Loading...
2004-03-30 SP (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 30, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD ANTHONY METIVIER GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE MR. MAC EWAN-The first order of business is correction of minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 15, 2004: NONE January 20, 2004: NONE January 27, 2004: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, JANUARY 20, AND JANUARY 27, 2004, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 30 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Next item on the agenda is these two resolutions. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN THE PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE FOR PZ1-04 MR. JOHN HUGHES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Petition for Change of Zone application to rezone approximately 1.54 acres of property currently zoned PO Professional Office to SFR- 20 Single Family Residential 20,000 sq. ft., 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 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) In accordance with resolution PZ 1-04LA, 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 30th day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Next one, Robert. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN THE PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ2-04 FOR MICHELE CLARK MAILLE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Petition for Change of Zone application to rezone approximately 22 acres of property currently zoned SR-1A Suburban Residential One Acre to SR-20 Suburban Residential 20,000 sq. ft., 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 PZ 2-04LA, 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 30 day of March, 2004 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 8-2004 SEQR TYPE II LEE HARRIS PROPERTY OWNER: MAJORIE DUGAN ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 1468 KATTSKILL BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 640 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR-3A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. LGPC, APA CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-970 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-27 LOT SIZE: 1.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 LEE HARRIS, PRESENT 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-2004, Lee Harris, Meeting Date: March 30, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 8-2004 APPLICANT: Lee Harris is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a flat roofed boathouse. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 1468 Kattskill Bay. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-3A, Waterfront Residential Three Acre. 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 no prior Planning Board or ZBA action related to this property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 640 sq. ft. boathouse over an existing deck. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - This application is being presented to the Planning Board as an Expedited Review item. The proposed boathouse appears to meet the dimensional and setback requirements for boathouses listed in the Zoning Ordinance.” MR. MAC EWAN-Seems simple and straightforward. George? MR. HILTON-As you said, it is straightforward. It’s proposing construction of a boathouse over an existing dock. You should make note, I guess, the following waivers, stormwater management, grading, lighting, and landscaping plan which the applicant has requested. This is an Expedited Review item, and the boathouse appears to meet all the requirements of the Zoning Code. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. HARRIS-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. HARRIS-I’m Lee Harris. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems simple and straightforward, folks. Any questions? Anything you wanted to let us know about? MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’ll ask a question, but I’m not going to, I just don’t know how you got your mean high water mark. I know how to do it. I just don’t see that, you’ve got some words in here that are kind of interesting to me. You say that some time in June of 2003. MR. HARRIS-Yes. I’ve got a chart from the Lake George Park Commission. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. So you used that chart. MR. HARRIS-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And you did what? MR. HARRIS-Well, I did the calculations and figured out where the mean high water mark was. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and you put it on the dock? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because you have, you’ve got some words in here that didn’t make sense to me, and I’m not going to make a deal out of this, but it says mean high water mark to the top of the dock is 16 inches. From the mean high to the top of the dock is 16? MR. HARRIS-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. As long as you use the Lake George, I don’t have any questions, Mr. Chairman. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. HARRIS-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2004 LEE HARRIS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Site Plan No. 8-2004 Applicant: Lee Harris SEQR Type II Property Owner: Marjorie Dugan Zone: WR-3A Location: 1468 Kattskill Bay Applicant proposes the construction of a 640 sq. ft. boathouse. Boathouses in the WR-3A zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. LGPC, APA Cross Reference: BP 2003-970 Warren Co. Planning: 3/10/04 Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27 Lot size: 1.43 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: March 30, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received 2/6/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 3/12 /04, and 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) 3/16 Staff Notes 3/10 Warren Co. PB recommendation 3/23 Notice of Public Hearing 2/27 Meeting Notice w/project id marker WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has identified this application as eligible for inclusion in the expedited review process and has placed the same on this Planning Board agenda as such and, WHEREAS, The Planning Board hereby confirms that this project is acceptable for expedited review and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been conducted and the public in attendance and the Board members in attendance have been polled regarding this matter and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that WHEREAS, the following conditions of approval have been discussed and agreed upon; 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. To grant the waivers that were requested: stormwater, grading, lighting and landscaping. Duly adopted this 30th day of March 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Ms. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Harris. MR. HARRIS-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. OLD BUSINESS: MODIFICATION SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 REAFFIRM SEQR STEWART’S SHOPS AGENT: DANIEL BARBER ZONE: HC-MOD LOCATION: 221 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUS SITE PLAN IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL LIGHTING, AND STORMWATER FACILITIES, AND TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PARKING AREA. MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 2-2001 TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-25 LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DAN BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary of my notes. The proposed plan is a modification of a previously approved plan, including the relocation of a freestanding light pole, construction of six parking spaces, and installation of a new drywell in the southeastern area of the site. The 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) applicants plans indicate the light fixture is a 400 watt metal halide bulb cutoff fixture. However, no foot candle values have been represented on the plan. The applicant has provided stormwater calculations and this data was submitted to C.T. Male for their review. Today we received a letter from them, I can read it into the record. It says “We are in receipt of revised site plans for the referenced project. The revised plan reflects comments from our office dated March 11. Based on our review of the revised plans, we offer the following comments. Site th plan was revised to add wing curbing to better direct runoff to the new drywell. The septic absorption field will be adjusted to provide additional separation from the drywell to field. This will more closely conform to the New York State DOH separation requirements. We feel the separation requirement is less critical since there is no drinking water well within the parcel. The comments we described in our March 11 letter have been addressed satisfactorily. If you th have any questions related to this matter, feel free to call our office. Sincerely, Jim Edwards” And that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BARBER-How are you? MR. MAC EWAN-Good. For the record, your name is? MR. BARBER-Dan Barber. I represent Stewarts, project manager for Stewarts Ice Cream. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to tell us a little bit about what your proposed modification is that you’re making? MR. BARBER-We had a revised site plan done, according to some meetings that we had with the neighbors down there. The light pole was moved, and since then we have relocated it. So now there’s two light poles instead of the one. He was concerned about the lighting on his house, with the bedrooms there, but since then, because of people being behind the building after hours, we decided to put the light back, just for security reasons. So that was done, and the wing curb was not put in at that time. We felt it was an issue with the water runoff because the storm drain wasn’t connected. Now that we did all the site plan review and did the numbers, we’re going to add the wing curb and that’s why that catch basin was installed because the distance between the corner where it was originally proposed, was going to be put in, opposed to where it is now. It’s a different location, but it’s not tied in to the existing storm drain runoff. So we are, at this time, going to go ahead and put the wing curb in. We made two parking lot locations next to the neighbor’s property. There was an area where there was a lot of nice oak trees and maple trees. He asked us to leave them there because it was a buffer between his property and ours. So we left them there, and we lost two parking spaces because of that. So we were trying to grant his wishes when we were doing the project. MR. MAC EWAN-What parking spaces are you referring to, the numbers, on the plans that we have? MR. VOLLARO-Fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, and twenty, those are the six that are in. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, did you lose 19 and 20? MR. BARBER-If you see 19 and 20, where it says the existing trees to remain, there was two more where those trees are, in the original plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BARBER-And it is a nice, it was nice to leave them there. It should have been drawn that way from the day we did this. MR. MAC EWAN-So you haven’t revised this plan since 3/13? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. BARBER-I have a set right here that C.T. Male has. This is a 3/16 plan, shows the drywell location, which has always been there since we did the, more or less an as built drawing. It shows a relocation of a lateral on the leach field, which I have a set for everybody here if they want one. It shows all the changes, which is the light pole, the curbing, the wing curb, and the drywell, the lateral on the leach field. MR. MAC EWAN-And which light pole was it that the neighbor asked to be taken out? Is that over near Parking Spot 21? MR. BARBER-Correct. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That one’s now out? MR. BARBER-No. We put it back. We ended up, this one over here by the drywell did not exist. We put that light in that location, and then since the building was done, he was concerned, because people were back there after hours. So I installed that late December. We ended up cutting it in, putting it in. MR. MAC EWAN-But, just so I understand, I guess I’m getting a little confused here. The light pole that’s near Parking Space 21 is the one the neighbor initially did not want there? MR. BARBER-Yes, and then he came back to us and asked us to put it in. MR. MAC EWAN-So he asked you to leave it in? MR. BARBER-Yes. So we had to add it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BARBER-We put it back in. MR. SANFORD-So you took it out and put it back in? MR. BARBER-We never put it in, Thank God. So, we went to install it. He was out there and he said, could you not put it there. I’m worried about the lighting on my bedroom window or his daughter’s bedroom window, but after the building was built, he claims t here was people behind the property. We added some lights on the soffit, and we also put that back in there, and he had a conversation with Bruce Frank in regards to this. So we ended up doing it. MR. SANFORD-Great. MR. MAC EWAN-George, questions for you, now. You talked about the wattage on these two new poles being 400 watt. Do you remember, offhand, what we originally approved for the wattage on this site? MR. HILTON-Honestly, I do not. MR. BARBER-Whatever they applied for originally, that’s the same light fixture. So I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Except there’s two of them now, instead of one. MR. BARBER-Correct, and there’s a large distance between them. MR. VOLLARO-I was over at the sight. I saw them. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions relative to the site development criteria? Stormwater, sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In the original C.T. Male letter, they stated that the catch basin or drywell now located is 18 feet from the septic then, it should be 50. How far is it on the drawing you’ve got? MR. BARBER-This drawing right here, I don’t have a scale. I mean, I think it’s 38 feet, and his recommendations were at that time, he felt it was 50 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he was quoting DOH at 50 feet. MR. BARBER-Right, and that’s what he sent back to me. Well, to our drafter is what he did. MR. MAC EWAN-But his signoff letter says the distance now is acceptable, because they don’t have to worry about well water. MR. BARBER-Yes. When he originally looked at it, he thought, it was a conversation with one of our gentlemen, Brandon Meyers, that that was well location, and it wasn’t. It’s a leach field location. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I’ll just make one comment. It was interesting to read the letter, and I guess I don’t know whether that’s your letter or who’s letter that was, but not Bruce Frank. MR. BARBER-Larry Rutland, our engineer? MR. VOLLARO-It’s in here, I guess. I’m not sure. MR. BARBER-There should be, probably that’s the one. It’s our response when we first started this from our engineer. MR. VOLLARO-It’s, just give me a second here. The memo, it’s from Stewarts, and it’s Daniel Barber. Is that you? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and it’s kind of interesting that, based on a conversation with neighbors, our site plan was changed, and it amused me that we were getting our site plan essentially changed in three areas, the wing curb, the light, the drywell, all of these. MR. BARBER-It was just the lighting which was the conversation we had with the neighbor, and the parking spots. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when I read this, I said, gee, that’s kind of interesting. Our site plan gets changed with, because a neighbor has some conversation with the people doing the site. That didn’t sit well with me. That’s all. That’s just me, though. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that, but usually when there’s site plan modifications, we at least get a chance to look at them before they’re done, because what we were presented here was an existing condition plan. That’s what this was, this latest one, I guess, that I have. I don’t know what the date everybody else is looking at, but. MR. MAC EWAN-The last revision date on that one’s 3/13. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 3/13/01. MR. BARBER-Right, and this 3/16 I have here, it shows the lateral change on the leach field. That’s the only difference with the wing curb. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. MAC EWAN-And C.T. Male has a copy of that latest? MR. BARBER-This is what C.T. Male approved. MR. MAC EWAN-George, did you have something you wanted to add? MR. HILTON-Yes. The site plan I have for this proposed modification shows a line that’s labeled limits of one plus or minus foot candle, but I guess my point was, for the new lights, what are the foot candle values for those areas? Just to let you know, they don’t appear to be on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not on the drawing, no. It’s not on this drawing. MR. BARBER-I can get them. I can get them. Yes, it’s not on this drawing either. It doesn’t show the foot candles on this. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to stormwater, sewage design? Lighting? MR. VOLLARO-None, other than what Mr. Hilton has talked about. There’s no foot candles on the ground here, but I doubt whether they’re over, you know, if you were to take a look at that entire site, they’re probably within the one foot candle range, I would think. I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-If you consider granting the modification, I would encourage you, whoever does the resolution, introduces it anyway, that the two additional light poles should not exceed the wattages previously approved on the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s exactly what I was going to say. We need to specify, use the same fixtures as previously approved. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Any other questions or comments regarding lighting? MR. VOLLARO-The only question I have, if you use the same lighting that you used on the original, you’re doubling that. You’ve got to recognize that. You’re doubling that. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. VOLLARO-You really don’t know what you’ve got here, to be honest with you, in lighting. You’re doubling the amount that we originally approved, and I don’t know what that does to the overall lighting. My guess is it probably doesn’t hurt it much, but we don’t have a nice solid footing on lighting here. MR. MAC EWAN-You mean doubling it in that area. MR. VOLLARO-You’re adding two. We originally approved one. MR. MAC EWAN-Not across the whole site. You’re just referencing that one corner of the parcel. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I don’t know if you did a, if you take a look at all of the lighting on that site, the lighting on the building itself, the lighting on the area where cars get gas and so on, that center piece, I doubt whether one additional light pole is going to throw our lighting off very much. It’s just that we don’t know what it is. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. SANFORD-How far is this from the nearest house? MR. MAC EWAN-This? Close. Within 25, 30 feet. MR. BARBER-Yes, the one that was originally planned, it can’t be 30 feet from his house. MR. SANFORD-But that’s the one the neighbor wants back. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the light by Parking Space 21. MR. BARBER-Correct, and I put it back. MR. SANFORD-And that was already approved. MR. BARBER-Right. MR. SANFORD-So we’re just talking about the light by 15. MR. BARBER-And it’s out in the wooded, that’s a wooded area there. MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, it shouldn’t be much. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments relative to landscape? Anything else I missed? Does somebody want to move it? MR. HILTON-Just a couple of notes before you move it. As you’ll read here, this has a previous SEQRA. So you may want to reaffirm your previous SEQRA, and just to let you know, the applicant has requested waivers from grading and landscaping plans. So you might want to include that in the resolution. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Good enough. MR. HUNSINGER-I take it we don’t have a prepared? MR. MAC EWAN-No, we don’t have a prepared resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 STEWART’S SHOPS, 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. 5-2001 Applicant/Property Owner: Stewart’s Shops Corp. Reaffirm SEQR Agent: Daniel Barber Zone: HC-Mod Location: 221 Corinth Road Applicant proposes to modify a previous site plan in order to construct additional lighting, and stormwater facilities, and to modify a previously approved parking area. Modifications of previously approved site plans require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: PZ 2-2001 Tax Map No. 309.13-2-25 Lot size: 3.52 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: Not required for Modification 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/17/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/12/04, and 3/16 Staff Notes 2/27 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 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, on Corinth Road, 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 new lighting fixture near Park Space No. 15 will be the same fixture and wattage type as previously approved. 2. The waivers requested are hereby approved. Duly adopted this 30th day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Barber. Would you give your copies of your plat to George, so we can have them for the record. MR. BARBER-Yes. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NOEL LABONTE, III PROPERTY OWNER: HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP AGENT: DANIEL RYAN ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,116 SQ. FT. 3 FAMILY RESIDENCE. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE MR-5 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 309.9-3-86 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) JON LAPPER & DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-2004, Noel LaBonte, III, Meeting Date: March 30, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 11-2004 APPLICANT: Noel D’Labonte is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a multi-family dwelling on a 15,628 sq. ft. property LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of New Hampshire Avenue and Luzerne Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned MR-5, Multifamily Residential 5,000 sq. ft. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a short EAF. PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no prior Planning Board or ZBA action related to this property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a multifamily dwelling (3 units) on a 15, 628 sq. ft. parcel. The site plan shows parking to be located in front of the building, as well as two stormwater basins, and site landscaping. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant should clarify if any waiver(s) are being requested. A lot line adjustment is required in order to allow the development as proposed. Staff recommends a condition of final approval that the applicant provide evidence that the proposed lot has been modified to the proposed configuration. The applicant has submitted a stormwater plan that has been submitted to CT Male for their review. The site plan proposes three lights to be used in front of the building and three lights to be used at the rear of the building. No information about the type or wattage of the fixtures has been provided. As this site is within the Glens Falls Urban Area the applicant is required by the Phase II stormwater regulations to file an NOI with NYSDEC. Staff recommends a condition of any final approval that the applicant provide a copy of this NOI prior to the issuance of a building permit.” MR. MAC EWAN-George, whenever you’re ready. MR. HILTON-As part of the site plan, the applicant proposes to construct three multi family dwellings. Site plan shows parking to be located in front of the building, as well as two stormwater basins and landscaping. I guess our comments, really quickly, the applicant should clarify if any waivers are being requested. At this time, we haven’t received any or seen any indicated on the application. Just a note, a lot line adjustment will be required, in order to allow the development as proposed, and perhaps a condition of final approval would be that the applicant provide evidence that the proposed lot has been modified to the proposed configuration. The applicant has submitted a stormwater plan, which has been referred to C.T. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) Male for their comments, and just to let you know, we received a letter, today, stating that provided that information received in a fax March 29 is incorporated, that the revisions th address C.T. Male’s comments, and that is in our file. The site plan proposes three lights to be used in front of the building and three to be used at the rear. However, no information about the wattage or types of fixtures has been provided, and as this is, the site is in the Glens Falls urban area, stormwater pollution prevention plan and Notice of Intent will be required, and again, perhaps a condition of approval, of any approval, would be that a copy of this NOI be provided to Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, with the project engineer, Dan Ryan. We viewed this as a fairly straightforward, multi-family in the MR-5 zone, a small lot that’s suitable for three units, 5,000 square feet per unit. Dan, as George said, has been working with C.T. Male. You’ve got a couple of letters from them. He’s been corresponding with them and he made the engineering changes that they requested, and we got that signoff letter today. I guess probably best to ask Dan to just walk you through the site plan to start with. MR. RYAN-Good evening. Basically, I think the site plans you have a slightly different from the one I’m looking at. So bear with me for one second. As Jon mentioned, it is a three-plex. We’re proposing three units, total square footage of the building is approximately, slightly over 2,000 square feet. We’re proposing to install two separate septic systems, one which would service one unit, and the other system which would service the other two additional units. We’ve accommodated parking in the front of the complex, along with some front of the building lighting, some sidewalks, and basically, as Jon mentioned, it’s a pretty straightforward, residential sized building. We have addressed all of C.T. Male’s comments. So I believe we’re all set on the stormwater. Grading has been shown with some spot elevations indicating how the grading will be accommodated on the site, and I believe that’s the gist of the project at this point. If you’ve got any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them. MR. MAC EWAN-George, can you just back up for a minute to your, under Staff comments, about the lot line adjustment is required. MR. HILTON-If you look at the site plan, it differs somewhat from the way the tax maps are, as the tax parcel lines are currently. MR. LAPPER-It’s the area behind Lot One. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Where the replacement septic expansion area is located. MR. HILTON-If you look at our overhead, if you can see it here, the site plan that’s in front of you shows a proposed, like let’s say jug handled lot, with Lot One, the portion of this Lot Two coming in behind Lot One. However, if you look at the tax maps, up on the screen here, and it currently, as far as the information we have, doesn’t appear to be in the form that the site plan presents. So as a result, a modification, lot line modification, as it appears to me, would be required. MR. MAC EWAN-But as we show it now, with our, what you’ve got for tax parcels, how many lots are there? MR. HILTON-Right. No, the number of lots are okay, are consistent. MR. MAC EWAN-There are three lots? MR. HILTON-Yes. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. MAC EWAN-But Lot Two needs to be reconfigured. They’re actually taking away from Lot One, is that what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-To make it work? MR. HILTON-Correct, in this proposed configuration that’s shown on the site plan. MR. LAPPER-And Lot One has the sufficient land area, the 5,000 square feet, for the one single family house. It’s actually 6,222 square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Basically you don’t show the flag shape in Lot One, as it currently exists on the tax maps. Right? MR. HILTON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-It just shows a perpendicular line up and down. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Lot line, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-When did you plan on applying to get the lot line adjustment done? MR. LAPPER-It would just be a boundary adjustment, because it wouldn’t be creating a lot. This isn’t a subdivision. These were pre-existing lots. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. LAPPER-So that wouldn’t require Planning Board approval. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s an administrative thing. MR. HILTON-It’s something that they’d probably just go to the County and take care of. From our end, we just want evidence, I guess, that that’s taken care of , before a building permit is issued. MR. SANFORD-Is this the current plan, or has this been changed? MR. HILTON-No, this is the current plan. MR. SANFORD-Well, didn’t the applicant or the engineer state that this isn’t the same picture that they’re dealing with now? MR. LAPPER-He made a few changes to address C.T. Male’s comments, and sent them to C.T. Male. MR. HILTON-Right, which we haven’t seen. MR. SANFORD-You haven’t seen it. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Anything else you guys wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No, not at this time. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Has anybody got any questions relative to design standards? Conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan corridor design? Building design layout? Site development criteria, site conditions, vehicle access, traffic? MR. HUNSINGER-I wasn’t really real keen with the location of the parking area, but I don’t know how else you would do it in this particular case, and my other concern is with the gravel parking area. My fear is that the whole front yard would just become a parking lot, basically, and, you know, cars would park, you know, any which way as they arrive to the site. MR. LAPPER-Are you saying that you’d rather see it paved? MR. HUNSINGER-Either that, or some sort of delineation, you know, may even just something like railroad ties or something to delineate the gravel area from the grass. MR. LAPPER-Either way is fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don’t know if other people have the same concerns. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think they’re just trying to do too much on the lot. I mean, this is a tiny little lot. All the lots are tiny. I just don’t think it makes sense to put a three unit housing on these types, in this very small lot like this. I just think it’s poor planning. MR. LAPPER-Well, this is exactly what that zone and that part of Town calls for, 5,000 square feet per unit. It’s a more than 15,000 square foot lot. I mean, this might not fit elsewhere in the Town, but on New Hampshire Ave. this is totally appropriate under the zoning. No variances are requested. It’s just that part of Town. MR. SANFORD-Well, you have, I mean, the septic tanks, right now, that’s why you have to move the line. Is that right? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-The lot line adjustment needs to be made to accommodate future septic field replacement. MR. LAPPER-Replacement. MR. MAC EWAN-As part of the replacement that you have to calculate into doing the site plan. Understand? But I guess the question I would have along those lines, is you show it on the north side of the three-plex. What about if the septic field fails on the south side? You don’t have area there to expand. MR. RYAN-As part of C.T. Male’s comments, we’ve reconfigured, slightly, the septic and location of the building by a couple of feet to accommodate that on the south side, the expansion area on the south side. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a signoff letter from C.T. Male on this? I mean, are they actually signing off on it? MR. RYAN-Yes, they are. MR. HILTON-Yes, we did receive it today. Again, the last sentence of the letter, it says, provided the information included in the most recent fax, March 29, is incorporated into the th final documents, the revisions addressed our previous comments, and it’s signed by James Houston. MR. MAC EWAN-Does C.T. Male have a set of the final documents? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. HILTON-I’m assuming, based on this letter, that they’ve seen a fax, as of today, showing those changes. MR. MAC EWAN-But I’m hearing you saying that they may not necessarily have a set of the drawings. MR. HILTON-No, I can’t speak for them. I know we don’t have a set of them. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if we don’t, it’s very hard for me to sit here and say yes or no or how without having a current set of drawings, because I have some problems, maybe C.T. Male said okay, but I’m going to go back to our 136 Code and show where the drawing I have here is, for six bedrooms, they should be using 900 gallons a day versus their 660, and I’m going to go to our 136 Code, which is our, you know, the Code that we should be using here, and there’s some problems. I’ll go through them, if you want to, but there’s no sense in going through them, I don’t think, if we don’t have a set of drawings to work with. If you go to 136, and if they want to pursue that, I’ve got the Code here. We can go number for number on it. See, when I looked at what C.T. Male had to say, and I understood that, when he said that Department of Health requirements, soil having a percolation rate or one or less, per inch, are not suitable for conventional absorption systems, unless the site is modified. MR. LAPPER-The soils have to be modified because they’re too fast. It’s all sand. MR. VOLLARO-So what are you doing to modify that? MR. RYAN-There’s been information provided for modifying the soil around the perimeter and underneath the current layout of the septic system. MR. VOLLARO-So, are you telling me, now, that you’re going to be changing the perc rate? MR. RYAN-You can’t change the percolation rate. We’re changing, we can’t change the percolation rate that’s indicated right now, but at the time of installation, we will modify the soil and re-verify, at the time of installation, the percolation rate to be within the one to five minute. MR. VOLLARO-Are you familiar with our 136 Code at all, which is the principal code for septic systems used in the Town of Queensbury? MR. RYAN-I am familiar. I don’t have it memorized, but. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, as long as you’re familiar with it. I’m starting off with taking a look at Table Number Four, which is the required length of the absorption trenches. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I’m looking at the 0 to 5 perc rate. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And I’m looking to six bedrooms. Is that correct? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And six bedrooms tells me, in this Code, that I need 900 gallons per day. MR. RYAN-Nine hundred gallons per day? MR. VOLLARO-GPD, 900. Flow rate. You’ve got 660, I believe. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. RYAN-I guess I’d have to see what you’re looking at, to be familiar with it. MR. VOLLARO-Have him feel free to come on up, Mr. Chairman, if he’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather have things go this way, I mean, just for benefit of the public being involved as well. MR. VOLLARO-What they say is, based on a perc rate of 0 to 5, six bedrooms, six bedrooms has a gallons per day flow of nine hundred gallons per day, and based on that, they need 374 linear feet of. MR. LAPPER-That would be 150 gallons per bedroom, and the new regulations are 110. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen anything on 136 come through different than this. Showing 110. MR. LAPPER-I guess that’s the Department of Health, through, right, 110? MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is the Queensbury Code. If this changes, then I don’t know. We should be getting changes to these Codes, if this has changed, but I know what this piece of paper says, and until somebody tells me this is no longer valid, then it’s an all together different thing. It also talks about the fact that, if you’re up at 900 gallons per day, you should be using an alternate design or dozing, one field dozing, you don’t understand what I mean by that, obviously, but that’s what it says. Dozing or alternate design over 900 gallons a day. So I just don’t understand where I am. I’m looking at the latest stuff that you’ve got. I’m looking at our Code. I know what you’ve got here doesn’t meet what I think is our Code, and so I can’t go any further with this. I mean, I just can’t. MR. MAC EWAN-George, what’s your thoughts on that? MR. HILTON-Well, I guess first of all, you know, in looking at our Town Code, the table does indicate you would need, or an applicant would need 374 feet of laterals. MR. RYAN-What’s provided on the drawing there, that you have in front of you there? MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got 300. MR. HILTON-Yes, 300. Now, I’m not aware of any code. MR. RYAN-Three hundred from one two units, not the six units. Right? MR. HILTON-Three hundred total. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got two 50’s, two 50’s, and two 50’s. Fifty footers. Gives you, you’ve got 300 foot of laterals on the drawing. George, do you match my 374? MR. HILTON-Well, in our Code, yes. As far as any other New York State Building Code, or any other septic codes, I. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know that we go with that or not. This is the Queensbury Code 136. It usually tracks DOH, usually. MR. RYAN-Which would be 110 gallons per day per bedroom, is what is typically used. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know what the typical is. I’m telling you what our Code says. MR. RYAN-When you apply for permits in the Town of Queensbury, you’re required to use 110 gallons per day on the permit. That’s what it says right on the building permit. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. VOLLARO-Well, then I’m operating with the wrong data here. George, you must have the wrong data, too. So I don’t know where we want to go from here. MR. MAC EWAN-Not much farther. MR. SANFORD-Well, no, but do you even have, do you have that 20 feet clearance? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-There should be a minimum separation of 20 feet. MR. RYAN-All C.T. Male’s comments have been addressed. All of them. MR. SANFORD-On your print, but not on this print? MR. LAPPER-Correct. The way the process works in Queensbury, which, if I could talk generally for a second, the applicant gets the drawings in about a month before the meeting, the 15 of the month before. The consultants get comments a couple of days before the meeting, th and then scurry to get C.T. Male satisfied. So obviously drawings have been delivered to C.T. Male that the boards haven’t seen because it all just has to happen in the last few days after we receive comments from C.T. Male, and that’s just how it works. MR. MAC EWAN-But it doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve got to have all those comments you come in front of the Board. MR. LAPPER-No, but you try to. I mean, in terms of the applicant’s time and the Board’s time on projects that aren’t too complicated. It’s nice to think that something can still be done in one month in Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-In my personal view on this thing, I don’t think this is a simple projects. I think there’s a lot of complications to this project. I think the overall, overwhelming question, I think, that’s on everybody’s mind up here is that, why such intense development on such a small parcel. It seems like that old saying, you know, five pounds, and you’ve only got a two pound bag. MR. LAPPER-It’s exactly what the Town Code calls for. MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, the Town Code gives direction, designs and guidelines for a lot of development throughout the Town. That doesn’t mean every piece of parcel, every piece of land within the Town of Queensbury can accommodate intensive development. We’ve had this debate for a couple of years now, and as we see more and more land being acquired in Queensbury and trying to be developed, what we’re dealing with is less than desirable land for maximum development, and I think this is another one of those cases. I mean, is there a desperate need to have a three plex on there? Why couldn’t a duplex do the same thing? MR. LAPPER-Just as investment property. It’s nice to have three rather than two. MR. MAC EWAN-So it’s a matter of making the investment to get out of what you’re putting in to it, is what you’re saying. It’s a return on your dollar. At the sacrifice, potentially, of what the property might be able to accommodate. MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, if you can point to something to say that it’s overdeveloped, all of the criteria are addressed in the revised site plan. I mean, there’s, again, no variances. MR. VOLLARO-I’d have to, categorically, disagree with that, you know, I really do, unless it’s proved to me that this document, you know, is wrong, and I don’t know how people are granting 120 gallons a day per bedroom when the document that we’re working with, and what Staff is working with, talks about 900 gallons a day, for six bedrooms. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s no sense in us debating that tonight. Let’s do some research and we’ll come back and see you next month. MR. MAC EWAN-I know Mr. Hunsinger raised the comment regarding the parking area, and I agree with him on it, that either it’s got to be paved or delineated, some way, so that you’re not parking on lawn or whatever it may be. MR. LAPPER-That’s a fair comment. MR. MAC EWAN-If it was to be paved, how does that affect your stormwater calculations? MR. LAPPER-The Town treats gravel as impervious anyway, just to be conservative. So it doesn’t affect the stormwater. If you want it paved, it’ll be paved. MR. MAC EWAN-And the other question I had for you is, I’m jumping all over the map here, and I shouldn’t be, but just in quick looking at this thing, I don’t see anywhere where a landscaping schedule is called out. I mean, I see plantings around the building, but I don’t see anything on here that tells me species, caliper size, and so on and so forth. That’s another thing that should be addressed, but let me get the train back on the track here. Any other questions relative to site development, soil conditions, soil, geology, hydrology? MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things that I wanted to know is on Lot One, where the septic and the well is on that particular property, in relationship to where the proposed well is for this development. MR. LAPPER-It’s Town water. So there aren’t any wells. MR. MAC EWAN-Where would the septic be located, though? MR. RYAN-I’m not familiar where the septic is on that adjacent property there. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if you go make a lot line adjustment and it happens to be sitting way back out in that portion that you’re going to take for Lot Number Two, wouldn’t that be a problem? MR. LAPPER-We’ll have to check that. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to stormwater, sewage? Lighting? Call it out, what you said three fixtures on this? MR. LAPPER-Three on the front. MR. HILTON-Three on the front. Three on the back. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you provide us with spec sheets on them, and what they are, what you’re proposing? MR. LAPPER-Dan said his response to C.T. Male was that they’re just 60 watt bulbs, residential carriage style. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to need something so that it can be, either that or when you revise the plan, incorporate it on the plan or something, so we know, we’ll have something to track it with, and landscaping. MR. LAPPER-You’ve shown foundation planting, that’s it. Right? So I think the Board would like to see some more plants elsewhere on the site. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know that I would, for me, whether I would say necessarily elsewhere on the site, just be identified, so that it can be tracked as well. I mean, you’ve got two trees that are there, one on the north side of the building, labeled as a deciduous tree, but, in looking at the plot plan, are those trees that you’re planning on planting, or are those existing, or what’s the deal with them? Because I’m looking at the site, and I don’t recall seeing them up there either. MR. RYAN-They would be new plantings. MR. SEGULJIC-But you couldn’t have the trees there because of the septic. MR. RYAN-That was one of C.T. Male’s comments. That’s been addressed. The trees have been relocated. MR. VOLLARO-On the new drawing, it will show the relocation? MR. RYAN-Yes. All the comments that C.T. Male has requested or needed. MR. VOLLARO-Are on the drawing you’re looking at now? MR. RYAN-Right. Exactly. Everything’s been incorporated into a new set of drawings. MR. LAPPER-We have the advantage of a better drawing than you’re looking at. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a big advantage, by the way. MR. LAPPER-That is, but we have to still address the sewer capacity issue, the septic. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question that doesn’t fit anything in the site plan review here. I just wanted to, I made a comment on it. Dan, you had a letter attached that described this as a minor project, which is less than 15,000 square feet. Actually, the project is 15,628. Is there a plus or minus to that? MR. RYAN-Which letter are you referring to, because I’m not familiar with the specific letter. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a letter from you, I know, and I just wonder what’s the difference between a minor and major project. MR. RYAN-The Town of Queensbury, I believe, in their Code, deciphers minor and major projects as less than 15,000 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-And over that, what happens? MR. RYAN-It becomes a major project. MR. VOLLARO-And what does that mean? I’m trying to catch what the difference between the major and the minor. MR. RYAN-I haven’t memorized the Town of Queensbury, once again, so you’d have to refer to the Code to read what it deciphers the difference, in how it’s approved and what requirements are needed. MR. HILTON-I know that there’s a difference when you’re talking, for stormwater purposes, a project in the Lake George basin, that rings a bell. I’m not sure if that’s what you were referring to. MR. RYAN-I believe it’s also in the Town of Queensbury Code. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. HILTON-Yes, I think it’s for properties within the Lake George basin. MR. RYAN-I’d be more than happy to provide you with that information. MRS. STEFFAN-I also have a question on the, we have two pieces of paper, one description of the project, and this is a pre-application conference form. The construction of a 2116 square foot, three family dwelling, and then, on the site plan review sheet, there’s a detailed description of the project, and then there it states construction of a 3,150 square foot three family. So there’s a discrepancy between the square footage. MR. RYAN-Yes. I think the initial, when the application was applied for, there were garages on the building which were removed. So that would accommodate the additional square footage there, but that should be revised. On the application, you’re saying, right, there’s a 3,000? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. RYAN-Yes. Now it’s smaller. MR. SANFORD-Do you need any kind of handicap parking here? MR. RYAN-I don’t believe so. For? MR. SANFORD-I would want to look into that. George, is there any? MR. RYAN-I don’t think there’s any accessibility requirements for a three plex. MR. SANFORD-I’m asking George. Is there? MR. HILTON-For? I’m sorry. MR. SANFORD-I’m looking at this, and they have a parking lot here, and I was wondering, when do you get to the point where you need to have some handicap parking? MR. HILTON-That’s something that’s part of the Building Code, and probably the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, that I don’t know the answer to right now. We can certainly provide you with that. MR. SANFORD-I know when Prospect School was building their home, I believe we address those types of issues. MR. HILTON-Yes, well, we can certainly look into it and get you a figure. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m concerned about the bottleneck situation here. I mean, this picture we’re looking at, which isn’t even valid at this point in time, makes it look better than when you go there, a site visit, and you start thinking about, how are those cars going to actually get in there turn around and maneuver. I know Mr. Strough who is no longer with us knew there were certain clearances that were needed for backing out of parking lots and all of that, and I’m not even sure if they have that here. MR. RYAN-All the parking lot has been designed in accordance with any typical standard regulations for distances that would be required for backing in, turning around, all that, etc. MR. SANFORD-Has C.T. Male looked at that, George, or confirmed that, or no? MR. HILTON-I guess I can’t speak for them. I know we forwarded them the plan, and the entire packet, and they’ve provided their comments. You’ve seen their comments up until today. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. SANFORD-Could you ask them about that for me? MR. HILTON-I certainly can. MR. SANFORD-Because there’s no space there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I found what I was looking for, under, there’s an attachment to a letter from Daniel Ryan dated February 19, 2004, and in that attachment, where it talks about stormwater management, it has project classification, minor project, less than 15,000 square feet. I have to say that I don’t know what that means either, frankly, but. MR. RYAN-It is in the Queensbury Code, and I would be happy to provide that section for you. I don’t have it in front of me. MR. HILTON-Yes, absolutely, and just to let you know what I’m looking at, I’m looking at Section 147-8, Project Classification for Stormwater Management. That’s the Section I’m talking about, and minor project is something that’s less than 15,000 square feet. However, if you go one Section up, anything outside the Lake George basin is exempt from this Section. So that 15,000 square foot minor project classification wouldn’t apply. MR. VOLLARO-Wouldn’t apply. MR. HILTON-That’s what I’m referring to. I’m not sure what Section they’re talking about. So, just to let you know where I’m coming from. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to clarify the fact that it says it’s less than 15, but it’s more than 15, and in fact I didn’t understand that myself. MR. RYAN-I think that square footage has to do with the amount of disturbed, I believe, George. The actual lot is greater than 15,000, but we aren’t disturbing. MR. HILTON-Yes, land clearing activities less than 15,000. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, all I wanted to make sure of, that everybody understands it’s more than 15,000 square feet. That’s all. There’s a discrepancy between the actual size and what it says in the documentation. MR. LAPPER-And he was referring to the disturbance. MR. RYAN-Yes. I’m referring, yes, disturbance. MR. VOLLARO-All right. One other question. I think when I read Van Dusen & Steves’ letter of February 12, it looks to me like there was closure on this lot. Now, if we’re going to do a lot th line adjustment, I don’t believe this, and I think Mr. Steves is here. Matt, you’d have to come up and answer my question on the, does your letter take into consideration the lot line adjustment, or is that before lot line adjustment, your February 12 letter? th MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-February 12, 2004? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-I believe that that has been filed at the Clerk’s Office, the boundary line adjustments to these three lots. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I looked for closure, and you had closure here. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-But from these words, I couldn’t tell if there was a lot line adjustment or not. MR. STEVES-Yes, there has been, and it’s been filed with the County Clerk’s Office. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We’ll have to provide a copy of that. MR. VOLLARO-No, I have it. Well, I have Matt’s. MR. LAPPER-His letter. MR. VOLLARO-The words in here, but I don’t see where, if he said it was filed, it’s filed. I believe him. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t really think so. No, I would certainly like to look at the drawing, and one of the things that is sometimes of a concern to me, and I just wanted to raise it when, and, George, I guess this question would be addressed to you, most likely. Does C.T. Male has, in their possession, copies of our 136 Code, or its most recent revision, in case I’m dealing with bad information? Because I want to make sure that they, my data and your data both agree that they need 374 foot of lateral. They’re short 74 feet. I’m hoping that C.T. Male is looking at the Queensbury Code when they do some of these analyses. I would suspect they do, but I don’t know that. MR. MAC EWAN-We can always find out, and if there’s a question looming over us here, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what’s required for the septic laterals. So we’ll have Staff square that away with C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That would be good. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to stormwater, sewage design? MR. SEGULJIC-I have one question regarding stormwater. In regards to the stormwater, you have two stormwater retention basins, on one of the drawings here, appeared to be located in the right of way, and my other big concern is that there appears that there’s a telephone pole. MR. RYAN-As part of Craig Brown’s comments, they were relocated, adjacent to the parking lot, out of the right of way. MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re no longer shown in the right of way. MR. RYAN-No, that’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And that reflects in that drawing? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re moved to the east and west of the? MR. RYAN-They’re north and south of the parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-We need that drawing to determine what’s going on here. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know. This is frustrating. This is frustrating. Any other questions relative to stormwater, sewage design? Lighting we covered. Landscaping. You’re going to provide us with a landscaping schedule, species and sizes, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, other topics I may have missed, environmental, neighborhood character? MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, I think that, regarding character, I think I would like to just, I think we’re getting ready to conclude the discussions, but I’d like to reemphasize what Mr. MacEwan and others I think have kind of hinted at, and that this particular Board member would much prefer to see a scaled down project rather than the three family unit. I think it’s problematic, and whether it’s zoned for it or not doesn’t mean it’s good planning, and a good project, and I don’t think it’s in keeping with improving that neighborhood. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you be interested in submitting a duplex layout? MR. LAPPER-We’ll talk to Noel and get back to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s open up the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE DUNPHY MR. DUNPHY-Yes. I’m George Dunphy. I live on the corner of Vermont and Central Avenue, and as far as I’m concerned, I would hate to see this happen over in that area, because I believe it would congest the area, more than what it is right now, and as far as I’m concerned, in my opinion of apartment houses, duplexes that are rented out are just a sneaky way to get commercial buildings into a residential area, because it’s there for a profit, and if they can’t make what they want to make on it, they’re not going to take care of it. It’s going to go to pot, and it might look beautiful for the first year, and then after that, you don’t know what’s going to happen to it. You’ll have to fight to get them in there to clean it up. The junk, the crap, whatever gets put in there, people rent. You can see that through the whole Town, as far as that goes. I just think it’s too much for that little area. I don’t know if, that’s my personal opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you for your comments. MR. DUNPHY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. LAPPER-I’m sure that the neighbor’s aware that mobile homes are allowed in this zone also. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve been taking some notes. I don’t know if I’ve gotten everything covered here, but address the septic lateral issue, and I guess I would direct that toward Staff to get together with C.T. Male on. Handicap parking, whether it’s a requirement. I guess that’s 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) another one for Staff. To the applicant, they’re going to provide a landscaping schedule, inclusive of species and sizes, calipers. Was there a consensus, a whole consensus on the Board that they’d rather see a paved parking area versus the crushed stone? MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with some delineation, because you have the leach fields there. MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to be delineated, but whether or not it’s macadam, and either way, it’s considered an impervious area. So it doesn’t affect the stormwater at all. I have to agree with Mr. Lapper on that. MR. MAC EWAN-No preference? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have a preference. MR. SANFORD-I would prefer paved, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s the four. Okay, and also to locate the septic system on Lot One, so we know where it is. Did I miss anything? MR. SANFORD-Well, I just want to have C.T. Male, since they’re going to be looking at handicap parking, I’d like them to take a look at that parking for adequacy, in terms of backing up and that kind of stuff, entry and backing up. MR. HUNSINGER-We had asked for the plat to show the wattage of the lighting fixtures. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We had provide cut sheets, right? Or indicate on the plat? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, if it’s just a standard residential. MR. MAC EWAN-A note or whatever, revise the plat to indicate what you’re having on there. Okay. Well, I guess since I did the writing, I’ll move it here, then. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2004, NOEL LABONTE, III, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: For the following reasons: 1. To address the septic lateral issue and dimension and length, and that’s going to be directed toward Staff to do. 2. Verify whether handicap parking is required for this type of development. 3. The applicant is to revise his site plan map to include landscape schedule, inclusive of species, size and calipers. 4. Revise the parking area to be paved. 5. Locate the septic system on Lot Number One and indicate it on the plat. 6. Provide lighting information for the building lights, whether they’re noted on the plat or cut sheets are provided. 7. Refer this back to C.T. Male and ask them to review the parking lot adequacy for turning radiuses. Duly adopted this 30th day of March, 2004, by the following vote: 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Ms. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Are you tabling it to a date? MR. MAC EWAN-No, because they won’t get on now until May anyway. You wouldn’t get on in April. So you’d be on in May. Deadline is April 15. th MR. LAPPER-See you in May. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DKC HOLDINGS AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 100 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF 10 SELF-STORAGE UNITS TOTALING 27,050 SQ. FT.; ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-379 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7 LOT SIZE: 31.48 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-2004, DKC Holdings, Inc., Meeting Date: March 30, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 10-2004 APPLICANT: DKC Holdings is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct 10 self-storage units (27 050 sq. ft. total) along with site lighting, landscaping and stormwater facilities. LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of West Dr. and Luzerne Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned LI, Light Industry. 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 prior Planning Board or ZBA action related to this property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct 10 self-storage buildings on the southeastern portion of a 31.48-acre property. The site plan includes site lighting, landscaping and stormwater management facilities STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted information on the wall pack lighting to be used. The lights are 100-watt cutoff fixtures. The lighting plan submitted as part of the application appears to be consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to protect existing trees within 50 ft. of the residential properties to the east and south in order to provide the required Type ‘C’ landscaped buffer. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes whenever you’re ready, George. MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes 10 self-storage buildings on the southeastern corner of a 31.4 acre property. Site plan shows lighting, landscaping and stormwater facilities as well. The applicant has submitted information showing the wall pack lighting will be 100 watt cut off fixtures, and overall the lighting plan appears to be consistent with Town Code. The applicant also proposes to protect existing trees within 50 feet of the adjacent residential neighboring properties, in order to provide the Type C landscape buffer, and this application has also been referred to C.T. Male for stormwater management, and they have reviewed it, and I have a letter in the file from March 16 that says, provided the information included in a fax of March th 12 is incorporated into the final documents, the revision addresses their comments, and it’s th signed by Jim Houston. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, to represent DKC property Holdings on this application. Real quick, it’s property on the north side of Luzerne Road, west of West Drive, and right opposite the entrance to the proposed mini storage is right opposite Minnesota Avenue. We purposely lined it up, albeit across the street, so it’s not an offset intersection. This is property that is zoned Light Industrial. On the first sheet, the overall site plan, it shows the entire parcel as 33.64 acres, and we’re utilizing about three and a half acres in this southeasterly corner of that property for the mini storage. As Staff has talked about, there was a letter from C.T. Male that we do have the signoff on the 16. On the 12, thth they had, I think it was the 12, Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, had faxed them one little sheet th regarding their comments. It was pretty simple stuff. I can go through those if you want, but they did signoff on all those. They had a question on the gate, whether it was going to hang up. Because as the crowned road coming in, and it’s a cantilevered, automatic gate, sliding gate. So, no, it will not. There’s plenty of room, elevation lift for that, and they wanted a few spot elevations, and drainage arrows shown for that crowned road on the entrance, and they had a question regarding a stormwater calc that was addressed by Tom Nace, the engineer. It was basically a Sub Catchment Number Four, I believe, was excluded, and if we included it, it would actually make the stormwater calcs even lower. So the benefit of the doubt was err to the side of the conservative, not to include it. It’s in a pretty sandy area, and it didn’t make any difference, and as of the 16, we did get a letter back from C.T. Male saying that all those were th addressed, and they were happy with that, and I’d open it up for any questions from the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-George, you’ve got the signoff from C.T. Male. Right? You read that, already, into the record? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Just a curious question. How come we didn’t get a copy of it if you received it on the 16? It seems like this is the third letter tonight that maybe we might have been able to th have copies of it or something. MR. HILTON-Yes. Well, all the other ones were either today or yesterday, and, you know, based on your policy of not wanting information the night of the meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that. MR. HILTON-But in the case of this letter, yes. It was received on the 16, and I apologize, I th guess, in the confusion of the rescheduling, it didn’t get to you. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not pointing any fingers of blame here. I’m just wondering what we can do to try to work this system a little better. It seems to be, I thought we had it working there for a while. It just seems to be going off the wagon again, for whatever reason. I don’t know what 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) that problem is. I mean, that was the whole idea of changing our deadline submission to the 15 of the month, to ensure that we were going to get timely review from C.T. Male, and I can th honestly say, I don’t think the problem is with the Town. I think the problem is with the consultant, turning stuff around for us, and I remember we sat down and asked him that. So maybe we need to readdress that with them. All right. Anybody got any questions regarding design standards, conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, design corridor, building design, layout? MR. VOLLARO-I have a question on the layout, I guess. It hasn’t got anything to do with the storage facility, but it’s a fairly large piece of ground. What’s in the future development area? What’s proposed for that, or is anything proposed for that? MR. STEVES-The entire parcel? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-At this time, this was part of DKC Holdings that went all the way out across Niagara Mohawk power line to the north, and fronted on Sherman Avenue, and that’s where the residential subdivision, Burnt Hills, was put in and approved a few years ago, and constructed, and this property is immediately to the south of that, and they also own the parcel immediately to the west of this. They have been talking with the Town Board in rezoning the rest of this property. The knowing that it’s in a Light Industrial zone and they don’t really want to lose Light Industrial, and the money he has invested into the two properties, he wants to start getting a return. At this time, we’re working with Warren County Industrial Development, to see what kind of design we can come up with the rest of the property, but at this time there’s no exact known and most likely would be some type of a Light Industrial subdivision of three to five acre lots. MR. VOLLARO-He wants to change it from LI to something else, or he wants to keep it Light Industrial? MR. STEVES-In this particular lot, on this lot, it would be LI. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-We just don’t have any future plans, at this point. We’re working on it. It’s something that would be down the road. If you’re asking if it’s going to be developed, yes, at some time, exactly how I cannot answer at this time. It’s still in progress. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a 33 acre piece, in that area it would be interesting if somebody was interested in getting in there from a Light Industrial point of view. MR. STEVES-Well, what we had thought, along with your question, is that to go into Light Industrial use, this is complying with that, and it makes a nice buffering between what residential you would have to the east. This is an a low impact Light Industrial use, if you want to call it that. To put it into that corner and then see what would progress from there on after. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions regarding building design or layout? MR. HUNSINGER-Kind of a nit picky question. If you look at SP-2, Sheet Two of Four, the two buildings to the, farthest to the west, you have the square footages labeled on this sheet. The two furthest to the west are labeled 2,805 square feet. All the others are labeled 2,705, although they look like the same dimensions. MR. STEVES-2,705. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. STEVES-I apologize for that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. I don’t usually catch those nit picky things. I’m surprised I saw it this time. MR. STEVES-I forgot to label a hay bale, too, and C.T. Male, I think they picked up on that. MR. MAC EWAN-People are looking at your drawings, Matt. MR. STEVES-That’s good. Has anybody got questions regarding site development criteria? Site conditions? Vehicle access? MR. VOLLARO-You haven’t gotten to lighting yet, have you? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s why I’m going down the checklist. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Keep going. MR. MAC EWAN-Pedestrian access, parking field design, emergency access? I think we addressed the emergency access question. Stormwater? Lighting? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one question on the lighting. There’s a pole described on one of the drawings, and I’ll pick it up in a minute if I can get to it. MR. STEVES-You wondered where the location of that pole is? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve got a description of the light itself, and then on the plan itself it says there’s a cut off light up here, right by the gate. That’s obviously not this piece. MR. STEVES-If you look on the top of that detail for the pole, that’s a cut off light mounted on top of the pole. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then that is the cut off light. MR. STEVES-That is the only pole mounted cut off. The rest of them are building mounted. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, building mounted. Okay. MR. STEVES-The very nominal light at the entrance to the. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got you. No, I was just wondering if there was more than one of these? MR. STEVES-No. MR. VOLLARO-Usually on the plan it would say, you know, one or one of, two of, three of or whatever. MR. STEVES-I can consider the one on my detail to say one, meaning it was only one pole. MR. VOLLARO-One cut off light. MR. STEVES-But it’s actually “I” for the detail. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-There is only the one pole mounted cut off. All the rest are wall mounted, wall packs. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. VOLLARO-And all of these wall mounteds are one foot candle. So the average of this whole plot is one foot candle. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Then I don’t have any other questions for that. MR. STEVES-Mainly for security lighting, what you’re looking at on the automatic gate is similar to the one that you have on the Northway Self-Storage on Sherman Avenue on the south side, where it automatically opens at seven, and automatically closes at ten o’clock. So it’s mainly just a security light. MR. VOLLARO-And, George, we do have a signoff letter on C.T. Male? That’s in the file? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to make just a quick comment on something. I think that the general perception maybe even around is if C.T. Male signs off on something, that’s the end of it. I like to take a look at what their signoff comments are, to make sure that, that’s just me. I just look at they’re to make sure that I understand what they’re signing off on, and what they’re changing on, and I feel sometimes lost when I don’t have that letter to go back to, because, you know, the problem is we’re making an approval here, based on just what C.T. Male puts in file, and they further said that so long as the stuff gets on the print that was in the fax, you know, between those two things, I’m not sure that everything that was in the fax gets on the prints, and it’s our responsibility to make sure that that does take place. MR. STEVES-Did you have a copy of the previous C.T. Male letter? Do you have a copy? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have the copy of that. That’s March 12, 2004? MR. STEVES-Yes. I didn’t know if you wanted me to go through it. I did touch on them all briefly. MR. MAC EWAN-They got a signoff that supercedes, you know, the March 12 comments. th MR. STEVES-I understand what Bob’s saying, so he knows what changes were made. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it would be nice. Because, you know, when I say yes on the approval, I’d sure like to know that I understand what my yes is. MR. STEVES-I renumbered the drawings accordingly, and I made sure the gate’s not going to ram into the asphalt. That’s about the bottom line. MR. MAC EWAN-A silly question regarding the gate. You said it’s on a timer. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What would happen in the event that someone was in there? MR. STEVES-There’s an electric eye on it that goes in with a timer on that as well. So at ten o’clock, if somebody’s in there, they have so much time, if you’re coming back from out, heading out from in, that would allow you back out. It won’t allow more people in. That’s what they do. MR. MAC EWAN-So if someone had gotten in there say around nine o’clock, been there for a couple of hours. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. STEVES-Right, go in at ten minutes to ten and it closes on you. It’ll realize how many cars went in, you come back up the aisle, let you back out, won’t let any more people in. MR. SANFORD-Well, what will it do? MR. STEVES-Well, hopefully there’s not that much traffic. MR. SANFORD-I see what you’re saying. You’re saying it’ll close again and then it won’t let anybody else in. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It has memory. If a couple of people have gone in, it knows three cars have gone in, and then it closes and it says to itself, in the memory cycle, there are three cars in this lot and three cars have to come out. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got the concept. It’s like a thermos bottle. Some keeps cold, liquid cold, hot. How does it know? MR. STEVES-It’s a scanner. It’s a little eye, similar to what you have on your garage door. MR. SEGULJIC-What happens in the event of a power outage? MR. STEVES-Then you don’t get out for a few minutes. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there any backup systems to open the gate? I mean, what happens? MR. STEVES-I’ve done seven or eight of these things, and that’s the first time anybody’s asked me that question. So I’ve never had an experience to worry about too much traffic after ten o’clock in these mini storage. There’s a sign that says right there, opens at seven, closes at ten. I’ve never had an incident that I know of where anybody’s been locked in to one of these. You can, if you can walk through the gate, you can push the gate enough open to be able to walk out. You won’t be able to drive out. So you wouldn’t have to worry about climbing the fence, if that’s your question. Your car might be in there for a few hours. MR. SEGULJIC-You could get out. Okay. MR. METIVIER-Technically it wouldn’t close if there was a power outage, right? MR. STEVES-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to lighting along those lines? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Landscaping? MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a general question on landscaping. If you were to drive down Luzerne Road, except for the opening at the driveway, would you be able to see the units from the road? I didn’t think so. MR. METIVIER-Maybe right now you would, but in the spring. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Most of the year you wouldn’t. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) MR. METIVIER-That lot is so unique, from West Road, you know, looking at it from West Road, it’s like, wow, this isn’t going to go here, but actually it’s going to work really well there because it’s really not West Road. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it, and with the buffer of 30 feet, and we’ve provided 80, and we’re receptive to that, even though we didn’t have anybody that we worried about. We just said let’s provide a buffer there. MR. MAC EWAN-Why aren’t you providing a 50 foot buffer? MR. STEVES-We thought 80 foot was nice. MR. MAC EWAN-Above and beyond. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-No complaints. I was just curious as to why. Any other questions relative to neighborhood character? Anything I missed? Anything you wanted to add? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-George? I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Is this Long or Short Form? MR. MAC EWAN-I believe there’s a Short in here. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it is. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DKC HOLDINGS, 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: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) 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 30 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll take it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2004 DKC HOLDINGS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 10-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: DKC Holdings SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Zone: LI-1A Location: 100 Luzerne Road Applicant proposes the construction of 10 self-storage units totaling 27,050 sq. ft.; along with associated lighting and landscaping. Storage facilities in the LI zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: BP 2003-379 Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7 Lot size: 31.48 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: March 30, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/17/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/19/04, and 3/30 Staff Notes 3/23 Notice of Public Hearing 3/2 CB from S. Smith, Qu. Fire Marshal 2/27 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 3/30/04; and 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) 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. See Fire Marshal memo regarding gate / lock. 2. With the understanding that the information faxed to C.T. Male, the fax to C.T. Male dated March 16, 2004 will be included on any future updated drawings with those instructions. Duly adopted this 30th day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. Question for you. Real quick. Newbury, last week we tabled that pending the information to be submitted to Staff by this Friday. I submitted that information today, so that I can place the sign. The sign is ready to go. I just haven’t placed a date. I just didn’t want to get to the eleventh hour, again, and not have the sign up 10 days prior. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought we tabled that to our first meeting in. MR. HILTON-In April. MR. STEVES-I just wanted to confirm that. MR. MAC EWAN-Tabled to our first April meeting, which is the 20. th MR. STEVES-The 20? th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STEVES-Thank you, sir. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other business? We’re done. On motion meeting was adjourned. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/30/04) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 35