Loading...
2004-06-15 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD ANTHONY METIVIER LARRY RINGER THOMAS SEGULJIC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM HOUSTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 2, 2004: NONE March 23, 2004: NONE March 25, 2004: NONE March 30, 2004: NONE April 20, 2004: NONE April 27, 2004: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: MARCH 2, 2004, MARCH 23, 2004, MARCH 25, 2004, MARCH 30, 2004, APRIL 20, 2004, AND APRIL 27, 2004, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN NO. 33-2004 GEORGE & MARILYN STARK PB SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move it? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MOTION TO ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 33-2004 GEORGE & MARILYN STARK, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan Review application for proposed construction of a four-story Comfort Suites Hotel .at 1533 NYS Rt. 9, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED In accordance with resolution SP 33-04LA, as prepared by staff, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. Duly adopted this 15th day of June, 2004, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-I have a question, before the second, if I can. I just wanted Staff to say a couple of words on the fact that all of the site plan review application is complete and in their hands. Because I haven’t seen it, and the way this is worded, it says the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan Review application for the proposed construction. George, tells me it’s in Staff’s hands, and I would like him to just say that. MR. HILTON-Let’s see. The resolution, I believe, does state that we have Site Plan materials, which we do. We have not distributed them to the Planning Board yet. We do, however, have a Long Form EAF, which allows you to approve this resolution this evening and begin seeking Lead Agency Status. We do have materials which we will be submitting to you. So that I guess the resolution is correct in that we do have certain materials, but at this time we haven’t forwarded them to you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. I’ll second that motion, Larry. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Next item on the agenda, and I’m moving the agenda just a little bit tonight, under Old Business, Site Plan No. 4-2004 for The Great Escape. OLD BUSINESS: SDGEIS SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 SUP 2-2004 GREAT ESCAPE AGENT: LEMERY GREISLER ZONE: HC-1 LOCATION: 1213 ST. RT. 9, 1227 ST. RT. 9 THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING PLANNING BOARD APPROVALS FOR THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PLANNED FACILITIES, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AMUSEMENT FACILITY IN THE HC-1 ZONE, AND WAIVERS FROM THE I-87/ROUTE 9 DESIGN GUIDELINES. AN AREA VARIANCE IS SOUGHT FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF THE 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. THE 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTED THE SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON MAY 20, 2004. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5, 4 LOT SIZE: 6.40 AC., 4.06 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. ROUND-We had submitted notes previously to you, and what I’ve given you most recently, we received several items. I just wanted to bring them to your attention. On June 10, th we transmitted a copy of our DOT letter approving, conceptually, the closure of the Route 9 driveways and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of the new ring road and Glen Lake Road intersection. We have also since received with that transmittal a copy of the SEQRA Findings that were adopted, back on March 20. You also received, I think directly from the th applicant, a copy of a letter dated June 11, and I think it was most directly in response to Mr. th Sanford’s questions regarding different scenarios of operation, as it affected the driveways under certain circumstances, if certain driveways weren’t closed, etc. Trying to examine the different alternatives so that you could contemplate what the site plan would look like, in the event DOT approvals weren’t timely, or in the event certain construction activities didn’t occur, and you also have a prepared resolution, and I know some of you had made some comments on that, and are prepared to entertain that tonight. During our environmental review process, and this process has been in place for this particular project since December 15 is when the initial th submission is done. You have digested a lot of the site plan elements, as part of your environmental review process. I think several Board members said, well, what’s really left to resolve after you adopt Findings, and there’s not a lot of details left, because we have been sifting through those details. I mention in my transmittal we have received technical signoffs on stormwater, grading, lighting, utility plans. We also just recently received a Phase III archeological data retrieval work. That was a part of your original SEQRA Findings. So they’ve addressed those issues. I think the things that are outstanding are probably things that you really haven’t focused on yet to date, but may have been addressed by the applicant, and I think the applicant’s here to talk to you directly about the DOT approval, as well as maybe some landscaping and stormwater management items that you think are yet to be resolved. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Lemery, did you want to make any comments? MR. LEMERY-I think, Mr. Chairman, my name is John Lemery, Counsel to The Great Escape. John Collins is with me, Vice President and General Manager. I think we’d just like to respond to your questions, if you have them. I think we’ve received some good news, to the extent that the DOT has approved the light at Glen Lake Road. So that has been factored into the plan, and will be hopefully implemented very shortly. Also the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the Area Variance, so that we are able to build the facility at the heights that we required. So we’re here to answer questions if anybody has them. We have Shelly Johnston with us, I might add, who is our Traffic Consultant. Hopefully she can answer better than I your questions you might have regarding the traffic issues Mr. Sanford raised at the last meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. For the Board, why don’t we just follow our normal site plan criteria punch list that we do, and we’ll take it that way, all right, just like we normally do. Any questions relative to design standards? Site development criteria including site conditions, vehicle access, traffic patterns, pedestrian access? Stormwater sewage design? MR. RINGER-What were some of the unresolved questions that Chris mentioned on the stormwater? MR. VOLLARO-I think he was referring. I have a couple of comments on the draft resolution. When we get to that, I’ll explain them, Larry. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, Chris. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. ROUND-From a technical standpoint, Larry, I think back on May 6, we received a th transmittal from Chazen Companies, that said that we had addressed all the site plan issues related to stormwater. They have prepared a Notice of Intent for DEC, and what that says is that they’ve prepared a Stormwater Management Pollution Prevention Plan, consistent with the new Phase II regulations. Most of those elements are implemented during the construction process. They also have, during this process, developed a stormwater management plan. It’s really for the infrastructure that’s going to be remaining on site. So the SWPPP is more construction related impacts, stormwater management plan is more for long term impacts and so both of those issues have been resolved in the technical review process, and I think Mr. Vollaro said, well, or my conversations with Mr. MacEwan before the meetings were, well, maybe I need a refresher on some of those elements, and I don’t know if that’s still the case. MR. RINGER-Well, the only question I had, you said there was still some issues outstanding. MR. ROUND-Well, I think they, maybe in your mind they’re unresolved. Technically they have been resolved. MR. RINGER-Okay. That was my only question. MR. ROUND-And just a note. We did have a meeting with the project contractors and constructers and the design professionals, talking about construction related phasing and impacts, and trying to resolve some of those issues before we got to the table tonight, and I think we did that, and hopefully that will bear out during the construction process. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we okay on stormwater? MR. RINGER-Yes, I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting design? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have a question. I didn’t realize it until a few weeks ago, that I believe the roof is going to have a lot of glass on it. In other words, the top of your building is going to, I think, be glass rather than shingled. Is that correct? Over the amusement area? MR. COLLINS-Yes. I think we’d talked about this at the last meeting, but it’s a texlon material. All the lights will be downward facing. You won’t have any up lights. So it’ll minimize any overspill out of the building. MR. SANFORD-That’s what I was wondering. MR. COLLINS-Yes, and it’s in, I think, the EIS, if I’m not mistaken, explaining the lighting within the building in reference to that part. It’s in the Findings as well. MR. SANFORD-That’s the only part that was really visible when we checked out the balloon was over by Glen Lake, and we were just seeing a part of that roof, and I guess what I was wondering, if the roof is going to be basically like a window, will that present, you know, highlight the fact, you know, more than if it was closed, but if it’s been addressed, it’s been addressed. I wasn’t aware of it, as I said, until a few weeks ago. I don’t know if the rest of the Board was aware of that as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you concerned with the glare from sunlight or something like that? MR. SANFORD-Well, just, again, you know, the reason the balloon was flown was to make sure that it wasn’t, I guess aesthetically unappealing, and I’m thinking that at night, with a glass roof, will the lights really become obvious, or as the applicant said, facing downward and it perhaps won’t be very visible? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. COLLINS-Yes. That’s what we believe is the case. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s going to be an opaque color, not clear. MR. LEMERY-There’s a textured roof. It’s not glass. It’s a textured roof, and it’s really designed to allow ultraviolet light to come in, so that people can get tanned in the water park. MR. COLLINS-And you can grow plants on the inside of the structure as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay on lighting? MR. VOLLARO-I think we touched on that last time. MR. MAC EWAN-Landscaping? Everybody okay? Question I had, are we okay, we had talked at one time for additional buffering in the area to obstruct the view of the hotel from the Northway in that area, and I notice that we have plantings there. Is Staff and Chazen satisfied? Because I know we did add some plantings, right? We beefed it up. MR. ROUND-That has evolved through this process. I think, this project came in, or was originally conceived prior to our landscaping and design criteria. I think the project has tried to adhere to the principal of those guidelines. We have, you’re all familiar with our Zoning Ordinance. We have three different levels of buffer requirements, A, B, and C type buffers, depending on the land use, and I think this is very similar to a Type B buffer, which is, you know, which is moderately intense landscaping design to buffer between commercial and residential uses. I don’t know if the applicant wants to expand on what kind of plantings are in there. Maybe that would help the discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe before he answers the question, I had similar comments. On the day that the balloons were flown, when you drove up the Northway, it appeared as though, at least to me, that the building would be basically framed by evergreen trees, and on site when I was asking those questions of the engineer he said, well, you know, that would be ideal if we could do that, but I guess what I understood is that there will be some portions of the building that are visible from the Northway that will stick up above the tree line, if maybe you could just sort of describe that a little better. DEAN LONG MR. LONG-Yes, that’s correct. I’m Dean Long from the LA Group. As Chris was speaking to is the buffer plantings that’s immediately outside of the indoor water park as well as the hotel, that’s going to be a mix of conifer evergreens as well as deciduous to match the plantings immediately around the hotel itself. The gap that you can see primarily the water park is up there at milepost 49, which is essentially over here, and you can just see it right through there. These trees here that are in dark green are the existing white pines that are being preserved by the grading plan as well as those. So that cluster, as well as this cluster, which partially exists in the right of way, is going to form that framing of the water park, which then will be in-filled along the foundation plantings as well as out around the tubes for the waterslides. You’ll have pretty much a continuous bands, layers and bands of vegetation up through to the building, to the structure. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions relative to landscaping? Environmental? Neighborhood character? Other involved agencies? Pretty much got it covered. Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. LEMERY-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff, anything you wanted to add? Discussions? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. SANFORD-Yes. I would just like to thank Meg O’Leary for preparing this June 11, 2004 letter in response to some of my concerns. I appreciate that. It was hand delivered, and I thought that was very responsive, and I also feel that with the Department of Transportation approving the light and also approving the bridge, good progress is being made to address a number of the safety issues that were of paramount concern to me. So I’m pleased to hear those developments. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments, discussions? Does somebody want to move it? MR. VOLLARO-I have a couple of comments to make on the resolution itself. They’re already contained in the Findings Statement, and I wanted to just amplify them and just reiterate them essentially, in this document, and I’ll go over them real quick. I’ve labeled the pages on my Page Five, just flip the pages through, and you’ll get to Page Five, and it’s the sixth Whereas on Page Five, at the very end, where it says two story building height found in the Route 9 Design Guidelines, and I wanted to add on to that, granting of this waiver shall not establish a precedent for the remainder of the Route 9 corridor, and that reflects back into the, the Findings Statement says the same thing, essentially. MR. ROUND-Could you repeat that, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Granting of this waiver shall not establish a precedent for the remainder of the Route 9 Corridor. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. It just reiterates it. That’s all. MR. SANFORD-By definition, Bob, it may very well be. So I don’t know, right? I’m not sure. MR. VOLLARO-You mean it’s granting a precedent for Route 9? MR. SANFORD-I mean, to the extent that you’re granting the variance. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m talking about not just The Great Escape. I’m talking about establishing a precedent for the entire remaining corridor. MR. SANFORD-I understand that, but if a person wants to make an argument on another project, they could basically argue that you granted a height variance on The Great Escape. Whether or not that sentence is in there or not. So, I mean, I don’t know if it hurts to have it in there. MR. RINGER-Well, it’s feel good wording. It’s all right to have it in. It doesn’t hurt to have it in, and I don’t see any problem with it, Bob, if you want to put it in. MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the Findings Statement. I’m just taking words from the Findings Statement and putting it in our resolution, and the other comment’s on the next page, and it’s a very similar comment, but it’s under the “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved That”, and go down to the second paragraph, and go down to the fourth line in the second paragraph where it says “plan dated April 15, 2004”, and add into that, and it is not intended to establish a precedent for the remainder of the Route 9 Corridor. That has to do with the Route 9 Design Guidelines and the first one had to do, basically, with. MR. SANFORD-You’re talking Special Use Permit on this part? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. ROUND-That date should read April 29, 2004. That’s the most recent submission. So there’s a, I’m glad Bob brought up the suggested. MR. VOLLARO-29. Okay, and those are the only two comments I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to add that I liked the way Staff handled the issue with DOT, on the last, you know, the last page at the bottom, because we had talked about that, and we were wondering how we would handle it in a resolution. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the work permit, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And, having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would move to introduce this resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2004 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2-2004 GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board by HWP Development LLC, an affiliate of Great Escape Theme Park LLC seeking Planning Board approvals for the site plan for a 200 unit hotel, an approximately 34,875 square foot attached indoor water park along with associated parking facilities known as the green and purple lots, a service road (known as the northern portion of the ring-road) and associated traffic related improvements. The applicant is also seeking a special use permit to operate an amusement facility in the HC-I zone, and waivers from the I-87/Route 9 Design guidelines. The project has been referred and referenced as follows: Warren Co. Planning: 3/10/04 Tax Map Nos. 288.-1-61, 295.8-1-4, 5, 7.1, & 7.2 Lot Area: Approximately 30 Acres Public Hearing(s): March 2, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on December 15 2003; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/11/04, and 6/11 CR from D. Long: NYS DOT letter 6/9 CR from D. Long, LA Group: archeological investigation at Holtz site 5/27 CR from D. Long, LA Group: end of field letter 5/26 M. Kennedy, NYS DOT from K. Frosino, S. Johnston of CME: concept plan and revised traffic analysis letter 5/24 J. Collins, GE from M. Kirk, Hartgen Archeological Assoc.: Phase III Data Retrieval Excavations, end of field letter 5/24 Involved agency: copies of 3/20/04 PB resolution and Statement of Findings 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) 5/20 Wm. Logan, NYS DOT from D. Stec: traffic signals 5/19 L. Stone: transmittal of Final SGEIS, draft SEQR findings 5/14 J. Collins, GE from M. Migliore of NYS DEC: DEC mining permit and permit sign 5/14 PB from CR: 4 pgs. For final SGEIS 5/13 CR from LA Group: revised pages for SGEIS 5/10 Planning Board resolution: Accepting FSGEIS as complete 5/10 PB Minutes 5/6 M. Kennedy from S. Johnston, CME: supplemental info regarding plan to remove traffic signal and install new one 5/6 CR from S. Mesinger, Chazen: final draft addresses all concerns, recommend adoption 5/6 PB from S. Smith, Fire Marshal: Qu. Central Fire Chief concerns 5/3 CR from LA Group: full set and half size set of revised site plan submission 4/30 CR from T. Miller, LA Group: copy of FSGEIS sent to PB 4/30 CR from B. Beall, Chazen: review of FSGEIS for GE 4/30 D. Hatin, S. Smith from M. Palmer: Qu. Central Fire Chief, access is acceptable, see memo 4/30 CR from Chazen: review of FSGEIS provided 4/29/04 4/29 Maps dated 2/17/04 revised 4/29/04 4/28 PB from CR: Chazen Co. additional comments 4/27 PB from CR: GE FSGEIS 4/26 Wm. Logan, DOT from D. Stec: Pedestrian Bridge 4/20 CR from T. Miller: reduced drawings in response to comments 3.3.01 Adirondack Style architecture 4/20 CR from T. Miller: re-revised response to comment 3.3.07 4/20 Fax to T. Miller: 4/6 Staff Notes 4/19 CR from D. Long: Concept design, pedestrian bridge 4/15 Maps dated 2/17/04 revised 4/15/04 4/15 CR from T. Miller: full set drawings, 4/15/04; ½ size drawings, 4/15/04 and stormwater management report 4/14/04 4/14 CR from D. Wick, WCSWCD: Revised stormwater plan 4/14 E-mail from CR to PW: LA Group to submit revised site plans, stormwater report and FEIS 4/13 E-mail from MR to CR, PW: Glen Lk. Protective Assoc. comments from P. Derby 4/9 M. O’Leary from CR: summary of comments received 4/7 PB, ZBA, Chazen, Lemery & Greisler: memo from MR regarding visual impacts 4/6 Staff Notes 4/6 ZBA Minutes 3/25 Fax to J. Lemery from CR: GF comment 3/23 PB from CR: Chazen comments of 3/19 and LA Group transmittal, 3/22 3/23 Applicant from C. Brown: AV 23-2004, meeting notice 3/22 E-mail from MR to S. Mesinger, CR: visual impacts 3/22 CB from D. Long: Balloon test 3/19 CR from Chazen: Technical review 3/16 Notes of 3/16 meeting re: Glen Lake traffic light 3/16 D. Stec from Assemblywoman T. Sayward: forwarding e-mail from K. Angleson 3/16 Meeting Notes: Ring Road traffic signals 3/11 Transmittal from M. Taber, LA Group: Revised grading & drainage and site lighting plan 3/10 PB & ZBA from C. Round & Others: Supplemental visual analysis presented by applicant at 3/2 joint PB/ZBA meeting 3/10 Warren Co. Planning 3/9 CR from D. Long: Additional data 3/9 C. Round from T. Miller, LA Group: 2/26/04 Supplemental Visual Analysis Packet 3/5 C. Round from D. Wick, WCSWCD: stormwater management comments 3/2 M. O’Leary: fax of list for form letters received 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) 3/2 PB Minutes 3/2 ZBA resolution 3/2 PB resolution: extend SEQRA public comments period to 4/1/04 3/2 PB resolution: extend SEQRA written public comment period to 4/8/04 3/2 PB resolution: keep ph open for sp, and sup 3/2 Notice of Public Hearing 3/1 C. Round from S. Mesinger, Chazen: Draft memo 3/1 CR from Chazen: Draft technical review 2/26 Supplemental visual analysis field verification letter 2/25 C. Brown from M. Shaw: wastewater comments 2/24 C. Round from Wm. Logan, DOT: Review of Draft SGEIS 2/20 Notice of Joint Public Hearing 2/19 T. Miller, LA Group from M. Shaw: CT Male reference to wastewater disposal capacity 2/19 Transmittal to P. Derby: 2/17 letter from D. Long to S. Mesinger responding to stormwater management issues, etc. 2/19 Media Release: Joint public meeting 2/18 Transmittal to P. Derby from C. Round: Memo from Chazen re: stormwater management 2/18 Memo to ZBA from C. Round: Special Public Hearing 2/17 CR from D. Long: Submission 2/17 Maps 2/17 C. Round from LA Group: Submittal of documents required per communications w/M. O’Leary on 2/11/04 2/17 S. Mesinger from LA Group: Response to 2/13/04 letter from Chazen 2/17 Reduced set of maps 2/17 Stormwater Prevention Pollution Plan 2/15 Copy of advertisement in Post Star 2/13 C. Round from P. Romano (Chazen): Review of documents (see letter) 2/12 Transmittal to Warren Co. PB: Map to be added to previously received info 2/12 C. Round from S. Mesinger: SP & Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Review 2/11 M. O’Leary, D. Long: Fax from C. Round 2/11 ZBA, D. Stec, Warren Co. PB, Town Counsel & Others: PB has determined DSGEIS is complete for purposes of receiving public comment. 2/11 Extra Copies of SDGEIS 2/10 PB resolution: accepting SDGEIS as complete, set a ph and comment period & Neg Dec and ENB notice 2/10 SDGEIS 2/10 Map CA-1.01 2/9 C. Round from LA Group 2/2 C. Round from M. O’Leary: conversation log 2/2 C. Round from S. Mesinger: Vollaro memo 2/1 Memo to C. Round from B. Vollaro: SGEIS comments 1/27 C. Round from S. Mesinger: 1/20/04 review of SDGEIS, complete 1/27 PB from M. O’Leary: clarification of Rt. 9 design guideline waiver request and building height 1/23 C. Round from W. Logan, DOT: no objection to continuing as LA 1/22 C. Round from D. Long: Fax 1/21 Memo to PB from CR: transmittal of info on 1/20/04 1/21 Involved Agencies from C. Round: Distribution of material 1/20 PB minutes 1/20 PB resolution: authorize CR to inform involved agencies of PB intent to continue as LA 1/16 C. Round from S. Mesinger: comments on revised /submitted on 1/13/04 1/16 Transmittal to Chazen from PW: documents received 1/15/04 1/15 C. Round from LA Group: 1/15 Transmittal to C. Round from R. Pittenger: SP pkg. W/architectures, colored building elevations and rendering and stormwater study 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) 1/15 Maps 1/15 Stormwater Management Report 1/13 C. Round, S. Mesinger from LA Group: responses to 12/23/03 comments from Chazen 1/12 TB res. 55,2004: authorizing Chazen to provide engineering review services 1/8 E-Mail from C. Round to PB: first round of comments ½ E-Mail from C. MacEwan to PB 2003 12/31 E-Mail to PB from C. Round 12/29 P. Martin from C. Round: resolution for eng. Review services 12/23 C. Round from S. Mesinger: Review comments 12/19 C. Round from LA Group: proposed schedule 12/19 C. Round from LA Group: Sound Study 12/18 Fax to S. Mesinger from C. Round: LA group schedule 12/17 Transmittal to S. Mesinger from C. Round: Traffic counts, etc. 12/15 Meeting Notes 12/15 Application materials 12/15 J. Collins from CME: info to address potential traffic impacts of the proposed dev. In comparison to thresholds in the existing SEQR findings statement 12/03 SDEIS to C. Round 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 March 2 and June 15, 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 previously completed the review of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“GEIS” or “2001 GEIS”) that considered future development on property owned by Great Escape over a period of five to ten years, including construction of a 200-room hotel at the Project location. The 2001 GEIS resulted in the adoption of a Findings Statement that approved, among other things, development of a 200-room hotel and requiring various mitigation measures be undertaken by Great Escape when certain thresholds are met (the “2001 Findings”). WHEREAS, The Great Escape submitted a site plan application in December 2003 that differed from those originally proposed in 2001, and the Applicant simultaneously submitted a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“SDGEIS”) to review the impacts of those changes in the Project in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.9(a)(7). WHEREAS the Planning Board deemed the SDGEIS complete on February 10, 2004. WHEREAS, the Planning Board conducted public hearings on March 2, 2004, March 25, 2004 and June 15, 2004. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) WHEREAS, public comments were received and addressed in a Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“FSGEIS”) and the FGEIS was filed and accepted by the Planning Board on May 10, 2004. WHEREAS, a Supplemental Findings statement was drafted and adopted by the Planning Board in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617.11 to supplement the 2001 Findings, meaning that any finding or threshold in the 2001 Findings not specifically revised remains in full force and effect. WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the Route 9 Design Guidelines and the Board has carefully considered this request in accordance with Article 7 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. The project as proposed does not meet the desired 100 foot setback to Interstate 87 (I-87) and has four stories which is greater than the preferred two-story building height found in the Route 9 Design Guidelines. The granting of this waiver shall not establish a precedent for the remainder of the Route 9 corridor. 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 The Planning Board finds that the request for a waiver from the Route 9 design guidelines is warranted and granted on the basis that the project pre-dates the adoption of the guidelines, the site plan as presented meets the intent of the guidelines and is in keeping with the character of Route 9 as a commercial corridor, and that the I-87 buffer has been supplemented with additional landscape planting. Be it further Resolved that the Planning Board approves the issuance of a Special Use Permit for Operation of an Amusement Center in the HC-1A zone for the operation of an indoor water park. That this permit is valid only for the project as presented on the site plan dated April 29, 2004 and is not intended to establish a precedent for the remainder of the Route 9 corridor and consistent with the SERQA findings will be open to the general public when hotel occupancy is below 50% of maximum occupancy level.; and therefore Site Pan 4-2004 application is hereby approved as presented on document drawings dated February 17, 2004 and revised April 29, 2004. The site plan approval is also subject to materials presented in support of the application including: 1. Stormwater Management Plan/Report dated February 2004, revised April 26, 2004. 2. Stormwater Management Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) dated February 2004, revised April 2004 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) And is also subject to the following conditions which shall be listed and/or reflected on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator for signature: 1. In accordance with the May 26, 2004 submittal by CME to NYS DOT, and the NYS DOT June 10, 2004 correspondence. Access drives to Route 9 as identified on the May 24, 2004 drawing entitled “The Great Escape Off-Site Transportation Improvements Concept Plan” will be closed and/or restricted to emergency access through installation of a gate device. The northern traffic signal will be relocated to the intersection of Glen Lake Road and the Great Escape Ring Road. Additional improvements and construction phasing or timing will be subject to NYS DOT review and issuance of a NYS DOT work permit. The Town will be copied with all communication to NYS DOT regarding project timing, phasing, or project changes. 2. All traffic related improvements will be constructed at the expense of the applicant. Duly adopted this 15th day of June, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much for all your hard work and helping us get through the process. MR. MAC EWAN-Keep us posted as to your progress with DOT. MR. COLLINS-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Next item on the agenda. MR. ROUND-Craig, before you get started, I just wanted to, I know most people that are here tonight don’t get to see all of you, most people are here for the first time, but to my left, Jim Houston. Jim’s with C.T. Male Associates. He’s the Town’s designated engineer, and for the public’s benefit, C.T. Male does review most, reviews all applications we refer to them. In this case, Chazen Companies has had a long history with the EIS, and we used, continue to use Chazen in the review of The Great Escape project, but as a suggestion to the Board, they said they’d like to see the Town Engineer at the Planning Board meetings. So Jim’s here. Jim will be alternating with Jim Edwards, who you’re also familiar with, and hopefully it’ll provide value to the Board and for the applicants that are here, trying to give you some response. I know we can debate that. I think Rich and I are on the same page, I think you may rely more heavily on somebody here, and you may generate more questions. We may not resolve all the issues, but I think we need to try that process and see how it works out for you. So I just wanted to give you that heads up. MR. MAC EWAN-Along those lines, I know at least a couple of us don’t have them, but there was no communication from C.T. Male comments relative to tonight’s agenda. Are we, because now someone is going to be here from the firm, are we no longer going to have that communication, or is it just timing issues this week? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. HILTON-No, more a timing issue. What happened is we received the comments after our comments went out. So they’re noted here in the file. As part of the discussion this evening, I was going to say that they are in the file, and obviously Jim can touch on them. MR. MAC EWAN-Because I know it’s still going to be the Board’s prerogative. They’re going to want to review those documents, so that they can have a handle on where things are in the engineering process. MR. SANFORD-Just a quick question. Are you, and what was the name of the other gentleman that’s going to be alternating? MR. HOUSTON-Jim Edwards. MR. SANFORD-Jim Edwards. Are you also equipped to, on occasion perhaps do fieldwork? MR. HOUSTON-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So I’m going back to last night’s discussion regarding the Board, that the Board wants to have our engineer actually do some test pits and things of that nature, and I just want to ensure that we have sort of a continuity among following this. MR. ROUND-Yes. For your benefit, C.T. Male is a full service engineering firm. There’s 130, 140 employees, engineers, landscape architects, etc. I think, Rich, what you’re asking for, and it is a provision of our Code that we can have the Town Engineer witness test pits on project sites, and I think what we want to start getting in the habit of is that, as we see projects coming in the door, is to advise people, because we don’t want a project to come in, have somebody do test pits, three months later, you know, ask for the observations. So we need to make that part of our process and communicate that policy. So that’s a good suggestion. MR. SANFORD-Right. You were there, I think, when we had the discussion last night, and you know that I still feel strongly about that, simply because it’s, you know, C.T. Male reviewing a representation isn’t the same as if they draw their own conclusions, and that was my point. MR. ROUND-No, and that’s a fair assessment. Department of Health, when we’re talking about on-site septic systems, Department of Health has a provision in there, and it’s changed, and you’ll hear different opinions from different applicants. They will, themselves, witness it, and they are the folks that are signing off on on-site septic systems, when you’re dealing with five or more septic systems on lots five acres or less. It’s a, I can’t recite it verbatim, but it’s basically a really subdivision law, and Department of Health observes those, are supposed to, and be based on staffing levels and changes in policy and who’s in the office, it doesn’t always happen that way, and they allow an engineer’s report to go, just like we allow an engineer’s report to go to them, but I think that’s something we need to explore on a case by case basis, do we want those observations to be made by our own engineer. MR. SANFORD-Right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Next item on the agenda, under Old Business, is Subdivision No. 11-2003, William Taft. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM TAFT AGENT: BORGOS & DEL SIGNORE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.26 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 2.22 ACRES AND 2.05 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: 2 LOT ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION TAX MAP NO. 290-1-9.2 LOT SIZE: 4.26 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-I guess just a summary. This application was tabled with the public hearing being closed. At this point, the Planning Board has to do the SEQRA review and potentially some sort of final action, but obviously before that, the SEQRA review will have to take place, and I think that’s where we are. There has been a Long Form submitted as part of this application. So, with that, that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record? MR. BORGOS-Mike Borgos, for the applicant Bill Taft, with Mike Crayford, who’s going to build one of the homes. I guess if there are any questions, we can try to answer those tonight. I think at the last meeting we addressed a lot of those with Matt Steves and with Tom Nace here. We have signoff from C.T. Male. Are there any questions at this time? MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to run down through our checklist? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you can go. MR. RINGER-I don’t know if you want to. We ran our checklist at the last meeting, and we got through that. We got to the point of the SEQRA, but if you want to run through the checklist. There are different people here who weren’t here last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I wasn’t here at the last meeting. According to my notes, the only thing that was really outstanding was the wetland delineation which, you know, reviewing the minutes, that was taken care of. MR. BORGOS-That’s been taken care of, yes. MR. VOLLARO-I have a couple of questions. I’ll just put them out there. I didn’t take the drawings out because I measured them up, but the majority of the access road, I guess it’s on the second lot, Lot 2B, is about 10 feet wide. Now we’ve had some comments from the local Fire Marshal here that New York State Fire Code requires 20 foot for fire access, and if you look at that road, going up to the back lot, I think I scaled. MR. RINGER-That’s a driveway, Bob, and the requirements aren’t the same for a driveway as a road. MR. VOLLARO-What’s that, Larry? MR. RINGER-That’s a driveway, not a road. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-And he was talking commercial versus there’s, I don’t believe there’s any requirements for a driveway on there. MR. VOLLARO-So a truck could get up. MR. RINGER-Bob, I didn’t say that. You were talking about requirements that, and we’re only talking a driveway here. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. RINGER-I wasn’t speaking at all for if a fire truck could get up there or not, only that it’s not a requirement. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. MR. RINGER-Because it’s a driveway. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. So from a practical point of view, you know, this road’s about 450 foot long, the way I scaled it off, and 450 feet, how much hose do you have, Larry? MR. RINGER-Well, again, I never want to speak for the fire department. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, I just want some of your expertise to tell me whether or not. MR. RINGER-In a situation like that, you would run a drop tank up there, okay. So you would fill the drop tank from tankers, if there’s no hydrant, or if they had a hydrant, then you’d fill the drop tanks, or run pumps and relay, again, if you’ve got a hydrant. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-Again, I don’t want to speak for the fire company either. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all right. I understand. I understand what you’re saying. I just, from a practical point of view, I was wondering how they would access the house. If they’ve got methods to do that, that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that. I noticed that the septic tanks on 2B are just about 12 foot from those wetlands. In fact, when I looked at the wetland delineation here, I said, gee, you know, that’s kind of interesting. They’ve got the perfect spot for the well. I mean, this thing is so convoluted, in the way they’ve drawn this wetland, and dropped these flags, as they’re called, and it just so happens that that goes right around, right around the well. Pretty interesting. That was my comment. The other comment is on the aesthetics of the flag lots. According to how I interpret 183, they’re not desirable lot layouts, and I would prefer this personally to be one lot of 4.72 acres, a lot with a house, one house, considering that almost 50% of this 4.27 acres is wetland, and the driveway on Lot 2A cuts right through the flagged wetlands. That’s very apparent when I read it, and when I looked at the drawings. So I’m not really jumping up and down with joy for this particular application, I can tell you that. MR. RINGER-I’d like to comment, too, Bob, if you’re finished. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m done. MR. RINGER-I have difficulty with that long driveway also, and I have difficulty with this flagged lot, and I just don’t feel that it fits in with the character of that neighborhood, and I’m really not in favor of this project at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MR. SANFORD-I’ll make it three. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Borgos, anything you wanted to add? MR. BORGOS-If there are any questions, I’ll be happy to respond to any. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t appear that we’ve got any. Chris, let’s do a SEQRA. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-Is this a Long Form? MR. HUNSINGER-Long Form, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, could I ask a question? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you, one of my concerns is the driveway that goes through the wetland. I mean, are you against having a shared driveway and having the first lot, having a driveway off that shared driveway? MR. BORGOS-I haven’t been involved with the project from the beginning, but it’s my understanding that was one of the earlier proposals, and there was some disfavor with that. Mike, do you remember that early stage? MR. RINGER-The earlier proposal was a three lot subdivision, and one of the lots was going to share, and you cut it back. MR. BORGOS-There have been a number of revisions. Yes, certainly that would be a possibility, but where this present driveway runs is along the path of an existing logging road that’s been there for a long period of time. So the disturbance to whatever’s there is going to be very minimal, compared to what’s been going on for the last 50 or 100 years. It runs right along that old fence line. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m speaking of the other driveway, that comes in across the wetlands for the first house. MR. BORGOS-To the first house. Okay. I’m sorry. MICHAEL CRAYFORD MR. CRAYFORD-That was on the original plan when there were three lots, and I guess it just always stayed there because it serviced, obviously from the road, that’s the only way you can get to that. It’s the only obvious access from County Line Road to get into that lot, to that lot across that ditch line, basically. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, once again, would you be against, would you be amenable to having that, removing that second driveway? MR. CRAYFORD-I really can’t speak for Mr. Taft. I’m here just as a supporter, basically. You’re suggesting that we use the logging road as access? MR. SEGULJIC-Use the long, the driveway along the northern boundary as access to both sites. MR. CRAYFORD-Right. I think that would create a problem, because the person that bought, you know, building the house in the rear lot, would then be sharing a driveway with the people in the front lot. MR. SEGULJIC-I see what you’re saying. MR. CRAYFORD-So a shared driveway, which is not a good condition for a developer to look at, you know, to sell the lots. MR. BORGOS-Mr. Taft doesn’t disagree with that proposal, if it’ll work. The engineers and the surveyor had looked at these things before. They hadn’t suggested it. So we were taking their 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) advice that it wasn’t the most desirable situation, but if the Board feels that that’s something they would like to see, I’m sure we’d take a look at that and agree to do something along those lines. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? All right, Chris, let’s go. MR. HUNSINGER-“Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want me to go down through the examples, or do you want to just talk about the impact? MR. MAC EWAN-Example Number Two I think is probably the most applicable here, “construction on land where depth to water table is less than three feet.” And other impacts would be construction on lands in close proximity to the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-What are the levels of the impacts, small to moderate, potentially large, or can impact be mitigated by project change? MR. SANFORD-It’s potentially large. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I would think that to be the case, potentially large. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Will there be an affect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Item Three, “Will proposed action affect any water body designated a s protected? (Under Articles 15,24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Four, “Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Five, “Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Six, “Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. VOLLARO-It may. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. SANFORD-Well, it may very well. MR. VOLLARO-The slope of the land is, you know, down toward the. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re on Number Five? MR. SANFORD-Six. MR. HUNSINGER-Six. MR. MAC EWAN-Jump back to Number Five. MR. HUNSINGER-I heard no’s on five. If there’s something else to add. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you come up with that? I mean, to me it’s yes. It is going to affect groundwater. It is going to affect surface water. I mean, you’ve got a wetlands right there. MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate impact, potential large impact, or can the impact be mitigated by project change? MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s potentially large. I mean, you’re dealing with septic systems that are on marginal soils to begin with, and we know the history we’ve been starting to hear with septic systems put in marginal soils. There’s problems with them, inherent problems with them. MR. SANFORD-I think it’s potentially large. MR. VOLLARO-They can be mitigated, however. I’d like to defer that question over to our engineer and ask that question. If the contractor, and I’m not essentially in favor of this proposal. I want you to know that. I said in the beginning, but is it possible to put a raised mound in there to mitigate against being in such a close proximity to the wetland? Is that a mitigating feature, as opposed to putting laterals in the ground? JIM HOUSTON MR. HOUSTON-If you go to a raised mound, it requires a taper around the outside, and then you’ve got area or space requirements that you’re not going to be able to meet from setbacks, and the concept of putting the perforated piping right into the ground is acceptable as long as your test pits reveal adequate depth of percable soils, and the test pit number five, it’s labeled fifty-eight, incidentally, indicates mottling at twenty-nine inches, which is an adequate depth to be able to put a shallow absorption system in, and so I think if it’s done properly, as shown here, it can be done without a raised system, and the raised system would actually cause more insult than it would solve. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, the other issues I think we have to take into consideration is the wells, the location of the wells, what ground water could possibly do to affect drinking water, because it isn’t Town water up there. The other thing we have to consider is the length of the driveways. You’re going to build up those driveways, you’re going to displace the groundwater and displace the wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-All of that is true. I was just very curious to see the convoluted line that this wetland takes in the northeastern corner of this property. It just amazed me that it took such a convoluted line, and the well is placed just outside of that delineation. When you look at some of these drawings. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, the last time that this application was in front of, not the very last time, two times ago when this application was in front of us, we asked for those flags to be re-flagged, so that when we did site visits, we could take a look at them, and when we did our 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) site visits, those flags did not follow this line that’s shown on this plat. Those flags basically went straight across that property with no jogs in it whatsoever. MR. VOLLARO-So how did this line get drawn, then? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question to ask. MR. RINGER-There was a discussion on that at the last meeting, and the engineer, I don’t think it was Tom. I think it was Matt that was here. MR. BORGOS-That’s the surveyor, yes. MR. RINGER-And talked about those flags, and had an explanation, and unfortunately I don’t remember exactly what the explanation was, but he did have an explanation. Apparently he only puts flags every, as I recall. Now, I’m really stretching here, but he only puts a flag every 25 or 30 feet or something like that. So it really didn’t show the way the contours actually went, and we could possibly, if someone’s got the minutes, we could read out of the minutes what he said. MR. ROUND-I have them in front of me, if you’d like me to walk you through them. MR. RINGER-Okay. His comments. MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, the comments that were made, if you look on here, you’ll see different flags that are denoted, like A-47, A-40, A-38, 37, 23, and so on. Those are the flag markers, but every one of those little black dots represents a flag. MR. RINGER-I think if we read his comments, that was the exact question that was asked from the meeting, and he had an answer to it, and I can’t remember, you know, but if we’ve got the minutes there. MR. BORGOS-If I may, while you’re looking for it, Chris, I can paraphrase what he said. My recollection is that they followed Deb Roberts around while she did the flagging, and they surveyed each and every one of those flags as they were set into the ground. They can’t control what happens to the flags after they’ve done their surveying, but the surveyor has certified that those marks are true and accurate, as to the time that they were placed by Deb Roberts. MR. RINGER-The bottom line is what he said. I don’t remember everything that he said, but the bottom line was he said it was his reputation and that was the way it was. That was the bottom line. MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we in agreement on Five, or am I out here on a limb by myself? MR. SANFORD-No. I mean, again, you know, we don’t have benefit of Counsel here tonight, but I think there’s a potential for a large impact, too. I’m not sure, when you use that word “potential”. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if you look at the, not counting the column of other impacts, come up two items, where it says “Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services.” Potential for very large impacts. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But every time you put a septic system in you have a potential affect to groundwater. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-But in my mind, not as great as you do with this particular application, because of the poor soils, because of the close proximity to the wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-And the big thing in my mind is 50% or possibly more of this 4.27 acres is wetlands, you know. Half this structure is a wetland, and that’s a real concern of mine, in terms of long term drainage out of those laterals. I mean, we’ve got problems in Town now, in areas that we thought were relatively good and safe areas to put septic tanks in, and that was several years ago, and I think that’s, it’s been proved out now that those folks have problems with their septic and water in their basements, and at the time we did that, we thought that was pretty good. They looked like reasonably good pieces of land, and so when you look at something like this, you know, it compounds the problem, in my mind anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-So what’s the end result here with Item Five? MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a yes, myself. MR. METIVIER-I just don’t know how large the impact is. I’m just thinking in fact it’s two homes versus, in some instances, a lot more that we’ve compared these two, and while there is obviously a lot of wetlands in this area, you know, I can’t stop thinking about the fact that it is only two homes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but on the other hand, this is probably the first application that comes to mind in recent history where we have seen a proposed development this close, with this much impact on adjoining wetlands. MR. HOUSTON-Mr. Chairman, if I could say something. When we did our review on this plan, it was focused on the stormwater, at the request of George, but in looking at the plan here, the wells are located downstream from the septic system, and there’s typically 100 foot setback, unless the well is in the general path of drainage located downhill or downstream from the septic system, and in that case the separation increases to 200 feet, per the Health Department standards. So, what appears to be shown on this plan is approximately 160 or 165 feet. The well is definitely located downhill from that. It may not be directly on that one lot, I guess it’s Lot 2A, directly down gradient, but it is at a lower elevation than the septic system. So it’s reason to assume that that may apply to these two lots. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the 200 foot rule? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And you’re saying that you scaled it off to 160? MR. HOUSTON-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-That falls in well within what we’re talking about, then. MR. SANFORD-I think, regarding this question, I don’t know if you’ve polled the Board enough, but I think you’re starting to get a good consensus on a potentially large impact, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems to be that’s where we’re going with it. Move on to Item Six, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it will. MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate, potentially large or can the impact be mitigated? MR. SANFORD-Again, potentially large impact. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’re trying to mitigate it with these berms, I think. That’s what, I think that’s the intent of these long drainage berms, but I don’t know what they’ll. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but go down to compatible, is it incompatible with existing drainage patterns. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely it is. MR. SANFORD-And absolutely it is. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Impact on Air”, Number Seven, “Will Proposed Action affect air quality?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Impact on Plants and Animals Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species?” MR. SANFORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Impact on Agricultural Land Resources Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?” MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Eleven “Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SANFORD-Well, are we dealing with character here, neighborhood character? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s farther down our list. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s further down. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Fine. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. HUNSINGER-Twelve, “Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?” MR. SANFORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will there by an affect to existing transportation systems?” MR. SANFORD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action affect the community’s source of fuel or energy supply?” MR. SANFORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action?” MR. SANFORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?” MR. RINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community?” MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate, potentially large, or can it be mitigated by project change? MR. VOLLARO-I think it could be mitigated by the project change of putting one house on the non-wetland portion of this lot. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’d be leaning toward other impacts, and two that come to mind, as Bob’s already mentioned, is the creation of flag-shaped lots, which is in direct conflict to what our Subdivision Regulations say we should be doing, and the other thing is in direct conflict with our Open Space Plan. Our Open Space Plan for that neighborhood up there, bear with my while I find the paperwork, I’ve got it right here in front of me, the goal of that neighborhood, Goal Number One, is to protect and maintain the rural character and visual quality of the Town, and under the Strategies, it lists things like establish a greenway plan to promote important natural areas, views, and open spaces, investigate types of land conservation methods and organizations that are available to hold land or easements or implement one. It talks about landscaping requirements, establish tree cutting regulations, and that’s pretty much it. Goal Two, establish Townwide stormwater runoff standards for all type of development and roads in particular, develop plans to protect endangered animal species and review critical area designations for possible revision, and that’s what I’ve got there, but I think the most important one is Goal Number One, which is protect and maintain the rural quality, and I think we’ve been seeing, in the last few months, a movement to start developing lands up and around County Line Road, the airport area, and I think it’s an important issue that this Board needs to get a handle of, as to how much development is appropriate up there when that’s one of the main goals of this neighborhood plan is to preserve that rural character of that portion of Town. MR. VOLLARO-Would the applicant be in favor of one house, approximately in the middle of the non-wetland portion of this 4.27 acres? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if that’s an appropriate question to ask, because what we’re dealing with is a SEQRA form right now that’s based on an application that we have in front of us now. MR. VOLLARO-True enough. MR. MAC EWAN-And certainly no matter whatever the outcome is of our evaluation here tonight, it’s certainly, if it was to go down in defeat, they certainly are welcome to make reapplication for a different configuration. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SANFORD-Actually, if it hasn’t been subdivided yet, they probably don’t even need to come back, if they want to do that. MR. RINGER-One house on the lot. They wouldn’t need anything other than a building permit. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, that’s what I say for other impacts. I don’t know if I’m by myself on that. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. RINGER-You hit it very well, reading the neighborhood character. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Item Twenty “Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. RINGER-We had some. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we had some. Previous speakers at previous public hearings. MR. SANFORD-I think the record established there has been public comment of concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since we have already identified, I’m just going to read from the directions. “If any action in Part II”, which we just went through, “is identified as potentially 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) large or you cannot determine the magnitude, proceed to Part III.” Part III is the determination of significance. The instructions read, “For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it’s substantial, large, or otherwise significant”, which we already did. “Each affect should be assessed in connection with its setting, probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope, and magnitude. If necessary add attachments or reference supporting materials.” I think, based on that, the exercise that we’ve already gone through, we would be in a position to prepare a positive declaration. MR. SANFORD-Are you making a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m feeling out the will of the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I think you ought to go forward with a Pos Dec, Chris. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we get to Part III. MR. ROUND-What you need to do, in this circumstance, you need to identify those things that you did check as, you know, moderate or large, and then you need to reflect on those, each and every one of those, and you need to characterize them and identify why you think they are significant or important impacts, and then that would be the basis for issuing a positive declaration. MR. MAC EWAN-So would you like us to go back through and start right with Number One and work our way through? MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we kind of already did that. MR. SANFORD-My understanding, Chris, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that if a motion was presented for a Pos Dec. MR. ROUND-You should articulate those reasons in that motion. MR. SANFORD-But I thought that Part III, the evaluation, doesn’t have to take place tonight. It has to take place within a certain timeline, and I thought the window might have been 30 days. So we could, if we were going to go in that direction, we could then come back to the next meeting with Part III completed. We don’t have to do it tonight. MR. ROUND-Yes. That’s accurate. That, and Town Counsel will be here a little later on and can reaffirm that, or confirm that. MR. SANFORD-That was my understanding, and I’m not crystal clear on that, but if that’s correct then my suggestion would be to go forward, if someone wants to make a motion for Pos Dec on the SEQRA, and if it passes, then we complete Part III and bring it to the next meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you feel comfortable moving forward? Most of us feel comfortable moving forward. I think we have it identified, and it’s just a matter of putting the language in, that’s all. MR. SANFORD-Okay, if you want to, you mean moving forward with Part III? MR. MAC EWAN-Part III. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let me back up to the items that were identified, then. Item One, Impact on Land, “Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site?” The feeling of the Board was yes, that the impact would be potentially large, because that it would involve construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than three feet. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-As well as other impacts under that column, construction on lands in close proximity to the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Then on Item Five, “Will the Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” And again, the Board felt that there was a potential large impact on groundwater quality because of the proximity to the wetlands, and because of the depth to the water table. Did I miss anything? MR. MAC EWAN-Say that again, please. MR. HUNSINGER-The Board felt there was a potential large impact because of the proximity of the project to the wetlands, as well as the potential for groundwater contamination. MR. MAC EWAN-And could we expand on that and also say that on-site septic systems will be built on marginal soils, may negatively impact groundwater quality, that drinking wells are located in less than the 200 foot required separation distance from septics. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else for Item Five? Item Six, “Will Proposed Action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?” Again, the Board felt there was a potential large impact, and I’m not quite sure what the concern was on this one. MR. RINGER-I have trouble with that one because we do have a signoff from Male on that one. MR. MAC EWAN-The proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage flow patterns. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RINGER-I’d question that one, because of the signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, well. MR. MAC EWAN-What? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, my own feeling on that one was that it was mitigated by the proposed stormwater plan, but if that’s not the feeling of the rest of the Board, we’ll go with what you said. MR. SEGULJIC-No, I would agree it’s mitigated. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m probably out on the limb all by myself, because I’m suspect to the stormwater management plan. It’s just a gut feeling I have. I’m suspect to it. MR. VOLLARO-One of the strongest elements here is the fact that these wells are closer than the allowed 200 feet from the uphill septic installation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but that’s not an issue relative to, okay, I understand what you’re saying. Yes. MR. SANFORD-Well, do you want to just leave it at that? MR. HUNSINGER-Can’t we just leave it at that. It’s fine by me, and then the final item was Item 19, “Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?” Again, the Board felt there was a potential large impact, as the Chairman articulated that it’s not in conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which discouraged flag shaped lots, it is not in conformance with the Open Space Plan, and the goal to maintain rural quality along this particular road. Is there anything else that I missed, or you’d like to add? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-No. It seems like you’ve got it covered. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. For all of those reasons just stated, I guess I would issue a Positive SEQRA Declaration, and I would make a motion to that effect. MOTION TO ISSUE A POSITIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 11- 2003 WILLIAM TAFT, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-So I guess your next step would be, at this point, is to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or maybe withdraw the application and submit a different application. MR. BORGOS-We’ll evaluate the options. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. CRAYFORD-I have one question. The wetlands designation, is there a difference between a New York State wetlands designation and the Corps of Engineers Federal wetlands? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. CRAYFORD-There is a difference? So when you’re doing the SEQRA, it’s a New York State requirement, which relates to New York State wetlands criteria. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, do you want to field that question? MR. CRAYFORD-I’m talking about the fact that with the Federal wetlands you can build up to the wetlands. Whereas with the State wetlands, you have to be 100 feet. So I’m wondering whether the SEQRA is valid because you’re dealing with two different entities, as far as wetlands are concerned. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you like to respond to him? MR. SCHACHNER-I can if you want. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like you to. MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, you could be dealing with as many as three or more different entities. You could also have Adirondack Park Agency wetlands and any number of other designated wetlands. SEQRA review, by definition, when you’re talking about, for example, wetlands impact is not limited to jurisdictional New York State freshwater wetlands impacts. MR. CRAYFORD-Even though it’s a State Environmental Review? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s a State statute, but the scope of it is broader than, on the wetlands issue, for example, the scope of it is broader than the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act. It’s a broader focus on environmental impacts in general, and it would not be limited, on the wetlands issue, SEQRA review is not limited to only impacts on designated New York State Freshwater wetlands for example. You could have Army Corps jurisdictional wetlands, as you know, and SEQRA review could take into account impact on them or even non-designated freshwater wetlands. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. CRAYFORD-Okay. Thanks. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 23-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN & LARA CURRIE AGENT: JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES ZONE: PO LOCATION: LOT 3, HUNTER BROOK LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,004 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A 1.13 ACRE PROPERTY. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES IN THE P O ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 5- 89, SB 21-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/04 TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-5 LOT SIZE: 1.12 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN CURRIE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-2004, John & Lara Currie, Meeting Date: June 15, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 23-2004 APPLICANT: John and Lara Currie are the applicants for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 2004 sq. ft. office building with associated parking and landscaping and lighting. LOCATION: The subject property is located on Hunter Brook Lane, just west of Bay Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned PO, Professional Office. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a SEQRA short form. PARCEL HISTORY: The only Planning Board action related to this property was the original subdivision approval and a minor subdivision modification. No special conditions or restrictions impacting this property were found as a part of these approvals. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to construct a 2004 sq. ft. office building on a 1.12 +/- acre property located on Hunter Brook Lane. The site plan also includes site landscaping, lighting, and parking. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted building elevations showing a residential style office building. The site plan also shows a row of street trees (red maples) along Bay Rd. as required in the Bay Rd. design guidelines. The lighting plan appears to show a freestanding light fixture along with wall-mounted fixtures. Cut sheets for the proposed wall mounted fixtures have not been provided with the application. It is difficult to determine if the proposed freestanding light is a cutoff fixture or not. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which has been submitted to CT Male for their review and comment. The applicant has submitted the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as part of this application. Staff suggests a condition of approval that a copy of the required Notice of Intent 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) (NOI) be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction associated with this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary. This is a proposed office development, right across the street here, and as I mentioned in my notes, the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan, which appears to be in conformance with the Bay Road Design Guidelines, as well as a residential style office building. This application has been referred to C.T. Male for stormwater comments, and I guess Jim is here to field any questions. Some of my comments, one of my comments centered on lighting and whether or not the freestanding fixtures were downcast. At the beginning of the meeting, Jim did give me some cut sheets that showed that the freestanding lights are downcast cut off fixtures, and we have that in the file, and based on that, that’s all I have at this time, if you have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll start out with Jim. MR. HOUSTON-Just to summarize my review on this project, I did review last week and wrote a letter dated June 10 that summarized the concerns or the comments that I had about the th plans at that time. I’m assuming you have copies of that letter? MR. MAC EWAN-We do not. We don’t have any copies of any C.T. Male correspondence. MR. HOUSTON-Okay. Getting right into what the, I’m trying to make a statement on every one of these projects as to stormwater permitting requirements, and whether it is required or not required, and whether it triggers the thresholds to meet the DEC permitting requirements for stormwater discharge. So my first comment was general. The proposed project results in less than one acre of disturbance, and therefore an NOI and an SWPPP may not be required. Since this lot is associated with a larger office park, it is probable that permit coverage was necessary for the entire office park, and that the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the office park, if one was prepared, should be amended to show details for this lot. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for this lot was prepared and included in the plan set, so it appears that the applicant plans on filing a Notice of Intent with DEC to obtain permit coverage. If permit coverage was obtained for the office park then the SWPPP for the park should be amended, if the park was approved and constructed prior to the most recent regulation change then consideration should be given to not filing an NOI for this project. Anyway, there is a Notice of Intent, there is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that was included in the package, and the drawings that were submitted and that I reviewed, and it basically meets the intent of the DEC regulations. I don’t see a problem with that. It’s a question of whether or not it’s absolutely required, because it’s not, the project of itself does not disturb more than one acre, which is the threshold triggering requirement to have the stormwater permit coverage, and Jim responded back to my letter, this is Jim Miller, responded back to my letter, in a letter dated June 11 that he faxed to my office, in response to that, and th his response was that I am not aware of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the office park. I believe that the park was approved and substantially developed prior to regulations requiring the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project will be utilized during construction if a DEC permit is required or not. We will follow the advice of Town Staff whether an NOI should be filed with DEC. I guess my take on it is it is not more than an acre of disturbance and it does not meet the thresholds, and I think it’s good that the exercise has been done to prepare this plan, and it should be implemented through construction, but that’s just my advice. The other items dealt with the actual specific items on the plans, consideration should be given to providing additional spot elevations on the downhill side of the grass depressions, and in the area between the building and the leach field, to better define drainage in these areas. Again, I got a response back from Jim that indicates a clearer definition of those contours and grading in those areas that I had doubts on, and I think it pretty well addresses my concern. I think there could be additional spot elevations on the road side of those depressions, because I’m not sure that the depressions can be well constructed or deep enough and well defined to prevent water from spilling out of 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) the depressions right out towards the road, and so I would ask that additional spot elevations be added in the area down stream from the basins. The calculations in the stormwater management report were based on an eight foot diameter dry well, and the detail on the plan shows a six foot diameter drywell. This discrepancy should be corrected, and the re-submittal from Jim Miller has addressed that, and it’s eight foot now on the plans and also in the calculations. The finished floor, this is Item Number Three, the finished floor elevation shown on the SP-2 appears to be in error. It was a typographical error, I believe. It’s 279, I believe, and it should be 379, or 387. It should be 387.9 instead of 287.9, and that was corrected on this re- submittal. The invert shown leaving the catch basin, this is Item Number Four, the invert shown leaving the catch basins do not correlate with the invert into the drywell using the pipe flow shown. If you took the invert coming out of the catch basin times the distance and the slope, it didn’t correlate to what was shown, and that’s been corrected on this re-submittal that I’ve got from Jim Miller. On Drawing SP-3, this is Comment Five, my last comment. The silt fence along the south property line may tend to concentrate runoff along the fence. Consideration should be given to mulching or using erosion control blankets in this area, and the response, Jim has eliminated the silt fence in that area where I had concerns about it, and has shown an erosion control blanket in that area to protect against erosion, and I highly support that change, and concur with that approach, and that was the extent of my comments, and basically the response that I received from Jim Miller, dated June 11, addresses my th concerns. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my question on that, that was a nice presentation, Jim. My drawings shown April 15. Most of the corrections that Jim Miller responded to you are not on these th drawings, I don’t believe. MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. What I received is excerpts from revised plans, and it’s basically eight and a half by eleven excerpts. MR. VOLLARO-I see. They’re snapshots of different portions of this thing. MR. HOUSTON-Yes, of the plan. MR. VOLLARO-So we don’t have, how does the file handle that? In other words, trying to make sure that the file reflects everything that Jim Miller responded to, to C.T. Male. MR. MILLER-Bob, you copy, any correspondence to, my name’s Jim Miller, Landscape Architect representing John Currie the owner. Any correspondence we send to C.T. Male, we copy to Staff. So they have that, and then those changes are on these drawings. So the, you know. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a different set of drawings than I have. MR. MILLER-There’s two drawings there that are different, and the only revisions were to specifically address the comments. They’re pretty minor. We’ve changed some silt fence for erosion control blankets, and we changed a few spot grades and added a few spot grades, and the drawing’s essentially the same. MR. HILTON-And we do have, as Jim said, a copy of what he sent. MR. VOLLARO-As long as it’s in the file. I just wanted to make sure that there’s, you know, we’re able to connect, some sort of connection there. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Mr. Miller. MR. MILLER-Okay. Good evening. As George said, the site’s across the street. It’s a 1.3 acre parcel, Bay Road and Hunter Brook Lane. John and Lara Currie propose building an office building of about 2,000 square feet, one story office building. The parking requirement for that building is seven spaces, which are provided with one handicapped. The office will probably 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) be occupied with three or four employees, and they have occasional visitors, customers, but not very often. The building is sited so the parking is around the side and we can have access to some storage doors to the back. There’s municipal water coming in off Hunter Brook Lane, and the septic is located to the rear of the property. All the drainage is contained on site, as it is now. There’ll be a drywell with a basin to the north, and there’s a basin to the southwest which will collect some of the runoff from that area of the site. That’s the area that Mr. Houston suggested adding some spot grades in there and showing the depth of that basin, and we’ll provide that. We’ve provided street trees, maples, red maples along Hunter Brook Lane, consistent with the other site plans along Hunter Brook Lane, and we also provided street trees along Bay Road, as required by the Town. In addition, we added some spruce trees in that area to reduce some of the view to the parking area. Site lighting is minimal. There’s no night hours. There’s one freestanding light, which as George talked about, is a cut off light. The other lights indicated are canopy lights or recess soffit lights, and, you know, so lighting’s minimal. Fairly simple, straightforward site plan. I guess I’ll open it up for any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-The first question I’ve got is what kind of business is it? MR. CURRIE-My name is John Currie, and I’m the applicant. We do transportation safety consulting business. The only work that’s done in the office is primarily work and answering telephones. Most of our customers are in Europe and Asia, and all over the world, as well as in different parts of the United States. The work that we do, the consulting and training work that we do, is off site. So the work that we do in the office is the administrative work. I write books and technical publications on transportation safety, and we use those books for the training that we do when we market those books, again, primarily through the Internet, and most of our business is through the Internet, but we very seldom have customers come to our office. Occasionally we have sales people who make a visit. We have UPS and Fed Ex that stop occasionally to make deliveries or pick up deliveries and other than that, there’s virtually no traffic at the site. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. All right. Why don’t we start right down our punch list. Design standards, questions, conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space plan, density, clustering, etc.? MR. RINGER-Looks good. MR. MAC EWAN-Development criteria? MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on the building design. In the back part of the building, there’s a corridor that’s labeled stairwell. Is that going up or down? MR. CURRIE-That goes down into the basement. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Just for storage, primarily? MR. CURRIE-Storage, heating system, and so on is down there. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Development criteria, site conditions? Street design layout? Traffic, pedestrian? Emergency access? Stormwater sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a question on that, and maybe Jim can help me out with that. It’s on SP-1, Jim, my SP-1 dated April 15, 2004, and under the septic system design, we’ve got some calculations there. I see how you get to the 200 gallons per day design flow, and you’ve got a 1,000 gallon tank, but what I don’t understand is, I know what the math says, it says 167, and that shouldn’t be square feet, by the way. I think you’re talking linear feet when you’re talking laterals, rather than square feet. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MILLER-Well, they do it in square feet, and then it’s two feet wide, and then you divide by two, and that gives you linear feet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-Because it talks about two foot width of a trench. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you say, at the end there you say use two 50 foot wide laterals to get 200 square feet. how do you do that? I mean, what’s the rationale? MR. MILLER-Well, yes, I copied that in from Tom Nace. It’s not clear. What’s required is 167.5 square foot of trench. So the trench is two foot. So each linear foot of lateral is two feet. So you take the 167.5, divide by two. So we need 83 and a quarter linear feet. So we used 100. MR. VOLLARO-That’s pretty good math. I don’t know how you come up with that. Laterals, to me, are always specified in linear feet. Most things I look at, and I don’t understand how you get to this. MR. MILLER-Well, when you do the original calculation, it’s done in square foot of percolation area, and because you do a two foot wide trench, stone trench, with the lateral in the center of it. So you’ve got an effective. MR. VOLLARO-If you go back to our 136 Code, it doesn’t say anything like that. It talks about gallons per day. It talks about flow rate. It talks about perc. MR. MILLER-This is the way Tom Nace has been doing it for 10 years that I know of, and I’ve never heard this question before. I don’t know what else. MR. VOLLARO-Jim, are you okay with this? MR. MILLER-Yes, help me out, Jim. MR. HOUSTON-I think, to clarify that, once you get to that 167 square feet, that should be divided by a two foot wide trench, and come up with a linear footage of lateral required, and then the next statement would be. MR. SANFORD-They’re in excess of it. MR. HOUSTON-Yes, and then you’re in excess. There’s a minimum of 83 some odd linear feet required, and he’s going to show 100. It just doesn’t read that well, and 167 divided by 2 foot width trench gives you the overall length of lateral required, and it’s going to be 83 something, and then 100 is being provided. That’s more than the minimum that’s required. So it’s acceptable. MR. MILLER-That’s what I was trying to say. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It would be nice if you put it in a little clearer definition on the plan, actually. MR. MILLER-I will. MR. MAC EWAN-Just make sure you talk to Mr. Nace about it. MR. MILLER-I will talk to Mr. Nace about that, and have him be a little more clear about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we okay on stormwater sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Buffering, landscaping? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Neighborhood character? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other environmental issues, other involved agencies, anything that I missed? MR. VOLLARO-No. I think this is a good application, myself. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen want to add? MR. MILLER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to add, when we did the site visits, I hadn’t been around to the front of the building next door that we approved recently, and that’s beautiful. So if this, I mean, the design’s very similar, and a nice product. MR. MILLER-It’s going to be similar, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Short Form, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOHN & LARA CURRIE, 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: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) 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 15 day of June, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Motion? Discussion? MR. VOLLARO-Do we want to eliminate the NOI from the Draft Resolution under Item One, or do we want to leave it be? MR. HILTON-Yes. I don’t have a problem with that, since Jim has mentioned that it appears to be under an acre, and just to give you some kind of idea, the site area is 1.12 acres. So in my mind, I was thinking over one acre requires the NOI, but, you know, upon further review, if the actual area of disturbance is below an acre, which it appears to be, that’s fine, and striking that is no problem. MR. MAC EWAN-The most recent set of plans you have in your possession reflect all the changes per the C.T. Male letter? MR. HILTON-We have a fax, which came from Jim Miller, in response to C.T. Male’s comments, which is the same thing Jim Houston here has, which I believe addressed the comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Those are the eight and a half by eleven Staff notes you’re talking about? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the date of that fax? MR. HILTON-I believe it’s the 11. June 11. thth MR. MAC EWAN-Note that in your motion. MR. MILLER-June the 11, that’s the amended date. th MR. MAC EWAN-The amended date for the plans. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-Well, do those plans all reflect what we heard? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’ll leave them tonight? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and they’re dated June 11. th MR. MAC EWAN-June 11. th MR. MILLER-Well, only two of them were revised. The two that Mr. Houston commented on, SP-2, and SP-3, the other ones there were no comments. So there wasn’t a revision date. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine, just as long as you leave that set with us tonight, we’ll have a set on hand. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want that in the motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I do. MR. VOLLARO-SP-2 and SP-3 are now dated June 11, 2004? MR. MAC EWAN-All you have to put in there is per the plans revised on June 11. That’s good th enough. That covers it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2004 JOHN & LARA CURRIE, 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: Site Plan No. 23-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: JOHN & LARA CURRIE SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: James Miller, Miller Associates Zone: PO Location: Lot 3, Hunter Brook Lane Applicant proposes to construct a new 2,004 sq. ft. office building with associated parking and landscaping on a 1.13 acre property. Professional Office uses in the PO zone require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SB 5-89, SB 21-89 Warren Co. Planning: 6/9/04 Tax Map No. 289.15-1-5 Lot size: 1.12 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: June 15, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/17/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/11/04, and 6/11 Staff Notes 6/9 Warren Co. Planning 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) 6/8 Notice of Public Hearing 6/3 Meeting Notice 5/26 PB from S. Smith, Fire Marshal: No issues 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 June 15, 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, 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: 1. That the drawings dated June 11, 2004 be retained by Staff, containing all the revisions. The application contains plans dated June 11, 2004. 2. Eliminate the NOI comment – so eliminated. Duly adopted this 15th day of June, 2004, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-The application will contain plans dated June 11, 2004. MR. MILLER-Mr. Chairman, to tell you truth, I mean, we have to submit, upon this approval, we’ve got to submit three sets, stamped by Tom and I, to the Town. So I think just to leave this set tonight is just giving you extra paper in your file. The final plan will have these. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have these until you get your final set in. That’s okay. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good job. Thank you. MR. MILLER-Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-2002 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION GREEN MT. DEV. CO. AGENT: JOHN GIEBINK ZONE: PO LOCATION: 673 BAY ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL OF AS BUILT SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WERE NOT 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) INCLUDED IN PHASE I OF THE PROJECT, AS WELL AS APPROVAL TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 8-02, AV 36-02 TAX MAP NO. 296.7-1-15 289.19-1-15 LOT SIZE: 25.01 ACRES JOHN GIEBINK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary. In my memo here, I’ve discussed some of the as built changes that the applicant is seeking approval for. Really the one addition to the plan, the one main addition, is the addition of 10 units to Building Number Two, which were not part of the previous approval. With this change, the site plan shows 18 new parking spaces located south of Building Two. The Zoning Code, as I’ve mentioned, states that the parking areas such as this need to be accessed or must provide a 24 foot drive aisle to access these spaces. The aisle shown on the plan is 20 and the site plan should be revised accordingly. As I’ve mentioned, the applicant has submitted an updated SPDES Permit which shows coverage for the additional units, shown in Building Two. Beyond that, that’s all I have at this time, and I’ll give the mic to Jim. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to make a comment that’s probably not going to go over well with Staff, but I take exception to the phrase, proposed landscaping proposed gazebos. Those were approved. Those were part of the original approvals. They weren’t proposed. That was part of our approval process. MR. HILTON-No, absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so it’s noted that way. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. GIEBINK-Good evening. My name’s John Giebink. I’m an owner of Cedars Senior Living community. With me is also Joel Bianchi from Chazen Engineering. We’ve submitted some modifications which Staff has reviewed. Most of those items are a result of encountering some unforeseen site conditions, ledge rock, etc., during construction of Building Number One. My letter of April 8 gives you substantial detail on each of the items. If it pleases the Board, I can th highlight some of those, or just go through the letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Highlight them, probably, and if we get asked specifics, we’ll ask specifics, I guess. MR. GIEBINK-Most of the items that were encountered were due to basically when we started construction of the project, we had taken test borings in through the building area there, but not on the rest of the site, and we actually encountered a very substantial, basically within six inches of surface, a ledge rock vein which went like that down through the project. We actually addressed this in a letter to Craig Brown back during construction when we hit that, and basically that created, if you could look to, I don’t know if my letter’s there, but Items Number Three, Four, which sort of contain the most items. What we had to do was, since basically everything was designed relative to the road, the parking and the building, we had to blast through the ledge to keep the rock basically on grade, we had to blast some of the parking here to keep that on grade. What the changes were was, instead of blasting an extra 20 feet or 30 feet wide, to be able to get this piece of sidewalk in, we did not do that, because we have sidewalk access throughout, through this sidewalk, and this is all private road in through there. So we didn’t feel there was a need to duplicate a sidewalk in this location, considering the amount of extra blasting that would have to be encountered in through there. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-Can I ask just one quick question? Where the original drawings supplied for this deficient, in terms of identifying bedrock to that depth? How far down did you say it was? MR. GIEBINK-Again, in terms of original drawings, everything, the testing was done was for the building area, because that’s where we, we did not test, you know, out in through where that road area was done. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the building area had no ledge rock? MR. GIEBINK-The building area had no ledge rock. That’s why I said a very anomaly. If you walked out there, and I don’t know if (lost words), but you walked out through the area was a field in through here and trees. I mean, walking out through there, you would not think that there was ledge rock sitting there, and we did borings for the building because we had to do that for our foundation, etc., and encountered no ledge rock there, down to several feet below the bottom of footings. So, I mean, that’s what I ended up in encountering through there. So the result, the changes were, the deletion of that piece of sidewalk, because we had the continuation of sidewalk already in through the project. The other thing was, in terms of where the gazebo was to be placed, if you go out, if you’ve seen the site, basically, this area in through here, which was originally planned to basically be sort of flat between the parking and the roadway in through here is now, it’s basically, because the ledge rock, it’s like eight feet high, and so you couldn’t even get handicap, you can’t get handicap accessibility out to where the gazebo was to be planned. So we moved that back to this location here. That’s in place, so that that is handicap accessible, you know, to that location. There was also a community garden, which was to be out there. We’ve relocated that, and I’ll flip to the landscaping plan in a second, but that’s still in existence for the project. That’s been relocated down through here. So it’s actually more accessible to both Building One and Building Number Two. MR. VOLLARO-Where was your original septic location? MR. GIEBINK-The septic’s out here. MR. VOLLARO-The original septic location, was there? MR. GIEBINK-Yes. This is the septic location for Building Number One, and the septic location for Building Number Two is this piece of land, which extends up through here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. GIEBINK-So, and I’ll speak to that when I get to the last modification. The other, another item was in terms of, when the original plans were drawn with topos that came off of U.S.G.S. and the topos that were done basically when it was all wooded site, showed the likelihood of needing a retaining wall in this location and retaining wall going out through there. When we came to construct in through there, we basically, you know, with the construction and layout done, the grades, the existing grades that were there is basically a couple of feet higher than what were on the plans, and so there was no need to put retaining walls in there. Again, if you drive out through the site, you can see it, the grade. MR. VOLLARO-Are you saying the plans reflected a different elevation than what you encountered when you started the? MR. GIEBINK-The existing topography was different than was, no the existing topography that was thought to be in that location was on the plans, how do I explain this, I mean, so. MR. VOLLARO-Obviously, the plans reflected the wrong elevation, it seems to me. MR. GIEBINK-Of existing land topography, that’s correct, in through that area. There was not a two foot interval, quadrant by quadrant, over 20 acres of land. Most, in large land area projects, use U.S.G.S., plus also this was entirely wooded in through here, so, I mean, what we’re talking 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) about was a differential of a two foot, you know, in through this area through here, and again, it was noted so there was no need to build the retaining walls. I mean, from a safety standpoint, transportation standpoint, it’s obviously much better not to have retaining walls and guardrails. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. I see a general inconsistency here, between what the drawings might have shown and what you actually encountered in the field, and that’s disturbing to me somewhat. MR. GIEBINK-So that was relative to that retaining wall and this retaining wall. If you go out to the site, you can see that there’s no need to have those retaining walls in there. It works out very well from a grassy standpoint. In terms of parking spaces, the original approval was for 81 parking spaces with 60 parking spaces in the front and 21 spaces in the back. The layout that was on the plans, and you’re going to hit me on this one again, but the layout of the parking spaces showed them at eight foot six. MR. VOLLARO-Instead of nine. MR. GIEBINK-Instead of nine. So we installed the parking by the dimensional areas in terms of for the curbing, etc., came to line it at nine foot spaces. We came up short. So therefore we will add six spaces in. So we will keep the exact same number of spaces that was approved for that Building One project. On the landscaping, that would show the, so going back, basically, to where the landscaping change was relative to this center island in through there, where basically is ledge rock is, is very close to surface, we found some pockets to be able to plant in a few of the deciduous trees. Three deciduous trees were eliminated, at this location. The plantings that were to be as a screening of parking from the roadway, we have not installed, because again basically the hill is eight feet high, and provides a screening of the parking, you know, from that curve of the roadway. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I have to ask a question. I mean, when this Board made the approvals, this project was reviewed at great length and in great detail, and certain conditions of your approval for this site plan were predicated on either the gazebo being there or a certain lighting fixture being designed with certain illuminations. Landscaping you’ve done at a certain effort. How do you arbitrarily decide that you didn’t want to do that and you weren’t going to do that? MR. GIEBINK-Two things. One, we did submit a letter, relative to the physical changes to Craig Brown, back, basically three months into construction, as soon as we hit the ledge, talking about the elimination of the sidewalk and gazebo relocation and those things in through there. MR. MAC EWAN-Were you, at that time, given directions to come back in front of this Board to seek modification? MR. GIEBINK-No. I actually, in the letter it says please let me know if I need to do anything else relative to that. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you explain the not fulfilling the obligation of landscaping? MR. GIEBINK-I’ll be honest, this is our first project in New York, and in your Town. In our other projects in Vermont and New Hampshire, those kind of landscaping changes would not have come up as a requirement to come back in for modification approval, and it did come up, and so that’s why we are here. I don’t think the landscaping in here adds to the project now. If you want to require it to stay in, we’ll go out and plant it in. MR. MAC EWAN-But part of that particular landscaping you’re referring to was for screening purposes. MR. GIEBINK-That’s correct, but. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Which is important. I mean, it’s not like, you know, instead of 15 maple trees you only put up 10. I mean, this particular portion of the project was an important integral part of the project where it was to act as a screening for Bay Road, or for not for Bay Road, from that area on the plans. MR. GIEBINK-From the driveway, which is a private driveway going back to here, and I agree, and that’s why I responded to that is, if you go out to the site, and you are in the parking area here, and in the parking area there, you cannot see that roadway. The elevation of the land in between here and here, that’s eight feet plus higher. So the land itself provides the screening. MR. VOLLARO-It seems to me that whoever shot the elevations to do the original drawings had a problem. It looks like to me that the elevations were incorrect on the original drawings. We made some assumptions when we looked at those, and we talked about screening that road, because we thought that trees would do it, because we looked at the elevations, and it seemed practical at the time. MR. GIEBINK-Excuse me for interrupting, but let me answer that. The original grading plan showed, for that to be cut basically flat. When we encountered. This was all ledge, and we’d have to go in and blast. MR. VOLLARO-You have ledge there as well? MR. GIEBINK-Yes. This entire, the ledge ran like this, through the project, okay. The high point of the ledge was basically in through here. If you go out to the site, you can see where we’ve blasted through to get the road on grade. This area here we did not blast. So that’s been left at the higher elevation, which did show as existing topography, you know, on the approved plans. MR. VOLLARO-That elevation is now bedrock, it’s ledge? MR. GIEBINK-Six inches down it’s bedrock. MR. SANFORD-How much bedrock did you find near your leach fields? MR. GIEBINK-Zero. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So getting back to your landscaping thing here where you say that the higher grade forms a better screening than what was proposed, or what was approved, not proposed, but what was approved with the landscaping plan. MR. GIEBINK-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Your letter also makes comment that a couple of deciduous trees were also removed in there. What’s a couple, two, three, five? MR. GIEBINK-There were, noted on the plan, there were three deciduous trees. We have, in other places we’ve relocated. We haven’t changed the number of trees, and we added 55, you know, deciduous bushes and stuff into the entrance, and we’ve also added some additional evergreen trees out in back of the building. Certainly, and I’ve made no bones about it, I mean, certainly the biggest difference is the evergreen screening that was at the parking area. As I’ve said, I mean, if you go out to that site right now, if I’m standing on the parking, five feet away from me, that the hill goes like that, and the grade is there, and it keeps going up to basically eight feet high. So, the ground by itself provides screening. It’s not the same type of screening as having trees out there, but it does provide screening. We’d be more than happy to plant some low brushes, you know, low deciduous bushes in there, if the Board feels that that’s, you know, that that’s desirable from an aesthetic standpoint. From a screening standpoint, it’s not needed. So, it’s more of an aesthetic item, and I’m not sure if anybody from the Board has been 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) out to the site, you know, in the past month or so, as all the landscaping has grown in. I mean, I think it looks pretty nice out through there. MR. MAC EWAN-We were out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Most of us were there on Saturday. MR. GIEBINK-Okay. Great. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if I missed this here. Can you jump back up a couple of lines relative to the gazebo and why that was removed and replaced with a concrete padding? MR. GIEBINK-It wasn’t removed. I mean, the base of the gazebo is always a concrete slab. It was relocated back because to put it up on top up here would have made about a 10 or 15% grade to get up to it. So it wouldn’t be handicapped accessible. We moved it back to this location, being drawn back this close in to the existing covered walkway. It was an aesthetic decision not to cover it with a roof. So, all we’re doing, what’s happened to that place is not to cover over the gazebo floor area, basically to provide, since it’s brought closer in, is to provide so when you’re sitting in through here and standing in through here you get a broader expanse and you’re looking out over this basically what has become a hillside in that location. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bullet item number, I’m just trying to catch back up to your, bullet item seven, now, with your emergency road required being 20 feet wide, per our Code Enforcement Officer. MR. GIEBINK-The approved, the plan that was approved by the Board was actually a narrower road. I think it was either 12 or 14 feet, with one foot of gravel each side. When we went in to get the building permit, Mr. Hatin said no, per the Building Code, it has to be 20 feet wide paved or gravel. So, we’ve put it in as a 20 foot wide paved area going around there, because that was required by the Town under Building Code. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Number Eight. MR. GIEBINK-I’m not sure how the plan was interpreted, because roof drainage is collected by gutters with downspouts out, and then disperses over the grassed lawn area, to get treatment, and then that goes into the catch basins which continue and go into the stormwater basin. So I don’t really understand why the comment came through on an inspection saying why it’s not connected into a stormwater system because it is all connected to the stormwater system. All roof drainage is collected through gutters, comes down through downspouts, is directed across grass to get, you know, purification, anything like that, and then immediately goes into catch basins, you know, which are in the parking areas around the building, which then is part of the stormwater system. We also have foundation drainage which is directly connected into the stormwater catch basins. MR. MAC EWAN-So how is your roof drainage working now? What are you doing with it? MR. GIEBINK-It’s collected by gutters. Comes down to a downspout, down to the ground level. It disperses across the grass, which then flows, since all of the grading and drainage for the whole project comes in to catch basins on the grading plan you can see it comes into catch basins which is all collected, and then all that is piped down into a stormwater detention basin located here, which then discharges out. So it’s, all the drainage from the entire project is collected within the stormwater system, via catch basins, and then out to the stormwater detention pond. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can we jump down to Number Eleven? MR. GIEBINK-Sure. When we presented the plans to you, in terms of the design of the light fixture, we had based that design, we had actually never used, physically used, that light fixture 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) at a project before. We were three quarters of the way through construction of our project near Concord, New Hampshire, using the light fixture there, and we used the same spacing. We directed Chazen to put the same spacing as the engineers over in Concord used for the light spacing on those lights. When we turned the lights on over in Concord at that project, the town came to us and said, turn off 2/3rds of them, because it was just too much illumination. I mean, it basically turned it into a commercial shopping, you know, a parking lot kind of deal. So, we, on this project, in response to that comment from over there, in terms of lighting, took out three or four light fixtures. Instead of five light fixtures coming down that center island, coming in to the project, there are three light fixtures, SP-6. We basically took out two of the five in the intermediary locations coming down through there and one more in an intermediary location after crossing the little brook. The other two fixtures that were not put in were taken out because the sidewalk doesn’t continue around. So there was no sidewalk crossing at, where those two light fixtures would be installed, and I’m pointing here on the plan right here, but I believe, I mean, I’ve been there at night. I mean, there is well more than enough illumination out in through the project, because not only do you have these fixtures. You’ve also got, underneath the covered walkways that lead in, there’s another ceiling fixtures in those which illuminate out, you know, the entire entry into the building. So it’s a very safe site, and honestly, if we’d not taken them out, I believe somebody would be saying, please take the bulbs out on a few of them. MR. HUNSINGER-So the fixtures that you installed were the same fixtures that we had approved, you just put in less of them? MR. GIEBINK-The same fixtures all the way down in through. The parking lot fixtures we changed to match the ones coming all the way into the project. The ones at the parking lot were shoebox fixtures, and we did change those to the lantern type fixture, to basically bring uniformity into the project. MR. VOLLARO-Is the Type B light pole, they’re all? MR. GIEBINK-That is the fixture for the entire project. MR. VOLLARO-For the entire project? MR. GIEBINK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and in order to reduce this light level, you’ve reduced the wattage of the bulb? MR. GIEBINK-No, we took out five fixtures, five out of whatever, twenty fixtures. MR. VOLLARO-My drawing is dated 2/16/04. Is that what we’re looking at? MR. GIEBINK-That’s correct. There was on, it’s hard to piece this together. If you look at the bottom, right here, that’s the extension out to Bay Road. So there were five fixtures in that island with the landscaping coming down in, and we eliminated two. So we’d have three fixtures, one at each end of the island and one in the middle. MR. VOLLARO-Normally what I like to see in the luminar schedule is some information on what the average lighting is on the site, what the minimum lighting is on the site. So I can do a four to one uniformity ratio calculation, and it’s not on here and I can’t do that with these, because I don’t know what the average is. I don’t even know what the minimum is. So we have a requirement for a four to one uniformity ratio for lighting in our Code, and normally it’s derived by taking the average over the site, and divide it by the minimum, and you come up with a ratio as a result of that, and I can’t do that here. So I don’t know what the uniformity ratio is on this site. I have no idea. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. GIEBINK-I guess we look, I mean, I understand you’ve got uniformity ratio, and I guess we look at it from what’s good for the residents there, in terms of, I mean, they certainly have plenty of. MR. VOLLARO-Doing what you did was sort of arbitrary on your part, without even asking this Planning Board for a modification in that area. MR. GIEBINK-That’s why we’re here. If you want us to put them in, the conduit goes through, and we’ll put more in. MR. VOLLARO-No. I don’t think that’s the point. I don’t think that’s the point. I think this is an all after the fact situation that we’ve got to deal with now, in terms of our original approval versus what is on that site today as the as built. MR. GIEBINK-I understand, and I apologize for that. I’m going by our history, you know, 15, 20 years in Vermont and New Hampshire, which is not Queensbury and you have your own regulations, but these type of changes that we’ve made would never have bothered anybody there. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s there, this is here. MR. GIEBINK-I understand that. MR. MAC EWAN-All I’m saying, that’s an argument you shouldn’t be making, because that’s there, this is here. MR. GIEBINK-Yes. It was wrong, but also what we based it on was when I sent the letter in to the Town relative to these other changes, need anything else, you know, there was no discussion about having the need to come back to the Board. I saw those as much as greater or major changes. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, when you wrote your original letter relative to running in to bedrock, at the depths you did, you did, in the same letter at that time, did you say, by the way, we’re going to eliminate some landscaping, we’re going to change some lighting? MR. GIEBINK-No, I didn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to move a gazebo around, we’re going to move this around? MR. GIEBINK-Yes, we talked about the gazebo. Yes, we talked about the sidewalk, and yes we talked about the road and the grading in through that area. We did not talk about the lighting, but many of the other features that I’ve mentioned we did talk about. MR. RINGER-You never got a response from Craig Brown to your letter? MR. GIEBINK-No. MR. RINGER-Nothing? MR. GIEBINK-No. MR. RINGER-I mean, no? MR. GIEBINK-No. MR. RINGER-That’s very unusual. MR. MAC EWAN-Item Twelve? I think we’ve pretty well got that covered. Right? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. GIEBINK-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Unless there’s something different. MR. GIEBINK-No, the landscaping we’re showing, I mean we’ve taken out some things. We’ve added some things, and those are shown on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question on the last page. Are you John? MR. GIEBINK-I am John. MR. VOLLARO-I notice it says in Item One there, when we talk about the cottages, we’re not going to do the cottages now, but it says, however because of our urgency in receiving plan approval, our low incoming senior housing funding was time restricted. What is that? MR. GIEBINK-When we went through this process, we had received approval from New York State Division of Housing for certain subsidized financing to be able to build building one, that had cut off timeframes. If we didn’t have approvals by certain dates, you know, we would lose that funding. So, if we had actually talked about that at those hearings, so if we’re jumping to that topic relative to the modifications, what we are requesting on that is, as noted, the original submittal to the Board was basically for 146 units, 62 units in this building. MR. VOLLARO-And 52 in the other. MR. GIEBINK-Fifty-two in this building and the back land out over here having 32 cottage units, okay. As we went through the process, it became evident that we were going to have to use all of the land back there for on site systems because the State was going to require us to have one separate system for Building One, and a completely separate system for Building Number Two. So rather than having to withdraw the application, we basically eliminated the cottages. Left this building as a 52 unit building. MR. VOLLARO-To me, that’s a major convolution in the sense of change in the site plan. When you eliminate things that we previously approved. MR. GIEBINK-No, no, no. What do you mean eliminate? No, no. That was, the cottages were eliminated as the process was going through. That was at Preliminary plan. Our plan that you approved did not have the cottages on it at all. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. GIEBINK-No, please don’t misunderstand. I mean, the approved plan is for 62 units in Building One, 52 units in Building Number Two. MR. VOLLARO-It says here the original submission to the Town, I assume that’s us. MR. GIEBINK-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Showed Building One with 62 apartment units and Building Two with 52 apartment units, plus 32 college units. MR. GIEBINK-And we amended that plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, those cottages were eliminated early on in the review. MR. VOLLARO-They were? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. GIEBINK-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. GIEBINK-Because a large part of the discussion then went on to the septic systems and all of that, relative to the property out in back. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about that for a minute. How is your septic system functioning now? MR. GIEBINK-They’re functioning good. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve been hearing rumors that you’ve been having some septic problems up there. MR. GIEBINK-Absolutely, I have not heard one. If you can tell us, if you’ve heard from somebody, have them call me. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have any intentions of hooking in to the sewer? MR. GIEBINK-We’ve looked at that, and at the price tags that are being given to us, both from a capital cost and from an operating cost, there’s no way that this project can economically tie into that. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you looking for this Board to give approval tonight to start the second phase of that, so that you can get your funding, Building Two? MR. GIEBINK-We have approval for a 52 unit building here. It’s totally in terms of the site, septic systems, etc., because we now have the SPDES Permit. The SPDES Permit is actually for a 62 unit building. We’re looking for approval to amend that to add 10 units to this building right here, which under the density calculations, we still are under on a density calculation basis. MR. MAC EWAN-I believe this project, refresh my memory, George, but we phased this project. Right? MR. HILTON-I’m going to have to get the resolution. MR. GIEBINK-This was not a phased project. JOEL BIANCHI MR. BIANCHI-My recollection, if I can, I’m Joel Bianchi with Chazen Engineering. My recollection, however you can review the minutes from two years ago. The project was approved, approved in its entirety, conditioned that when a building permit for Building Two was applied for, that a SPDES Permit had to be in hand for that additional septic system in excess of 10,000 gallons. MR. MAC EWAN-In light of what’s come out in tonight’s discussion, I’m apprehensive to want to hang my hat on this modification adding more units, when there is a potential that you’re going to run into bedrock problems with the proposed second septic field. MR. BIANCHI-I can discuss that. When we did the septic system, the first one, per DEC we have to do, I believe we probably did about five to ten test pits throughout that to determine if there was bedrock present, and we did not encounter anything to that first building, for the first field, nor was it encountered when they actually physically built the field. We did the same thing for the second field that’s further up the hill. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-How many test pits did you do for the second field? MR. BIANCHI-We did three test pits for the second field and eight perc tests. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know where those three test pits are located? MR. BIANCHI-Yes. They’re located right on the plan. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s kind of hard to see it on here, on this version. MR. BIANCHI-If you look on the lower inset plan one, you can see the test pits run generally along the center of the fields, with the perc tests on the outer reaches. MR. MAC EWAN-Am I looking at one that says, it looks like TP-13? MR. BIANCHI-Yes. “TP” are test pits, and “PT’s” are perc tests. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now, the question I’ve got for you, you’re also looking at areas for expansion or replacement of the field, right, that you have in phantom? MR. BIANCHI-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That would be to the west? MR. BIANCHI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you do test pits all the way up through there, too? I’m seeing one on there? I see two. MR. BIANCHI-Yes. We did two additional test pits, Test Pits 17 and Test Pit 18. I believe, it’s sort of obliqued by the, one of the text, but we did additional ones up there, per DEC’s requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-And this vein of bedrock that you ran into, opposite the ring road, or opposite your green area there, your common area, I guess you’d want to call it. How wide was that vein? MR. GIEBINK-Not very wide. The eastern side of it, basically dropped off, you know, as a cliff, I mean, underground cliff. It ran, and my finger’s right here, basically ran like that, and then went back. When we put in the catch basins, etc, through here, we did not hit any bedrock down to the bottom of the catch basins. So it basically came in through here, and we’ve installed, you know, these catch basins are all installed all the way up and through, and this roadway is graveled in up through that area, and also. MR. MAC EWAN-How wide was the vein? MR. GIEBINK-I know it dropped off from there, and it went out. It was a vein that on the east side was like that, and on the west side went like that. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re still not telling me how wide it was. Is it 50 feet wide? 100 feet wide? 200 feet wide? MR. GIEBINK-Seventy to eighty feet wide. MR. MAC EWAN-Are these test pit locations you’ve got shown on Inset Plan One accurate to the exact position where you actually took the test pits in the field, or are they a representation? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. BIANCHI-I would probably say they’re plus or minus two or three feet. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you, again, with your fingers, for whatever it’s worth, trace for me there the bedrock ledge that you saw. MR. GIEBINK-Like that. MR. VOLLARO-And then it stopped? MR. GIEBINK-No, it was on the east side, as I’ve said, there was basically an underground cliff. I mean, it was an upheaval, I don’t know the geological terms, and on this side it sloped down, so that by the time we got to this point in the road, we didn’t have to blast anymore. It was down below the base levels of what the road had to be. By the time we got up into these catch basins installed in through there, it was below the bottom of catch basins which are basically eight, nine, ten feet deep. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now let me ask you this. What level is your finished floor at, in Building Two? What’s the finished floor elevation in Building Two? MR. GIEBINK-The basement floor is 359. MR. VOLLARO-I’m kind of looking, trying to see, you know, are you going to encounter any ledge when you start getting into Building Number Two at all? Because that’s, that vein is running right down toward that building. MR. GIEBINK-This portion of the building there is slab on grade. There is no basement underneath that area. So that grade is at 370. MR. VOLLARO-You have to put footings under the slab, however, right? MR. GIEBINK-Correct, but those, if there were ledge there, you just put it down to ledge. MR. VOLLARO-Are you anticipating running into ledge, possibly, in that area? MR. GIEBINK-No, because, as I’ve said, we’ve installed these catch basins. This stormwater system is complete down through Catch Basin Number 10, and I can’t read that invert there, but I think it’s 363 is the invert right there. So that catch basin has been installed with encountering no ledge. So we probably went down, when constructing it, down to 362. MR. MAC EWAN-What catch basin are you referring to? MR. GIEBINK-Catch Basin Number 10. MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t tell if that’s a 336 or a 386. MR. GIEBINK-Well, it’s got to be, since the first floor is 370, the invert, it’s hard to read, but I’m assuming it’s 363. MR. VOLLARO-I wouldn’t want you to come strolling back in here with another change because you hit some ledge in there and couldn’t get the wing of that building, although you say you’ll put your footings on the ledge. That’s possible. MR. GIEBINK-That’s one thing. All the site improvements are in. The water line is complete. The storm system is complete. The sewer lines out are complete. So in terms of subsurface utility lines, roadway, etc., that’s complete. MR. VOLLARO-All those force mains are in? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. GIEBINK-The force main coming from Building One is all in, and the force main from Building Two goes behind the building and out. MR. SEGULJIC-Have you put your test pits in the area of Building Two yet? MR. GIEBINK-No, we have not. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. George, did you make a determination? MR. HILTON-Well, I can, in looking at the resolution, there’s no specific condition that says Phase II will be approved separately. There is, however, a condition that Phase II is dependent upon the issuance of a revised SPDES Permit, which they have provided. MR. SEGULJIC-So, what you’re really asking for is to increase the Building Two by, well, to construction Building Two and increase it by 10 units? MR. GIEBINK-That is correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s the reason to do that, the need for doing that? MR. GIEBINK-We’re allowed to, under density, and with that 62 and 62, 124 units, we would still be under total density as was calculated there, which I believe is 150 some odd units, and so that’s, you know, by the density, that’s what we would like to be able to do, and certainly from being able to provide affordable housing, because again, this will be Division of Housing New York State affordable senior housing. So, I think, you know, what we’re trying to do is to create, you know, more affordable senior housing. MR. SEGULJIC-And Building One is full, then, I assume? MR. GIEBINK-Yes. Building One was full a month after it was occupied. We’ve got a waiting list of 60 people already. MR. HUNSINGER-Where are most of your tenants coming from? MR. GIEBINK-Eighty percent of them from this County, and from, I couldn’t tell you exactly town, because we do surveys, about 80%, 85% are from the County here. MR. SANFORD-Just a technical question. I noticed, when we were up there, that on the first building, you have those air conditioners hanging out of every window, or not out of every window, but every unit had a separate, stuck in the wall, air conditioner. Are you going to do the same process with Building Two, or are you going to use something more of a central type of an approach? MR. GIEBINK-No, I mean, what we do, I mean, in terms of, to A/C an entire building, including every single unit, so that everybody’s got unit control of air conditioning would be cost prohibitive. It wouldn’t work for this kind of a project. We do condition the common areas, but the individual units are done by individual unit air conditioners. MR. SANFORD-I think you do have an attractive Building Number One. I mean, except for when you get to that area and you look and that takes away from the aesthetics considerably. Just to throw that out there. MR. SEGULJIC-And it just seems to me as if you ran into some unfortunate bedrock. I mean, you probably wished you had better planned for it, but, you know, these things happen, and you agreed to put back in the landscaping in that area. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other discussion, comments? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think from a density point of view, the fact that the cottages are no longer there, asking for another 10 units is probably not out of line. MR. SEGULJIC-And we’re getting a lot of green space. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a problem with it. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either. MR. MAC EWAN-What have you got for a motion that somebody wants to toss up? MR. RINGER-Is there a way that you could take six feet out of your boulevard entrance, and open that up? You’re getting a, I really think an inordinate calls for EMS and fire to your complex, and they have one heck of a time getting in, because of the entrance to that boulevard. We’ve hit it a few times already, and we’re averaging nearly three calls a week to your place because somebody’s cooked something on a stove and burned it, for fire, and EMS because of the type of complex that it is. We respond to EMS as well as fire with the fire truck, and EMS goes with the fire truck, too, and making that turn into your complex because of that boulevard, and I know we asked for the boulevard and insisted on it. MR. GIEBINK-I’m sorry, but I was going to say that. MR. RINGER-I know it, and I’ve been taking so much grief over that and a couple of other places we’ve put in, but is that a, taking three or four or six feet out of that, the entrance? MR. GIEBINK-I mean, sure, you could take out the end of the boulevard. MR. RINGER-It’s just that we have trouble coming in. MR. GIEBINK-From which direction? MR. RINGER-Well, we always come from up Bay Road, so we’d be coming from the south heading north. So we’d make a left hand turn into your complex, and, you know, we could slow down and almost stop and make it in, but unfortunately not all our drivers have a tendency to slow down to make the turn. MR. GIEBINK-If you think that’s important, and the Board. MR. RINGER-Well, we can’t, it’s not part of this, and I can’t insist on it, but I’m asking if possible, I think the fire department and the emergency squad would appreciate cutting that thing back. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you talking about moving back the center boulevard? MR. RINGER-Yes. Just that first six feet or three feet, just to make that turn coming in. It does present a problem, and you’re getting an awful lot of calls out there. I’m surprised at the number of calls you’re getting. I would say you’re averaging more than three calls a week, for fire and EMS. Some days it seems like two a day. Between you and the Landing, it’s really. MR. GIEBINK-Well, that’s also relative to what the, and I can’t think of the name, how they wanted our alarm system to work. In lots of other locations we have a buffer in between. So you don’t get that many. Your folks over here wanted every single call to go through and be responded to. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. RINGER-And I think the calls should be responded to. What I’m saying is we’re having some difficulty, because of that entrance, getting in. MR. GIEBINK-We can take back three or four feet. It’s a piece of concrete curb that would cut back. MR. RINGER-I realize we, as a Board, insisted to have that boulevard, and I don’t mind the boulevard, but if we could say cut that thing back three or four feet, it would really help the emergency services. MR. HILTON-It might be just a minor point, but there is a light pole at the end of that boulevard that may have to be relocated. MR. GIEBINK-Right. I was looking at that, but it’s back, it’s probably back eight to ten feet. So you could take, probably take off four feet without. MR. RINGER-It would really help the emergency services if you could cut that back, and I think we would approve it as a Board, if you wanted to cut it back. MR. MAC EWAN-What do we need to do here, for a motion? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess basically we have to do some, we have to agree on the other 52 units to make Unit Two look like Unit One. MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone satisfied with the landscaping changes and the lighting changes? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I think he should put the landscaping in the former area. MR. VOLLARO-When you say do I agree with it, I can’t tell you that there’s a uniformity ratio of four to one on that site, because I don’t know what the average is and I don’t know what the min is. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe just from a generic standpoint, it’s better than what was approved because it’s less lighting. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. RINGER-Yes, it’s much better. Five less bulbs. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s not very technical, but that’s okay. You can swing at that one if you’d like. MR. RINGER-Well, we approved it before with the lighting, and they’ve actually reduced the lighting. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when we did this, it was before Wal-Mart. We learned a lot when we did the Wal-Mart, we learned a lot about lighting, really learned a lot about how to look at lighting. So we may not have done a really first class job on looking at the lighting on this particular thing, and there’s no way for me to calculate. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the consensus of the Board is that they’re satisfied with the lighting. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. That’s okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we satisfied with the landscaping? Changes in the landscaping? MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing I would say, he’s offered to put the landscaping back in the. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-The buffering, is that what you’re talking about, the screening from the road to the parking area? MR. VOLLARO-He’s going to be putting trees on top of bedrock. That doesn’t make any sense to me at all. MR. SEGULJIC-Then it’s too shallow to bedrock, then? MR. GIEBINK-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That tree will be dead in a year. MR. GIEBINK-We basically scraped off through that area, you know, the stuff on top, and then came back in with six to eight inches of topsoil, so that you could get a good lawn up through there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s okay. MR. RINGER-It’s really hard to believe that you didn’t know there was bedrock there. I mean, you look across the road at the College and you see the way the College was built because of the bedrock. MR. GIEBINK-You can take a look at my contracts with my site contractor. I didn’t even have an allowance for site, for ledge rock in it. MR. RINGER-But that whole area. MR. HUNSINGER-The only outstanding question I have is, and I’m looking at the Site Plan Inspection Report Form, Item Eight, downspouts from roof gutters would drain into the ground to the ground surface. All roof drainage must be discharged to the proposed storm sewer. I’m not sure how we handled that. MR. GIEBINK-That was my explanation of how, that was why I was confused because all our roof drainage does discharge into the stormwater system. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. No, I understand what you’re saying. I guess my question is, if it was the assumption of the Board, and of our engineers, when we approved the original site plan, that the downspouts be discharged directly into the stormwater management system, and then that wasn’t done, then we may have to reanalyze the whole stormwater system. MR. HOUSTON-Well, from my standpoint, whether it goes across the ground surface and gets into the catch basin and gets out to the stormwater basin or whether it gets piped to there is of no relevance as far as the numbers are concerned. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s the answer I needed. I mean, I think I would tend to agree with the applicant. I think it is a better design to have it go across the lawn. MR. HOUSTON-It’s just a, yes, site convenience or whether, if that flow across the grass creates a problem for traversing the grass, or if there’s any pedestrian traffic in there, you wouldn’t want to have that, but that’s basically their, I would say their call. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HOUSTON-But as far as the overall stormwater management, that’s not a. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of the engineering of the system, it wouldn’t change the rates or the ability of this system to handle the 50 year storm, as originally designed, or anything else? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other issues? MR. SEGULJIC-Just one last one. Did you put a bus stop at this site? MR. GIEBINK-Yes. It’s out, it’s paved out there, right where it’s showing. MR. SEGULJIC-Do many people use it? MR. GIEBINK-I don’t believe so. MR. RINGER-That’s a long walk for them to walk out there. MR. SEGULJIC-I was just curious. Okay. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll make a motion to approve resolution Site Plan No. 25-02, Modification, for Green Mountain Development Company, in accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff. MR. RINGER-Would you put a condition on there that they will move the boulevard back by, you tell me. Help us out, four feet? MR. GIEBINK-Four feet. MR. RINGER-George, do you have a problem with it? MR. HILTON-No, not that I just have a comment. There were some C.T. Male comments, and I don’t know if we got to discussing them. Again, they’re not in your packet because our notes went out beforehand, but I did want to give Jim a chance to maybe touch on them. MR. HOUSTON-I just want to briefly talk on what was discussed in my comments. Again, referring to stormwater permitting, if the proposed project results in more than an acre of disturbance, it would be necessary for the owner to obtain permit coverage for stormwater discharges, from this site, a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be needed prior to starting construction. I’m not sure where it stands for the, what was done for this first phase or what not. Consideration should be given to requesting copies of these documents at the site plan approval stage. I had these comments. This is a June 10 letter, last th week. I haven’t received anything in response to these, and it’s just something we want to either discuss or at least have some path of how we’re going to proceed. I have two other comments in addition. I’ll just layout all the comments that I had. Regarding stormwater. Calculations should be submitted demonstrating that a proposed stormwater basin is in conformance with the New York State stormwater management and design manual. I think in the first phase it went through, the design manual was not out and published at that time, and now that it is and we’re subject to those regulations, we have the ability to check that, to see whether it’s in compliance with that. The second and last comment is the runoff along the proposed roadway on the southeast corner of Building Two appears to be trapped in the roadway. The grading in this area should be revised to insure positive drainage. It is not clear how the runoff from this section of the road is being treated per the design manual, and that’s, I just focused on the stormwater aspects of it, but it’s best to hear from the. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. BIANCHI-If you’d allow me to respond on that, we permitted, when we designed this, Mr. Houston is actually correct, the new manual for design regs were not in place, however they were in draft form at that time, and they were somewhat out for review so you could use them at your leisure, I guess. At the time we did prepare a SWPPP. We did prepare a stormwater plan as close to the regs as they were in the form in which we did the project at that time. Major components include quality and quantity components. That is, if you would say the major components. So we did implement those at that time. There was a SWPPP. The Town has that. The Town reviewed that. The management plan was by the regs at that time done and complete. The permit, the Notice of Intent and Termination at that time, which it was called, was filed for the entire project. The project sort of overlapped, when the new regs came into place. However, we had the forethought to do what they allow you to extend your coverage by filing a new permit to extend your coverage onto the, you know, under the new permit which we did back in August of last year. So we’ve received an acknowledgement of receipt of that from DEC, extending our coverage. MR. HUNSINGER-But we don’t have a copy of that on file, apparently. MR. HILTON-No, not that I know of. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s that called? MR. GIEBINK-Basically it’s, DEC calls it an acknowledgement of receipt of your filing a new Notice of Intent. It’s a new form that they’ve created. Their regulations have become more strict, and, as I’m sure the Board is aware of. MR. VOLLARO-I guess this information at least ought to be in the hands of Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s putting it in the resolution as we speak. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Jim, could you just mention again, you said something about, there’s a location on the road that’s not draining properly or something? MR. HOUSTON-Yes. That would be on the southeast corner of the proposed Building Two. There’s a portion of the road there that comes around and makes a 90 degree bend, very close to wetland boundaries in that area. So I guess to phrase it in your notes there is the southeast corner of Building Two. MR. HUNSINGER-And it should be re-graded to drain? MR. HOUSTON-Insure positive drainage. MR. RINGER-The applicant didn’t have Jim’s comments either, before tonight? MR. GIEBINK-This morning. I had either received them either late last evening or this morning, I had actually reviewed them briefly as I came up here, but I knew enough that I could respond at least somewhat. Didn’t have an opportunity to actually write a response to them. MR. RINGER-Yes. We have to accept the blame on that stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess we’re down to three conditions. One is that the boulevard entrance be moved back four feet. Two, that the Town receive a copy of the DEC acknowledgement of receipt for NOI for stormwater prevention plan, and, three, that the southeast corner of, that the roadway at the southeast corner of Building Two should be re- graded to insure positive drain. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. HILTON-Just one more comment. In my comments, I mention the additional parking spaces and the 24 foot drive aisle requirement. Has the plan been modified to, or will it be modified to include that? MR. GIEBINK-Again, we received those by fax just yesterday. What you’re commenting to, I can point on the plan, is these are provisional parking spaces that are shown on the plan to be built if needed. So the reference to the 20 feet, again, this emergency access, which is 20 feet around, comes to this point where the parking is being constructed, it is 24 feet. So it’s only in this section right here. So I guess it would be, if the provisional parking is needed to be built, then we would build it as a 24 feet wide. We would widen this by four feet, but I mean, it’s not part of what is planned to be built as part of Building Number Two. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you satisfied with that? MR. HILTON-Yes, I guess. I just, I guess my only concern would be, how do we insure that, if they are built, that it actually is widened to 24 feet? I don’t, I guess I can’t predict what kind of concern, safety issue would be out there, but the Code does read, a parking space has to be accessed by a 24 foot drive aisle. MR. MAC EWAN-And your reasoning again now? MR. GIEBINK-Those spaces were, as shown as 20 feet, are a part provisional, only to be constructed, because the Board, in our last go around, because we were providing the arguments and the facts from our other projects as to how much parking is really needed. The Board, at that time, said, well, at least show us where you could build more parking spaces if we think it’s needed in the future. So, we’ve shown those on the plan as provision, the dotted parking spaces, and the ones showing here, which are provisional only to be built if needed, are on the, only have a 20 foot wide drive through. So, if they’re needed to be built in the future, we would build the extra four feet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that would become a site plan mod, they would come back for that, I would guess, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, history has shown that they haven’t yet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I asked you that question to give me a yes or no. That’s all. MR. GIEBINK-I mean, we would certainly accept a condition. MR. MAC EWAN-I would think the safest thing I would probably press for is that the emergency access around that building is part of that drive aisle, for those future spaces, should you ever require them. Right? MR. GIEBINK-No, not all the way around the entire. MR. MAC EWAN-No, what I’m saying is that the emergency access that circumvents the building is the same roadway you would use potentially for gaining access to these future parking spaces should you ever need them, right? MR. GIEBINK-Right, from the west end. MR. MAC EWAN-So why don’t you just make it from the west end to the end of the parking spaces, the 24 feet, then narrow the road down to 20 feet to meet compliance with what Codes say you need to have. MR. GIEBINK-That would be fine. MR. MAC EWAN-And that way we don’t have to worry about them coming back. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. GIEBINK-That would be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-How do you want to word that, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-That the emergency access. MR. HUNSINGER-This is the southern access road, how about southwestern. MR. MAC EWAN-Access road. MR. HUNSINGER-Shall be 24 feet wide. MR. MAC EWAN-To the distance of the future parking. MR. HUNSINGER-To the end of provisional parking spaces. All right. I guess we have four conditions. Are we ready? MR. MAC EWAN-Go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 25-2002 GREEN MT. DEV. CO., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 25-2002 Applicant/Property Owner: GREEN MT. DEV. CO. SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: John Giebink Zone: PO MODIFICATION Location: 673 Bay Road Applicant is seeking approval of as built site improvements, which were not included in Phase I of the project, as well as approval to increase the number of units from what was previously approved. Modifications of previously approved site plans require the approval of the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SB 8-02, AV 36-02 Tax Map No. 296.7-1-15, 289.19-1-15 Lot size: 25.01 acres Public Hearing: Not required for modification WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/17/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/11/04, and 6/10 Staff Notes 6/9 Warren Co. Planning 6/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; 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 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) 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: 1. The boulevard entrance shall be moved back four feet. 2. The Town receive a copy of the DEC acknowledgement of receipt of NOI for stormwater prevention plan. 3. That the roadway at the southeast corner of building number two should be re-graded to insure a positive drain. 4. That the southwestern access road shall be constructed to 24 foot width from the corner to the end of the provisional parking spaces. Duly adopted this 15th day of June, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Just a note. Should you find, in the development of the second building, that you need to make changes, come see us first, before you do those changes. MR. GIEBINK-We’ll write a letter, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-No letter. Ask to get, send a letter and ask to get on the agenda as soon as possible for a modification. MR. GIEBINK-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 24-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH & DIANA KAMBAR AGENT: APD ENGINEERING, CHRISTOPHER KAMBAR ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 27 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,795 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA) REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 18-04, AV 57-03, AV 27-03, AV 8-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/04 TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.431 ACRES SECTION: 179-4- 020 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) CHRISTOPHER KAMBAR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-2004, Kenneth & Diana Kambar, Meeting Date: June 15, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 24-2004 APPLICANT: Kenneth and Diana Kambar are the applicants for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a second story addition to an existing residence, along with a new attached garage. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 27 Hanneford Rd. 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 SEQRA short form. PARCEL HISTORY: The ZBA approved an Area Variance for side yard setback relief for this application on March 24, 2004. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to construct a second story addition to an existing residence along with an attached garage. The proposed second floor addition was granted side yard setback relief from the ZBA on March 24, 2004. The applicant proposes to remove an existing detached garage and construct a new attached garage with a second story storage area. STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan indicates two stone infiltration trenches to be used to intercept water flowing from the new additions. The site plan has been forwarded to CT Male for their review and comment on the stormwater component of this site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-As I mentioned in my notes, this application received an Area Variance for side yard setback relief from the ZBA. The applicant proposes to remove an existing detached garage and construct a new attached garage with second story storage area. Two stone infiltration trenches have been shown on the plan to intercept water flowing from the new additions, and this site plan was forwarded to C.T. Male for their review and comment, and Jim is here, and can probably answer any questions you have on stormwater. MR. HOUSTON-Do you want me to just go through the letter I wrote? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. If you just want to highlight, if you would. MR. HOUSTON-All right. In general, the proposed project results, this is a June 10 letter. The th proposed project results in less than one acre of disturbance, such that it is not necessary for the owner to apply for stormwater permit coverage. Then there’s four comments that I had regarding stormwater. The proposed stone infiltration trench is currently 1.5 feet wide, but should be extended past the drip line of the roof. The second comment was proposed raised planting beds should be extended to the south to reduce concentrated flow to the adjacent property. Current design would allow for portions of the runoff from the proposed garage to flow onto the adjacent property. Item Number Three, the proposed driveway will be constructed across the well. At a minimum the cover of the well should have a water tight lid. Four, it is recommended that some temporary erosion control measures such as silt fencing be added to the drawing, and that was the extent of our comments. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. KAMBAR-Good evening. My name’s Chris Kambar. I’m with APD Engineering. I’m representing my father Ken and my mother Diana. I guess a brief overview is this site is Waterfront Residential. As Mr. Hilton said, what we’re looking to do is expand a great room off the side of the house, and a two story frame garage, storage in the second story. It’s a three car garage, and in the end just a little bit of space for lawn mowers and things of that nature, so we can do a little work in there. We’re proposing to demolish the existing garage, which is very close to the road right of way at this point in time, and as far as drainage, I had a couple of conversations with the Water Keeper, Chris Navitsky, as far as what his feelings were, as to what to do with drainage out there. He felt that doing the gravel beds along the house, instead of gutters, and having concentrated flow, would be better. I did receive Mr. Houston’s comments, and we are okay with his comments. The first one, I talked with the architect today. As far as the one and a half feet, the drip line of the roof comes out one foot, and we felt that we should extend that to two feet instead of one and a half, just to make sure the pitch on the roof, when the water goes off, it is actually hitting that stone trench. So we’re going to increase that by a half a foot. Proposed raised planting bed extended to the south. Talking about this planting bed here. Do you want it to go towards the road this way? MR. HOUSTON-To the west. MR. KAMBAR-To the west. Okay. There’s, it’s not actually shown on the survey, but between the owner over here, Mr. Hansen, he’s got like a concrete block, almost a stairwell there, and he’s got some perforated drain that goes down in there. So the idea is to have the water kind of catch over here and be directed, you know, down that route. We can extend that somewhat further to make sure. The idea is to get this bed so the water doesn’t go to his house. It was something that he brought up to us, and we’re trying to resolve that issue. Okay. Water tight cover on the well, that’s not a problem. We can do that. Some temporary erosion control, silt fencing. We can also do that. Anywhere where the drainage is leaving the property we’ll add silt fence in. So basically we can handle all your comments. That’s not a problem. I guess, at this point I guess I can open it up to the Board. I guess one last comment I’d like to make is we did go in front of the ZBA and we did receive approval for basically a pre-existing, nonconforming, you know, use with the setback being where the house is now. I believe the setback is, right now we have 5.4 feet to the house, and the setback is 20 feet. So we did go in front of the ZBA and get that approval first. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll start down our little checklist here guys. Design standard regulations? Development criteria? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have something in that area. I took a particular amount of time in going over your FAR calculations, you know, the change in your area, and let me just get my document out here. This is the Floor Area Ratio worksheet. You probably want to grab on to that for a second. The allowed area on the 22% basis, right now we’re sitting at 4132.7, in other words, 4,132.7 feet. I did a calculation based on all of the Floor Areas themselves, and I’ll go over them with you if you like, but I come up with the first floor at 2822, and I did that by, what I did is when you show a dimension, let’s say, just looking for one here that I might have had to grapple with, what I did is took the area here, the dining room, the two bedrooms, the utility and the bath, and came up with 1,173 square feet, by just taking that rectangle into consideration. Then I looked at the great room, and that came up to 769 square feet, and then I got to the entry at 40 square feet, took a look at the garage and I looked at that as, at your number at 880.6, and I used 880. I dropped the .6 off. That’s how I got to 2822. So I got 1173 for the main section, 769 for the great room, 880 for the garage, and that’s my first floor calculation, at 2822. Then I took your second floor, at 924 square feet, the master bedroom, the walk-in closet, and the master bath, but I did not include the deck out there in the FAR calculation. So I got 924 square feet for the master bedroom, walk-in closet and master bath, and I added that, and that comes out, now I’m up to 3746. Then I took a look at the second story in the garage, which is countable, another 880 square feet. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. KAMBAR-The second floor in the garage is just for storage. MR. VOLLARO-But under our Code it’s a countable area. MR. KAMBAR-That’s not what we’ve been told. We’ve been told that it’s just storage. It’s not livable space. It’s unfinished. MR. VOLLARO-George, where do we fall on that? MR. HILTON-I’ll be with you in a minute when I get the definition. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because my understanding in reading the Code is that it is countable, but I’ll let Staff tell me that it’s not. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you take issue with what he commented on regarding the first floor area not counting the garage? The numbers seem to be far apart. MR. KAMBAR-Right. I don’t believe, the garage was in the proposed area. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going by your A-1 drawing. I’m looking at your footprint, for your livable area under A-1. MR. SANFORD-Well, what did you come up with, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-On that, I came up with the dining room. MR. SANFORD-Just the aggregate number. MR. VOLLARO-2822 on the first floor, 2,822 feet. MR. SANFORD-Yes, well, when the Zoning Board took a look at it, they came up with 3,838, which includes 880 of the garage. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s your total number, Bob? First floor only. MR. VOLLARO-For the first floor only, 2822. MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s your total number for the second floor? MR. VOLLARO-924. MR. MAC EWAN-3746? MR. VOLLARO-Correct. MR. SANFORD-That doesn’t include the attached garage at all, or does it? MR. VOLLARO-It does, but it doesn’t include the second story on the attached garage. That’s another 880 in my interpretation of the Code. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t include, that 3746 is the first floor, second floor, not inclusive of the garage? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-So right now we’re at a difference between his 2268.6, right? MR. SANFORD-No, I mean, well, I’m looking at the Zoning Board of Appeals, and they’ve got numbers that are very close to the applicant. So, I mean, that’s what I’m saying. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got an answer, George? MR. HILTON-Well, I can give you a definition. It’s the building floor area definition which is used to give the floor area ratio, and it states all floors of the primary structure and covered porches as measured from outside walls, including the basement when at least three feet in height of one wall is exposed, and the space meets the requirements for living space that’s described in Section 711 and 712 of the New York State Building Code, and then, B, it states detached storage buildings greater than 100 square feet and detached garages, and then it states excluded from building floor area are open decks, docks, and that portion of covered docks which extend into the water and one storage shed of 100 square feet or less. Any additional sheds will be included, and that’s what I’m seeing as the definition of. MR. MAC EWAN-Jump back to the garage portion again. MR. HILTON-It’s Sub Section B where it states detached storage buildings greater than 100 square feet and detached garages. MR. MAC EWAN-But if you have an attached garage. MR. HILTON-It doesn’t really speak to that. Again, I’m going back to where it states all floors of the primary structure as measured from the outside walls, but then it does talk about detached garages, but there’s no specific mention of attached. MR. MAC EWAN-So, in your mind, if it’s an attached garage, does that equate into part of what the Floor Area Ratio should be considering as livable space? The Code doesn’t specifically say it’s excluding it. MR. HILTON-You’re right, it doesn’t specifically say. I guess I can only say I don’t know, but this application was looked at by the Zoning Board and went through a pre-application conference prior to the submission for the Zoning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, how do you feel on this? MR. HILTON-Well, I honestly think that it’s probably been looked at and been determined to meet the Floor Area Ratio. MR. VOLLARO-That may be true. That’s a Zoning Board determination. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, first it’s a Zoning Administrator determination, and I think what George is indicating, without using these words, I think what George is indicating is that presumably there was Zoning Administrator review prior to the ZBA variance proceeding, I would think, because the Zoning Administrator would have had to determine how much variance was needed in terms of the ZBA application. MR. VOLLARO-If it was needed. Apparently he thought it was not, so it passed, but I’m looking at the Floor Area worksheet itself, and it says the Floor Area Ratio is a relationship of building size to lot size, derived by dividing the total building square footage by the lot size in square feet. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but they’re not including, I mean, they’re not including a second floor with a garage. I’m saying, by reading this Zoning Board of Appeals resolution, they, in the last sentence, or the second to last sentence, they go the proposed second story of the garage is to be for storage only. Strongly suggests that that was not included, Bob, and so take that out. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-If we take that out, they’re at 3746, which passes muster against their allowed 4132. I guess that the total thing, in my mind, is stuck on whether or not the second story of the garage was countable or not countable, and I interpreted it as countable by the definition I see in the Floor Area worksheet where it says total building square footage. So, you know, it’s a call, I suppose, but that was my interpretation when I looked at this Floor Area worksheet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now that we seem to have that resolved, anything else under Development Criteria? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. Under permeability, I get very close to yours. I get 67. You need 65. You’re close in permeability. That site’s pretty close. MR. KAMBAR-Okay. We actually had 79.9. MR. VOLLARO-I can go through that as well, if you’d like, but let’s not even, I can tell you how I got there. So, if you want to just, it doesn’t make any difference. You make it, so that’s satisfactory to me. If the math is wrong, maybe I’m incorrect, but I came up with a different number, but my number says you’re okay. MR. SANFORD-Now, when you remove the old garage, one of the things we were concerned about, I think we got the answer, but I might as well ask it again. You’re going to have to remove that concrete slab as well. Right? MR. KAMBAR-Correct. They’re going to remove that completely and put in a new driveway, gravel sub base and all that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater, sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got one in there as well, Craig. On the second page, Drawing A-1.1, I’m sorry, that’s the wrong, I think we want to go to C-2, and I see that there’s a note there that says existing septic tank and laterals to remain and be protected during construction. Well, 179- 5-110, which is part of our Code, says an increase in the Floor Area Ratio, which this is, requires full compliance with Chapter 136, which is the Sanitary Code in the Town of Queensbury, and when you get into that, you’ve got to divide information on perc and sizing of laterals, etc., to determine whether or not you’re going to have to resize the septic system to this new house. MR. KAMBAR-The septic system has previously been resized to this expansion, and we have had it approved and have a C of O on it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s nice to know. MR. MAC EWAN-The guy’s done his homework. I like that. MR. KAMBAR-Yes, that was the first thing I believe Craig told us to do, and that’s the first thing that they went out and did. MR. VOLLARO-So you got that done even before you’re building the house. That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions under stormwater, sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Buffering, landscaping? Neighborhood character? MR. VOLLARO-No. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. SANFORD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Environmental? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Other agencies? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything I missed? MR. SANFORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you folks to give up the table for a minute. We’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-Chris, SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, before you do this, I think we’ve had a little discussion here, and possibly a typo, but upon further review, I guess, this is probably a Type II. So you’re probably okay to not do a SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry and my conversation. We couldn’t figure out how a house this far away from the lake up on a bluff would be a Short Form and a dock in the water with a roof over it would be a Type II. Good deal. Does somebody want to move it? MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a question and then I’ll move it. What was the date, Jim, of your comment letter? MR HOUSTON-June 10, 2004. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the only condition that I could think of, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Have the drawings been revised, based on his comment letter yet? MR. KAMBAR-Not yet, but they will be. MR. MAC EWAN-Just put a condition in there that no building permit issued until the revised plans are submitted. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2004 KENNETH & DIANA KAMBAR, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 24-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: KENNETH & DIANA KAMBAR 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: APD Engineering, Christopher Kambar Zone: WR-1A Location: 27 Hanneford Road Applicant proposes to construct a 1,795 sq. ft addition to an existing single-family residence. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) requires Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. APA, CEA Cross Reference: AV 18-04, AV 57-03, AV 27-03, AV 8-02 Warren Co. Planning: 6/9/04 Tax Map No. 240.6-1-16 Lot size: 0.431 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: June 15, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/17/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/11/04, and 6/10 Staff Notes 6/9 Warren Co. Planning 6/8 Notice of Public Hearing 6/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 15, 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, 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: 1. The applicant will comply with the comment letter provided by C.T. Male dated June 10, 2004. 2. No building permit will be issued until revised plans are submitted. Duly adopted this 15th day of June 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. KAMBAR-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good job on your application. 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 STATION AND RETAIL USES IN THE HC-I ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/04 TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-95 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 EUGENE BILODEAU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-2004, G.R.J.H, Meeting Date: June 15, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 26-2004 APPLICANT: GRJH is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to demolish a vacant gas station/convenience store and construct a new gas station/ convenience store in its place. The new building would be 2520 sq. ft. The applicant also proposes to add new light fixtures and canopy lighting to an existing gas island canopy. LOCATION: The subject property is located on Aviation Rd., just east of Northway Exit 19. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a short form EAF. PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no previous Planning Board or ZBA activity for this property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The site plan indicates that the existing 1200 +/- sq. ft. vacant building will be removed and a 2520 sq. ft. building will be built in its place. As part of the plan, new light fixture will be added to the existing gas island canopy along with new freestanding light fixtures. The site plan indicates an area behind the building to be used as a stormwater management area. The applicant has submitted stormwater calculations as part of the site plan. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting waivers from the following requirements: Landscaping Plan - The applicant has included cut sheets for the proposed canopy and freestanding lights. The freestanding lights appear to be cut off fixtures, however it is not clear whether the canopy lights will be flush with the gas island canopy as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The lighting plan indicates that the gas island canopy foot-candle average will be 10.9 foot-candles. All other lighting averages appear to be consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements; 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) however, it appears that there will be some light spill onto the properties to the east and west of this site. The applicant has requested a waiver from providing a landscaping plan, however since the proposed redevelopment of this property is located in one of the main commercial corridors in Queensbury, consideration should be given to providing landscaping as called for in § 179-8- 040. Specifically, including landscaping along the southern and eastern parking areas as called for in the exterior parking lot landscaping requirements of § 179-8-040 E; as well as providing street trees along Aviation Rd. as referenced in § 179-8-040 B. NYSDOT has provided comment on landscaping and access management as it relates to this application for the Planning Board’s consideration. Does the applicant plan on grading and clearing any areas to accommodate the proposed stormwater management area? CT Male will provide additional comment of stormwater management.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This proposal is, the applicant proposes to remove the existing building, vacant building on this property and construct a new 2500 plus or minus square foot gas station/convenience store. As I’ve mentioned, the applicant has requested a landscaping waiver from providing a landscaping plan. As far as the lighting plan goes, the applicant has included cut sheets, and the freestanding lights appear to be cut off. However, it’s not clear whether the canopy lights will be flush with the underneath the gas island canopy as required, and as this Board has approved with other applications. The light plan proposed appears to indicate that the gas island foot candle average will be 10.9 which is pretty close to the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 10 foot candles for an average. All other lighting averages appear to be consistent. There appears to be some spill, light spill shown off of this property. The applicant has requested a waiver from providing a landscaping plan as I mentioned. However, as I’ve noted, since this is located on one of the main commercial corridors, consideration should be given to providing the exterior parking lot and street landscaping as required in the Zoning Code as I’ve outlined the various sections. New York State DOT has provided comment on landscaping and access management. You should have a copy of that comment letter in your file. As far as stormwater, one question I had, it was kind of unclear, is whether there would be any clearing or grading in the rear of the building to accommodate the stormwater management area. I guess I just personally couldn’t determine whether there was going to be any clearing, and I couldn’t see any clearing limits shown on the plan. As far as stormwater goes, there will be additional comment here from Jim. Jim is here. This plan was forwarded to C.T. Male, and I will turn the mic over to him at this time. MR. HOUSTON-My comment letter for this project is dated June 14, 2004. Just, what it says, it’s a one page letter. In general, the proposed area of disturbance is less than one acre, therefore, the owner is not required to obtain permit coverage for stormwater discharges. My first comment, additional spot elevations should be added to the site plan to clearly show drainage patterns under existing and proposed conditions. It is not clear what drains to the rear, south, versus what drains to Aviation Road. Two, second comment, does the adjoining parking lot to the west drain to the area proposed for detention? The site plan shows curbing around the property line, but this is in contrast to the contours shown in this area. The proposed berm would be subject to possible frequent overtopping if the adjoining parking lot drains to this area. Third comment, where do the roof drains from the canopy discharge. Miscellaneous category, comment four, my last comment, it appears that the handicapped accessible parking space blocks access to the dumpster and a vehicle backing out of this space may encumber pedestrian access to the front door of the proposed building, and that was the extent of my comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. BILODEAU-Good evening. My name is Mr. Bilodeau. With me is Lloyd Helms. I’m from Rowland Associates, the engineer. Mr. Helms is from G.R.J.H., the owner. I don’t know how you want to proceed. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have copies, do they have a copy of your comments? MR. BILODEAU-We have copies, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-From his letter of yesterday? Okay. Why don’t you give us a quick presentation of what you plan on doing here with the site, and we’ll take it from there. MR. BILODEAU-I had addressed C.T. Male’s comments regarding the divide line on the north and south by adding on spot elevations and then interpolating the critical flow gradient and shown it on this drawing, which is a sketch which I propose to submit when finally completed, which may include items such as the landscaping that will eventually probably, you’ll want to be included, which we would be more than happy to do, once we understand what the criteria will be. This dotted line shows the flow, divide line, separating north flows from south flows. The land adjacent to, this street adjacent to the area follows this contour pretty much the same way, and the flows on this street flow back gently that way, and they do not penetrate this area because of this gutter. The gutter is here. It may be that these contour lines don’t show the gutter, but the gutter is there. I copied these contour lines from a previous survey, which didn’t show them. So I didn’t put them on, but I can certainly, I have photographs which show that the gutter is there. The water from this street, any sheet flow does not penetrate this area. There is some grading to be done in this area, which would mainly be the establishment of a berm which will contain the water in this area here, to prevent any excess water that might accumulate here from penetrating out here into this area where there’s the real low spot which could, if the flow was, and probably does even now, and has for every, since the place was first constructed. A certain amount of flow can go out through. So we put the berm in here to contain this water. The water from the roof now comes down and goes into there, into that ponding area. The ponding area itself is 2343 square feet, and assuming a 12 foot deep storage area, we have 17,518 gallons. Our flow, at peak flow, I have it on here somewhere, it’s somewhere in the area of 1700 gallons. It’s like a 10 to 1 safety factor, storage area in here, not including any percolation, which of course in February you don’t get any percolation anyway, but you don’t usually get your 100 year storms in February either. So, the chances of that overflowing are quite minimal, and there is no flow coming in. I can see from the patterns of debris that are on the road here, you can tell where there’s any settling that would have occurred. It’s all over here. Any water that might have settled in here and come out is way over in here, which would be typical from the flows that have come down here, or flows that have come in from the road and come around. They’re just not due to the increase in the area of contributing to the flow here, which is about, the actual area it turns out it’s about half of the building is the extra area. That flow now goes to the back, whereas it used to go to the front. We also, I moved these parking lots here down so that the access lane from the handicapped parking lot would not impinge upon the pedestrian walkway through there, and of course I’m going to submit this to you for your final review, but we did that, and I placed this first parking slot equally distant from the road as this one is. They’re both the same. That’s how far, I don’t want to move it any further because there’s a certain amount of distance that has to be allowed for access to that parking lot. I think it’s 25 feet, whatever it is, and so that is the same as that one. So I also added on to this drawing the future access conditions that are part of the access management plan. I put them on this drawing. They were actually on another drawing. They’d be more conveniently shown on this drawing. So that when this drawing becomes complete, as I said when we have the landscaping added to it, then this will be a complete drawing. You’ll have all of that. MR. VOLLARO-What is the date on the drawing you’re working from there? MR. BILODEAU-This is a sketch. It’s not a drawing. This is the same date that’s on yours. MR. VOLLARO-March 28, 2004? 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. BILODEAU-Yes. I just made changes, but I didn’t call it a drawing because it’s not done yet. MR. VOLLARO-I see. MR. BILODEAU-It’s just for display purposes, to show you how we propose to answer C.T. Male’s questions. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and eventually that becomes a revised drawing. MR. BILODEAU-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re not looking at that sketch, essentially. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking at what we have in front of us. He’s just trying to respond to C.T. Male’s comments at this point. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s go down our criteria sheet here. I don’t honestly see us moving too far on this thing tonight. Design standards, conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, conformance with design standard regulations? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have some questions along design standards. There’s two elevation drawings that were provided. They’re basically line drawings. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m trying to find them right now. Those right there. Yes. Is that a standard SUNCO prototype store? LLOYD HELMS MR. HELMS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the color schemes on it? Can you provide us with some color schemes as to what you’re proposing? MR. HELMS-Of the store itself? MR. MAC EWAN-Of the store itself, the building itself. MR. HELMS-It’s tan. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you provide us some color renderings or something along those lines? MR. HELMS-Sure. To answer your question more specifically. No, it’s not Sunoco’s standard. It will be a combination of stucco and metal siding. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I just want to, Mr. Chairman, make a general statement on what we’re talking about here. I spent, I sat up there for a while in the car, and I looked across the street at the other station, and anybody coming off the Northway, making a right turn off the Northway at that light, they’re going to hit your station first. It’s in the entrance of Town. So we’re going to be spending a lot of time trying to make it look the part. That’s my concern. When I looked at this drawing I said this doesn’t cut it for me at all. The canopy, we’ve got to do something really nice with this operation. MR. HELMS-The canopy, according to Sunoco, the corners have to be rounded and then it would be re-wrapped. I believe I provided with the application the graphics. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I looked at some of those. We were looking pretty much for a rendition, like the Chairman asked for that is an elevation that really looks like what it’s going to be. That doesn’t help me an awful lot. MR. HELMS-This is just a print out off Sunoco’s website of what their canopies look like, and I mean, I think you’ve seen other ones with the Horizon graphics. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. What we’re really looking for, what I’m looking for anyway, is an integration of that with the building. How is this site going to really look? It’s important because of where it’s going to be. You’ve picked a nice area, but I want to make sure it looks nice when it’s all done. It’s got to look nice. MR. HELMS-That’s our intention also, hopefully, is to have a very nice looking location. MR. MAC EWAN-How is this building different from a standard Sunoco prototype store? MR. HELMS-The standard Sunoco prototype store has a blue building band around all of it with the graphics installed and Sunoco written on the side of the building. This will be just stucco. This section in here is stucco and this section down here is metal siding. We have a station in Pitts Town that is a Morton Building also that I’d be happy to provide pictures of. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That certainly would help. MR. VOLLARO-That would help. MR. MAC EWAN-From my opinion, looking at the standard Sunoco canopy, wrapped in its Sunoco trim on there, I can tell you I won’t support that. I’d want to see something less intrusive. That’s one person’s position. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just trying to think of maybe some good example that we could have him look at, that would give him a better idea of what we’d be looking for. MR. SANFORD-Along those lines, could Staff go back to some of the sites that we’ve already approved, that we’ve thought were good examples, and share them with the applicant? MR. MAC EWAN-I can give you two of them right off the top of my head. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the first thing that came to mind was the Cumberland Farms down on Main Street. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, Cumberland Farms and Stewarts as well. MR. HUNSINGER-At Exit 18. MR. MAC EWAN-18 and over here on Bay Road. Originally both those were proposing to have either the Cumberland Farms or the Stewart’s wrapping on them as well. So I think we need to be consistent. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know which Cumberland Farms we’re talking about, at Exit 18? MR. BILODEAU-No, I do not. MR. HUNSINGER-When you’re driving over, Exit 18 goes over Main Street. As you’re driving up the Northway, you can actually see the store from the Northway. It was just last year completed. MR. HELMS-The Stewarts is right down here, right? 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The Stewarts, yes, you can see on your way out, but it’s more of a, I mean, your building design is more of a colonial design as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Potentially it’s not that far off from the Cumberland Farms design. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I like the dormers in the entryway, and I thought the cupola was a real nice touch, but I think, you know, maybe some, the color schemes, and I think the canopy definitely needs some work. MR. VOLLARO-The one down at Exit 18, the Stewarts is not a typical Stewart’s store. We sat with Stewart’s and we got to what looks a little bit like what you’re presenting here. It’s close, I think. Is that what you’re driving at, Chris, that this design and the Stewart’s? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I like the building design. The color scheme is bright and stuff. MR. HELMS-I guess I’m unclear on the canopy, what it is that you don’t like. You don’t like the Sunoco, they call it the Horizon graphics? MR. MAC EWAN-The signage. I’ll call it the signage, because that’s exactly what it is. I mean, I would guess at some point you’re probably going to want to venture in front of the ZBA to get variances from the signs, because we do have very strict Sign Ordinances in Town, as to how much signage you are allowed on buildings. MR. HELMS-We can do the color without the actual Sunoco written on there. MR. MAC EWAN-Provide us a color rendering. It’s a heck of a lot easier to make decisions when you’re looking at color renderings, proposed colors, materials that you plan on using, instead of black and white Xerox copies or quick laser print copies, because it really doesn’t tell the picture to us. Photos are worth a million words, they really, truly are. Along the lines of design standards, I am going to jump ahead a little bit here. Our corridor design standards do have aggressive landscaping plans, no matter where they are in the business districts of Town. I would want to see that this one complied with that as well, considering we just approved the motel across the street, that just went through it’s design, what, a month ago, we approved that thing. MR. VOLLARO-About a month ago, yes, Econo Lodge. MR. BILODEAU-We’d certainly be happy to do that. I propose that we keep all of the shrubs low, and not. MR. MAC EWAN-Our design standards are very specific, not only species, caliper size and what to plant along roads, around buildings and such like that, and I do believe our entire Code now is on-line, so you can access it through our Town website, the entire Code. MR. VOLLARO-I think that we have to say something here. The Department of Transportation letter dated May 25 talks to that and says the Department has no objection to the provision of th landscaping in the right of way, provided it doesn’t impede sight distance. He has that in his third paragraph. So care of any plantings would be the responsibility of the land owners. So, I think we have to take a look at where this installation is going to be and how high those plantings are going to be. I mean, if we institute real high plantings there, either side of those curb cuts. MR. MAC EWAN-Our design standards, Bob, give that guidance on what they need to have planted. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. As long as it does. As long as we don’t impede sight distance. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I mean, our design standards took into account plantings that were along either in right of ways or close to driveway access, vehicle access points, and stuff like that. MR. BILODEAU-You understand that this is on Town’s property. These trees would be on Town’s property. MR. MAC EWAN-In some cases they’re in State right of ways and stuff like that. MR. BILODEAU-As long as we understand. There is a strip there provided for it. MR. VOLLARO-He said landscaping is in the right of way. He acknowledges in this letter from. MR. BILODEAU-I just wanted to be sure you understood that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we understood that. Any other questions relative to design standards? Along the lines, we were just talking about landscaping and stuff, certainly, obviously, the Board would not grant a waiver to landscaping. Development criteria, site conditions, utilities, ingress, egress, traffic patterns, such like that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got just some comments on that. He mentioned the interconnection. So that’s taken care of because that’s something that I had on my drawing, but he’s got a spot on his now where he shows the interconnection between the two. Getting out onto Route 9 there, onto Aviation Road, rather, I was parked in the westernmost curb cut today, and I parked there with the intent of making a left turn out of there. MR. BILODEAU-Are you coming on to Aviation Road from the parking lot? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. BILODEAU-You’re going to turn left to go to the Interstate? MR. VOLLARO-Go to the Interstate. It was difficult to do it, about 12:30 to 1:00 p.m. this afternoon. Very, very hard to do. MR. RINGER-Try it at four, or four thirty. I mean, the busy times on Aviation Road are between seven and nine and four and six, and apparently difficulty even at 12:00. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanksgiving to Christmas eve. MR. RINGER-It’s a busy road. MR. VOLLARO-So I would say that that should be an in off the Northway, people making, coming up the Northway ramp making a right on Aviation, this would be an in only. MR. BILODEAU-Okay, that’s the west. MR. RINGER-That’s the west. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the westernmost curb cut. Now, one of your drawings show, and DOT mentions that. It says if the pump islands are parallel to Route 254, this would provide the best site circulation, and I think you show that, that the cars would be coming in and getting underneath the canopy, and those cars would then be facing, because you have a western elevation, and I’m looking at the front of the car. That means that they’re now parallel to 254. Is that your understanding as well? 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. RINGER-Bob, if you make that an in only, then people coming up are going to come, up, going west, entering the first entrance, are going to have to do it and they’re going to have to do a turn around inside the. MR. VOLLARO-The way the traffic flow would go, they would come in and go right into the pump. MR. RINGER-You’re going west. MR. BILODEAU-They’re going to go into Hess if they do. MR. VOLLARO-They’re going east. MR. RINGER-Yes, but a person going west. MR. VOLLARO-A person going west would have to come in. MR. RINGER-In the first entrance. MR. VOLLARO-In the first entrance. MR. RINGER-And then they’d have to turn around inside there, if you wanted to continue to go west, you’d have to turn around inside and then. MR. BILODEAU-Well, he could go out to the west entrance and turn there. MR. RINGER-He just said no out there. You said no. MR. SANFORD-Bob’s suggesting in only. MR. RINGER-Yes, that’s what Bob is saying. MR. MAC EWAN-East bound traffic in only. Is that what you’re saying, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, if traffic is going east here, I would say that it’s an in only. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So what is west bound traffic going to do? MR. VOLLARO-West bound traffic will. MR. RINGER-Will come in the first entrance. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ll share? So how does west bound traffic get out? MR. SANFORD-How do they get out? MR. VOLLARO-Well, that entrance is an in/out. The reason I sat here today to try to make that left out, was to see whether it was plausible. MR. SANFORD-No, but Larry’s point is, if they come in. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll settle it right here. You’re out on that limb by yourself, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-What limb? Wait a second. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. SANFORD-Let’s discuss it. If they come in traveling towards the west, then what Larry’s saying, they get their gas and they can’t continue to go to get out, they’ve got to actually do like a U turn within the station to get back out that way and that’s just going to be like unworkable. MR. RINGER-That’s what I thought Bob said, but I don’t really think Bob did say that. MR. SANFORD-Actually, I think that’s what we’ll see, but I can’t see any other way. MR. RINGER-Which you don’t really want to do. MR. SANFORD-You don’t want that. MR. RINGER-You don’t want to create confusion inside that thing. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what’s the alternative? MR. SANFORD-Well, I assume the applicant, even though they’re probably not going to catch too many cars crossing the lanes because there’s a gas station across the street, they’re probably going to want to be precluded from people who want to go and cross the lane. Is that correct? MR. BILODEAU-The road, yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. So I don’t know, Bob, I think, you know, you might just have to, driver beware. MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re better off just keeping them both in and out. MR. RINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You can. It’s a chore making that left. I can tell you that. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think most of those people are going to realize it and they’ll go to the competitor across the street. MR. RINGER-Well, you’re talking tourists, here. They don’t know what the traffic is, but all those gas stations there have the exact same problem. Trying to get out of there making a left hand turn is hard, gets harder after school is out because the traffic increase so much on Aviation Road. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m heading east, I go to the gas stations on the right side of the road. If I’m going west, I go to the gas stations on the right side of the road. MR. HUNSINGER-I think most people do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-They’re both in and out? MR. MAC EWAN-Both in and out. Sorry. All right. Are we done on vehicle traffic access? Stormwater, sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, you’re comfortable that he can make the revisions that he needs to based on your comments? MR. HOUSTON-Yes, I am. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Buffering, landscaping I think we already covered that, that you can provide a landscaping plan in accordance with what the design standards are for that corridor, which are available on our Town’s website. I want to jump back up to site development. Lighting. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the Code for lighting under the canopy is 10, and they’re showing an average on their luminare. MR. MAC EWAN-Almost 11, right, 10.7 or something like that today? MR. VOLLARO-I think they’re at 10.9. MR. BILODEAU-Those are initial lumens. Initial lumens stay in effect for about two months, where upon they’ll settle in at about 80%, based on dirty lenses. They call them mean lumens. Mean lumens are 80% of initial lumens. So where you see 11, you’re really getting 8.8. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re getting to be really good experts at lighting in this Town, and we want to see a plan that shows no more than 10. MR. VOLLARO-Well, and not lumens, but we’re looking for foot candles. MR. MAC EWAN-And when you revise your lighting plan, are you guys going to want to see a? MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s got some light spill. MR. RINGER-He’s got a lot of light spills. MR. MAC EWAN-A lot of light spills. MR. RINGER-A lot of light spills. MR. VOLLARO-He’s got light spill on the east and west side, over onto Price Chopper. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, part of the problem, too, with this site is you’ve got a street light right there. MR. RINGER-Yes, right here. MR. MAC EWAN-Our Town Code says that lighting, and maybe you can direct to help you achieve this is the recent Stewarts and Cumberland Farms, Wal-Mart wouldn’t be applicable. We’re talking about basically canopy lighting I guess is where the biggest problems would be. Any one of the recent Cumberland Farms, two of them we’ve recently done, three of them, actually, we’ve recently done, I don’t think we were totally satisfied with the one on Quaker and Ridge Road, right? So it’s the one on Upper Glen Street and the Exit 18 Cumberland Farms, the Stewart’s at 149 and Ridge 9L, the Stewart’s at Exit 18, and the Stewart’s down here on Bay Road, Meadowbrook Road, or Cronin Road, I should say, all meet the Codes and what we’re looking for in canopies. You design your canopies with the lighting to that. The other thing you should be aware of, our Town Code says the lighting can’t spill over off the property. You’ve got to be down to, what is it, .1, .2. MR. VOLLARO-.1 at the perimeter. MR. MAC EWAN-.1 at the property lines. So you’ve got to revise that to keep your lighting from spilling on to adjacent properties. Enough said on that about lighting, I guess. MR. RINGER-The problem he’s going to reduce his lighting probably by 60% and look across the street at Hess and it’s going to light up like a Christmas Tree. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’ll wait for the time when Hess wants to come in and do a modification. MR. VOLLARO-Actually, his average under the canopy is not bad, based on our Code. Our Code is 10, and he’s 10.9. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking at 10. You can get there. MR. BILODEAU-We can just reduce some of the bulbs from 400 to 250, and that would do it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think if you follow the guidance that we’re suggesting, that you look at the recently approved Cumberland Farms, or Stewart’s, and what we did. We worked very hard, with those projects. MR. BILODEAU-Cumberland Farms is where now? MR. MAC EWAN-Exit 18. There’s one at Exit 18, and one on Upper. MR. BILODEAU-Okay, and there’s a Stewart’s at 18, also, you said. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right. You get off Exit 18 and turn west, you’ll hit the Stewart’s, turn east, you’ll hit the Cumberland Farms. Landscaping, we covered that. Neighborhood character, there’s really no issues there, I don’t think. Environmental, there’s really no issues. Involved agencies we know is DOT and we’ve already got a letter from them. Did we pretty well cover everything? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-What are we missing? What did I skip? MR. VOLLARO-You skipped the septic, and I can’t find it. I couldn’t find it. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I was there. I asked questions about that. Nobody said anything. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. I might have been involved, but I can’t find the septic system on my. MR. BILODEAU-We have a sewer system. We’re connected to the sewer. MR. MAC EWAN-You wouldn’t find a septic there. They’re on sewer. MR. VOLLARO-You’re connected to the sewer. That’s right. There’s a sewer there. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s one of the last stops. MR. VOLLARO-And then, well, there’s no laterals on here that show where it goes down to that. MR. BILODEAU-There’s a direct connection to the sewer, and there’s also a storm sewer right out by the inlet to the road there. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s labeled on Sheet One of Two, Bob. Existing sewer lateral. MR. VOLLARO-In Sheet One of Two? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-City sewer line. I’m looking at it. It runs parallel with the road. Find the existing street light, down by that curb cut you were lamenting about. MR. VOLLARO-If you say it’s there, it’s there. I just, I guess I really wasn’t looking for it when I. MR. MAC EWAN-You see the street light, existing street light? Toward the curb cut, the first curb cut, the most westerly curb cut. See existing street light. MR. VOLLARO-City sewer line. Okay. Gotcha. Right there. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else on stormwater or sewage? MR. VOLLARO-If it’s tied to the sewer system, it’s fine. MR. BILODEAU-One question that Jim asked. The canopy drains to the pavement at the base of the island, and then sheet flow from there. MR. MAC EWAN-Sheet flows to where? MR. BILODEAU-To the drainage pitch, to the drop inlet adjacent to the westward access, there’s a storm catch basin there. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, when they re-submit their revised plans, will you take a close look at that and make sure you’re satisfied with that? MR. HOUSTON-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think the one thing we missed on the lighting is we’d like the lights under the canopy to be flush. MR. BILODEAU-Yes, I’ll make that change. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we’re directing them to do the Stewart’s, Cumberland Farms thing, because we’re all satisfied with those projects, the end result with them. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Craig, what do we need for tabling? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the first thing I’ve got to do is open up the public hearing, and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-My short list that, one, we’re looking for colored architectural renderings, elevations, materials proposed for the building, and photos that you’re going to provide us, right? Landscaping plan in accordance with the corridor design standards. Revise and re- submit the plans per C.T. Male’s letter of 6/14/04 for their review. You’ve got to revise your lighting plan according to what both our Town Code and with the examples of the Stewart’s and the Cumberland Farms canopies that we’ve directed you to. Anything else? MR. SANFORD-The lights? MR. MAC EWAN-I did. I said their landscaping plan in accordance with corridor design standards. MR. SANFORD-How about lights? Did you mention that? 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I did. I said they’ve got to revise their lighting plan, according to what Stewart’s, Cumberland Farms and our Town Code says to do. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to second it, I guess? MR. SANFORD-I’ll second it. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2004 G.R.J.H, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: 1. For colored architectural renderings, elevations and materials proposed for the building and photos that they’re going to provide us. 2. Landscaping plan in accordance with the Corridor Design Standards. 3. Revised and resubmit the plans per C.T. Male’s letter of 6/14/04 for their review. 4. Revise lighting plan according to both our Town Code and with the examples of the Stewart’s and Cumberland Farms canopies that we’ve directed them to. Duly adopted this 15th day of June, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, gentlemen. We’ll see you next time you get your stuff together. MR. BILODEAU-Thank you. MR. HELMS-Could I ask the Board a question quickly? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. HELMS-Obviously I’m under pressure to get things moving as quickly as possible, and contractors take a long time to schedule, along with we have to sign a contract for this Morton Building. I feel like we’re on the same page and we want to make the place look good. It seems like it’s a matter of colors now, and what the outside of the building looks like. Would I be safe to sign a contract for this building, and get it, you know, it’s eight to ten weeks? MR. MAC EWAN-That would be a position of this Board, giving you an indication that we would be approving this project. While in all likelihood at some point along the lines, we will probably approve this project, considering we can meet all these criteria, for us to tell you to go ahead and sign a contract wouldn’t be wise for us to do. MR. HELMS-Okay. MR. BILODEAU-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NICHOLAS DAIGLE ZONE: LI LOCATION: 15 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH TWO BUILDINGS (6,400 SQ. FT.) AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 7,500 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. WAREHOUSE USES IN THE CI-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43-04, AV 1328, AV 7-96, AV 7-96, SP 11-96, SP 15-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/19/04 TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-34, 33 LOT SIZE: 0.77 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-2004, Nicholas Daigle, Meeting Date: June 15, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 27-2004 APPLICANT: Nicholas Daigle is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to replace two buildings (6400 sq. ft.) with a new 7500 sq. ft. warehouse/distribution center, along with site lighting and landscaping. LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Quaker Rd. and the Boulevard. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned CI-1A, Commercial Industrial One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a short form EAF. PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board approved a similar application for this site as part of SP 15-02. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to remove two existing buildings and replace them with one 7500 sq. ft. distribution building. The applicant also proposes to install wall mounted lights as well as increasing green space on the property and provide plantings around the main parking area. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting waivers from the following requirements: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - This proposal is similar to SP 15-2002, the main difference is that the applicant proposes to remove the two buildings in the center of the property and replace them with a new 7400 sq. ft. building. The applicant proposes to use six wall pack lights to light the proposed and existing buildings on the site. The cut sheets for the proposed lighting indicate that the fixtures are cutoff fixtures. Although the lighting plan does not contain foot-candle averages for the site, it appears that the proposed lighting is consistent with the lighting requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Is the driveway at the southern end of the property designed to be a one-way drive or service entrance? The width of this drive may not allow for two-way traffic to use this drive. Although this probably will not be a heavily traveled drive, the Planning Board should consider stipulating that the drive will be one way only. In order to remove the need for variances for the new warehouse building, the two existing parcels should be merged into one. Staff recommends a stipulation that proof that the two lots have been merged be supplied prior to the issuance of a building permit.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. HILTON-This application is an application to remove two existing buildings, replace them with one 7500 square foot warehouse distribution building. It’s a similar application to what was approved as part of Site Plan No. 15-02. The applicant has requested waivers from providing stormwater management and grading plans. I mentioned the lighting. The applicant proposes to use wall pack lights on the building, and the cut sheets indicate that the fixtures are cut off, and although the lighting plan doesn’t contain foot candle averages for the site, it appears that the proposed lighting is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. One question I had was on the driveway at the southern end of the property. I guess I’m wondering if it’s designed to be one way. The proposed width doesn’t appear to, it appears that it would not allow for two way traffic, and although there probably wouldn’t be heavy use of this, there could be some concerns with vehicles trying to use this from different directions, and the Planning Board I guess should consider stipulating that the drive would be one way, and as I’ve mentioned here, in order to remove the need for variances, for this building, the two existing parcels should be merged into one, and that can simply be provided at the time, proof that the lots have been merged, could be provided at the time of issuance of a building permit. That’s all I have for this application at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. DAIGLE-Good evening. My name is Nick Daigle. I’m the property owner. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project, Mr. Daigle? MR. DAIGLE-Well, this project is designed to try to improve the area. We were possibly looking at tenant moving in to the area that would be a distribution style business, Fasten All. That has kind of come to a little bit of a passing until I can get the approval, whether the corporation will start to negotiate to move into this site or not. That’s yet to be seen. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re currently located down in South Glens Falls, aren’t they? MR. DAIGLE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. DAIGLE-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s go down our checklist. Design standards? MR. SANFORD-Just a clarification. We looked at this at site plan and we were a little confused. I think the newer building that, I think it used to be the Tire Warehouse, if I’m correct? MR. DAIGLE-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Now that’s remaining? MR. DAIGLE-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and it’s the building right next to it and the old barn behind it that are going to get torn down and a new building put up there, right? MR. DAIGLE-Correct. MR. RINGER-The one on the corner? MR. DAIGLE-The one on the corner would remain, if I’m understanding the question. 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. SANFORD-Well, Larry, the building that we were talking about, which we were surprised was going to be. MR. RINGER-The butler building. We thought that was going to be torn down. MR. SANFORD-That’s going to stay. MR. DAIGLE-That’s going to stay. MR. SANFORD-And it’s. MR. HUNSINGER-The one the picture’s of, that stays. MR. SANFORD-What used to be the office for the Tire Warehouse is being razed. They had a building where you used to go in and? MR. DAIGLE-That’s correct. That one will be demolished. MR. SANFORD-That’ll be demolished, and right behind it? MR. DAIGLE-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay, which is in a state of disrepair right now anyway. MR. DAIGLE-That is right. MR. SANFORD-All right. I just wanted to make sure, because your drawings specify, we were a little confused on site plan, and now we’re not. MR. RINGER-They didn’t have the drawings with us. We were just by guess and by gosh. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. DAIGLE-That one’s generating money right now, the butler building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions relative to design standards? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I had a question. On the site development data, setback requirements. It says rear yard, 30 feet required, proposed, something was written down and then crossed off, then you put in 24. MR. DAIGLE-That’s what we went for the Area Variance for, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on design standards? MR. RINGER-I was in the other room. What type of building are you going to put up? MR. DAIGLE-It would be a pre-engineered steel building. MR. RINGER-Like the one that’s next to it now? MR. DAIGLE-Very similar. MR. RINGER-Isn’t that going to be torn down? MR. DAIGLE-Correct. 78 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions in that category? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess I have one. What’s the definition of these un-surveyed property lines? Why does it say un-surveyed on there? MR. DAIGLE-At the time that the drawings were done, the surveyor had not had the opportunity to survey at some of the rear property lines of the property that was just purchased. There’s actually two parcels here. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that was going to be my next question. You want to get those parcels merged. MR. DAIGLE-Adjoined. MR. VOLLARO-If that’s possible, but I just didn’t understand the un-surveyed property lines, and how we could have a deed for this, with un-surveyed lines, kind of interesting. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Daigle, is your intent to rent out one portion of the property and then the other property rent it out? MR. DAIGLE-By two different tenants? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. DAIGLE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Why would you want to merge the two parcels, if the intent is not to be used by one occupant? MR. HILTON-Because the building that’s proposed for construction would be sitting over two property lines, and would require additional Area Variances, and so in order to remove or eliminate the need for that variance, those variances, you merge the parcels and there you go. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That makes sense. It saves you a lot of hassles. MR. VOLLARO-I’m still trying, Mr. Chairman, to find what the situation is on these un- surveyed lines. I mean, they represent property lines, but they’re un-surveyed. MR. DAIGLE-They’re not actually un-surveyed. The surveyor that actually did the survey for the 15 boulevard parcel did not actually confirm those surveys at the same time that he surveyed the one parcel, but, do you have the notes from him or the letter from him? He confirmed that those lines are accurate. MR. VOLLARO-Are accurate? MR. DAIGLE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The word un-surveyed line tends to throw you when you first read it. Without having any additional information, you don’t know what’s going on there. We have a letter from the surveyor that says that? It sure would be nice to have some of these when I do, when I’m sitting down in my little spot. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re working on that, Robert. We’re working on changing that system. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we are. I know. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get there. 79 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-We will, Mr. Chairman, I’ll bet you. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Site development criteria? No questions? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater, sewage? MR. VOLLARO-My only question on the on-site septic is that there’s no definition of it, in terms of laterals, or whatever, it’s just a place that says this is where it’s going to go, but it’s not defined on the drawings. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s sewer down there. It was original sewer started by Ceiba Geigy. MR. DAIGLE-I don’t know if I can answer that question. I was, I put an Elgin leach field system in to be in compliance with the last site plan that we went through for the Haun building, and we intended to do the same thing for the other building, but there is, as far as I know, there isn’t, at this present time, sewer. MR. RINGER-The sewer runs down River Street, down on the boulevard, to hook up to Ceiba Geigy. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the way it comes? MR. RINGER-Yes, I’m sure it has to go down River Street. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. For some reason I thought it came down Quaker. I don’t know why. MR. RINGER-Yes, because if it came down Quaker, then it would have been at the K-Mart and over that way, and it’s not at K-Mart, I don’t believe. MR. MAC EWAN-No, K-Mart’s hooked up to it from the City side of it, to the Dix Avenue line, City line on Dix Avenue. Any other questions on stormwater or sewage? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess we want to make a statement on that that Building and Codes shall inspect that septic system prior to issuance of a building permit, because there’s no definition for me here, to look at. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s on record from the previous site plan we approved that the Elgin system’s in there. It’s still going to carry through. Right? MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t say. It just says on-site septic installation area, but it doesn’t say we’re going to hook to it. MR. MAC EWAN-He just told us that. So, I mean, we could certainly look in our files from previous approvals and make sure that that was done. MR. METIVIER-How could you get a CO without it anyway? MR. RINGER-Yes, I was going to say. MR. VOLLARO-Usually it’s on the drawing so we can look at it, though, you know, we know what it is, get some idea. Right now all I see is a gray area. MR. METIVIER-But the fact remains that they’re going to inspect it. 80 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-I just said that. I said that Building and Codes shall inspect the septic system prior to issuance of a building permit. MR. HILTON-By that I think probably they’ll review the plan, at the time of issuance of a building permit for compliance. I don’t know if they’re going to go out and inspect the site itself, but, I mean, Building and Codes will review this at the time of issuance of a building permit. MR. MAC EWAN-Wouldn’t this be in your files, though, George, as a cross reference to a previously approved site plan? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Is this building, if that septic system is sitting where it is now, the Elgin system, it’s in position, the new building is going to be sitting exactly where it is now. So you know that you’re going to tie into that Elgin system. That’s the plan? Is that right? MR. DAIGLE-No, it is not the plan. The plan would be to replace the Elgin system, put a brand new Elgin system in, to encompass the entire property. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. DAIGLE-And handle the property. MR. VOLLARO-You want to put a brand new system in, as opposed to hooking into? MR. DAIGLE-Right. We designed, with the area that we laid out would be large enough to carry the flow of water that would be necessary. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Normally when we see a site plan, now he’s going to build a new system and not hook in to the old system. It seems to me that the new system design ought to be something you can look it. I mean, it should be on the drawing. Am I off here or what? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we should have the location at least. MR. VOLLARO-He’s got a location. He’s got a big square, and he says this is where I’m going to put it. He shows the location. He shows it as a great area, but it’s going to be a new system and not the old one. So what we’ve got on file for the old system doesn’t cut it for the new design. Does it? MR. METIVIER-We usually, I mean, when do we review septic systems anyway? We review the area that they’re going in, but when all is said and done, the Town, the Building Inspector is the one that goes out there and approves it. MR. VOLLARO-In our Code it says that, there’s a Section in our, I can dig it out if you want me to, because I’ve got it with me. It’s one of our responsibilities is to look at 136, is that right, George? MR. HILTON-That’s certainly one of the criteria for site plan approval is compliance with 136. MR. VOLLARO-So, you know, in mentioning that, I don’t think I want to leave everything up to the Building Inspector. I would like to see that an on-site system complies with 136, based on what 136 says. MR. SANFORD-Tony’s making a valid point here, Bob. A lot of times what we look at is whether a septic system will work on the land, particularly when we’re dealing with wetlands and things of that nature, but I don’t know if, in a situation like this, we’re going to want to look at the particular system that they’re proposing, because it’s going to be done anyway. 81 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but we should know that it’s sized correctly to handle, actually, there’s not going to be very much flow out of this building. I mean, I’m just saying that I would like to see the system on the plan. We see these things all the time, and they’re on the drawings, and I don’t know why this one isn’t. MR. HILTON-Perhaps a conditioned approval that says that the system will be represented on the plan in final approval from Building and Codes. It’s just a suggestion. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that would be fine. It’s just that I’m, particularly it’s a new system, a new design. If we were hanging on the old design and you had the old design in the file, we’d say, okay, it’s working and that’s fine. This is a brand new system. I’d like to know a little bit about what it looks like. Have you got any comments on that at all? MR. HOUSTON-My only comment on that would be it should be something sized on there for how much flow it was going to take and some basic parameters of it to make sure that the size of the system that’s required doesn’t encumber the lot, that it goes beyond the lot lines or that there’s adequate space on that lot to be able to accommodate that wastewater, and based on the nature of the business, I don’t think it’s going to be an issue, but it should be somehow presented so that what you’re approving doesn’t constitute something that’s going to require more land or more property than what’s shown on the plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the easy way to accomplish that is to have him revise his plans. I mean, if we get to the point where we make a conditional approval, just have him revise his plans per C.T. Male’s comments that those flows and such should be shown on the plans, because there is a potential that, suppose he builds this thing, and Fasten All signs up for a 10 year contract or whatever and after five years they contract out and a beauty parlor moves in there. MR. VOLLARO-Much different flow. MR. MAC EWAN-Much different flow. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So we want to be sure that we’re covered in that aspect. That, I think we could do as a conditional approval, and you’ve got the double system here where you’ve got to have C.T. Male look at it and put their stamp on it and say it’s okay, and you’re also going to have Building and Codes do it at the time the thing is installed, prior to actually a building permit being issued. MR. VOLLARO-Right now, C.T. Male can’t approve anything because there’s nothing there for him to look at. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true. That’s why I just made the comment that he would resubmit conditional approval, if we got to that point, that his drawings would be revised per C.T. Male comments to have the drawings reflect the flow rates of the proposed system on there to be sure that the system’s going to adequately fit on the site. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is there’s going to be a revised plan showing that. MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily coming back to us, but that it would be submitted with his building permit application, I would assume. I mean, how we cross the T’s and dot the I’s, at that point, to get to where we need to be. MR. RINGER-We wouldn’t normally ask any more than to show them the location of the septic system, is all we’d normally ask for. 82 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to stormwater, sewage design? Buffering, landscaping? Well, how do you want to address it? MR. RINGER-It’s kind of tough down there. MR. HUNSINGER-He didn’t give us any, so how are we going to address it? MR. VOLLARO-What are you on now, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Buffering, landscaping. MR. VOLLARO-I have no comments on that, myself. MR. RINGER-It’s right on the road. I mean, what’s he going to do? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Based on where it’s located, I don’t see getting really into the landscaping business here, frankly. MR. METIVIER-Probably just indicate that he’s going to put up some Yew’s and grass. Are they already there? MR. DAIGLE-Not yet, no. MR. METIVIER-I mean, that’s certainly better than what’s there now. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Neighborhood character? Environmental? Other involved agencies? Anything I missed? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The deed that’s supplied with this, that deed doesn’t show the merger of the two parcels, I don’t believe, and so, based on Staff’s comment about the building sitting on the line, you probably do want to merge these, don’t you? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s beneficial to him because it would avoid him having to go seek a variance. MR. METIVIER-Is that something you do tonight, or is that something he has to come back for? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we could make it a condition of approval. MR. RINGER-That the lots be merged. MR. MAC EWAN-The lots be merged. MR. HILTON-It’s in the resolution, I believe, that we prepared, and it’s just something that they would supply proof of, or that you would supply proof of prior to the issuance of a building permit. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t require him to come back for a subdivision, if that’s what you’re asking. MR. METIVIER-That’s what I’m asking. MR. MAC EWAN-No. It’s a matter of just going up to the County Clerk’s Office and filing the papers. Any other questions that I missed, topics? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? 83 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 27-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NICHOLAS DAIGLE, 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 15 day of June, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Something drafted? MR. HUNSINGER-I have two conditions. One is that the applicant would submit a revised plan showing septic flows, and, two, that the applicant address comments from C.T. Male. What was the date of your letter? 84 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-There is no letter, but I think you need to be more specific that the site plan will be revised, I don’t know how you want to word this, but revised to show septic system specification and flows. MR. HOUSTON-Yes. I’d say design flows and sizing criteria. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And you probably want to make that subject to C.T. Male approval. MR. HUNSINGER-So there is no letter. MR. SEGULJIC-What about the waivers? Do you want to grant the waivers, requested waviers? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Stormwater management and grading. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2004 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 27-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: NICHOLAS DAIGLE SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: LI Location: 15 Boulevard Applicant proposes to demolish two buildings (6,400 sq. ft.) and construct a new 7,500 sq. ft. warehouse building along with associated lighting and landscaping. Warehouse uses in the CI- 1A zone require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 43-04, AV 1328, AV 7-96, SP 11-96, SP 15-02 Warren Co. Planning: 6/9/04 Tax Map No. 303.20-2-34, 33 Lot size: 0.77 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: June 15, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/17/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/11/04, and 6/10 Staff Notes 6/9 Warren Co. Planning 6/8 Notice of Public Hearing 6/3 Meeting Notice 5/26 PB from S. Smith, Fire Marshal 5/3 CB from Water Dept. - comments 4/19 Applicant from W. Raymond, Land Surveyor 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 June 15, 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 85 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) 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: 1. The applicant will submit a revised drawing showing septic design flows and sizing criteria, subject to C.T. Male approval, and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Provide proof that both lots have been merged prior to issuance of Building Permit. 3. That the requested waivers – stormwater management and grading are hereby approved. Duly adopted this 15th day of June, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Daigle. MR. DAIGLE-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2004 SEQR TYPE II OSCAP, LTD AGENT: TERRI HYNES ZONE: HC-I LOCATION: DEXTER SHOE OUTLET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE A 30’ X 45’ TENT STRUCTURE FOR SEASONAL DISPLAY AND SALES. RETAIL USES IN THE HC-I ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 55-91, SP 20-97, SP 17-97, SP 15-98, SP 8-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/04 TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-2 LOT SIZE: 7.8 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 TERRI ROBBINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-2004, OSCAP, LTD, Meeting Date: June 15, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 29-2004 APPLICANT: OSCAP (Dexter Shoes) is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to place a 45’x30’ tent in front of the Dexter Shoes store on Route 9, just south of Route 149. 86 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of Route 9, just south of Route 149. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Type II action; no further Planning Board action is required. PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found numerous applications for temporary sales such as the one proposed as part of SP 29-2004. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to place a 45’x30’ tent in front of Dexter Shoes as part of a temporary outdoor sales event. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting waivers from the following requirements: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The site plan indicates that the area between the proposed tent and Route 9 will be closed to traffic. Is the intent to allow traffic to pass through this area to reach the parking spaces to the south? As with similar applications recently before the Planning Board, the applicant should state how long the proposed outdoor sales event would take place. Should the Planning Board choose to approve this application, the Planning Board should specify what time period this sales event is approved for, and whether or not approval is granted for this year, indefinitely, or otherwise.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-Really quickly. This is a proposal to place a 45 by 30 foot tent in front of Dexter Shoes, as part of a temporary outdoor sales event, similar to an application we had last month. I’ve listed the waiver requests the applicant is requesting. As with similar applications, should the Board choose to approve this, you may want to specify what time period this is approved for and whether or not it is granted for this year, indefinitely, or otherwise, and this is a Type II Action, SEQRA wise, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. ROBBINS-Terri Robbins for OSCAP. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us about your proposal. MR. ROBBINS-We propose to set up a tent out in front of the store, from July 16 to August th 16. Be open, you know, all hours that the store is open. One of the questions that I think some th of you might have was about the traffic going in front of the tent. I originally had something on the site plan that says closed to parking. That you can change to closed to parking, instead of closed to traffic. What we do is put no parking signs along the front there, and the spaces in front of the tent, so that no cars will park there, and we can get two way traffic through there. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a notation on there now says, to be closed to traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, take it out and parking put in. MR. ROBBINS-Yes, for parking. 87 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Which means closed to parking so traffic can move through. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Closed to parking. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not going to go down through our whole criteria list, guys. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I just have one. Your sketch here you said July 16 to August 22. thnd MR. ROBBINS-Yes. They’ve since scaled it down a week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ROBBINS-So that we, you know, close a week early. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the occasion for the tent? MR. ROBBINS-The annual tent sale that we have every year. Unlike the Grand Opening this weekend. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we approve this every year? MR. MAC EWAN-The last time I recall we approved something was for Americade. Right? I’m going back too many years. MR. ROBBINS-That’s Lehmann Trikes. They apply for a Transient Merchants license every year. MR. MAC EWAN-However they didn’t this year, did they? MR. HILTON-It may have been something that was administratively approved. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I was wondering, because a lot of Americade stuff was going on, and I didn’t see it. MR. RINGER-They had tents up all over the place for Americade. MR. MAC EWAN-Terry, you said you only needed it to August what, now? MR. ROBBINS-August 16. th MR. MAC EWAN-I think for probably purposes of tracking this, wouldn’t we be better off just saying until the end of the month, end of August? MR. SANFORD-Yes. They’re going to need time to take it down, too. That’s why we don’t want to go with the exact date. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just for housekeeping, it’s just easier to go to the end of the month. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. ROBBINS-Usually the tent closes on a Sunday, and then we unload it on Monday, and they’ll be up on Tuesday to take it down. So the actual sale itself will be over then. 88 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) MR. RINGER-They move it from store to store? Is that what they do? MR. ROBBINS-No. We have a tent company coming, comes up out of Troy and sets it up, Whelan and Sons. MR. RINGER-Why put it in front of the store? Why not put it off, more to the side, so you’re not blocking that? MR. ROBBINS-Originally, way long ago, we used to have it on the side, and back then it was when we were just switching from one register system to another, and we had a register out there, but since you can’t bring a computer outside, in the humidity in the summertime, we found it better to put it right up in the front there. So that the people go right from the tent right in the store. MR. RINGER-So there’d be no sales people in the tent? They’d have to go in the store to ring out? MR. ROBBINS-There will be people out in the tent, you know, to take care of it and answer questions. MR. RINGER-But they’ll have to go inside to ring out? MR. ROBBINS-Yes. Especially on a hot day, that’s nice. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. SANFORD-No, just that we do the same as we did last month, which is make sure the applicant’s aware that we may be looking at our procedure for granting these temporary tents, and so it’s for this year only, and we’re not sure where we’re going to go, but we want to make sure that you’re aware that we’re not, it’s not a perpetual thing. MR. ROBBINS-You let me know, I’ll be here. MR. RINGER-It may not be automatic, we’re saying. We got a request last month for a three month stay, across the street from you. MR. ROBBINS-Yes. Dunham’s always has theirs out longer. MR. RINGER-And, you know, once it starts, it has a tendency to snowball, and, you know, perhaps we don’t know how it’s going to snowball, and at a workshop we may want to make some recommendations to the Town Board to change codes or something. They had ordered their inventory well in advance of getting their approvals, and next year, if there is a change in the code, they could have difficulty, if the inventory is ordered and we reminded them, and the same for you. MR. ROBBINS-Well, you’re all aware of, you know, the change in the name to Super Shoes. So this might be the last year of the tent sale anyway. MR. METIVIER-Why is that? MR. ROBBINS-Merger with H.H. Brown Shoe Company. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I like Dexter better. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? 89 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA. Does someone want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2004 OSCAP, LTD, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 29-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: OSCAP, LTD SEQR Type II Agent: Terri Hynes Zone: HC-I Location: Dexter Shoe Outlet Applicant proposes to use a 30’ x 45’ tent structure for seasonal display and sales. Retail uses in the HC-I zone require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SP 55-91, SP 20-97, SP 17-97, SP 15-98 SP 8-99 Warren Co. Planning: 6/9/04 Tax Map No. 288.12-1-2 Lot size: 7.8 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: June 15, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/17/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/11/04, and 6/10 Staff Notes 6/9 Warren Co. Planning 6/8 Notice of Public Hearing 6/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 15, 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, 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 90 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/15/04) 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: 1. Tent will be allowed from July 14, 2004 to August 31, 2004. Duly adopted this 15th day of June, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? MR. RINGER-I’d like to comment on the Green Mountain, and the fact that he had written a letter to the Town and asked for a reply and never got anything back. To me, that’s very embarrassing. I don’t do business that way, and I wouldn’t expect the Town to do business that way. If they’re going to write a letter, they should get a response. You might want to run that by, and see what happened and why. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll make an inquiry to find out what’s going on. Any other items? Done. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 91