter, because they’re oaks, if you could consider spruces, white pines, even, or something else that would provide year round screening, you know visual screening, as well as help a little bit with maybe the sound, and I’d like to see some elevations. I’d like to make sure that this architecture is going to be in harmony with the rest of the architecture. MR. JARRETT-Of the building. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Yes, I can show that to you right now, as a matter of fact. Keep going with your comments. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. The lighting plan I found difficult to read, impossible I think is the word. I had a real hard time with the lighting plan. MR. JARRETT-We do have to apologize. The contour labels did get left off the plan that you have. So we apologize for that, and they will be added. I guess we’ll look in that and see if we can make it clearer. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me chime in on that, while we’re talking about it. My preference is to see a grid pattern type lighting layout, versus contour. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I think grid pattern shows the foot candles much more accurately than a contour. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We can certainly present it either way. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’d like to see a floor plan, because I don’t know how this is laid out, so I can’t lay out pedestrian movement. I can’t see where I would want sidewalks or not want sidewalks. I don’t know whether there’s any doors. I just don’t know. MR. JARRETT-We can walk through that in just a second. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay. The air conditioning units, I mean, how is this laid out inside? Is there two sets of rooms, one on each side, or does one room run all the way from the west end to the east end? MR. JARRETT-No, there’s a corridor. MR. STROUGH-There’s a corridor down through the middle? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And then there’s going to be air conditioners towards the residential area? MR. JARRETT-Toward the units? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And they’re going to be, and each room as its own unit? MR. JARRETT-That’s the proposal currently, yes. MR. STROUGH-And how many units will be facing the residential area? See, I can’t tell any of that from this. If I had a floor plan, I’d be able to figure that out, and I do have concerns about the cumulative effect of whatever number of air conditioners there are. In the parking plan, are RVs and cars with trailers going to be able to park in here? MR. JARRETT-Do you want to address that? MR. STROUGH-RVs, large RVs? AFTAB BHATTI MR. BHATTI-No. MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to exclude them? If they pull in, you’re going to say, a sign? MR. BHATTI-Once in a while they do come in, but, you know, (lost words) I don’t have that many. So I don’t know the future. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know where they would park. MR. BHATTI-That’s the reason they don’t come because if I don’t have parking, they don’t come. MR. STROUGH-All right. How about a car with a trailer on it. Would that be able to circulate through here okay? MR. BHATTI-Yes. MR. JARRETT-A boat trailer you mean? Yes, a smaller trailer. The site really can’t accommodate large trucks staying overnight. It’s not a truck stop type of thing. MR. STROUGH-So if I pull in with my RV, I find out I can’t stay here, now I’ve got to get out of the place, and I’m just wondering, is the traffic circulation going to be suitable for that? MR. JARRETT-We feel it is. We feel it is for those size trailers. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. BHATTI-So far we haven’t had trouble in the past seven years, six years. MR. STROUGH-Has emergency personnel reviewed this plan, because I don’t know if they’d have a problem not being able to get access to the rear of this building. Is that okay? Has this been presented to any? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll refer it to Queensbury Central and ask them to review it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, and another thing about the vegetation in that 50 foot buffer zone, the Pin Oaks that are being proposed for there not only won’t provide much visual and/or audio screening, but the Pin Oaks preferred, according to what I’ve read, and I’ve got the documentation here, they prefer a moist, lowland soil. They don’t like a high, dry, sandy soil. So I don’t know if, because, you know, elsewhere that we’ve seen them, they’ve been okay. I don’t know if they would survive here, but in any event, like I said to begin with, they’re not particularly good coverage. So, in a nutshell, those were my concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-All right. Good evening. Often I miss the site visits, but I made it this time, and it was very useful to me, it was very useful to get a look at the site. On a preliminary basis, my big concern is that 50 foot buffer isn’t a lot. I mean, it looks better on paper, but when you’re there, it looks like you’re going to be very close to the residential area, and so I just want to make sure that there’s the right kind of visual blockage that exists in that very narrow buffer, and I’m a little concerned. I agree with Mr. Strough’s comments. I would like to see, get a better idea as to what the structure itself will look like, especially, I guess that would be the east side of the building. What’s really going to be there in terms of windows and the air conditioners and that kind of a thing. MR. JARRETT-The elevation that we’ve put on the board is essentially the same, east and west side. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. JARRETT-With the exception of the door, which you’ll see to the right of that plan, which is the entrance on the southwest corner of the building. MR. SANFORD-So there’ll be no sidewalk, in other words, going out on the east side, and then walking around to the parking lot. Is that correct? MR. JARRETT-On the east side, no. MR. SANFORD-No. Okay. So it does then beg the question, of whether or not there’s any kind of a hazard in terms of safety with fire and all of that, which I hadn’t thought of, but, you know, Mr. Strough brought up, but, in terms of preserving that buffer, of course that’s not a bad thing to have it basically not have anybody there. MR. JARRETT-We debated it both ways, and have come to the Board without that. We actually did consider a woodland path through there, which doesn’t allow emergency access for vehicles, but does allow egress in terms of pedestrians. MR. SANFORD-Well, my concern, at this point, is merely what can we do to protect the surrounding neighborhood and is there a public hearing tonight? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’m going to open it up. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So I’ll be interested in hearing what others might have to say about it, but that’s it for me. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. I’d want to see your drawing that you have there, and have that explained to us. I don’t have anything. MR. JARRETT-The building. MR. RINGER-The building. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just more interested in the building, and also the area to the south of the proposed addition and Aviation Road, what’s proposed for that area? Is that under your control? MR. JARRETT-That’s not Mr. Bhatti’s property. That’s actually right of way. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JARRETT-It’s the old right of way that was abandoned when the roads were realigned, and so that’s green space, forever green space. MR. MAC EWAN-Town property. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Do you want to run us through the building, building design? MR. JARRETT-This is proposed as a two story building. It was a three story building originally, when we first presented it to the Zoning Board. The public reacted to the three stories, felt it was excessive. Mr. Bhatti agreed to reduce it to two stories. It’s a gable roof, peaked roof, to shed water both east and west sides. I don’t know if we have, well, we have an end view here. That is a stone facade. I don’t know if you can see that or not. It’s on the south side facing Aviation Road, and this elevation is the west elevation and it’s similar to the east elevation. Now I’d have to talk with Rucinski-Hall on the latest thoughts regarding air conditioners, but they were building air conditioning units into these facades, and they will blend, but I can’t give you details yet, and we can provide that to the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Provide us with some cut sheets and decibel readings on them, manufacturers cut sheets. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Okay. MR. BHATTI-They all will be under the windows. Every window will have an air conditioning unit. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BHATTI-That’s the way they have the air conditioners at Sleep Inn. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anything else, Tom? MR. JARRETT-We can provide you with a color scheme, if you wish. I haven’t nailed that down yet, but if that’s a concern of the Board, we can provide that. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, my concern was that it’s not going to look mish mash, that it’s going to look like a coordinated unit, because it is the gateway to the Town. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We will come back with some color proposals to you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any plans with this portion of the property to do something with the existing units as well? MR. JARRETT-Actually there were some early plans to modify the existing building, at least to add handicap access bathrooms and spruce it up to some degree. The Zoning Board was concerned with the number of variances we were asking for and it’s all too close to the property line. So Sam has backed off on that proposal, but he does plan on addressing that in the future. MR. STROUGH-But I think he’s referring to the exterior. MR. JARRETT-Yes, and I think Sam wants to spruce that building up, but he’s kind of. MR. STROUGH-I’m not worried about the interior. The exterior. MR. JARRETT-You’re talking about the painting and the siding and things like that. He put all that on hold until we get a disposition on this. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, and relative to your stormwater grading plan, behind the proposed building you’ve got about four feet of grading that you’re going to, it looks like that you’re proposing to do, new contours you’re putting in. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How does that affect the existing vegetation that’s called out on another plan that you do not want to disturb? It looks to me like some of it will be disturbed. MR. STROUGH-Well, the stormwater plan also asks for a piping system to go through there, and I wondered how that would affect the existing. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’ll get that question answered. MR. JARRETT-There’s only, there’s very little vegetation right along the east portion of the existing, or excuse me, the proposed building. In fact, you’ll see on C-1 that the existing house actually extends further east than the proposed motel, and there’s not a lot of vegetation right in that area where we’re proposing the berm. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, if you look at your Drawing C-2. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You show contour line Number 95, 95 foot contour right there, 95. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-See where it cuts right through an existing tree? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That goes over through to a, it curves a little bit toward the southeast, and that tree is labeled existing 18 to 20 inch deciduous tree? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It shows me that it’s not going to be removed. Also right next to that is two other trees, both six to eight inch in caliper. So you’ve got four trees right there which you’re saying aren’t going to be disturbed. Okay, but if you go to your grading plan, C-4, you show your new 95 foot contour, which would appear 94 and 95 go right through those four trees. Do you understand what I’m looking at? MR. JARRETT-I understand what you’re saying. I’m trying to digest it and see. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d just ask you to take another look at that. Anything we can do to avoid disturbing existing vegetation to a minimum, if it’s going to be disturbed, I would be, for one, would be looking for a lot more buffering, plantings between the commercial property and the existing residential zone. I just wanted to point that out. That’s really all I had, based on waiting to see what C.T. Male comments are and how you respond to those. All right. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. JARRETT-No, at this point, although one thing I could add, the stormwater plan, that trench you’ll see there’s a note where we’re going to snake that around existing trees and around the proposed trees. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I was more concerned with the contours, existing contours that were shown on one drawing from C-2 to Drawing C-4, there’s obviously a difference in that 95 foot contour going through existing trees, and I just need to know how that’s addressed, whether you’re going to redo the contours to avoid the trees, or the trees are going to be lost, and then we deal with an issue of planting a heck of a lot more vegetation. MR. JARRETT-We will look at that. MR. STROUGH-And I have one other thing, Mr. Chairman, if I can add. Looking at it, are you going to be dumping all your snow in the northeast corner of the site? MR. JARRETT-A good chunk of that. Sam’s already considered he may have to truck some of it off. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I’m saying. If you take that whole area and you dump it all, because your only corner that’s available to you to put it is that northeast corner where your dumpster is. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And I wonder how that would affect the runoff in the spring. MR. JARRETT-Well, we designed the stormwater plan to not only utilize, as we said, existing drywells, but as C.T. Male has commented, we sloped the site toward the buffer. So we’re getting runoff into the buffer, which is by design as well. MR. STROUGH-But is the pile of snow all going to be in that sloped area? MR. JARRETT-A significant amount of it probably will be, yes. MR. BHATTI-I think most of the snow, when they come, they push it toward Aviation Road, only the pieces left, which is just creating the new parking lot, that will be pushed this way. Most of it goes, and it goes that way, to Aviation Road. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but you don’t have much open exposure to Aviation Road anymore, like you do now, and that dumpster, how is the truck going to get access to the dumpster, the truck that picks up the dumpster? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. JARRETT-He’s wondering how the access to the dumpster will occur with that parking there. You’ve staggered the hours of that so far. MR. STROUGH-Because if you’ve got cars parked on both sides of it, and the pick up truck comes to pick it up, how is the pick up truck going to pick up the dumpster? MR. BHATTI-When they come up here, they’re going to be coming straight, there’s a lot of space here, and that’s the way they’re going to come, and they’re going to go around that way. MR. STROUGH-So they’ll be able to fit between two parked cars to pick up their dumpster? MR BHATTI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, but snow removal and the impact of the snow melt is another concern of mine, unless you’re willing to take it away. Then that takes away that concern. MR. BHATTI-It depends on the year. If we have a lot of snow, sometimes you have to have it taken away. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. BHATTI-If it’s like a mild then, you know, we don’t have a problem. MR. STROUGH-Well, my concern is there’d be a lot of snow and the runoff might negatively impact some of your eastern neighbors. That looks like the flow, that looks like the slope is towards the east. MR. BHATTI-I think the slope is more like goes to Aviation Road. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m looking at the contours, and the slope goes right toward, the property is not named here, but they probably should be, but it just says Glen Acres first subdivision. MR. JARRETT-Okay. We will look at that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions/comments from Board members? MR. RINGER-George, you could ask Male to look at John’s comments about the snow, too. So if Tom’s going to look at it, Male could look at it too. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess I just would suggest that in any tabling resolution you specifically outline what you’re looking for, and, yes, we would refer it up to C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m guessing we’ll probably take a five minute recess to pen something. Anything else you guys want to add? No? I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS VANDERZEE MR. VANDERZEE-My name is Chris Vanderzee. I live at 7 Greenway North, which is the fourth one in. Yes, right there. You’re on top of my house. If you go closer right next to the red line is my in-ground pool, which is right next to where the dumpster is going to be. First of all, 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) originally, I thought, if you look at the east side of the building, there was a walkout basement for utilities. I don’t know if that still exists now. Can they answer that? MR. MAC EWAN-No. You direct your questions to us and we’ll get them answered. MR. VANDERZEE-Okay. I believe there’s a basement or a lower level showing from the east side towards those houses. He brought up he saw a winter melt off this winter. I don’t know when that happened during the winter, and the only melt off that happened this spring, I got a lot of water in my garage and in my basement, which happens, not on a yearly basis, but on big snow years I do get water in my house, and the hotel itself, the parking lot is probably at least, from my back yard it’s at least 10 to 15 feet above, and then my house actually drops down, the hill continues down. So all that runoff will continuously, you know, it goes down through our yard and everything. The site plan shows a bunch of existing trees that you pointed out. He clear cut, about a month and a half ago, he clear cut most of those trees out too close, he was cutting firewood. So right now as cars pull into the parking lot, I’m lying in bed, I can count the cars that pull into the parking lot because they light up my bedroom. I’m very concerned about the buffer, the lack thereof. As I mentioned, I have an in-ground swimming pool right there. I have a hot tub out there, my kids with the trampoline, and it’s all going to be, you know, a few feet from where the parking lot is, and you have people coming in the summer and they, you know, occasionally you’re off and they have parties out in the parking lot and they drink and have fun and do what they do at hotels or whatever, and I’m concerned, you know, now they can just look right into my house or look into my yard with all that, with everything that was removed, and what he’s planning on putting back doesn’t really do any justice to the buffer zone, and there is a power line that NiMo keeps cleared, and they’ve already gone and clear cut or, you know, made a lot of room so they can have access to the lines. So I don’t know how much that’s going to affect, if he’s counting on putting his buffer right there. That power line runs just about right down that red line, or just inside of it, yes. That’s where the power line that feeds that whole development. It goes right down there, and they’ve come in, every other year or so they come in and trim all the trees to keep those lines wide open. That’s all for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? PAUL NICHOLS MR. NICHOLS-Good evening. My name is Paul Nichols. I live at 3 Greenway North, which is the second house in. My concerns are with the side of the building adjacent to my personal property. I don’t know what the lighting situation is there, but my, the back side of my house is directly adjacent to that part of it, what will be the building, and I’m just concerned about that, that the lighting situation there, I don’t want a whole lot of light. MR. MAC EWAN-We have asked them to revise their lighting plan to show us all the lighting proposed for the property. MR. NICHOLS-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And a grid pattern so we can take a look at it, and see what the impacts would be. MR. NICHOLS-All right, and my only other concern is the air conditioners. I was wondering if maybe a central air unit might be quieter, that type of thing, just a concern of mine. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve also asked them to supply us with, you know, cut sheets from the factory as to what the decibel levels are of these room air conditioners. MR. NICHOLS-That’s it for me. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? I am going to leave the public hearing open, because we will, obviously, be tabling this application tonight. So we will leave it open for 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) anyone who wants to make future comment. Do you want to come back up, Tom? The first question that was asked, the lower level, is there a lower level of the building, or the basement that’s got a walkout in it for utility purposes or something? MR. JARRETT-That was an early concept. That’s been removed. So that’s currently not part of the proposal. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How are the utilities going to work on this building? I mean, this building is going to be individually metered? Not by room, but just for the building itself so any utilities coming into the building are above ground, below ground? MR. JARRETT-They’re going to be below ground, and I believe it’s going to be all by building, not individual unit. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Obviously the concerns from the neighbors of the tree cutting and the buffering, the other thing that interests me, and I just asked Larry to take a look on the plat to see if he could find it, the NiMo right of way is not shown on your plats at all? MR. JARRETT-There is none. We’ve had our surveyor review that. There is none delineated. In fact, we’re told by him that the tree, or the power line is actually on the neighbor’s property. I can’t verify that personally, but there is no specific easement, or right of way. MR. MAC EWAN-You did research that, though, and there’s nothing that’s on your property? MR. JARRETT-I can get that in writing for you, but we did research it. That was an issue before with the Zoning Board, and we did look into. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, of all the concerns that were raised, as these trees mature, some of these plantings, you’re going to do that are going to be acting as a buffer, relatively close to the property line, NiMo’s going to come in, years down the road, and lop off the tops of them, or the main branches off the sides of them, and I think that’s a concern we need to look at, as to what kind of plantings are going to be in there and where those plantings would be 10, 15 years down the road, and what impact that would have on NiMo maintaining their right of way. MR. JARRETT-It’s a valid question. We had asked Jim Miller to make sure the proposed trees wouldn’t be lost due to that maintenance activity, and we will check that and get back to you on that. MR. MAC EWAN-And based on a couple of comments that I’m hearing from the public, I’m not so sure that I might not swing the other way here on the landscaping plan that, based on, and I think what we’re going to do is next month when we do site visits, we’re going to go back up and take another look at this parcel, but what I’m thinking of is that, given the fact how many existing trees you have there, how many have already been taken out, does the benefit of keeping the existing outweigh the potential of possibly putting in a berm that would totally screen these homes? Because a good point was raised. The winter time, or even summertime, we’ve got cars pulling in the parking lot, because these houses are at a lower level somewhat, the light from automobiles coming in there, would a berm help alleviate that problem and give more screening to the neighboring properties? MR. JARRETT-Well, we’re certainly willing to work with you on that, and we’ll look into that, but let’s talk about the trees that were removed for a second. Sam mistakenly started to cut trees. We stopped him, and then Staff went up and looked at the situation, and I believe Staff concurred that the only trees that were removed were within the proposed parking area and building, not within the proposed buffer. So, I think that that issue is not going to be a big one with regard to the buffer. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. HILTON-Just for clarification, our enforcement staff did go out. What became of that, specifics, I don’t know, but, you know, the applicant did start clearing and our enforcement staff went out, and the applicant did stop the clearing at that time. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m guessing that Staff generated a letter and sent it off to him, one way or another. MR. HILTON-I would think so. MR. MAC EWAN-I would think, that would be standard operating procedure in most cases. MR. JARRETT-Actually, we stopped Sam from cutting. So they didn’t feel it was necessary to generate a letter. That’s what Craig told me. MR. HILTON-Yes. MS. RADNER-There’s not a standard operating procedure on that. Sometimes it’s resolved by a single visit to the site and discussion with the landowner. Other times a letter is sent or an enforcement proceeding brought. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Was that Bruce that who did that? You might just get together with him and ask him was there any correspondence or any files, notes that might help us? That’s my thoughts. Anybody else want to add anything to this? No? We don’t we take five minutes and ask Tom and Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to ask one question before we do that. On the rear of that newly proposed building, based on the comments from the public hearing, we’re going all the way down from 95, if you get on I guess your C-4 drawing again, you’re going from 99 really to 94, a pretty good slope. Is there any way of getting some sort of stormwater retention, sort of like a French drain or something like that, that sits out there? MR. STROUGH-To divert stormwater away. MR. VOLLARO-Well, something that would act as a retention, or almost a retention pond. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, to maybe kind of respond to that, I mean, looking at C.T. Male’s comments, I mean, there’s a lot of issues relative to stormwater that these have to address. MR. VOLLARO-Do they cover that in there? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, in one way or another, they’re hitting on several issues. MR. JARRETT-I think their comment is pretty close to yours, Bob. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I think Item Three refers to stormwater, in a sense. Item Four. Item Five. Item Six. Item Seven. Item One. MR. VOLLARO-So they’ve got it pretty covered, it sounds like, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So, they’re taking a good hard look at this, obviously, it’s up to the applicant to respond to these things and make C.T. Male comfortable with it, but given the fact that we’ve also raised the issues, our concerns as well, I think the applicant knows that they have to look at these issues and try to come up with a reasonable solution to the fix here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Take five and pen a resolution. I’ll call the meeting back to order. John, what have you got on your list? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. STROUGH-Here’s what I’ve got. I’ve got the potential for snow stacking and mounding in the northeast corner with melt runoff impacts, would C.T. Male evaluate that. I have the air conditioners, we would like cut sheets with the decibel level output readings. We would like additional landscaping in the buffer, especially evergreen type of trees used here. We would like the Niagara Mohawk right of way shown on the site plans. We would like to have emergency services address emergency access and evaluate that. We’d like a lighting plan that meets Town Code with a four to one ratio. We’d like to see architectural elevations, north, west, east, with color schemes and a floor plan. We would like to look into use of a berm. MR. VOLLARO-On the rear of the proposed building. MR. STROUGH-On the rear of the proposed building. MR. MAC EWAN-A landscaping berm. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you asking the applicant, though, to show that, to show us a landscaping berm as an alternate? MR. STROUGH-As an alternate, or I even mentioned maybe fencing or something, but fencing is going to have an impact, because that’s really going to limit their snow removal. So they can either address that now, or the next time we bring it up. I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’re going to do that the next time they come in. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-But you want to be specific, though, about what we’re asking them to do. If we’re asking them to show us an alternate landscaping design that includes a landscaping berm, that’s what we want. If you’re asking them to show us, we’d rather have a fence instead of a berm, you need to tell them that’s what we want. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’d like to look at the feasibility of a berm, to see, you know, we’re looking at alternates on the rear of that building to try to protect the folks that live behind it. MR. STROUGH-I think we’re looking for more effective bufferings, whether it be berms or fences. MR. MAC EWAN-A berm, to me, is more aesthetically pleasing than a fence. A fence requires maintenance, berms don’t. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. STROUGH-Berms take up space, but, I mean, yes, we are looking for alternatives in addressing these residential concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-So we want to ask that we want to see a landscaping berm as an alternate, alternative. Okay, to buffering. MR. STROUGH-And I have last two are address C.T. Male comments and address Staff comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that anybody wants to add? MR. SANFORD-I agree with you. I don’t think a fence would work here. It would have to be too tall. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Run with it, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Shall I set a particular date on it? MR. MAC EWAN-No. I mean, we’ve already missed deadline for next month. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. HILTON-Just one quick thing. The only concern I have is obviously there’s been some concern on the part of the neighbors, and, how will they find out? Are we going to place a call to them? Is it going to be re-advertised? I understand your concern about not setting a date, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, typically what we’ve done, if it’s gone beyond 60 days, maybe you could add this on as your eighth item, if new submissions go beyond 60 days, the applicant will re-advertise the meeting. Our ads, you know, now that I read the Post Star on line, I don’t really read the public notices, but our Planning Board, under the legal notices, every month still lists what’s on the agenda for that month, right? Also, our website is regularly updated so we know what’s on the agenda for the month. MR. HILTON-Absolutely, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So there’s two other alternate ways, but add that boilerplate on the end, if you would. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2003 AFTAB BHATTI, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: 543 Aviation Road. So that the applicant can provide the following information: 1. The potential melt runoff impacts of snow stacking and mounding, especially in the northeast corner, and we’d like to have C. T. Male address that, or evaluate that. 2. We would like to have cut sheets for the air conditioners. Cut sheets must also include the decibel level outputs for the air conditioners. 3. We would like additional landscaping or additional in the buffer zone, preferably evergreen type of trees. 4. The applicant should show the Niagara Mohawk right of way on the site plans. 5. We would like to have the emergency services address the emergency access, evaluate that. 6. We would like to have a lighting plan provided that has a uniformity ratio of 4 to 1. 7. We would like to see architectural elevations, north, west and east, with color scheme and floor plan. 8. We would like an alternate buffering plan that would incorporate the use of a landscaping berm at the rear of the proposed building. 9. We would like the applicant to address all the C. T. Male comments. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 4/22/03) 10. We would like the applicant to address all Staff comments, and if new submissions go beyond 60 days, the applicant will re-advertise the meeting. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, Tom. Any other business? I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 50