The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-07-27 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC ALBERT ANDERSON, ALTERNATE PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE, JIM EDWARDS STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 7-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED THOMAS SCHIAVONE PROPERTY OWNER: ANNE L. BETTERS ZONE: SR-1A WETLAND: NYS DEC GF 27 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVE., WEST OF POWER LINES APPLICANT PROPOSES DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100’ OF REGULATED WETLANDS, AS WELL AS THE DISTURBANCE OF 0.099 ACRES OF REGULATED WETLANDS IN RELATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 33 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-2003 NYS DOH, NYS DEC TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-2 LOT SIZE: 49.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-100 SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 PRELIMINARY STG. SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED THOMAS SCHIAVONE PROPERTY OWNER: ANNE L. BETTERS AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES, NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 33 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CLUSTERED ON A 49.82 ACRE PARCEL. CROSS REFERENCE: FW 6-2003 TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-2 LOT SIZE: 49.82 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MR. MAC EWAN-Just a note here, under Old Business, we have a request for Freshwater Permit 7-2003 for Thomas Schiavone and Subdivision 4-2003, Preliminary Stage for Thomas Schiavone. The applicant has requested a tabling of the application, and what is it they need to address, George? MR. VOLLARO-They have to get a permit from DEC. MR. HILTON-Some kind of, right, either a permit or comment from DEC on their requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve not asked to be tabled to a specific date. What we will do is we will table the application, but I would ask that Staff direct the applicant to repay the advertising fees to re-advertise this, and we work them in to the next available slot on an agenda. I’m giving this direction because this public hearing has been open since December of last year, and I think that’s just going way too long, and I think the public should have an opportunity to participate in this, and I would want them all notified of it in advance. All right? Does someone want to move the Freshwater Wetlands permit, please. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2003 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 7-2003 THOMAS SCHIAVONE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: To be tabled to the next available date, and that the applicant will agree to pay the advertising fees associated with the re-advertisement. Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Seguljic EXPEDITED BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 38-2004 SEQR TYPE: II DAVID BEAN PROPERTY OWNER: PAUL KNOX/DAVID BEAN AGENT: STEPHEN BEAN ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: SUNSET HILL FARM, LOT 6 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN OPEN SIDED SUNDECK. SUNDECKS/COVERED SUNDECKS IN THE WR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-38 LOT SIZE: 5.52 ACRES SECTION 179- 4-030 STEPHEN BEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments. It’s pretty simple and straightforward. MR. HILTON-Yes. The application proposes an open-sided sundeck. It appears to meet all applicable zoning regs, and I’ve listed the waivers the applicant’s requesting, and that’s really all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got some questions on it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-You do? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing, too. Sorry about that. Would you identify yourself for the record. MR. BEAN-Yes. I’m Stephen Bean, brother of David Bean, acting as his agent. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, your questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The first question is that the dock itself is not located on the property. It’s about a quarter of a mile away. Isn’t that correct? MR. BEAN-No, that’s not correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not? MR. VOLLARO-When we were at site visited, we visited the site. I think your brother was there, probably. It must have been him. I’m not sure who it was. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. BEAN-I wasn’t there, and I don’t think my brother was there. MR. VOLLARO-We went there and then we had to go find the site on Assembly Point Road. MR. SANFORD-That might be, this might be this one, the next one, Bob. Peter, Mary, and Jeffrey Thomas? MR. VOLLARO-No. I think this is Paul Knox. Remember we went to the house and he said, well, the site is down on Assembly Point Road. MR. BEAN-The property is all continuous property. Where the dock is is on Assembly Point Road. There’s a 51 foot strip that comes off Assembly Point Road up into the property. It’s a five and a half acre parcel, which the back of the, the way you access the property is on Knox Road. That’s where the driveway is going to come in, but the property goes right down to the lake. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. Do you remember? MR. RINGER-I’m wondering if this is that one or not, or this is another one. I remember what you’re talking about, Bob, and it was, we drove into there. We talked to the people and they said no, it’s down the road, and it was a dock, with several docks all by themselves, with no homes there. The homes were all on the other side of the road. It must have been the other one, I guess. MR. SANFORD-Is this one very close to the road? MR. BEAN-The dock? MR. SANFORD-The dock, where the dock will be is right next to the road? MR. BEAN-Yes, the road drops severely. MR. VOLLARO-Drops off pretty severely. MR. BEAN-Yes, but there’s only, there’s 51 feet of, just about 50.89, would be the lakefront. MR. VOLLARO-I guess part of my question is, when you build the dock, people are going to be parking on Assembly Point Road. Do you have a parking space for yourselves or for visitors that? MR. BEAN-Well, they have to come to where the house is going to be constructed. Yes. The house is going to get constructed back up in the woods. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BEAN-Which has already had a. MR. VOLLARO-The house that we saw on Knox Road is not the house? MR. BEAN-There’s no house on this parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-We stopped at a house on Knox Road, and we spoke to, maybe it was your brother, I don’t know. MR. BEAN-No, my brother’s not up there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. BEAN-Knox Road, there’s no house on this parcel presently. We bought a vacant lot. We closed on it this morning. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think it must be the other project. MR. VOLLARO-It could be. I swore it was Knox. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I had the same problem. MR. RINGER-Yes, but what he’s describing sounds more like what we’re talking about. It is across the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there were two sites right within like a quarter of a mile of each other. MR. RINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s right. MR. BEAN-It’s a little confusing. You don’t access the, we’re not accessing the property with a driveway off of Assembly Point Road. The subdivision has already been approved, you know, with the lot and where the driveway has to come in, and all that had been approved years ago, but it’s a contiguous piece of property. It comes down where there’s this strip of land, about 51 feet wide. It comes all the way to the lake. It has the lake frontage, but there is no dock there presently on this parcel. MR. VOLLARO-I know there’s no dock. I’m sure there’s not a dock there presently. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the one that you’re thinking of, Bob, where we saw the For Sale sign, the real estate For Sale sign, is the Thomas application. MR. BEAN-There is a real estate, Owen Davies sign nailed on a tree, right in front of where the dock has to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BEAN-That’s on the lakeside, and across the road, there’s a 51 foot strip of property that goes back several hundred feet, then it opens up into the lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No, it is the same site, then. MR. RINGER-That’s where we became confused. We talked to a gentleman at the number, and then he sent us down the road, and we looked and we saw the For Sale sign, and we anticipated that’s where the dock was going to go, but we didn’t know you were going to build a house across the road. MR. BEAN-Yes, it’s up in the woods, up in the, it’s all one piece of property. MR. RINGER-Bob is right. That’s the dock, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay. I wanted to try to get a determination from the applicant on how he arrived at the low water mark. I see that you’ve got the numbers up there, today’s level. Did you call Lake George and get a level? MR. BEAN-I talked to the people at the Lake George Park Commission. MR. VOLLARO-And you got the high and the low. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. BEAN-That’s how he told me to determine it. We are going to hire a local person to build the dock, if we should get it here. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m just wondering, your dock’s going to be 40 foot out, it looks like, by the drawings that I looked at, roughly 40 feet. Is that what you want to get out to? MR. BEAN-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-And I know that 40 foot is determined from the low water mark, and I didn’t see exactly how you arrived at that. I mean, you’ve got it on here, and you’ve got the mean high, but I think, I think it’s 40 foot out. MR. BEAN-Yes. It’s a 40 foot dock. MR. VOLLARO-Now how did you get, you’ve got a shoreline, how did you determine the 40 foot position, is what I need to know from you, to satisfy myself. Well, you say you’re going to get somebody to build this dock for you? MR. BEAN-Yes, but the, in my discussions with Lake George Park Commission, they’re the ones who guided me in calculating the numbers and what I was allowed to have, and that is what they based their permit on, and I went through their permit process. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing is, on the drawings themselves, I don’t have a good clear cut definition of how you arrived at the 40 foot out, and I don’t know exactly how you got your mean high water. See, there’s two things you’ve got to look at. There’s the mean low, and from that point forward, you go 40 feet, and there’s the mean high to determine the height of the deck above the dock, and on these drawings, I don’t get. I see what you’ve got. You’ve got a mark that says mean high water. MR. BEAN-Well, I think it changes almost daily, doesn’t it? MR. VOLLARO-It does, but it doesn’t make any difference. I’ve run the numbers, if you’re familiar with the chart that Lake George provides you, I did a little mathematical calculation to see, this is the chart. On any given day, no matter what happens, where you take the reading, the high water mark will be at 320.2, and the low water mark will be at 317.74. No matter when you do it, it all works out the same way. So once you get a reading, it’ll be good for any day. It doesn’t change. The high is the high and the low is the low, and the math just allows you to pick a number off here and, on the day you call them, and do that, but I don’t see that, how that’s been arrived at on the drawings. I’m not going to belabor this issue a lot, because you’re not the first one to come before the Board. I would request permission from the Chairman to someday call up the Lake George Park Commission, because I have an idea on how to simplify this so most applicants will be able to quickly understand it and put it on the drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-Boy, if you can change State bureaucracy, all the more power to you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, thank you, I will try, but other than that, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any objections to this. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a related question, Mr. Chairman. There’s actually two drawings in the applicant’s package. One of them, both of them read dock proposal for David Bean, Paul Knox property, Assembly Point. One of them has a date of 6/4/04, and shows a 13 foot high from the high water mark, and then the other one is actually stamped by the Lake George Park Commission as received, and that one shows a 14 foot. So I was wondering which it was, 13 or 14? MR. BEAN-Well, the way it looks like it’s going to be built, it would be more like 13 feet, but why there was two different numbers, I guess, when I was dealing with the Lake George Park 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) Commission, they told me that 14 foot was the maximum, and that that’s what you should put down. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. BEAN-I went with what they said, but it really looks, to me, like it’s going to be. MR. HUNSINGER-And then when you put the submission in for us, you changed it and put 13. MR. BEAN-It looks like it’s closer to 13, not 14. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because that actually, the 14 was crossed off on this other map, and then 13 was written in. MR. BEAN-Right, in the actual scheme of things. I went with what the, you know, their suggestion, but in actuality it’s going to be more like 13, because it’s not to exceed 14. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-One last question here. The notes note it’s Lot Six of Sunset Hill Farms subdivision. That implies there’s more lots there. Is this, are there going to be other lots that have lake access also? MR. BEAN-Not on this parcel, no. MR. SEGULJIC-So this is the only parcel that has lakefront? MR. BEAN-On what we bought. I don’t know, that subdivision, I believe, was done in 1993, I think, and as far as, to my knowledge, it’s the last lot that Mr. Knox sold, that has to sell there, but it’s the only one that I know that has lake, I don’t know if, I can’t speak if there’s any other lake frontage. MR. SEGULJIC-So if your lot is the only one that’s going to have access to the lake, then. MR. BEAN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-The other lots do not. MR. BEAN-Yes. You’re wondering if, can we build more docks, or try to subdivide it and give the dock, I think it was a stipulation by the Lake George Park Commission that there was only one dock per one parcel, you know, this is for one parcel. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Anything else you wanted to add? 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-Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2004 DAVID BEAN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: To construct an open sided sundeck. Sundecks/covered sundecks in the WR-1A zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on June 15, 2004 ; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 27, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: Granting of stormwater, grading, lighting, and landscaping waivers. Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. BEAN-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 39-2004 SEQR TYPE: II PETER, MARY & JEFFREY THOMAS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 179 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE. BOATHOUSES/COVERED DOCKS IN THE WR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. APA, LG CEA, LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 CROSS REFERENCE: N/A TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-35 LOT SIZE: 0.76 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 PETER THOMAS, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments? MR. HILTON-Pretty similar application. An open-sided, or a sundeck on Assembly Point Road. It seems to meet the applicable zoning regulations, and I’ve listed the waivers requested, and that’s all I have on this. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from the Board? This is also under Expedited Review. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got the same questions for this one, Mr. Chairman. Apparently most applicants don’t seem to understand this process of how to locate the dock or the height above the dock, and it, you know, for as long as I’ve been on this Board, I think I’ve had one person come up and explain how they did it and hit the mark, but this application, in the drawing itself. MR. THOMAS-Let me tell you how I did it. I called the Lake George Park Commission. My name is Peter Thomas. I called the Lake George Park Commission. I got the mean high water mark for the day. That happened to be the same as the high water mark, you know, the lake was so high at that time, the high water mark was, what, then, maximum height to the lake gauge, usually, and so it was very easy to identify. You could just go out and mark it with the level of the water. Now what they couldn’t tell me, and even the Lake George Park Commission couldn’t tell me, is where this, where you use the mark in conjunction with the shoreline. If you have boulders that stick out 10, 12 feet, and the shore is rough and irregular, where does your measurement out come from? MR. VOLLARO-It tells you in the instructions here that if you have a situation like that, you make a number of measurements and you integrate those measurements and come up with an average. That’s what it says to do. MR. THOMAS-Which is about what I did. MR. VOLLARO-In your drawing, where the Lake George Park Commission stamped this on May 10, 2004, you’ve got the dock extending out from the mean high water mark and really I think what you mean is the mean low, not the mean high. Your drawing has from mean high water mark 26 feet, and it’s really got to be from the mean low water mark, and it doesn’t really, and I see that it was stamped by the Lake George Park Commission, and they didn’t even call it. They’re the ones that wrote the regulations and here’s a drawing that doesn’t have the right water mark on it, and they stamped approval on it. So I don’t know, I guess my Chairman is pretty close, if you can change the bureaucracy, lots of luck. Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I have any other comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Anything you wanted to add? MR. THOMAS-No. 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-Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2004 PETER, MARY & JEFFREY THOMAS, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: To construct an open sided boathouse. Boathouses/covered docks in the WR-1A zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on May 28, 2004 ; and 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 27, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: Granting of stormwater, grading, lighting, and landscaping waiver. Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED THE MC KERNON GROUP OWNER: JOHN & KATHLEEN TARRANT ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 338 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE TO STORAGE SPACE ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,760 SQ. FT. GARAGE INCLUDING A FAMILY ROOM/GAME ROOM. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 92-00, SP 74-00 [BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK] WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-72 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 DENNIS AUSTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 18-2004, The McKernon Group, Meeting Date: July 27, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 18-2004 APPLICANT: The McKernon Group is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to convert an existing garage to storage space and construct a new 1,760 sq. ft. garage with a family room/game room. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 338 Cleverdale Road. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a short form EAF with the site plan application. PARCEL HISTORY: The ZBA approved an Area Variance related to this application on June 23, 2004 (FAR relief and expansion greater than 50% of structure). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,760 sq. ft. attached garage with an adjoining family room/recreation room. The applicant also proposes to convert an existing garage to storage space. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The applicant has indicated stormwater will be managed with a 3’ wide, 2’ deep trench surrounding the proposed addition. No stormwater calculations indicating the volume of water that can be managed in a trench of this size have been provided in the application. The location of the proposed trench should be added to the final site plan to be signed by the Zoning Administrator.” MR. MAC EWAN-Procedural question for Staff. This is listed as Unlisted. Is it Unlisted because of the variance that was required? Or should it be Type II? MR. HILTON-Well, we were just talking about that here. Without looking at the regs, I think the location within a Critical Environmental Area of Lake George, is what classifies it as an Unlisted action. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So that explains why the first two before me were a Type II and they’re also in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. HILTON-Well, good question. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m of the persuasion it’s a Type II. MR. HILTON-It also may be because of the amount of square footage. I think there’s a threshold that it’s under the 4,000 or something, and I don’t have the reg’s in front of me, but. MR. MAC EWAN-I just didn’t know if it was thrown into an Unlisted because it had to have an Area Variance and because it was a nonconforming structure. I didn’t know if that was the threshold that kicked it. MR. HILTON-Yes. I don’t think it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Because when they changed the reg’s, it became kind of perplexing. All right. What have you got for Staff notes? MR. HILTON-As I’ve mentioned, this application proposes a 1760 square foot attached garage, and adjoining rec room. The applicant proposes to convert an existing garage to storage space, and I’ve listed the waivers, lighting and landscaping plan, that the applicant’s requested. The main issue seems to be stormwater management, and the applicant proposes to manage this with a three foot wide by two foot deep trench surrounding the addition. However, based on a review of the application, no calculations, stormwater calculations, indicating the volume of 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) water that will be managed in this trench have been provided, and I guess I’ve noted that the location of this proposed trench should be added to the final site plan, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. AUSTIN-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. AUSTIN-I’m Dennis Austin, I’m with the McKernon Group. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about the proposed project? MR. AUSTIN-Again, it’s a two car garage with an attached family room and a small connector between the two. There is an existing garage shed. It would be less than a single car garage at this point, on the site. We’d like to just convert that to storage. Over the family room, there is basically a bonus room, which is what puts us over the ratio. I think that we’re going to convert into a game room. There will be no plumbing. There will be some electrical. There will be no bathrooms. No bedrooms in this area. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions. We’ll go by our criteria. Does anybody have any questions relative to design standards? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one, Mr. Chairman. I want to make sure that the ZBA granted, what they granted here was the floor area relief. Is that what was granted by the ZBA? I didn’t see their. I saw the worksheet on the Floor Area Ratio, and they obviously must have needed relief from the ZBA for that because they’re over by the amount that they’re allowed. Is that correct, that the ZBA granted that variance? MR. AUSTIN-Yes, that is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. AUSTIN-And again, I go back to the fact that the second story bonus area is what put us over that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the only thing I have under Design Standards, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody have any questions on site development criteria? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, on site development there’s a waiver for granting the plan is not requested, as far as grading is concerned. I think you do want to request a grading waiver. It’s not checked off on your list. MR. AUSTIN-We would like to be granted a waiver for landscaping at this point, yes. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m talking about grading. You don’t want to do any grading on that property, do you? MR. AUSTIN-We’re not going to change any grading, no. MR. VOLLARO-No, because it’s not checked off on the, you know what I’m talking about? This list that you’ve supplied. MR. AUSTIN-Right. We’re not going to change any grading on the lot. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you should have checked off grading. I didn’t think you wanted any grading on that thing. So we’ll be granting waivers, I guess, Mr. Chairman, on everything else except the stormwater management plan, which comes up next on your list. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on site development? Stormwater/sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a question on stormwater. The drawing just doesn’t show the three foot wide by two foot deep around the perimeter of the building, and it does not contain any calculations for showing the storage volume of a 50 year storm. So I don’t know whether that retention basin, basically a French drain is what they’re putting around the building, has got the storage capacity for a 50 year storm. It’s not in there. MR. AUSTIN-There is a note on the bottom, explaining what the trench would be. It would be three foot wide by two foot deep. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. I know. What is doesn’t show me, on the plan view of the proposed extension, it doesn’t show me exactly where that French drain is going to go, because it makes a big difference in the calculation. I mean, if you did the calculation, you’d have to know what the total volume of that drain was, and whether it was able to handle the runoff from a 50 year storm. MR. AUSTIN-It would be, again, around the perimeter of the new addition. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. AUSTIN-The new structure. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, have you got any comments on that? MR. EDWARDS-It’s going to some (lost words). You’ve got a certain roof area that’s coming in to this trench. You’ve got a certain volume of storm. You’ve got to demonstrate that it can, in fact, handle that 50 year storm, which equates to a certain amount of water coming off the roof. I mean, it’s not a big area, by any means, but that’s how you normally would do it. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not. I just wanted to see something that gave me the comfort to know that the storage volume of that French drain was capable of handling roof runoff from a 50 year storm. MR. EDWARDS-A couple of quick design calc’s would cover that thing. It’s just a matter of, if you don’t have them, do you feel comfortable with it, not knowing, but that’s a good size infiltration trench, though. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I ran some of the numbers myself, but I’m not supposed to do the designs for the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-What would you recommend? MR. EDWARDS-I think it’s large enough, personally, enough volume there to handle it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. EDWARDS-Again, is there any kind of gutters or anything with this either, or just going to flow down into the trench? MR. AUSTIN-It’ll flow down into the trench. There’s several valleys on the roof. So it’s going to end up, you know. MR. EDWARDS-Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on stormwater/sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have any other questions at all on that now. MR. MAC EWAN-Skip landscaping. We’ll skip lighting. Environmental? Neighborhood character? MR. VOLLARO-I have an other. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do the other. MR. VOLLARO-I think the resolution should state that the space above the added structure is for a game room only and it will not be converted into living space. MR. AUSTIN-There is a letter of intent that was submitted to the Planning Board stating exactly that. MR. VOLLARO-You have an NOI on this? MR. AUSTIN-An NOI? MR. VOLLARO-Well, Notice Of Intent. MR. AUSTIN-It should be, it came from the Planning Board, yes, the zoning, excuse me. MR. VOLLARO-It came from the zoning. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that part of the ZBA’s granting of the variance? Was that made part of their record? Because if it is, we don’t have to worry about it. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I just wanted to make sure it was covered. I did not see it in the ZBA record. Maybe I missed it. MR. MAC EWAN-While he’s looking that up, any other questions of the other category? Anything you wanted to add? MR. AUSTIN-Not at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we need to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, Short Form was submitted. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: THE MC KERNON GROUP, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Did you find something? MR. HILTON-No, we don’t have the most recent resolution in the file. MR. MAC EWAN-They don’t make reference to it in their motion? MR. HILTON-If you wanted to include it in yours. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, on your motion, where you want to add that, I think you used the phrase something similar to no living space. MR. VOLLARO-I already have it written down. Space above the addition will not be used as sleeping quarters due to related impact on septic systems. That’s what I wrote here. MR. MAC EWAN-I would maybe just expound upon that a little bit and say sleeping and/or bathroom facilities. You don’t want to prevent them from having a home office or the game room or something like that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they state they’re not going to have plumbing up there. They state that emphatically in their proposal, but I could see where you could have sleeping up there would 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) be tantamount to another bedroom impacting the septic system. I think that that’s the whole criteria behind bedrooms and septic capabilities. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does somebody want to move it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ll move it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2004 THE MC KERNON GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Conversion of an existing garage to storage space along with the construction of a 1,760 sq. ft. garage including a family room / game room. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area requires Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on March 15, 2004 ; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 27, 2004 (tabled and held open) ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that SPR 18-2004, The McKernon Group for John & Kathleen Tarrant meeting date: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: Lighting and landscaping waivers. 1. Granting the waivers for lighting, landscaping and grading. 2. That the space above the addition will not be used as sleeping quarters due to related impact on septic systems. Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. AUSTIN-Will I need to submit that letter of intent, or will you receive that from the Zoning Board? MR. SANFORD-It’s all set. MR. AUSTIN-We’re all set. MR. MAC EWAN-If it was part of your Area Variance application, it must be in their packet, but we added it to our resolution, so it’s part of our record. MR. AUSTIN-I just wanted to double check. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DORIS FARRAR PROPERTY OWNER: DORIS FARRAR/RACHAELALLEN AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.03 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS OF 1 ACRE AND 3.03 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 1-03, AV 36-04, AV 66-02 TAX MAP NO. 290.6-1-70.1, 70.2 LOT SIZE: 4.03 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DORIS FARRAR, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-This is a relatively minor two lot subdivision on Ridge Road. The applicant received an Area Variance for less than the required lot width on an arterial, from the ZBA, as I’ve mentioned in my notes. I’ve listed the waivers requested, and I’ve mentioned the stipulation included in their resolution. If the Board chooses to include it in this resolution of any approval, you certainly can do that as well, but, kind of a straightforward application, and that’s all I have. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Doris Farrar. Representing the application for a two lot. As Staff has just stated, this received an Area Variance Wednesday night. It was actually the second time it received it. The other one lapsed because it went over a year before we could get back in front of the Planning Board. The existing house, as you can see on the map, doesn’t lend itself to a shared driveway with any other lot. It’s in a one acre zone with four acres, and with the requirements of double the lot width or share a driveway, if you had shared driveways and you had four lots, you’d end up with two driveways. We’re proposing that you have the existing house with it’s own driveway, and Lot Two, as it was stated in the Zoning Board approval as well, and we have it on this map that would be filed, if this was approved, that Lot Two, if it was ever subdivided again, would only be subdivided again would only be subdivided into two lots total, sharing a driveway. So therefore you still only end up with two driveways on the road, no matter how you slice and dice it. It’s pretty simple. MR. VOLLARO-The site plan that you proposed here, or the subdivision plan, rather, shows a proposed house, right in the middle. MR. STEVES-Right. We’re saying, she’s selling this lot. If anybody else, because this will be in this resolution, if it’s passed, and on the filed mylar, is that if that is ever subdivided again, then they must share the driveway. They would have to relocate. We’re just showing that the proposed house and septic will fit on that lot, but that would be, if it was to be subdivided again, would have to come back in front of this Board for a review. MR. SANFORD-Have you provided any data on how wet the property is? MR. STEVES-Do I? No. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. SANFORD-Because I know that area, and I drove by it, and I don’t know if it was flagged or not, but I was able to locate where it was, and I noticed by the vegetation, type of vegetation that I saw is indicative of some pretty wet land there, and I know we had a subdivide not too long ago where we had some problems because of the moisture that was on the land. So I, for one, would be interested in just having more data on that. You haven’t done anything. You haven’t done any pits or anything like that? MR. STEVES-No. It’s the existing home and we’re, you know, proposing the second lot. I mean, anybody that would come in would have to prove that the septic would work on the lot, through the Building Code, and if anybody wanted to come in and subdivide the three acres into another lot, I’m sure they’d have to go through all that criteria as well. I know it’s a little low in the back. When we looked at the Stonehurst Subdivision, that whole area has got some groundwater issues, but we didn’t have any delineated or defined wetlands on that portion of Stonehurst, and those lots, this basically is wrapped around by the Stonehurst lots, and there’s a little bit of low area in the back, on the east side of the property, on the very back of the property. MR. SEGULJIC-Could I just, on the wetland issue. On the drawing it shows a box culvert under Ridge Road? MR. STEVES-Yes, that’s drainage that cuts across the road and then down the ditch line of the road. MR. SEGULJIC-So it does not enter the property. That just directs it along the road, then? MR. STEVES-Doris might be able to answer more on that. She’s owned the property for quite a few years, on this culvert here. That’s for the road, or does it come off onto your property? MS. FARRAR-As far as I know it’s for the road. MR. SEGULJIC-So it just drains into a swale along the road. It does not continue across your property? MS. FARRAR-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Anybody have any questions relative to design standards? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Site development criteria? MR. RINGER-Any particular reason you showed the house so far back? I mean, I realize you may subdivide this again, but I was just curious why the. MR. STEVES-Well, there’s a 75 foot corridor setback. So we showed the setback line and then showed the house about 100 foot back, but I mean, you could pull it right up to the setback, but it couldn’t be any closer than 75 feet. Like I say, that’s just to show that it can meet the required setbacks. MR. RINGER-Are there any plans right now to sell that, to try to sell that? Are you going to sell it as one lot, or are you going to try to subdivide it yourself? MS. FARRAR-I’m attempting to sell it as one lot. MR. RINGER-You’re going to sell it as one lot. Thank you. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on development criteria? Stormwater/sewage? MR. VOLLARO-There isn’t really enough, Mr. Chairman, enough data supplied here to answer the questions you’re asking on your pre-prepared sheet. However, the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-It is pretty much a simple two lot subdivision. That’s why it’s not a full blown subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. The applicant has submitted a Long Form with this, which was interesting, and I went through the Part I. MR. STEVES-Isn’t it required for subdivisions to have Long Forms? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, in Part I of the Long Form, for example, it says, what predominant soils on the subject site, soil drainage, well drained is zero. Moderately well drained, 75%, poorly drained, 25%, yet there’s no stormwater plans to support any of that. Where it says, are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site, it’s not marked either yes or no. MR. STEVES-That’s a no. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a no. Okay. Well, we’ll fill out this form here. MR. MAC EWAN-He’ll need to amend his EAF. MR. VOLLARO-Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes, there’s no answer. MR. STEVES-That’s zero to ten is 100%. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, 100%. What is the depth of the water table? You’ve got four feet. Without having done any test holes, how do you know that? MR. STEVES-We used the data from Charlie Maine’s subdivision of Stonehurst on Lot 33 and 34. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s a reference to another set of data, essentially. MR. STEVES-They’re on adjoining lots from a previously approved subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Along with Part I, it says here, project area to remain undeveloped, zero. I think you’re talking about one lot. MR. STEVES-Well, in the true definition of SEQRA, when you say remain undeveloped, that would be pertaining to the remaining open space to be conveyed or forever wild areas. I can’t say that you have a three acre lot, that the whole thing is going to be developed, no. The whole thing isn’t going to be developed, but it can be developed as a single family lot. So there’s not going to be a set aside of forever wild or a Town park or conveyance to the open space. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, on the next page it says, is surface liquid waste disposal involved. MR. STEVES-Surface? No. Right? Subsurface, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In subsurface it has no marks at all, yes or no. It’s left empty. Is the project on any portion of a projected 100 year flood plain, yes or no. There’s no yes or no. MR. STEVES-That’s no. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Will project be using herbicides or pesticides, it’s no, but I think you’re going to have lawns and shrubs there. So I would say that the probabilities are high that you would use some pesticides or herbicides on that property. It says if water supply is from wells, indicate the pumping capacity seven gallons. How do we know that? MR. STEVES-That’s what currently exists on the Lot One, the existing home. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s a translation from Lot One to the. MR. STEVES-That’s the, you know, I mean, you’re talking about a well within very close proximity to the existing well, and all the wells that are existing in the subdivision of Stonehurst. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just bringing this out because I had some problems with this Part I, and your answers to Part I. I don’t know what the Chairman wants to rule on that. It’s up to the Chairman to rule on it, but the Part I, as far as I’m concerned, is not totally filled out correctly. MR. RINGER-George, in a normal two lot subdivision, the administrative approval, we’re getting it because of the variance, how would you guys handle an administrative, the assessment form? MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t think we’d get an EAF as part of an administrative two lot subdivision, but, you know, it’s before this Board. It’s an Unlisted action. Our Code does say Unlisted actions require a Long Form. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question. The existing house, when was that built? MS. FARRAR-It’s 50 years old. MR. MAC EWAN-Fifty years old. Well, considering the, no one’s asking me for my two cents. I’ll throw it in, but considering where we’ve been going with subdivisions of late, and the question that we’ve been having with regards to sites being developable, because of high water tables and such like that, and considering this EAF seems to be somewhat short in its information and supporting documentation, I’d be willing to want to table this thing and ask you to complete the EAF in full and supply us with some supporting documentation to the water table and such, based on what you know from what you’re saying from the Stonehurst subdivision. MR. STEVES-Okay. The supporting documentation, do you want copies of what was done on Stonehurst? Do you want a test pit on this particular lot? MR. MAC EWAN-My preference would be a test pit on, I’m speaking for myself, would be a test pit done on that proposed lot. MR. SANFORD-I agree, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Because what was done in Stonehurst 10 or 15 years ago, or however long ago it was, may not be the same situation we have now currently, and the water tables could have shifted. They could have risen. MR. SANFORD-I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. That’s the consistent approach with what we’ve been doing lately. I recall an application a month or so ago where, it’s not too dissimilar to this. I think it would only be appropriate for us to have a test pit. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, my concern is approving something that may have potential problems down the road when we just don’t have anything supporting the application to say that it’s not going to be a problem. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-It may be a minor thing. It may be a major thing. How does everybody else feel about it? MR. SEGULJIC-It makes sense to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I think that would be the conservative approach. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess that’s what we’re going to do. MR. STEVES-Is that, before we leave, is that the only concern? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to open up the public hearing first and ask if there’s any comments. Then we’ll put together a tabling motion. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STONE-All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open. Let’s discuss for a second what we’re looking for, folks. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess if we could also verify the box culvert, that it just drains along the road. It’s not. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, will you do this motion and table it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Please. Okay, and we want supporting documentation for test pits on this proposed additional lot. MR. VOLLARO-Just want to confirm the water level of four feet as stated in Part I of the. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you looking for test pits to be done, or are you looking to rely on the information of the adjacent subdivision? MR. VOLLARO-Test pits, as far as I’m concerned. MR. SEGULJIC-Test pits. MR. HUNSINGER-Test pits. MR. MAC EWAN-Test pits it is. MR. STEVES-Test pits or pit? MR. MAC EWAN-What would you recommend, Jim? MR. EDWARDS-I would think two would be plenty. MR. MAC EWAN-Two test pits it is. Anything else that we’re looking for? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-I just have, I’m going to put, go on the record here that, take a look at, I read Counsel’s letter on this pretty carefully, and was just surprised to see that apparently Staff had said that there needed to be 146 foot of relief on this. So this is a letter from Counsel, which I won’t read because of the confidentiality of it, but in just pulling a piece of data out of it, it says according to Staff 146 foot of relief is actually required, and the relief required was misidentified in 2002 as 100. MR. SANFORD-That’s the ZBA, though. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, this is the ZBA. This is a letter from Counsel to the ZBA, and it looks like the ZBA went right over the top of that. MR. RINGER-No, if you don’t mind me interrupting, Bob, I went to the ZBA meeting last Wednesday, when this was before them, and they did address the fact that they had approved 100, and now it was coming at 146, and it had to be an error, and they accepted that as an error, and approved 146. It was quite a lengthy discussion they had. Spent about as much time, maybe a little bit more than we spent on it, and they were concerned, and the original vote that they had for the 100 feet was split four to three, and the vote the other day was five to one I believe it was, or six to one, whatever, with one negative. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but at least that discrepancy was addressed by the ZBA. MR. RINGER-They addressed it very thoroughly, and apparently the problem was that this thing was approved, and then the lots were sold. MR. STEVES-One lot. MR. RINGER-One lot was sold and they never got the subdivision approval, and this is how the problem all came up with, but the ZBA did cover that 146 and 100 quite thoroughly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, what have you got? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess there’s really only two issues. One is the completion of the Full Environmental Assessment Form, along with any supporting documentation, and then the second item would be the requirement to conduct two test pits on proposed Lot Number Two, and to submit supporting documentation. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom had requested to verify the culvert under 9L. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Yes. MR. STEVES-And question for the Board, before you pass that, which is fine with the applicant. We can do this in the next day or two. Is there a specific date we can bring this back? This is a pretty simple two lot subdivision? MR. MAC EWAN-Deadline submission date is the 15 of the month. So I can’t promise you th anything. From what I’m reading in my e-mails from Staff, that there’s a waiting list. MR. STEVES-I understand. It’s just that this has been something that, because of the sale, we had the Zoning Board two years ago, and the Planning Board was in fact, on the schedule at that time, and then because of the delay in getting back to the Zoning Board, because we were delayed a month, the sale went through, because I they had actually set it up to be after all this application approvals, and it’s just something that’s been hanging out there for two years. I understand your dilemma, too. We would like to clean it up as soon as possible. I’d just like that to be on the record. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll do what we can to work you on to an agenda. MR. STEVES-Okay. I’ll bring it back in the next few days. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, do you want to move it? MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2004 DORIS FARRAR, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Pending the completion of the Full Environmental Assessment Form, along with any supporting documentation. Contingent upon the completion of two test pits on the proposed Lot Number Two, along with the supporting documentation, and also pending verification of the culvert shown that traverses underneath Route 9L. Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. SITE PLAN NO. 26-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED G.R.J.H. PROPERTY OWNER: ATLANTIC REFINING AGENT: ARLEN ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 52 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH A VACANT GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE AND CONSTRUCT A 2,520 SQ. FT. BUILDING AS A REPLACEMENT. GAS STATIONS AND RETAIL USES IN THE HC-I ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/04 TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-95 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 GENE BILODEAU & LLOYD HELM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-Since the last tabling, the applicant has come back with a revised lighting, landscaping plan, and some pictures of a proposed building. The canopy lights have been reduced to eight, 250 watt fixtures, and previously they were shown as 400 watt fixtures, and the light levels appear to be consistent with Zoning Code. It’s still kind of unclear whether these fixtures are going to be flush with the underneath of the canopy. So we’ve included a stipulation for your approval, I guess, that all fixtures will be downcast cut off, and the canopy lights will be flush with the canopy, and also we’re suggesting a condition that Planning Staff inspect these fixtures for compliance, prior to installation. We’re finding more and more that the lights that are proposed on certain sites may not go in. Different lights will actually go in. So, you know, we’d like the opportunity to be able to inspect them before they go in. As far as the landscaping plan, the numbers appear consistent with the Town Code. The ornamental trees up on the front of the property line, we certainly don’t have a problem with that. We understand there’s limited green space up there. The one’s on the southern property line, we’re suggesting that perhaps be shade trees listed in the Town Code, and as far as the photos that have been submitted, I believe you have copies that shows a block building with a blue roof, and we’re just wondering if blue is what’s proposed here and if so perhaps a different color could be substituted, something maybe green or Adirondacky or something that would showcase this entry to the Town, and I guess, secondly, as far as the pictures, they’ve included a 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) picture of a gas island canopy. It appears to be a Stewarts, and I’m just wondering, and just want to confirm, if there’s any exterior work proposed to the gas island canopy. Beyond that, I think there are some C.T. Male, not issues, but maybe some comments from Jim, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, have you got comments you want to enter in now? MR. EDWARDS-I really don’t. All I want to add is that we have reviewed updated plans, and they do comply with our comments of June 14. So I really have no additional comments at this th time. MR. MAC EWAN-George, where are we on the Stop Work Order? MR. HILTON-They’ve stopped work. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a very good thing. Good evening. MR. BILODEAU-Gene Bilodeau from Arlen Associates. MR. HELM-Lloyd Helm from G.R.J.H. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, gentlemen. MR. BILODEAU-The new location of the tanks has been shown on the revised drawings. The lights are to be flush with the bottom of the canopy. The new canopy design has been shown, replicates that of Stewarts store, as was suggested, one of the options that was suggested, and I guess the other items are clear and evident from what George Hilton has just discussed. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? All right. Let’s go down our list, folks. Design standards? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Let somebody else pick this up, Craig, and I’ll pick mine up later. Get comments from other members of the Board, if you would. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d open it up to anybody, Bob. MR. HUNSINGER-I had questions on design standards as well. One of the items that we did ask about, and Staff touched on, was the color scheme. So I was wondering if you could comment on the color scheme. MR. HELM-We had planned on using the same color scheme as the photos that we submitted that our other building is, just because we used that in the past and it sort of conforms with the Sunoco colors. MR. RINGER-We’ve got black and whites. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say. I have a black and white picture. So I don’t. MR. HELM-It’s a blue metal roof and a tan drivet, and pavers, or a stone bottom (lost word). MR. HUNSINGER-So would the gas canopy, what color would that be? MR. HELM-Match the color of the roof. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because obviously the Stewarts is sort of a brownish color. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’ll go out on a limb. I won’t support that. MR. VOLLARO-No. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-I have some comments on the design standards. First of all, I think we need some definitive elevation drawings, more definitive than what we’ve got here. Line drawings dated 2/27/04 do not reflect photographs at all, and of course I’ve got black and white, but what I’m really driving at here is that, is the location of this building is right at the entrance of the Town of Queensbury, and I would like to see it reflect the Adirondack style that goes along with the Town, as opposed to what I see in that drawing. That’s pretty garden variety, Sunoco type building. I’m looking for something that’s a little more definitive in terms of how it looks from the Adirondack style. You come off the Northway. You make a right coming in to Queensbury, this is really the first thing you see on your right is this station. MR. SANFORD-No, you see the Aviation Mall old Howard Johnson’s. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. Well, there’s another building on the corner there. Right on the corner. Then you see the old Howard Johnson’s dilapidated, whatever that is that they’ve got there. MR. SANFORD-The old Blacksmith’s Shop. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but I want to see this one, this building, be a little more reflective of the Adirondack style. I don’t know how the other Board members feel about that, but it’s our chance to do something for the entrance of the Town. MR. RINGER-And get rid of that blue roof. MR. VOLLARO-We also need, I noticed in the design standards that, we need a canopy design as well. There’s no good canopy design here. Okay. That’s the Stewarts. So that’s how they’re going to get their flush lights. MR. BILODEAU-The new revised drawing does show (lost words) similar to that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I saw that, but I’m, you know, kind of looking for the integration of the canopy and the building and see how that’s going to look. I mean, I want to get a good visual. I’m just one member of this Board speaking now. There’s a whole bunch of other members up here, six more, that might, and sometimes do disagree with me. So I’d like to hear what they have to say about that kind of proposal. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with you, Bob, because it is the entranceway, and we should, you know, some type of greens and browns, I guess, something Adirondack. I’d like to see more landscaping on the site. I think the trees along the road are very nice, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a problem with the design of the building, Bob, or is it just the color scheme? MR. VOLLARO-No. For example, what I do, to comply with my own thoughts on this, is I would take the design of that building and put a veneer over it, a log veneer, for example, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then you’re talking about a different design. MR. VOLLARO-No. I would take the view of the building and then just change its façade a little bit, so that it looked a little more Adirondacky, that’s all. Green roof. MR. MAC EWAN-You know what my suggestion would be? If they had come up with color schemes and design that’s relatively similar to the approved motel we just did across the street. MR. VOLLARO-The Econo Lodge. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-That was absolutely phenomenal. MR. SANFORD-What color is that? MR. MAC EWAN-Green. MR. SANFORD-Green. MR. HELM-Well, we’re able to select any color that we wish to because the roofing on the siding, the drivet can obviously be, it’s like paint. It can come in any color also, and the bottom third, which in those photos is stone, which I think looks rather nice on that building, can be all drivet or, you know, it can be that stone or it can be a brick look. So, you know, I’m willing to make any changes now, what the Board feels, you know, they might think looks better than what we think looks good. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that a starter would be to change the roof to a green roof. That would be a starter, but I would like to see a little more innovative thought go into the building design, or at least how it looks. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked the question that I asked, you know, I mean, I don’t like the blue roof either, but, you know, I happen to personally like the stone along the bottom. MR. VOLLARO-I think the stone’s okay. Get us a little, I take this as a stucco front, a type of stucco front on it? MR. HELM-Yes. MR. BILODEAU-Drivet, which is stucco. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Change that off, maybe, to a veneer that has an Adirondack log approach to it, you know. This doesn’t mean you have to make a log building. You can make this building and just put one of these veneers right over it. I’ve seen them sold in a lot of places. I think that would add a little bit to it, a green roof. I’m just trying to get it so that, for example, the Hess station across the way is a very, very nicely laid out station, if you look at it. I think it’s pretty well done. MR. MAC EWAN-If I had my druthers, I’d see that one changed, too. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s very commercial, too commercial. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s too standard. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess we walk a fine line, so to speak, where you want to have commercial endeavors be able to be expressed through individualism and stand out as to who they are, but by the same token, we want these projects to look and fit well within the Town as well. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask Board members this, Craig, this photograph right here, if the roof was green, and this was painted a brown, green and brown approach, would that help this building any, without putting sort of a veneer on it? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, my opinion is that if they went with color schemes that are very similar to that Econo Lodge across the street, I think they’d hit a home run, because I think the way that Econo Lodge has come out with the color schemes that they’ve used, which is like a tan, you know, a dark tan with a green roof, a green trim on the windows and stuff, I mean, that certainly would satisfy me. It’s a big new addition they’re building right on there. I mean, I like 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) the stone. I think the stone gives it a nice offset, doesn’t make it look boxy. It gives it a nice trim. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll dive to that canopy for a minute. I would not, in a heartbeat, support the Sunoco rainbow going around that canopy. Period. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I said I’d like to get an integrated shot of the canopy design and the building, so we know what we’re going to be looking at when it’s all done. MR. HELM-What we’re proposing is that, or what I was proposing is that we do the canopy in the Stewarts look, the way you like it, and use the same color as the roof for the canopy, and that’s what I was trying to get to you, because I know at the last meeting you stated that you wanted it to sort of fit in together. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. BILODEAU-There’s no way you could put that rainbow on that particular design. MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but what we’re trying to deal with here as a Board, if we got to a point where we were going to put a motion together, we need the documentation, as part of the application, to support the motion. I mean, photographs are nice, but the written record, as we sit here and speak back and forth, is not going to carry a whole heck of a lot of weight down the road. It’s actually what the approval and the motion is that’s adopted by the Board, and that’s supported by the documentation in the application. Any other comments relative to architecture? MR. ANDERSON-Well, subtle, how people feel about color, but most of us felt that a green roof would look nice, but I think a brown roof, and a maximum shade of stucco, and a split face block that would fit the big shades of brown, and then you would have a canopy around the filling station that would match that roof color, without changing the architectural shape of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m not for changing the architectural shape at all. I mean, now we’re talking a whole building design. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not either. Did you get that impression? No, no. What I was talking about was the color schemes used on the Econo Lodge. If they went with those color schemes, I would be satisfied with that. MR. VOLLARO-See, what I think Craig has given them is a nice target across the way to look at, you know, and be able to match. MR. MAC EWAN-Not Target, no, Econo Lodge. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. RINGER-I wouldn’t have trouble with the brown either, Al. I think a brown would be a good roof, green or brown. MR. BILODEAU-Brown roof, and maybe a green siding, a light green, or a brownish, a tan sort of. MR. ANDERSON-No, it would be a buff, or, you know, one of the tan shades. MR. BILODEAU-Are we talking drivet, or are we talking board, clapboards? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. ANDERSON-Cement stucco. MR. BILODEAU-Stucco. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I mean, what you’ve got shown on this particular store here. MR. ANDERSON-And then you would (lost words) split faced block that would match, you know. MR. BILODEAU-You mean where the stone is? MR. ANDERSON-That’s right. MR. BILODEAU-In the bottom, yes, okay, and that would be kind of a different color brown, complimentary brown. MR. ANDERSON-Right. MR. BILODEAU-I like it. MR. ANDERSON-Good. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions regarding building design? MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. I think they’ve got the message now. They’ll put their heads together and come up with something. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. So you guys are going to be looking for, what, color renderings? Is that what you’re looking for? MR. ANDERSON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, color renderings MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ANDERSON-Once you’re going to make a minor change, those window openings, I think, should be framed, so that there’s another contrast. They look to bland, those black. MR. VOLLARO-Framed in a color. MR. ANDERSON-In a color. MR. BILODEAU-Again, these are all going to be shades of brown. MR. MAC EWAN-Somebody better be taking notes here. Okay. Staff made a comment relative to landscaping, design corridor landscaping. Do you want to elaborate on that a little bit, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. I think, given the amount of green space in front of this, along Aviation Road, if you were to put, if anyone were to put maybe the shade trees with the bigger roots, you know, there’s not a lot of room to deal with there. It might rip up the pavement, and I think we’re supportive of some ornamental trees that would look nice out there. They’ve given us three. I think the southern property line, where they propose the same type species of tree, there’s a little more area there perhaps, just sticking with the Code requirements, some of the shade trees that are listed in our Code could be substituted there. MR. VOLLARO-I think 179-8-030 talks about a lot of green, the evergreen type of tree. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. SANFORD-I don’t want to block visibility, though, Bob. MR. RINGER-Yes, I’d be concerned. MR. VOLLARO-He’s talking about the rear property line. MR. RINGER-Right. Aviation Road itself, I’d be concerned about putting too many trees out there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Definitely. MR. RINGER-That’s a tough place to get in and out of there. MR. HILTON-And I think the number and the type that are proposed on this plan, out on Aviation Road, are acceptable. MR. RINGER-Three is what they’ve got on there. MR. VOLLARO-I think DOT made the comment, in their letter, to make sure that sight distances weren’t impeded by trees. That’s something we have to look at. MR. SANFORD-So all, really, it is is just the color, right? Is that where we’re coming from? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not all the way down the list yet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, color, canopy design. MR. RINGER-We’re still on design standards, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else on design standards? Site development criteria, vehicle access, traffic patterns? MR. RINGER-How about a connector to the next business, the next gas station? We’ve been trying to get that. I didn’t see it in there. MR. SEGULJIC-They do have a note for future access on the, Sheet Two of Four on the west side. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s on the other side, though, isn’t it? MR. BILODEAU-Yes, that’s on the west side. MR. RINGER-I’d like to see one on the east side, too. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s got to be tied in to the Golub property, next door. There should be an access to Golub’s property next door, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you, offhand, know, George, if Golub’s got on there’s, on their west side of their property line? MR. HILTON-Offhand, I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-That could be problematic. MR. RINGER-Well, we could show that they have it, and if Golub ever wanted to change theirs, then we’ve got it. So we can have them show it on their plan, and then if Golub ever came 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) through, or if the Getty station ever came through for a modification or something to their plan, then we could enforce that connector. MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s not a bad plan, Larry, but, you know, I think it’s unlikely that there’s going to be cooperation. MR. RINGER-It doesn’t need cooperation if we say they’ve got to have it, and then the next guy comes through, that’s the cooperation. I just think we should connect them wherever possible, and we can put it in here, and then if the other guy. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m with Larry, because this applicant would get to specify, you know, a reasonable location. Then the burden would be on the other guy, if they ever came in. MR. SANFORD-If they ever came in front of us. MR. RINGER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And who knows, you know, 20 years from now they might come in and say, well, you know, we don’t want this to be a gas station anymore. We want to put in, you know, who knows what. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I agree. I think it ought to be on this site. MR. HUNSINGER-It ought to be at least shown as proposed future access. MR. VOLLARO-Agreed. MR. HELM-I had a question on that, though. Will it be compatible, grade wise, with the adjacent property? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s my question. MR. HELM-Also, the Getty station has a diesel dispenser right between the two property lines. I don’t know how that works for the Getty station. MR. RINGER-Well, you might have to move it back further, or forward to it. They do have their diesel pump there. MR. HELM-I’m sorry, which side are we talking about? MR. RINGER-We’re talking the east side. MR. HUNSINGER-The east side. MR. RINGER-Right where that diesel pump is, but you don’t have to have the connector where the diesel is, but if you showed a connector, then if they ever come in, then they’ll have to put it somewhere in the same relationship, but the burden’s on them. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, basically all you have to do is put a label on your site plan now, just saying proposed future connector. MR. RINGER-Future connector. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a way to keep traffic off the main road, people coming back out on the main road to turn back in, you know, 50 feet down the road. Any questions on stormwater/sewage? MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s all public, it’s all municipal sewage, municipal stormwater. MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a lighting. If you look at the drawing, the one that project’s the lighting, it’s a very low light level. I think it’s not lit up like a roman candle, that’s for sure, but are the lighting wall packs that are not shown on the building part of the lighting design when you get up into that upper right hand spot of the drawing, where it talks to lighting, and it’s got, up at the top, where you’ve got the description of the average, and the min/max and so on. Now there’s fairly low light levels there, and I see it all being generated really from under the canopy, pretty much. I don’t see any wall packs on the buildings. Will there be wall packs on the buildings? MR. BILODEAU-Not as it’s presently designed, no. MR. VOLLARO-No. So all the lighting from this site comes really from underneath the canopy? MR. BILODEAU-Well, from the store itself, the light generated inside the building penetrates. MR. VOLLARO-Was that store light from in the building in the calculations? MR. BILODEAU-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It is? Because I don’t see that. MR. BILODEAU-In the front of the building, it shows light levels. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It shows .06 and .02. That’s pretty low. MR. SANFORD-It’s going to be just coming through those windows, Bob. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re building this building here? I’m looking at this photograph right here, on the front of the building, where the customers go into the main entrance, it shows three wall packs, and on the side of the building, where the ice machine is, it shows two wall packs that I can see. MR. BILODEAU-We’re proposing that there be none, at this point. MR. VOLLARO-So how do you plan to light that walkway? MR. MAC EWAN-Not even soffit lighting or something like that? MR. BILODEAU-Just the lighting from the windows themselves. MR. VOLLARO-Fundamentally, all the lighting on this site plan comes from under the canopy, again, pretty much, and the little that emanates. MR. BILODEAU-Well, that and the street light is generating a certain amount of it, the city street light. MR. MAC EWAN-George, doesn’t our Building Code require some sort of lighting next to an entrance? I don’t know how you can do that. MR. HILTON-Honestly, that I don’t know. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. BILODEAU-There is a light in back, on the south edge of the, not of the edge of the lot, but the south edge of that woods, there is a light there. That generates a considerable amount of light. MR. VOLLARO-Was that light taken into consideration with respect to this, foot candles on the ground? MR. BILODEAU-Those tables were generated from those numbers that are in that (lost word). MR. VOLLARO-I see that. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, your experience, commercial projects, don’t they need to have a light over the entrance way? MR. EDWARDS-It’s unusual not to have any kind of wall packs. It is. Any kind of convenience store, when the store is non service, if it’s closed, just for security reasons, you want something on that building wouldn’t you? I would think. MR. MAC EWAN-I would think you would, especially where you have your service door, that’s where they’re coming in. Sometimes you get, you know, in the middle of the winter and you’ve got your five a.m. delivery, and you’ve got to have a light out there. MR. EDWARDS-It would be unusual not to show any kind of wall packs, I think. It’s not going to generate an awful lot of light, compared to the canopy, I don’t think. The issue is. MR. MAC EWAN-But it all fills in to the overall lighting plan of the lot. MR. VOLLARO-Even on this drawing, there’s light packs all over this building, on the side, the front, and so on. MR. BILODEAU-That building is in the middle of a field, in the middle of desolation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re saying that the surrounding light levels help to generate light for this site. MR. MAC EWAN-You need to check it, but based on conversation with the Town Engineer, and my past experience is that you’ve got to have some sort of wall packs on that building. MR. VOLLARO-I had a comment in my lighting notes that says, if not, how do you intend to illuminate the walkway. MR. MAC EWAN-Codes would say that you’d have to have that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m pretty familiar with the lighting code, and I don’t remember, George, maybe you could refresh my memory. I don’t remember it stating that wall packs, that outside entrances must be lit. I don’t think, our code is absent of those words. MR. HILTON-Yes. Our lighting code doesn’t really require that they be there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. MR. HILTON-I understand your concern. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, every other site plan we’ve ever looked at, whether it was a Stewarts, Cumberland Farms, whatever, if they have wall packs on the building, that all goes into the overall lighting plan, so you know what your lumination is, so you know you’re keeping all the lighting on site. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. SANFORD-Yes, I know, but they’re coming in saying they don’t want it. All our other conversations have been we’ve been wanting them to reduce the lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. HELM-Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-And I agree with you, Rich, but the point is, code, they’re going to find that code says you have to have a light near an entrance. MR. SANFORD-Well, we just asked George, and. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a Zoning Code. That’s a Building Code. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You have to have it. MR. RINGER-I think they’re exit lights, though, not entrance lights. MR. MAC EWAN-Even outside lights. MR. BILODEAU-Well, we can certainly put them in. It’s not going to bring us over any limits. MR. RINGER-Yes, you’re not looking at a lot of lights. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just that the plan needs to represent exactly what’s going to take place. That’s all. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Question on landscaping? We touched on it a little bit earlier. Everyone satisfied with that? MR. VOLLARO-I’m not done with lighting yet. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-On the cut sheets that were provided with this application, the cut sheet shows an SCL405MA 250 watt metal halides, and it’s in there. That’s what you’re planning to use now, but the schematic for that shows that it has an eight inch protrusion. That particular light that you’re specifying is not a flush light. If you look at the. MR. BILODEAU-Well, there’s just a model number change that reflects the flush. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I looked for that in the cut sheet and it doesn’t say that, okay, if you want a flush light use this model. It gives you. MR. BILODEAU-It’s not in the book. You have to order it special, and it has another letter attached to it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So what’s in the cut sheet itself is not reflective of anything you’re going to put up? MR. BILODEAU-Well, it’s reflective, generally, of it, of the size, shape, but it isn’t reflective of the fact that it’s been turned in to a flush mounted, flush surfaced. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-Where it has options, it has options here, and it doesn’t, I looked under the options section, and it doesn’t show where you’re going to go from 10 and 5/8’s inch of depth th in the light to zero. It doesn’t say anything under options about ordering flat. That’s just me looking at the. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you need to have a revised cut sheet that shows us specifically what they’re going to get? MR. VOLLARO-Well, if he says it’s a special order, I don’t know, I guess I’d go along with that, but I’d like a cut sheet that. MR. MAC EWAN-The cut sheet is going to be part of the official record. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where I’m going, which is going along George’s comment opening up this application, is that the Town has run into some problems with past applications where what was approved by this Board was not necessarily what was installed on the site. MR. VOLLARO-If you look at the cut sheet, Mr. Chairman, it shows the 10 and 5/8’s inch th depth is the only option that they give you on this sheet, and that’s not flush mounted. MR. MAC EWAN-But he’s saying they’re going to provide a flush mounted. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’d want a cut sheet that shows that. MR. VOLLARO-I would like that, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. George, along your lines of problems enforcing this, as a suggestion, maybe in my mind here, I’m thinking that in our draft resolutions from here on out, any site plan that we’re dealing with with commercial lighting is maybe that there’s a boilerplate that’s put in there, something to the effect that supplied lights will be inspected by the Town prior to their erection. No CO will be issued unless they’re inspected by the Town, something to that effect? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That way we’re sure that we’re covering the lights that were approved are the lights that are being installed. MR. VOLLARO-George, who would go out and do that? MR. MAC EWAN-Bruce. MR. HILTON-Bruce. MR. VOLLARO-Bruce would go out and do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on lighting? Landscaping? MR. SEGULJIC-I have a couple of comments. I think what you did along Aviation Road is nice, but to the rear, which would be to the south of the building, are those trees back there, or is that grass? MR. BILODEAU-Trees, big trees. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-White pines, big ones. MR. BILODEAU-A number of dense. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we leave those there? MR. BILODEAU-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m a big fan of trees. MR. BILODEAU-They’re staying. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, how about on the west side of the property, if I have it correct. Because you have no landscaping over there. MR. BILODEAU-The revised plan shows three more trees. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s on the east side, if I’ve got my directions correct. MR. BILODEAU-East side, yes, right. That’s not on the north side, right. That’s that street there. MR. SEGULJIC-Because that, if I recall correctly, is two parking lots more or less meeting together. MR. BILODEAU-No, it’s a street, goes to a building back, an old motel that’s been not defunct. It’s actually a street. MR. SANFORD-It’s a private street to go into the old abandoned hotel. MR. RINGER-It’s a driveway, is what it is. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we get some type of a buffer along there, then, or some landscaping? MR. SANFORD-I don’t think there’s room, on their lot, on their property, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there room? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. SANFORD-I don’t think so. MR. VOLLARO-If you look at the site plan, Tom, it looks pretty tight on that side. MR. SANFORD-That’s a small lot. They don’t have a big lot there. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, for what it’s worth, I know that it’s a proposed future expansion of the mall for additional parking, and that whole corner will be heavily landscaped. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. RINGER-Where the HoJo’s is? MR. MAC EWAN-The Seven Steers, the old Seven Steers, Extreme Sports, whatever it is. Any other questions on landscaping? Environmental? Neighborhood character? Involved agencies? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the DOT letter of 5/25/04, the DOT is an involved agency here. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other criteria? Nothing? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think on traffic I wanted to try to get some, under site development, I don’t know whether you got into that yet or not, we did get into it in terms of connecting with Golub alongside, but the drawing itself now, we discussed this during our last look at this site plan, about ingress/egress to this site, how traffic would flow, into the site and off the site, and I guess it was the position of this Board that it would be, both of those curb cuts would be two way. Am I correct? Okay. The drawing probably ought to show that. It doesn’t show that now. It just shows traffic going up and down the Aviation Road. MR. SANFORD-If it’s both ways, I mean, that’s the default, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it could be the default, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we felt that we didn’t want to change it. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-So why delineate it if it’s the way it is now? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just wanted to make sure that that’s the way it was going to be, when we finally approve it, that it’s ingress/egress both curb cuts. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought we came to a conclusion on that the last meeting, that we were just going to leave it as it was. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. BILODEAU-So you don’t want the arrows on the drawing? MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily. MR. VOLLARO-They say that it’s not necessary, you know, if the preponderance of the Board feels they’re unnecessary, you don’t have to put them on. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got that limb tonight. Any other criteria? Staff, anything to add? MR. HILTON-I guess, if the Board chooses to table this, and you’re actually looking for some kind of elevation renderings, I’ve heard some discussion about brown versus green, you know, I guess my suggestion would be, instead of making a decision on either color tonight, perhaps get renderings showing both, and maybe decide, once you see how they look, the two different scenarios. I guess that would be my comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, are you all set? MR. EDWARDS-We just actually owe you a signoff letter on this one. We did not provide that yet, so we’ll get that to you. MR. VOLLARO-On the stormwater? MR. EDWARDS-On our comments in general. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, what have you got for your list? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess it kind of boils down to four significant issues, unless I missed something. The first being building design, color scheme. We had a discussion of, well, initially color schemes similar to Econo Lodge that’s diagonally across the street, but then there was a suggestion made about a brown roof, instead of forest green. So I don’t know how we want to resolve that. Siding color should be either brown or tan, earth tone, windows, it was recommended that the windows be framed to provide a contrasting color in the openings. The second big issue was on the design corridor landscaping, substitution of shade trees along the southern property line for the proposed ornamental trees. I think they meant to say the eastern property line. MR. BILODEAU-Any particular tree you’ve got in mind? MR. HILTON-Well, I mean we have a list in the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you can pick one. MR. VOLLARO-You can go to 179-8-030, and pick up the kind of shade trees that they talked about there. MR. MAC EWAN-And you do that, you can get our Code right off the Web, right off the Town’s Website. MR. HUNSINGER-The other issue was under lighting. Wall packs on the building and revised cut sheets on the canopy lights to reflect the flush mount, and then the final issue was on, showing proposed connector to the adjacent property to the east. That should be labeled on the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, one thing, how are we handling the canopy design? Is that, should that be part and parcel of the? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s part of the color scheme. I guess I didn’t really hear any comments that the design itself was bad, just the color. I don’t want to speak for the Board on that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think that’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the color should match the roof. I mean, personally I like the forest green color better than brown, but I think either one would be okay. MR. SANFORD-Why don’t we go with George’s suggestion where, I don’t think it’s too much of an inconvenience, next time you come in front of us, come with a brown roof and another, and a green roof, and then we can decide at that time what we all like better, if that’s not too much of an inconvenience. That way we would be able to have a better look at it. MR. VOLLARO-These have to be color renderings, by the way, so we get an idea what these are going to look like. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing I would add, if everyone agrees to it, is that the trees to the south of the building are to remain in place. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the trees at the south of the building remain in place. Yes. MR. SANFORD-The diagram shows that. It has trees written down there, I thought. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-We’re all in agreement on what Chris has got for a tabling motion? MR. HELM-Could I just add one thing or ask one thing? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. HELM-With these buildings, we’re twelve weeks plus out from the day we provide a building permit to Morton, and if I may ask the Board if there’s any way, opposed to tabling this, we could give some kind of conditional approval that would allow me to get a building permit? I mean, we’re willing, we’re sitting here and we’re saying basically that, you know, if you want us to put a pig on top of the cupola, we’ll put a pig on top of the cupola. We’ll give you any colors you want. We’ll put wall packs in. We’ll switch trees. We want to put something up that the Town is going to be happy with and we’re going to be happy with, but to table it for us, for, you know, you’re talking about us submitting things June 15 for, no, I’d say th we’d be talking now submitting August 15 for a September meeting, puts us almost into next th year on when we can build something there, and then more than likely, faced with that decision, we’d probably just withdraw our whole proposal and just go back to using the existing building. We’d just, or if there’s anything we could do so that we could at least get on the schedule. I don’t mind coming back for the next three months to meetings to hash out colors, but the more time I lose, you know, the more, the harder it becomes for our company to be able to sustain just sitting on this property, you know, without doing anything. I guess that it’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let me try to answer your questions. You had several comments in there. One, to suggest that we could give you a conditional approval tonight, based on the information we’re looking for, as I stated earlier with your application, and with the application previously in front of you tonight, I mean, what you provide as part of your application, as far as the paperwork that goes in the folder and helps us make a decision on this Board is the documents that bind this Board’s approval. What’s verbally said back and forth is not binding. It’s what’s in the written motion, and the written motion is supported by the documentation in the application. Given that, given the fact how much information you have still to provide to the Board, I don’t see us going in that direction tonight, and secondly, I mean, the Town of Queensbury is going through a tremendous growth period right now, and you’re not the only application we’re hearing the moans and groans from. The duration it takes to get through the Planning Board review. While we feel for every applicant that comes to the Board, and we’d certainly like to give everyone a very timely review and be professional and get them through the system as quickly as we can, you have to realize the burden that the Board is under, with the amount of business that’s going on in the Town, and the amount of applications that’s in front of our Board on a monthly basis. You as an applicant, though, it would help you and everyone else, and I’m not just singling you folks out, is that when you make your initial application, make it as complete as possible. It helps for a more speedy review. It helps for a more timely review, and get you an approval, hopefully, in a more timely fashion. I mean, that’s all the advice I can offer anybody that comes through these doors, that if your application is in order, and meeting all the criteria, especially in our more commercial corridors in the Town where we do have specific design standards, it will certainly help you get a more timely approval if we get to that point, having a complete application, and this has been short, in some aspects, whether it’s been for the lighting, the landscaping, you know, also the fact that you folks have already started working up there, too. I mean, that doesn’t bode well, in my mind, as Chairman of this Board. I mean, it was very clear to you. You asked me this same question last month, in June when you were here, was there any way you could get a conditional approval, and I said no because you had a site plan that was in front of us. Once you come in front of this Board, you’re under this Board’s review, and nothing can be done on that site until you get your approvals. You now have an application and you’re in that spot right now. So no work can go on up there until you get your approvals. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. SANFORD-Well, can we fast track it, in terms of rescheduling the follow up meeting to this? MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, I’m not willing to do that right now, only because what’s in the pipeline that’s coming. I mean, they have a deadline they have to meet. We’ll give them every consideration that we possibly can and help them get on in a timely fashion. I said that to the applicant in front of them as well. I mean, I don’t want to promise anything to anybody, considering what’s in the pipeline out there right now. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’ll tell you, Craig, though, in the interest of consistency, I mean, we had a meeting last month where the applicant, or last meeting, where the applicant requested tabling, and Mr. Ringer scheduled them first thing for the next month, and that was at their request. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve made my decision, Rich. MR. HELM-Isn’t the conditional approval, I know that, I understand that the Town needs these things in writing, so that they have something to go back on in case we don’t do what we say we’re going to do, but if you have the conditional approval, and it states the things that you’re supposed to submit, that, enough, I would think, is enough protection for the Town that we’re going to come back and give you the items that you want, or that you’re requesting, and if we don’t do that, then we’re not going to get a CO and we’re not going to be able to open or. MR. MAC EWAN-In the past, this Board has given conditional approvals based on minor engineering or minor outstanding issues that need to be done, and when I say minor, I mean, per se, let’s suppose that C.T. Male gives a 14 line item thing that needs to be done to get an approval, to get a C.T. Male signoff, and they’ve hit 12 out of the 14, two minor things are left to do, we’ll give a conditional approval for an application pending the C.T. Male signoff on the final two items. Considering the amount of information that this Board’s looking for for this application tonight, relative to not only the lighting, but to the building design. There’s a lot of talk going back and forth amongst members up here tonight over what they want for architectural design, what you’re going to provide. I have a real big issue with the lighting plan right now, because I don’t think that that’s up to snuff. I think that you need to do a little bit more homework on that. I mean, we’re going by what our Zoning Ordinance tells us we have to do, and I just think that’s way too much stuff to try to give you a conditional approval tonight. We’d be sitting here for an hour trying to draft a resolution to give you conditional approval, without documentation to support it, and that’s my fear, as Chairman, to ensure that every application that we give an approval to has got something in that folder that the Town can fall back on when they need to go out and do their site visits, to make sure that you’re building the building they way you’re supposed to, that your setbacks are where they’re supposed to be, that your lighting is where it is supposed to be, that your architectural design is where it’s supposed to be, your landscaping is where it’s supposed to be at. If we were to give you an approval tonight and we sent, next month, up there, our Code Enforcement Officer to check things, he’s got nothing in the file to look at, and that’s why we need to have that information. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what happens, too, Mr. Chairman, when we condition approvals heavily, the Staff is now put in a position of almost being like the clerk of the works. He’s got to ensure, a Staff member has to go up there and ensure that while this thing is being built, all these conditions are being adhered to, and they reflect the written word, for conditions. It’s very difficult for a Staff member to do that. I’m talking a little out of school here because I think that Staff’s got to do the talking on this one, but I think when conditional approvals, to great extents, are given, I think the burden on Staff is very high, particularly now that we’re in such a back log mode on applications. I don’t know whether you agree with that or not, George, but that’s my assessment. True or not true? MR. HILTON-I think there’s a couple of different things there. Certainly any conditions that are on the plan have to be enforced, and a lot of times it does boil down to Staff, but, you know, 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) I don’t know. If it’s just a question of architectural colors, which it doesn’t sound like it is, I mean, perhaps there’s some leeway. MR. VOLLARO-There’s more than that. I mean, if we give a conditional approval in words, you have to try to convert those words into in actuality when you go out there to see, yes, those words, those colors reflect these words. It’s very hard for you to do, as a Staff member. MR. HILTON-And I agree, there’s something to be said for having it part of the record and being consistent, you want to have something documented. MR. BILODEAU-Can I get a feeling from the Board as to the general design of that building, aside from the color, just the shape. MR. VOLLARO-I would agree to the shape. MR. SANFORD-I’m happy with it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Board, as a whole, is fine with the design of the building. I think it’s the color scheme is what it’s boiled down to. MR. HUNSINGER-Part of the reason why I was asking a lot of questions about the design is I was sort of hoping that we could specify colors and send you on your way tonight, but, so I appreciate your frustration. I was, I think we’re like 95 or 98% of the way there, but we do need that additional documentation. MR. HELM-If I could just say one more thing. In answer to your comment on, that it’s hard for the Staff to police this, I understand that, but I guess what I’m trying to get across is that we’re not getting this approval and doing anything with it for another three months anyway. I mean, we have a chance to come to another two meetings before we’re even talking about doing anything, and I guess, I’m not sure what I was going to say. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll close it out on this. If we were to give you a conditional approval tonight, and you’re not going to do anything for another X number of days, you could potentially come back for a couple of more meetings, there’d be no point in you coming back. You’ve got your approvals. There’d be no point in you coming back, because once you have your approvals, you’re ready to go. That’s why we want to make sure we’ve got all our ducks lined up. MR. ANDERSON-I’d like to ask a question. Do you know the latest date that you need to work with, so you can complete this project say this season or this year? Is that like tomorrow morning, a month from now? MR. RINGER-Yesterday. MR. ANDERSON-There’s a lot of things. You can have subcontractors committed. You can have material. You can go, at your risk, and start to pick up this time that you lost, but you don’t put the Board at risk. If I was the contractor, there’s an awful lot I could do without this formal approval, this final approval. Essentially, I think you know that we will approve the building in the form that it’s in. You can start to prepare those kind of drawings. MR. HELM-It’s a prefab building. So, yes, they just won’t do anything. I mean, obviously they require a building permit before they even start prefabricating any of the building. MR. ANDERSON-Who’s “they”? MR. HELM-Morton. I’m sorry, Morton Building is who we’re purchasing this from. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. ANDERSON-But your company can go, at risk, and say go ahead and fabricate the building. MR. HELM-They won’t do it unless they have a building permit. That’s why we’re twelve weeks out. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll help you out as best we can. That’s all we can promise. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, do your motion, please. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2004 G.R.J.H., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Pending the submission of the following items: Item One, a revised color scheme and/or building design that would show alternate colors for the building façade roof and gas island canopy. The applicant should provide different color schemes showing a forest green roof, as well as a brown roof. Siding should be of a brown or tan color, general earth tone colors. Also provide some ideas on framing the window openings to provide a contrast in color for the windows. Item Two, modified landscaping plan should show shade trees along the eastern property line, as opposed to the proposed ornamental trees, that the landscaping plan should show that the trees to the south of the building are to remain, and it should be labeled as such on the site plan. Lighting, Item Three, the applicant should provide information on wall packs that would be required by Code over the walkway in the entrance to the facility, as well as provide revised cut sheets on the canopy lights that reflect the flush mount that has been proposed, and then finally the site plan should show a proposed connector to the adjacent property to the east and it should be labeled as such on the site plan. Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-When you get your new stuff submitted to the Town, George, give me a call, and we’ll see what we can do to work them into an agenda real quick. MR. BILODEAU-I appreciate it. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 34-2004 SEQR TYPE: II MITCHELL COHEN AGENT: VANCE COHEN ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1471 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE TWO 10 FT. BY 20 FT. TENTS (TOTAL OF 400 SQ. FT.) TENTS FOR SEASONAL DISPLAY AND SALES. RETAIL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEWAND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 288-1-58 LOT SIZE: 1.99 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 VANCE COHEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 34-2004, Mitchell Cohen, Meeting Date: July 27, 2004 “The applicant proposes to use two 10’ x 20’ tents as part of an outdoor sales event. The property is located on the west side of Route 9, south of Route 149, and is zoned HC-Int. The applicant has requested the following waivers: 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The two tents would be placed in a grass area near the front property line and would be separated from vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It appears that there will be adequate access for emergency vehicles. The main issue with recent tent sale applications has been the overall duration of the sales (seasonal or year round). Should the Planning Board choose to approve this application, a specific time period that the tents will be allowed should be specified.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to use two tents as part of an outdoor sales event. I’ve listed the waivers he requested. They’ll be placed in a grassed area, out of vehicular and pedestrian traffic ways, and it doesn’t, it appears that there’ll be adequate access lanes for emergency vehicles, and as I’ve mentioned the main issue with these recent tent sale, outdoor sales events, is how long are the tents going to be up, as far as the duration, is it for a couple of weeks, a couple of months, and I guess the Planning Board, should you choose to approve this, should specify a timeframe, as part of the, as a part of an approving motion, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. COHEN-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. COHEN-I’m Vance Cohen. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us about your application. MR. COHEN-I’m looking to put up two tents in the front of our business to display merchandise to keep it out of the inclement weather, such as today. MR. MAC EWAN-How long do you propose to keep the tents up for? MR. COHEN-I believe the Town allows 180 days for tents to be erected. I’d like to be able to keep it, or have the option of keeping it up for 180 days, which is the Town’s limit. MR. MAC EWAN-I noticed some confusion, during site visits, as to exactly where your location is. Which building is yours up there? MR. COHEN-Do you want me to show you on that map? MR. VOLLARO-No, I want the name of the business. What’s the name of the business? No place in the application can I find the name of the business. MR. COHEN-The business is called Scooters. MR. VOLLARO-Scooters. MR. COHEN-We’re in the process of redoing our sign, it says the Flea Market Outlet on the sign right now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now I know where you are. Okay. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just let me ask you a technical question first. This map that you provided as part of your application, you showed Tent One and Tent Two up there, up there right close to the road. Right? MR. COHEN-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that not within the State highway right of way? Is there a 75 foot overlay zone on Route 9? MR. HILTON-Well, it’s definitely within that 75 foot, but I honestly don’t think we’re, this isn’t looked at as a structure that’s required to meet that setback. It’s a temporary tent. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, how does that play in when people are going to be milling around out there and stuff like that, that close to the road? MR. HILTON-Well, you want to keep them out of the traffic ways. You want to keep them, I believe it’s 10 feet, and again, and let me back up here, the code, the 180 days that was mentioned, I believe is either a building code or something that’s in the, I don’t want to say fire code, but I’ve had some discussions with the Fire Marshal and that’s, he’s the person in the Town that’s responsible for reviewing, for the most part, reviewing the safety issues associated with these tents. That’s where the 180 day limit is enforced, if you will, and the other requirement being that it has to be 10 feet off of a property line. MR. VOLLARO-It shows the 10 foot setback on this drawing. So if 10 foot is the Code, that’s the Code. It’s 10 foot from property line, is what the drawing shows. MR. COHEN-There is a sidewalk up there where people can mill around and walk, get past, there’s trees that separate us from the sidewalk as well, on one side, and there’s grass and some signs and telephone pole on the other side. MR. VOLLARO-George, let me ask a question, Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to get a clear definition of this 180 days, because I know, in some of the past proposals for temporary tent is things, we’ve limited these things to, like, I think, September 30, or October 15, or something of th that nature. We very seldom give 180 days on these things, and I’m just wondering what. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve missed two meetings where we’ve done these tent applications. I was here for the one we did for Dexter, which was only for five days it was up. That was going to be all. In the past I recall we’ve done these tent things for like during Americade, which has been, you know, a maximum of five days. I’ve not participated in one that’s got a length like that to it. MR. HILTON-Well, I think what it is is part of the Public Safety Code that says you cannot exceed 180 days. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not a mandatory thing. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-In other words, we have certain discretions on that 180 days? MR. HILTON-I believe so. MR. COHEN-I believe Dexter has also, their sale has been longer than five days, and I know Swank has had a tent out in their parking lot for probably close to. MR. MAC EWAN-Swank hasn’t been in front of us yet, either. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. COHEN-And their tent is up currently? MR. SANFORD-Craig, I’ll weigh I on this. I think we made a mistake granting these, what are they, permits, and we knew we had potential problem when we granted them. We knew that other people would line up, and I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to, at this particular point, to compound our mistake. I think we opened a Pandora’s Box, and I think we have to close it, and I think that what we need to do is not grant anymore permits for tents and then we have to address what, if anything, we’re going to do maybe next year in the future if we grant them at all, and for what time period. I think, you know, if we go by what we’ve done so far, we’re going to have nothing but tents, and that’s just the way I feel about it. I think it’s unfortunate that we approved any of them this year, and I think we had a discussion on it, and no sooner did we do one than we got another one, and now we have an illegal one, and now we’re asking for one for a half a year. When a person has a two tents up for a half a year, what they’ve basically done is they’ve created an artificial store. So that’s my opinion on it. MR. COHEN-It’s more to protect the merchandise from getting weathered. MR. SANFORD-I know. I appreciate where you’re coming from, and I also sympathize, to some degree, with my opinion, which is to draw the line at this point in time. I think, you know, it’s inconsistent and to some degree unfair, but I think in the best interest of the Town, I think that’s what we really should be doing at this point. So I’m just weighing in on my opinion. It’s not an easy decision. I think we’ve made mistakes. MR. MAC EWAN-I would agree with you. I mean, my position has been, with previous applications in past years, that I’m certainly not opposed to having someone put up a temporary tent for five days, like during Americade or something like that, or, you know, some of the stores, I do recall in the past, have come to us for, you know, like a Labor Day thing, a back to school things, where they’re only up for no more than a week or so. MR. SANFORD-I agree with that, but the whole summer season is an extreme situation, and I think we really need to recognize that we’ve made some errors in judgment and not perpetuate them. MR. COHEN-May I ask who polices all the tents that go up? Because I do see tents all over town, and if I’m one of the first to come up in front of the Board this year. MR. RINGER-You’re the third. MR. COHEN-I’m the third, and I, today, drove by at least six or seven tents myself that I saw out on commercial property. MR. MAC EWAN-What you need to do, if you see tents up that you don’t think have been approved or whatever, just make a phone call to Code Enforcement Department up there, of the Town, and they’ll go pay them a visit. MR. COHEN-Okay, and as far as the Swank one, which is in? MR. MAC EWAN-To my knowledge, I don’t recall Swank being in front of us. So I would say that’s a tent that’s probably not been put up with any kind of approvals. MR. COHEN-Which has been up about a month. MR. HILTON-Yes. I would talk to our Zoning Administrator on that, but we do have them down for an application in August. It’s possible, I can’t guarantee it, but it’s possible that because they’ve filed that application, they’re allowed to continue their use because there’s an application in the pipeline. I don’t know. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. COHEN-I was informed that I couldn’t put mine up until I was in front of the Board, and I’ve refrained from doing so. MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess, bottom line, I would talk to the Zoning Administrator, and he can answer those questions. MR. RINGER-That’s another application, anyway. We should only be discussing your application that’s before us right now, and if anything’s up that shouldn’t be up, then, you know, it should be reported, and Staff can take care of it. MR. COHEN-I’m sorry. Who does the policing of that? MR. RINGER-That would be Community Development. MR. MAC EWAN-You’d want to call the Zoning Administrator. MR. COHEN-Who is? MR. MAC EWAN-Either call Craig Brown or Chris Round. MR. RINGER-Craig Brown, because Chris is going to be gone in a few days. MR. COHEN-Well, I was shooting for 180 days based on the Town’s maximum. MR. RINGER-But that has nothing to do with your application. MR. COHEN-Right. MR. RINGER-What’s out there has nothing to do with your application. Who’s going to be the vendors? MR. COHEN-We are the sole vendors. We have no vendors. We are the vendors. MR. RINGER-So you’re going to have your store and you’re going to have the tents? MR. COHEN-Yes. We’re going to display merchandise under the tents. It’s pretty much so that, on the bad days, like, you know, that we’ve had the last two weeks. MR. RINGER-But you have your building, too. MR. COHEN-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-You sell from your building, and you’re also going to sell from, just to give you more inventory space for the tent? MR. COHEN-Just to display it. We take the same merchandise that’s inside and we display it outside, and we want to be able to keep it under cover, basically. Not like what the Swank is doing. They have a separate business going with a separate register. MR. RINGER-Forget Swank. That has nothing to do with your application. MR. COHEN-I’m just showing you, you know, they have a separate register, which would be considered, I guess, a second business there. MR. ANDERSON-I think to declare a moratorium on tents, or permits for tents this year. MR. RINGER-I don’t think we have a right to do that. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-Bad word. MR. RINGER-I don’t think we have the right to do that. MS. RADNER-Can I interject for just a minute? This Board doesn’t have the authority to issue moratoriums. In regard to this particular application, there was some history here before, and there is an order in place that kind of affects what’s allowed at this site and sets limits on exceeding their site plan review. So it’s rather apples and oranges, too, to be comparing this site to the Swank site, and the history of the Swank site. MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re not comparing it to the Swank. MS. RADNER-Bear that in mind, also. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, jump back to your comment, though. MS. RADNER-There was a prior enforcement action, based on some zoning violations at this site, that took quite some time to resolve, and as part of the resolution of that, it was made clear what would be done at that site, and that there were not to certain kinds of outdoor sales or, outdoor vendors or different vendors on that property. So they’ve changed the nature of their business from the Silvermines Flea Market, as I understand it, and are now doing the Scooter business, which is, as I understand, the same merchandise inside and outside, but there’s a record, now, and a clear, court stipulated order that would limit them from just throwing a tent up without being before this Board, in addition to anything else in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that the same owner? MS. RADNER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Different business, same owner? MS. RADNER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So that changes everything? MS. RADNER-No, but I wanted to make sure you guys knew the facts. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m trying to understand the facts here, I guess I’m getting a little confused. You said the previous business, due to enforcement actions, was very stipulated in the court actions as to what they could or couldn’t do on the site. MS. RADNER-Speaking from memory, what happened was Silvermine wanted to do the flea market at that site, and they had a number of vendors that were not otherwise licensed and did not have Transient Merchant authority under our Zoning Ordinance. We brought an enforcement action, which was hotly contested, and took quite some time to resolve. As a stipulated, court ordered settlement of that case, there was an understanding that there were not to be these outdoor sales activities or Transient Merchant activities at that site, and any modification of the use of that site required this Board’s approval, and he’s here in compliance with that. So I’m not trying to suggest any wrong doing in his being here, but you need to understand that history that does come into play here. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not going to go down our site plan review criteria because this is, I’m just going to throw it out and anybody can ask any questions they want. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Rich is correct, in what he has to say. However, let me say this applicant comes before this Board without being aware of that stipulation. I think from now on Staff, anybody that comes in for a tent, and I don’t know whether that qualifies as a quasi- moratorium or not, but we’re not doing anymore tents, I think, should be Staff’s position. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t use that word. MS. RADNER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t. I said I didn’t know whether it was. MR. MAC EWAN-And more importantly, any application for a tent display of any kind needs to be taken on a case by case basis on its own merits. You can’t categorically say that you’re not going to approve or disapprove any tent applications in the future. We’ve got to take them individually. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Let me give you what I have in my written notes. One, that we’ll grant this until September 15, and then I have a note, are there any tents in place now. The th answer is no. What is the name of the store, and I know the name of the store now will be Scooters. So I had those two questions, but as far as this application is concerned, we could keep it open until September 15, but I think Mr. Sanford has got a well positioned statement, th that we don’t want to have tent city out on Route 9 here. It just doesn’t look good, and it starts to look a little carnavalish, and I don’t want that to happen on Route 9. So that’s my position, as opposed to 180 days. I would go on this application, but from now on, I think the word’s got to travel out there that we’re going to be looking real hard at any additional tents. MR. COHEN-I’m sorry. If I were able to come, now do I have to, like say next year I’m interested in doing a tent up as well, depending on what the rules on, as far as if they ever let tents up again. MR. SANFORD-I think our Counsel has advised us that we’re not making a general statement pertaining to the use of tents. What we’re really doing is evaluating your application, which in this particular case you’re requesting to put up a temporary tent. MR. COHEN-Correct. Well, I’m just thinking ahead for next year. Because I would like to have more of the summer to have the coverage. MR. SANFORD-You’re correct in your understanding. Every year you’d have to come make an application for this. It’s not like if we granted this. MR. COHEN-Then it’s okay for next year. MR. SANFORD-No, it would not be. MR. COHEN-Okay. That’s what I was looking to find out. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would sort of weigh in somewhere between my two colleagues, Richard and Bob. I think Richard’s position is pretty well articulated, and I would tend to agree with it. I also, but having said that, I don’t particularly see a problem similar to the Chairman’s comments. If you’re having a special sale or a special event. I think then tents are appropriate, but to say I want to have a tent out for the entire summer or for, you know, just to display, you know, normal merchandise I don’t think is really what is in the best interest of the Town. I mean, if that’s the intent of the commercial enterprises in the community, then they should put them in a building, or maybe redesign their building so that it has more of an open air sort of atmosphere or environment, if you will. I guess I’m a little confused as to your comments saying that you need the tents because of inclement weather, when you already have a building. MR. COHEN-Well, it helps. MR. HUNSINGER-When you already have a building that you can display your product in. MR. COHEN-Right. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. HUNSINGER-But I wouldn’t be opposed to, as Mr. Vollaro suggested, some sort of month or maybe until Labor Day, but I certainly would not be in favor of a 180 day or an open-ended. MR. VOLLARO-I chose September 15, Chris, based on a Labor Day position that they’d be th closing down and taking the tent down and doing all things necessary to clear this site, giving them at least a couple of weeks to get the site cleared up after the Labor Day weekend. MR. RINGER-I think, you know, we’ve had a couple of these. I think it’s time to nip them in the bud and take a position on them, and I’m really not, I don’t feel that these tents really fit in to what we’re looking for, as a Town, and I just think it affects the, the neighborhood is impacted by these tents, and if we continue to approve them, we’ve already approved two, and we may have a third one now. We may have a fourth one next week. I think we’ve got to look at them and determine each one on their own merit, but nonetheless, I just feel that it’s not what we’re looking for, from a commercial standpoint, for the Town of Queensbury, and I just think we should start perhaps saying no. MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to add one more thing, too. I’m sorry, Larry. Last Saturday morning I was up at the outlets, actually doing some shopping, and I can tell you that the location of the, I believe it’s the Swank tent, I can’t imagine I would be in favor of the way that that was done. Because it actually prohibits pedestrian access along that corridor which is, you know, something that we have always taken a very strong position on, and your comment about how, you know, you have a sidewalk in front of your store. People can still, you know, use that sidewalk if your tents were up. I mean, pedestrian access, I think, we want to encourage, every place we can, in that corridor. MR. COHEN-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-And to have one, to have a tent that’s put up that actually discourages that. I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about this other one. It’s something that we would not be in favor. MR. SEGULJIC-Do the tents make that much of a difference? Do they attract that many people? MR. COHEN-They do if you put balloons on them. It kind of, you know, makes it look like you’re having a sale, and brings people. MR. RINGER-We’re running into this type of thing all over the Town. We’ve got car dealers on Aviation Road that are putting cars out in the median and putting balloons up, and they shouldn’t be there. MR. COHEN-They put the balloons on the cars. Those aren’t allowed? MR. RINGER-They’re not allowed to go where they’re going, but, you know, somewhere we’ve got to draw the line, and we’ve got to say, hey, this is it. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me offer my two cents again. I mean, the past applications that I’ve participated in as a member of this Board have been for very specific timeframes, five days, seven days, special events, Americade, Dexter’s Back to School Sale, whatever. I mean, I know they were very short time periods of tents. That’s first. Secondly, where the tents were located, they weren’t a potential to be a hazard for traffic or pedestrian people. The ones I’ve participated in, they’re well placed back in parking lots. Where these tents are being proposed, they’re awful close to the road. They’re awful close to sidewalks. I see a real potential for traffic problems, somebody screeching on the brakes, taking a quick look what’s in the tent, getting rear ended or causing other accidents, or people jumping across the road to go, I just don’t see this as being a good idea. I see too many hazards associated with a tent that close to the road. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. COHEN-To go back on your comment about the Dexter one, their tent is like right up against their door, which I would think would be a fire hazard, right up next to their doors, and cars going right around that corner have no choice but to look into their tents. MR. MAC EWAN-This Board felt comfortable with the location of that tent, and we approved it. MR. SEGULJIC-Can you locate the tents elsewhere on your property? MR. COHEN-Sure. MR. RINGER-You want to get the impact, though, that you’re looking for. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because I would agree, you can’t have, I mean, it’s kind of close to where you’re going to have people congregating there, potentially, I mean, that’s what you really want. MR. COHEN-Right, and we have a wide open area between the tent and our building which would allow people to congregate as well, which we have just put fresh pavement down on. MR. SEGULJIC-Now if I recall correctly, there’s the north side of your building where there’s a lot of, it looks like you took a lot of stuff from inside the building and threw it out there. On the north side of the building, if I’m thinking of the right building. It looks like a lot of old displays sitting out there. MR. COHEN-We’re in the process of taking stuff to storage. MR. SEGULJIC-Clean off that area and put it over there. MR. COHEN-But that would inhibit my emergency access. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. COHEN-And that’s more on the back side of the building, versus something that they would be able to see a sale going on. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Any other questions, comments? 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-Anyone want to introduce a motion? MR. SANFORD-We have SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we don’t. MR. RINGER-No SEQRA. Type II. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with a tent, as long as it’s stipulated for a short amount of time like you’re saying, like no more than a month, I would say. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I have a problem with this application, for the main reason, and I think that the timeframe could probably be negotiated, so to speak. I have a real problem with where it’s located, and I see that as a real hazard, traffic hazard, pedestrian hazard, safety hazard. Period. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s a problem we have with our Code, though. Our Code talks about 10 feet from the property line, and the applicant is, you know, one of the things is, my pet thing is that we’ve got to take a look, this is not the time to talk about it, but the Code needs looking at. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the Code is there giving recommendations for setbacks and stuff. This Board has a wide discretionary responsibility to take applications on their merits and just use commonsense based not only on our Code, but by our practices to know when something’s a good fit and when something’s a bad fit. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, how would you like the motion? Would you like it in the form of a motion to approve or a motion to deny, or don’t you care? MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever anybody wants to put up. A motion’s a motion. MR. COHEN-If it’s to the Board’s discretion of me moving my tent’s back another 10 feet or 15 feet or 20 feet from the road, we’re not opposed to doing something like that. We would just like to be able to have a tent sale and be able to display our merchandise in such a manner. MR. MAC EWAN-See, the other problem I’m having with what you’re telling me here tonight, me as a member, that you’re not having any sale. This is a way to move your merchandise out of the building, out to the street, and kind of give a quasi-sale kind of effect, when you’re not really having one. It’s a tool to bring people to your store. MR. COHEN-Well, we constantly have sales, and we have intentions on having. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what you said earlier, though. You said earlier tonight that what you were going to do is take your merchandise out of there. MR. COHEN-I’d like it to cover the merchandise, is the idea behind having the tents. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. COHEN-And the sale, having the tents to promote the sales, if you check the papers regularly, regularly we have sales on them. We’ve refrained from putting up any tents to show that the sale is being taken place right there, and as such our expensive advertising hasn’t worked that well. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2004 MITCHELL COHEN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: For Scooters, in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following conditions: One, that the permit issued is valid until September 15, and, Two, that the tents be moved 20 th feet back from the property line. Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, could you move them back 20 feet? Does that put you in the roadway, though? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-No, back 20 feet from the property line. MR. HILTON-Can I make a suggestion? That if you do that, you might want to include a stipulation that the Fire Marshal issue some kind of final approval or final signoff on this, because I guess that’s my concern is that if you move it back, is it in the roadway? Is it obstructing? MR. VOLLARO-Did the Fire Marshal approve this 10 foot? MR. HILTON-Well, I talked to him specifically on this as it’s proposed, and he said it would meet the Code to be 10 feet off that front property line. I guess my concern is that if you go moving it back. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll modify the resolution and Mr. Sanford can revote on it if it has to, but I’ll say that we’ll keep it at 10 feet from the property line, as it appears on the drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, I don’t know, procedurally, you can do that. You’ve got a motion up. It’s been seconded. It’s going through the vote process, I think you need to let it go through it’s vote process. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think, in the mid-stream of a vote, you can pull it back and modify it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-You can’t say with the Fire Marshal approval, though? MR. MAC EWAN-He’s got a motion up. MR. COHEN-I would be willing to accept that as a condition. MR. SEGULJIC-I would have to say yes, then. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-So that went down in defeat. Does someone want to introduce another motion, please. MR. RINGER-I’m working on the reasons for denying, but I think we’re going to, we might need Counsel to help come up with something that would, or move it to the next meeting to give us time. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s very simple. I think if you put it in your motion that the location of the tents as proposed in the application would be an adverse impact on public safety. MR. SANFORD-Actually, by not approving Mr. Vollaro’s motion, isn’t that in essence the same as a denial? MR. MAC EWAN-No. No action was taken. MR. RINGER-As a matter of fact, if we don’t do anything, he would be able to put the tents up in 30 days or 25. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 34-2004 MITCHELL COHEN, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: To use two 10 ft. by 20 ft. tents (total of 400 sq. ft.) for seasonal display and sales. Retail uses in the HC-Int. zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on May 17, 2004 ; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 27, 2004 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby DENIED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: Stormwater, grading, lighting, and landscape waivers. 1. That it’s not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood or the Town. 2. That the location of the tents where they’re shown on the property would have an adverse effect on safety, a safety hazard. Duly adopted this 27th day of July, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Anderson MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry. MR. COHEN-So that means no tent? MR. MAC EWAN-That means no tent. MR. COHEN-Okay. MR. RINGER-It’s unfortunate you had to be the first one, but I think you’re going to see others going down the same path that you did. It’s just unfortunate, perhaps, that you’re the first one. MR. COHEN-So is this something that the Board plans on not allowing tents, basically? MR. RINGER-Each application’s going to be on its own merits, but I think you’ve seen tonight that perhaps the Board is going to be taking a very close at this. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. COHEN-Could the Board recommend perhaps how I could, where maybe I could place a tent? MR. MAC EWAN-The Board doesn’t want to give you guidance in how to design your site. If you come back with another application, submit another application that shows the tent in a location that’s probably a little bit more safety conscious, we’ll take it under consideration. MR. COHEN-I did say I’d move it back, as far back, wherever you’d want it. MR. MAC EWAN-We have to go by what was put in front of us tonight. I mean, we went by the application that was submitted. I will assure you we will be looking at the Swank site. Okay. MR. COHEN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thank you. MR. COHEN-And if I may just make one more comment. The Dexter site is maybe 15 feet from the property line, and that would be considered, based on how I interpret your interpretation of public safety, that’s a safety hazard. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s another issue, because the Dexter site was given a specific timeframe they could have that tent up for. I’m sure they’ve exceeded it by now. So they need to have someone go pay them a visit and tell them to take it down. MR. RINGER-I think we gave them a little bit more time, but I’ll tell you, if you look at the minutes for Dexter, we told them, and we also told Bass, that next year it may be more difficult to get any approvals because of what’s happening. We understood, three months ago, or we envisioned three months ago that once we approved one or two that we were going to get three or four or five or six, and that’s exactly what’s happening, and we told both Dexter and Bass the same things. They got their approval, but next year it may be a heck of a lot more difficult. MR. MAC EWAN-Dexter’s tent is going to come down the 31 of this month. You gave them st until 8/31. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, Dexter’s, I thought, was for six weeks or something. MR. COHEN-Six weeks. Okay. So in the future, if I want to, like say next year want to have certain dates set aside for sales, I could get it all approved at the one meeting, on those dates? MR. RINGER-You’d have to fill out an application and see how everything works. We can’t tell you what’s going to happen next year. MR. COHEN-No, but I’m saying I fill out one application and I label six dates. MR. RINGER-You’d have to fill out an application. MS. RADNER-Staff will guide you, and you can contact Staff, as early as tomorrow, and ask for their guidance in filling out future applications, and they’re there for that reason. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS OWNER: WILLIAM & CATHLEEN EHLERT AGENT: PYRAMID NETWORK SERVICES ZONE: LI LOCATION: 106 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER, AS WELL AS ADDING AN ADDITIONAL ANTENNA. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) CROSS REFERENCE: WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 309.9-2-7 LOT SIZE: 3.23 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-130 TIM FITZPATRICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-I guess just a quick summary. The applicant proposes to construct a 10 foot addition to an existing cell tower, constructing a new antenna on the top of the tower. The height would be increased from 146 and a half feet to 160 feet. The applicant has submitted photo simulations and a visual EAF as part of the application. C.T. Male has provided some comments on the proposed expansion. There may be some questions about structural, I don’t know, suitability and things like that, engineering related issues, but from a planning perspective, I think the visual, potential visual impact is primarily the main issue and the applicant has, as I had mentioned, submitted information attempting to describe that, and with that, that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to do your comments, Jim. MR. EDWARDS-Sure. We had a letter that was put out July 20. If you have the letter in front th of you, I can go through that with you. Comment One pertaining to the site being less than one acre. Therefore the NOI and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is not required. That’s sort of a no comment thing. The second one pertains to the structural analysis required per Code, and we do not recall receiving the structural analysis for this project. I believe Staff had something in their notes. I don’t think we ever got that, and Jim Houston wrote this letter, and we did not have that at the time of our review. So we really had no comments as to that structural review of the project. Number Three pertained to the building location, driveway, and that it be shown on an appropriate scale, to confirm setbacks and the accessibility, and that should be added to Sheet C-1, and then also the utilities should be shown on the site plan as well. That’s Comment Four, and the Fifth comment that we had was pertaining to proposed lighting, if modifications are proposed for the site, and I don’t know if we ever got a response letter back from you folks. MR. FITZPATRICK-Actually, I sent you an e-mail. My name is Tim Fitzpatrick. I’m with Pyramid Network Services. In reference to the points of Mr. Houston, Point One, there is no necessary response needed there. Point Two, a detailed structural plan was submitted with the application. It was probably a 40 or 50 page document. I only submitted one. That’s my own fault, making sure you did not get one when you did notify me of, made contact with me, I was out of town on vacation and tried to respond as quickly as possible, and in my e-mail to you, to the firm, because the e-mail was sent out to C.T. Male, at C.T. Male. I did, in the subject line, attention Jim Houston. So apparently you didn’t get it. MR. EDWARDS-I’m Jim Edwards, not Jim Houston. The letter was written by another Jim from our office. MR. FITZPATRICK-I apologize. Okay. Well, basically, the comments made back were basically that the structural plan was submitted, and I do not have another copy, as I say it was a 50 page document, and I think the requirements were like 17 copies, and I felt that one was sufficient. Apparently I was mistaken in that concept. MR. EDWARDS-What we need really is a signoff from a professional engineer, New York State licensed professional engineer. MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes, it was done and submitted, but you didn’t get it. We’ll have to make sure that we can track that down and get it back to you. On Point Number Three, which was the site plan location, building location, and driveway, my comment was that the site will not be altered in any way except within the existing compound within the existing site, which is also fenced in. So it’s kind of a double fenced in area, that the firm that owns the site is a 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) trucking firm. Within the site is the compound itself. We will not be moving any of the compound’s fences. We will be constructing a 10 by 16 concrete slab, and we’ll be mounting our equipment on top of the slab. So everything really is temporary. The reference to, I’m sorry, utilities is next. So anything that will be done is inside the pre-existing compound, and not exceeding those boundaries. There was, also in the conversation with Mr. Houston, there was some concern regarding traffic generated by the additional equipment. Other than during the initial bringing the equipment in, and the crane to lift the stuff into place, we expect, at maximum, unless there’s some kind of a big problem, we get hit by lightening, everything goes down, that probably maximum, the theory says that we visit it once a month for maintenance. Reality says that you see somebody out there two or three times a year, you’re seeing a lot of people. Point Four, the utility runs. All of the utilities are already in place, pre-existing on the boards. We’re just tapping in to pre-existing facilities. We will not be bringing anymore utility runs into the site from anywhere than the board running it to our equipment. All within the pre-existing compound. MR. EDWARDS-Within the fenced area. MR. FITZPATRICK-That’s right. MR. EDWARDS-There’s no additional utilities run outside of that? MR. FITZPATRICK-That’s correct. They’re already in place. Point Number Five about the lighting, the site will not require any additional lighting at the site, even with the addition to the facility. MR. EDWARDS-Okay. So get back to Comment Three, I guess, I was curious on that. You’re not going to alter the site, in that you’re going to have new driveways or anything? MR. FITZPATRICK-No. MR. EDWARDS-It’s all going to be per existing conditions? MR. FITZPATRICK-That’s correct. MR. EDWARDS-Okay. I’d just need to see that structural analysis when it becomes available to us. MR. FITZPATRICK-Okay. MR. EDWARDS-To provide comment signoff on that. MR. FITZPATRICK-The rest of it’s satisfactory? MR. EDWARDS-I think, yes, I don’t have any big problems, if they’re all existing conditions. MR. FITZPATRICK-I didn’t think that you would, once you got a better concept there. MR. MAC EWAN-Again, for Board members, I’m not going to go down through our site plan criteria. If you have questions, just go ahead and ask them. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Unless other Board members might want to go first this time, if somebody else has a question. MR. SEGULJIC-If I could, the ASAC letter from ’96, it says the height of the tower is going to be 154. Now it’s going to be 160. MR. FITZPATRICK-That’s correct. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. SEGULJIC-Is it going to change anything? MR. FITZPATRICK-There are two other towers in the area, both exceed the current height of this tower. We considered using them. Structurally they could not support the additional load because of the number of microwaves on them existing now, which is why we are requesting an addition to this tower. It would not interfere at all. MR. SEGULJIC-So it wouldn’t interfere with the airport at all, then? MR. FITZPATRICK-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question also, Mr. Chairman, on this same document, that was dated December 17, 1996, and this application is for 154 foot AGL, above ground level. At the close of that document, it says the AEC has determined that a structure of 154 feet AGL, at this site, would not exceed FAA Part 77 or FCC Rules Part 17. Therefore FAA Notice of Proposed Construction is not required at this time. That’s for 154 feet. We’re now talking 160. So I think you do need a proposed construction required to the FAA. I think this document, the ASAC Document talks about 154 feet AGL. I think that, my reading of this document, and I don’t know, Jim, if you’ve read it or not, but the last paragraph says FAA Notice of Proposed Construction is not required for this structure, which is specified at 154 AGL. MR. EDWARDS-I didn’t look at that personally. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 160 feet is where they’re going, plus or minus. So I think this application needs an FAA Notice of Proposed Construction, and I don’t see it here, and I think I called you today on it, George, and you didn’t obviously find anything in the record on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Personally I don’t think I’d want to put a whole heck of a lot of stock in a letter that’s almost 10 years old. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Vollaro’s point is, based on that letter, we don’t know if it requires it at this point in time. MR. MAC EWAN-And I’m agreeing with Mr. Vollaro. I mean, what they’re trying to provide us with this application is a letter almost 10 years old to support their application. I think they need something updated to support their application. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The current tower is 154 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you wholeheartedly. I read that last paragraph, too. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And then I looked at the date of the letter. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s been a long time, but that’s the last letter in the file that I think we have, visa vie this application and this latitude and longitude, which I checked out on the drawings. It’s the same thing. MR. SANFORD-We just need to know. That’s what you’re getting at, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes. Really, the bottom line is they have to put a letter in to the FAA and Notice of Proposed Construction going above 154 AGL. MR. FITZPATRICK-As I understand, you’re asking for an updated letter that it has no effect. Is that correct? 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. VOLLARO-Pardon me? MR. FITZPATRICK-My understanding is that you’re asking for an updated letter that says it has no effect, is that correct, at the new height? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FITZPATRICK-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the two coverages, I assume what’s happening is, you’re adding coverage? MR. FITZPATRICK-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So the larger area is what you’re going to get with this new? MR. FITZPATRICK-In theory. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I mean, one of my things is, I mean, if you put the, I guess it’s the antenna, on the existing tower below the other antennas, what happens? MR. VOLLARO-The height of the runway. MR. FITZPATRICK-This is what happens, less coverage and requirements for another tower. There’s a blank there right now between the current proposal and what we have for coverage in another community, at this point we’re not going forward with, but we’ve already, we had chosen a location to stop at this point, but we would require a third tower because we’ve got to use the second tower to complete the coverage along the Interstate corridor, would require a third tower because we would be dropped down below what’s currently there. The next available height is 120 feet, and what we’re trying to do is eliminate the need for a, either an additional tower somewhere, another structure and/or another antenna location, and since this tower was built to be extended, we felt this was the best use of current resources. MR. SEGULJIC-And now these signals are line of sight, correct? MR. FITZPATRICK-Digital signals are pretty much line of sight. That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I had similar questions, but I wanted to back up even further. I guess I’m really not clear as to what the need is for the additional signal, additional cells. Is it because of new digital technology? MR. FITZPATRICK-No. We just have a space, a spot in our coverage that’s not covered. I mean, right now, I happen to have different coverage. I’m a consultant. He’s an employee. (Lost words) has no coverage up here whatsoever with T-Mobile. Where I’m with Verizon, I have coverage with a different carrier. We were trying to fill in our need, and like any competing businesses, in this business it’s all about coverage, and dropped phones, dropped calls. The more dropped calls you have, the more it’s costing you. MR. HUNSINGER-Where’s your next nearest cell, currently? MR. FITZPATRICK-Currently it’s down at Exit 17. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then where’s the next cell north? MR. FITZPATRICK-There’s one in Lake George. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. SANFORD-Is for Sprint? MR. FITZPATRICK-No, this is for T-Mobile, OmniPoint, T-Mobile. The brand name would be T-Mobile. That would be the service you see Catherine Zeta-Jones is the spokesperson. That’s what she’s selling. MR. SEGULJIC-So, someone else owns the tower, you put the antenna up? MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes. We’re a tenant. If we were leasing space in a building, we’d just be a tenant there. That’s all we are is a tenant. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know who else is on that tower? MR. FITZPATRICK-I don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-If memory serves, Sprint’s one of them. Right? MR. FITZPATRICK-Well, Sprint is because they own the tower. MR. MAC EWAN-Who was the one we did at Ramada, the flagpole? Do you know offhand? I want to say that was Sprint, too. The reason why I say that, and this gets back to the coverage thing, is when we approved that tower, back, I don’t know how many years ago, ’96 I guess it was, it was going to be for everything. They weren’t going to need anymore. They came back to us, two years ago, a year and a half ago, said they had a week spot, a mile up the road. They can’t get their coverage. So they would need to have a flagpole type antenna at the Ramada Inn. MR. FITZPATRICK-I can’t comment on their needs. I can only comment on what’s going on, and my understanding of business is somewhat limited. That’s not what I do. I’m a real estate, but to try to help you understand, one of the issues that we have with cell coverage is, you know, when you first start up a service, there’s very few people using it. As you build up the service what happens is more people trying to use what space is available in the antennas, and then once you get to a certain capacity, you just start dropping phone calls left and right. So then what you get is a bunch of people who are very upset because my service worked, but it doesn’t now. How come, and I’m going to get rid of my phone service because it’s lousy. So what they’re saying to you is, in theory at the time that may have been the answer, because there wasn’t enough users. Nowadays, because the use has increased considerably, they felt that they needed additional coverage. Now they may have had a weak spot, you know, foliage plays a huge part in this, with digital coverage. The frequency range, we’re at high 15, low 16’s. I’m sorry, 1900, which is even worse. A lot of it depends on your frequencies, too. Where an 800 signal can get around and over things, a 1900 signal is not as strong and will take a lot more to do the same distances that an 800 signal will do. I can’t comment on that, but I’ve run across this before, that they come in to Town’s and communities and sell this. This is the only structure you will need. I want to say, every time I hear that, I’m the guy coming in later on getting beat up because of their comments. They sell you on that, that you only need one of these. Well, in reality, that’s probably not true, unless, you know, we’re in the Mid West, you know, they can maybe add some more antennas to increase their coverage or increase their call capacity, but with our terrain up here being what it is, you know, it’s very rolling. You’re going in to mountainous regions that, you know, I’d like to say that this is the only one we’re going to put in Queensbury, but I would be remiss if I ever said that, because I can’t tell you what’s going to be five years down the line. MR. HUNSINGER-What other sites have you looked at to locate a tower? And I’m going to be real specific on one that I always thought made the most sense is the two water towers that are owned by the City of Glens Falls. MR. SANFORD-Glens Falls refused to do it. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know, but that was before, and their excuse was that they didn’t know where the new water treatment plant was going to be, and therefore they couldn’t commit to any kind of long term thing, but now that they have built the water treatment plant, I would think that that would be, it would open that window back up. MR. SANFORD-That’s a point. Yes. I don’t recall why. At the time I didn’t think they even had a real rational reason why they said no. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe that was just their excuse. MR. RINGER-Their reason was that they were concerned about the maintenance of their tower and if they had to do maintenance on their tower, on their water towers, if these units would interfere with the normal maintenance that they would have to do. It was kind of weak, but that’s their business and not our business. I mean, they gave up a lot of money. MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes, that happens a lot. MR. HUNSINGER-That still begs the question, though, where else you have looked to locate. MR. FITPATRICK-Well, we, as per Code, we look at pre-existing structures. We ran into some interference, as has been stated here before, whether it’s real or imaginary, to their world, it’s a real concern. We’ve dealt with water tanks. We’ve dealt with issues like this before, but it’s, you know, I want to say the mode of least resistance. The tower, the existing tower there was built for expansion, up, that’s why it was built the way it was. The Code does say pre-existing structures, but if we weren’t expanding the tower up, we wouldn’t even be here tonight. Because we’d fall under administrative review. So, we look, typically we look at, you know RF engineers will go out and plot these coverage maps, trying to do the best job they can for whatever money they have available, is basically the best way to put it, and so with the pre- existing structures, with the negative feedback we were getting, we felt this was the next best, or the best solution to the issue. MR. RINGER-You’ve tried to hook on to other towers in the area, but you weren’t able to do so because they were already filled? MR. FITZPATRICK-The other two were capacity sites. In other words, the microwave, there’s a couple of different things. There’s load factor, in other words weight, which I think the engineer could probably comment better than I can, I mean, I’m a lot of limited information. I’m enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be knowledgeable, and the torque capacity, especially with the wind sheer, ice loads. The microwaves that are on both those towers have got those towers loaded to capacity, and any additional weight would require major modifications to the towers, and/or rebuilding them. MR. SANFORD-Well, the way I see it, though, we really have to table anyway, until we find out about Mr. Vollaro’s question, as to height. Right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Mine is very simple. I want to see them get an FAA Notice of Proposed Construction, and if the FAA comes back and says 160 AGL, plus or minus is okay. MR. SANFORD-Well, actually, it’s 10 feet higher than it is now. MR. MAC EWAN-I think Jim Edwards is even more important, whether it can structurally support it or not. MR. FITZPATRICK-Both of those, obviously, we’ll take care of. MR. EDWARDS-It’s a little concern of mine. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, when you talk about wind sheers, ice loads and stuff like that. MR. EDWARDS-Ten feet doesn’t seem like much, but it adds quite a wind sheer to the foundation. So you’d want to see that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Any other questions or comments from Board members? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll leave the public hearing open. Would someone do a motion, please, for tabling. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to table it to a specific date? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-The answer is no? Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2004 OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: To an unspecified date, with the following conditions: One, that they supply an FAA Notice of Proposed Construction, and that FAA Notice is approved for 160 feet AGL, and that the structural analysis required by C.T. Male be reviewed by C.T. Male for approval. Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. FITZPATRICK-I’d like to thank the Board for its time and efforts in this matter, and I’ll look forward to seeing you in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. FITZPATRICK-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2004 SEQR TYPE: II PHILIP & RITA MC INTIRE AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: LC-42A LOCATION: 2352 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD A 231 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED ON ROUTE 9L. EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 41-2004 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 240.00-1-7 LOT SIZE: 1.08 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-03 PHIL MC INTIRE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-2004, Philip & Rita McIntire, Meeting Date: July 27, 2004 “The applicant’s propose to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure in the Lake George CEA. The ZBA approved an Area Variance granting side yard setback and permeability relief for this application on May 26, 2004. The property is currently zoned LC-42A. The applicant has requested the following waivers: 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The proposed addition appears to be relatively minor, and staff does not anticipate any negative impacts to the wetlands located to the west of this property or to the Lake George CEA.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This is a proposed addition to an existing, nonconforming structure in a CEA. Therefore it requires site plan approval. The applicant has requested several waivers that I’ve indicated. It appears to be relatively minor, and given the location within the CEA, the property within the CEA, it, again, requires site plan approval. We see it as an application that we don’t anticipate any negative impacts, and that’s all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let me ask a procedural question again. I notice it’s Type II. The same thing as the Tarrant application, right? Just pointing that out, for what it’s worth. MR. HILTON-Well, I can confirm that this is a Type II. MR. MAC EWAN-Secondly is why isn’t this under Expedited Review. MR. HILTON-I don’t think that this fits the definition of Expedited Review. MR. MAC EWAN-Criteria? Okay. We could have had them out of here a lot earlier tonight. Good evening. MR. MC INTIRE-Good evening. My name is Phil McIntire, the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us about your project. MR. MC INTIRE-Yes. We plan to remove an existing small deck that is 1.4 feet pre-existing from the property line, and add to our home a 14 by 16 and a half foot dining room, which we currently do not have. Our home is an old school house. It was not built to be a home, but since I was married only a couple of years ago, and along with a wife, have four children and three grandchildren. I find that I need a dining room. My wife and I find that we need a dining room, and there is no other place in the house to do so. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m not going to go down through the whole criteria list on this one either. Questions, comments? MR. HUNSINGER-The only comment I made is that runoff is really the only potential issue, from the addition. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you proposing for the addition, French drains, gutters or something? MR. FITZPATRICK-Gutters. MR. VOLLARO-This is going to be built on a rock ledge, so you wouldn’t have any French drains here. MR. FITZPATRICK-To the west. To the north, south, and east there’s drainage. We’ll have no external lighting, no vegetation cutting except for a couple of, whatever those scrub bushes are, no plumbing, no disturbance of the ground, no sight to the public. We’re surrounded by the 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) State of New York, so the only people who would see this would be the birds and the bees that you and I own, don’t own, pardon me, enjoy. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one minor question. It’s an academic one. This site plan is for 1.08 acres, and it’s in an LC-42 Acre zone. I just wanted to know how was this accomplished? MR. RINGER-This was there before zoning. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MC INTIRE-The basic house was there since the 1900’s, and by the way, we were told a couple of years ago that these pre-existing lots were going to be dealt with in the Zoning Ordinance changes, which was not done. MR. VOLLARO-You might have some other property as a result of a deed, but I see Parcel One and Two, and it’s pretty clear. I just wanted to make sure that it was a pre-existing, and I’m sure that it is. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2004 PHILIP & RITA MC INTIRE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: To add a 231 sq. ft. addition to an existing residence located on Route 9L. Expansion of nonconforming structures in a Critical Environmental Area require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on May 27, 2004 ; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 27, 2004 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: Stormwater, grading, lighting, and landscaping waivers. 1. Waivers are granted for stormwater, grading, lighting, and landscaping. Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize, Mr. McIntire. I should have moved you up on the agenda, gotten you out of here a little earlier. MR. MC INTIRE-Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 41-2004 SEQR TYPE: II KRISTENSEN, PETROSKI & FISCHER, LLC AGENT: CURTIS DYBAS ZONE: HC-INT LOCATION: 68 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 486 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON QUAKER ROAD. OFFICE USES IN THE HC-INT ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-63 LOT SIZE: 1.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-2004, Kristensen, Petroski & Fischer, LLC, Meeting Date: July 27, 2004 “The applicant proposes to construct a 486 sq. ft addition to the front of an existing professional office building on Quaker Rd. The property is zoned HC-Int. The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The proposed construction of a 486 sq. ft. addition appears to be minor, and no negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this proposal.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Another relatively minor addition to an existing building. This time it’s in a professional office on Quaker Road. I’ve noted the waivers that have been requested. As I’ve indicated in my notes, we don’t anticipate any negative impacts, and that’s all we have. MR. MAC EWAN-Curtis? 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. DYBAS-My name’s Curt Dybas. I’m representing Kristensen, Petroski, and Fischer, and what we’re proposing is a 486 square foot addition to their medical office on Quaker Road, which is coming off the front toward Quaker Road. MR. MAC EWAN-This seems to be another relatively minor one. Questions, comments? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. There’s 27, really, based on the square footage we’ve got here, I think we have 49 spaces on this site. MR. DYBAS-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Currently, and I’m just wondering, you talk about cutting down the seven trees and hedges in front of the building facing Quaker Road. Why not eliminate, since you’ve got 49 spaces on that property now, why not eliminate spaces three through eight in front of the building and retain that existing planting that’s shown in the photo? If you’re looking at the photograph, that’s a nice touch on Quaker Road and removing it, I would, you know, hate to see that go. The photo shows, this photo in the lower left hand corner of the montage in photographs here, why not leave that, just get rid of those parking spaces up front, because I. MR. DYBAS-Which photo did you look at? MR. VOLLARO-The photo. MR. DYBAS-Those trees are not being removed. MR. VOLLARO-They’re not? MR. DYBAS-That landscaping that is out by Quaker Road, that is to the north of the existing parking. The photo that you want to look at is Number Two on the left hand side coming down, with the little bumps that are in front of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Those? Well, they have to come out as a result of you moving forward. I see that. Okay. All right. MR. DYBAS-But the landscaping in the front, no, that all stays. MR. VOLLARO-Just taking one quick look at the drawing for a second, at those spaces I just talked about, the three through eight, with the building coming forward, it looks to me like you’ve got about 20 feet behind you for the car to pull out without, I’m looking at the setting the parking at 18 feet, that’s Code, and he’s got about 20 feet. MR. DYBAS-Twenty-two. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-two feet between the end of the parking lot. Is that enough room for a car to turn, to back out comfortably? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s my only question, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make sure that. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I had a question. There’s an exterior floodlight on the north elevation of the building. MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. HUNSINGER-In fact you even comment on it in the waiver request. It says that it would be relocated. What are you going to replace that fixture with? Or is it the same fixture? MR. DYBAS-It’s just another fixture. I believe it is located on the, I’m mistaken. I thought I had shown it on the proposed elevation, but I did not. It would just move forward in the same position that it’s in now. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t go by that site at night. I’m just wondering if we should have some sort of a downcast fixture, rather than floodlight. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve never noticed any glare coming off that site. MR. DYBAS-I do believe that it’s on the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it’s really just for security purposes? MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s not something that you leave on? MR. DYBAS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? 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-Does someone want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2004 KRISTENSEN, PETROSKI & FISCHER, LLC, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: To construct a 486 sq. ft. addition to an existing professional office building located on Quaker Road. Office uses in the HC-Int. zone require site plan review. WHEREAS, the application was received on June 1, 2004 ; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 27, 2004 tabled, and July 27, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: Duly adopted this 27th day of July, 2004, by the following vote: 1. Granting the waivers that are requested. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Anderson, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Curt. Is that it? I’ve asked Staff to photocopy a couple of articles out of this month’s Journal of Planners, and I was hoping they were going to be coming here tonight, but they’re not going to be, so I would ask you to mail them to everybody, and they’re very pertinent to Planning Boards, Planning Board member’s roles and what we do as a group, and I thought they were a couple of very good articles, very short, one two pager jobbies, so, happy reading. Gretchen and Chris are going to sit in with me, with the Town Supervisor, one Town Board member, Lew Stone, Chairman of the ZBA, and two of his members, and try to launch, as he put it, this task force, starting on Monday, addressing some of the concerns we had in our resolution we sent up to the Town Board, a month and a half or so ago, relative to the moratorium. MR. SANFORD-Can I just make a comment on that, Craig? And the comment I have is, again, you know, I try to read this By-laws of the Planning Board, and interpret it as best I can, and I was looking at it earlier today, and I’m not saying I have any objection to it, but I do want to go over process, and it talks about committees, and this is, in my opinion, this is not a committee of the Planning Board. This is a committee that the Town Board is putting together, and in our section it gives the Chairperson, which would be you, the right to appoint committees for the Planning Board and that those committees will report to this Board, but it mentions in our By- laws that Planning Board committees are distinguished from Town committees in that Town committees are appointed by the Town Board. Town committees may assist the Planning Board in a similar fashion as a Planning Board committee if the purpose is so designated, but I would like to suggest that you’re recommending to the Town Board, but I don’t believe it’s Mr. Stec’s right to approve and to constitute this committee, but rather it’s the Town Board’s decision on who is on this Board, and I think you have every right to recommend who might be a participant, but I think it’s presumptuous of Mr. Stec to feel that he can put this together, as opposed to the Town Board. MR. MAC EWAN-This is a Town Board issue. MS. RADNER-If I could just briefly comment on it, that policy that’s in front of you is the policy for this Planning Board. It doesn’t control the Town Board. MR. SANFORD-No, but in there it does reference that. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MS. RADNER-It can reference it all it wants. It has no binding authority over the Town Board. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MS. RADNER-What’s happened in the past is, for example, we had a Beautification Committee that was a separate committee for quite some time, and the Town Board appointed people to that Committee, and that Committee used to come in here and give reports on its recommendations. I believe the section you’re referring to probably referred to that Beautification Committee in particular, and left open to have similar committees, because there was talk, at one time, of having an architectural committee. I think that’s something distinct from this sort of task force, that the Town does put together from time to time and typically asks the other affected Boards, such as the Zoning Board and the Planning Board, to appoint people to those committees so that you have a perspective from a member of this Board, or from the Zoning Board. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and I guess then, again, then that’s, you know, Mr. MacEwan’s correct, that that’s an issue for the Town Board to debate, should they choose to, how that selection takes place. I guess the question is, are we all comfortable that we, as a Board, didn’t participate in determining who would be representatives from the Planning Board or are do we feel comfortable that that is the Chairman’s prerogative? MR. RINGER-I think the By-laws give it to the Chairman. MR. SANFORD-No. The specific interpretation of it, he can appoint committees of the Planning Board. MR. RINGER-But that’s what he just did. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know if that’s what it is. MS. RADNER-I think that if you ever really have a strong feeling and want to participate in a Board, it would be very appropriate for you to let the Chairman know your interest and your desire, because I think, more often than not, Craig is volunteering people because they’re aren’t volunteers. MR. SANFORD-You’re jumping to a conclusion. The point I would make in that response is it wasn’t even mentioned to us. He made a statement of what he has determined to do. It wasn’t brought up, we’re going to have some delegates, would anybody be interested. He basically informed us of what he decided. MR. RINGER-That’s his right, according to our By-laws. The way you read that is the way I would interpret it. MR. SANFORD-Larry, that’s correct. The way you’ve interpreted it, it’s his prerogative. I interpret it a little bit different. MR. RINGER-The way you read it and the way I interpreted it. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Fine. I just wanted to go on record with that. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just happy I wasn’t chosen. MR. RINGER-Rich, I’ll tell you, this has happened in many cases. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, for what it’s worth, the two people I chose weren’t too happy about it. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m just saying I think that when we get into this kind of stuff, well, you weren’t at our workshop. At our workshop, we also referenced that the Chair’s role is driven by Robert’s Rules, and I pointed that out and referenced some Robert’s Rules, and Mark Schachner said, yes, but they’re antiquated, and, you know, so it was dismissed that it didn’t count. Well, my point is, then get it the hell out of the By-laws. Let’s revise the By-laws so that it’s not in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, you brought it up, I’m going to put it to bed right now. For the record, that workshop was specifically outlined to talk about certain specific things. We weren’t there to talk about and get into the big argument that we had that night was over your philosophical differences on how a Planning Board should be run, how my job, as Chairman, should be run, and how, what rules we do or don’t follow. We got off the beaten path tonight. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine, but my point’s still the same, whether or not it was appropriate to discuss it at that particular time. I’d like the By-laws to reflect what the reality of this Board is, and if there are provisions in the By-laws which are no longer applicable, I think we maybe should have a workshop to discuss it. MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone seems to be comfortable with the By-laws of this Board except you. MR. SANFORD-How do you know, because you just said it? MR. MAC EWAN-Because I’ve never heard a complaint from anybody on this Board. You’re the only one that seems to complain on a regular basis. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m maybe the only one who reads the By-laws. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, I’m sure these other people on this Board have been around here a little bit longer than you. MR. HUNSINGER-I was on the Board when they were put together, and we all approved them at the time. MR. RINGER-Can I say something? In those organizations that I’ve been in, people have wanted to change the by-laws. So what they do is make proposals up to change the by-laws. So if you see something in the by-law that you don’t think is appropriate or we’re not doing right, then make a recommendation to change that by-law, and you can do it in any presentation, any meeting, workshop that we have, and by two-thirds vote it can be changed. MR. SANFORD-I certainly, you know, everybody seems to be pretty thin skinned about this. My only point is if we’re going to govern the roles of the people on this Board in accordance with Robert’s Rules, and if our lawyer feels that Robert’s Rules may not pertain because they were somewhat dated, in terms of procedures, and they were meant more for a larger body, rather than a small committee like the Planning Board, then let’s look at that, and I think we should, because it’s in there. MR. MAC EWAN-No one’s thin skinned about anything here, Rich, maybe it’s just the way you deliver your messages at times. MR. SANFORD-It’s possible, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? We’re done. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 7/27/04) Craig MacEwan, Chairman 68