Loading...
2009.08.25 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 31-2009 CES Holdings 1. Tax Map No. 290-1-21.3, 21.4 Site Plan No. 40-2009 Scott Smith 2. Freshwater Wetlands 6-2009 Tax Map No. 266.3-1-8 Site Plan No. 46-2009 Debaron Associates 2. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47 Subdivision No. 5-2009 Michael & Christina Breda 4. SKETCH/PRELIMINARY/FINAL Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30 Site Plan No. 41-2009 Michael & Christina Breda 28. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30 Site Plan No. 42-2009 The Golub Corporation 30. Tax Map No. 302.10-1-7 Site Plan No. 43-2009 Robert L. Kristel 34. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-38 Special Use Permit No. 45-2009 San Souci of Cleverdale, Inc. 38. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43 Site Plan No. 51-2009 Linda Hart 48. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-39, 40, 41, 42, 44.1 Site Plan No. 50-2008 General Timber 61. RESOLUTION Tax Map No. 265.-1-28 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 8/25/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP DONALD KREBS STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. Our first item on the agenda are three administrative items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 31-09 CES HOLDINGS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-There is a resolution for further tabling consideration. Did they submit new materials at all? MR. OBORNE-For CES? No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. OBORNE-I sent a letter also and no response. MRS. STEFFAN-See, that was going to be my question. Have you heard anything from them? Because there were extensive comments on that particular item. MR. OBORNE-Nothing. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess my feeling is we’ll give them one chance, and if we don’t receive anything by the next time we table it, then they’re on their own. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That sounds fair. Everyone in agreement? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 CES HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Jackoski: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a four unit apartment building, paved parking area, private roadway extension and associated stormwater devices and landscaping. Multifamily in a SR-1A zone is an allowed use subject to Site Plan Review and approval. Freshwater wetlands permit needed for construction within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009 & the application was tabled to 8/25/09; and; th 3)The applicant was given a July 15 submission deadline [see resolution below] no new materials were submitted by that date; and 4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 CES HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This will be tabled to the October 27th Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SP 40-09 & FW 6-09 SCOTT SMITH: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Same thing. Did they submit new materials? MR. OBORNE-No. They haven’t. Their engineer happens to be here right now. Maybe you can shed some light on what the status is. Not to put you on the spot there. MR. JARRETT-I’ve talked with the client, and he is still trying to decide what direction to go. So we would wish to be tabled. I was planning on providing some detailed information, once I got feedback from him, but I do not have any at this time. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-If we table this until October, do you think you’d have stuff ready for th September 15? MR. JARRETT-I’ll certainly have an answer by then. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks, Tom. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2009 SCOTT SMITH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes Parking lot adjustments due to DOT Route 149 reconstruction. Filling within 50 feet of wetlands in a NC zone requires both Site Plan Review and a Freshwater Wetlands permit. Subject to 2009 Ordinance. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/7/2009 and tabled to 8/25/09; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; th 4)The applicant was given a submission date of July 15[see resolution below]; no new materials were submitted by that date; and 5)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 6-2009 SCOTT SMITH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Queensbury Country Club. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is th tabled to the October 27 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DEBARON ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION LOT 4, DARK BAY LANE, OFF RT. 9L, WEST OF DUNHAMS BAY 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,130 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED STORMWATER CONTROLS. THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT; PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. CROSS REFERENCE AV 40-09, SP 14-09, BOH 1-09, AV 11-08, SP 32-89, AV 1442, AV 12-92; SUB 2-69 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/8/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.35 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-47 SECTION CHAPTER 147, 179-9-010 MR. HUNSINGER-And finally, the last one, Site Plan 46-09 for Debaron Associates. This has also been referenced for further tabling. Same question. Did they submit anything yet? MR. OBORNE-To date, no response to VISION Engineering comments at this point. I have talked to their engineer, and he is awaiting direction from their counsel at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-They did just get their Zoning Board variance last month. MR. OBORNE-Yes, ma’am. MRS. STEFFAN-So it makes sense that they couldn’t pull it together quickly. So we’ll th table this to October 27. So I’ll make a motion. MR. OBORNE-Can I interject for a second? There was a public hearing scheduled for tonight on Debaron. I didn’t know if you wanted to see if somebody was in the audience that may want to speak to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on the Debaron project. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will leave the public hearing open, and it will be re-opened th on the 27 of October. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2009 DEBARON ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Jackoski: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,130 square foot single family dwelling and associated storm water controls. This proposal has been classified as a Major Storm water Project; Planning Board review and approval is required 2)A public hearing was advertised and scheduled for 8/25/09; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)The Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 7/21/09; the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the applicant’s variance request th and the application was placed on the August 25 Planning Board agenda; and 5)There were outstanding engineering comments to be addressed by the applicant st and they were given a deadline date of July 31; 6)No new information has been submitted by the applicant; subsequent to that a letter has been received from Hutchins Engineering to request further tabling consideration, therefore, let it be resolved: 7)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2009 DEBARON ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled to the October 27 Planning Board meeting. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION 5-2009 SKETCH/PRELIMINARY/FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) ESTATE OF HELEN SLEIGHT ZONING NC-10 LOCATION 369 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.13 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.07 & 1.06 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 41-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.13 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30 SECTION A- 183 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. Subdivision 5-2009, Michael and Christina Breda. Requested Action. Applicant requests Sketch, Preliminary and Final Stage subdivision review accomplished in one meeting. Location is 369 Aviation Road. The existing zoning is Neighborhood Commercial/Neighborhood Residential. SEQRA status is Unlisted. Parcel History is as follows: Site Plan is pending Area Variance was approved on 8/19/09. Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.99 acre parcel into four (4) lots of 1.07, 1.06, 0.52 and 0.34 acres respectively. Clarification will be needed as Town of Queensbury records show the lot size to be 2.93 acres. Please note that the lot extends to the north side of Manor Drive. The subdivision proposal is in response to a potential traffic circle located at Aviation Ave, Dixon Ave and Farr Lane and a proposed Daycare facility to be built by the applicant. Please see applicant’s narrative for further explanation. Staff comments. The parcel currently has a single family dwelling located on-site. The structure is to remain pending the construction of the traffic circle. The northern lot will be used as the site for a 6,500 square foot daycare center, fronting on Manor drive. The applicant has developed the subdivision layout based on conceptual plans for the traffic circle. According to the applicant, if the plans change and will require additional land, a future lot line change could be accomplished. Before the Board members tonight, I handed out an updated version of the traffic circle, and it appears, through Chris Round, a representative for Chazen, and Craig Brown, and myself, that the Site Plan as designed does seem to fit just fine. There will not be any additional lands needed for the traffic circle as designed at this current time. I’m going to jump down to Additional Comments. Clarification of the parcel boundary must be forth coming. It appears that the dimensional requirements for both zones associated with this proposal can be met. The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to clarify the intentions of the northern portion of the lot north of Manor Drive. The applicant has submitted a four lot subdivision application as a result of the lands to the north not being filed as a subdivision as previously thought. The applicant states that the two parcels located to the north are not part of the Site Plan for the World Class Kids daycare center and only Lot A will be developed for the daycare center, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Keith. Before I turn the floor over, I guess I would like to, since we do have these listed as two separate items, I would like to try to, to the extent possible, keep the discussion separate between the subdivision and then the site plan. MR. JARRETT-Okay. It may be easier said than done, but we’ll do our best. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. JARRETT-Essentially we were intending to be here to clean up details. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Tom, if you could identify yourself for the record. MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and Mike Breda, applicant and owner of World Class Kids Daycare. Our original intent tonight was to clean up technical details, primarily regarding the Site Plan, because I think the subdivision is a fairly straightforward application. Although I think we’ll probably hear some confusion regarding that application, unfortunately, and you have a list of comments from Staff and 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) from VISION Engineering in front of you, and we provided a response. The list is long. We think we’ve actually resolved, previously, many or most of those issues, and as you go through that response letter, you may wish to ask me questions regarding any of them. We did not provide you any new drawings, although we’ve tweaked a couple of the details in response to VISION Engineering’s comments, and we have an electronic version that we could read tonight, if you wish, but I’d really leave it to the Board to let me know what direction you’d like to move. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my preference would be just as I had stated to try to separate the two. The engineering comments on the subdivision were fairly minor. MR. JARRETT-Subdivision comments are fairly minor, I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-There originally was, the parcel originally involved what we label as Lots A and B in our project, which are south of Manor Drive, and we learned during this project that actually the parcel in total included land above Manor Drive. Okay. Mike is not purchasing that land. So even though that land, that subdivision was never formally filed originally, it’s not part of our Site Plan application, and it’s, I hope, an administrative or administerial item to try to resolve that unfiled application. Did I confuse you further? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Could you run that by me again? MR. JARRETT-If you look at that diagram, the land that Mike was actually technically purchasing was everything outlined in red, although he did not understand it that way, was negotiated as just the land south of Manor Drive. Apparently what happened is that land above was never subdivided off correctly. Never filed. Transactions have proceeded, I think, assuming that subdivision was filed and never was filed. So we’re technically trying to bring that into compliance now in filing that, you know, getting that subdivision approved by this Board, so it can be filed. Our project actually involves the land just totally below Manor Drive and solely below Manor Drive, and we’re proposing a two lot subdivision there. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s one house on that lot, now, you’re going to subdivide that in two, but due to confusion in the deeds or prior subdivisions filed, there’s this orphaned area to the north. MR. JARRETT-This lot is actually part of this parcel, even though it was originally intended to have been subdivided off, and everybody thought it had been subdivided off and filed. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that parcel to the north, is that one lot or two lots? MR. JARRETT-It’s actually two lots. One noncompliant and one (lost word). MR. HUNSINGER-So that subdivision already exists. MIKE BREDA MR. BREDA-Supposedly. MR. JARRETT-In theory, although it’s not filed. MR. OBORNE-Not legally. It does not exist legally. MR. SEGULJIC-So do you own that lot now? MR. BREDA-No. My purchase contract is only that property. MR. SEGULJIC-But when you looked at the deeds, you actually, by paper, owned it. MR. JARRETT-Actually, we didn’t discover it. I think it was discovered by. MR. BREDA-Well, Virginia Sleight, or the Sleight Estate, was adamant from Day One that that north parcel was never part of the south parcel. It had always been subdivided, I don’t know how many years ago, she got her lawyer involved, Bill Fitzgerald, my lawyer, and I assumed, or I thought that problem had gone away. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. SEGULJIC-So what’s it going to take to clean it up? MR. JARRETT-I believe just an approval by this Board and a filing of the map. MR. SEGULJIC-An approval? An approval of what? MR. JARRETT-Maybe we better ask Keith. MR. OBORNE-What they’re here for is a four lot subdivision, okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Which includes? MR. OBORNE-Which includes a bifurcation or two lots of the southern portion. MR. JARRETT-Two lots of this here. MR. OBORNE-As you have for the Site Plan Review. MR. JARRETT-And two lots, the existing lots north of the road. MR. OBORNE-Correct, in totality. That would clean up their issue as far as the lands to the south, what they want to build on, as far as the Site Plan Review goes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-In your research, Keith, did you find that there was indeed a subdivision approved for the lots to the north? MR. OBORNE-No, and actually the research was put on the shoulders of the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And it’s my understanding the applicant could not find that either. MR. KREBS-Can I ask a question? How could Manor Drive be, run across that piece of property if it wasn’t subdivided, because then the Town would have to have an easement from the owner. If that easement doesn’t exist. MR. OBORNE-Well, there are many lots in the Town of Queensbury that, they’re called hook lots, that they actually have streets running through them. So when they built the Manor Drive subdivision, or the Manor subdivision, there, the road was dedicated. That land was just cut in half, well, obviously not half, but, you know, cut in two. MR. JARRETT-All these lots were part of that subdivision where this was broken out, these two lots were formed. I don’t know how it was left that way. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, I have no problem going forward with the subdivision personally. So if we go forward with the subdivision, everything is going to take care of itself, then? MR. OBORNE-It should, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It should. MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t want to, I don’t deal in absolutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Just one question regarding the northern lot. My understanding, if I heard correctly, that the original intent was that it would be two lots, one noncompliant and one compliant. Is it possible, as part of this clean up process, to make two compliant lots? MR. OBORNE-It doesn’t look like it. I have discussed this with the Zoning Administrator. At this point, he is not going to make a determination on that. So, he’s the only one that can make a determination that this needs to go forward to any type of Zoning Board of Appeals or anything along those lines. We were hoping to get this taken care of probably post approval and possibly, hopefully, as a condition of approval. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the logical follow up question is how can this Board approve a subdivision that would require a variance? MR. OBORNE-Well, if the Zoning Administrator doesn’t make a determination, it will not require a variance. He can do an Administrative Subdivision. MR. KREBS-And I don’t believe, if I remember right, it’s a 5.2 acres, and 3.4 acres, so, and it has to be .5 acres to be compliant. So even if you added them together, you divide it by two, you don’t come up with .5. So, there is no way to make them both compliant. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So can’t we do a three lot subdivision instead, your two and then the one that’s much bigger? MR. JARRETT-I think he did intimate that, yes. MR. BREDA-In discussions with Virginia Sleight and her lawyer, Bill Fitzgerald, they had mentioned that they had no problem the two on the north side one, basically what would be .86 lot, into one lot. Now I don’t have that in writing, but that was discussed as a solution. MR. TRAVER-And they could always apply for a noncompliant subdivision if they wanted. MR. OBORNE-You would want to see that resubmitted, because it was advertised as a four lot subdivision. Now, basically we’re talking about it at Sketch Plan right now. MR. SIPP-Are they all zoned the same? MR. OBORNE-No, they’re different zones. MR. JARRETT-Yes, Manor Drive divides the zone. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The daycare center is on the Neighborhood Commercial zone, which is one acre, and they’re compliant, and it’s Neighborhood Residential to the north, which, depending on if they have water or sewer, or water and sewer, it depends on the size of the lot. There are different requirements. If they do have water and sewer, it could be a 10,000 square foot lot. If they do not have water and sewer, then it needs to be .5 acres. One is compliant. One is not. MR. JARRETT-The subdivision map that was prepared by Van Dusen and Steves showing the four lots references an Evergreen subdivision dated 1967, and revised in ’76, where those two lots were supposedly created. MR. BREDA-Do they have a copy of that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do. MR. OBORNE-Yes, they do. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it being taxed as one lot? Obviously it’s not. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think the applicant, you wouldn’t know that. Would you? MR. BREDA-No. I don’t know. MR. OBORNE-Because he doesn’t own it. MR. BREDA-I won’t own it. MR. JARRETT-He doesn’t want to own it. Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. JARRETT-Well, obviously it’s not as simple as we’d like, but we’d like to keep it relatively simple. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It seems to me that they’ve given you an out, as far as, you know, making it compliant by combining the two northern lots. MR. JACKOSKI-But then we’ve got to make them come back again. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And we’re talking about when? MR. JARRETT-We’d have to correct a map. MR. OBORNE-We’d have to correct a map, right. MR. JARRETT-Depending on what you do and what Keith recommends, we could correct the map as a condition. MR. OBORNE-Well, it needs to have a public hearing, though. That’s the issue. So, should that slow down the Site Plan? I feel it shouldn’t, but that’s not my decision. MR. HUNSINGER-So we couldn’t, even though, I just want to back up for a second. Because it was advertised as a four lot subdivision, if we wanted to approve it’s a three, your feeling is it would have to be re-advertised? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-How is that any different than approval with a condition? MR. OBORNE-Because it was advertised as a four lot, and typically when you advertise something, you have to approve it as advertised. Not necessarily with your Site Plan corrections or something along those lines. MR. HUNSINGER-But the Planning Board is the one that is requesting the change, not the applicant. MR. OBORNE-So you’d want to see that change, and then at Sketch Plan you don’t have a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So it doesn’t matter. You direct the applicant to correct the subdivision to a three lot subdivision, and re-submit. Now you can certainly attempt to make a resolution to approve a three lot subdivision, but it’s my position that they will have to re- advertise for the public hearing. MR. JACKOSKI-So can we approve a four lot subdivision with a condition that they combine the two lots in the future? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was asking. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, it sounds crazy to me to make them come back again. MR. OBORNE-You may attempt to do that. I think that that’s worth a try. MR. JARRETT-In my experience, reducing the number of lots has never created a problem. It’s going the other way, when you’re increasing the number of lots, then you. MR. OBORNE-It’s all about how it was advertised. That’s the issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Understood. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But they have to come back anyway because this wasn’t advertised as a public hearing. Correct? MR. OBORNE-Sure it was. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was. Sketch, Preliminary and Final were all together. Yes. Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. JARRETT-We just made it more confusing, haven’t we? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I’m sorry. Did you have a comment, Don? MR. KREBS-Keith, do you know, have you looked? Are these all under one tax map number? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That’s what I think originally generated the question. MR. OBORNE-That’s what peaked my interest. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I wish it wasn’t so. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show there were no commentors. I mean, personally, if they’re willing to move forward without the northern lot subdivided, I don’t have a problem with what it is that the applicant’s trying to subdivide on the lower lot. Does anybody else? MR. KREBS-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. I’m all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The question then becomes the Site Plan, and I know I’d said I wanted to try to keep them separate. I just want to kind of talk through the logic here for a second. There were lengthy and extensive engineering comments. The applicant did submit a response to that comment this evening, which we haven’t yet looked at, but when I was doing the review at home, my impression was that we would end up tabling it, the Site Plan. So if we’re going to table the Site Plan, it really doesn’t do any harm for the applicant to table the subdivision, too, and then just keep them both on the same night. MR. BREDA-Would you want to go through some of the stuff to be addressed and then decide? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Absolutely. MR. BREDA-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-You really think the engineering comments are extensive? I mean, a lot of them dealt with the northern lot, though. MR. HUNSINGER-On the Site Plan they were extensive. Not on the subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You’re right. I’m looking at the wrong one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Yes. You’re right. MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, I think there were three pages. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. You’re right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Last week we had a discussion about not accepting, to reinforce our prior decision as a Planning Board not to accept things the night of the meeting, but there’s part of me, you know, that I thought that the, I was actually surprised at the VISION Engineering comments that came back on the Site Plan, and so I would like to take a look at this letter, and since our agenda seems to be shorter, because of the items that we’ve tabled, you know, I’d like to suggest maybe we take 10 minutes and go through this letter, you know, to go over it before Mr. Jarrett and Mr. Breda talk through it, so that we can kind of separate subdivision issues from Site Plan issues, to see if maybe we can move it forward. I think it would be a good investment of 10 minutes. MR. OBORNE-Do you still want to do the subdivision first, as discussed, to keep it clean and get that out of the way, or move on and do this as a holistic approach? You still have SEQRA issues you need to deal with. MRS. STEFFAN-My feeling is just that I’m not sure how much information is in here, which will shed some light on the subdivision. So, I wouldn’t mind taking 10 minutes and reading the VISION Engineering responses, and then let’s go back to the subdivision. MR. KREBS-Are you talking about the responses for the subdivision or? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I’m wondering if there might be some light that would be shed on the subdivision. MR. JARRETT-Actually the responses that we provided tonight deal with both issues. We separated out Staff comments, and then obviously the VISION comments. You’ll see they deal with both, and you can look at them both at the same time. MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we have Tom walk us through this. MR. JARRETT-Either way you want to do it is fine with us. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s fine. I guess, Tom, would you like to walk us through it, please. MR. JARRETT-I’d love to, I guess is my answer. The first comment, which is from Staff, is regarding the parking variance that we requested for the size of the spaces, and we obtained that variance. So we’ll jump over that one. On Page C-1, there’s a comment regarding the entrance off Farr Lane, and I think we’ve resolved that at a prior meeting, that you were comfortable with a one way in. Page C-2, lighting appears excessive, and there’s actually some comments in VISION Engineering’s letter regarding lighting as well. We had attempted to reduce wattages in the fixtures in the prior submission, and for some reason it didn’t come through. So we’ve now improved, lowered those wattages and improved lighting somewhat on the site. We actually have obtained slightly more compliant coverage on the site. It’s on the electronic version that Keith has up there, the lighting diagram. We’ve reduced the lamps from 150 watts and 250 watt metal halide down to 100 watt high pressure sodium, and compliance is better, although not within Town standards. With the 100 watt, we have approximately an average illumination of 2.5 foot candles, with a uniformity ranging from 24 to 26 to 1. The minimum, which is one spot on the upper left corner of the site, is .1 foot candles, and the maximum is between nine and ten. So it’s better than it was, by reducing the fixture wattages. MR. KREBS-Can I ask Mike a question? From a business standpoint, you’re probably going to be closed by six, seven o’clock at night. MR. BREDA-Five thirty, yes, we’re closed. MR. KREBS-Okay. So you’re not going to sit there and let all those lights shine all night long, and pay that electric bill. Now, as a businessman, I know you’re not going to do that. So I would think that the problem of having the lighting on, you know, in the wintertime, of course, you’re going to have it on from four o’clock until six thirty, seven o’clock when the last person leaves, but it’s not going to be there all night. So I don’t see a problem with the lighting. MR. OBORNE-One of my comments was to put timers on it, to turn them off early morning. MR. KREBS-Yes, and I think that’s, he probably will want to do that just so you don’t forget something. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. JARRETT-That’s the very next comment on Page Two, and we reiterate our willingness to accommodate that request. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. JARRETT-So, on Page Two, under additional comments, it says number three, snow storage should be denoted on the plan. We’ve added that. We planned on using the two extremities of the parking lot for that, and we have discussed it before. We’ve now noted it on the plan. Item Number Four is the subdivision, which we’ve discussed. Under new comments, the do not enter signs for the Farr Lane entrance, we had those on the plan before. They must have gotten missed by whoever put this comment in the package. The next bullet is an interconnect with the property to the east should be explored, and we’re certainly willing to discuss that. We were not aware of a condition on the Site Plan approval next door that an interconnect was either suggested or is a condition for discussion. I don’t know how it’s worded. We can come back to that if you wish, but we’re willing to discuss that. MRS. STEFFAN-Maybe we were talking about an interconnect on the other side, and I think we were. MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is a two story office building I believe, right now, or a one story office building, and obviously this is an ’04 aerial photo. The updated one shows. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d be surprised if we didn’t require it of that applicant. MR. JARRETT-Of us. MR. HUNSINGER-No, of them. MR. OBORNE-Of them. Yes, they have been required. MR. JARRETT-He’s saying you did, and I don’t know what the wording is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We can come back to that if you wish. The next comments are regarding the subdivision, including the first comment of VISION is subdivision is related. Part of it is clarification of the acreages and with the updated surveys, our SEQRA form lagged, and we have a SEQRA form updated, attached to your package tonight. So that’s clarified and clear. Item Number Two also regards the subdivision, as is number three which is clarifying acreages. Item Number Four was clarifying the zone change. We had it incorrectly listed as MU, which was what we were originally seeking for a zone change prior to the passage of the new Zoning Ordinance. We’ve clarified that in the SEQRA form. Item Number Five on Page Four. Disturbance. We’ve clarified that on the SEQRA form as well. Item Number Six, we checked the subdivision box now. Item Number Seven, which is on Page Five, this gets into sidewalks, and we do not see a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance for Neighborhood Commercial requiring sidewalks. We are certainly willing to grant an easement along our western boundary for future sidewalks, if they’re needed. The roundabout may make that either highly appropriate or totally inappropriate, I’m not sure. We think the Manor Drive side is really not conducive to sidewalks at all, from a physical perspective and from a walking, a need for them, actually. MR. KREBS-And I don’t believe the Ricciardelli or the bank or anybody else has, on Aviation Road, as I went up there today and checked it again, and I didn’t see any sidewalks up there. MR. OBORNE-There is a sidewalk, there are sidewalks on the adjoining property facing Aviation Road. MR. KREBS-There is? MR. OBORNE-There is, and it’s basically a sidewalk to nowhere, but at this point, when they build the. MRS. STEFFAN-We asked them to put that in. MR. OBORNE-You asked them to do that, exactly. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. KREBS-What about the Glens Falls National, do they have sidewalks? MR. OBORNE-I do not believe there are sidewalks there. Correct. Now, the Neighborhood Residential zone does require sidewalks in the new Code. MR. JARRETT-The zone to the north and to the east. MR. OBORNE-Correct, not the Neighborhood Commercial. MR. JARRETT-So Lot A in this project that we’re presenting to you tonight, the one on Aviation Road, maybe there’s a need for sidewalks there. I don’t know, but. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I think on this plan that we got tonight, it talks about that, shared use sidewalk. MR. JARRETT-The one regarding the roundabout? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And, in my mind, it’s an appropriate use there. I mean, there is the Indian Ridge subdivision. There’s the senior complex. MR. BREDA-We’ve already discussed that, and I agree with the fact that, if the roundabout goes in, I have no problem continuing a sidewalk from Farr Lane, in front of the building, to connect with the roundabout sidewalk. I agree with you that that should be done. MR. KREBS-But there are no sidewalks in Indian Ridge, and there are no sidewalks at the senior center. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, but then when we get on to the, what I’ll call the commercial property, the thoroughfare, that’s where we really need them. MR. JARRETT-So we’re willing to stipulate that we will work with that plan and connect to it if there is one provided. MR. BREDA-Yes. I mean, it’s all hypothetical right now. There’s no roundabout there. MR. JARRETT-Going down to Item Number Eight on Page Five. This relates to showing utilities on the existing parcel, which would become Parcel A in our subdivision, where the house is right now. Our survey shows underground utilities where we know they are. There’s a question regarding the septic system. We’ve shown what we know about the system, and, save for digging it up or doing extensive investigations, we don’t know where that really extends, but interestingly enough, with these course soils and that much land there, we have plenty of room to, you know, resolve a problem if one does arise. On the bottom of Page Five, Site Plan comments, again, it relates to the existing conditions, showing utilities and resolving the septic issues, and you see our response on Page Five. We don’t think it’s an issue. Item Number Three on Page Six, the numbering systems are rather convoluted, a note should be added to the subdivision map requiring Lot A access to be from Farr Lane and not Aviation Road. We find that very premature. We had previously included a note on our Site Plan saying that, during Site Plan Review in front of this Board, you can determine what access is appropriate depending on what use is proposed. Limiting that access to Aviation Road now seems highly, very premature and not necessary. MR. KREBS-Right, because there’s already access. MR. JARRETT-There’s a house there now and there’s access existing. If somebody comes back and proposes a new use, then you get to weigh in on where the access is. If it’s a roundabout, you’re not going to worry about it. If it’s a commercial use, then you get to look at where access should be. I see confusion on phases here. Okay. Bottom of Page Six, Item Number Four, again, this is regarding the septic system, and we feel that we’ve addressed that properly. Item Number Five on the top of Page Seven is a zoning table updated to show corner lot requirements, which we’ve done. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Can I stop you here a second, Tom? I’m sorry. What is the plans for the house lot? The immediate plans? MR. BREDA-It’s going to stay existing right now, until we find out what’s going on with the roundabout. I’m going to leave it and give the Town first dibs on what they are projecting to do. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re going to lease the house out, or? MR. BREDA-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Item Number Six documents that we asked for a waiver on the contours. We have contours on the plan. We did not go quite 100 feet off site in all areas. This portion of Town is so flat that I don’t think there’s a lot of consternation from that, or should not be. Item Number Eight deals with access, which I think we’ve discussed at length, previously. We had discussed access being one way in off Farr Lane, and then two way off Manor Drive. Mike can relate to you the traffic that he sees at his existing use in Sokol’s Plaza. MR. BREDA-One of the comments had extremely high numbers, as far as potential cars coming in. I did some research. The Daycare is licensed for 82 kids, but, due to ratios per classrooms, the most I’ll ever have in the building is 72. That’s completely full. That’s with everybody showing up. Approximately 10 out of the 62 kids are siblings, which means one car is picking up more than one kid. So, I knocked it down to about 52 cars possibly accessing the property in a day, and also the drop off is usually within a two hour period in the morning, seven thirty to nine thirty. Pick up is usually a two hour period in the afternoon starting at three thirty to five thirty, and at most, at one time is approximately five cars at one time. I hope that sheds some light. MR. JARRETT-I see a lot of heads looking down and a lot of writing going on. Moving along, you can stop me anywhere you wish, but moving right along. MR. SIPP-The morning access, is, what, 7:30 to? MR. BREDA-Yes. We open at 7:30, and usually the drop off ranges from 7:30 to 9:30. MR. SIPP-Because 7:30 to 8:30 is Queensbury School time. The buses will be operating. You’re going to have a lot more traffic. MR. JARRETT-He’s got the same traffic right now in Sokol’s Plaza, just the other side of the road. Okay. Item Number Nine, which is on Page Eight, it deals with soil stockpiled areas and interfering with our stormwater devices during construction. We feel that, even though the comment often has merit, and I think Chris Navitsky in the audience tonight would weigh in on that as well, to the effect, on many sites. In this site we have very, very course sand, and in fact too course for wastewater disposal, and many would argue too course for stormwater management. We have shown disturbance limits and we’ve shown the limits of construction on our plan and all of our soil stockpile areas have to be within those limits, and we will probably have to acknowledge that some construction will interfere with our stormwater devices and we’ll probably have to re- excavate those and clean those out after construction. That’s just a necessary evil with this site being small and contained as it is. We don’t see any untoward regarding it because the soil are so permeable. Item Number Twelve deals with access and entrances, again. I think we’ve discussed that. Item Number, we go from twelve to fourteen. We have a major faux pas here. Item Number 14 on Page Nine, and I think we must have re-numbered it incorrectly as opposed to one missing. MR. OBORNE-Well, Item Thirteen was labeled complete on VISION Engineering. MR. JARRETT-Okay. That’s why we didn’t include it. I’m sorry. I even directed Staff to do that, and I forgot. This has to do with the play area over the absorption field. Again, this happens all over Town, and in uses such as this with schools, I’ve designed them in school playgrounds in this Town, and we’ve had no problem. The soils here are amazingly course and suitable for this kind of use. So I don’t see a problem. There is one issue that I’d bring to your attention, and that is we show a water tight cover on the septic tanks for access. It’s to grade, and it is water tight. So there’s no pick holes. There should be no odor. If you wish us to bury those covers and put a marker there, we will do that. One of the tanks is outside the play area, and one is in the play area. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. HUNSINGER-So what would the cover be, metal? MR. JARRETT-It’s actually a heavy duty cast iron. Kids can’t lift it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. They could fall on it. MR. JARRETT-They could fall on it, and I think Mike’s whispering to me that he’d just as soon bury it anyway. MR. BREDA-For that reason. MR. JARRETT-So we’ll bury that. We often don’t show that as a standard detail, because out of sight, out of mind. People forget about where they are and what to do with them, but we will do that in this case. Number 15 deals with the limits of vegetation, and we stipulated at the last Planning Board meeting that we would gain approval from the Town, either from Staff or from this Board, if we want to cut any vegetation outside the disturbance limits. I think you were comfortable with that. Items Eighteen, Nineteen, and Twenty deal with stormwater. MR. BREDA-You missed 16. MR. JARRETT-Sorry. Sixteen is the five foot pavement area on the ends of each section of parking lot for pull out. We provided it on the east side, but on the west side, we’ve partially provided for it, but we have a trash enclosure that conflicts with it. The reason we didn’t go further is because we would encroach more on the tree that’s there, and we’d like to keep the tree. We’d just as soon leave it the way it is, and if the tree dies, we’ll extend the pavement, but if you tell us to extend it now, we will do so. Now we get into stormwater, actually Item Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen and Twenty. It’s going to be hard for you to weigh in on these, but we are very much in disagreement with the Town Engineer’s comments on stormwater, and we think we’ve provided a compliant plan. Essentially what we’ve done is provided swales around the. MR. OBORNE-Do you have a preference? That’s probably a good one there. MR. JARRETT-Reduce it and we should be okay. We’ve provided swales along the east side, along the north side, and along the west side that are essentially long, narrow retention basins. So all the runoff from the site goes into those retention basins, and our calculations show there’s no runoff from the site during a 50 year storm, which is the design storm for this particular site. I think there’s some disagreement regarding how the calculations were formulated in the computer, and we contend that it makes no difference regarding the ultimate design and how the site functions. So, I don’t know how much further you’d like us to take that tonight. Item Nineteen deals with runoff from Manor Drive and Farr Lane, especially Manor Drive. Our stormwater devices are pretty close to the property line, and the Town Engineer is suggesting that we analyze the runoff from the Town property, which is not standard practice. So take issue with that, and, Number Two, we think that if, the Town, so far, has felt that no ditching and no stormwater is necessary on that road because soils are so permeable. Our swales, if they intercept some of that Town road runoff, are actually going to provide some benefit. We think it’s a positive. We don’t think there’s a negative associated with this, and interestingly, in the narrative I provided to you, if the Town wants to give us an easement, we would be willing to widen our swales a little bit, and that would actually accommodate both purposes, and we would need an easement from the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s not something we could grant you anyway. MR. JARRETT-No, but if you’re acknowledging it and recommending it, then we could pursue it further, and see how we want to handle it, but right now we feel we’re fully compliant, and we’re actually benefiting the Town in this situation, as opposed to harming it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Item Twenty deals with the offsite drainage leaving the site, and we’ve said our 50 year storm calculations show there’s no offsite runoff. We actually have provided, in this swale system here, runoff exiting the site into an existing small depression, and our calculations show there is none. Item Twenty-one deals with pick up and drop off hours. I think Mike can weigh in on that. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. BREDA-We’ve pretty much covered that. MR. JARRETT-That actually deals with sidewalks as well. MR. BREDA-And the sidewalk, if the roundabout goes in, the sidewalk to connect the sidewalk around the roundabout if that happens. MR. JARRETT-Item Number Twenty-Three, Twenty-Two must have been resolved. Twenty-Three deals with freeboard in the stormwater basins. The Town Engineer references the New York State stormwater design manual, which is not applicable on this site, but it recommends freeboard in the basins. It is only a recommendation. It’s up to the design engineer to take that into consideration. We feel, because of the enclosed system that we’ve provided, and the very, very permeable soils, that freeboard is not needed here, and we’ve looked at what would happen if those swales are flooded, and it would not impact any structures or property or health, safety, welfare issues. Item Twenty-five deals with National Grid, that we have contacted them. We can add that to the plans once it’s available. Item Number Twenty-seven deals with landscaping, which we’ve discussed with you in several meetings. We think that has been resolved. Item Thirty, we had some disagreement with the Town Engineer over whether the fence posts in our play area would interfere with the leaching system, and I understand his comment, and we’ve decided to stipulate that the fence post foundations will be put in at the same time as the leaching system. So there won’t be any possibility of a conflict or problem. So that note has been added to the plans. Item Thirty-one deals with our calculations for wastewater. We had previously provided that documentation that was requested. It was in the package that you got a month ago. So we’re not quite sure why there’s still a question on it, and, by the way, those calculations for wastewater are currently in use at both the Sokol’s plaza facility as well as one in Moreau that Mike owns, and it’s working fine. Both those systems are working fine. Item Number Three deals with landscaping, and we had failed to provide size of plants on the drawing. It should say plants as opposed to plans. Those have been added now. We will stipulate that the trees will be two and a half inch diameter breast height, dbh, or larger, and the shrubs will be a minimum of 24 inch planting size. They will grow up much larger and they can be trimmed to whatever size is appropriate for screening. We also modified the detail for the shrubs in the swales, such that the shredded bark mulch, which was called out in a detail we obtained from the landscaped architect, probably should have been either bark mulch or shredded hardwood mulch is typically the way it works. Mike planned on using shredded hardwood mulch anyway, but we’ve changed the detail to make sure that we don’t have that flotation problem that’s noted. Item Number Thirty-four deals with frozen ground conditions. That’s not required in this section of Town, but we had already provided it in our design originally. So we’re not quite sure why that comment is still there. We actually have stand pipes that go below frost level. So they’ll drain during winter conditions. Thirty-five deals with just clarifying the existing conditions on the site, and we had listed them as gravel. The survey shows concrete, and I guess there’s still some question whether there’s concrete out there. You say there is not. MR. BREDA-Correct. MR. JARRETT-So, in any event, we took it into account in our stormwater calculations and mottled it the same way. We mottle gravel typically the same way anyway. Number Thirty-six deals with grade elevations at the building entrances, and especially at the handicap ramp, and we looked at it, and it is very clear, we have spot elevations on the bottom of the curb, the top of the curb, as well as the design detail for the handicap ramp. So we think that’s covered. The no parking sign to be removed from Manor Drive. It had been noted on our plans, and Number Thirty-eight is the required 50% septic reserve replacement area. The argument, you’ll see in your package, is that we really don’t need that, but we’ll put it on the plan anyway, and Thirty-Nine deals with lighting, which we discussed and I think we’ve heard that at least one of you is comfortable with lighting. So, I went through that pretty fast. Any questions, comments? Thoughts? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. JARRETT-Now you don’t have plans in front of you. We have updated the plans, as we’d noted during our discussion. Depending on what action you take, obviously plans would be submitted to you with those changes on them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So it seems like, with the engineer, the issue is really just the stormwater. That’s the main issue. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. JARRETT-Yes. Probably you could characterize it that way. Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Now how much impact have you, you haven’t discussed it with the engineer to address those issues yet? MR. JARRETT-We did, and we disagree. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And I’m not sure how far it’s going to go, because we think our system is, he’s disagreeing about the calculations, but in a sense, we’ve provided stormwater retention all the way around the site. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I’m going with this is let’s say he rules the day. Does that mean you’re going to have to put in larger stormwater controls? MR. JARRETT-Probably. MR. SEGULJIC-How much larger, how much impact is it going to have, do you think, worse case? MR. JARRETT-We can enlarge the stormwater basins on the west side where we have a little more room. We can probably do it, even if we double those in size, it wouldn’t be a material hardship for us, I don’t think. MR. SEGULJIC-Mainly because of the soil characteristics at the site. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JARRETT-The Board’s going to side with VISION as opposed to us. MR. KREBS-Well, no. That was one person’s comment. MRS. STEFFAN-But one of the things that I think is a good idea, because I spend a lot of time over there, my mom lives in that area, is that, you know, providing an opportunity for you to partner with the Town on increasing those swales so that it can accommodate the stormwater runoff off Manor Drive, which is not your responsibility. It would be a good idea. I mean, the road and the land are at the same grade level there. MR. JARRETT-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And once it’s developed in that, and obviously they’re going to sell that piece of property across the street, and something will happen there, and so it’s probably a good idea to have that opportunity. MR. JARRETT-I think we’re certainly fine in doing that. It’s not a big hardship for us to enlarge those swales a little bit during construction, and if we can get an easement from the Town to do that, that makes sense. MR. OBORNE-If required. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-If required. MR. JARRETT-I think we’re hearing a suggestion that it might be beneficial period. So, I don’t think we have a problem doing it if the Board so deems. We could try at least. MR. TRAVER-Might that also help with the concern that the Town Engineer has with the stormwater, if you increase the size of that. MR. JARRETT-Well, I would hate to take credit it for it off our property. I’m not sure I can legally take credit for it. Even though we’re not responsible, on the one hand, I don’t think I can take credit for it on the other, but certainly it would help in theory. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. SEGULJIC-So, the lighting plan I have in my hands does not reflect the changes you made. MR. JARRETT-Does not reflect the changes, no. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JARRETT-What you see, or could see up there, does. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, and it looks like you’ve agreed that once the roundabout is in, you’d put sidewalks in, and then the interconnect? MR. JARRETT-Assuming their design stays the same, and they show this sidewalk part of the way up Farr Lane or Farr Road, whatever they’re calling it here, then we would extend it. If the sidewalk actually is shown on the final plans, we would extend it on our. MR. SEGULJIC-Where would you propose extending it to? MR. JARRETT-To the edge of our property, along the western boundary of our properties. MR. SEGULJIC-To Manor Drive, then? MR. BREDA-No, to Farr Lane. MR. JARRETT-Farr Lane. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. To where it meets Farr Lane, then. Well, I guess, just to clarify, the sidewalk would run along Farr Lane? MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So what do you mean by extend it to Farr Lane? MR. JARRETT-Along our property, we would extend it north to the intersection with Manor Drive. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, to Manor Drive. All right. So, only, other than the VISION Engineering comments, is the question of the interconnect, then, which. MR. JARRETT-Maybe we could ask Keith how that’s worded with the. MR. OBORNE-I think it’s a requirement that if lands to the east are to be developed, west, pardon me, lands to the west are to be developed, an interconnect must be developed. I don’t have that in front of me, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-And that is in the approval of Ricciardelli, you think? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Where would you suggest we interconnect? MR. OBORNE-Well, we had discussed this briefly today. I’d have to look at it again at this point. It’s not as easy as, exactly. MR. JARRETT-It’s not as easy as. MR. SEGULJIC-Because you have a shallow swale going through there. Correct? MR. JARRETT-Yes. We could move that swale further to the rear or, you know, straddle it around and interconnect, if one made sense. MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind, the interconnect could also be down on Lot B, that’s the lower lot. So, I mean, I don’t think there’s a heck, there’s a lot of requirement. Does the Planning Board feel that there is a need for an interconnect on Lot A? It is not a 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) requirement. It is something that we in planning strive to have installed on site plans for maneuverability. MR. JARRETT-What might make more sense is for us to build a pathway between our parking lot and the adjoining lot, because driving there doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If somebody pulls into the accountant’s office and want to run, you know, walk their kid over to daycare, a path might make more sense, some kind of sidewalk or something. We don’t have the new configuration, I believe. Right? That’s (lost words), well, it depends on if it’s a major commercial plaza, then it makes sense to connect them. MR. HUNSINGER-And as you already mentioned, that’s an older aerial view, too, but there are interconnects in those other lots. MR. OBORNE-Right here is one. I don’t know if you can see that right there. That’s an interconnect through there, and it’s quite helpful, I mean, it really is. MR. JARRETT-In this particular case, we have a different type of use. So the path might be more productive than a driving connection. I’m just thinking out loud. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what if it was some type of, like you show it on the plans, because I can agree, that different uses may be shown on the plan have the walking connect, and maybe in the future it gets constructed. MR. JARRETT-For the lot to the south, Keith is suggesting? Yes. We could show, yes, that would be the walking. Now you still would have the ability during Site Plan Review of the other lot, if it doesn’t become a roundabout, and it’s re-developed, you would still have the ability to condition an interconnect there. Because we’re not here for Site Plan Review of that lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just not so sure on the interconnect on this one. Just because, you’re fronted on two roads. It is a day care facility. You’d have to pull, the way that those two buildings are configured, and for the accounting firm, you would have to pull in the lot, pull into the center parking lot, in order to have the opportunity to interconnect, which would be right on the property line. I’m not sure there would be a benefit or just more confusion. MR. OBORNE-Again, it’s not a requirement. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. OBORNE-I’d remiss if I didn’t throw that out there, though, the same with sidewalks. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. KREBS-And I think we should really wait on that interconnect until we determine whether or not there’s going to be a roundabout here, because what that configuration is going to be, we don’t know. MR. OBORNE-That’s a fair point. MR. KREBS-And maybe then it would make sense. Because it might interconnect directly to the roundabout, but, you know, at this point, I don’t think we need to require that. MRS. STEFFAN-The only thing we’d have to do is put it in the motion, because otherwise, once this Site Plan is approved, or the subdivision is approved, and then we approve the Site Plan and we don’t put a condition in on the interconnect, then it’s done, and so. MR. KREBS-But then again, if we put it in the thing, you put the roundabout in, the Town may not want an interconnect to the roundabout. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s not going to happen. MR. KREBS-So it’s a double-edged sword there. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. OBORNE-Yes. The interconnects are basically internal to properties that are adjoining. You usually don’t run it out to roads in that light. MR. BREDA-I would prefer not to have anymore traffic going through the daycare parking lot. MR. KREBS-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-See, I don’t think that’s a good idea. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess, you know, and I can agree with that, but, you know, what happens in the future if that use changes, then? I guess they’d have to come back. MR. JARRETT-If that uses and the site changes materially, they’d be back before you. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-So, where are we? What’s the will of the Board? We’re still on the subdivision. We haven’t actually officially introduced the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I have no problem with the subdivision. I guess we’ve just got to be a little creative, it sounds like. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, is it three or four? I mean, that’s the issue. Because we heard from Staff, if it’s going to be a three lot subdivision, it needs to be advertised as a three lot subdivision. MR. OBORNE-Again, not to influence the Board, I think that, if you approve it as a four lot subdivision, that sure would keep it clean at this point. Craig has not made a determination on the nonconforming lot. So, if he makes a determination on it, then they’ll have to go about taking care of that after the fact, and that is through discussion with the Zoning Administrator today. MR. KREBS-Right, but that’ll also fall on the real owner of that piece of property, not on the applicant, because the applicant doesn’t own it. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. There are extenuating circumstances with this. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see, in good conscience, we could approve a subdivision of a nonconforming lot without a variance, unless the Zoning Administrator rules. I mean, I don’t see how we can even do that. That’s just my own opinion. MR. OBORNE-Right, and that’s a valid opinion, absolutely. Again, the converse of that would be to, you’re at Sketch Plan, direct them to come back with a three lot subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what we would like to do? MR. OBORNE-Then you could do Preliminary, SEQRA, and Final next time. MR. SEGULJIC-The other possibility that was discussed is approve the four lot with the condition they make it a three lot. Is that possible? MR. OBORNE-You certainly can make that resolution. If it doesn’t pass municipal law, then you’ll be back. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. JARRETT-If you made the motion for a four lot subdivision conditioned upon, one, a variance obtained for a noncompliant lot, or, two, in the absence of a variance being granted, that it become a three lot subdivision. MR. OBORNE-Well, municipal law states you have to have all variances prior to subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, I don’t know how we could do that. MR. OBORNE-If a determination has been made by the Zoning Administrator. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re kind of boxed in then. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. JARRETT-It’s unfortunate there’s no recognition of the subdivision that was actually noted on the survey map. So there was obviously a subdivision done to some degree, 20 years ago, but there’s no recognition of that. MR. BREDA-Can I ask your opinion? A couple of weeks back when Virginia’s lawyer, Mr. Fitzgerald and Luddeman, discussed with the Town about that north lot, wasn’t there some resolution that came together after? MR. OBORNE-Not that I’m aware of. I was not privy to those conversations. With that with Craig? MR. BREDA-That’s what I was told, and I even asked Virginia, because I knew this would come up, and we might have issue with this, that Bill Fitzgerald come to this meeting to possibly better explain the situation. Of course I don’t think he’s here, but I thought there was some sort of resolution on that north. MR. OBORNE-There was nothing that was submitted to me at all. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m going to go back to my original kind of question to the Board. How do people feel about the Site Plan? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as much as I hate to say it, I think we’d have to just say this is Sketch and come back with all clean plans. I mean, sorry about that, but it’s an administrative thing. MR. JARRETT-It sounds like we could clean it all up in one meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I think so. Yes. MR. JARRETT-We could do the, I mean, I guess what I would say would be the three lot subdivision, and finish the Site Plan with the changes that they have made. Maybe with some more discussion with the engineer and clarification of the swale, and then get everything done. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s what I’m thinking, too. Anyone else want to comment on that? Okay. If that’s the direction we want to head, we should get a motion to table the subdivision, then we’ll formally introduce the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I already opened the public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-There were no commentors. MR. OBORNE-No, you’re at Sketch, or are you going to move forward? MR. JARRETT-We’re at Sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the strange thing about this particular. It’s three. MR. HUNSINGER-That is the strange thing about this one. Okay. It’s all three together. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s Sketch. We don’t really have to put forth a motion to table it. MR. OBORNE-No, you just give the applicant direction. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And they’ll need to be back as soon as possible. Now, keep in mind. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s October. th MR. OBORNE-Yes. You’re talking October. We do have a September 10 meeting. The agenda is not final. We do have a September, another meeting. I’m trying think. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) You’ve got to have 14 days. I don’t think that’s going to work, unless you do another meeting. MR. TRAVER-Well, the subdivision would not really take any length of time at all. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-There are some outstanding issues on Site Plan, but it doesn’t seem like any of them should be overwhelming. Mainly it’s involving stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Getting some consensus on that. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess on the subdivision, unless you can show that the northern subdivision was indeed a legal subdivision, I don’t know what evidence you would demonstrate to prove that. I would be inclined to look at a three lot subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, is there any way that we can put them on the agenda for the nd September 22 meeting as an extra item, if they get, you know, because we’re just looking at the subdivision piece, which would, it would be a two step process, but we’d nd be farther ahead. If we could put the subdivision issue on September 22 with like a thth deadline of the 11, September 11. Then we could decide the subdivision issue and then go forward with the Site Plan issue. By then certainly all the issues could be resolved with Site Plan. MR. OBORNE-If that’s the will of the Board, that’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-And a variance does have to happen. MR. OBORNE-We are chock full. MRS. STEFFAN-What about Zoning Board? What does their agenda look like? MR. OBORNE-The Zoning Board agenda we have two meetings, but they’re not at capacity. MRS. STEFFAN-So, I’m just wondering, if the issue can’t be resolved, and you need to get a variance. MR. JARRETT-Then we’re looking at the lead time for submission. MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t think you’re looking at a variance at all. You’d go right for a three lot subdivision, I would imagine. MR. JARRETT-From our perspective, certainly. MR. KREBS-I have a question relative to that. How can they get a subdivision on a piece of property that they have no contract to own? That’s my question. Can they legally, subdivide, somebody ask to have somebody else’s property subdivided? MR. JARRETT-We can’t demand it, but we can ask. MR. OBORNE-I believe the owner of that property has agreed to that. MR. KREBS-Well, we don’t have any document that says that. MR. OBORNE-She signed off on the subdivision application, the owner of the land. MR. JARRETT-Which is the four lot subdivision. MR. OBORNE-For the four lot subdivision. MR. JARRETT-They told us orally they’d be willing to back down to a three lot if it expedites this process, because she wants to sell the land to Michael. MR. TRAVER-And all that would have to be clarified. I mean, we’re at Sketch. So all that would be clarified when they came back. So all that would be resolved. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. BREDA-Can you clarify, if you approve the four lot subdivision with the noncompliant lot on the north side, what does that do to future, if Virginia uses it or sells it, by approving it, the four lot subdivision the way it reads now, what are the consequences for the Town? Clarify that for me. I’m not following. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, my opinion is we can’t approve it because you have a noncompliant lot, and we could not approve that unless you had a variance from the Zoning Board, but the difference is, if you have two lots, you know, they could be sold separately and you could have individual developments put on each lot, versus, if it’s one lot, then you’d only have one primary use. MR. BREDA-Well, when somebody comes in front of the Board to do something with the lots, don’t they have to go through that and they wouldn’t get permission to put something on a noncompliant lot? MR. HUNSINGER-No, no. By approving a noncompliant lot, we’re stipulating that that lot is buildable, and that someone would then have the right to build something on it. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and the problem is, is that you’re supposed to have a variance for that. So we’d be getting ahead of ourselves. MR. JARRETT-Could I ask Staff why Craig thought it was appropriate to come in with a four lot subdivision? MR. OBORNE-He felt that was the easiest way by which to. MR. JARRETT-So he must have recognized that the existing subdivision was just that, an existing subdivision that was a technicality that wasn’t filed. Otherwise he wouldn’t have approved coming in with a noncompliant lot, I would think. MR. OBORNE-Right. He is, and again, I’m not speaking for Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, but we have had discussion on this very issue of the noncompliant lot. The only way that lot could be noncompliant is if he makes a determination. He has not made that determination. He has directed the applicant to submit a four lot subdivision, and that’s where we are right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Even though the minimum lot size is a half acre, and the lot is .34 acres. MR. OBORNE-Correct. That is correct. MR. JARRETT-Well, he’s acknowledging the pre-existing condition of it. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s interesting. MR. OBORNE-I agree, and we had this discussion today, this morning. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-And again, I don’t want to influence the Board. A lot of his position and my position is that the applicant is, in fact, making it much easier on the Town to purchase this land for the roundabout. I think that is why a little bit of leeway has been given. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s also why I said if, you know, if they could provide evidence that that was, indeed, a prior subdivision. MR. OBORNE- Absolutely. MR. JARRETT-Well, there is a reference on the map, the survey map, which was signed and sealed by Van Dusen and Steves and references that subdivision from ’67 and ’76. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, who approved the subdivision is the question. MR. JARRETT-Well, obviously Van Dusen and Steves would not put that reference on there is there was not a subdivision at least performed in some fashion. He would not seal that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I saw that on the Site Plan. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. TRAVER-Well, the other thing, too, is if the northern parcel stays, if we don’t subdivide it, in the future someone wanting to develop it could apply to subdivide it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it seems to be the prudent thing to punt. MR. BREDA-And I’m (lost words) own that property either. MRS. STEFFAN-It just seems very convoluted. MR. HUNSINGER-So if we’re treating this as Sketch, we don’t need a tabling resolution. MR. OBORNE-No, you don’t. You need to direct the applicant as to what you want to see. MR. HUNSINGER-To either provide documentation that there was a prior subdivision or come back with a three lot subdivision. I don’t want to speak for the whole Board if that’s not how everyone else feels. MR. TRAVER-No, I think that that’s certainly the way I feel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Obviously I erred in the opening remarks when I said this subdivision was straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except for the northern lot, it is straightforward. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone have any problems with the subdivision that’s being proposed for the large lot south? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. See, we’re okay with that. We don’t have any problems with. MR. JARRETT-No, I understand. It’s just that we’re not able to move forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, in my mind, one of the reasons why we made the recommendation to the Zoning Board on the variance was that this applicant is being very cooperative with the Town on the roundabout, and so I’d like to move it forward, too, but certainly this seems like we legally can’t do this. MR. HUNSINGER-So do we want to give the applicant any direction as to what meeting we may reconsider this subdivision? MR. SEGULJIC-Is it beneficial if we do it in September, the subdivision? Does that do anything for you? MR. BREDA-ASAP. I’m behind the eight ball already. MR. JARRETT-He’s got to be out of Sokol’s Market, I don’t know what your schedule is, but you’ve got to be starting construction as soon as possible to get out of Sokol’s. MR. BREDA-Is there, just one quick question, any way of approvals with conditions on that north lot? A condition that it meets. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re advised by Staff that that wouldn’t be legal, that it needs to be warned for a three lot, if we approve a three lot. MRS. STEFFAN-So are there benefits to getting them in on a September meeting for that subdivision? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. OBORNE-I would think, yes. Are you planning on moving forward with the Site Plan tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t know how we can. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, how can we do that if we don’t have a subdivision? MR. JARRETT-Well, we can still build our site on the entire lot, but you could also condition it upon an approved subdivision. MR. OBORNE-You’d have to have a legal lot. I mean, you do have to have a legal lot. I mean, you can condition it upon approval of the subdivision. It’s kind of putting the cart before the horse. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. JARRETT-Technically we don’t have to have a subdivision to make this Site Plan work. MR. HUNSINGER-You’d have two primary uses on one lot, though. MR. JARRETT-We’d stipulate we’d tear down the house. MR. BREDA-Which was the original plan before the roundabout went in anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if that was the plan, then why the need for the subdivision? MR. BREDA-The roundabout. MR. JARRETT-He was originally going to move the daycare south, and then he moved it, he tucked it in north to accommodate the Town. This was all to accommodate the Town. He was going to move it south and be on Aviation Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Gotcha. MR. JARRETT-So I guess the earlier the better for us. th MR. OBORNE-We certainly can put it on the 10 if the Planning Board, I mean, it’s cutting it close. You’re going to have to get everything in. MR. JARRETT-Essentially we’d have to resubmit a map, a new map. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and get your VISION Engineering stuff taken care of, but we’ll worry about that at Site Plan, you know, when we want to do subdivision. I mean, we do have thnd room on the 10. It’s a lot easier than the 22. I’m just, you need 10 days to advertise prior to a meeting. We have that, by, what, five days. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. th MR. OBORNE-So if we can get information in by Friday, we can get them on the 10, and obviously, you’ll be looking at the agenda tomorrow, and we’ll put them on. ndnd MRS. STEFFAN-Now is the 22, you said the 22 is capacity? nd MR. OBORNE-Yes. The 22 is pretty full, because we had tabled quite a bit to that date. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Is there a chance that any of those will pull off from that, because they haven’t submitted? MR. OBORNE-No, I can’t make that assumption. No, everything’s been submitted. They would be administratively on, if they didn’t submit. These are all the recommendations now are coming back to you, that have gotten there Area Variances and now they’re, your first meeting is chock full of five recommendations, right off the bat. We treat them as half items for agenda capacity. So you have a two lot subdivision and five recommendations on the first meeting. So it’s basically three and a half, four and a half items. So you’d be pushing it, six and a half items if you add these two. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I, for one, would be willing to stay late at that night to get it done. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, if they’re willing to be last on the agenda, and we’re willing to stay, I think we should do this. I think, I’ve been here very little time, and I’ve seen these folks in this meeting four or five times. I think they’ve been very patient, very tolerant, and I know it’s been difficult and they’ve had issues that they brought to us because the subdivision wasn’t done, but if we could move this forward, they’re helping the Town. th MR. KREBS-Tom and Mike, is it not possible to do for the 10? MR. JARRETT-Well, I don’t think the Site Plan issues can be any worse than they are th tonight, for sure. We may not have total agreement, but the 10, I don’t think, offers any worse situation, Site Plan wise, but subdivision we can clean it up by the deadline on Friday. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. JARRETT-So, we can get a new map filed later this week. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if the Zoning Administrator is willing to stipulate that that northern lot was a prior subdivision, and that’s why he said the cleanest thing to do is to come in for four lot, you know, that would be one, that would be easier. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think he can stipulate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Obviously he would if he thought he could. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I want nothing more than for this application to get approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I’m certainly willing to go along with the pleasure of the th Board on this. Would we want to do the subdivision on the 10 and the Site Plan on the nd 22? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Would that make sense? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Subdivision is going to be nothing for us. It’s up to them. MR. JARRETT-Well, the more important one for us is Site Plan, obviously. So we’d like to expedite both of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. JARRETT-But it’s up to you how you want to handle it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I will leave it this way. If you can get the revised subdivision map in by Friday, is that what? MR. OBORNE-We’ll put them on the agenda. th MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll put you on the agenda for September 10. MR. OBORNE-Final agenda meeting, it’s finalized on Thursday. So they will be on that agenda if directed to be on that agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And Friday’s our deadline for submitting the updated map. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to make that as a motion, just so it’s on the record? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) nd MRS. STEFFAN-Now, the September 22, Mr. Jarrett, do you think that you can, obviously you handed us a letter tonight which is a responses to VISION Engineering comments, based on some discussion, do you have more work to do on that letter and/or drawings? MR. JARRETT-My opinion, no, no more. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-All we have to get you drawings, and we can get those by Friday. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-But VISION, I don’t know. They’ve disagreed with us, and I either have to continue to argue it or I have to go along with what they’re saying. Unfortunately, I don’t want to spend Mike’s money, and that’s what’s involved here. MR. HUNSINGER-So as far as you’re concerned, there’s no reason why you couldn’t do th the Site Plan on the 10 as well. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-It depends on whether we can resolve the VISION comments, and I think we’re all resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that give VISION enough time to review them? MR. OBORNE-I certainly can facilitate a meeting with VISION, with the applicant’s engineer, and the Town’s engineer. I will do that first thing in the morning. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I know you can’t speak for VISION, but do you think that quick a turnaround is? I mean, they’re going to have to do it for all those projects on the th 10, right? Because they haven’t, you haven’t submitted all the projects yet, because we haven’t set the final agenda. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So they’re going to have to turn everything around in two weeks, this month. MR. OBORNE-The applicant? MR. HUNSINGER-No, VISION. MR. OBORNE-VISION, well, VISION doesn’t, the only thing that they, I’m trying to think, for the whole month they’ve only got, they only have, I’m trying to use proper English here, they only have two referrals this month. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-We have a lot of recommendations and a lot of two lot subdivisions, which I don’t send to them. MR. JARRETT-Now, don’t take this the wrong way, but a number of the comments that VISION came back with again are the same comments they’ve had on their letters a few times, that the Board has weighed in on, like access and landscaping and things like that. So, I don’t know if they’re acknowledging the Board’s decision, or the Board wishes or not. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, those issues I think. MR. JARRETT-They’ve come forward three different times, and they’ve not acknowledged our responses or the Board’s comments. MR. HUNSINGER-This Board has never had a problem, you know, filtering out their comments to say, well. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. JARRETT-When you say to me, though, can I resolve the VISION comments, if I keep getting those comments, I’ve got a problem. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but the big questions are on the stormwater. MR. JARRETT-Stormwater, okay. MR. OBORNE-And I agree, and I have taken the liberty of highlighting which ones are specific, that I know that he would, and I would want to have VISION Engineering signoff on. The lighting I can take care of, you know, access I can take care of. Landscaping, I can take care of. MR. JARRETT-Stormwater, we’ll give in if we have to. I don’t agree, but we’ll give in if we have to and make it work. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll also keep the conversation as part of the minutes, and, you know, Dan or whoever at VISION Engineering reviews the comments, could certainly see that the Board is more flexible on this. MR. JARRETT-They haven’t in the past. That’s my concern, because we’ve had lengthy discussions and then they come back with the same comments. So it concerns me. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So do we just let the subdivision go and instruct Staff to put th them on the 10, and then put a motion forward about the other, or can I put a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think I’d like to have a motion on the subdivision, just so that it’s th clear for the record, that we’re willing to put you on the meeting on the 10, provided you get the revised subdivision map filed by Friday. I think I’d like that to be officially on the record. MR. JARRETT-Friday, yes, and we’ll attempt to resolve all the issues by that meeting. th MR. BREDA-This is Site Plan on the 10 too? MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll deal with Site Plan in a minute. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.99 +/- ac parcel into four lots of 1.07, 1.06, 0.52, and 0.34 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/7/09 & 8/25/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th This is tabled to the September 10 Planning Board meeting. So that the applicant can revise the subdivision map to a three lot subdivision and submit th that to our Staff by this Friday, August 28. If the three lot subdivision is not appropriate, The applicant will need to provide evidence of a prior approved subdivision. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to say, or provide evidence that the lot was previously subdivided? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. OBORNE-There’s no evidence. That’s the issue. There’s no evidence at the County. There’s no evidence at the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no evidence. Okay. MR. JARRETT-I don’t have a problem putting it in the motion, however, because if the actual owner’s attorney says that we’re on the wrong track, then I’d like to have another out. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So I will amend the motion as Mr. Hunsinger had identified. If the three lot subdivision is not appropriate, that the applicant will need to provide evidence of a prior approved subdivision. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you for working with us. MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t go. MR. OBORNE-Don’t go. You’ve got Site Plan issues now. MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t even introduced the Site Plan. SITE PLAN NO. 41-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) ESTATE OF HELEN SLEIGHT ZONING NC-10 LOCATION 369 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,500 SQUARE FOOT DAY CARE CENTER. DAY CARE CENTERS IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SUBJECT TO 2009 ZONING CODE. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 5-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.06 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30 SECTION 179-9-010 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants address the Board on this Site Plan? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show there were no takers. We will leave the public hearing open, and now we can talk about the resolution to table. MRS. STEFFAN-It appears that the item that we need some closure on is the VISION Engineering comments. So I think the motion should just be to answer the VISION Engineering comments. Is there any other way, any other condition that we want to put on it? MR. SEGULJIC-Just the sidewalk, if the rotary is constructed, the sidewalks to extend from the rotary to Manor Drive. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Jarrett, you made some notes tonight on some of the things that we’ve talked about, or do we want to be really specific? I can go through his letter, again, but he’s telling us that there are things that he can do. MR. JARRETT-The things that we documented we’ve already changed on the drawings. Is that what you’re referring to? Or sidewalk is one we negotiated with the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-The other one is the lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-The lighting. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. JARRETT-The lighting, we’ve already gone ahead and changed the wattages down to a high pressure sodium, 100 watt fixtures. We had intended to do that before, and it didn’t show up. MR. SEGULJIC-And also, about the survey, 100 feet off the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s a waiver. MR. JARRETT-We asked for a waiver request on that. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. SIPP-There’s a small item on landscaping. You’ve got two red maples on Manor Drive, which are susceptible to salt, and I would advise changing those two trees into something that will. MR. BREDA-I thought it was the Board that asked for those maples. MR. OBORNE-You directed the applicant to add the maples. Red maples are a salt tolerant species. MR. SIPP-Red? Tolerant? MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s my understanding, but I will defer to you, Mr. Sipp, to be honest with you. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA, 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 proposes construction of a 6,500 square foot Day Care Center. Day Care Centers in the NC zone require Planning Board review and approval. Subject to 2009 Zoning Code. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/7/09 & 8/25/09; 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. 41-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th This will be tabled to the September 10 Planning Board meeting. The applicant th will have until Friday, August 28 to submit any new materials. This is tabled so that the applicant can: a)Submit responses to VISION Engineering comment letter, based on some of the conversation that we have had this evening, the applicant has identified a willingness to accommodate the request on putting a timer on the lights so that they will go off in the evening when they’re not being used, and we certainly support that. b)The applicant has also, during discussion with the Planning Board, identified that they would be very willing to install sidewalks from the proposed roundabout to the corner of Farr Lane and Manor Drive, if the roundabout is approved and constructed. The Planning Board supports that. c)The Planning Board would grant waivers for contours, since the site is relatively flat. d)The access management issues, as discussed earlier this e)evening, are not as much of a concern for the Planning Board if the roundabout is going to be constructed, and those access issues were specifically addressing the lot that abuts Aviation Road. f)The applicant has identified that they will bury the septic cover in the play area, and we can support that. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) g)The applicant has identified that they would plant a tree in the five foot pavement area at the northeast parking area, if the tree that is there dies. So they would be willing to extend the pavement, and h)There was some discussion this evening regarding expanding the stormwater swales on Manor Drive, and also on Farr Lane, to accommodate some of the runoff from the Town of Queensbury road. Based on the discussion from the Planning Board, we would certainly support that. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: MR. JARRETT-Do you want me to discuss that with the Town Attorney, or do you want to initiate that? MR. OBORNE-What issue? I’m sorry. MR. JARRETT-The easement on Manor Drive to put in an expanded swale. MR. OBORNE-I wouldn’t, you don’t even know if it’s necessary at this point. MR. JARRETT-The Board feels it’s a good idea. They’re recommending it, and we agree to try to do it. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, we’ll discuss that tomorrow, then. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that concludes the motion, although it is verbose, I wanted to make sure that we identified some of the issues that we had discussed and potentially agreed upon, so that hopefully we could help with the process on th September 10. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Now we’ll thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. See you soon. MR. BREDA-Thanks for your efforts. SITE PLAN NO. 42-2009 SEQR TYPE II THE GOLUB CORPORATION AGENT(S) MARCHAND-JONES ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) GLEN STREET, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 677 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES FAÇADE CHANGES AND INTERIOR RECONFIGURATION. COMMERCIAL ALTERATIONS WHICH REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 5-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING NA LOT SIZE 1.06 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.10-1-7 SECTION 179-9-010 MIKE KOPCHIK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 42-2009, Golub Corporation, also known as Price Chopper. Requested action, Commercial alterations requiring a building permit are subject to Site Plan Review. Location: 677 Glen Street. Existing zoning is Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes façade changes and interior reconfiguration. Façade changes to include new fascia, metal coping, and color changes. Further, two existing signs, “Citizens Bank” and “Open 24 Hours”, to be relocated and 4 additional ‘Blade’ signs ranging in size from 8.0 square feet to 14.2 square feet to be installed on the front façade. Moreover, the existing ‘greenhouse’ located in the southeast portion of the structure to be demolished in order to make way for a new enclosed recycling or ‘reverse vending’ area. Staff Comments: The applicant was before this board on July 21, 2009 for a recommendation to the ZBA concerning Sign Variance 36-09 (see attached recommendation). The applicant was before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign variance on July 22, 2009 and was tabled and directed to reduce the amount of new signage down from 10 to 4. Approval to relocate two existing signs and install four (4) blade signs on the front façade as described above 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) was granted on August 19, 2009 by the ZBA. Show that there is an updated version of the façade that was in your Staff Notes, and with that said, the only additional comments that I have are: The Planning Board may wish to ascertain if the existing pylon will be upgraded in the near future due to the dilapidated condition of said sign, and finally, The Planning Board may wish to grant waivers for grading, stormwater, landscaping and lighting as no change to these practices are anticipated as a result of this proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. KOPCHIK-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. KOPCHIK-Mike Kopchik from Marchand Jones Architects, agent for Golub Corporation. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. KOPCHIK-The only other thing I wanted to mention is that the owner would like also to place the existing generator that’s on the back of the building now, it’s on a concrete pad in the back of the building, want to replace it with a new generator. It would be slightly larger than the existing one, but it’s in essentially the same location. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KOPCHIK-Other than that, I think the only thing that has changed is we’ve reduced the small, departmental so called blade signs, the number of them, on the front of the building, per the Zoning Board’s direction. MRS. STEFFAN-The generator that you will be replacing, that is bigger in size, will the concrete pad, I’m assuming it’s on a concrete pad, will that get any bigger? MR. KOPCHIK-Yes. It needs to be a larger pad because the generator itself is larger than the one that’s there. They will set the new one and then remove the old one. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. KOPCHIK-It will be in, just in, basically in front of where the existing one is on the back. I can show you where it would be on the back of the building. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, is that going to require a modification? MR. OBORNE-It’s going to require a determination from the Zoning Administrator. MRS. STEFFAN-The Zoning Administrator. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess, in practicality, that’s not before us now. MR. OBORNE-Right. This is a Type II SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-We like to make things complicated. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess one of the questions I have, I notice in the Zoning Board recommendation, that you decrease the number of signs. Any reason why? MR. KOPCHIK-To enable us to have some of them. The Zoning Board was fairly adamant about the number being a substantial increase. It was our opinion that it really is a branding of the company, and that the signs aren’t lighted. They’re very small. They’re more of a décor item, but they generally didn’t feel that way. So, rather than have none, we agreed to reduce the number, and came up with this new arrangement. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I, for one, am sorry about that, because I thought that the prior plan looked very nice, and I understand the Code, but. MR. KOPCHIK-I would have to say I agree that I think it was, in fact, we even were trying for five, because it would even be a little more balanced, but was important for the 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) company to have some of them, to try to carry their identity forward. So we deemed that that was, this was our best alternative. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any comment with regards to the question about the question about the existing pylon sign, if that’s going to be upgraded. MR. KOPCHIK-Price Chopper was not intending to do that. I’m sure that they would be able to do that if it were necessary. I’ve looked at the sign. I think it might appear a little outdated. I didn’t think it looked particularly in a state of disrepair, but I would be fairly confident that Price Chopper would be willing to upgrade that if the Town required it. I think the Zoning Board would have viewed that as another sign alteration that would have been even more of a problem for us. MR. OBORNE-Not particularly. It could just be a copy change, and that is just an administrative item, honestly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I thought the design looked much better with the additional signs, too. It had a better balance, you know, a better sense of scale. MR. KOPCHIK-There are differences of opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KOPCHIK-I think when you looked at 10 additional signs in a, I believe it was referred to as a 1,000 percent increase. MR. TRAVER-Four hundred percent. MR. KOPCHIK-Well, four hundred, with four, it was a thousand when there were ten of them. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KOPCHIK-There was a lot of negative reaction to that, and it appeared to me that that was going to be a losing battle, and it was important, representing the company, I needed to try to get whatever I could. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Any other questions, comments? MR. SEGULJIC-No, I’m all set with it. MR. HUNSINGER-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-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show that there were no takers. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, I just have one comment. On the motion it says that waivers, waiver requests for parking, but in your Staff Notes it talks about waiver requests for grading, stormwater, landscaping, and lighting. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I saw that. I think that may be in error. Yes. That is boilerplate, and should have been updated. I didn’t catch that when I did the review on it. MR. KOPCHIK-I think there were a number of requests for waivers, based on the fact that we really aren’t changing any of those items. It’s primary a cosmetic upgrade to the interior and exterior. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s certainly not a parking waiver that’s required. They’re not changing their approved parking in any way, shape or form. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There’s a whole list. Okay. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. KOPCHIK-I believe either in the narrative or in the various individual items in the requirements for Site Plan approval application we refer to no change to the existing. MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2009 THE GOLUB CORPORATION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes façade changes and interior reconfiguration. Commercial alterations which require a Building Permit are subject to Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/25/09; 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. 42-2009 THE GOLUB CORPORATION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. Paragraph Four G, waivers that were requested are granted. 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 action – no further review is required; 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)Waiver requests granted parking 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 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] l)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. KOPCHIK-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 43-2009 SEQR TYPE II ROBERT L. KRISTEL AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) JANET M. KRISTEL ZONING WR LOCATION 17 CAYUGA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 766 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 766 SQUARE FOOT SEASONAL RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 38-09; BP 08-427, 08-118, 07- 660 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/8/09 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA, APA LOT SIZE 0.05 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-38 SECTION 179-9-010 ROBERT KRISTEL, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Jackoski? MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Chairman, I need to recuse myself due to a common interest in the Homeowners Association at Takundewide. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 43-2009, Robert Kristel. Site Plan Review for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in the Critical Environmental Area. Location: 17 Cayuga Drive, Waterfront Residential is the zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 766 square foot second floor addition to an existing 766 square foot seasonal residence. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: The applicant received approval for Area Variance 37-09 from the ZBA on July 22, 2009. As a condition of approval, the applicant has agreed to utilize the community wastewater system should the seasonal home become a year round dwelling. Further, the applicant had recently upgraded the existing septic in 2008 and the leachfield is located approximately 350 feet from the nearest shoreline of Lake George. As there will be limited ground disturbance and no change to site permeability, minimal if any impact to Lake George may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. One issue, and that is just to have electric, gas and telephone lines located on the plans. That’s my only issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KRISTEL-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. KRISTEL-My name is Robert Kristel. I am the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. KRISTEL-No, I do not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. SEGULJIC-My only comment is, to me it would make sense that you hook up to the new septic system now instead of when you go year round. MR. KRISTEL-Well, like I said to the Zoning Board, we’re only there on weekends, and we’re only there, the middle of May until probably, well, the end of September or maybe the first week in October. So, and then it’s closed down for at least six months out of the year. So it’s quite costly to go into the community septic system and I just had a new one installed in December of ’08, or the Fall of ’08, and it’s working very well. So I said to them, if we decided to use it year round, then I definitely would attach to the community septic system. MR. SEGULJIC-But I would have two concerns with that. One is you probably have a heavy use on the weekends with visitors, I would assume, and, Number Two, the summertime is what we worry about. If you had said you were there during the wintertime, I would agree with you more. MR. KREBS-But, I would assume, wouldn’t you, Tom, that the Town Health Department approved the change to a septic system in 2008? MR. SEGULJIC-I hope they did. MR. KREBS-Well, if they did, then why would that not be a satisfactory system today? MR. SEGULJIC-Because I’m always looking for improvements. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MRS. STEFFAN-I might have stronger feelings if it wasn’t a brand new septic system. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s how I feel, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s my opinion, too. MRS. STEFFAN-And it wouldn’t have gotten approved or passed if it wasn’t a substantial system. MR. KREBS-If the system had been there 15 years, I would agree with Tom, connect it to the. MR. KRISTEL-It’s a 1250 gallon tank, and, you know, it’s, how should I say, it was actually overkill, but that’s what we decided to do, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-So how are we going to know when you go to seasonal use, I mean, full time use? MR. KRISTEL-Well, there is no basement. It’s open underneath. So there’s no insulation in the floor right now, and it would be prohibitive to be there in the wintertime. I mean, we couldn’t keep it warm enough inside the building in the wintertime. I just, it’s an impossibility. MR. KREBS-So if you decided to turn it into a year round home, you’d have to come back to us anyway because you’d have to put a basement under it, which would mean jacking up the house and putting a basement in. MR. KRISTEL-Definitely, right. Yes. So we just want to put on a second story to have a little bit more space. MR. SEGULJIC-And that septic system is adequate for the second story? MR. KRISTEL-Definitely. MRS. STEFFAN-A 1250? Yes. MR. OBORNE-It’s based on the amount of bedrooms. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, that’s always my concern is because, you go around the lake in the summertime, and you have three bedroom homes where you have 20 people staying there. That’s the summertime. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. KRISTEL-Right. I agree with you. The other thing is, like Keith said, we’re 350 feet away from the lake. We’re in a very flat area. I don’t know. The septic system was approved by the Town back in November of ’08. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? Okay. We have at least one. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We’re not opposed to what the applicant is proposing, but we’d like to make the suggestion regarding the requirement to provide stormwater management. We’re aware that they’re not increasing impervious area. However, we’re taking the discussion back about a year and a half to when the community system was being put in and there was a lot of discussion about the impacts of stormwater runoff area. At your January ’08 meeting, the Board passed a resolution which stated the applicant, Takundewide HOA, should address the short term and long term stormwater mitigation measures for this area to protect Lake George and the area resident’s quality of life, and we just feel that a requirement to provide some type of stormwater management would be consistent with the intent of this motion. In addition, there was discussion at those meetings about a community workshop to get together to look at runoff in that area, and I do not know if the Planning Board is aware of any workshop meetings. At that one meeting, Council members Metivier, Montesi, and Strough were all here, and in February of ’08, Dan Ryan, the Town consulting engineer, referred to a workshop. So, again, I realize that this is a community problem, but if there could be any improvements, I think when we have the opportunity, on the smaller lots, and then any encouragement for the HOA would be appreciated. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Keith, I know there was some discussion at the Town Board about stormwater in that area. Wasn’t there some, did the DPW Department ever? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think the Highway Department is aware of the issue, as far as what they’ve done. I’m not privy to any of that information. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. SIPP-I think there were plans for a new drainage system on the road. I don’t think it ever took place, though. MR. HUNSINGER-You don’t think they did the construction? Okay. Are you aware of that issue? MR. KRISTEL-I’m not aware of any issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KRISTEL-It’s a total surprise to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that had, that wanted to address the Board? Is there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any final comments, concerns from members of the Board? Were you planning any kind of stormwater management on the expansion of your house? Are you going to put gutters? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. KRISTEL-No. We’re, definitely gutters, for sure, but we’re not disturbing any of the land that’s already, the land is already there. I mean, we’re not disturbing any of the land. We’re just going up. We’re not going out. So none of the lands will be disturbed at all. MR. KREBS-And the roofline is basically exactly the same roofline that was on the house already. MR. KRISTEL-Right. Right. It’s going to be exactly the same. The same pitch, everything. MRS. STEFFAN-In my mind, 350 feet from the lake, with all the green space around them, I’m not as worried about sheet runoff with the roof as I might be if they were very close to the lake. MR. KREBS-When I went up and looked at the site, too, it’s a pretty level site in that area, too. MR. KRISTEL-It is. It is. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution, then? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2009 ROBERT L. KRISTEL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 766 square foot second floor addition to an existing 766 square foot seasonal residence. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)The Planning Board make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 7/7/09; the ZBA subsequently approved the application on 7/22/09, therefore a public hearing was advertised and held on 8/25/09; 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. 43-2009 ROBERT L. KRISTEL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four E, F, and G are not applicable. This is approved with two conditions: 1.That the applicant denotes the utility lines on the plans, i.e. electric and telephone. I don’t think there’s gas in the area, but if so, then that needs to be denoted. 2.If the residence becomes a year round residence, then the applicant will need to hook in to the Takundewide community septic system, and that is a requirement of this approval. 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 action - 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 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) 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: parking 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] l)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. KRISTEL-Thank you very much. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 45-2009 SEQR TYPE II SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE INC. AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 92 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGES TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT TO INCLUDE A 360 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE KITCHEN AND RECONFIGURATION OF LOWER PORTION OF BUILDING FROM TO-GO FOOD OPERATIONS TO TO-GO FOOD AND CHILDREN’S GAMING AREA WITH SEATING. EXPANSION OF A USE REQUIRING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW. BOH 14-09, AV 39-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/8/09 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.27 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-43 SECTION 179-10-070 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-As stated, Special Use Permit 45-2009, Requested Action: Expansion of a use requiring a Special Use Permit requires Planning Board review and approval. Location: 92 Mason Road, Cleverdale. Existing Zoning is Waterfront Residential. Again, this is a Type II, no further review is needed. Project Description: Applicant proposes changes to an existing restaurant to include a 360 square foot expansion to the kitchen and reconfiguration of lower portion of building from to-go food operations to to- go food and children’s gaming area with seating. Expansion of a use requiring a special use permit requires Planning Board review and approval. On June 15, 2009 the applicant received approval from the Town Board of Health to install three (3) 2,000 gallon holding tanks for wastewater. This Zoning Board of Appeals has received a recommendation from the Planning Board dated 7/21/09 concerning variance associated 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) with this application. The ZBA subsequently approved Area Variance 38-2008 on 7/22/09 which dealt with the following issues: lot line setbacks, FAR, permeability, parking and the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Finally, Additional Comments. I’m dropping down onto Page Two. This application has been forwarded to Vision Engineering for review and comment. The Fire Marshal has reviewed this. Area Variance 38-2009 meeting minutes attached, and as are the Board of Health resolution 14-09 attached, and with that, I’d turn it over. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Larry Clute who’s the owner and Scott Parker the Manager of San Souci. First of all, I’d like to thank you. We had a full discussion last time when you granted the recommendation. We took that to the Zoning Board, and received all the variances. So we appreciated that. At the same time, we got the engineering comments for that meeting and responded. For tonight we have a complete signoff letter from VISION Engineering, which it’s always nice to have that coming in so we don’t have any engineering comments. In terms of the Staff Notes, of course we’re seeking the permanent Special Use Permit, and, let’s see, existing septic system should be, should read decommissioned. That is a typo on the plan, instead of commissioned, and Dumpster Pad details, it’s shown and it’s scaled, but we could just add eight foot by ten foot for the concrete pad dimensions, as Keith has asked. Handicap loading area, Keith said that he believes it should be nine feet for the loading area, and nine feet for the space. I think that’s how I interpret that. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. LAPPER-And we looked it up today in the Building Code and saw that it would be nine feet for the space under the Town Code, but eight feet for the loading area. MR. OBORNE-This I had discussed with Dave Hatin, and, you know, that’s his Department there. Typically he does do New York State Code. MR. LAPPER-I had the engineer look it up today, and the State Code referenced the National Standards, which is the, for the handicap access, the American National Standards Institute, and that was maximum eight feet for the loading area, but, I mean, we have room to do both, nine feet, so it’s certainly not worth the disagreement about. Our engineer says that it should be eight feet, but we can do nine for both. I don’t think it’s right, but it doesn’t matter, and if that’s what the Board would like, we’ll do that, and then, more importantly, the plantings along the south property line, this was not on the plans, it wasn’t specified, but what we’re proposing is the following, and the plans will be updated to show that. Along the southern property line, there would be, starting on Cleverdale Road on the east side, there would be a four foot fence, up until you get to the front of the house next door, because that’s the rule, and then from there it would be six feet to the other end of the San Souci building, a wooden, how did you describe it, weave style stockade fence, which is nicer than a standard stockade fence, and the fence would end on the Mason Road side at the front of the building. What would be planted would be a spruce tree, right at the edge of the property line on Cleverdale Road, and then an arborvitae hedge, four feet on center, all the way down to 20 feet from the property line, because that’s what Keith had suggested in terms of visual issue for cars pulling out, and that would be specified, I’m sorry, and there’s also two deciduous trees, little leaf lindens, closer to the building, and it’s 40 feet apart. So that’s the planting plan. We also added, after the Water Keeper spoke, at the Zoning Board meeting, we agreed to put in some, stone storage trench which is on the plans, on the Cleverdale Road side, because everything flows downhill, and tonight we talked to the Water Keeper, and he suggested that if the arborvitae planting bed is not raised it would help infiltration. So we agree to do that as well, to have a depression rather than a little berm for planting, so it would just help infiltrate the stormwater. There’s not obviously a lot you could do on this pre-existing site, but we’re certainly willing to do what can be done, and that’s it. The other comment was about the handicap access ramp, and that’s being changed so that it is compliant of one vertical foot for every 20 feet so, I think that’s it for Staff comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-We’re here to answer questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up to questions, comments from members of the Board. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MRS. STEFFAN-I’m assuming that the fencing that you’ve proposed complies with Code? MR. LAPPER-Yes, because it would be, that rule about the four feet and then the six feet. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, it’s staggered. MR. LAPPER-And the neighbors want that fence. So we promised them that that’ll be the first thing, as soon as we have the pre-construction meeting with Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-So I’m confused. Where exactly is the fence going? MR. LAPPER-It’s going to start on the Cleverdale Road side. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And it’s going to go the whole length of the southern property line until 20 feet from the Mason Street. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It would be four feet as far back as it has to be, and then six feet the rest of the way. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you’re also going to put some of those trees along the southern property line? MR. LAPPER-Behind the hedge, behind the fence will be the arborvitaes, the whole length up until that 20 foot line. MR. SEGULJIC-So, just a clarification, you’re adding seating to the bottom area, then? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because it just says operation to go food with children’s game area with seating. Because you already have a gaming area down there. MR. LAPPER-Do you want to explain what happens downstairs? LARRY CLUTE MR. CLUTE-It’s just a game area. The tables are going down there, but they’re more a place to set their drinks, rather on a table than on my games. So, it’s for the kids. It’s not going to be service. There will be no wait staff down there, but I do need some table space for them to bring their drinks down, so on and so forth. MR. SEGULJIC-So probably (lost words) cocktail table or something. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-My only other concern is, I think it’s great you’re putting in the holding tanks, but where are you going to go with this wastewater? MR. LAPPER-It would be hauled to Lake George, to the treatment plant. MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s my understanding that they’re getting up to capacity there. MR. LAPPER-That’s not an issue. I mean, they take many gallons of, the DEC rule. MR. SEGULJIC-I thought that’s the issue because they take many gallons, I guess. MR. LAPPER-Well, everything in the Lake George basin has to be deposited in the Lake George basin, and that’s the only place. So, I mean, that’s just a private hauler will come and pick it up. MR. SEGULJIC-But what happens if they go over capacity, then, which I understand they are very close to? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. LAPPER-That’s a whole, more complicated issue, but there’s not, I mean, there’s no moratorium. I mean, there has to be a place for haulers to haul waste. MR. SEGULJIC-You’d have to haul it up to Bolton or something. You can’t go to Glens Falls. MR. LAPPER-That would be up to the hauler, I mean, where they would go, but certainly it has to be pumped out. It has to go somewhere. It has to go to a regulated facility. MR. SEGULJIC-It has to be in the basin, though. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SIPP-There is a grease trap in this system? MR. LAPPER-There is a grease elimination system. It’s not a grease trap, per se. Scott, would you like to describe that? SCOTT PARKER MR. PARKER-We recycle all our grease. It’s collected by J.C. Rendering. Actually pay them to haul it away. We have never had a grease problem with our current system. It is pumped twice a year. I actually have a letter from Ivan who does maintain our system. He’s never found any excessive amount of grease in our system. MR. SIPP-How do you process it? MR. PARKER-All of my equipment has grease traps on the actual equipment which are dumped into buckets which are then put in barrels outside. They come and take the barrels away, and then they process and recycle the grease. MR. SIPP-Does the present septic system, is this going to be removed? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PARKER-Yes, it will be decommissioned. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it will be removed or decommissioned. Removed. Okay. MR. SIPP-Removed. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? Okay. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the audience to provide information to the Board. I ask that you direct any questions or comments to the Board, and I also ask that you identify yourself for the record. We do tape the meeting, and we use the tape to transcribe minutes, and I would ask that you try to keep your comments to within three minutes. So, sir, go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JAMES FINNECY MR. FINNECY-My name is James Finnecy. I live at 82 Mason Road. I’m the adjacent property owner on Mason Road. My property is not shown on the map there, but there are three vacant lots, unbuildable lots, between myself and the San. One of the first things I noticed when I got the Planning Board notice of the hearing was there are two basic differences in the Planning Board notice from the Zoning Board notice. One was an increase in the square footage for the addition from 217 square feet in the Zoning Board to 360 square feet in the Planning Board notice. The second change was that the Planning Board notice adds seating in the lower area, and adds to go food operations to be the ongoing activity. Given that situation, I guess I wanted to add how I feel about the situation, and that is that, where I’ve been happy to have a restaurant in Cleverdale for a number of years, I’ve been there about 20, and in the last 10 years there have been three owners for that property, and there’ve been no increases in size for that 20 years, but now we’re looking for increased size and increased seating, and that’s all both going to create higher capacity in my opinion. Larger kitchens increases turnover. You can get 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) the food out faster, get more people fed, get more traffic coming in, which is good for business, but produces more people, more traffic, more cars, more parking. Increased seating normally produces more customers. I’m not sure how this works out in the game room, but if you’re going to have increased seating down there, nobody really knows, I guess, how that’s going to be used once it’s approved. I think, again, more customers mean more vehicles coming in the area, and for many Cleverdale residents, it’s a residential area, certainly, we know that. It’s additional traffic and parking is unacceptable. One consequence will be vehicles seeking parking places. Just as an item, a week ago, during the weekend, I returned home about nine o’clock in the evening, and noticed two very large SUV’s parked on the street along, fronting my driveway. So Mason Road is less than 17 feet wide. So, parking on a roadway is a difficult maneuver, particularly if you’re, the large vehicles that we have nowadays. These vehicles didn’t belong to any of the neighbors. I determined that. So they probably belonged to customers from the San. Now this is 200 feet away from the San. So, more parking can be a problem. I guess, to sum it up, for the reasons I expressed, I recommend against approval of this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. JOHN BLINSTRUB MR. BLINSTRUB-Evening. I’m John Blinstrub. I live at 331 Cleverdale Road, Cleverdale, New York. The San is an excellent neighbor. My wife, Jeanne, and I live seasonally, May through October, three to seven days a week, more so now that my wife is retired in the past few months. We’re immediately adjacent and we border the San. In the time the current owner, Clute, and his Manager, Parker, have operated the establishment, we’ve got no complaints. There’ve been many improvements to their building grounds and their business since their tenure began. We’ve experienced no noise issues, no garbage or debris issues, no delivery truck issues, no complaints about loud patrons leaving the establishment in the late evening. It is mine and my wife’s opinion that the current owner, manager, and their employees take great care to ensure that their clientele respect their neighbors. The same could not always be said for the previous owner, which was Collins, especially towards the end of their tenure. The San has already made improvements to the building and the grounds, and they should be encouraged and allowed to continue their plan work and minor building expansion. A well maintained San is a great benefit to the community of Cleverdale. As an example of this manner in which the San is run and maintained, numerous times houseguests of ours have marveled at how quiet and unassuming a restaurant of that size and of such close proximity actually is. When Clute and Parker first took over, they made a point of coming to our home and meeting with us and asking us of any issues we may have had in the past. As I indicated earlier above, they corrected all past issues and have continued to maintain those high standards for years now. We’ve owned the property for ten years. We only know of Collins. I believe Sanderspree owned the property before that, but only dealt with Collins. At that time, they also inquired if we would support improving the landscaping of their grounds between their building and our home, namely removing scrub brushes and large pine trees that had damaged both our properties on numerous occasions, and replacing a common patchwork six foot high privacy fence that separated our properties, along our common our 150 foot border. Upon consideration of losing some shade, we opted to gladly support the improvements because of the damage those trees had caused far outweighed any shade benefits and a great improvement a new fence would be over the unsightly leaning fence that continually deteriorated from year to year. If I did have one complaint, I suppose it would be that fact that we have had to endure all of 2009 without a privacy fence between our properties. As I understand it, Queensbury has asked the San to cease all work until these hearings could be had. Lack of this fence has made it very, very uncomfortable for us as our primary gathering place happens to be our side yard, that immediately adjoins the San parking lot. Hopefully following these hearings, a new fence can become the San first priority and be reestablished immediately, so that we can once again enjoy our privacy for the remainder of the summer, not only from the view of the San patrons but also all those who drive or walk up and down Cleverdale and Mason Roads. In closing, we urge the respective Queensbury Town Boards to support and approve the San Souci in their efforts to improve their building, grounds and business. And I thank you for this opportunity to be able to give my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BLINSTRUB-I suppose there’d be one more issue that I just would like to clarify with the plantings. Being the immediate neighbor adjoining, headlight glare is an issue, and I understand that there are fencing criteria that must be followed, but the old fence used to 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) go right to the edge of Cleverdale Road, on Cleverdale side. I would urge that we have something replace that fence. If it can’t be a fence, plantings go right to the road, because as vehicles turn in and out, we, again, our main seating area is there on the side, and we have a porch and a deck, and the headlight glare shines right into those areas and into our house. So I would just ask that fencing be allowed as close to Cleverdale Road as possible, if not fencing, plantings of some sort. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. BLINSTRUB-Thank you. Anyone else? Was there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. MR. LAPPER-I didn’t start out, tonight, with a list of all the advantages of the project, because we had such a detailed discussion last month, but in response to Mr. Finnecy’s comments, I just want to put it on the record, I’m sure that you’re all aware of it, right now there’s no stormwater facilities at all, and they are going to be added, as the site will support it, as I’ve said. The fence along the south side and the shrubs and the trees are all an improvement. Certainly the holding tanks is the right way to operate a restaurant when you’re on a peninsula. Architecturally, the building is going to be completely re- sided. It’s just a real upgrade, visually, from what’s there now. It’s a really tired looking building. The issue that was raised about the different description is that for the variance we were only talking about the footprint, because that’s what we needed a variance for, just what’s on the bottom floor, but for the Site Plan it’s both the downstairs, and remember, the 370 square foot total, minor, minor size addition, but very important in terms of their really inadequate kitchen, a walk-in cooler and handicap bathrooms, that’s the only change, those three are the only change. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think I had asked that question the last time you were here. I noticed the same thing. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and it is confusing, but it’s just the different rules of two Boards. So the whole project is the 370. We’re not increasing capacity. I mean, none of those things increase capacity. They already do take-out. It’s just a matter of this thing works as the living room for people on Cleverdale, and there’ve been other letters to the Board in the record previously that acknowledge that. So they want to have a place for the kids downstairs. Not a capacity issue. We’re not adding, you know, this isn’t going to draw anybody here because they hear there’s a nice walk-in cooler. So it’s just going to make it a little bit easier to operate in a small facility, but not to generate more traffic. We just think that it’s cleaning up a site that’s been there for almost 100 years. MR. SEGULJIC-There was a comment about the headlights? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that, the fence, starting on Cleverdale, will be four feet, just as far as it has to be, and then six feet thereafter, all the way to the other end of the building. So that covers the issue of the headlights, but what we’re specifying tonight is a spruce tree right at the edge of the property, on Cleverdale Road, and then the arborvitaes, four feet on center. So we’ll have both, the fence and the shrubbery, and that’ll just end 20 feet before Mason Road, as Staff has suggested. MR. SEGULJIC-So that should take care of the headlights. MR. LAPPER-That should take care of the headlights. MR. SEGULJIC-And once again, no additional seating. MR. LAPPER-Right, just moving things around. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that the last speaker mentioned that he wanted the plantings closer to Cleverdale Road. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that’s right. It’ll be all the way to Cleverdale Road. It just won’t go all the way to Mason. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Okay. So his issue is satisfied. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because we know where they utilize their house. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. KREBS-And the parking’s on Mason Road anyway. MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s some on both, but it’s primarily on Mason. MR. KREBS-Yes, when you go into the restaurant anyway. MR. LAPPER-Yes. LEE TABNER MRS. TABNER-May I ask a question? Am I allowed to ask a question? Is the public hearing over? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s actually not over, but you’ll have to come up and get on the microphone, ma’am. MRS. TABNER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And you’ll need to identify yourself for the record. MRS. TABNER-I am Lee Tabner. I live directly across from the main entrance to the San Souci. I would like to know if there’s a formula for absolute space of how many cars should be parked. Our driveway is hampered by cars at the San. They park along the road. They park at our next door neighbor’s lot where they have their septic tank. They park wherever they can find eight inches or more. We’ve had to go in and have them speak to the people about not parking out into the road because we cannot get in our driveway. They’ve been very nice about it and have spoken to the people, but it is a total madhouse of cars there. How many cars should a restaurant that size be allowed to have? That’s my question. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Board? Okay. I will suspend the public hearing for this evening, then. Just to answer her, well, I mean, you can answer her question as well, but they do show 16 spaces on their Site Plan. MR. LAPPER-And basically it is what it is. That this is a neighborhood restaurant, a unique location. The neighbors really work pretty well together. Obviously the other neighbor who lives right next door said that he didn’t have a problem with parking. They leave keys in the car and move cars around when they have to. It works, you know, it’s a unique situation, but we’re not doing anything to increase parking requirement. MR. PARKER-At the last meeting we also said that once a fence was up, we would put a sign right by Mrs. Tabner’s driveway saying please do not block the driveway. We just do not have anything to hang that sign on right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Is part of the parking, is it an issue of, because it’s gravel, you can’t fully utilize the parking that you have on site? MR. CLUTE-We actually more than utilize. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-I mean, the parking spaces that you’re numbering is only single deep. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CLUTE-I mean, we go two deep, we go three deep. We maximize use of this property, but as far as the Code’s concerned, we can’t say, well, we’ve got three spaces deep. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CLUTE-So we really maximize what parking we do have available. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. CLUTE-And our clientele is terrific. I, at the last meeting, again, I couldn’t tell you how the San actually operates. It just does, and they’re just very cooperative, and when it’s three deep, I mean, people are leaving keys in their cars, and, I mean, they’re adjusting. They’ve just done this forever, and as far as, if we do have issues where there’s a blockage, we apologize, but we’re very quick to respond, and we do talk to our people, but they already really pretty much police themselves. This is a minor miracle. I don’t know how the parking actually gets accomplished, but it does. I don’t know. Did I answer your question? I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CLUTE-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, overall I think having holding tanks will be an improvement. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just concerned about where the water’s going to go. MR. KREBS-And the fact that the exterior is going to look a lot nicer is going to make the whole neighborhood look a lot nicer, too. MR. PARKER-I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-And the fact that you’re going to remove the old system. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Are members comfortable moving forward? Okay. I will close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-There were no written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Any comments from Board members on the type of Special Use Permit? MR. SEGULJIC-What is there, permanent, temporary and renewable. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. Permanent. MR. SEGULJIC-It would only make sense to have it be permanent. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Until the use changes. MR. KREBS-Yes, and then they’ve got to come back anyway. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the case, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Correct, if it’s permanent. MR. HUNSINGER-If there were a change of use, then they would come back for a Site Plan Review. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-The only other thing is, I think, don’t the plans say decommissioning of the system? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. LAPPER-Yes, that was the typo. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And we can say decommissioned and removed. MR. SEGULJIC-And removed. MR. HUNSINGER-Have we resolved the Staff comment about handicap accessibility at each level? MR. OBORNE-The applicant offered to do it at nine feet. MR. HUNSINGER-No, on the elevation of floor plan drawings, where you said that all exits should be on grade or accessed by handicap ramp? MR. OBORNE-Yes, but, Jon, didn’t you say that you updated the plan? MR. LAPPER-Yes. The handicap ramp will be made to conform to the Building Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but if I make them satisfy that comment, then it’s in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 45-2009 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE, INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes changes to an existing restaurant to include a 360 square foot expansion to the kitchen and reconfiguration of lower portion of building from to-go food operations to to-go food and children’s gaming area with seating. Expansion of a use requiring a special use permit requires Planning Board Site Plan review. 2)The Planning Board make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 7/7/09; the ZBA subsequently approved the application on 7/22/09, therefore a public hearing was advertised and held on 8/25/09; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 45-2009 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE, INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four E, F, and G do not apply. 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 action 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 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) 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: parking 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] l)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office m)This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant will satisfy Staff comments, specifically on Page 49224-1, existing septic system should read decommissioned and removed. 2.The dumpster pad details to include enclosure and concrete pad dimensions. They need to be included on the plan. 3.The handicap loading area and space be nine feet in width per the Building Code of New York State. 4.Plantings along the south property line should be qualified and quantified on the plan. During our dialogue, the applicant identified the fencing that would be proposed as well as the trees that would be included, which satisfied the Planning Board, but need to be denoted on the plans. It’s identified in Staff Notes that the planting should not extend to the west property line, and recommended that the plantings terminate 20 feet from the west property line to reduce vehicular conflicts associated with the parking lot on Mason Street. 5.Any proposed new fencing must comply with our Code 179-5-070. 6.Another one of the Staff comment issues was regarding elevation and floor plan drawings, that the applicant needed to clarify the handicap access ramp and entrance details on the upper level to insure compliance with the Building Code of New York State, and also that the compliant handicap accessibility be achieved at each level. 7.This Special Use Permit has been approved as a permanent Special Use Permit, which means that the use can continue indefinitely until the specific use ceases for any reason for a period of six months. 8.The planting bed on the south side will be enhanced with a depression for improved stormwater absorption. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-The only comment I have is that they indicated they were going to put some stormwater controls on site. MR. LAPPER-Yes, they should be on the plan that you have. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I thought you alluded that they were (lost words). MR. LAPPER-We added it after we were here, but I think they’re on the plans. I’m sorry. You’re talking about what we had talked to the Water Keeper about with the? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, that wasn’t on the plan. So that is the planting bed on the south side will be below the surface level of the grass so that it’ll aid infiltration, and we’ll add that, obviously, as a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to propose that as an amendment? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I will amend that motion so that the planting bed on the south side will be enhanced with a berm for. MR. SEGULJIC-No, not a berm, a concave depression. MR. LAPPER-A depression. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry. A depression for improved stormwater absorption. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. They plan to get started right after Labor Day, and we appreciate it. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2009 SEQR TYPE II LINDA HART AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CI LOCATION CORNER OF BAY & CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 575 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING FOR NEW RESTROOM AND OFFICE. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/12/09 LOT SIZE 0.48, 0.39, 0.56, 0.37, 0.20 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-39, 40, 41, 42, 44.1 SECTION 179-9- 010 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT CIFONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 51-2009, applicant, Linda Hart. Requested Action: Commercial expansion in the CI zone requires Site Plan Review and approval. Location: Corner of Bay and Cronin Road. This is Commercial Intensive. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 575 square foot addition to south side of building for new restrooms and office. Commercial expansion requires Site Plan review and approval. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes an expansion of the existing restaurant to include new handicap accessible bathrooms, a 30 foot long by 4 foot wide handicap ramp entering the rear of the restaurant, office space and additional site improvements. The applicant has requested waivers from grading, landscaping and lighting requirements. Additional Comments: The applicant must consolidate the parcels associated with this site in order to avoid side setback variances per §179-3-040 and avoid a variance for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per §179-13-010. This application has been forwarded to VISION. That is not true. This application was not referred to VISION. That was a mistake. This application, however, has been forwarded to the Town of Queensbury Water and Sewer Department. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I’m Michael O’Connor. I’m the attorney for the applicant. With me at the table are John and Matt Cifone, who are the builders for the applicant. Basically, I think, I’m not sure when we got the comments, but I have a set of plans that answers, I think, most of the comments, and Comment Number One was, in the upper 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) left hand corner, for parking requirements, apparently it was shown as auto body repair shop. I have a plan that now says restaurant, as opposed to, it’s a labeling issue. Item Number Two is the handicap loading area on the west side of the restaurant. Our plan now shows nine feet for the loading area, nine feet for the spaces, for those three spaces, and I’m hopeful that we can get approval subject to us submitting enough copies of this plan that have been amended. Landscaping plan to include species, location and number should be represented on plan. If you note up in the top, part of the application was a request for waiver for landscaping, and we would continue that request for the waiver. So if we obtain the waiver, I don’t know if we are going to need to show that we’re, the species location or whatever. This application does, in fact, in a minor way, increase the green space. If you look between the ramp, and I probably should have started with the whole thing. The proposal here is to make the restaurant handicap accessible, and that’s the real intent. There will be a handicap ramp that will be put in on the south side of the building. It will have an entrance way, and I think you’ve got floor plans, and while they’re doing that, they are going to take, if you’re familiar with the restaurant, they’re going to take the bathrooms out of the center of the restaurant and put them in the vestibule area of the entrance, and they are also, at the same time, going to use the back end of that 16 by 36 foot addition for a small office. Ever since this restaurant has been built, there’s a trap door with a set of stairs that goes down to the office. So they’re finally going to move the restaurant to the serving floor, and they will also convert the area of the two existing baths to a serving station. There is no proposed, or no significant proposed change in seating within the restaurant. It’s possible that there will be one additional booth or four additional seats in the restaurant, and that’s basically the whole scenario of why they’re here. The next question was lighting. We also asked for a waiver for that, and we would continue that. The only additional lighting on site is a proposed recessed 65 watt light and a soffit right in the entrance way. The exterior lighting will remain as is. We have no history of complaint of illumination. Actually the restaurant has cut back, at least in my time, it’s hours of operation significantly, and I think they’re out of there most nights by 10:30, 11 o’clock at night. Restricting access to the site should be explored. There used to be, and this is, I take it, along Bay Road. We’re willing to talk to the County about that. There used to be a set of guardrails that ran parallel to a portion of Bay Road, and the County, either when they widened Bay Road or whatever, I don’t know exactly, we looked for some pictures to see if we could find them. We couldn’t find them. They took the guardrails out. There is an area between the sidewalk and our property line that’s about two feet. If they would put guardrails back up for a portion of that, we’d be happy to have them do that. There is a little bit of a traffic flow issue. We probably could come back from the corner maybe 30 feet and not interfere significantly with the traffic flows. A lot of our traffic, customer traffic, comes in off of Bay Road and goes through the parking lot, finds a parking spot immediately as they come in or goes to the back area of parking, and then a lot of the traffic comes out of the parking lot on the south side of the building and goes back to Bay Road, and if we pinch that together too much I think we’d create traffic flow problems. MRS. STEFFAN-I also think that if you put the guardrail, even though the one did exist, you’re going to have a problem during this winter, because it’s going to be difficult to move snow around that guardrail which may be one of the reasons why they took it out. I don’t know the history of, the County took it out. We did not take it out. It was a County fixture on site. We’d be happy to talk to them and, you know, we’ve looked at it. Probably you could come back 30 feet and we think we’d be okay. They kind of complicated the issue a little bit recently when they painted the turn lane. They now have a turn lane that goes up that portion of Bay Road, turning onto Cronin Road, turning into the Stewarts Shop, and I think it creates a lot of confusion. They were better off when they just had the travel lanes, and didn’t try to emphasize that turn lane, but that’s a County highway and they have the control of it. So our answer to that question is that we’d be willing to talk to the County. It’s up to the County, I think, to actually control that. MR. HUNSINGER-Why would you be opposed to just taking some of the asphalt out and putting some grass in? MR. O'CONNOR-You mean on ours? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, looking at this picture right here, to the right of the concrete, I don’t know if it’s a sidewalk. MR. SIPP-Just off the right of way you could put your own posts in. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. HUNSINGER-You know, on your own property. MR. SEGULJIC-Or some nice little plantings there. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know, and I think you’re going to get into the issue, again, of snow plowing. If you take a look, they have a turn lane that goes right to that sidewalk. They’re going to throw the snow right into us. We take the snow out of there and put it in our back area. You put some bunker between there, you’re going to have some difficulties, and the American way, unfortunately, is people want to park as close to the door as they can. They don’t like to go out into the back parking lot, even though it’s nicely laid out and whatever, and walk into the restaurant. The next issue is the recycling dumpster in the rear is visible. We need to re-visit that, and we would accept a condition that, once we figure out what we need for actually containers, they will all be enclosed in a fenced in area that will be gated and closed. Apparently, without paying a lot of attention to it, the number of our dumpsters has grown. So, I think the Staff is correct that there was a dumpster that’s outside of the fenced area. MR. HUNSINGER-I noticed that the last time I was there, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. So we can take care of that, and we have no problem with you conditioning your action upon us enclosing all the dumpsters in a solid, fenced area, and I heard from your last application, put them on a concrete pad. The other comments, apparently, the applicant must consolidate. The applicant was here last week or two weeks ago, and actually went into the Town and filed an application with the Assessor to consolidate the five tax parcels, for reasons of their own. I know that I’m preparing the mortgage papers, and we’ve gotten a perimeter survey of it, and we will have a perimeter description of all the parcels, the ones that they owned before, and the little tiny piece that they picked up when they traded land with Della Bella on their parcel. Application before the Town of Queensbury Water and Sewer Department. We will coordinate our construction with them. We’re already hooked up to the water and sewer. So I don’t think that’s a big issue. MR. OBORNE-Yes. If I could, I do have a review from Mike Shaw, the Harvest Restaurant. The Harvest Restaurant is connected to the Town sanitary sewer system and modification to the building’s grease trap and plumbing will need to meet Town Codes and be inspected by the Wastewater Department. MR. O'CONNOR-We believe, as it’s been engineered by Tom Hutchins, we’ve increased, I think, the grease trap, change it’s location, changed the location of it and put a new one in. It will be compliant. That’s basically what we’re trying to do is put a ramp in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-The questions about the dumpster were the only questions I had. I’ll be able to go there for a lot longer now. MR. O'CONNOR-Because they have a better dumpster? MR. KREBS-No, because they’ve got a ramp. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my only concern is cleaning up those, the lack of curb cuts along Bay Road. Anything we can do about that. MATT CIFONE MR. CIFONE-I think getting the guardrail back, because whatever you put there, even if you put a strip of grass. You’re going to drive over it. I mean, people drive over curbs in parking lots. So unless there’s something substantial, like the guardrail, you’re not going to stop them. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the traffic flow that we have, and from a traffic flow point of view, that’s the natural place, and I don’t know if it’s even the Code required place, to put your handicap nearest available spaces to the handicap ramp for access. Those vehicles backing out don’t leave a lot of room behind them, and if we try and fix a funnel there where the people come in in one spot, they’re going to be coming in probably right behind the handicap, and I don’t think that’s a good situation. As I said, we can come back, and we talked about this, probably 30 feet from the corner. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the other thing is have no access off of Bay Road at all. MR. O'CONNOR-If you go and take a look at the Deli that was approved just next to Stewarts, that’s never going to be successful because of their entrance. That is a dead white horse. They’ve had two different operators there. People don’t even know it’s there, the way that that driveway is set up. You’re going to have somebody come back and make a realistic application to you, to say we need to have a separate identity. We need to have a decent access, and the people that, the first people that had it, went out in April. The second owner came in, and he went out Monday. It’s now vacant. You’re saying no access from Bay Road. You want all the traffic to go up Cronin Road. That little bit of inconvenience may very, this business has been there for, I think Phil started it probably 1970, ’72 or something like that, and I hate to impede their success. They’ve been fairly successful. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think you’re impeding their success. I mean, in fact, I think, in a lot of ways, you know, entering and exiting from Bay Road, you know, creates a lot of anxiety for people because it’s such a free for all. MR. O'CONNOR-How many people voluntarily go up and go in Cronin Road? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I go there a lot. I go there at least every other Friday, for take out pizza, and I do exactly what you suggested, what you said. I drive in on Bay and I loop around and come back out on Bay. If you put green space in between and limited access off Bay Road to two points, you’re going to make it a lot safer, and you’re not going to create any kind of traffic problems. You’re going to eliminate traffic problems. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think so. I really don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, just an example of an area where there was a similar situation is Cool Insurance. When they came before us to have the new, actually, when Cool moved into the building where they are now, we required them to close down the curb cuts on Country Club Road. The same situation. It’s at grade. So there’s no curb, and they put green space in to limit access to two or maybe three points, and it looks so much better, and it resolves a lot of traffic conflicts. MR. O'CONNOR-But that’s apples to oranges. If Cool has five people from a public or ten people from a public a day go into their parking lot, that’s probably a lot. I go by that every day during the summer because I live at Glen Lake, and I go up Country Club Road. There’s never cars out front, probably three or four cars. This business is a turnover type business where they try to fill that parking lot maybe twice on a good evening. There’s just so much more traffic. You impede how it has naturally flowed, how people’s habits are, you’re going to affect their business. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think you’d be impeding it. I think you’re be augmenting it. I think you’d make it better. MR. CIFONE-I don’t think, I think if you look at that, I don’t know if there’s enough room to put the green space and still be able to back a car out, because there’s an easement that the County took, right up through there, so by the time you’ve got the parking spaces against the building, and then try to put a green space out at the road, how much room do you have left there? I mean, how big of a green space do you need to make it effective? You can’t put two feet in. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I marked up my copy. I’m sure you’re looking at the same map. If you look at Bay Road, you have the 20 foot setback labeled off. If you were to make the area between the setback and your property line green space, it looks like you have more than a 20 foot required travel aisle behind the handicap parking. MR. O'CONNOR-You don’t. The handicap parking spot’s 20 feet long. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And if you say that the hatched off area is 20 feet, they’re in between. It’s about half. It’s about 10 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-No, no, no, no. Not the whole area, to where the “S” is. Not the whole, half the hatched area. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. CIFONE-How much would you? MR. HUNSINGER-That would be more than enough. You don’t even need that much. Even four or five feet would be enough. MR. O'CONNOR-Chris, 20 feet is 20 feet. The parking spot is to scale, and by eye, the scale, that parking spot is just about equal to the hatched area. MR. HUNSINGER-The Code requires a 20 foot travel aisle. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me go back. If I recall, there’s a 50 foot setback from the building. MR. CIFONE-The setbacks are on here. MR. O'CONNOR-The setback, it was 75 feet, and they took something when they widened Bay Road, and that changed it. We had to change it. So you don’t have that space in there. MR. OBORNE-Well, are you talking the Travel Corridor setback? MR. O'CONNOR-From the edge of that building to the edge of the property there’s probably 50 feet maximum. MR. HUNSINGER-If you’ve got 50 feet, you only need 20 feet for a Travel Corridor. You’d have 10 feet for green space, then. MR. KREBS-But you need 20 feet for the handicap. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, 20 feet and 20 feet is 40. You’ve got 10 feet left. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. CIFONE-What about the snow issue that (lost word) brought up? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you pile it on the green grass. MR. O'CONNOR-You’ve got a visibility thing. MR. CIFONE-Do you really think that green grass will stop them? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you put some nice bushes in there. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically we’re putting in a handicap ramp. That’s what we’re doing. We’re putting in a handicap ramp. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well, then make your motion, then. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re just offering some suggestions. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we do not accept your suggestion. We’re willing to go 30 feet guardrail from the corner from the Cronin Road south, if that’s the demarcation that you think is necessary to bring this. It doesn’t block traffic flow, as it has been developed and is practice on the property. MR. CIFONE-I think the guardrail’s the most effective. That’s going to stop it. It needs to be stopped. When I was there meeting with them, twice, the first time, we had to go out and pull people out of the cars, there was an accident out there. The second time there was two that just skidded by, a week later. It’s just constant, and it’s because of that turn lane, which is nothing to do with people, nobody coming out of the restaurant, but coming out of Cronin, people turning left, they see the people in the turn lane, but they don’t see the people in the main lane coming out, and, as I say, that day we were out there, we pulled five kids out of the car and a lady, bang, but it’s, they’re not coming out of that, where you want to block, but something needs to be there, and I think the guardrail going back, at least it’s up there, you can see it, and nobody’s going to drive through it. You put grass or, and you can plow, you can plow the snow there or. I don’t think they ever should have taken it down, and I know Phil agrees with that as well. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. SEGULJIC-So what I hear you saying, there is a concern there. MR. O'CONNOR-This is why we’ve said, if we can get the County to allow the guardrail back up there on the property line, we’d be happy to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-You’d propose to have the guardrail 20 feet back from Cronin Road running south? MR. O'CONNOR-Thirty feet running south. MR. SEGULJIC-Thirty feet. I don’t see why you’d want to put a guardrail. Why wouldn’t you want to put some green space there? MR. O’CONNOR-There used to be green space in front of the parking spot on Cronin Road. They drove right over it. There was a ditch there. They drove right through the ditch. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, then plant some nice bushes there. MR. O'CONNOR-We can put some bushes inside the ramp, in that little area that was pavement, that will be green space, additional green space. MR. SEGULJIC-And if I’m correct, you’re supposed to have, I mean, this is considered a parking lot, and you’re supposed to have plantings along the road and the parking lot. MR. O'CONNOR-This pre-exists any of those rules and regulations. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you’re before us with a new application. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Okay, and act on the application. Do you want the handicap ramp or not? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it makes sense to me to, if they want a guardrail there, it makes sense to me to have a green space with some bushes there, and they’ve acknowledged there is a traffic concern there. MR. CIFONE-But you’ve got to admit that The Harvest didn’t create the problem. The County did by pulling that guardrail. So I don’t think it’s fair dumping it back on them. MR. SIPP-Maybe I’m wrong here, but I got lost here someplace. If you get the County to put the guardrails back in, that’s what you want. Can you not plant trees along that strip also? MR. O'CONNOR-For that 30 feet, probably yes. Not trees, but shrubbery. I think anything that’s above two feet, I would think, would be a vision problem. MR. KREBS-You don’t want to plant too many trees there, because you’ve got Cronin Road exit, and you need the vision. MR. SIPP-Yes. I’ll agree to that, but guardrails are not the most wonderful thing to look at. Let’s pretty them up a little bit. MR. KREBS-I know, but you don’t want trees on that corner because. MR. SIPP-I didn’t say trees. I said plantings. MR. KREBS-Any planting that is over two and a half feet is going to be too high because I come out of that road often, and I’ll tell you, you need the vision to the left, looking down, and you need to look across the parking lot. I agree with you. I think that turn lane is absolutely stupid. People drive down that turn lane and it’s supposed to be a right turn only, and they continue straight down the road. MR. HUNSINGER-All the time. MR. KREBS-All the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Some people use it, I’ve seen people use it as a passing lane. MR. KREBS-Yes. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. O’CONNOR-The other problem, and the reverse of vision problems, the two feet is probably not going to last, but, you know, you’re going to plant them. You’re going to get the snow and the salt from the road there. They’re going to be gone in a season, but that, you know, we probably could put something within that corner area. I actually thought you’d tell us to pretty up the southerly half of the lot, because it’s vacant. MR. SEGULJIC-Good point. MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, that’s not going to interfere with the traffic flow and it’s something that probably can be maintained on a reasonable basis, and it would give you some more green along Bay Road. MR. SEGULJIC-I just think a, you know, 220 foot unlimited access is just, is just bad planning. It’s an accident waiting to happen. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not 220 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-According to this Site Plan it is, 219.99 feet. MR. OBORNE-That’s the whole property line. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the whole property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It’s 125. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-And you’ve got to go by the building, too. These people take good care of the building. I mean, every year they make some substantial capital improvement, whether it was putting the brick up, putting the awnings on the windows, the window boxes they maintain, the planters that they maintain along the front and side of the building. I mean, they’ve been a good corporate citizen of the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think anyone’s questioning that. MR. CIFONE-I agree with you that that is a problem, but I think the County created the problem, and I don’t think that they should have to take care of it. I think the County should come back and take care of it. They took the guardrail out, and put it back in. I mean, it’s not going to look as nice, but it was there forever before, and it worked, and everybody worked around it. MR. O'CONNOR-Take the dumb turn lane out. MR. CIFONE-Well, I don’t even think that’s going to, I mean, even if you take the turn lane out, it’s still open. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m just one person. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and you can’t make the County do anything. I mean, you can recommend, but it’s up to them, and so, and just from a salt and snow perspective, and site perspective, I’m just not in favor of adding landscaping elements there. MR. CIFONE-I don’t think it would look good. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think it would stay looking good. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think it would last. MR. CIFONE-I’ve done their work for over 30 years, and Phil doesn’t do anything unless it’s first class, and there’s really, you know, the landscaping there is not going to work. I mean, it’s going to be very hard to maintain. The snow and the salt are going to kill it. They’ll drive through it. They’ll drive over it. If there’s some sort of a fence, but then it’s got to look decent, and a guardrail at least looks commercial. You don’t want to put a picket fence or something, it would look pretty stupid there. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. JACKOSKI-Is that a Town of Queensbury vehicle in that picture that we’re seeing? MR. OBORNE-That’s my buggy. MR. JACKOSKI-And where were you parked? Because it looks to me there’s no room behind you. MR. OBORNE-I was parked just north and east of the fire hydrant. Pretty much right where that black dot is on, a little ahead of that black dot there, that says 20 foot wide easement and right of way Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District. MR. CIFONE-There’s not a lot of room back there, once you back up to turn out. MR. JACKOSKI-I know, which worries me with handicap access. I mean, I know people use hand controls, and they’re not the best backer uppers. So I’m a little worried about having something actually behind them there. The guardrail scares me, too. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s why we kind of limited it to the north end of that boundary, if you could, because then that doesn’t interfere with anyone’s travel path. MR. OBORNE-If I could clarify why I put that in there. There are driveway spacing standards with the Town. They are Code. I am concerned about the vehicles. I’m also concerned about pedestrian traffic. That’s my main concern with this area here, and I just wanted to clarify that’s why, I don’t hear a lot of talk about pedestrian safety here. You have something wide open like that, there’s a lot of conflict points, and you can’t deny it. You can deny it, but, you know, in my mind, as a planner, it’s something we try to plan for. If the County took it away, trying to get the County to put it back in, that’s a difficult process, that’s for sure, especially with the funds the way they are. MR. O'CONNOR-We aren’t saying that we wouldn’t, if we can get the County to agree to it, we would fund it. I will stipulate to that, but we’ve just got to get their permission to do it. MR. CIFONE-Some sort of, a guardrail is a fence, by definition, right? So, if you had any kind of something that looked like that, that looked commercial to put, and it wouldn’t take up as much room as the plantings, to impede the cars turning, backing up there, and it would work much better. MR. O'CONNOR-Doesn’t Stewarts have some type of guardrail up near the front of their? MR. CIFONE-They’ve got a big, lawn. See how wide it is? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d just like to point out that the Code says a landscaped strip shall be provided adjacent to all public and private streets. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re not changing the parking. In fact, what we’re doing is removing part of the parking area. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s why we had you come back for Site Plan, so we can get these improvements, from a planning perspective. MR. O'CONNOR-If they’re appropriate, I agree with you, but if they’re not appropriate, there’s also a provision in there that any provision can be waived by the Planning Board, particularly as part of the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-That has the same weight as the other provision. MR. SEGULJIC-The client himself has acknowledged there’s a safety issue there, with traffic coming in to the parking lot. MR. O'CONNOR-And we’re willing to put up a guardrail there. We don’t think plantings are going to last, Tom. You can’t put trees there because of the site. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it’s shrubbery, it says shrubbery no higher than four feet. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. CIFONE-Four feet, you’re going to be division. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. There’s also a restriction some place that within 35 feet of any intersection, you’re not to impede vision, and I don’t know where that is in that particular. MR. OBORNE-It’s in the Fencing Code. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s in the Fencing Code. MRS. STEFFAN-And that is also one of the worst intersections around. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-How does the Planning Board feel about lighting? It says here lighting plan, in the Staff Notes, lighting plan to include cut sheets and foot candle luminants should be presented on a plan or with cut sheets. The applicant said that they’re not adding very much lighting. MR. TRAVER-Just one light. MR. O'CONNOR-One light. MR. KREBS-One, 65 watt bulb. MR. CIFONE-There’s existing Niagara Mohawk poles that aren’t being changed, that have the lights on them. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but I have to ask the Planning Board to put the motion forward. What does the Planning Board want to do about that? Do you want to require? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there is only the one lot, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-One additional light. MR. KREBS-And that’s actually almost in the vestibule, right? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we don’t have to deal with that, and the landscape plan. The applicant has asked for waivers on grading, landscaping and lighting. What do we want to do with landscaping? Is landscaping adequate? Because that’s what, the basis of some of the discussion we’ve just had. What’s the decision? MR. SIPP-If you can convince the County to put in guardrails, and I come up with some salt tolerant plantings, can we make a deal? MR. O’CONNOR-For a depth of five feet behind the guardrails, for the 30 feet? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. You’re going to lose a couple of parking spots. As Matt says, it keeps us away from the handicap. It keeps us away from the flow, the traffic flow around the, what used to be the old front of the building. We will probably lose a couple of parking spots on the north end, even with that five feet, because you won’t be able to turn into those spots at that angle. MR. SIPP-Does that snow plow, when it comes up through there, how far in does that throw snow? MR. CIFONE-It throws it all the way to his parking lot. He has to remove it. MR. SIPP-So it throws it 20 feet? MR. CIFONE-Yes. I mean, I wouldn’t say it throws it 20 feet, but probably 10 feet, it pushes it on to the property. MR. SIPP-They clear the sidewalk? MR. CIFONE-Yes. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think they have real experience, Don, with the turning lane. I think that was just put in this last year. So now when they clear that turning lane, that’s even going to throw the snow further than what they were throwing it before. I think before they kind of threw it to the sidewalk because they weren’t clearing the turning lane, but now if they clear that turning lane, that turning lane is right to the edge of that sidewalk. So if your plow’s going up there with any speed at all, that’s a good throw, and I think the County does that, Keith, or does the State do that? Is that under State contract? MR. SIPP-That’s the County. MR. OBORNE-That’s a County road, I believe. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, it’s a County road, but Quaker Road is a County road, too, but I think the State does the snow removal, under some type of contract. I haven’t seen the State on there, but I think it’s County. I think it’s County. We can ask him. MR. SIPP-Let’s find out if the County will allow that. MR. O’CONNOR-I can talk to Bill Lamy and ask him. MR. SIPP-And then we can work through that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Can we leave that, I will report by writing to Staff, I will make the inquiry in writing to the County, and I will report to Staff, and if we get the permission, then we’ll look for Mr. Sipp’s advice as to a salt resistant planting. MR. SIPP-I’ve got to look it up. There are plants on here I’ve never even heard of. I’ve got to look them up and see how tall they grow. Buffalo berry, have you ever seen a Buffalo berry plant? MR. O'CONNOR-And then we’ll have a deer problem. MR. SIPP-Highly tolerant for salt. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we close the public hearing? We didn’t open it yet. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there are no members of the audience present. Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and I will make a motion to Approve Site Plan No. 51-2009 for Linda Hart. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II Action. Paragraph Four E does not apply. The applicant has requested waivers for grading, landscaping, and lighting. Those are granted. This is approved with the following conditions. Number One, and these are reflected in Staff Notes. That parking requirements should state restaurant and not auto body repair shop on Page S-1 of the plans. Number Two, that the handicap loading area to be nine feet in width, per Building Code of New York State, please revise Plan S-1. Number Three, again, referring to Plan S-1, the recycling dumpster in the rear is visible from Cronin Road. Per 179-5-150, the receptacle is required to either be screened by foliage or solid fencing, or moved so it is not visible from the public right of way or contained within the structure. The applicant will enclose the dumpsters with a solid fenced area, with a gate, to conceal it from public view. Number Four, the applicant must consolidate the parcels associated with this site in order to avoid side setback variances, per 179-3-040, and avoid a variance for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per 179-13-010. Condition Five, all wastewater will need to be compliant with Town Code. Condition Six, restricting access to the site should be explored with the County. A maximum driveway width of 40 feet for access off of Bay Road is recommended. Potential benefits of restricting access would be increased pedestrian safety and a 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) decreased potential vehicular conflict points on the west side of the parcel. Perhaps a guardrail would be appropriate. Please provide Staff with the documentation of your discussions and outcome. If the guardrail is installed, then the applicant will install a five foot wide planting island with Town recommended salt tolerant species under four feet in height. The applicant will submit a plan to Staff for review and approval. MR. O'CONNOR-I have one comment, if I may. We’re not going to ask the County to allow us to have a 40 foot entrance way. We’re going to ask the County to allow us to have 30 feet of guardrail, which would leave approximately 95 feet of open drive. I don’t want to be confused when you see my letter to the County saying can we install 30 feet of guardrail along that north line. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, what I read in was a maximum driveway width of 40 feet for access off Bay Road is recommended. MR. O'CONNOR-That was Staff’s recommendation and we have not agreed or stipulated to attempt to obtain that. That would totally block us up. That would, 40 feet wouldn’t even cover, well, it would cover just about the area behind the handicap, which is 27 feet, and then the people would be coming in and taking a left hand turn, or a right hand turn. MRS. STEFFAN-So you are proposing how many feet? MR. O'CONNOR-We are proposing that we install guardrails for 30 feet south of the intersection of Cronin Road and Bay Road on Bay Road, and that if they allow us to do that, we will put landscaping in for a depth of five feet behind the guardrails. MR. CIFONE-I think four foot high is too high for the landscaping, too. You’re going to block the view here. MRS. STEFFAN-I said under four feet in height. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you’re going to be limited to two feet. You’ve got to be below the car window. MR. CIFONE-You’ve got to specify plants that don’t grow, too. MR. OBORNE-So you’re going to allow them to have a 90 foot driveway into the? Is that what I’m hearing? MR. SEGULJIC-That doesn’t solve the concerns. The applicant themselves have acknowledged there’s an issue there with traffic access there. MR. KREBS-Yes, but he didn’t say the traffic was caused by his parking lot. He said it was caused by the turn lane. Okay. So don’t misinterpret what the man said. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s an issue there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So do I take Condition Six out, or do I amend it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, to comply with what the client offered, you would change Item Six, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they’ve offered to improve the conditions by adding the guardrail and the landscaping. It’s not ideal, but it does work, and I think that it’s also important to consider the business impact. MR. KREBS-And actually, you’re saying you’re going to put something along that 30 feet. You could easily put a split rail fence that would be probably more attractive than a, it’s not going to cost you any more than a guardrail. It would cost less, and it would be more appropriate, I think, for the restaurant and for the area, but it would be high enough that no one would drive through it. MR. O'CONNOR-You could put a timber guardrail, you know, eight by eight with a plank on the top of it. MR. CIFONE-Pressure treated and be green. MR. KREBS-Yes. I wasn’t forcing you. I was just making a suggestion that. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. O’CONNOR-But, Mrs. Steffan, what I was trying to make sure was that the record didn’t say that we were agreeing to cut this back to 40 feet. We think that that would have a business impact on us, and it also may very well create traffic flow patterns on the site itself. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we need to strike condition six from my motion, but I need for somebody to come up with the language on what condition six should say. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the second part of your sentence was good, that we would contact the County, and that part, and report on whether or not we can establish a barrier of 30 feet from the intersection back, and if we can, we will then do, try to do some landscaping within five feet of that. I don’t know. MR. OBORNE-Ma’am, if I could have you start over with the resolution, it would make it a lot clearer. I really apologize. I know Maria’s going to have a bear of a time with this. If you care not to, then that’s fine, too. MRS. STEFFAN-I just need, I need some clarity on what the Planning Board wants to say in Condition Six. The applicant’s made a recommendation and somebody’s got to come up with some language. It’s not making sense to me. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my concern is it seems to open ended to me, the guardrail. You’ve offered to approach the County, what if the County says no, we’re not going to let you do that? Then there’s nothing binding. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Why don’t you say we’ll put up a barrier of some nature for traffic, 30 feet along that 30 feet that we’ve talked about, and we will put in planting as recommended by Staff for the first five feet. Let’s bring it to a close here. I’ll still go to the County and see if I can get them to do it. If I can’t, we will do it, but you’re not on the hook waiting for us to get the County. Is that agreeable? MRS. STEFFAN-The applicant will install a 30 foot landscaped island. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, from Cronin along Bay Road. Landscaping to consist of salt tolerant plantings as recommended by Staff. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2009 LINDA HART, 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 proposes a 575 square foot addition to south side of building for new restroom and office. Commercial expansion in the CI zone requires Site Plan review and approval; and 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/25/09; 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. 51-2009 LINDA HART, 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, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four G, the applicant has requested waivers for grading, landscaping and lighting which are granted. 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 action, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) 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.Waiver requests granted: grading, landscaping & lighting. 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] l.This is approved with the following conditions: 1)That parking requirements should state restaurant and not auto body repair shop on Drawing S-1. 2)Again on Drawing S-1, handicap loading area should be nine feet in width per Building Code of New York State. 3)Again on Drawing S-1, the recycling dumpster in the rear is visible from Cronin Road. Per 179-5-150, the receptacle is required to be screened by foliage or solid fencing, moved so it is not visible from the public right of way or contained within the structure. The applicant will therefore enclose the dumpsters with a solid fenced area with a gate to conceal from public view. 4)The applicant must consolidate the parcels associated with this site in order to avoid side setback variances per 179-3-040 and avoid a variance for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per 179-13-010. 5)All wastewater will need to be compliant with Town Code. 6)The applicant will install a 30 foot landscaped island from the corner of Cronin Road, along Bay Road, for a depth of five feet. Landscaping items will be as recommended by Staff with salt tolerant species. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you for your patience. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 SEQR UNLISTED GENERAL TIMBER AGENT(S) KURT KOSKINEN OWNER(S) FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC ZONING LC-10A LOCATION LAND LOCKED PROPERTY WEST OF FRENCH MOUNTAIN APPLICANT PROPOSES A TIMBER HARVESTING OF TREES 14” AND LARGER ON MULTIPLE PARCELS TOTALING +/- 318 ACRES IN THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE & QUEENSBURY ON FRENCH MOUNTAIN. TIMBER HARVESTING IN THE LC-10 ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/10/08 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 167.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-28 SECTION 179-6-010C MR. HUNSINGER-Our last item of the evening is the proposed motion for General Timber. I think everyone received the e-mail from Staff with the proposed language. MR. OBORNE-You should have a hard copy that I passed out also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you, Keith. Are there any particular items or comments that members would like to add? MR. TRAVER-I think it looks good. Something vaguely familiar about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Who is responsible for hiring the person who’s going to oversee this? MR. OBORNE-Oversee? MR. SIPP-The actions of the logger on this. Is there going to be somebody, are they going to hire a forester? MR. OBORNE-They do have a forester on retainer. Yes. MR. SIPP-Is he going to be the? MR. OBORNE-He’s a consultant. I don’t think he’ll be following. The person who is the forester for General Timber is a certified forester, using that best management practice forestry manual that has been submitted. MR. SIPP-Well, I would like a third party involved here. MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t think that at, at SEQRA, that’s where you’d be doing that. You’d be doing that at Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to move the motion? I think you can just move it as written, as prepared. MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE PLANNING BOARD CONCERNING THE PROPOSED TIMBER PROJECT AS DRAFTED BY STAFF, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, on July 27, 2009 the Town of Queensbury Planning Office received a letter from Alexander Grannis, DEC Commissioner designating the Town of Lake George Planning Board as lead agency for the proposed General Timber project, and WHEREAS, Commissioner Grannis noted that continued consultation with Queensbury Planning and other interested agencies will enable Lake George Planning better identify the full range of potential impacts of the project as well as to explore alternatives and mitigation to avoid or minimize those impacts. Such consultation will also enable other agencies to specify those studies and data that may be needed to support their later SEQR determinations and jurisdictional decisions, and WHEREAS, the Town of Lake George Planning Board and the Town of Queensbury Planning Board will both conduct Site Plan Review, and 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/25/09) THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, The Queensbury Planning Board respectfully petitions the Town Of Lake George Planning Board to consider the following issues during their SEQR review: The factors of Steep Slopes, Erosion and Sedimentation, Construction of new logging trails, Wildlife to include potential endangered species, Visual impacts and the Quantity of timber harvested within the Town of Queensbury. Further that the applicant use and have inspected by a qualified third party the practices as outlined in the New York State Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality. MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE PLANNING BOARD CONCERNING THE PROPOSED TIMBER PROJECT AS DRAFTED BY STAFF, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Looking at our calendar for September, the first meeting is on the th 10. The Saturday before that is the Saturday of Labor Day weekend. So I won’t be available for site visits. I don’t know about anybody else. th MR. SEGULJIC-Why are we having the meeting on the 10, if I may ask? th MR. HUNSINGER-Because the 15 is Primary Day. Okay. Any other business, comments? Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to remind everybody that I will not be at the September Planning Board meetings, and so you will all need to be making the motions, or prepared to make motions. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 62