Loading...
2009.08.18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 29-2009 Pyramid Co. of GF/NEWCO 1. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.4, 92.11, 93.1 Site Plan No. 50-2008 General Timber 2. Tax Map No. 265.-1-28 Subdivision No. 7-2003 David Chatt, Robert Hrubenak 6. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.7-1-22, 21 Site Plan No. 28-2009 Eugene Timpano 8. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14 Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC 11. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Site Plan No. 25-2009 Randy Gross 24. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33 Subdivision No. 2-2009 Cerrone Builders 30. FINAL, PHASE II Tax Map No. 315.5-1-1 Freshwater Wetlands 7-2009 Site Plan No. 38-2008 Robin Inwald 34. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 44-2009 Nigro Companies 39. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-22, 26 DISCUSSION ONLY 1 Main Street, LLC 51. Tax Map No. 309.11-2-17 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning th Board on Tuesday, August 18. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes thrd from June 16 and June 23. Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JUNE THRD 16 AND JUNE 23, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item on the agenda is Administrative Items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 29-09 PYRAMID CO. OF GF/NEWCO: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-A request by the Pyramid Co. for further tabling, and we were just advised by the applicant that they would like to be heard in October. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, that’s a good thing because September is full. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 PYRAMID CO. OF GF/NEWCO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 10,950 sq. ft. mixed use building. New Commercial construction in the ESC zone require Planning Board review and approval; and 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009 & 8/18/09; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 PYRAMID CO. OF GF/NEWCO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We’re going to table that to the th October 20 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline would be th September 15. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SP 50-08 GENERAL TIMBER MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item on the agenda is General Timber. I think everyone was aware, previous to the meeting this evening, that DEC, what’s the proper term, selected, I guess would be the right word, selected the Town of Lake George to be Lead Agent for the SEQRA review. In looking at the resolution and the information in the package, is there anything new that we haven’t already forwarded to the Town? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think it’s safe to, I shouldn’t say it’s safe to assume, but I think that one can assume that the lands in the Town of Queensbury are not going to be disturbed any more or less than what they’ve already proposed, but we have not gotten updated plans as of yet because we were moving the header, etc., but those are in the lands of Lake George. MR. HUNSINGER-Will we receive them? MR. OBORNE-Yes, we should, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So is it premature to seek a resolution, or should we wait until we have the plans? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think your, the resolution is to send to the Town of Lake George your concerns about environmental degradation or possible environmental degradation on the lands of Town of Queensbury, and just to make them aware of those issues. MR. HUNSINGER-So will there be a future? I guess what I’m getting at is will there be a future opportunity to comment as well? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. As far as the Town of Queensbury’s lands, you are going to be doing your Site Plan Review on that, in the Town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, in terms of the SEQRA review. MR. OBORNE-SEQRA review, well, no, they are the Lead Agency for the whole project at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But we will get to comment on it, provide comments on the SEQRA? MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s what we’re asking you to do tonight is to provide comment on that, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re being asked to provide comment before we’ve seen the final plans? MR. OBORNE-I think that, yes, and I think that you will be given another chance to comment on it. I think that they’ve already been apprised of the issues that the Town of Queensbury has. It’s just more of a reiteration. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Certainly if they’ve received a copy, I’m sure they have, of our minutes from those meetings, because there are certainly a lot of open questions, and they certainly are a lot of open questions, and certainly General Timber got a lot of direction from the Planning Board on the things that we were looking for. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MRS. STEFFAN-But I’m not sure. I’m certainly not prepared to put forth a resolution. I don’t know if anybody else is. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, there was a sample resolution, but it’s. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s general. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s general, yes. MR. TRAVER-I think on the issue of Site Plan Review, I think we could probably deal with much of the issues of stormwater management and so on. I think the one issue that I was concerned about fairly early on is the presence of the Timber Rattlesnake, Timber Rattler, particularly in the lands of Queensbury, and I know that in the Commissioner’s letter, outlining his decision to appoint Lake George as Lead Agency, he indicated that in our comments we did not include anything to support the presence of that rattlesnake there, but I believe someone from his staff did send us a letter saying that it was logical and that we should assume that that rattlesnake existed, and maybe more importantly, and what my concern is, is that the harvesting be only done in the wintertime, and I think it would behoove us to ask the Town of Lake George to consider restricting the harvesting to specific dates, beginning and end, specific dates during the winter season. I think that not only will help protect the wildlife that’s there, but hopefully will mitigate stormwater as well. So that’s my main concern from the environmental standpoint. MR. HUNSINGER-And we could put those limitations on ourselves, as part of Site Plan Review, too, that is a Site Plan Review criteria. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. TRAVER-Well, the only reason that I would like to have Lake George know that we’re concerned about that with regards to SEQRA is that if Lake George says that there was no survey done that documents the presence of those reptiles on this land, which in fact, I believe there wasn’t. There was, let’s say an informed assumption on the part of the biologist that because of the known proximity of populations, that it should be assumed that they’re on this land. If Lake George were to say, for SEQRA, that we’re not concerned about that because there’s nothing documented, maybe, in terms of SEQRA, if we draw their attention to that, they would perhaps request that a survey be done. So that’s, again, my concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. Yes. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So if you could just clarify. We’re being asked to consider a resolution that will include our concerns regarding SEQRA that will go to Lake George? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, as was pointed out earlier, we don’t have any final plans yet. We’re kind of in a Catch-22, then. MR. OBORNE-I think to a certain extent you are. I think your Site Plan Review’s going to be relegated to the lands in the Town of Queensbury, and they do not propose to do any changes in that aspect of the Site Plan. I have not been apprised of any changes that they’re going to be doing in the Town of Queensbury. All the changes from the previous submitted Site Plans were in the Town of Lake George. That’s why, you know, we’re asking you to do this. If you’re not comfortable, don’t do it. Do you want to discuss it more and get, you know, a little bit? MR. FORD-I believe that Gretchen suggested, in an e-mail, that we have a Special Meeting where we could air our concerns and document them, and that might be the way to handle this issue. MR. KREBS-But I think the resolution prepared by Staff pretty much covers what we’ve just discussed. It says the Queensbury Planning Board would like the Town of Lake George Planning Board to consider the following issues during the SEQRA Review: the factors of steep slope, erosion, construction of new logging trails, wildlife including endangered species, which would cover the rattlesnakes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We might want to be more specific about that, though. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Visual impacts and the quality of the environment. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that’s taken from Mr. Traver’s letter that was submitted earlier to the Town of Lake George. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. OBORNE-Verbatim. MR. SIPP-I think there are, such as the time of harvest, in other words, we would like to see it done in the wintertime and in the dry season, and there are some fine points here, most logging operations like (lost words) a lot of material not cut up properly. So that it gets covered by snow in the first season and becomes a fire hazard (lost words). So these are general things, but I think there are some concerns. Nothing is mentioned here about the stream. I thought the stream had (lost words) Queensbury side, but it still can pick up some runoff if the skid trails are not put in properly. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Keep in mind that there is a difference between the SEQRA aspect of this, which was given to the Town of Lake George, and Site Plan Review, which both Towns will be accomplishing with this project. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, do you know when the Town of Lake George will be hearing this? MR. OBORNE-I have not. Again, I just got back from vacation. I haven’t had a chance to look into that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So would they typically wait to complete their SEQRA review until they’ve received comments from us in the form of a resolution, or would they? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think that is what’s moving this along is that we want to get those comments from this Board to them. I cannot see how they can start SEQRA review at this point with an incomplete application. It defies logic. However, you do want to protect yourself. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the one thing that we could do is, you know, based on this discussion, we do have another Planning Board meeting next Tuesday, and what we could do is everyone collectively could bring their thoughts together and then we could put together the resolution next week. That way we could add to this resolution with specific items that we want. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. It’s not a public hearing, and that should not be an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking the same thing. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It doesn’t sound like we’re pressed for time. MR. FORD-Good suggestion. MR. SEGULJIC-Are we going to be able to start Site Plan? Do we have to wait until they pass SEQRA before we start Site Plan Review? MR. OBORNE-Well, not necessarily. I mean, you have to feel comfortable in order to do SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-But we’re not going to be able to take any action? MR. OBORNE-Well, you’re not going to be able to take any action on SEQRA until you get a full Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-But what I’m asking is, let’s say next week they pass, they don’t pass SEQRA for a year, for whatever reason. We can’t do anything, really, until they pass SEQRA, right? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. OBORNE-That is correct. You have to have a declaration, a SEQRA declaration, before you can move forward. You can do your Site Plan Review. You just can’t approve it. MR. SEGULJIC-We can’t approve it before they pass SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-Right. Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I think that would be good to wait until next week. That’s a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-What specifically are you looking for, just our concerns on the (lost words)? MR. OBORNE-I cannot speak for the Board. I mean, the Board, I would like for the Board to put their concerns down in a resolution to be sent to the Town of Lake George. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So we have the following concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So, yes, so we’ll put it on the agenda for next Tuesday, and just, if there’s a specific comment you want to make sure gets into the agenda, you could either e-mail it around or just bring it Tuesday night. MR. SEGULJIC-So really what we’re doing is asking Lake George to look at it from that perspective. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And if you are to communicate with each other, I do want to reiterate, please use the Town of Queensbury e-mail. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Thank you, Keith. MRS. STEFFAN-And I think that I would recommend that folks go back through the meeting minutes for General Timber to refresh your memory on those items that were hot topics for you, and then use that last paragraph as a guide, steep slopes, erosion, construction of new logging trails, as an outline for your comments. So that way we can be very specific about the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Would it be easier to get those concerns in advance, it would be easier to do it in advance of the meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-So if you could e-mail them to everybody and maybe, Keith, you could pull them together and prepare a draft. MRS. STEFFAN-The meeting’s on Tuesday. So Thursday would probably be a good deadline. MR. OBORNE-If you can get me stuff, yes, again, I do have final agendas. MRS. STEFFAN-End of business Thursday. That way you’ll have it on Friday. MR. OBORNE-Yes. That may be difficult. I may be able to get it by close of business Friday. I mean, I still have to get Staff Notes out for next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MR. OBORNE-And Pam is on vacation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Our regular agenda. If there’s no objections from the Board, and if the applicant is available, I’d like to move up the, I don’t know how to pronounce this, Hrubenak. Is Mr. Hrubenak here? MRS. STEFFAN-David Chatt and Robert Hrubenak. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anyone have an objection to moving this up the agenda? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to come on up. We’ll hear this project first. SUBDIVISION 7-2003 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID CHATT, ROBERT HRUBENAK OWNER(S) JENNIFER DUNN, ROBERT HRUBENAK ZONING [OLD] SR-1A LOCATION 20 & 26 WESTBERRY WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO LOTS 25 & 26 IN THE PINE RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 7-03; BP 06-200, BP 05-341, BP 08-519, BP 07-199, BP 06-133 LOT SIZE 0.84 & 0.92 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-22, 21 SECTION A-183 JENNIFER DUNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you could summarize Staff Notes, when you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Subdivision 7-2003. This is a modification. David Chatt and Robert Hrubenak. This is a lot line adjustment to Lots 25 and 26 from approved Subdivision 7-2003, which is Pine Ridge Estates. Location 20 and 26 Westberry Drive. Existing zoning is SR-1A. That was the zoning that was enacted at the time. SEQRA status is Unlisted. The parcel history as you see is the subdivision. Project Description: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment to Lots 25 & 26 in the Pine Ridge Estates subdivision. Modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: According to the applicants, the purpose of this lot line adjustment is in order to incorporate a portion of a sprinkler system associated with lot 25 that was installed on Lot 26 inadvertently three years ago. It appears that both property owners are in agreement with this course of action instead of removing what has already been installed. Staff has no immediate issues regarding this minor lot line change. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If you could identify yourself for the record. MS. DUNN-Jennifer Dunn. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MS. DUNN-I do not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-It seems very simple. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to do a SEQRA on this? There’s nothing included in the package. MR. OBORNE-Yes, to reaffirm the previous SEQRA findings. MRS. STEFFAN-So just do a Short on this? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Well. MR. OBORNE-It’s reaffirming. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s in the motion that we have considered it. We don’t have to go through a Short Form. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. OBORNE-No. MR. TRAVER-No, not if we’re reaffirming. MR. FORD-Reaffirm it. MR. HUNSINGER-Because, are you even moving the lot line by a foot? MS. DUNN-Not even. It’s a foot at the widest point. It’s half an inch kind of as a triangle. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to make sure there’s no public hearing scheduled. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2003 DAVID CHATT, ROBERT HRUBENAK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment to Lots 25 & 26 in the Pine Ridge Estates subdivision. Modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was not required; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2003 DAVID CHATT, ROBERT HRUBENAK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Pine Ridge Estates subdivision. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four approve. Paragraph Four B, we’ve considered the requirements for the State Environmental Quality Review Act and reaffirm the negative declaration. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. Paragraph Four G does not apply. It’s approved with no conditions. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board is reaffirming the previous Negative Declaration; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that each lot in the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item e to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests granted / denied: [stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans] 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MS. DUNN-Thank you so much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 SEQR TYPE II EUGENE TIMPANO OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 928 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL TO USE AS AN ICE CREAM SHOP. PROPOSAL INCLUDES NEW PARKING CONFIGURATION AND NEW ACCESS DECK WITH HANDICAP LIFT. NEW RESTAURANTS IN AN HC-MOD ZONE ARE AN ALLOWED USE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 30-05, AV 18-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/13/09 LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-14 SECTION 179-9-010, 179-7-050 EUGENE TIMPANO, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 28-2009, Eugene Timpano. Site Plan Review for a restaurant in the HC-Mod zone, Location is 928 State Route 9. Highway Commercial Moderate is the existing zoning. This is a Type II, no further SEQRA required. Project Description: Applicant proposes conversion of a residential rental to use as an Ice Cream Shop. Proposal includes new parking configuration and new access deck with handicap lift. The total retail space proposed for the ice cream shop is 580 square feet. Seating for 12 is planned inside with no provisions for outside seating. There is a handicap accessible unisex bathroom available. New Restaurants require Planning Board review and approval. I will just jump down to additional comments. This application has been forwarded to VISION Engineering for review and comments. Staff has identified the following items requiring attention – Denote snow storage location on plan; Signage materials to be used and method of attachment should be submitted; Handicap parking location to be denoted on plan to include loading area. Minutes from June 16, 2009 Planning Board meeting concerning this application attached, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. TIMPANO-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have anything else to add, any new information? MR. TIMPANO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open it up for questions, comments from the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, my comment is that when I went through the Staff Notes, and then when I went through the VISION Engineering comments, there are so many outstanding items that I don’t really know how we can do a Site Plan Review tonight. MR. TIMPANO-I don’t understand why they are outstanding items. MRS. STEFFAN-Did you get a copy of the Staff Notes and a copy of the VISION Engineering comments? MR. TIMPANO-I responded to all the items that were noted by the Planning Board last time. Which ones were open? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) th MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but these are the August 13 VISION Engineering comments and then the current Staff Notes. On the VISION Engineering comments there are landscaping and lighting issues. MR. TIMPANO-And they were addressed in what I submitted a month ago. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, according to these VISION Engineering comments, there are a lot of outstanding items on parking, pedestrian safety, dumpster location, elevation drawings. MR. TIMPANO-Then is there a way for me to schedule a meeting with VISION Engineering so we can resolve these issues? Because apparently there is a difference of opinion in whether I’ve responded to his request, and whether I do have to respond to his request, or do I have to respond to his request or do I have to respond to your request? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the VISION Engineering is an agent for the Town, an agent for the Community Development Department and the Planning Board, and so, VISION Engineering is doing some of our Staff work for us. MR. TIMPANO-Yes, and I respond 30 days in advance, and he responds 72 hours in advance. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s our system. MR. OBORNE-The nature of the beast. MR. TIMPANO-Fine, so, again, how do I arrange to meet with VISION Engineering to satisfy him? MRS. STEFFAN-How can, I understand the applicant needs to answer these, and is there a better way for the three of you to get together? MR. OBORNE-I think if you make a resolution directing me to set up a meeting between VISION Engineering and Mr. Timpano, that can be accomplished. With that said, let it be known that, if you’re requesting that meeting, that time is billable to you, and that’s really the only indication that the applicant needs to know about. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think one of the issues, you know, on this project in particular, is, you know, the level of detail isn’t what the engineer is used to seeing. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And I’ve made these comments before, during the course of the meeting, and I’ll say them again for your edification as well. During the Site Plan, you know, we do require certain information, but, you know, sometimes I don’t feel as though we really need to have full engineered drawings for every little detail that’s on the plan, and I think, you know, that’s one of the issues here. Because, you know, I mean, I did see on your plan where you had identified where the dumpster would be. I couldn’t tell if it was to scale, and I’m sure maybe that’s what the engineer is thinking, and in his defense, there were no details there. So he’s saying there’s no details. You’re saying it’s on the plan, and then, you know, we’re kind of trying to mediate this at a public meeting which is very difficult for us to do. So I think maybe in this case a meeting with the engineer would be beneficial and would help speed this along, you know, and part of my concern, too, is we were here two months ago, and, you know, two months to a small business owner means the whole world. I mean, you missed most of the summer season now. MRS. STEFFAN-Although he said he wasn’t going to construct until September. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Well, and I think there are some things like, you know, Dan said that a waiver will be needed from the Planning Board for topography. I mean, that site has been as that site is for the last 25 years. Why do we need a new topography map? I don’t understand that. MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s a requirement of Site Plan Review. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. OBORNE-But as a condition of approval obviously you can waive that requirement. I mean, that’s reasonable in this case. Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and looking at the tabling motion, there were very specific engineering comments to be addressed. Number Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Fifteen. Also, in VISION Engineering comments, you need to address Items 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, and I think really what we were looking for was to satisfy the Town Engineer. We granted waivers for stormwater and grading. So that’s what you had when you left our last meeting were those specific items to address. MR. TIMPANO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And I understand that you’re feeling that you have addressed them. Maybe as an initial step, you could visit the Planning Office maybe and take a look at, re- review what you have submitted against that list. MR. TIMPANO-Sure. MR. TRAVER-And see where, you now have the most recent review from VISION, following an examination of what you did submit. Some of the items are complete in there. There are items that, there were a couple I saw that no additional information provided. There were some that were just incomplete. So maybe you can work that out in a way to satisfy those items, but that’s ultimately what we need is the signoff from the engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there were no takers, but we will leave the public hearing open. Would anyone like to put forward a tabling resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 EUGENE TIMPANO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the 1. following: Applicant proposes conversion of a residential rental to use as an Ice Cream Shop. Proposal includes new parking configuration and new access deck with handicap lift. New Restaurants in an HC-MOD zone are an allowed use subject to Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009 & 8/18/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 EUGENE TIMPANO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Tabled to the October 20 Planning Board meeting, with a submission deadline for th materials of September 15. The Planning Board directs the Community Development Department to facilitate a meeting between the applicant and the Town Engineer to discuss and address outstanding Staff and Engineering issues. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So contact Staff, and they’ll make the arrangements for you. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. TIMPANO-Fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NPA II, LLC AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14,500 SQUARE FOOT WALGREENS PHARMACY AND A 4,642 SQUARE FOOT CHILI’S RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 21-09, AV 77-08; SV 74, 75, 76-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZE 22.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1- 47 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 47-2008, Northway Plaza Associates. Requested action is Site Plan Review for construction of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy, 4,643 square foot Chili’s Restaurant, reconfiguration of office space to retail space, and associated site work. Location Northway Plaza, 802 State Route 9. Existing zoning, Highway Commercial Intensive. SEQRA Status, this is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy. Again, new commercial buildings require Planning Board Site Plan Review and approval. Staff Comments. The proposal will require the removal of the existing vacant Monroe Muffler building prior to the commencement of construction. Stormwater treatment units will be installed as part of the stormwater management for the project. I do want to go down to the Additional Comments, which is on Page Four of my Staff Notes. The Planning Board may consider approving the additional 7 parking space increase as a result of this proposal. Minutes from the June 16, 2009 Planning Board meeting attached. The applicant also must apply for a sign variance associated with the relocation of the existing freestanding sign on southwest portion of property if the applicant is to proceed with that re-location of the sign. What follows, the other issues and other Staff comments, is Site Plan Review, and they pretty much speak for themselves. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper, project attorney. With me, on my left, is Chris Boyea. Chris does work for Chili’s. So they’re working with us on that portion of the Site Plan, Bohler Engineering, and also on the stormwater plan for DOT and Warren County Soil and Water on that parcel. On my right is Amy Franco from Clough Harbor, actually out of the Syracuse office. They do work for Walgreens and they’ve done the majority of the Site Plan on the site, the Site Plan work on the site. Jim Hagan is here who’s the applicant’s architect for this whole project all along. Bill Dutch on behalf of the ownership, and Stefanie Bitter from my office. So we’re trying a new plan where we’re going to try and outnumber the Planning Board. The Board’s been very supportive of this project. We’ve been working on it for a while because we needed a bunch of variances, not major but important, and the Planning Board was supportive of the variances. We had to go a couple of rounds with the Zoning Board because we made some changes on the drive aisles. All of which, I think, made it a better project, and this Board was supportive. We’re at the point, obviously, where we’ve got the engineering details to work out, and we’ve got a number of Staff comments and a number of engineering comments. Most of it is very straightforward. It’s voluminous but not an issue. They’re really, I’ll go through the big ones, but there are really three, I think, that are most worthy of discussion. One is this issue of the restriction on the pork chop curbs on Quaker Road because obviously that’s a DOT issue which is a little bit different from the Fire Marshal issue because this Board’s required that for all of the businesses that have gone in, in that area on Route 9 and on Quaker Road and on Aviation Road to make sure that people can’t make illegal left hand turns because of the traffic volume. So then we get into this issue of the 20 foot aisle width required for emergency vehicles, and I think that the best solution is to make sure that those islands, which are only there to discourage the left turns, are mountable curbs, and then it will allow the emergency vehicles to turn on top of them if they need to, and maintain, but still maintain it so that it’s going to discourage people from making those turns. So that’s how we’re proposing to address that. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. KREBS-Jonathan, when I was looking at the drawings today, though, I didn’t see any obstructions that would prevent you from making that a 20 foot passageway. Is there something I’m missing there? MR. LAPPER-Amy, can you pull that out, that part of the plan? AMY FRANCO MS. FRANCO-Yes. It would just be, if we made it 20 feet, it would just be so small that it wouldn’t really be effective in preventing a left hand turn movement. It would just be, I guess. MR. KREBS-You have two passageways, one in and one out, that today are 12 feet. MS. FRANCO-Yes. MR. KREBS-What I’m saying is I’m looking at the drawing and I don’t see any obstructions on either side that wouldn’t allow you to expand those 12 foot passageways to 20 feet, and then you would not have to have a mountable curb, which would actually prevent people from then making a left hand turn out. MR. LAPPER-You mean that each of those aisles at the area of the curb would be 20 feet wide? MR. TRAVER-I think what he’s suggesting is leaving the island, the pork chop, if you will, as it is, but enlarging the outer boundaries of the lane, so that instead of being 12 feet wide, they would be 20 feet wide. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Just making the footprint of the whole. MR. LAPPER-Part of the problem is that we have the, on the DOT property, we have that whole stormwater basin. MR. KREBS-In here. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. I don’t know. That’s why I was asking. Because I didn’t see anything on the drawings that would preclude expanding that to 20, but you may have. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Let me show you on, Amy, you just had that. On the drawing that shows the stormwater, underground stormwater, basically that’s the area, we’ve got underground structures. I think also if it was 20 feet, it wouldn’t discourage people from making left turns. It would seem more available. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Because then that’s a real issue. MR. TRAVER-With regard to the mountable center aisle, I don’t know if that’s something that the Fire Marshal would accept, but one thing that comes to mind is that what about in the wintertime? I’m assuming that there’s going to be some snow build up from plowing and so on on that in the wintertime, such that it would not be mountable. MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s in the State right of way. So it’s going to be maintained by the County. So we could talk to the County about that. I mean, I think they would be sensitive to that issue. That would be under the permit, the Highway Work Permit. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. LAPPER-And, you know, basically we’re just trying to find a compromise that accomplishes the purpose of discouraging the lefts and makes it so that obviously emergency vehicles can utilize it. MR. TRAVER-Well, at least for me, the issue is the objection of the Fire Marshal more than anything. So if that’s a solution that the Fire Marshal feels will work. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. LAPPER-We’ll have that discussion with the Fire Marshal before we’re back here. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What are your other thoughts? What are the other two issues? MRS. STEFFAN-I was just going to say, Mr. Lapper, the other two issues. MR. LAPPER-The next issue is the trees on that area where we’re doing the stormwater work, and what we came back with this time is a proposal for massing the trees on the side of the underground facilities, and we can certainly raise the tree size to 10 feet tall, which is what Staff had suggested. MR. TRAVER-Minimum 10 feet. MR. LAPPER-Minimum 10 feet. If you look at the Site Plan, there are really three areas where taller trees are provided, one on our site and two on the DOT property. So we would have to do that as part of the stormwater work, but we don’t see any problem getting that as part of the Highway Work Permit. So we’ve put that on the Site Plan as a requirement. MRS. STEFFAN-Did the DOT design that stormwater system, or was that something that Bohler Engineering? MR. LAPPER-Bohler designed it and it had to be approved. We went through a whole bunch of designs. Chris can talk about that, but originally it was going to be a surface grass, much less expensive but much more visible, and then it was determined it had to be subsurface, and this makes it so it can treat a lot more water as well. Why don’t you just describe that. MRS. STEFFAN-And one of the reasons why I brought it up, I brought it up in other meetings, is that it just, I hate to have those trees go away. It’s the only green thing in that particular area, and I don’t know how the rest of the rest of the Planning Board members feel, but it’s just so sad that those have to go. MR. LAPPER-Amy, why don’t you just describe what you’re planting, in terms of the landscape plan along there, and just go through, to a certain extent, we’re proposing maple trees which are a lot more substantial. Those locust trees are, they look kind of fragile just because of the leaf structure. I mean, they’re nice and they’re sort of mature, but they’re not the same as a maple tree. They’ll never get as big as a maple tree, and just the leaves just make, a lot more light comes through it. So maple trees will probably be more effective, and it also matches what’s along the cemetery. So we just thought that everybody would like that, but why don’t you just describe, from the landscape plan, what’s there and what’s there. MS. FRANCO-All right. We’re just doing like groupings of maple trees with an understory of shrubs along those grouping of sections, and then doing like a buffered area along the parking lot so you wouldn’t be able to see the cars as easily with a holly and juniper mix. So we are kind of buffering it. MR. SIPP-How many? MS. FRANCO-There’s 25 juniper, I believe, and the same of the holly. So 50 shrubs. MR. The shrubs are all going along this line right here. MS. FRANCO-Yes, right along the edge of the parking area. JIM HAGAN MR. HAGAN-You’ve got a cluster of trees here, a cluster of trees and some shrubbery here, another cluster of trees and shrubbery here. In between that area is the underground facilities that are needed for the stormwater management, and to plant something over the top of those would be counterproductive. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that doesn’t, that’s not replacing what’s going to be taken out. That’s just a stop gap measure that a couple of trees on one side and a couple of trees on the other side. That’s not replacing what the. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. HAGAN-Actually, I think if you counted the trees that are there now, there are probably about seven or eight trees, large trees. MR. SIPP-There are seven locust trees. MR. HAGAN-Right, but I think we’re replacing that with approximately the same number of trees, just, we’re putting them in a different location. MR. SEGULJIC-How many trees, in total, are you replacing them with? MS. FRANCO-There’s eight existing and eight proposed. I mean, seven existing, eight proposed. MR. LAPPER-Eight deciduous trees. MS. FRANCO-Eight deciduous, yes. MR. HAGAN-Plus the shrubbery. MS. FRANCO-Right, and also if you look at, I guess the maple and with some smaller service berry as well, are, you know, considered native versus a locust. MR. SIPP-What kind of maple are you talking about? MS. FRANCO-We were going to go with the Red Maple. MR. SIPP-That’s not what you’ve got on your plans. MS. FRANCO-The second one down. MR. LAPPER-AC is what it’s labeled. We’re looking at the chart, they are the second one down under deciduous trees, and I guess, I know that we’ve discussed this before, but that stormwater basin, which I’d still like Chris to describe for you, was a very important project for Soil and Water Conservation because it’s treating all this water that’s coming down the Route 9 hill and going right into Halfway Brook untreated. That’s a pretty substantial underground facility that the County’s going to be responsible for maintaining and cleaning out. So it’s an important project, and that’s why it’s designed this way. MRS. STEFFAN-And from a layman’s point of view, I mean, there is a substantial green space right there, and so, you know, as we look at the project, it’s like, why can’t you save the trees? I mean, there’s obviously a lot of space there to be able to put a stormwater in. I mean, I certainly understand your point of view, but it’s just, you know, as a planner, and looking at all the trees, that’s one of the first things in any development that goes, you know, we cut down the trees and, yes, we try to put a nice landscaping plan in place to mitigate some of the changes that we make, but it’s still not the same. I mean, it’s going to take 20 years to have those maple trees be sizeable enough to compare to what’s there right now. It’s just a frustration. CHRIS BOYEA MR. BOYEA-Yes, yes. It’s a good point, and what we’re trying to do is work with all the constraints that we have. One is the County Soil and Water. Two is the DOT. Three is the Planning Board and the concern for the trees, and I think what Amy, Clough was able to do, is work with all those pieces. Cluster the trees, big trees, I mean, this is substantial maple trees. Maple trees also match what is just adjacent to us on the cemetery. All along the cemetery frontage is maple trees. So it’s going to look, actually in my opinion, more contiguous than what’s out there today. Again, as a refresher for the stormwater it does take a large area. We’ve got over a 12 acre of impervious area. There’s more than that with green space, but that impervious area that this system collects goes all the way up from Flower Drum Song restaurant, in front of Wal-Mart, all the way down that four to five lane interstate, and then catches right in front of our property. So there is a large green space area there, and originally we had proposed, I’m going to say the cheap way out, which was a big hole. It was going to be a big detention basin out in front, and nobody really wanted to see a big stormwater detention pond at the main and main intersections of Queensbury. So, at that point, we had redesigned that system to go underground at the County Soil Conservation’s request and right now today, the plan that they like and have approved and look forward to issuing permits on, has over 16,000 cubic feet of storm tech chambers in that area. So 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) very large underground infrastructure project, that is part of this project, and that’s a separate stormwater system than what Amy has designed for the Plaza. This is isolated just to that existing twelve acre drainage shed that goes up to Flower Drum Song. So there’s a lot of voids in the ground that nobody will drive by and know about other than the people in this room right now. So it’ll look grassed. We’ll have trees anchoring on the end. To do anymore trees in maybe like one other spot or something, we really have to be cognizant of root structures and that those roots are going to really try to creep into those voids. It’s possibly going to ruin the six figure investment. This has gone into well over $100,000 for this stormwater system for the chambers. MR. TRAVER-There’s no question that this construction is going to completely change the greenery that we have on site now, but I think between the landscaping that you’re proposing and the positive environmental impact that the stormwater management is going to have, I think it’s a bargain. MR. BOYEA-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That’s my feeling. MR. BOYEA-Just a couple of things to, key points about the stormwater system, although I think we all agree it’s great. I mean, this system alone is going to reduce the amount of flows to Halfway Brook. It’s going to reduce 80% of the TSS, which is Total Suspended Solids. It’s going to have a CDS unit, which stands for Continuous Deflective Separation unit, which pulls all the trash and sand and sediment out of it. It’s a really topnotch unit, and the County is excited about it, and I think that they’re looking at this as one of the best projects for them as well, and going forwards, this is going to also increase the capabilities of the current ditch lines and Halfway Brook, because a lot of water won’t make it there anymore. It’s going to be infiltrated into the sand. So future development will be benefited as well. MR. FORD-But what is going to happen with that trash and the sand that is intercepted? MR. BOYEA-Well, yes, this is a pre-designed, pre-engineered unit that sits in the ground. So it’s designed to have a top on it that opens up and, have you ever seen a vacuum truck that they take those? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. BOYEA-A vacuum hose goes right in, and periodic maintenance, it cleans out the trash that’s assembled in there. MR. FORD-What’s the anticipated frequency of the clean out? MR. BOYEA-A unit of this size might be somewhere around twice a year. MR. LAPPER-The County will be maintaining that. MS. FRANCO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If we can just go back to the number of trees. I’m sorry. Because you had mentioned there was going to be eight new trees. In looking here at L-1A, it says AC Three and Three on either corner. Was that modified to maybe four and four? MR. LAPPER-You were also talking about that. MS. FRANCO-There’s three by the parking area, and then three along Route 9, and then there’s the two by the median area, by the road, driveway. MR. OBORNE-What revision do you have, Mr. Chairman? I have 7/15/09. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s labeled CC. MS. FRANCO-Right. We’ll change it as part of the comments. MR. LAPPER-So that’s the issue. It’s mislabeled. Also, just to make the Board feel better about this, the, you know, obviously it’s a compromise, in terms of what Chris was saying with the stormwater, but right now we’ve got this, you know, the Monroe Muffler thing that’s sitting there will all the pavement. Chili’s is going to have pretty extensive foundation plans, just to make it a lot softer than what’s there now, and there’s also 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) plants on all the islands around both of those buildings. So it’ll look a lot nicer than just the asphalt with nothing. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that was going to be one of my comments. Walgreens doesn’t have any trees around it, I mean, plantings around it at all, as far as I can tell. MR. LAPPER-The Walgreens area, just in terms of how we were able to fit the drive aisles and the parking, it doesn’t have that area of foundation plants. So instead we have the islands. There’s just not a lot, there’s just a sidewalk. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I mean, remember, that’s what Code says to do. So, as I understand it, you should have 12 trees in the parking area. My concern is along the western edge of the site. You don’t have any trees along there, as I see the plans. MR. LAPPER-I think that that area, we talked about that when we came and re-did the Home Depot, just because there’s a very narrow strip, and you’ve got Route 9 and the plows. I mean, that was the. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you could move them back in farther, I mean, the Code says you have to have a tree every 250 square feet, and you have to have 10 foot of aisle. We have a opportunity here. I mean, that’s a pretty, that’s not a very nice looking area of Town, from my opinion. When you look at it, it’s devoid of trees. We have an opportunity to put more trees in there. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re putting trees on all of the islands that don’t have them now, in front of the old Traveler’s space. MR. SEGULJIC-But remember, that’s what Code says. MR. LAPPER-No, I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re not doing anything above and beyond at all. The Code also says you have to have a tree every 35 feet, as I understand it, along the road, and you don’t have that along Route 9, and I can understand your stormwater control. I think that’s great (lost words), but I’m just asking you to comply with the Code. MR. LAPPER-The simple response is that there was just enough room there in order to fit the parking, fit the drive aisles and fit the buildings. The goal here is obviously to re- tenant and rejuvenate this Plaza that’s been sitting there vacant since Travelers left. So it’s important just to have two tenants and two new vibrant buildings in the front, and this is what we could do, given the constraints of the site, to fit sufficient drive aisles and parking spaces to make this work. BILL DUTCH MR. DUTCH-Some of this goes back to the original approval with Home Depot, and (lost words) look far different than it does today, and at that point, the discussion was had with this Board that said, look, we want to bring some improvement. We recognize there’s limitations given the existing facility, and so a pattern was established up in this area of the site (lost words) that was established at that time. MR. SEGULJIC-But that application is not before us. MR. DUTCH-But this is an amended Site Plan approval for (lost words). MR. SEGULJIC-The Code says you have to have a tree every 35 feet, if I’m correct. It might even be 25 feet. Is this under the Old? MR. OBORNE-It’s under the Old, correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So I think it’s every 35 feet. What you’re telling me is you can’t meet the requirements. So maybe you’re trying to do too much with the site. Is that what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-No, I think everyone’s recognized that it’s important to re-tenant the site and make this work. Having a vacant plaza is not helpful to anybody in Town. The problem is that it’s along a State highway. That area gets a lot of snow because of the plows, and there’s just a narrow strip that’s there. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. SEGULJIC-So they should widen the strip, then. MR. LAPPER-The answer is we can’t without losing the drive aisle and parking. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, maybe Walgreens is too big, then. MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s just the reality of trying to make this whole deal work, and have the money to, you know, have the tenants and have the money to be able to re-develop the Plaza. MR. HAGAN-One of the things I think Jon’s alluding to is that with the large investment off site, that needs to be made, I think they need to get X on site. One can’t happen, some benefits can’t happen without the other. I know that that was talked about probably about a year ago, when our stormwater number increased from an above grade to a below grade. So, I’m sure that that had an impact on that as well. MR. HUNSINGER-So what was your third item, Jon? MR. LAPPER-The third one is the traffic issue on site, about proposing to relocate that intersection, and that’s something that both the Staff and VISION talked about. I want to just explain why that’s on the plan. When we did Home Depot, we moved that inner ring road in front of the Peter Harris area, we call it Retail A, to make that a four way intersection, and the problem with that is that those tenants have very minimal parking in front of that Retail A. So Bill Dutch, needing to re-tenant that area, has been trying to come up with a new configuration which allows, the problem is having shoppers walk across that inner ring road to get to those stores. There is some parking there, but it’s only two lanes with a drive aisle in the middle. So that was a proposal to change that, to try to accommodate more parking without having to cross the ring road. Obviously we’ve gotten some comments from the Staff and from the engineer about that. So we wanted to talk about that and see how the Board felt. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any way to move that further north, the curb cut that goes from the parking lot into the main drive aisle? Because I like what you’ve proposed, in terms of making the parking lot work better in front of, I think you called it Stores A, Retail B, actually, Retail B. MR. LAPPER-Yes, you’re right, it is Retail B. MR. HUNSINGER-But I think I agree with Staff’s comments and engineering’s comments that that intersection, now, is too close to Route 9, and I think it’s going to create problems with backup. MR. HAGAN-What you’re suggesting is taking what we’re proposing here, and sliding it in this direction. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because that might alleviate those concerns by giving you more queuing. MR. LAPPER-You mean to compromise, in other words? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but at first I wasn’t sure what you were trying to do there, and then on C-1-1, where you overlay the current site, existing site with the proposed, it’s obvious, you know, that you’ve realigned that, and I think it works a lot better for Retail B, but I think you’re going to create a, I agree with Staff and the engineer that you’re going to create a traffic difficulty with the drive aisle. MR. LAPPER-So what you’re suggesting is perhaps moving it halfway in between the old and the new? MR. HUNSINGER-Just as a suggestion. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ll certainly look at that before we come back next time. We’re just trying to, this whole thing is about solving problems, and it’s not that it’s set in stone that there’s only one way. It’s just about getting a compromise that works. Bill’s point is that before we did the Home Depot, that whole intersection was all the way at the top. Well, Bill, what do you think about the Chairman’s suggestion that we look at trying to make it, move it halfway back, which would create more parking, but not as much as what you have? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. DUTCH-Well, it’s just designed, whether traffic can flow here. We know this works. I don’t know that if we intersect these and split these (lost words). I don’t know that that works. Universal comments that we’ve had from retailer prospects is that the configuration there is not conducive for some of the people that we would like to entertain to come in here, and they just need better parking in front of these stores, and we don’t have it now. I apologize for that. MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly a constructive suggestion. So we’ll look at that and be back with the compromise. We’ll see if we can work out something that addresses the concerns of the Staff and the engineer. MR. FORD-While you’re looking at compromises, is there any way that you can go back to Number Two and those trees along the eastern side of Route 9? Is there anything that you can put in there that will allow you the flow and the parking that you need, and still try to accommodate some greenery there? MR. DUTCH-My only comment is that I know where we have to stack the snow now. We’ve been limited because of the size of the property. It’s very difficult to truck it off site and very expensive to do that, and what we had done, we used to dump snow, years ago, over the back of the property which we’re restricted from doing now. So if you looked at last year’s snow piles and you know how big they got, my fear is that you put these immature trees in there, they’re just going to get buried by these snow plows. We’re constantly going to have to be replacing them, and I’m big on aesthetics, as big as you folks are, but I’m just afraid that with the salt and the materials and the, you know, that we use to melt ice and snow on there, that it’s going to be lip service only and would be a constant maintenance problem with that stuff. Whereas the other locations that are proposed that are proposed, I think, are easier to avoid damaging those trees than it would be along Route 9. That’s just my opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-But couldn’t you store the snow where you’ve got the stormwater infiltrators? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. DUTCH-I don’t think so. That’s going to be State owned, or County land. So I don’t think that they would have the right to dump their snow on that corner. MR. SEGULJIC-But when they plow it along that way, it’s going to be in the County right of way, isn’t it, along Route 9? MR. BOYEA-I think there may be some that might get into the right of way. Some that gets pushed from the right of way into this lot, and I think it’s, you know, moved by a front end loader that’s parked on that site. In general, usually we’re not allowed to use County right of way or State right of way for any snow storage. MR. LAPPER-Amy was pointing out that this was the response to the VISION comments in the last go around, and there were constraints because of underground utilities in that area as well that would prevent. I mean, here, of course, there’s just a narrow area between the parking lot and the underground facilities. So we really thought that, and obviously you always want more and we understand that, that coming up with these clusters was something that we didn’t have last time. That was in response to the comments last month. These three areas where we could get decent size trees, and, you know, it is going to take a little while, but if you think about Queensbury Plaza across the street, you know, when you drive by now, it actually looks pretty good, with those trees after whatever, probably 15 years, and it does take time, but that looks a whole lot softer than it used to before we re-did that. So we’re certainly here to listen to suggestions, but we’re pretty constrained. We also have all the trees along the cemetery, because the buffer requirement made it that we had to add all t hose trees. This was an area that didn’t have trees, right at the southern end of the cemetery property, and that’ll look better than what’s there now. MR. SEGULJIC-So what’s going to happen with the vegetation you’re proposing along that strip? MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry? MR. SEGULJIC-You have proposed vegetation along that strip. MR. LAPPER-Which strip? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. SEGULJIC-The west of Route 9 strip. MR. FORD-Route 9. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it’s low stuff that can. MR. SIPP-Yes, but it’s not going to suffer from the salt? MR. FORD-That’ll be piled on with the same snow that would be piled on the trees. MR. LAPPER-That area is very close to the road. So I think it’s barberry. MS. FRANCO-Right. It was the barberry. MR. LAPPER-Plants that are salt tolerant. MR. SEGULJIC-So if they’re salt tolerant, you can put some trees there then. MS. FRANCO-Well, after our last meeting, we looked at that, because we wanted to add some more trees in there, just because that was one of the Board’s concerns before. So we looked at that, and just, there’s a bunch of utilities that go through there. There’s a water line, and I think there might be some gas and/or electric that go through there. So just with the placement of the trees we couldn’t, but we added a lot more shrubbery than we did have on there before that were in the same, I guess, aesthetic, line as was in there before, or exists now. MR. SEGULJIC-So are those utilities on these drawings, then? MS. FRANCO-Yes. They should be on both the existing plan and the utility drawing. MR. FORD-There will be trees in that parking lot, in the lot itself, though, correct? MS. FRANCO-Yes. We added them to the islands. MR. FORD-At the islands. That’s an acceptable move to me, in the right direction. MR. HAGAN-If you look at that plan right there, you can see the line. If you go over there now, there’s a few scattered trees in the parking lot, but now you’ve got a fairly substantial line within the parking area, which is a little more protected area. MR. LAPPER-Amy’s looking at the utilities on the existing conditions plan. MR. SIPP-Now this area in front of Walgreens, you’ve got a strip across there with junipers and so forth in there. Then you have on either end you have clumps. You’ve got a clump of three red maples on one side, on the north side, and on the south side you’ve got some. How close together are you putting these red maples? You’ve got red maple, three of them, on each side of that stormwater basin. MS. FRANCO-Yes. I’m not sure, offhand, but they might be like 10, 12 feet on center. MR. SIPP-On center. MS. FRANCO-Right. So they’ll end up growing into each other. MR. SIPP-Why can’t you put them across the face of that parking strip there? Why can’t you put some trees in there? MR. LAPPER-Which parking strip, Don? MR. SIPP-The one in front of Walgreens. MR. BOYEA-I believe that that underground detention system runs right to the bottom of that wall. There’s a landscaped wall. MR. SIPP-How about behind the wall? MR. BOYEA-I believe on top is, you know, a guide rail and, you know, to prevent cars from going over the top. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. SIPP-Put some trees in there. What do you mean there’s no room? You’ve got 16 parking spaces there. Take one or two out and put a tree in. MR. LAPPER-The question is, there is an island, when the parking changes. There might be room to put one, if you look on the plan, where the parking spaces change direction. MR. SIPP-You’re going to lose two parking spaces. It seems to me you’ve got enough. There used to be enough spaces for 250 cars there when Travelers was in that building. I don’t think they’re going to have 250 going Walgreens and Chili’s at the same time. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. Because of the proximity to the underground units, we may not be able to get maple trees in there, but we probably could get some trees on, take out two spaces, put in an island, and put some substantial trees there. MR. SIPP-You don’t have to (lost words). They don’t have to see it. They know it’s there. MR. LAPPER-We’ll come back with trees, instead of two parking spaces, something makes sense. MR. SIPP-Trees of some size. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but you already have a tree existing in that area, along the western edge of the site. So the trees can exist and survive. Number Two, the utilities are at least five feet from them, and I’m just asking you to comply with Code. MS. FRANCO-I think there’s a water line that goes through there, and then bends out towards the sidewalk, and that’s how we can have trees farther down. I don’t have large size plans. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other issues from Board members that we haven’t identified this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-No, the trees were my. MR. LAPPER-Those were the big ones. A lot of the stuff, the engineering was re- labeling, confirming some discrepancies on the stormwater plan. We had to change the foot candles or the wall packs on the back of the Chili’s, you know, some specific stuff, but nothing that is any problem, and one thing I want to talk about is the Sign Variance. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, back to lighting. I think it’s more than changing the wall packs behind the Chili’s, or Walgreens. You have a few hot spots in the parking lot that are up at eight and ten foot candles, in some other locations even higher, and one of my questions is did you take into account the existing lighting in the area when you did the photo metrics? MS. FRANCO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we lower the lights in the parking lot, then? You have three or four different hot spots. MS. FRANCO-I know. I think that was one of the comments. So we’ll have to look at that again, just to make sure. We’ll make sure it’s adjusted, based on the comments we received. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the other concerns that I had, and it’s not really, the engineering comments don’t really come right out and say it, but it’s just with the traffic movement where the two new buildings are going to be. It just seems to be congested. There is an engineering comment about the delivery route and parking area for trucks delivering to Chili’s. MR. LAPPER-Yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. HUNSINGER-But I guess mine’s more of a general comment, just about the traffic circulation and traffic congestion where the two new buildings are going, and I just wonder if there was any consideration given to placing one of the buildings in a different location. MR. LAPPER-This was the subject of massive negotiations with the tenants, in terms of how they would work together, next to each other, both in terms of traffic access, pedestrian access, and visibility issues. That’s why you’ve got Chili’s facing one way and Walgreens facing the other. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just to kind of finish the thought, because part of my concern is you’re going to have this one area of the Plaza that’s very congested, but then you’re going to have other areas of the Plaza where you’re going to have, you know, fields of parking that doesn’t get used very often. So is there a way to, you know, kind of balance it out a little better so that you don’t have the congestion problems at the southern end, and you don’t have empty parking spaces somewhere else. MR. LAPPER-Well, those parking spaces are needed to re-tenant the old Travelers space with retail. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MR. LAPPER-And so there’s not, I mean, we’re only complying in terms, there’s not, even though it’s empty now because there’s nobody utilizing it, that’s really the parking ratio that the Town requires. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I know that. I don’t think you have too many parking spaces. That’s not the point. The point I’m trying to make is balance the site out a little better, that’s all. MR. LAPPER-People will be going slowly in front of Chili’s. It’s not, that’s not a drive aisle, in front of Walgreens, and the drive aisles are pretty well marked, in terms of the curb cuts from the Route 9 and Quaker Road. We looked at that delivery issue. Chili’s doesn’t get a lot of deliveries. It’s going to have to be in the back. There wasn’t any alternative. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess really the biggest concern is the entrance off Quaker Road, because where that, I mean, that’s going to be a significant traffic aisle, and you have parking spaces perpendicular to that drive aisle, almost right at the entrance. MR. HAGAN-Again, it’s Jim Hagan. If you look at the field in front of this area, that looks very large and very open, but you also look at the portion of retail space there, you’ve got well over 100,000 square feet of building area right there. So if that is fully tenanted, you will be using those parking spaces out in that area. This area, proportionally, is a lot smaller building area, but the parking is proportional to that. One of the things that we did was we wanted to provide safe, easy access into each of those tenant spaces, but at the same time, by design, we wanted to stop what has happened traditionally on this center, where you had a freefall where people just came flying in off of Quaker Road or Route 9. If you remember, when before Home Depot was built, there was a driveway down in here, and people would literally come flying in in front of Travelers at about 50 miles an hour, but what we’ve done, we’ve controlled part of that. We still have problems down in this area here where people come through here, and they shoot behind this building. We’re trying to slow them down, and, you know, the lane aisles are wide enough so that people can safely navigate through there, but there’s also enough going on that people are going to say, whoa, maybe we should slow down, and that’s really what we’re trying to do. MR. LAPPER-One of the other comments related was whether we should put in speed bumps, and we didn’t think that that’s necessary in the back because we’ve changed it to those diagonal parking. So it’s not going to be, it’s not going to lend itself to speeding like it was, because you’re going to have cars there, and it’s one way, and, you know, certainly what the Board’s pointing out, this is somewhat of a grand compromise. We think it works. We think it’s going to look a lot better than what’s there now, and Chili’s is ready to get in the ground, and we’d like to give them the permission to do that. MR. FORD-Would that diagonal configuration work particularly well, if it’ll work further in, would it not work closer to that Quaker Road entrance, going in to the right side from Quaker Road. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. HAGAN-You’re talking about all this site right here? MR. FORD-Correct. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s two way. That’s the difference. We used the diagonal where it was one way. MR. HAGAN-This is two way in here, but behind the old Travelers, this is one way, one way this way, and you may have some confusion if you carry the diagonal down here. You may create more confusion if you extend the diagonal down to this area. MR. LAPPER-Because now people would be backing up only into one way traffic, rather than two way traffic. MR. HAGAN-Well, Jon, I think it’s something we could take a look at. MR. FORD-Would you, please. MR. HAGAN-Sure. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We did table the public hearing until this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no takers, but we will leave the public hearing open. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The items that I have, based on the discussions that I’ve heard, is that obviously we want the applicant to address Staff comments and VISION Engineering comments. We want the applicant to provide an enhanced landscaping plan, because there’s been several things that we’ve talked about, and I think the applicant understands what we’re looking for. That we want them to re-evaluate the lighting plan to reduce hot spots, ensuring a four to one uniformity ratio, and Code compliance. That we want the applicant to re-evaluate the curb cut location on the Route 9 drive aisle entrance. Anything else that I missed? MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing is with the landscaping, I would just have it be compliant with the Town Code. MR. LAPPER-Well, it sounds like we’re going to have to ask for a waiver just in the front if there’s water lines underneath along Route 9, there’s no option. MR. FORD-And they’re going to examine the possibility of the diagonal parking, immediately after the entrance from Quaker Road. MR. LAPPER-If we could continue that down, yes. MR. FORD-That configuration that you have further in. They’re going to at least examine it. MR. LAPPER-But what we’re hoping is that we could make these changes and get back here for your second meeting in September so we could try and stay on track with Chili’s. MRS. STEFFAN-September or October? Because we’ve passed the deadline for September. MR. LAPPER-We understand. We would like to get back to you in a very short time. We’ve been focused on all this stuff, and the engineers can make these changes pretty quickly. If there’s any way, just because we’re getting down to the short list. MR. FORD-The September agenda is already full. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. LAPPER-The Staff pointed out that the southern Home Depot sign, we’re proposing to relocate it, so that it would be next to the drive aisle. Right now it’s in a parking space. It would be moved five spaces north, and what Staff seems to be saying is that even though we got a variance for that, last time, if we were to relocate it, we’d require a new variance. So, for that reason, we would have the ability, because Home Depot has a right to that sign, we don’t have the ability to relocate it unless it was permissible. So at this point we’re just going to have to leave it where it is, and if we have to come back later and ask the Zoning Board to allow us to move it and modify the Site Plan, we’ll have to do it that way, because we don’t have the right to (lost words). So if, in fact, it requires, we didn’t have a determination from the Zoning Administrator. This is the first time we got that comment, but if it requires modifying a variance to move it five spaces north, then we’ll just have to leave it where it is for the time being. We don’t have that flexibility. MR. SEGULJIC-So just to clarify for me, you want to move it five spaces forward, but you may not because you might need a variance. MR. LAPPER-Because if that requires a variance, that could get denied, so we’d have to just leave it where it is now and treat that separately, withdraw that, and come back in a few months and deal with that. MR. HAGAN-Currently it’s located right about here, and we’re moving it just to the north so it’s adjacent to the entrance drive. So what we’re saying is if we leave it here, we just move one parking space and it would stay where it is. MRS. STEFFAN-How tall is that sign? MR. HAGAN-That’s a smaller sign. I think it’s only about 20, 22 foot tall, approximately. It’s not the main sign, which is located up adjacent to the main entrance. MR. LAPPER-All right. So we’re looking at the first meeting in October, if September is already full? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, September is full, but we could certainly hear you in the first meeting in October. MR. DUTCH-It’s not your concern, but it’s ours. We have a caveat in our lease agreement with Chili’s that if we don’t get in the ground by a certain date, then we have to wait (lost words) March, and I realize the way things are, we didn’t get these comments until last Friday, the deadline. It’s a Catch-22. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2009 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th This is tabled to the October 20 Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of th September 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can: 1.Address both Staff comments and VISION Engineering comments, 2.It’s tabled so that the applicant can provide an enhanced landscaping plan, striping per Code compliance, 3.So that the applicant and re-evaluate their lighting plan, reducing hot spots, ensuring a four to one uniformity ratio and Code compliance, 4.So that the applicant can re-evaluate the curb cut location at the Route 9 drive aisle entrance, 5.So that the applicant can consider or examine the diagonal parking alternatives off the Quaker Road entrance. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. See you in a couple of months. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. KREBS-Can we ask Staff to, if something drops off the schedule in September, that we could possibly move them into it? If something comes off the schedule in September, is it possible to prioritize them to come on? MR. HUNSINGER-First of all, I don’t see it happening because we have such a backlog. MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s got a public hearing associated with it. MR. KREBS-Okay. So you’ve got to advertise. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing, in this particular situation, would there be any advantage, in a prior applicant, one of the things that the Planning Board identified was that the Community Development could facilitate a meeting with the engineer. Is that something that would be helpful in this situation? MR. OBORNE-Having looked at the engineering comments, I’m pretty sure they’ve already had a meeting. Haven’t you? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you got them last Friday they sent it. MR. OBORNE-If you would so direct me, I have no problem with that, whatsoever. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just wondering if that will help you and help the applicant to be ready for the October meeting. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think, yes, absolutely. Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-I think that’s mainly up to the applicant to make that judgment. MR. LAPPER-That would be great. We’ll address the engineering comments first (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Please contact my office and we can facilitate that. No problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Do I have to put that into a motion? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that’s necessary at this point. We’ll put it on the applicant’s shoulders to contact our office and we’ll move it from there. MRS. STEFFAN-That way that would help all of us. All right. We’ll see you in October. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. SITE PLAN NO. 25-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RANDY GROSS AGENT(S) MICHAEL O’CONNOR, G. THOMAS HUTCHINS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC- INT.; SR-1A LOCATION 487 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE TO APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, USE OF TEMPORARY STRUCTURE FOR SERVICES WITH ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER SYSTEM, AN INCREASE IN PARKING AND ADDITIONAL SITE DETAILS. CHANGE TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 10-2008 LOT SIZE 15.24 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-33 SECTION 179-9-010 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 25-2009, Randy Gross is the applicant. Changes to an approved Site Plan requires review and approval by the Planning Board. The location is 487 Dix Avenue. Existing zoning is bifurcated in SR-1A and HC-Intensive. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant proposes a change to approved site 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) plan to include the demolition of existing 3 bedroom single-family dwelling previously proposed for parsonage, construction of a new 5,800 square foot 4 bedroom single- family dwelling proposed for parsonage and temporary use of 2,560 square foot Pole Barn for services with associated wastewater system. Further, the applicants seek permission to use tents from April thru October 31, 2009 for related ministries and functions of the church. Additionally, the applicant seeks to use existing construction entrance for congregation traffic until existing house is demolished. Moreover, an increase to the limits of clearing adjacent to the east side of the church and religious instruction building is proposed. Finally, an increase in parking from the previously approved 72 spaces to a revised 150 spaces. Staff Comments. The applicant received approval for Site Plan 10-2008 on July 15, 2008. Since approval, the applicant is now seeking to modify the site plan as described above. Currently, footers for the Sanctuary are being installed, a large portion of the grading has been accomplished and the inground pool has been removed and filled in. I do want to go down to Additional Comments. Final approved plans to include all changes and revision to approved site plan must be complete and clear when submitted. Staff recommends a post approval meeting with the Planning Department prior to final submittal. The Planning Board may wish to make this a condition of approval. Further, the Planning Board must grant approval for the additional parking, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I’m Michael O’Connor. I represent the applicants, and with me is Pastor Randy Gross who is the applicant and Tom Hutchins who is the project engineer. I guess what we would try to do is to go through the Staff’s comments and respond to each of those. On the second page, they begin with the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to provide an updated phasing schedule for the new proposal. On the filing that was made on S-1, there is a construction phasing that indicates that during 2009, that Phase I was the main building. That is under construction. (Lost words) a little bit of confusion, which I’ll refer to later when I’m talking about the engineering comments. You did approve Site Plan in July of 2008, I guess. There were conditions on that approval. The Zoning Administrator signed off on all those conditions in satisfaction of those conditions, on April 10, 2009. I’ve got a signed copy, stamped copy of the Site Plan approval which was of the main structure, and of the subdivision for the main structure. A building permit was issued. They had proceeded with construction on the main area of worship, and that is underway. Additionally, in 2009, their goals were relocation of the existing residence to off site location. That has not happened. I’m not sure whether it will be completed within that year. It probably will not be completed until part of Phase II is done and they construct the replacement structure (lost words) site, in all honesty. So maybe that has to be moved out of 2009. Construct all parking areas, drives, and walkways, and that is underway. The utilities work (lost words) water supply for the main building and wastewater for the main building. Those will be constructed as that construction progresses (lost words) in the next couple of weeks. The construction is coming along pretty well there. We understand that we wouldn’t get a Certificate of Occupancy until those things were taken care of, like any other construction. Okay. The first Staff comment was we should provide an updated phasing schedule. On the submittal for this meeting, there is a construction phasing. It’s on Sheet S-1, and we’re pretty much right in line with that, except for perhaps during 2009. I’m not sure if we will relocate the existing residence to an off site location. That will probably be held up until we actually construct the replacement residence at the back of the site. Other than that, pursuant to the approved Site Plan, which was approved by Staff on April 10, 2009, the did obtain a building permit, and they are constructing the main area for worship. To date, I guess they have poured the outside walls, and they expect to put the trusses on and the roof on within the next couple of weeks. That’s progressing maybe faster than they actually even anticipated, and, Randy, anytime you want to step in, you can. Utilities work, including water supply to the main building and wastewater for main building will be part of that construction. We understand that we can’t get a CO until we have that, and we put on the filing in 2010, Phase II, the parsonage, which is the building on the back, and the youth building, which started out as a pole barn, and is on the west side of the property, we anticipate that that’s when those would be constructed. We will construct the driveway and sidewalk for the parsonage with the parsonage construction, and utilities for the parsonage and the youth building would be, and the wastewater for both those buildings would be constructed as part of that. Now, I don’t know how much more detail the Board wants as far as phasing, and I guess the next question is what is the timing in the future of Phase II building. Phase II building is the building behind the main area of worship. We have not put that on our schedule of construction. I think the priorities are to do the main building and do the parsonage and do the youth building, and then probably come back for that. So if you wanted a timetable, it would be after the other two 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) phases we’ve set, and maybe we now have to start talking about Phase III as opposed to Phase II. The additional parking may not be necessary at this time. We re-examined our activities and what not, and we think that the additional parking is necessary, and there is certainly some economy to putting the parking in all at one time, and that’s the reason that we have a request before you for an additional 78 parking spots, as opposed to the initial 72. That’ll bring the parking up to 150 parking spots. The future status of the youth building, and you’ve asked whether it’s temporary use. When it is constructed, we believe it will be used on a regular basis. Again, it will depend upon the activities of the congregation as to how much it’s used, but the hope is that it will be used full-time once it’s constructed. Will the single family home be demolished on site or be removed as stated on plan? If we can, and Randy, correct me if I’m wrong. If we can find a place that we can move it in an economic manner that makes it worth salvaging, that’s the intent, but if we can’t, we will demolish it and remove, you know, the parts of it and dispose of them in an appropriate manner. The last comment was the 7200 square foot religious instruction building appears not to be attached to the sanctuary as previously approved. That is an error in drawing. It still is intended, when constructed, to be attached, and we can remedy that, either as part of a condition, or if we are coming back to you, and based upon the engineering comments, we probably are coming back to you. The slope compaction to be performed by tract equipment. That’s just a note. Okay. All right. Tom, I think we’ve gone to engineering. So why don’t you address engineering. We have no objection to having a meeting with Staff, and would accept that readily as a condition that, post-approval, we have a meeting with Staff to make sure that their concerns on the plans, or that we make appropriate notes to answer their comments. That was the purpose of that, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely, it’s for clarity and completeness. TOM HUTCHINS MR. HUTCHINS-With regard to Staff’s comments, as Mike indicate, I’m sorry, Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. The first one is a note item. The parking photo metrics, yes, I need to add the much smaller building mounted lighting to the photo metrics of the plan, and indeed I did not have that information on there. It won’t be a tremendous impact to the plan, but that should be revised, and I will do that. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d make one comment, too, if you look at S-1. The layout is a little bit different than it was before. Part of that was generated by Staff, and particularly Dave Hatin noted that we needed to have a drive around for emergency access. So that’s the new drive around that’s on the east side of the building, and when that was installed, the idea was to, it made more sense to change some of the configuration of the parking. MR. HUTCHINS-And I would touch on that. You may or may not recall, in the previous plan, all of the parking was entirely on the west side, and that issue came up when they went to pull a building permit and so we had to provide vehicle access around, at that point, and then it made sense to, this parking over here was not as desirable as shown where we have it. So, we’ve reconfigured it. Yes, we did add some parking spaces, and we’re happier with the layout, and we think it flows better. It moves parking from the side to the rear, and it does increase the number of parking spaces, which we really do believe was needed. The Town’s Code is one space per five seats in the sanctuary, and if you can imagine a 300 seat sanctuary that was filled. The average would not be five attendees per vehicle, and I think that’s reasonable to understand. RANDY GROSS MR. GROSS-Isn’t there a Code change, it was brought to my attention, that allowed for more? MR. HUTCHINS-That allows the Board to expand over that, yes, with Board approval, up to double, which we are within. With regard to VISION comments, the prior three that I had seen, that we had seen, two of them are addressed. They’re asking for some more soils info. There was, I was relying on soils info. that was done for the previous systems up here. I have no problem re-doing that. I have looked at it. I haven’t logged it and shown it on there. With regard to their Item Four, I guess we have some confusion. This was new info. to me. We had an approved Site Plan, and so I would have presumed that any prior engineering comments would have been addressed, and I came on late in the game here. So I may be wrong, and I’ll have to research that a little bit myself, and if you want to touch on that. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Well, Pastor Randy did meet on different occasions with Staff and believes that the comments that they had as to the prior submittal were all satisfied, and I think evidence of that is the stamp by Craig Brown, so I’m not sure if there’s something not in a file or whatever, but the prior, Comment Four C and Comment Four D appear to address the septic system, which has not, for the main sanctuary, which has not been changed, and which was approved and for which he has a building permit in hand for. So we’ve just got to straighten that out, I think. I’m not sure what the comment is, and I don’t mean to look at Keith, because it’s an engineering comment, but. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m not privy to those. I’m not privy as to why the building permit was released. Not to say that it shouldn’t have been, I just don’t really know exactly what the issues were. MR. O'CONNOR-And don’t we presume that it’s okay when it is? MR. OBORNE-I think you can presume that it’s okay to build a sanctuary at this point. Obviously you’re back for Site Plan Review modification. So we’ll just move ahead. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d prefer to look at the glass as half full as opposed to half empty. MR. HUNSINGER-I was looking at it as halfway to the next glass, but that’s neither here nor there. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and in a bureaucratic system, you have to have all the paperwork completed, and so the files have to be complete. MR. GROSS-And my comment would be that, being that it is complete, and signed off by Craig, that that would hold (lost word) in terms of the approved system, the modification that we made was also at Craig’s request, that moving the septic tank itself up near the building is standard practice, that having a septic tank that far from the building is actually a negative to effluent traveling. So that was, again, one of the things that Tom brought to my attention, and Craig thought that it was a great idea to do. MR. O'CONNOR-There are two changes. I don’t mean, necessarily, that there were no changes from the prior septic. The two changes were the relocation of the septic tank and putting in a grease trap, which was also suggested by Town Staff, but there was no change in design for quantity or flow, or actual construction. Okay. Tom, I’m sorry. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I’m going to try to pick this up. Item Five, again, is a septic system. We’ve talked about that. I haven’t delved into the approved system design in great detail. Six is a Phasing schedule. We’ve discussed that. Seven is lighting, and I’ve already talked about that. I do need to tweak the lighting plan. Parking surface. To clarify, I thought we had indicated it’s a gravel surface, but to clarify, we’re showing it all as a gravel surface, but stormwater’s designed for asphalt. MR. HUNSINGER-So all the parking areas are gravel? MR. HUTCHINS-Proposed at this point, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-There is, shown on the plan, an overflow of parking in grass. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-But the actual parking that we’re asking the permission for to use on a regular basis is on gravel surface. MR. HUTCHINS-Item Nine, he has a question about my grading and a swale, and I’ll look at it again. I remember looking at it when we put it together, and I felt it would be okay. I’ll take another look at it and address that. Landscaping on the parking area, with the revised parking area, we probably owe you a revised landscaping plan, because that will have to change. We do have a landscaping plan with the plants, but we probably should, we should update that. There is an error on my drawing. Instead of 512.4, it’s indicated 212.4, and I will correct that. Walkways at the youth building, we really haven’t figured out the flow around the youth building yet at this point, but I can get something on there to show. It is a phase down the road. So we didn’t show a whole lot of detail there, but I can get something there. The tents, as we talked about at the last meeting, the tents are for use through this October, and so they would be out of there at the time we 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) want to construct stormwater controls, and again, sequencing and phasing. We had one. I guess we can attempt to clarify it a little bit, and lighting. I will get the light pole base on there, and that’s. So there are a number of issues, and there are a number of things that we should address. So I’ll leave it to the Board for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? I think you covered everything. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and in my mind, you know, when I was reviewing the project, it’s just, you have to satisfy the VISION Engineering comments and the Staff comments, and then, you know, certainly all the recommendations are relevant and necessary. MR. O'CONNOR-Does the Board have any concern about the increase in parking? I think that’s a Board determination. MR. SEGULJIC-I do not have any concerns. MRS. STEFFAN-No, and in my mind, it is, you know, as you said, it’s easier to do it up front than it would be later on. MR. KREBS-And I think the five people per car is an, I mean, when I go to church, I don’t see five people in any more than one or two, three cars in the whole thing. MR. O'CONNOR-Some people are younger than you, though, Don. MR. KREBS-Yes, but if you look at family size today, it’s significantly less. MR. HUNSINGER-What is it, 3.2 or something. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it’s less than that. MR. KREBS-It’s going down. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So you are probably going to approve it and condition it upon us satisfying and engineering comments. MRS. STEFFAN-Probably not. It was a good try, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we consider a tabling resolution, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience here to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show that there were no commentors. The public hearing will be held open. MR. FORD-Can we get some clarification, though, and I guess this probably comes from Staff, or comes from the Town Engineer, on are we re-visiting the approval on the main septic system? MR. OBORNE-With the modifications you’re proposing, you just have to get your engineering signoff on it. It was previously approved, but it’s being changed. MR. O'CONNOR-But those comments have nothing to do with the re-location of the septic tank or the addition of the grease trap. These comments are talking about the capacity and design. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think a signoff is really what you need, and once you review the prior approval, and discuss the minor changes you’re making, it shouldn’t be. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Then it’s our position that we have a signoff on that, and you might, either that, or we set up a meeting with Dan Ryan, and Tom and Dan Ryan can. MR. OBORNE-Well, what’s the issue, though? MR. GROSS-Well, we have an approved Site Plan that, and for all the engineering and design, and so the only thing we’ve done is moved the tank. We haven’t changed the 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) volume. So, you know, our system should be accepted, you know, if it’s clarified to Dan Ryan, I think it should be accepted at that point. MR. OBORNE-Well, again, I can’t disagree with you on that. I think that that’s something that Dan’ll have to make a decision on. MR. KREBS-Well, and also, didn’t you move it because Craig Brown suggested that you move it? MR. GROSS-Yes. MR. KREBS-I mean. MR. O'CONNOR-His comments, though, aren’t as to that moving. His comments were more general as to the general design and capacity, the sloping and some other stuff. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, but the record has to reflect, you know, the design drawings have to reflect the reality of what’s there, and the engineer will make a decision based on whether it’s appropriate or inappropriate. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MRS. STEFFAN-So if a meeting’s necessary, we should authorize that, like we’ve done before, a meeting with the Town Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that seems pretty, well, I don’t want to presume that it’s going to be a simple. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it would expedite things. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-I do want to remind the applicant that any meeting that is facilitated with the Town Engineer is billable to the applicant, and I just want to make sure that’s perfectly clear, and I do want to state that it probably is a good idea. I’m not espousing it, but they tend to go a long way. MR. GROSS-I’ve done that before. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, yes, and in my mind, I mean, we’ve recommended this a couple of times tonight, and in my mind, it will just, it’ll help move the process along so in the long run it would probably save the applicant money. Okay. So we’ve got the Staff comments, VISION Engineering comments, and then if a meeting’s necessary. So those are the three items. Now this is a modification, correct, Keith? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. MR. OBORNE-It is still a separate Site Plan number, but it is a modification to an approved Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I don’t have to say modification. All right. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me ask this question, too. I think some place in the comments, somebody talked about revisiting, did you talk about revisiting SEQRA? MR. OBORNE-Eventually, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’d have to, to approve any modification. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. No, you don’t. I’m thinking of the next application. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2009 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) th Tabled to the October 20 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for materials th will be September 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can: 1.Address VISION Engineering comments, 2.To address Staff comments, 3.And if a meeting is necessary between the applicant and the engineer, the Community Development Department may facilitate that meeting. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-And the Planning Board authorizes a meeting between the applicant and our Town Engineer, which would be facilitated by the Community Development Department. MR. OBORNE-Strike the authorizes, because that means the Town will pay for that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll take that back. If a meeting is necessary between the applicant and the engineer, the Community Development Department may facilitate that meeting. MR. OBORNE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good clarification. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good luck. See you in a couple of months. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 FINAL, PHASE II FRESHWATER WETLANDS 7-2009 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS SEQR CERRONE BUILDERS AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING; MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A, RC 3A, WR-3A LOCATION WEST MT. RD. & CORINTH RD. APPLICANT SEEKS FINAL APPROVAL OF PHASE II PORTION OF SUBDIVISION WHICH COMPRISES OF 10 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.03 ACRES TO 47.68 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 222.2 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.5-1-1 SECTION A-183, CHAPTER 94 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-I shall. Subdivision 2-2009, Phase II, Cerrone Builders. This is Final and Freshwater Wetlands 7-2009. This is, the location is Corinth and West Mountain Road. Existing zoning, there are three zones, SR-1A, RC-3A, WR-3A. This is a Type I realty subdivision. With the newly designated ACOE, Army Corps of Engineers Wetland, located on Lots Five, Six, Eighteen and Nineteen, the Planning Board will need to re- open SEQRA and re-affirm the previous SEQRA determination with the addendum of the Freshwater Wetland application. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 222.2 +/- acre parcel into 25 lots ranging in size from +/- 1.03 acres to +/-47.68 acres. This proposal is for the Final approval of Phase 2 of the project which received preliminary approval in conjunction with Phase 1 on 4/28/09. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Note: Previous approval expired while waiting for a water district extension. I’m going to drop on down to new comments. A meeting, per the Planning Board tabling motion dated June 23, 2009, was accomplished on June 30, 2009 between Tom Nace, Project Engineer for Cerrone Builders, Vision Engineering and Paragon Engineering. Please see attached Paragon Engineering correspondence to the Planning Office and sign-off dated July 24, 2009. The Planning Board must re-affirm SEQR due to the newly designated ACOE wetland associated with this subdivision. Please see page S-2 and S-4 of plan revised 7/20/09. The applicant proposes grading within 45 feet of the wetland boundary for a stormwater infiltration basin located on lot 18, hence the FWW 7-2009, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Again, I’m Michael O’Connor from Little & O’Connor, for the applicant. With me is the applicant, Al Cerrone. He is the principle of Cerrone Builders, Inc., and the project engineer, Tom Nace. We think that we’ve answered all the questions that have been raised, and we seek Final approval of Phase II. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you just satisfy one question? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The new wetlands, newly discovered. MR. NACE-No, they’ve always been on the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-We just were not previously doing anything within the buffer area from the wetland.. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? Hearing none, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-I do have public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-Let me make sure I have this right. “Dear Mrs. Steffan: Unfortunately I will be out of town and unable to attend the public meeting related to the “Phase Two Subdivision” planned by Cerrone Builders. Therefore, I am sending this fax in the hope that two of my concerns will be addressed. They are: Will my property be adversely affected by water “run off” from the mountain. In the past may homes in Bedford Close had their basements flooded during the spring due, in large part, to this type of situation and I obviously want to avoid having to deal with a similar problem. I am also concerned about the visual appearance of a bunch of houses setting on the mountainside. I hope that the Planning Board insists that the wooded nature of the property is kept intact. While recognizing that homes will be constructed, I think it is possible to do so in a tasteful manner. I don’t know the process by which this fax will be recognized, but I hope that the members of the Planning Board will be aware of my concerns. Thanks for your help. Don Slater”, and it’s dated 8/17/09. I do want to state that the obvious allowing of this public hearing is due to the Freshwater Wetland and not due to subdivision, which are intrinsically tied. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes. Good point. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly the water runoff issue has been addressed. I mean, that was part of the whole project, reason why this was in phases, and then the other thing, the visual appearance, I mean, we’ve certainly put, we put a height requirement in, and clearing limits and those kinds of things. So I think both of those issues have been addressed for Mr. Slater. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Seeing how there are no other comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What will be the next step, Keith? Do we need to go through the whole SEQRA Long Form? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so. I think that at this point you would re-affirm your previous SEQRA. Let me pull this up again. Hang on a sec. Because Craig and I had a discussion about this. You can re-open the SEQRA process and re-affirm the previous SEQRA determination, with the addendum of the Freshwater Wetlands. You could state that in the resolution and state that in the body of the minutes. You’ve already issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration on this project. What you would do is re-open SEQRA and re-affirm the SEQRA Findings previously. With the fact that the wetlands were 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) previously on the property, you know, I think the only issue now is that they’re grading within 45 feet of the buffer of the wetland. Does that adversely effect your previous SEQRA Findings, well, that is for you to determine. If it has, then you would re-open and do the Long Form absolutely, but if you feel it hasn’t, re-affirm and you should be on safe ground. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Does anyone have any concerns or comments about the grading within 45 feet of the wetland? MR. FORD-Within 45 feet of the buffer. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, can you do anything (lost words)? MR. NACE-No, it’s simply a matter of where the stormwater basin fits in, where the soils are good. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’ve done everything you can to minimize? MR. NACE-I believe so. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. NACE-We’re keeping that 45 feet as a natural area that will provide a good buffer. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And with this approval, this would be it for you guys, right? Not that I don’t like you. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing is with the wetlands during construction, the wetland boundaries have to be demarcated during the process, and so to all construction folks it’s very obvious that those are boundaries that need to be respected. So I’m not worried about that from the SEQRA point of view. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution regarding the Freshwater Wetlands Permit for Cerrone Builders? MR. O'CONNOR-Don’t you have to re-open SEQRA, as Keith suggested, first, though, and re-affirm it, and then do the two permits. MR. HUNSINGER-I kind of thought we did that. Okay. I’ll re-open SEQRA, and let the record show that no one on the Board had any comments relative to additional impact on the Freshwater Wetlands, and there’s actually comments in the actual resolution for the Freshwater Wetland Permit that SEQRA was considered. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 7-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant seeks final approval of Phase II portion of subdivision which comprises of 10 lots ranging in size from 1.03 acres to 47.68 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board approval. Freshwater wetlands permit required for disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/18/09; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS 7-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four, it’s approved. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, we have re-visited the SEQRA Negative Declaration and reaffirm SEQRA. Paragraph Four F and G do not apply. This is approved without conditions. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 94], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Freshwater Wetlands permit, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests granted / denied. h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff i)All lights to be downcast / cutoff fixtures. All fixtures shall be inspected by Community Development Staff for compliance prior to installation j)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff l)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution for Final Stage approval? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL, PHASE II SUBDIVISION 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for 1. the following: Applicant seeks final approval of Phase II portion of subdivision which comprises of 10 lots ranging in size from 1.03 acres to 47.68 acres. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) Subdivision of land requires Planning Board approval. Freshwater Wetlands permit required for disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. 2. A public hearing was not required for the subdivision but was scheduled on 8/18/09 [wetlands permit]; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL, PHASE II SUBDIVISION 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, negative. Paragraph Four F and G do not apply. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that each lot in the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item e to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests granted / denied. h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff. i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Great. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MRS. STEFFAN-Congratulations. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 SEQR TYPE II ROBIN INWALD AGENT(S) PARADOX DESIGNS OWNER(S) INWALD ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 863 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WHICH WILL CONNECT THE GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOUSE AND A 400 SQ. FT. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) SCREENED PORCH ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 68-08; SEASONAL RESIDENCE; [BP 92-378, 89-059, 6987, 6732, 6589] WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/8/08 APA/DEC/CEA LG CEA, APA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION 179-13-010, 179-9-020 CHARLIE JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-As stated, Site Plan 38-2008, Robin Inwald, requested action, Site Plan Review for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. Location: 38 Gunn Lane. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential One Acre. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Existing one story house to be connected to existing garage with a 642 square foot expansion to the east side of the house. Further, a new 221 square foot foyer / porch and a new 400 square foot screened porch proposed in addition to the expansion. A new septic is also proposed for this project. I’m going to drop down to Additional Comments. This application has been forwarded to Vision Engineering for review and comment. The applicant has addressed all of staff concerns. However, there are VISION Engineering concerns. I’ll turn it over to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JOHNSON-Good evening. My name is Charlie Johnson, Paradox Design Architects, representing Robin Inwald. In the interest of time, I thought we’d just jump right to VISION comments. There’s just a couple that still are unresolved. These were received by e-mail Friday afternoon. So short time to respond, but we’ve re-done that, and I’ve got a revised drawing. Some other information that he’s requested. I’ve already e-mailed Keith some of this stuff that I could this morning as well. So the first item is Item Number Five. I think Darrah Land Surveying has submitted a letter. I confirmed it with VISION. They originally did not receive it. So they do have a letter stating that all of the properties within 200 feet of this subject property draw their water from the lake. So there’s no wells within the 200 foot radius. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-I’ve added the note regarding maintenance of rain gardens to the drawing, per Item Number Nine. Item 14, we had a perc rate of seven minutes and fifty seconds. New York State Department of Health, Appendix 75-A regulations divide your perc rates up into categories of minutes of perc, one to five, six to seven, eight to ten. We used the six to seven because we were in the six to seven minute range. VISION Engineering wanted us to use the eight minute range. I’m not sure why, but we did. It changed the size of our absorption bed. It bumped us to the next size of the pump, which is why we re-did our septic design calculations which you were e-mailed earlier today. So that’s taken care of. Item 14 also requested a scaled cross section of the absorption bed. I’m not sure why he needed it. It was graded as requested, but here’s the diagram that we’ll forward, submit tonight for that. It shows everything’s in order. Item Number 15, buoyancy calculations for the lift station so that the lift station doesn’t pop up out of the ground as it gets saturated. The original calculations didn’t calculate the weight of the earth on top of this, the weight of the cover on top of it. We’ve since revised our calculations and it shows in excess of 1.5 safety factor. So that Item 15 is taken care of there. The other element of Item 15, it says absorption bed quantity. So we’ve calculated, or I’ve calculated, that the absorption bed, now, is 20 foot by 40 foot. There’s six inches of gravel, then the lateral pipes are on top of that. So we’ve got six inches of capacity. 20 by 40 is 800, or is 400 cubic feet, using this six inch depth, assuming we’ve got 40% of voids in the gravel. I’m just going to walk us through this really quick. We have 160 cubic feet. Each cubic foot can contain 7.48 gallons of water. So when you do the math, this absorption bed, if you just poured water into it, and it didn’t drain at all, would hold almost 1200 gallons, 1196 gallons of water. So our house generates a certain amount of effluent, and our dosing volume is calculated in septic design calculations at 228 and a half gallons per dosing. We’re estimating between two and four dosings per day. So I took the 288.5 times a total of four dosings, and it comes up to 914 gallons. So if we assume that this absorption bed lost no water whatsoever, all day long we pumped effluent into it, it would still only get 914 gallons per day. It’s capacity is almost 1200. So I’m not sure where this comment comes from. Since I can’t really speak with Dan Ryan, I couldn’t really resolve this, but my calculations show we’ve got capacity. I think, Item 17, I’ve added the note that all the plumbing fixtures are going to be water saving. Item 19 is the same as the cross section of Item 14. Item 19, I’ve added a rain garden planting schedule. I previously just listed the approved plants that 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) could be placed in. I’ve since done a planting scheme, list of the plants that could be in there. Item 20, he wanted a second run of silt fence, just below, down slope of the septic field, thinking that they would be built at different times and it would add additional protection. So I’ve shown that on the plan as well, and then Item 21, I did a little revision to the grading to divert the water around the garage. So that’s not an issue anymore as well. So all of the fairly small items, comments of VISION have been dealt with. Drawings are revised. So I’d entertain any other questions, and ask for Final approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Just two quick things, I think for clarification. With regards to the rain garden, the one on the west, and I think I’m missing something. It looks like the pipe is going to be at grade, not below grade. MR. JOHNSON-No, they both come out where, into that soil mixture. See the little rain garden detail that kind of cross section? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what I’m getting at is, isn’t the bottom grade of the rain garden 328 or so? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And the pipe is going to be going across at 330, so it’s only going to be like two feet below grade or so. MR. JOHNSON-Well, it starts on the south side of the property at 332. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-And it drops at a very low pitch all the way down to 330, which is the top rim of that rain garden. MR. SEGULJIC-Three-thirty-two is the grade, correct? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So the pipe’s going to run on top of the ground? MR. JOHNSON-No, it’ll be under the ground, but only 12 inches or so. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s going to be sloped back so it’s always going to drain out? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The other thing is, the rain gardens themselves are, if I’m correct, like 21 inches deep or so. MR. JOHNSON-They’re 21 inches from grade. They’re not actually deep. You excavate that amount. First you put in six inches of gravel, then another 12 inches of a soil mixture, leaving a three inch depression to contain the ponding of water. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What’s going to happen in the wintertime when it’s frozen, then? I thought you wanted to get it below the frost line? MR. JOHNSON-No, this is right from Department of DEC’s stormwater management manual. This is their design. There’s no water running in the wintertime. Freeze/thaw maybe, but. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Are you considering this an infiltration device? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess. MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, it’s not designed. MR. SEGULJIC-So the water’s going to pond in here, during the wintertime when the ground is frozen? MR. OBORNE-Correct. Right. That’s my understanding. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-A lot of times you put a pipe in it to get you below the frost line. MR. OBORNE-Right, a certain percentage needs to be below for infiltration. Correct. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess Dan Ryan looked at that and he was okay with it. MR. JOHNSON-This is what the DEC calls an alternative stormwater device. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. TRAVER-The only question I had was that, you mentioned that the, you made some revisions to the size of the pump. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Would that have any impact on the buoyancy calculations? MR. JOHNSON-He already calculated all that. He re-did that with the new pump and included it already. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one last thing, the septic system. You’re putting in a new system. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Where is the existing septic system? MR. JOHNSON-We’ve been told it’s between the house and the garage. It’s a 30 year old system. We don’t really know, but I’ve put notes on to the effect that it’s to be removed. That’s the probable location, to be removed off site. Where the addition is now is where we’re thinking, where we’ve been told that septic system is. So as we excavate for the crawl space, we’re going to remove all of that. It’s coming out wherever it is. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-Wherever it is, it’s totally illegal. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no takers. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-No written comments, either. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-And I will make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes an 863 sq. ft. residential addition which will connect the garage to the main house and a 400 sq. ft. screened porch addition. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/28/08, 5/28/09, 7/28/09 & 8/18/09; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four E, F, and G do not apply. This is approved with the following condition: That the applicant satisfy VISION Engineering comments, 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21, and obtain an engineering signoff. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)This is a Type II SEQR, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)NOT APPLICABLE. Waiver requests granted / denied. h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff. i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. j)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JOHNSON-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. JOHNSON-How long could I expect the signoff to take, do you think? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. OBORNE-You need to submit final plans to me addressing all the engineering issues, revised final plans, and we’ll send them out to VISION Engineering, no longer than two weeks. MR. JOHNSON-Okay, and that will preclude the issuance of a building permit? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Yes. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Then it comes back to me. I vet it. Then it goes to Craig. He vets it. Building and Codes vets it, and then it’s released. MR. JOHNSON-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN 44-2009 SEQR TYPE II NIGRO COMPANIES AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) UPPER GLEN STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 735-751 & 745 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 200 SQUARE FOOT PATIO AREA FOR PICNIC TABLES, AN 80 SQUARE FOOT BICYCLE RACK PD, RECONFIGURATION OF DUMPSTER PAD, NEW PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION AND UPGRADED STORM WATER CONTROLS. MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 47-08; BP 98-3257, BP 98-3256, 98-5244 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/8/09 LOT SIZE 8.96 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-22, 26 SECTION 179-9-010, 179-4-090 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 44-2009, applicant Nigro Companies. Requested Action: Site Plan modification. The location is 735 Glen Street. The existing zoning is Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. No further review needed. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 200 square foot patio area for picnic tables, an 80 square foot bicycle rack pad, relocation of dumpster pad and stormwater modifications. Modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: The applicant wishes to expand the seating capacity for the Five Guys Burger Restaurant by removing and replacing 274 square feet of existing landscaping with a patio and four (4) picnic benches. The landscaping to be removed is not slated to be replaced as submitted. The applicant is submitting a stormwater modification that addresses multiple issues on site. All roof water from the one story commercial building that houses the Tractor Supply business is proposed to be captured by roof leaders directing water to a proposed storm drain and catch basins located to the rear of the building. This proposed drain to be extended to an existing stormwater catch basin near the Five Guys Restaurant. Further, the applicant is planning to repair a washout in the parking area to the south. I’d drop down to additional comments. This plan has been forwarded to Vision Engineering for review and comment. This plan has been forwarded to the Fire Marshal’s office for review and comment. The Planning Board may wish to waive the additional four (4) parking space requirement associated with the expanded seating capacity for Five Guys as per §179-4-090K of the new code. The Planning Board may consider, as a condition of approval, any increase in parking requirements above seven (7) additional spaces for any future change in use in the plaza (as this will exceed the threshold of 10 spaces), will require the applicant to increase the parking capability accordingly. Please refer to §179-4-090K of the new code for further clarification. The applicant has requested waivers for stormwater, grading, lighting, and landscaping. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, from Bartlett, Pontiff. Attorney for the project. I’m here this evening with Jamie Margelot from Nigro Companies, and Christian Bertrum from Bergmann. I want to give you a little background information on this. We th made this mission on June 15, seeking the incorporation of the four outside tables for the Five Guys restaurant. At that time, I believe a couple of weeks prior to that, re- striping of the entire parking lot had occurred, which was part of the resolution that was issued by this Planning Board for the actual re-development of this building. At the time that the re-striping was done, it wasn’t brought to the attention of the striper that those 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) spots had to be nine feet in width to actually be in accordance with the plan, and were done, unfortunately, 10 feet in width. That immediately resulted in a site visit by Keith Oborne and myself and the other two gentlemen that I’m with. At that time, we discussed what other alternatives existed, as well as the stormwater issue that was presented in the rear of the lot. As a result, the application that’s now before you is not only seeking the inclusion of these four outside tables, as well as the stormwater issue and the re-striping. I just wanted that to be clarified, because there was some confusion with the VISION Engineering comments. So that you’re aware, back to our request, 16 seats, four tables, which results in a loss of four parking spaces. So we’re seeking a waiver from those four parking spaces this evening. We are suggesting that we’re going to create new permeable area by the dumpster area. In addition we’re also going to create a dumpster corral, and enclose those dumpsters, so that we make it more neat and aesthetically pleasing. We’re also incorporating a bike rack, because now we’re under the new Code, which we’ll present for 16 bikes, but the one request that we have this evening is that the bike rack that we’re proposing is on the north end of the site, in front of Game Stop. We want to discuss, this evening, the possibility of having a bike rack there, and a bike rack over by the other commercial building where Price Rite is, to kind of separate it, to have accessibility for bikes on both sides. We are also in the position that the landscaping to be replaced is going to be replaced in kind, and we were hoping to have a discussion with the Board as to a location that you thought would be best. The suggestion we had is, again, by the dumpster area, but we’re looking for your input this evening. As to the phasing, the stormwater wasn’t optional. It was actually the area behind the commercial building, and I can have Christian go into more detail as to that, but I know VISION Engineering had that question that was presented. The one main Staff comment that I just wanted to respond to is with regards to the drive aisle width being insufficient. The drive aisle widths that we’re discussing are actually located on the eastern side of the main commercial building where Price Rite is located, and as any of you who have been to the site know, those drive aisles are presented today, and have been incorporated in all the plans for the last 10 years or so. So they’re existing and grandfathered and we’re trying to maintain that. So we don’t feel that any additional relief should be needed for those items. I’ll open it up to questions at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? So does the Board that you submitted, does that represent the new striping that was done? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. th MS. BITTER-Because we submitted on June 15, which is why we weren’t before you in July. So the new plan was actually submitted by Bergmann, and we replaced it in kind, but just the application wasn’t updated to incorporate the change of the stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I’m glad you’re corralling those dumpsters. I hate it when they stampede. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments? They’re looking for input on landscaping. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought about that, and I just don’t know what to suggest. I mean, there’s so much blacktop around that, and obviously they’re taking out the landscaping around the building to put in the picnic tables, but, I mean, where do they put landscaping? I mean, there is that grass buffer, but is that of any value? JAMIE MARGELOT MR. MARGELOT-If I may, I’m Jamie Margelot from Nigro Companies, and if you’ve been to the site, the site is pretty heavily landscaped as it is now, making the landscaping as important to me as it is to everybody else here, we pride ourselves on the way it looks. So it’s kind of tough to squeeze in, but what we propose to do is over where we’re building the dumpster corral is kind of screen the dumpster corral with a bunch of large shrubs and maybe burning bushes on the side of that, and on the back of it, which would add for all the landscaping, which would make up for the landscaping I’m taking out and then some, and also serve as more of a purpose to screen that dumpster corral so it serves as a pretty good screening there. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a good idea. Burning bush are pretty in the Fall, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. What other plantings would you use? Arborvitaes, probably? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. MARGELOT-Arborvitaes are nice, but, like last year when we had that ice storm, you know, the ice just kills those arborvitaes. It weighs on them so heavily that they get large, broken branches and they get big, brown spots in them. The burning bushes they grow tall, they grow full. They turn red in the Fall. There’s a lot of other burning bushes on the property. It seems to fit well. I mean, I would take recommendations if there’s other things that you suggest. I would follow your suggestions. Just, the burning bushes seem to be fit for the use and look well for where we’re going here. MRS. STEFFAN-Sure, and if close enough together, when they grow, they can make quite a thick hedge. MR. MARGELOT-Yes, and plus I’ll load them right in there, too. I’m not shy about putting bushes in there. So it’s a big dumpster corral, and I’ll be planting more square footage than I’m taking out, by all means. MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. It seems reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no comments. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MRS. STEFFAN-The one question I have, it is a Staff comment. Please clarify the intent of the proposed retail parking to the west, the areas currently used for storage and display of trailers. I’m assuming those are the, is that the loading for like the Shop Rite tractor trailers? MR. MARGELOT-That’s for the Tractor Supply. They have a fenced in sales area, and on the other side of that fenced in sales area, they have some trailers that they have for sale. That’s the area in reference. MR. KREBS-At the right end of the building. MR. MARGELOT-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Okay. At the other end, on the Aviation Mall side. Okay. Yes. I had a totally different thing in mind. Okay. MS. BITTER-So we’re going to reduce that in size to make up for those seven spaces. That was one thing, just to note for the record, that the modification of the site layout is because there’s, on the northernmost end of the site, there’s an island that would have required a curb cut in order to place the seven spaces there. That was originally what was approved. So we’re making those up in that retail area, because that’s a drive aisle. So it would be unsafe to actually create those in that curbed area. MR. SEGULJIC-So, if I’m understanding this correctly, we’re being asked to approve the new picnic tables, and the two bike racks. MS. BITTER-Two bike racks. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re asking for one to be at, for lack of a better term, outside of Five, the west side of? MS. BITTER-In front of the Game Stop. MR. SEGULJIC-In front of the Game Stop, and the other one to be? MS. BITTER-Immediately adjacent to, what’s the tenant right here? MR. MARGELOT-Over where there’s the Brooklyn Pizza. I pretty much would put it anywhere on that sidewalk over there, wherever it fits the best, as far as people’s front doors, but over on the other building there. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MS. BITTER-The eastern end of that large commercial building. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the new parking lot configuration. MS. BITTER-Right, the re-striping. MR. SEGULJIC-Which is a loss of four spaces? MS. BITTER-Because of the tables, we actually have to create four spaces, because we have these four additional tables. MR. OBORNE-So it would be a waiver, which is solely in the realm of your abilities. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then also the enhanced stormwater controls. MS. BITTER-Exactly. MR. OBORNE-I do have a question, if I could ask. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Keith. MR. OBORNE-There is a VISION Engineering comment. I don’t know why I didn’t pick up on it. Shame on me, but it has to do with the stormwater coming off of the building, and you have it as optional. Why optional? I see where you have it not optional is where you’re repairing the cut, and then the new stormwater basin going in, and then that’s tying in to the existing one, but the ones in the rear? MR. MARGELOT-Due to the cost of constructing that, you know, behind the Five Guys, it’s a walk, it’s got utility lines, power lines. It’s going to get pretty expensive to repair that. They are hoping that by adding, you know, the catch basins down further, that’ll alleviate most of the problem. MR. OBORNE-So sheet flow is what you’re looking at there, coming off of the roofs? MR. MARGELOT-Yes. Currently it sheet flows from behind the Tractor Supply down through to the catch basins down at Five Guys. Some of it goes through that, you know, that area. So we’re hoping that by depressing this area, putting a couple of catch basins in, that’s going to alleviate the problem. The client would like to have the ability that if this does not solve the problem, that they could go in and add the rear drainage. MR. OBORNE-Okay. One other issue, from my comments, I’m going to move on from that one, is you do have dumpsters, and I apologize for this. They are over by the Tractor Supply loading area, right here. What are you plan on doing with those? Just to keep in mind that you don’t have to corral them because they’re not view from a public right of way. I’m not too concerned about that, but they are taking up parking spaces, and I’m just curious as to, are they planning to stay there? Are they eliminating those parking spaces? And if so, you may want to ask for a waiver of additional four parking spaces. I just would like clarification on that one issue. MR. MARGELOT-We could do one of two options which would be to squeeze them down closer to the building, where the parking lot where the parking spaces end, which is noted on that. In doing that, it kind of bottlenecks it a little bit there. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think the Fire Marshal would be happy about that. MR. MARGELOT-Yes. I mean, going for a waiver would be good. Those, I’ve never seen a car parked there in the five years that I’ve ever, I’ve been going to the shopping center weekly, sometimes three, four times a week. Not only there, but on the whole other side of the Tractor Supply, there’s no vehicles parked over there. Which seems to me, maybe I’m a little biased, but an abundance of parking spaces, and, you know, technically, yes, but I really don’t think that it’s going to hurt us to lose that. MRS. STEFFAN-I would think the only people that would park back there would be employees, and I don’t even think they’re utilizing this. MR. MARGELOT-The employees don’t even park there. All the employees park in front of the store. There’s an island, it’s kind of pointing on my map, but they all park out, there’s a light pole, inside one of the parking spaces where all the employees park there. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) So, I mean, you never see any vehicles there. So, I mean, if we went for a waiver for those four spots, that would probably. MR. OBORNE-I would recommend that they go for a waiver, they ask for that waiver, just to clean it up. So, with that said, that’s all I have. If the Planning Board’s satisfied with the optional nature of that, that is a mess back there. There are issues back there. There is sheet flow, and it flows all over the place. It doesn’t flow in a direct line to where we want it to flow. So, with that said, I know that Bruce may have an issue with that, but the optional nature of it just doesn’t seem to fix the problem in my mind. MR. HUNSINGER-Where’s the sheet flow going? MR. MARGELOT-It currently sheet flows from the Tractor Supply down, there’s a couple of catch basins by Five Guys to pick up the drainage. There’s also a washout along the property line, kind of where we’re putting the catch basin, where the water flows and actually flows off the property. We’re actually proposing to cut out a large chunk of the pavement and drop down, you know, the catch basin, create like a bowl. We’re actually going to try to catch, most of that water that’s flowing behind, you know, Tractor Supply, before it even gets, you know, past that first catch basin. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my only concern is, if that doesn’t work, then what’s the next, you know, what’s the trigger, or what’s the next? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think you may have to impose a condition of approval that triggers it. What that may be, I think you have to decide amongst yourselves. Code compliance. MR. SEGULJIC-But I’m confused one step even above that is that they’re requesting a waiver from stormwater, but yet you’ve submitted . MS. BITTER-But that was my whole pitch was that when we originally submitted it, the stormwater wasn’t even part of the concern. The stormwater didn’t come up until we had our site visit, and Bruce Frank’s comments were brought to our attention. So that was my application’s error. What we were willing to suggest is it could be possible just to say that if Bruce Frank brought it to our attention that the optional plan had to be incorporated, that could be the trigger that actually gets it moving since Bruce Frank is the one that’s going to do the site inspections. MR. TRAVER-Well, except that we’re then asking Bruce to do something that’s our job, and I’m not sure that’s a good idea. MR. MARGELOT-In all fairness, this water problem is not only a problem of the shopping center, but it’s my problem. This water flows behind the building. It flows into a grass area which I have an extremely hard time maintaining, and now I have one area of the shopping center which doesn’t get maintained on a regular basis. So I want the problem fixed as far as, you know, so what I’m proposing to do is implement this plan, in two stages. Do the first stage, which I feel fairly confident in speaking with the engineers, I think that they feel confident as well, is going to get rid of a lot of the problem. I mean, this water is flowing from the back of this building, behind those dumpsters, and then flowing in that grass area all the way to the closest catch basin which is in between the New Way Lunch and the Five Guys building. I mean, that’s the closest one to it. This is, the catch basins that I’m putting in is going to catch 90% of that water that’s coming off there, causing the ponding behind where those dumpsters are. If you go behind there, you can’t even walk behind there. So now I have an area of grass which I can’t maintain. It looks terrible, and my boss is constantly yelling at me about it. So if this doesn’t work, then I would implement the other plan, because I came up with this plan two years ago, before this was ever an issue. I mean, this is something I’ve been looking at, due to the pure nature of the cost. I mean, there’s 75 KW running right down the middle of that back road, and that back road is not very big. So the cost, for me, to implement the first series of this, which I feel is probably going to fix it, if it doesn’t, then we’ll go into it. The second part of this is extremely expensive. I mean, I have to, I can’t bring machines back there to dig along the whole entire length of that building. I have to have all that, the black top popped up and literally hand dug, because you can’t get a machine back there. So, I mean, if that’s something I can avoid, I will. If it’s something that I have to do, then that’s something that I will have to do, because I’m not going to implement, spend the money, go through all this time, and do half of something that’s not going to work. I mean, if it doesn’t work, you know, not only the recommendations from the Town, which I’ll listen to gladly, but if I see it for myself that it doesn’t work, then I’ll get it fixed. So that’s why we’re asking to put it into two stages, under the review of he engineers that this is going to catch most of this water. I mean, if you go there, and you could actually 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) watch the water flow and watch it pond. I mean, this is going to collect a lot. I mean, it’s going to, compared to what there is there now, I mean, this is a huge step, in my opinion, in correction. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m a little confused. So what you’re going to do, what you’re proposing to do is you’re proposing to install the catch basin that is in the, off the southeast portion, I guess that’s where Brooklyn Pizza is. MR. MARGELOT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the rest of that is optional. MR. MARGELOT-Well, what I’m going to do is I’m going to, behind the loading dock of, kind of where the Brooklyn Pizza is, I’m going to do it from there, and then go all the way to where it’s on the corner of the Five Guys building. So I’m going to attach into the existing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MARGELOT-So that’s half of that whole system. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re saying you want to do that. MR. MARGELOT-That’s what I want to do. MR. SEGULJIC-The rest of it going to the west behind the building, is optional. MR. MARGELOT-Is optional, but I want to have that, I want to have that option that if this doesn’t work, I want to go and do that. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, it all sounds good to me, but my question is, in looking at Dan Ryan’s letter, it’s not clear to me whether he evaluated it or not. He says the stormwater is questionable. He never comments on it. MS. BITTER-Right. We don’t need a waiver, and then he does mention on the second one, Phase II improvements related to stormwater appear to be optional. I mean, we could get VISION Engineering signoff as a condition. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that’s all I’d be looking for. MS. BITTER-Right. Acceptable. MR. HUNSINGER-So, if I can go back to the original question, and I guess I’m going to put Keith on the spot, which I do at least once a meeting. If we were to leave it up to Bruce Frank to determine if they should include the optional stormwater work. MR. OBORNE-I think that there has been precedent on other sites that if, that he can professionally evaluate stormwater and has signed off on his site plan inspection reports. Sure. I don’t think it’s an issue, but what you really want to do is make sure you spell it out when we have to have a rain event and we’ll have to have evaluation, you know, on certain steps along the way. I hope I’m being clear here, to direct him how, what’s going to trigger this and what’s not going to trigger it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. BITTER-I guess it would be after Phase I’s installation that, you know, he visit us. MR. OBORNE-Monitoring for a three month period. MR. HUNSINGER-But I’m also hearing the applicant say, well, if it’s not working, we’re going to want to do that anyway. MS. BITTER-Right, and that way we wouldn’t have to return to the Board to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not even going to require an action of Bruce Frank, if they want to do it. So I think maybe we would word it to say that the applicant, at their discretion, may install the optional component, or they may be required to install the optional component at the direction of the Code Enforcement Department. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. OBORNE-Based on. MR. HUNSINGER-Based on actual observation. MR. OBORNE-Field observations. MR. HUNSINGER-Field, yes. MS. BITTER-That’s fine. MR. OBORNE-If the Board is comfortable with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I am. MR. FORD-Do we want to specify? MR. HUNSINGER-Where does the stormwater go? I mean, once it leaves your site, where does it go? MR. MARGELOT-There’s a, the main runs out parallel to Route 9. So this, I’m attaching in to a catch basin which currently attaches into that. So it just is piped out to stormwater retention with Route 9. MR. HUNSINGER-So it all, it ends up into Route 9? MR. MARGELOT-Yes. The main that runs out there, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s also close to the area where the State just spent all that money to upgrade all the stormwater before it enters Halfway Brook, too. Is the Board comfortable with it? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. Do we want to specify the size of the rain event that would cause Bruce to come out? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that that’s tenable. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I think a timeframe would probably be more appropriate, because you’ll have multiple rain events. Even better would be in the Spring, after thaw. See how that works. MR. FORD-Good point. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, do we have solution two proposed? Is that in the plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s shown as optional. Have you talked to your neighbor about getting a right of way to get onto their property to do any? MR. MARGELOT-I don’t encroach onto the neighbor’s property. So it’s all on my property. So, no. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I mean, just in terms of gaining access to their property for, so you wouldn’t have to hand dig the trench, for example. MR. MARGELOT-Well, I have to hand dig the trench because of the power lines that run underneath it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MARGELOT-There’s everything back there, but I’m not afraid of that. It’s that, I mean, we’re going to have a barbecue. Sending people back there, I mean, what I had, I called UFPO to mark all this out, because this was, I was working on this before this was ever brought to the Board’s attention. I had it all marked out with UFPO, and I also had a fire hydrant which I repaired back in the day, and, you know, National Grid comes out 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) and they’re like, you know, you don’t want to be digging back here. I mean, it’s three big high voltage lines running right down the middle of that. MR. OBORNE-It’s hot. It is. MR. MARGELOT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. MARGELOT-If I could avoid that by any means, then that’s what I’ll do, but compared to what is there now, this is going to be night and day difference. I mean, this is going to collect so much of that water, and it’s just going to dry out the rest of the site where it’s just a swamp. I mean, it’s a mess. It’s unmaintainable. MRS. STEFFAN-What is the status of the Fire Marshal’s comment? On review of the Drawing C070B, it appears the fire access to the rear of the structure severely compromised or not available. MS. BITTER-I don’t have a copy of that letter, but it is a pre-existing condition. MR. OBORNE-I think what the Fire Marshal is hoping to get is to get that fire sprinkler augmentation moved, because the access is bad, and having walked back there, I tend to. MR. MARGELOT-Do you mean the fire hydrant, to get that moved? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I have a photo of it, I think. It’s right in this area here. MR. MARGELOT-The Siamese connection that comes out of the building itself? MR. OBORNE-Right. It’s the augmentation to the fire sprinkler system. During a fire event, they’ll plug into that and pump water into it. MR. MARGELOT-Yes. You want to move that? MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s what he’s asking. MR. TRAVER-That would alleviate the driving problem in the rear of the building. MR. MARGELOT-Well, where would I put it, though? I mean, the only place to put it would be on the back of that building, which would be moving it from one bad spot to the same. MR. OBORNE-Yes. He’s looking to have the connection, FDC connections, moved to the front of the structure, if at all possible. Now, I mean, it is possible, I understand that, but it probably would be cost prohibitive, I can’t deny that, but I think if you can address it, he may be satisfied. MR. MARGELOT-Anything’s possible. If it’s an issue and it needs to be removed, I could move it, but then you’re going to have that on the front sidewalk, the pedestrian sidewalk. I don’t know if he’s going to want it there. MR. OBORNE-He prefers it there. I know he does. It is a pre-existing condition. They would have to manually go back there. They can’t get a truck back there. I think that’s the issue. They have to run the hoses back there, and it is for protection. I mean, that’s the whole issue. MS. BITTER-Maybe we can address it by actually having the client meet with the Fire Marshal, as a condition, at a later date, to see if some compromise can be reached, because at this point we’re kind of making suggestions that we don’t know whether or not the Fire Marshal is willing to agree to those things, or whether or not it’s even possible with the structure as it exists. So, I think that Jamie would be willing to meet with the Fire Marshal. MR. MARGELOT-Yes, I would. Because if it’s a matter of being able to get a truck back there, we could cut back those trees significantly, which would only benefit something I’d probably do anyway, to get the trees out of the way. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe that’s the easy answer. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MS. BITTER-Right. MR. MARGELOT-I mean, I’ll gladly go there and I could limb them up to 12 feet or whatever the height of your truck is. MR. OBORNE-Don’t you have a fence there, though? MR. MARGELOT-There is a fence, but there’s a drive lane, and then there’s a berm that goes up, and the fence is on top of that. That berm goes up a couple of feet. I could get a guy in a bucket back there and bring all those trees up almost as high as the building, all the way across the back of that, which would ultimately clean up my site, allow easy access to the back of the shopping center, and not have me pay. MR. KREBS-And if the drainage solution works, it’ll be nice and dry back there, too. MR. MARGELOT-You see that, we’re on the same page. I mean, I’ll gladly send somebody back there and cut that whole road right through. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think if you’re willing to meet with the Fire Marshal and attempt to come up with some solution. MR. MARGELOT-I’ll gladly meet, who is it, Mike Palmer? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. MARGELOT-I met with Mike Palmer a bunch of times. I have a decent relationship with him, and I hope he reciprocates that back. I’ll gladly meet with Mike and go over whatever we need to with him. I think that it would serve his purpose, I mean, if I cut those back, I think that that would, not speaking for Mike, because I can’t do that, but I hope that would satisfy what he’s looking to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Yes, well, I think that that’s correct, isn’t it, Keith? He just wants access to that area. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. MARGELOT-Currently now, all the trucks, all the delivery trucks drive back there. I mean, you’re getting 60 foot trailers back there. For the Dollar Tree, they pull right back there. A lot of the trucks that deliver to the Price Rite, they drive around the back of that building and then they back into the loading dock. So there’s full sized trucks driving right down there daily. MR. HUNSINGER-So if they can make it, you would think a fire truck could. MR. MARGELOT-Yes. I mean, these are big truck. MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, there is a certain amount of distance you need between the building and the truck itself to maneuver. I’m sure that’s one of his issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. MARGELOT-And if I have to cut back into the bank that’s adjacent to that, where that connection is so that, to allow that, then that’s what I’ll need to do, but I feel pretty confident that there’s sufficient space back there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-This is a very confusing application trying to put together an approval. Is the Board moving toward approval on this, obviously with conditions? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now, as far as Staff Notes, Page CO-10B, the handicap space access aisle dimensions to be nine feet by eighteen feet minimum, but we’ve identified that there was a striping problem, and so now they are ten. So does the parking lot have to be re-striped? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MS. BITTER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The bike rack, okay, we had talked about that. Clarify the presence of the French drain detail on the page. MS. BITTER-Can I just back you up? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MS. BITTER-The bike rack, the one thing we’re proposing to put in front of the Game Stop and in front of the Brooklyn Pizza area, just to make sure that they can be allowed to modify that. MRS. STEFFAN-So as long as we’re okay with that, but I guess they’re telling you it has to be on that page, but it’s okay if it’s on that page, if it’s two places, we’re okay with that. It just needs to be on the page. MR. OBORNE-Just to note it. MS. BITTER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So if I go with satisfying those, we’re good with that. The phasing schedule, that applies to the stormwater phasing, the first plan and the optional plan. Okay. Not just the stormwater proposal. Okay. So that’s a valid condition. The drive aisle width, that’s a pre-existing condition, and so we’re not going to require that they fix that or change that. Correct? Okay. The other thing is to clarify the intent of proposed retail parking to the west. That’s where the Tractor Supply store is. Correct? So that we’re not going to worry about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But we are going to give them a waiver for four parking spaces. I have that in the waiver section. MR. TRAVER-And related to the parking spaces, under additional comments, Staff comments number four, as a condition of approval, any increase in parking requirements above seven additional spaces for any future change in the use in the Plaza will require the applicant to increase the parking capability accordingly. MR. KREBS-I have a question. Are we talking about eight spaces? Because we’ve talked about four and four? MS. BITTER-Right, four and four. MR. KREBS-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the way I had that described is. MR. KREBS-You said four spaces, and I just wanted to make sure that it was four and four. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, which four. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, in the waiver section, we’ve got a waiver for four parking spaces plus four additional spaces for behind the Tractor Supply store. Yikes. Okay. Loading areas to the east and west demonstrate accessibility for delivery vehicles. Please provide turning patterns and turning radiuses for these areas. That we haven’t addressed. We’ll need to on the plan. You put that on the plan. MR. MARGELOT-Right. It’s an existing condition. Tractor trailers access the area. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Proposed parking area in the southwest currently has a dumpster. Are those the dumpsters behind the Tractor Supply store? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. Those are the ones that require the four extra spaces. They’re going to leave them as is. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, should we leave that in the motion? Because we’re going to. MR. OBORNE-When you do your waiver for the parking spaces, the first four would be for the increase in seating for the Five Guys. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. OBORNE-And the other four would be for the pre-existing locations of the dumpsters on the southwestern side of the Tractor Supply parking area, something along those lines. If you want to drop, under my additional comments, Number Four, I think that the way that I have applicants submit their revised or approved plans is they actually put the resolution on their plans now. So, when somebody’s going to come in and do another change or a Site Plan modification, whoever the planner is at that time, or if I’m still the planner, here in this Town, I’ll be able to see that, and I can see exactly what’s going on, instead of muddying the waters. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Help you out a little bit, hopefully. MRS. STEFFAN-Take that out. We have VISION Engineering comments two through six, and then my note, on the Code Enforcement for the stormwater, this is what I wrote. You have to tell me whether this works or not. Code Enforcement should evaluate the performance of the Phase I stormwater control after a significant rain event to be determined. If the performance of the Phase I stormwater solution is sufficient, then the plan satisfied the stormwater needs of the site. If the proposed Phase I stormwater solution does not meet the stormwater management needs of the site, then the optional stormwater plan will need to be installed and inspected by Code Enforcement. MS. BITTER-Well, we want to have the right to do it ourselves. So that’s being approved as part of the Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and that’s based on a conversation you absolutely want to do that, but from a Code Enforcement point of view, this, I think, provides Bruce Frank with what he needs to make a decision. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It gives you a mechanism by which to. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, say they have to do it. MRS. STEFFAN-To enforce them. Okay. Seems reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think I have to say that about that Five Guys seating because they’ve asked for a waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-No. We’ll have to do this in one take, because I don’t think you’ll ever be able to do it twice. MRS. STEFFAN-No. I think you’re absolutely right. Okay. Did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I did. MRS. STEFFAN-It was so long ago, I forgot. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’ll just say let the record show that the public hearing was closed. That way we’re covered. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2009 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 200 square foot patio area, an 80 square foot bicycle rack pad, reconfiguration of dumpster pad, new parking lot configuration and upgraded storm water controls. Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/18/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2009 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: This is a Modification to Site Plan No. 47-2008. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph Four E and F do not apply. The applicant has asked for waivers on grading and lighting, which have been granted. They’ve also asked for a waiver on parking, and the Planning Board has granted the waiver for the four parking spaces near the Five Guys location, and the Planning Board has additionally approved a waiver for four parking spaces for pre-existing dumpsters in the southwest location behind the Tractor Supply store. This is approved with the following conditions: A. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and B. This application is a Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and C. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and D. As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and E. NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and F. NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and H. Waiver requests granted: grading, lighting plans, parking waiver for 4 spaces near Five Guys location, and parking waiver for pre-existing dumpsters in the southwest location behind Tractor Supply. I. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff J. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. K. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff L. All previous conditions of approval shall apply and shall be referenced on the approved site plan. M. That the applicant will meet with the Fire Marshal to discuss his July 31, 2009 letter and recommendations. N. That the applicant will obtain a VISION Engineering signoff from their letter of August th 13. The items that need to be addressed are Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. O. Additionally, the applicant will need to satisfy some of these conditions I’m about to th read from Staff Notes from August 18: 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) a. That on Page CO-1O-V, that the handicap space aisle dimensions will be nine feet by eighteen feet minimum, and of course the details are in the Staff Notes, I won’t read them all. b. Also that the bike rack details need to be present on the plan, to clarify the presence of the French drain detail on that page. c. On Page CO-8O-B, please provide a phasing schedule for all aspects of the proposal, not just the stormwater proposal. d. On Page C100-B, the applicant needs to identify the loading areas to the east and west, and they should demonstrate accessibility for delivery vehicles. That should also include turning patterns and turning radiuses for those areas. e. The applicant will also address the loss of landscaping associated with the proposed patio, and they will be replaced as discussed with landscaping around the dumpster pad, and the applicant identified that they would be putting in burning bush shrubs around that enclosure. f. This condition is regarding the stormwater, and this condition is Code Enforcement should evaluate the performance of the Phase I stormwater control after a significant rain event, and that event is to be determined. If the performance of the Phase I stormwater solution is sufficient, then the plan will satisfy the stormwater needs of the site. If the proposed Phase I stormwater solution does not meet the stormwater needs of the site, then the optional stormwater plan will need to be installed and inspected by Code Enforcement. Just a notation that nothing can prevent the applicant from installing the optional stormwater controls which exceed the Phase I solution. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MARGELOT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY SEQR TYPE N/A 1 MAIN STREET, LLC AGENT(S) CURT DYBAS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MS [MAIN STREET] LOCATION 1 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY 4,400 SQ. FT. BUILDING STND [1 FLOOR COMMERCIAL, 2 FLOOR OFFICE] WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. OFFICE, SMALL [LESS THAN 20,000 SQ. FT.] IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SUBJECT TO 2009 ZONING CODE. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.33 +/- ACRES 14,374.8 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-17 SECTION 179-7-070 CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-I’ll just do a brief discussion. This is a discussion for a conceptual review. It has been requested by the applicant, Mr. Dybas. The location is 1 Main Street. It is adjacent to the Hannaford shopping plaza in West Glens Falls. The applicant is proposing a two story, 440 square foot building, with associated parking and landscaping, and again, it’s just a conceptualized discussion with the Planning Board, and I’d turn it over. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DYBAS-My name’s Curt Dybas. I’m agent for Elise Baron and Keith Cavayero, and just a brief history on the property. This parcel was left over when Keith Cavayero and Elise Baron recently sold their practice, the chiropractic practice adjacent to it, and they had purchased this property, I guess a couple of years ago, as protection for their 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) business. Since sold the business. Now they have this property which is very unusual in that it’s 35 feet approximately on Main Street, 45 feet on Luzerne Road, and 260 feet frontage on Western Avenue, very visible from three streets, plus it’s also very visible from the parking lot of CVS and the chiropractic center, and what do we do with it. We have looked at it in many ways, and I’m aware of the new zoning for Main Street, and we did look at the frontage on Main Street as a first blush, and we end up with a building that is approximately 28 feet on Main Street, and approximately 80 feet extending back along Western Avenue, and, economically it doesn’t work because you just end up with so much circulation, needed an added stair for exiting, and two stories we need an elevator because we’re looking at business on the second floor versus apartments, which apartment use you can go up to three apartments without an elevator, and we had the numbers crunched and we looked at return, and it’s just not there. So I said, well, what is another approach to this thing, and came up with this idea of this 50 by 44 building, and fully aware that it exceeds the density for the zoning. Again, you have the plan in front of you. Off the top of my head, you’re eating up a lot for circulation, and one stair and an elevator, etc., and you look at the return, and this will fly, as far as the rental return on your investment, and we tried to address the zoning concerns, being that the exposure to this lot, and create like a park like setting with a series of brick piers and fencing, and a green area and give you the visible access at the corners for visual, because if you look at the site, and if you’ve driven by it, the existing house that’s there, if your 21 feet from Main Street widened, you’re about 15 feet in front of that house that sits on the property right now to the corner, and anyone that’s come down Western and taken a right onto Main Street knows what that corner is, particularly looking back over your shoulder, what’s coming at you from the City. It’s big traffic flow. We’re trying to do something with it, trying to make it attractive. We’re aware of the zoning. I don’t know what that tooth would look like sticking out 28 feet wide and 25 feet tall out there on the corner and extending back about 80 feet on Western, but this is conceptual, open for discussion. We’re looking at it before we go any farther. This may be the end of it. I don’t know. I don’t mean that as a threat. Don’t get me wrong. We’re trying to do something with it, but in the current economics that we’re involved in and rental markets, and all that stuff, we don’t know right now, can it fly. I mean, I drive around and there’s an awful lot of open property, which scares me, but it will come back. I’m convinced of that. It always does. The gray hairs on my head tell me that. So, with that, I’m here to try to answer some questions, or listen to your input. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. STEFFAN-Well, I guess my comment is, you know, I travel that intersection all the time, and I’ve looked at that existing residence that’s on the corner, when there was a For Sale sign on it, and I thought, how can anything possibly be done with that site, just because of the traffic congestion at that intersection, and by putting, adding curb cuts to that already congested, jammed up intersection, in my mind, as a Planning Board member, I don’t think that that would be appropriate. The only way I can see, in my mind, using this lot, is there any way that the CVS Plaza will allow access from the back side? MR. DYBAS-That’s a good question. It has not been explored. CVS is a large corporation. I’m dealing with Hannaford on a project over in Greenwich right now. It’s a long involved process up through the chain of command. I don’t have an answer. It would be nice to say, yes, we can do it. We have to get through all the legal department and they’ve got to investigate their insurance requirements, and, you know, I know what I’m doing with Hannaford right now. It’s something that definitely needs to be investigated, and Mr. Cavayero, and Ms. Baron also have to talk to Dr. Parisi, who they sold their practice to, about possible access to the other portion of the site, because you realize that the CVS property, chiropractic practice is a condo property. There’s a property line through the middle of that building. MR. HUNSINGER-You can see it right there, yes. MR. DYBAS-Yes, you can. That is two parcels, and it is Code compliant as far as the zoning is concerned, but that was divided when CVS built that building. A little bit of history. Keith owned the property. He cut a deal with CVS. They built the box for him. He finished the inside. They end up with a parcel and their front portion of the building. That’s how it works. So basically if you’re going to negotiate with CVS in the front, you have to negotiate with Dr. Parisi for the rear access. So, I have two, and I don’t know the relationship with the previous sale of the partnership. MR. OBORNE-If I could interject, I think the first step that we should do is to look at the approved Site Plan for CVS and the chiropractic office, is it. There may have already 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) been interconnects installed on that Site Plan, and I’m not sure if they are or not. I haven’t seen them. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a fairly new building, certainly in the last 10 years. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I think, and I’m pretty sure that George Hilton did the Site Plan on this, and he’s famous for his interconnects. So if he, in fact, did do this Site Plan, the chances that there are interconnects would be there. MR. DYBAS-I have the plan. You should probably have it in your record. MR. OBORNE-I’m sure I do. I haven’t I pulled it yet. MR. DYBAS-But that’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there an interconnect designed into the plan? MR. DYBAS-I don’t see one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I don’t know. This hasn’t been stamped by, so this could very well. MR. DYBAS-February ’96. MRS. STEFFAN-Thirteen years ago. MR. DYBAS-Yes. It doesn’t seem possible, does it? But that’s when it was built, and pull it out and look at it. That would make it easy, but I, you know. MR. OBORNE-I do suggest, give me a call to remind, and I’ll go ahead and do that. I’ll give you my card. MRS. STEFFAN-In my mind, because I go to that CVS often, and that parking lot is underutilized, even on a Saturday, you know, when there’s a lot of traffic out and about, that parking lot is underutilized. MR. DYBAS-Basically the entire east side of the parking lot is underutilized. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DYBAS-And the northeast corner is the low spot, and also, yes, I would propose using that for stormwater drainage. One of the issues is it floods every time when the water comes down Luzerne Road, and it’s a real. I’ve seen two, three feet of water in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. DYBAS-And this site, although when you drive by the site it looks quite a remarkable grade difference between the developed property and the developed property and CVS and Keith’s and the house, but it’s not that radical. I mean, there’s been some movement of earth, but, no, the site is workable, but, you know, in addressing the Main Street thing, this is the beginning of that chain coming up toward the Northway, and I cannot see CVS being changed in that, even though it’s 13 years old. I can’t see that building being changed appreciably in the near future, and it’s something that we have to look at as far as how do we look at this site. Do we look at it just as facing Main Street, or do we look at this site as a three sided parcel, which indeed it is. I’ve had experience years ago with a lot of those exposures. They’re difficult buildings. They’re difficult sites. MR. SIPP-My question is, which zoning does this fall under, Main Street or? MR. OBORNE-Main Street. MR. SIPP-Therefore parking would have to be in the rear, right? The parking would have to be in the rear of the building, if it falls under Main Street zoning. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. DYBAS-Yes, and I think there’s some latitude of the Board to investigate the aesthetics of that property also, if that’s what you really want is this tooth in the front of the parcel, yes, but then you turn your back on Western and Luzerne. MR. KREBS-Well, I personally would object to putting a building on that corner, 21 feet from Main Street, which is what the Code requires. MR. DYBAS-That’s correct. MR. KREBS-Because you will have no vision, when you’re coming down Western, on what’s happening on Main Street. MR. DYBAS-And you end up with about a 75 foot deep building, which takes you back about two thirds on that one leg, as far as length, and one of the economics of the building, because of it’s being long and narrow, Number One, I mean, you’re ending up with more wall, more corridor and everything, but to make the building usable, you end up with irregular walls. The walls almost have to follow the property lines, and then it becomes difficult to construction, so, you know, we priced it out, and we have what they call a conundrum. MR. FORD-Have the owners considered acquisition of some parcel or a portion of that, along that Western border? MR. DYBAS-Excuse me, along that? MR. FORD-Have the owners considered purchasing along the western line of the property, you know, whether it be 15 feet or 20 feet, or whatever? MR. DYBAS-Without looking at the map, I believe, then, CVS and the chiropractic would be non-compliant as far as zoning, because of the site area. We haven’t looked at it, but I mean. MR. FORD-Well, I’m just throwing out an idea. You asked for ideas, and that was an idea. MR. DYBAS-Yes, but I’m trying to, if I recall, in past, looking at this, there is a, I think the site aerial is like an acre back then, and I believe that each one of those parcels just as right there, as far as the division line between the two, as far as required site area. MRS. STEFFAN-That whole, your whole lot is just difficult because it’s on, you know, two intersections that are very dysfunctional already. MR. DYBAS-And they’re getting worse. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely, and, you know, certainly, as that area grows, it will continue to get worse. The other thing is winter. I mean, half of the year we’re snow covered, and that particular lot carries a lot of snow, and what happens when you’ve got these major intersections and you’re trying to plow them. I mean, what reasonably could survive or. MR. OBORNE-It’s a tough lot. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s very, very tough. I’m sure it was a great investment if you needed overflow for that main lot, but as an individual property to develop, it wasn’t a good investment from that point. MR. DYBAS-Hindsight’s 20/20, and if you owned the property next door, and this particular parcel came up for sale, you have to buy it. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. DYBAS-But when you sell the practice and the building, and the person who buys it doesn’t want it, now you have a .33 acre shoe string, which is a very, very difficult lot. I mean, I’ve looked at this thing. It’s almost an impossible parcel. Do you turn around and say, do I paint the existing house and fix it up, and try to sell it or rent it? I don’t know. I mean, this is where we’re fishing, but they’re trying to do something with it, and that’s why I’m sitting here, and as I said, we may run into a brick wall here. MR. FORD-Has that been explored with the CVS and the other chiropractic, the potential for the purchase of that and splitting that into two lots, possibly? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. DYBAS-It was explored when Keith sold the practice and that chiropractic portion of the building, and the purchaser had no need for it, and probably didn’t like the price. I don’t know, I can’t answer if he’s explored it with CVS, but as it was brought up here before, the parking basically is underutilized as it is, so why would you want it? It’s only usefulness is parking. I mean, he wouldn’t build another little building on it in conjunction with CVS. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the other concern is, consideration I’ll say, is long term development. I mean, that is certainly a small CVS. It’s been there for 13 years, and what’s the possibility of that growing and expanding? I mean, Walgreens is going in on a diagonal to that. So there may be the possibility of CVS wanting to purchase that land to expand their footprint. Because if you’re competing with a much bigger brand. MR. DYBAS-I’m sure the owners would be more than happy to entertain an offer from CVS. I don’t think one’s been put on the table yet. MR. FORD-But that is an idea, you know, for them to explore that with Walgreens. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just, if you look at the other development that’s going on in the area, that may be inevitable. I just don’t see this being developed. MR. OBORNE-I would say the access, to explore access through the CVS parking lot, would be the first step. I think that goes without saying, and I don’t speak for the Board. Doing any curb cuts on Western Avenue is probably a non-starter, at this point, but, nevertheless, I think that’s the first thing that you would need to do, and an office building, you know, maybe change the use, and I’m just throwing things out. MR. HUNSINGER-Where’s the curb cut for the lot now? Is it on Main Street? MR. FORD-West on Main. MR. DYBAS-The curb cut is on Western. There is a, like a two car parking lot, right to the side of the house. I have it dotted on the Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. It’s an existing. It’s a little. MR. FORD-I thought you meant the one from CVS. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a cute little house. MR. DYBAS-The property line is a little off, but it is a cute little house. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DYBAS-I mean, he purchased it and gave the woman that lived there, you know, a life lease, and I guess she passed away or is in a nursing home. So, you know, he has the property, and, you know, he has a payment on it, and right now it’s vacant. So you’ve driven by and seen the For Rent sign on it. A lot of For Rents. MR. FORD-Have you considered building a bowling alley there? MR. DYBAS-Or a botchy court, or something along that line. I mean, I’ve stood on it, and I look at it and I just shake my head. I mean, I’ve had tough ones before, but this one is. MR. HUNSINGER-And when you get a lot like that, you always kind of wonder, how did it end up in this shape? MR. DYBAS-It probably ended up in that size because of some widening of Western Avenue at some time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, probably. MR. DYBAS-It was probably 15 or 20 feet wider than it is today. That’s conjecture. Who knows. MR. HUNSINGER-I do like your building design, for what that’s worth. I mean, I think that does capture the spirit of the Main Street design guidelines. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. DYBAS-Well, I tried to do it, but take it out of the criteria of having it on Main Street. That’s basically, I tried to do this park. I tried to carry the 21 foot setback with the fence and the pier. So it would tie that whole thing together and look like an end of a big block coming at you. That’s what I tried to do, and so at least encompass something. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DYBAS-And, you know, get the parking. It’s minimal for parking, and allow places for snow and stormwater on either side, and try to work what I had. I mean, it’s difficult. These are challenges. Something will come of it. It has to. I mean, it’s a viable piece of property with a great exposure. Something will come of it, and it may not, you know, it’s not going to be, you don’t have to worry about the October meeting. It will probably more like, you know, Spring. Somewhere around that time, but I, you know, as you said, explore the possibility of the CVS access, and it would be great to get access to both parking lots. MR. OBORNE-I think that opens up a few doors. MR. HUNSINGER-That does. MR. DYBAS-If he could secure access to both parcels in the back, and not come off of Western at all, and address this Site Plan the way it is, I think it’s very viable. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Who knows. The front may be a roundabout or something like that. MR. DYBAS-I was very leery about roundabouts, and I have to say, off the record, they happen to work. The one Downtown I think is, I mean, I used to sit there, coming out of the gym, two minutes I could time the light, and now I watch it, and it works, except for an occasional drunk that goes right through the center of it. MRS. STEFFAN-But certainly as the traffic volumes increase, that intersection is going to get even more difficult. So there are other things to consider. MR. DYBAS-Well, the traffic now cutting through the back of the car wash, up Luzerne, because of tech street now, then they drop back in onto Luzerne, and also cutting through and coming down by the Hess station. I don’t know the names. MR. FORD-Widening of Western may be addressing that, too. That may be needed. MR. KREBS-There is another alternative, and that’s to move the building to the south, and come in off Luzerne Road onto the property, and not have the cuts at all on Western. MR. DYBAS-Well, also the problem there is, you know, the proximity of the cut. I looked at that, the proximity of the cut to the corner of Western and Luzerne corner is just too close to the corner. I mean, if two cars are waiting to get out of there, you’re stuck. I think the original premise is, access from the adjacent property is the key. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Your driveway spacing standards would be violated right there. MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. DYBAS-Okay. I have the key, I think. MR. OBORNE-I think you do, really. MR. DYBAS-And if you could pull the signed copy of this and see what we, hopefully there’s a note. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m going to leave you this note. I’ll give you my number and give me a call. MR. DYBAS-Okay. I’ll do that. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. OBORNE-And we are very busy me, and unless somebody, you know, tickles me and. MR. DYBAS-Well, as I said, this is not going to happen this Fall. This is something that is going to transpire over the winter. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your time. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other business? Don? MR. SIPP-Are we going to, getting back to schedule (lost words) here, are we going to take some time at the beginning of next week’s meeting to go over specific items? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Actually we’ll probably do it at the end. That way we don’t have to hold the public up, but, yes, we’ll deal with it next week. MR. OBORNE-Yes. You should have something ready to go by Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So get your comments to Keith. MR. OBORNE-Yes. If you get your comments to me, I’ll get something drafted. Again, Pam is out. She’s on vacation. I think I can handle it, though, and I’ll get something rough to you by close of business, if not a little more polished than rough, by close of business Friday. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fine. Okay. Great. MR. OBORNE-I’ll have it for you on the Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a comment, Don? MR. KREBS-Yes. I’d like to discuss, again, this engineering situation and the information not getting to the client early enough. I don’t care if we have to push the original date of submission back by two weeks. I think we need to give the Staff comments and the engineering comments to the applicant at least 14 days before our meeting. We spend hours and hours at this meeting talking about things that could have been resolved prior to the meeting, and, you know, there has to be a way that it can be accomplished. We just need to move all the dates back by 14 days. I don’t know. Do I make a resolution to that effect or, do we work that out with Staff somehow? I mean, we just spend hours going over these things that could have been eliminated from the meeting had that information been given to the client or the applicant beforehand. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think, if I may speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Keith. MR. OBORNE-I think that a lot of the onus, especially on the first applicant, is on the applicant. What he submitted in response to VISION Engineering, was inadequate. It absolutely was, and for the most part that is the case. I share your concerns with getting approved applications. Absolutely. I mean, that’s our job, but we need to do it right, and that’s all I can say. I know your issue. MR. KREBS-I’m not saying we aren’t going to still have some applicants who aren’t going to answer, but in the great majority of the cases, a lot of those things that we don’t know the resolution to could have been resolved, had the client or the applicant had that information with enough time to go back, they could change the drawings. They could look at the drawings. MR. OBORNE-But then the issue would be, then you would be sitting here going through each and every drawing. You’d be spending the same amount of time, because the applicant would have to explain to you the changes he’s done to the drawing. He still has to get VISION Engineering signoff, and there is no perfect answer. I think that you and I have gone around on this, and I agree. There is no perfect answer. It’s not a perfect world, and a lot of the times the applicants are not submitting clear and concise information. They’re not willing to spend the money on an engineer. They want to do it themselves on the cheap. That’s the risk they take, and that’s what I surmise from the situation. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. HUNSINGER-We did have the one project this evening, where they got the comments on Friday and they had addressed them all and told us how they addressed them all and moved on. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And those were professional people that were hired by the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-There is a difference sometimes. The cost of doing business is, you know, you need to have your professionals on board, unless you really know what you’re doing. MR. KREBS-But when you have a small business who wants to open an ice cream shop, he can’t afford to spend that kind of money for a professional, and a lot of times we ask. I mean, twice now engineering has come back with this topographical thing for an existing building that has been there for. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we also have the ability to waive that for the applicant, but then again we get into situations where somebody’s trying to develop a site on a main thoroughfare, and there are a lot of site constrictions, and so that’s one of the reasons why we have some of the zoning that we have, is that we need to require some of those things. So it really is kind of a Catch-22. I mean, I do feel sorry for the small guy who maybe doesn’t have the money to do all the things we need done, but at the same time, we have these requirements for a very specific purpose. MR. KREBS-And I also say, even in many cases that I have seen, the person is willing to make the changes that the engineer gives them, but we have to postpone that process for two months until we can get them back on the schedule. Had he had those, he could come in and say, I agree with this, I agree with this. I’ve changed this. We have accepted that tonight, okay, from an applicant, and we could do that. MR. TRAVER-Provided they get signoff. MR. KREBS-Provided they signoff. MR. TRAVER-But I think there’s a big difference between an applicant responding, if we have a specific motion where we say, okay, you need to respond to engineering items, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, there’s a difference, I think, although I admit it’s subjective, but there’s a difference between an applicant making an inadequate response, and an applicant not bothering to make any response. So I have a little bit more sympathy for someone who maybe tries to do an engineering drawing on their own, and perhaps we ultimately can decide to accept that or not, but when an applicant, you know, walks out the door with a very specific list of things that they need to respond to and chooses to not respond to them, you know, that puts them in a difficult situation. It puts us in a difficult situation. MR. KREBS-And I agree with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-I’ve suggested that it really is a timing and a scheduling problem. I’ve suggested that before. Let me run it by you again, but right now we’re asking for th submissions by the 15 of the month prior to our meeting. What if we, in transition over a period of time which it may take, let’s bring that back. Start with a week, bring it back to the seventh, instead of the fifteenth, or the eighth. MR. KREBS-Or bring it back to the first. MR. FORD-Well, that’s where I’m heading. That maybe in six months we have it back to the first of the prior to the month before our meeting. So that VISION Engineering can have a more appropriate time, to get the responses to the applicants. MR. TRAVER-But then if the applicant responds to the comments, they’ve still missed the deadline. So the cycle remains. Just the dates are changed, but the cycle is what it is. MR. OBORNE-Other issues will rear its ugly head also. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FORD-Okay. Then there’s no solution. MR. OBORNE-The solution is to submit a good plan. That’s the solution. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I was going to say. I mean, you know, we keep talking about the timing of it, but isn’t the real issue the fact that we’re not getting the information that we need. MR. TRAVER-Right, incomplete applications are making it on to the agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess two thoughts to that is, one, you know, are we not being clear about what is needed, and I’m saying that rhetorically. I think we need to look at this stuff, and maybe there’s a better way to present it. Well, the checklist, I know, was revised, not long ago. MR. OBORNE-It’s pretty clear. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I meant to say that during one of the reviews this evening. The new Code, the review form that we have, I think, is very helpful, because it gives like a little narrative description of stuff that we didn’t get before. So maybe some of these issues will start to get worked out. MR. KREBS-But I have a question. What is wrong with what Tom and I are suggesting, that you move that submittal date up by two weeks, and then end up with the engineers and the Staff being able to get back to the applicant with their comments, two weeks prior to our meeting? MR. TRAVER-Because there’s still only so many meetings in a month. MR. FORD-They would be the same. MR. KREBS-They would be the same. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but the problem is that if you have a deadline X. Okay. Right now it’s X. Okay. So now you move it up. Then you have an interchange between the applicant and the engineer. Well, they’ve still missed the deadline for when they’re on the agenda. So unless you have more meetings in a month or you have two types of meetings where one is. MR. KREBS-Yes, but, Steve, part of the problem is sometimes they’ve gotten the information by e-mail on Friday afternoon. They haven’t had an opportunity to evaluate whether or not they can comply to what the engineer had said. They haven’t even had a chance to go back and look at the drawing. thth MR. FORD-Case in point. Tonight’s meeting, August 18, submittal date was July 15. thst If those submittal dates had been July 8 or July 1, we would have had a week or two weeks more VISION Engineering to get their act together, I don’t mean that, but, you know, get their observations and send that out to the applicants. So what it is incumbent upon the applicants to do is get their submissions in two weeks earlier. MR. TRAVER-Right. Well, I think another way to look at it, you know, from a management standpoint, is we have different sort of bumps in the road, in terms of having a smooth passage of an application from a concept to our approval, and, you know, we’re talking, in a way, about one of those bumps in the road that’s among the most complicated because of all of the staff working for the applicant, our Town Staff, the Town Engineer and so on. Why don’t we start by looking at one of the simplest cases, and that’s just not allow an application on the agenda unless it’s complete. That’s not necessarily going to solve the VISION Engineering and the back and forth, but it’s going to have a big impact. MR. OBORNE-That’s the protocol now. MR. TRAVER-Well, I understand that, but, you know, applicants, you know, they ask for waivers, and we’re still getting. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. OBORNE-You have to disseminate all the facts. You have to disseminate all the information that’s coming in. MR. TRAVER-We had an application in front of us tonight where one of the requirements for tabling was that they respond to a specific number of things, and they didn’t respond, and they still got on the agenda. I submit that they should get back in the job stack until VISION says, okay, I have all the information I need, according to your last tabling resolution, now let’s put them in the pipeline. MR. OBORNE-Well, which application was that? MR. TRAVER-The Timpano. MR. FORD-Well, it happened with frequency where he makes the observation, no new was presented. MR. TRAVER-No new information received. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-All right. Well, a lot of times, the way I go through the vetting or the completeness review that I do, is to see if they addressed it. I don’t do a full blown review on each and every answer. I see if they addressed it. If they have addressed it, I move it on. If they haven’t addressed it, I call them and say address it. Now if VISION isn’t satisfied with what they’ve addressed, how they addressed it, VISION is going to say, have not been addressed. MR. FORD-Or no new information. MR. OBORNE-Or no new information. MR. FORD-And if there is no new information, should that come on to us? MR. OBORNE-Probably not, probably not. MR. TRAVER-So right there, I mean, if we started with the easier one, in my opinion, I mean, we’re talking, and I think Don’s point, Tom’s point, I mean, the communication between the engineer and the applicant and Town Staff and us and all of that certainly, you know, there’s little bottlenecks there. That’s a very complicated situation, which might be addressed if we eliminated some of the easier things to solve, which is we’re spending time dealing with applications that are incomplete. Let’s try that, and then see how that impacts on VISION is going to have fewer things to deal with because they’re going to sit back and wait until they get a completed application. MR. OBORNE-Well, I can’t guarantee you that that’s not going to happen again, because I can’t, I mean, just being human, some things are going to fall through the cracks. MR. TRAVER-Well, sure. MR. OBORNE-Nine times out of ten I catch them. MR. FORD-Maybe a combination of those two. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think that’s what the result would be, would be a combination of the two. MRS. STEFFAN-But there’s also the issue of, you can’t drop something off, if you drop something off an agenda because it doesn’t meet our requirements, that has already been noticed to the public, and people are going to come, believing that that is on the agenda for that night, and then if you bump someone. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I wasn’t talking, I’m sorry. Maybe I misspoke. I wasn’t talking about bumping someone. I was talking about them not getting on the agenda until they got a signoff that maybe VISION didn’t agree with what they submitted, but they submitted something. So we would never see one that said no new information, submitted when we had put in a tabling motion that they had to submit. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but unfortunately if Keith gets the feedback from VISION Engineering on Thursday, say, we’re here on Tuesday, and so if they got that information last Thursday or Friday, and now we’ve got 20 outstanding items, that person should really not be on the agenda. MR. TRAVER-That’s right, and that’s where the dates come in. That’s where the dates come in. MR. FORD-The earlier submission date address it, at least starts to address that variation. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KREBS-And an example of this is tonight, Randy Gross is here, okay, and he has been told by Craig Brown that he should move the septic tank closer to the building. Now that wasn’t part of our approval, okay. MR. OBORNE-I disagree with that statement. I believe that Tom Hutchins wanted to move it closer and Craig said that’s probably a good idea. Craig is not going to direct somebody to do that. That’s Dave Hatin. I think Tom Hutchins said I would like to move this closer, and Craig said that’s a good idea. MR. KREBS-Okay. Well, that wasn’t what I heard the applicant say tonight. MR. OBORNE-That’s my understanding. MR. KREBS-Yes, but what I’m saying, in that case, if that had been, they didn’t change the drawing yet, okay, properly. So that’s why I’m saying, and VISION caught that, because it was a change, and then if they had had two weeks to get back to them, they could have come to our meeting with that correction taken. So it would be less items that we have to go through every time. MRS. STEFFAN-And I also think that one of the other things that we have to do as a Board is, when we have an item, when we have an application that’s incomplete, as we did with the first application, if there’s too many outstanding items, we do not discuss it. We do not spend time with that application. We table it, and we do that consistently. MR. TRAVER-If we did that, it would not take long before we never saw an incomplete application. Aversive conditioning I think is what they call it. MR. SEGULJIC-I think one of the big problems with moving the submission date back two weeks, I can see a lot of confusion. The worst plans you ever get are the ones where you have, you’re given these plans to look at, and the engineer or whoever is talking about all the changes they’ve made already. So are we going to end up with two sets of plans, then? MRS. STEFFAN-And we do get into the issue that we’ve gotten out of the habit of diverting from a policy that we made where we do not accept any new items, submissions, anything, the night of a meeting, and over the last six months, we have been accepting new information the night of a meeting, and that’s a Planning Board problem. That’s not an applicant problem. They’re providing us with new information, and if we accept it now it’s our problem. MR. OBORNE-Also keep in mind with this scenario, which is a viable scenario. I mean, I think what we have going now is viable. I think what you’re proposing is viable. I think what will happen is, you have that date. Let’s say we move it back to the first, and VISION Engineering gets their comments to the applicant, okay. Well, the applicant’s going to take a week to turn that around and then re-submit to us. So now we’re a week away from our first meeting, well, you still want VISION Engineering signoff. So it’s got to go back to VISION Engineering to get signoff, and then it just seems like there’s a lot of back and forth that you’re going to have to deal with, coming meeting night, and there will be additional information. MR. KREBS-But we’re doing it anyway. Because we table some of these applications five and six times before we approve them. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re not getting the point, then, if it takes five or six times. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. KREBS-No, you know why, Tom, because they submit the answers that they believe are correct back to VISION Engineering, and VISION comes up with, because they’ve changed things, they come up with additional questions which require another review by the applicant again. MR. FORD-For an applicant to receive the VISION Engineering comments as we do on Friday before the Tuesday meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, wait a minute. Just to pick up on that point, one of the things that we talked about during one of these discussions recently was as soon as a re- submission submits new information, getting that to VISION for comment, so that you could do a back and a forth in that two month time period. Is that happening now or no? MR. OBORNE-That’s happening when it’s directed by the Board for the applicant to have th a submittal date of say the 24 so they can get on the next month’s agenda or something like that. Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just pick one of the projects that we tabled this evening. There’s nothing to prohibit that applicant from turning it around and re-submitting new information within a few days. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely not. Absolutely not. MR. HUNSINGER-So again we’re back to the applicant, you know, it’s a self- perpetuating problem. They do have some control over. th MR. FORD-But they know they’ve got until the 15. MR. KREBS-Part of the problem is, also, though, when we table it and we tell them to go back to the engineer, and they answer the 12 questions that we asked them, it goes back to the engineer, and sometimes the engineer comes back with some more comments, okay. MR. TRAVER-That’s out of our control. I think what we can control is when they don’t respond to the engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-To me there’s a bigger issue. I don’t think, it’s not the applicant’s job to satisfy the engineer. It’s our job to look at the engineer’s comments and say, yes, this is relevant. We want more information on it. Because he, the engineer, has got to make judgments. I don’t want to be put in a position whereas an application comes in to us that we look at, and I have all these different concerns. Behind the scenes the applicant and the engineer are working. Next thing you know, you have the attorney waving the letter, we’ve got engineering signoff, when I had other concerns beyond that. So I’m afraid of being lead down that path. MR. KREBS-You’re misinterpreting. We’re not saying that engineering that engineering signoff is Planning Board approval. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, correct, but I can see that happening, but then I can hear the comment, well we worked with the engineer, and that’s how come I spent all this money and did all of this. It’s our job to look at, the engineer works for us. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think we all agree with you. Yes, absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-But I’m concerned about being lead down this path. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a valid concern, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s just that a lot, a majority, because we’re not engineers, most of us are not engineers, and we do rely on those comments to make sure that it’s technically correct. MR. KREBS-Right, and there was one application today that there were 32 engineering comments, okay. MR. TRAVER-And a lot of them said no new information received. MR. SEGULJIC-And until the issues are cleared up, we should say, you’ve got 32 comments, we’ll see you in two months. That’s what we have to do. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. OBORNE-I was just going to say that it is ultimately the Planning Board’s decision. It’s not engineering’s decision. I mean, you can certainly take what you feel is important as a Board, and agree with the engineer or disagree with the engineer. You have the power. Now I know that there’s a level of comfort, obviously, with an engineer’s signoff. I mean, that protects the Board and all that, but I think sometimes you have to look at each individual comment and see what’s important and what’s not important. A lot of things that the engineer is doing now, and this is no slight on VISION Engineering at all, but they have two principles there now. Before it was just one principle. So there’s a different engineer which, boom, right off the bat, means a different human being, which means a different approach, and also what they’re doing, they are doing a lot more planning and zoning issues that they shouldn’t be doing. They should be sticking with stormwater and, you know, infrastructure and the likes, that type of stuff, SWPPP, and not dealing with setbacks or worried about Area Variances or anything like that, because it makes it look a lot worse than it actually is. So that’s all I have to say. The Planning Board is the final arbiter, and that’s the bottom line. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the other issue that I think is important to bring up is that, you know, we were talking about, if somebody submits before the application deadline, that can go right to VISION Engineering. Keith is not sitting at his desk waiting for things to do. So there’s another issue that comes along with workload. Keith is the only Land Use Planner. There are applicants coming in all the time. So everything can’t be turned around as quickly as we might believe it can. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FORD-I’m just trying to put the onus on the applicant to submit earlier. MR. OBORNE-Well, why not make, do something, try the Monday or the Wednesday before, or the Tuesday. It gives them a week. Something. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we should only change one thing at a time. I certainly thing that there are three things we can do. Certainly the suggestion of moving the application deadline up a week or two, we can decide that, but the other two issues that I think are important to agree on is, if somebody comes to us, and they have a lot of outstanding items, we table them without discussion. MR. KREBS-And if they’ve had two weeks to review that, absolutely, I think you just say, tabled. MRS. STEFFAN-And then the second item for the Planning Board, three in total, is that we do not accept material the night of the meeting. MR. FORD-We do not accept, we reject it. We say no. Take it back, sit down, I don’t want it. I won’t take it. MR. KREBS-I agree with that. MR. OBORNE-Even from Great Escape. MR. KREBS-Okay. Have we come to a conclusion? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was just going to ask. Do we want to experiment and make the deadline a week earlier? Starting in October? Let me think this through. What would be the soonest meeting that we could? MR. TRAVER-I think we should do it for September. MR. KREBS-I would make a suggest that we do it starting effective January, the beginning of the year, because the volume is generally less during January, February. MR. HUNSINGER-I like that idea, because I think the submission dates have already been posted for the year. MR. KREBS-Exactly, and so if we started it with the beginning of 2010, you could start th with the first of the month being instead of the 15 of the month. MR. SIPP-That’s what I just said, Don, no matter what you do, you’re going to have people who don’t follow the rules, and you’re going to end up with a mess. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/18/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. SIPP-You’re going to be tabling Site Plan after Site Plan. MR. KREBS-Well, Don, if that’s because they’ve had the information for two weeks, and they haven’t done anything, that’s their problem, then. They get tabled. MR. SIPP-How does that solve your problem of getting backed up? MR. SEGULJIC-The issue that I see is that then they’re going to change their plans, and we have the original set of plans, and now they’re going to come in with another set, thinking we have the set that the changed to address the comments, that we never got the comment on those comments. MR. SIPP-Human nature is a postponing operation, and therefore the applicant is going to postpone a day or two, and you’re going to be left with the same mess you’ve got now. MR. OBORNE-And if I may say that we are into our third month on the new Site Plan Review applications, you know, if you feel that that’s enough time to see how that’s working out, then, I mean, I’m not going to disagree with you on that. I think that more time should be allowed to see if that works a little better. MR. KREBS-Sure. That’s why I said, okay, well, then let’s postpone it until December and make a decision in December for January. MR. HUNSINGER-We will anyway, because in December we post the meeting dates and deadline notices and everything for the coming year. MR. FORD-That’s a legitimate time to make it, if we can get agreement from the majority. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s, but following along Gretchen’s, you know, three things, I think the other two are things that we can do right away. MR. TRAVER-I was just going to say, I mean, in the meantime, let’s just not, let’s immediately table any application that they didn’t submit what they were supposed to submit. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I’ll start that next week. I have no problem with that. MR. TRAVER-And you won’t believe how fast that’ll come to an end. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any other business? Good discussion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 64