Loading...
2009.11.17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 53-2007 Provident Batavia, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14 Site Plan No. 36-09 Cellco Partnership [dba Verizon Wireless] 2. SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No. 307.-1-31 Site Plan No. 43-2008 Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, L.P. 3. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.5 Site Plan No. 31-2009 CES Holdings 4. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 3-2009 Tax Map No. 290.-1-21.3, 21.4 Site Plan No. 47-2009 Marvin Stan Dobert 9. Tax Map No. 309.10-2-26, 27, 28 Subdivision No. 13-2008 Mary Sicard 18. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 289.6-1-3, 5; 289.6-1-17; 289.10-1-4 Site Plan No. 57-2009 Michael Breda 24. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30 Site Plan No. 58-2009 Smaxl Holdings, LLC & It’s Affiliates 29. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-22 DISCUSSION ITEM 1 Main Street, LLC 37. 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 11/17/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I’ll welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. I’ll call the meeting to order. Our first item on the agenda is approval of minutes thnd from September 10 and September 22, 2009. MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF THND SEPTEMBER 10 AND SEPTEMBER 22, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Under Administrative Items, we have actually three items, a new one came to light this evening. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 53-07 PROVIDENT BATAVIA – FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-They’ve requested further tabling. Are they requesting a meeting in December? MR. OBORNE-That’s a good question. I think we should go ahead and do that to the second meeting in December, with the anticipation that it’ll probably be tabled again, but in the hopes that it will get through the ZBA, maybe we can have that meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the way I read that letter, I thought that we should probably table it th until February, that way everything gets done. Because there’s a January 15 deadline. If they’re still talking and it’s not going to get resolved until December, that’s going to put it into February anyway. MR. OBORNE-I’ll do whatever the will of the Board is. MR. TRAVER-They’re still negotiating, so it sounded pretty indefinite. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. So it may go away. MR. SEGULJIC-I have one question. Do we know the status of the stormwater controls? I know they installed them, but are they being inspected? MR. OBORNE-The stormwater, they’ve been vetted by VISION and they are in very good stead, very good shape. MR. SEGULJIC-I know they put them in, but they’re being inspected routinely? Because I know a year ago they put them in, they didn’t inspect them, and then they went back to VISION. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. OBORNE-We have not received any inspection reports, no. So, as far as, the Town hasn’t inspected it. I was up there last month and everything was fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because I meant to go out there and I didn’t. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t think it’s too big of a concern because they (lost word) the heck out of it, and they put a heck of a lot of vegetative controls on it at the right time. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because I’m just concerned. MR. OBORNE-I’m with you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks, Tom. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC, 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 2,503 sq. ft. single family dwelling with a 406 square foot attached garage. This proposal has been classified as a Major Stormwater project; Planning Board review and approval is required. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/07, 7/28/09, 9/22/09 & 11/17/09; and 3)On October 2, 2009 correspondence was received from Karla Williams-Buettner from B P S R requesting to be tabled due to the filing of an application for an Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision by Robert & Victoria Glandon [scheduled for the December 09 Zoning Board meeting]; and 4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled to the February 16, 2010 Planning Board meeting, with an application deadline of January 15, 2010 for any new materials. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m impressed that you actually had the February date, 2010. MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry? February? th MR. HUNSINGER-16. MR. OBORNE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 36-09/UV 66-09 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP [dba VERIZON WIRELESS]: PLANNING BOARD TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PURPOSES OF SEQR REVIEW MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve been asked, I’m sorry, we haven’t been asked. There is a discussion as to whether or not the Planning Board wants to seek Lead Agency Status for purposes of SEQRA review, and there are Staff Notes associated with the project. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? Would anyone like to put forward the resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN NO. 36-2009 FOR CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan Review and Use Variance application for Cellco Partnership: Use Variance: Applicant proposes construction of a 120 ft. high wireless telecommunications facility. Telecommunication Towers in the MDR & LC zones are allowed only by Use Variance approval. Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 120 foot tall wireless telecommunications facility. New Telecommunication Towers are subject to Site Plan Review and approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: Adirondack Park Agency, Zoning Board of Appeals MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN NO. 36-2009 FOR CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2008 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-And then the new item is, this was just received today, a letter from Jon Lapper, attorney for Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, L.P. Apparently, which project is this on? MR. LAPPER-This is the office building behind Rich’s office on Bay Road. It was approved a year ago, and they sent that letter in originally in August, but trying to be smart and not lose the month, I asked that it be put on a month later, and so it probably got lost in the shuffle, so now it needs to get done this month, so it doesn’t expire. Rich is just waiting to build it until there’s some tenant interest in this economy. So it’s all approved and ready to go, but he has no interest in building it yet. So we’re just seeking one year. MR. HUNSINGER-Is he looking to build it in the Spring? MR. LAPPER-Yes. I mean, he’d like to get it done next year, but he’s just waiting to get part of it leased, and then he’ll put it in the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So just a one year extension on a prior approval? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL FOR ONE YEAR FOR SITE PLAN NO. 43- 2008 SCHERMERHORN COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And I’ll give you back the original letter. MR. FORD-And for the record, that was Mr. Lapper responding on behalf of the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Tom. SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CES HOLDINGS AGENT(S) J. LAPPER BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING, PAVED PARKING AREA, PRIVATE ROADWAY EXTENSION AND ASSOCIATED STORMWATER DEVICES AND LANDSCAPING. MULTIFAMILY BUILDING IN AN 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. CROSS REFERENCE SB 4-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/13/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE ACOE WETLANDS LOT SIZE 18.05 & 13.39 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290-1-21.3, 21.4 SECTION 179-9-010 JON LAPPER & MIKE FARRELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready, if you could summarize the Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-One moment, please. Site Plan 31-2009 and Freshwater Wetlands 4- 2009. The applicant is CES Holdings. The requested action multifamily dwellings in the SR zone require Site Plan Review and approval. Also Freshwater Wetlands for construction within 100 feet of a wetland. Location is Ridge Road. The existing zoning is SR-1A. This is under the Old Code, hence the SR-1A. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant proposes one multifamily town house unit, paved parking area, private roadway extension and associated stormwater devices. Multifamily in a SR- 1A zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: The proposed project is what appears to be the final phase for the complex. Site limitations appear to preclude further development. The 4 unit structure (4-plex) is to be built on fill material existing on site. Additional grading and site work will be done. As the Board already knows, this was tabled back in, I’m not quite sure when that was tabled. MR. LAPPER-I think June, the first time. MR. KREBS-June the first time. 8/15 the second time. MR. OBORNE-Excellent. As far as Staff comments go, everything’s pretty much been done. I do want to go to Additional Comments. Concerning SEQR, the Planning Board must review this proposal and its potential environmental impacts. Options include re- affirmation of previous SEQR findings if applicable. See attached minutes, SEQR resolution and approval resolution for S.P. 30-2001M. Also, it has been ascertained from the Director of Building and Codes that a waiver for imported fill is not necessary from the Board of Health, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Mike Farrell, Project Engineering, and Mickie Hayes, applicant. We were tabled last time with a pretty long list of issues to address, mostly engineering, and we were pleased to get what looks like a signoff letter from Paragon, what they characterized it as some minor technical issues 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) and we’re in agreement with all of that. In general, the project was, became permissible because the Town brought the waterline close to the property, and Mickie was able to get rid of the wells and connect to public water. Previously there was a separation issue distance issue. So this final phase wouldn’t have been permitted because of the location of the location of the wells. When the wells were no longer needed, it allowed this last four plex. So the project exists. This is just adding four more units, and the only thing interesting about it is that the wet pond is within 100 feet of the Federal wetland which otherwise wouldn’t have 100 foot buffer, but in Queensbury it does, and a little bit of the paving, I think a couple of thousand square feet of the driveway, but that goes into that wet pond that gets treated. So nothing is going into the wetland untreated. So, Mike is here to go over any detailed engineering comments, anything that you guys would like commented upon, but we feel good, based upon the Staff comments and engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Did you want to add anything? MR. FARRELL-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up to questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-So the proposed septic system for the new building is going to be outside that 100 foot buffer? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s going to be to the east of where the building is? MR. FARRELL-That is correct. MR. SEGULJIC-The only issue with that is whether you’re, if you’re going to bring in imported soil. MR. FARRELL-We are going to bring in sand for that system. We did do some test holes out there and we found some construction debris in the fill that’s there now. There was some concrete. So we will get that fill out of there and put in good clean sand for the sand filter of the system. MR. SEGULJIC-Which is a pretty typical operation, I assume. Right? MR. FARRELL-Standard, and the sand is usually, it’s a form of treatment. I mean, the entire Lake George basin is treated with sand filters. That’s how the wastewater’s treated from the plants up there. So the more sand you get, which this is a fill system, will have about six feet of sand underneath it, before it gets down to the original soil which was on the site. So it’ll treat through six feet of sand. MR. FORD-What’s the daily anticipated effluent going into the septic system? MR. FARRELL-Three hundred and thirty gallons per day per apartment complex, 990 gallons total. MR. LAPPER-That would times three, it’s a four plex. MR. FORD-There are four. That’s over 1200. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s in the report. MR. FORD-Doesn’t that require a SPDES? MR. FARRELL-I believe it’s 990. MR. LAPPER-It’s three, two bedrooms and one three, that’s why. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. FARRELL-There’s three, two bedrooms and two, three bedroom. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. There’s a sheet here from the Water Department. Projected water use, 541 gallons per day for new construction. MR. FARRELL-And we did have water records on the facility. It was interesting. The facility is using about 75 gallons per day per bedroom, which it’s designed on a 110 gallons per day per bedroom. So the actual water records that we pulled from the Department, from Queensbury’s Water Department is, they utilize less water. MR. LAPPER-That’s not unusual. You design for 110, but a lot of times you use less than that. When you have actuals, because you have an existing project. MR. FORD-But do you have the potential for over 1200 gallons per day? MR. FARRELL-No. MR. LAPPER-No. I was wrong, because it’s only three, two bedrooms and one three bedroom. So it’s 110 per bedroom. MR. KREBS-No, three two bedrooms and one three bedroom. MR. LAPPER-Three bedroom. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly understand that the math works because I went through this project, but I’m always nervous, when we’re putting septic tanks into areas where the water table is high and there’s wetlands all around, and there’s very little margin for error. MR. LAPPER-Well, but here we’re outside of the wetland or the wetland buffer, and because of the existing fill, we’re well above the water table. MR. FARRELL-And we did do a test pit in the fill itself, and went down eight feet with no water. So the water is down in the existing material 16 inches into the ground from the original soil tests that were done. MRS. STEFFAN-The stormwater reports work. So, you know, I’m not an engineer. It’s not what I do. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? The public hearing was left open from the prior meetings, from prior tablings. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No takers? Okay. Well, since there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any outstanding questions, issues from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think we just need to re-visit the SEQRA, because this originally received a Negative Declaration. Do any of the Planning Board members have any concerns with this? If we did seek a review again, would there be any concerns that would be raised? Otherwise we can just re-affirm the Negative Declaration from the past. Okay. MR. FORD-Let me just raise one. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, go ahead, Tom. MR. FORD-One point that I’d like to have somebody address who is more knowledgeable than I. As we add these new to an already existing complex, is the potential there for the septic system, when added to what exists now, to be excessive? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) We’re looking at this as just a single addition, but it goes into the same area where there are other septic systems in close proximity. I just want to make sure that we’ve, to my satisfaction, that we’ve addressed that, as an add on, an add in to that soil. MR. LAPPER-Mike should address that, but these are separate systems. So it’s not like we’re expanding an existing system by putting in more lines to make it larger. These are standalone leach fields for each building. MR. FARRELL-Yes, they’re standalone, and the close proximity of systems that are out there now are directly across the street from one another. This system will actually be located the farthest away from any of the systems that are on the site today. The systems that are there now that was previously approved are in close proximity to one another, but you’re building a sand filter, basically, a six foot sand filter, which is a standard effluent treatment system for wastewater treatment plants. So the more sand you get the better treatment you get, the deeper the sand. MR. FORD-Thank you. I just wanted to touch that base. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other final questions, comments from Board members? Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? Well, maybe we should discuss any conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t see any in the Staff Notes. The Eljen system was the outstanding issue, but that was addressed. The SEQRA was something that we needed to consider, according to Staff Notes, and then the Director of Building and Codes identified that a waiver is not important, is not relevant for imported fill. So, other than that, I didn’t see any conditions that were suggested by our Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there were some outstanding engineering comments. MR. FARRELL-Yes, and we’ve read through those and we’re planning on addressing all of those. There were a few numerical errors on the plans that confused. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any that you think are going to cause any problems? That require us to talk about them this evening? MR. FARRELL-No. I don’t believe any of the, they’re all clean up items for final plans. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought, too. Yes, okay. So just final engineering signoff. MR. KREBS-There was that one that the Director of Building and Codes believes that the Eljen waterway system designed for the project is not appropriate for the system for this use. Has that been addressed? MR. FARRELL-Yes. I actually spoke to Dave Hatin in regards to that, and it is an approvable system. It’s, Appendix 75A is actually more up to date than the Queensbury Code. So it’s a system that’s accepted by the New York State Health Department, and he’s okay with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and it’s used in a lot of our lake projects. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-2009 CES HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 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 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) approval. Freshwater wetlands permit needed for construction within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/09, 8/25/09 & 10/20/09; 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. 31-2009 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-2009 CES HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been re-considered and the Planning Board has re-affirmed a Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four F does not apply. Paragraph Four G, no waivers have been requested. 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)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has re-affirmed a Negative Declaration; 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)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. 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 condition that the applicant will receive final engineering signoff. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN 47-2009 SEQR TYPE II MARVIN STAN DOBERT OWNER(S) 52 MAIN STREET, LLC ZONING MAIN STREET MS LOCATION 50-52 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. NEW BUILDING ATTACHED TO 50 AND 52 MAIN STREET AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN THE MS ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 42-09, SP 11-05,SP 67-04, NOA 3-04, UV 44-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/9/09 LOT SIZE 0.08, 0.16, 0.19 TAX MAP NO. 309.10-2-26, 27, 28 SECTION 179-7-010, 179-9-010 STAN & MARVIN DOBERT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 47-2009, Marvin Stan Dobert. Commercial expansion in the MS zone requires Site Plan Review and approval. That is the requested action. The location is 50 through 52 Main Street. Existing zoning is the Main Street zone. SEQRA Status, this is a Type II, no further review necessary. Project Description: Applicant proposes renovation and expansion of existing buildings, construction of a 900 square foot new building attached to 50 & 52 Main Street and associated site work. The project proposes a mix of residential, office, and retail space. Commercial expansion in the Main Street zone requires Site Plan review and approval. Staff Comment: The applicant has received an area variance on September 16, 2009. The Planning Board had issued a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning Area Variance 42-09 on September 10, 2009. The applicant and project engineer met with the town engineer and planning staff on October 8, 2009 to discuss stormwater issues, parking and additional site issues. It was agreed to place all parking in the rear and incorporate permeable pavers in the front. As you see, there are some additional comments. I have spoken to Stan prior to this meeting, a couple of weeks ago, Stan, concerning just the build out and everything that’s going through the Site Plan Review process, and he has assured me that we will get this done properly, and I believe there are some changes to my Site Plan that you want to present to the Board, if the Board is willing, and with that, I will turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. S. DOBERT-Stan Dobert. MR. M. DOBERT-Marvin Dobert. KEVIN WOOD MR. WOOD-Kevin Wood. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? Is there some new information you wanted to present? MR. M. DOBERT-After talking with Keith, we’ve revised our, put our heads together and revised our parking plan, and refined our landscaping plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. M. DOBERT-So, we have this ready if you want to take a look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Are members open to? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. M. DOBERT-It’s pretty straightforward, not too different from the last one. MR. FORD-That will help me. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. M. DOBERT-There were some issues that we, from the last meeting, that we needed to address, which mainly was the parking, put the parking in the back. We’ve had parking in the front for many years, and it was hard for us to let go of that easy, but we have, and as you can see, we’ve accounted for two handicap in the back, and a future interconnect with our neighbor, and the front is all permeable brick pavers, just like this. It’s pretty straightforward. MR. TRAVER-There was an issue concerning chain link fence, and it’s not clear from the submission tonight if that’s been addressed. MR. M. DOBERT-Yes. That would be on the landscaping plan, which is the next sheet. So we did another handout. Are there any other questions on the parking? MR. FORD-Did you give consideration to that recommendation relative to bike rack? MR. M. DOBERT-Yes. Bike racks are, I’m a bike enthusiast, and I’ll put ten bike racks in if it’s allowable, and they’re movable, so, yes, I think a bike rack’s a great idea, considering we’re having a bike path go right down that street. MR. FORD-Yes, good. MR. M. DOBERT-So the question is, we’ve been given the variance to maintain the building footprint as it is, and not build, not bring the building to the build to line. So the question is, how do we delineate that? And with it making and falling within the guidelines, and the chain link fence obviously wouldn’t be a great idea. So what we’ve proposed here is a, we’ll use these permeable brick pavers as the base and do it in a different color, and then use some kind of a wrought iron cast, semi permanent fencing, that will show where the build to line is, and I’m thinking maybe it may be a, one of the positions may be a restaurant application, so we’d have a retractable awning kind of thing coming out to it. MRS. STEFFAN-That would be nice. MR. M. DOBERT-And then beyond that, we’ll have some cast iron tree grills, and then a freestanding, double-sided monument sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that interior illumination? MR. M. DOBERT-Behind the letters illumination. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SIPP-Now, you’ve got, on the landscaping plan, you’ve got two red maples, one on the front of the building. Red maples that close to the road are not going to survive because they’re not salt tolerant. So I would think you would get another tolerant type tree in there. The listing of red maple in the new zoning laws is incorrect. MR. HUNSINGER-You think it would be a problem that far off the road, Don? MR. SIPP-Well, you know, those plows when they come through, they’re moving 30, 40 miles an hour coming down that road. They’re going to throw that snow quite a ways. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have a suggestion for them? MR. SIPP-An oak will do it. All the birch trees are tolerant, or you can go to pine tree, but I wouldn’t recommend the pine in that position. MR. OBORNE-If you just directed the applicant to place a salt tolerant species there, let the applicant pick it out, if that’s okay, I think that may be a way to go. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SIPP-Yes. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. FORD-Because as we look through the Adirondacks, we see some trees that we might be recommending as evergreen and they are obviously not salt tolerant. They’re dying off, at a much greater distance than this from the road. MR. OBORNE-And I think that you would be, to a certain extent, be saving the applicant money in the long run. MR. FORD-And getting at our intention. MR. M. DOBERT-So we’ll put whatever tree is salt tolerant. We just pulled red maple off the guidelines, because I think that it was gingko and red maple were all. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I know gingko is salt tolerant. That’s my understanding. MR. M. DOBERT-We had some trees that were so salt tolerant that we cut them down several times and they kept coming back. So maybe we should just re-plant those trees back in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, why the pavers in the front? MR. WOOD-Well, the idea kind of came out because we were discussing with Keith and a representative from VISION Engineering that, you know, these buildings are set so far back from the road, we’re not allowed to put parking up there, what do we do? We have this big empty space, you know, and so we threw around the idea of maybe having a restaurant as a component of this development, and Stan was thinking that it would be nice to have a paved area out front where you could put tables or have kind of a café sort of feel, and so we selected the permeable pavers as the element of the stormwater management as well, so you kind of, you know, achieve both of those. That’s how we came up with the permeable pavers out there. MR. SEGULJIC-Doesn’t it say landscaping in front, though? MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, landscaping includes wrought iron fence, is what. MR. SEGULJIC-And pavers are considered? MR. OBORNE-Well, pavers as a patio element, absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. OBORNE-Yes, we want to promote that type of pedestrian access and especially with the restaurant idea to have tables on the outside. MR. SIPP-Do you have a rough idea of the size of the sign? You’ve got a monument sign. Is there any dimensions that you have in mind for that? MR. M. MARVIN-I think we went with the maximum dimensions that were allowed. MR. SIPP-And I’m, signs are not allowed on Main Street, are they, unless they’re attached to the building? MR. OBORNE-I believe there is no provision in the Code that says they’re prohibited. If there are to be signs, I believe they need to be monument signs, but I can certainly vet that for you, but I know that there’s a detail of the sign on the plan in the original submissions. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that monument sign to have landscaping around the bottom? It’s got a little square around here. I just wasn’t sure. MR. M. DOBERT-It’s brick. The building will be a combination brick and composite siding, permanent siding, and we figured keep the Main Street look and make the monument sign brick, illuminate it also. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but will there be like a little planter box around the? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. M. DOBERT-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there is a little diagram, on the one plan that was submitted, of the sign, but it didn’t have dimensions on it. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. M. DOBERT-Keith, we worked with the sign. What were the dimensions on the sign? MR. OBORNE-If you are 15 feet from the property line, it’s 50 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Yes, sign plan, 50 square feet at 15 foot setback. Yes, but the actual little diagram doesn’t have dimensions on it. MR. M. DOBERT-Okay. Five feet by ten. Five feet high, ten feet long. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And when you settle on that design, you probably want to submit one particular, either if the Board tables you tonight or not, I don’t know, you’re going to want to submit more particular details of the sign, and colors, what are you thinking. I know that you’re still at a development phase right now, but you’re certainly going to want to put that into your list of things. I don’t know if the Board would want to see those details. I’m sure you’re going to want to see building colors, etc. MR. WOOD-Yes. They’ll have to get a sign permit at the time that they do that. Right? MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s still part of Site Plan Review, though. MR. WOOD-Okay. So just like something generic, if they don’t know who the tenants are going to be, necessarily? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. WOOD-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you have colors planned for the building? You said brick, but the composite material, what color are you planning? MR. M. DOBERT-We haven’t nailed that down, but it’ll be red brick, in the same vein as the many buildings in Glens Falls, alternating brick to a composite siding, which will be neutral, something whitish, grayish, and then brick, and then whitish, grayish. So there’s four buildings combined, break it up a little bit. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-A question regarding your note, just so I understand what you’re saying here. I guess there’s confusion as to where the road’s going to be exactly. So you don’t know where the, just so we’re all clear on this. What is your plan, then? MR. M. DOBERT-The build to line delineation, what we’re talking about with the wrought iron semi-permanent fence, is from the diagram may not be to scale or may not be right on, because we don’t know exactly where the street is going to be and where the curb’s going to start. MR. SEGULJIC-So your plan is you’re going to go out and put the pavers down and then once you can move that fence or whatever? MR. M. DOBERT-Yes, move the fence, or even, the pavers can move, too, but the pavers don’t go down until the road is finished, and then we can measure off from the road. I don’t know, we don’t know exactly what the measure to line is going to be. MR. SEGULJIC-What is the status of that road? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. OBORNE-It’s going to begin in the Spring. That is the target date is in the Spring, and although this, I believe, has been going on for about five or six years now, they’ve been saying the Spring, I think this one is getting closer, to be honest with you. MR. FORD-It really can’t get further away. MR. OBORNE-I can’t disagree with you, sir. I do know that in order for them to do landscaping, prior to the road being done, it just doesn’t appear to be logical. So, you’d want to condition that based on completion of the road or something or something along those lines, when you come down to the final approval, whenever that is. MR. WOOD-Yes, I think that, you know, when we were kind of talking about this, the idea was that that portion of the site wouldn’t be developed really until after the road’s complete MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So you’re not going to put down the pavers until? Okay. MR. WOOD-Right, and then they would just build up to the sidewalk and make it, you know, match it to the existing construction of the road. MR. SEGULJIC-Which, as much as we’d like to see it approved before, but I can understand your concern. MR. M. DOBERT-Yes. I mean, that was the thing. You put the trees in, you build, and then you find that, well, in fact, they want to be over here, you know, and then put the sidewalk or whatever, and then you’re ripping stuff out. MRS. STEFFAN-But certainly if you were able to, you know, lease it for a restaurant use, you could put the pavers in, you could put maybe an overhang for an outside café seating and it’s unlikely that the road would come right up to that spot. So at least you could do part of it. So that you could use your property and make some money on it. MR. M. DOBERT-For sure, we’ll make it look as nice as we can get it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening that was tabled from September. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? I’ll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I have a comment I’d like to make. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Tom. MR. FORD-And that is a compliment to the applicant who really listened at our last meeting, even though there wasn’t much to listen to initially. We did react, and that was taken to heart, and good creativity has been brought to this, to bring it into compliance, and I appreciate the effort that has been made so far. MR. M. DOBERT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Where are we? What’s the will of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I have no problem going forward with it. MRS. STEFFAN-We just have to decide, you know, which conditions are important. We’ve got these drawings but, Keith, do you have copies of these drawings that the applicant submitted tonight? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I have them right here, ma’am. MRS. STEFFAN-You have them already. So they’ve technically been submitted to the Town. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. OBORNE-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-So the access, the two way traffic, and the 24 foot drive aisles have been, that condition’s been met, that were in your Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-It appears to have been, yes. Having looked at these, I’ll probably have to do another review on it, to be honest with you. Right off the bat, I’m going to want to have a dedicated interconnect that is, although it is shown here, it’s not demarcated, signage. The two handicap spaces look fine. That’s great. So, again, I haven’t had enough time to really look at it, but it doesn’t mean I can’t do it in the future, in the near future. MR. HUNSINGER-Where would we locate a bike rack? MRS. STEFFAN-In my mind that doesn’t really matter. I think we just need to tell the applicant that they have to put it in. I mean, once they design their site, they can figure it out. MR. OBORNE-Not in the middle of a drive aisle or anything like that. MRS. STEFFAN-We don’t need to micromanage it. MR. WOOD-For what it’s worth, I don’t know how much influence the four corners here would have for landowners, but that would be Daniels, Gleason, Dobert, and the other one, right off the top of my head I can’t remember. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there a church right across the street? MR. WOOD-No, a pools and spa. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Yes. MR. M. DOBERT-Possibly we could, the four of us could get together and give our input to either the Board or, I don’t know if we have any influence in the way the County or the Town is going to roll that corner out and where they put the drains and where we put the bike racks and what side that bike route is actually going to be on and where the pedestrian walk is going to be. MR. OBORNE-I’m pretty sure the bike route is on the western side, or across the street from your spot. Again, that’s not nailed down. As far as influence, I’d hate to hazard what influence you would have on the County. I mean, this is a County project, as far as the road goes. So, I can’t answer that question. MR. M. DOBERT-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t want to dissuade you from not attempting to contact the County and see what their feelings are on that. MR. M. DOBERT-Yes, I mean, in reality, we’re the long term stewards of this corner. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you are. MR. M. DOBERT-And have been and will be continuing so. Maybe we can give our input to the County I guess. I don’t know. I just don’t know how to do that yet. MR. FORD-You just used some good words as part of your introduction when you do make your presentation, the long time stewards. MR. M. DOBERT-Right. MR. FORD-There’s been a commitment, and continues to be, and a desire for further commitment. MR. KREBS-And I’ll tell you, the Town Highway Superintendent, Mike Travis, would be more than willing to sit down and talk to you about that, and how you present it. I mean, he’s very capable and very accommodating. So he doesn’t have any authority, because he’s the Town Highway Superintendent, but he certainly works with the County all the 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) time and I’m sure that Mike Travis would be more than willing to help you out in that area. MR. M. DOBERT-Yes. For instance, on Gleason’s property, which is west of us on Richardson, there’s a hitching post, still in existence from 18 something, still there. Nobody’s hit it. Though they seem to hit our corner all the time. MRS. STEFFAN-You mentioned the Gleason property. I’ve gone by there, in the 30 years I’ve lived here, thousands of times, and that property is always so meticulously maintained. It’s beautiful. MR. KREBS-And they’re going to loves their front porch. MRS. STEFFAN-They are? MR. KREBS-If you have to go back to the building line they will. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s no landscaping unfortunately. Absolutely. Yes. Does the Board wish to see colors? Do you want to discuss that a little bit? Because I know that, and maybe Stan could elaborate on the type of facades you’re planning. I know that brick is part of it, and I know I saw stucco on some of your other plans. I’m not quite sure exactly what you want to do, but if you want to belay any fears the Board may have by giving them that information. MR. M. DOBERT-Alternate the buildings will be brick and then either a, some type of composite stucco or a composite something that would look like wood, but classic look, you know, nothing trendy. We just want to keep it conservative and something that’s easy to maintain and lasts for a long time. MR. FORD-Not vinyl siding. MR. M. DOBERT-No vinyl, no. MR. OBORNE-That’s prohibited. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s just the one building would be brick? MR. M. DOBERT-Well, originally we had the middle building as brick, but we’re going to do the end building as brick also. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. M. DOBERT-The end on Richardson, facing Richardson, the side facing Richardson. MR. FORD-When would be your preferred initiation of construction? MR. M. DOBERT-Well, we’re hoping to get started and spend 12 to 18 months on it, but get started as soon as possible. So, you know, December/January is when we’re going to do it. We’d like to go ahead and, the actual ground disturbance isn’t that great. This is actually a small area. So we can get in and get that done without, in the winter, without too much extra cost. It’s more expensive to do that in the winter. So we would have liked to have done it in the Fall or in the Spring, and still may do that, depending on costs, but, you know, if it’s 30 or 40% more to do the excavation and the foundations, in the winter, just everybody moves slower. It takes more time, it costs more money, but labor is good right now. Now is the time to build. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I think now would be a good time. MR. M. DOBERT-(Lost words) a lot of stuff, building material, labor and everything. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, what do our agendas look like for December? MR. OBORNE-We’re at one, we’ll have two, but they won’t be full. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-I see us liking the concept, but I think there are some details that need to be fleshed out. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and I think that, and certainly Keith needs time to look at them, and we rely on him to review the plans for thoroughness, completeness and accuracy. MR. FORD-He should be able to do that, and still give him the go ahead prior to the initiation. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. We could put them on for say the later December meeting, actually both meetings are in the same week. So it’s not real relevant, but if we put them th on the meeting on the 17, table them with conditions, and then give them two weeks to th turn it around, so if they had materials in by the 4, would 12 days be sufficient? MR. OBORNE-I think so. I think so. I think there’s really not going to be an issue on my end. I think it may be an issue on the applicant’s end. We may want to poll them. Do you think you can turn around, and we can obviously meet again and turn this around and get details to me and details would be sign, signage, other details. MR. HUNSINGER-And building colors. MR. M. DOBERT-Sign, building colors, materials. MR. FORD-Materials. th MR. M. DOBERT-Yes. I don’t think that’s a big deal. I won’t be here on the 17. I’m traveling overseas. So, my dad will present. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing is that if you wanted to wait until January, then we could th give you, December 15 would be your deadline to submit materials for the January th agendas, which would be, the first January meeting is the 19 of January. MR. M. DOBERT-I’d like to get on with it if we could. MR. OBORNE-Do you have your building applications, do you have your building plans in to the Building Department? Because that’s going to take two weeks to review also. So you’re going to want to get that going also, obviously. I don’t see any issues as far as the building, what they’re proposing, as opposed to the Site Plan. MR. M. DOBERT-You mean structurally? MR. OBORNE-The structure, exactly. MR. M. DOBERT-Yes. MR. KREBS-Now the signage itself will depend on who eventually you have as occupants, right? Because will that pylon sign be shared with the occupants. So you’re not going to get an exact sign until such time as they have occupants. MR. OBORNE-True. MR. M. DOBERT-Well, the sign will be more permanent. MR. KREBS-Physical size, but I’m saying what’s on it will be. MR. M. DOBERT-Exactly. MR. FORD-That will change. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that can change. It’s going to be a leased property. So you’ll never know. MR. M. DOBERT-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, one tenant could be there and it could turn over in a year. You never know. MR. OBORNE-Well, let’s hope not. MRS. STEFFAN-As long as it meets Code, in my mind, I’m happy with that. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. M. DOBERT-So I’d prefer to do the sooner meeting, if possible. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. M. DOBERT-And we can get our stuff together and submit it. I think it’s, we’ve gotten through the heavy lifting so far. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-So what are the outstanding issues, besides sign details, building colors, building materials, plan review. MR. M. DOBERT-Bike rack. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, according to Keith’s Staff Notes, that I think we should go through, even though this plans have been submitted and Keith has them, we just saw them tonight. So, as a tabling item, parking access for the two way drive must have a minimum 20 foot drive aisle, handicap parking issue, a dedicated interconnect or shared access point on the east property should be placed on the final plans. Final plans must list the name of the preparer on all the pages. Final plans must be sealed by a project engineer. The applicant will install a bike rack in order to promote pedestrian visits on the property. I don’t know whether we have to have the condition on prohibited materials. Because we can put landscaping requirements, all landscaping shall be salt tolerant, and then proposed building color should be submitted for review. Building colors will be brick and neutral composite materials. Please submit samples, and then, just make sure the other conditions. The particulars. The monument sign will be Code compliant with interior illumination and surrounded by a brick planter box to be landscaped. Place salt tolerant species in place of the two red maples, and then the fencing around the permeable pavers facing Main Street will be wrought iron. Those are the things I wrote down. Those are Keith’s things. Those are the things I wrote down. How did they sound? MR. OBORNE-I think that sounds pretty good. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, anything else from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. M. DOBERT-I just have a question on the interconnect. I don’t know how this goes down because it’s our property and the adjacent landowner. So I don’t know. MR. OBORNE-It’s a proposed interconnect. If somebody is to develop your property next to you, if you were to purchase that property as discussed, that interconnect is on the Site Plan and it is something that must be utilized when developing the next parcel. MR. M. DOBERT-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Part of your approval. It doesn’t mean you have to put the interconnect in now. You don’t have to put the interconnect. It’s like a paper road. MR. M. DOBERT-Sure. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s the first step in a two step process. So since it’s on your plans, then that gives the Planning Board some leverage when the next property comes up for Site Plan Review. It’s there, and so probably a condition of their approval would be to put an interconnect with your property. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. FORD-No, I’m good. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show I did leave the public hearing open. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2009 MARVIN STAN DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes renovation and a 2,180 sq. ft. expansion of existing buildings and associated sitework. Further, the applicant proposes 900 sq. ft. construction of a new building in order to connect 50 and 52 Main Street. Commercial Expansion in the MS zone requires Site Plan review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/22/09 & 11/17/09; 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. 47-2009 MARVIN STAN DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th This is tabled to the December 17 Planning Board meeting, with a special th extended deadline of December 4 for submission of new materials, so that the applicant can address the following issues: 1.Parking access for two way traffic must have a minimum of 24 foot in the drive aisles. 2.That the handicap parking must have an unloading area with a minimum dimension of eight feet by eighteen feet, combining one loading area for the two proposed handicap spaces. 3.A dedicated interconnect or shared access point along the eastern property line should be placed on the final plans. 4.Final plans must list the name of the preparer on all pages. 5.Final plans must be sealed by the project engineer. 6.The applicant will install a bike rack in order to promote pedestrian visits on the property. 7.All landscaping on the plans should be salt tolerant. 8.Proposed building color should be submitted for review. The applicant has suggested that he’ll be using brick and neutral composite materials of earth tones. We would like the applicant to please submit samples. 9.That the monument sign denoted will be Code compliant, will have interior illumination and will be surrounded by a brick planter box which will be landscaped. 10.The applicant will replace the two red maples on the plans with another salt tolerant species. 11.Fencing around the permeable pavers in the front of the building facing Main Street will be wrought iron. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a month. th MRS. STEFFAN-So, just to reiterate, on Friday, December 4, you’ll have to have your materials in to Keith, so that they can make sure that they are reviewed for our meeting th on the 17, and in light of those things, you know, it certainly looks like, if you provide us with all the materials, you should be ready to be approved at that point. Okay? MR. M. DOBERT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008 SKETCH PLAN & RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA SEQR TYPE I MARY SICARD AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) MARY SICARD & OTHERS ZONING RR; WR LOCATION GLEN LAKE ROAD/NACY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH LOT SIZES RANGING FROM +/- 0.34 ACRES TO +/- 11.0 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 20-09 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) [5/20/09] LOT SIZE(S) 42.38 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-3, 5; 289.6-1-17; 289.10-1-4 SECTION A-183 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, any time you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. This is a Sketch Plan. Subdivision 13-2008, applicant is Mary Sicard. Requested Action: This is a Sketch Plan, Sketch Plan only. Location is Nacy and Jay Road on Glen Lake, or adjacent to Glen Lake. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential 1A and Rural Residential 3A. Again, this is subject to the old Code. This is a Type I Realty subdivision. That is the SEQRA Status. Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide 6 parcels totaling 42.38 acres into 16 lots ranging in size from 0.35 acres to 11 acres in the Waterfront Residential one acre zone adjacent to Glen Lake and the Rural Residential three acre zone to the east of Glen Lake Road. Staff Comments: The lots associated with this subdivision vary greatly in topography. On the west side of Glen Lake Road, in the Rural Residential zone, slopes of up to and greater than 25% are prevalent. Although the lands on the east side of Glen Lake Road, within the Waterfront Residential zone, are considerably less steep, slopes of up to and greater than 25% are present. See drawing C-1. A quick description of the soils, not the greatest soils in the world. Per the description, the applicant has requested a waiver from the density requirement per A-183 which is the Subdivision Regs, for the proposed lots on the east side of Glen Lake Road. Please see Page One of Jarrett Engineers, PLLC letter dated October 27, 2009 attached with my notes, and what follows is Sketch Plan Review. Again, the purpose of Sketch Plan, there is no resolutions associated with it. Only impart the Planning Board’s wishes and desires upon the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-And before I turn it over to the applicant, I did want to just elaborate and clarify, we did get an e-mail from Staff yesterday. The only thing we’re really looking to do this evening, outside of Sketch Plan Review, is to seek Lead Agency Status. MR. OBORNE-Well, you won’t be seeking Lead Agency tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MR. OBORNE-You have to wait until the Preliminary. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s December. MR. HUNSINGER-December, just Sketch Plan, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But we have to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR. OBORNE-Not tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Not tonight. Just Sketch. MR. OBORNE-Sketch Plan, and again, I’d turn it over. MR. JARRETT-Good evening, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. With me is Mary Sicard, and I would have introduced her as the matriarch of the family, but I might get a comment from Mr. Ford about what I mean by that. We have introduced this project to you before. It is complicated. I hope you recall what we talked about before and I hope our materials are relatively clear to you. As Keith read, we have six lots west of Glen Lake Road and 10 lots proposed east of Glen Lake Road. Those 10 lots, right now, contain 13 residential structures. So the project may look dense, sound dense, but we’re actually reducing density on the lake, and we are not building on the lake within those steep slope areas or within wetland areas, and even though the soils sound ugly, they’re really, they’re permeable and they’re ugly only from a draughtiness perspective, from a growing perspective. Really not bad from a construction perspective. So, I’d like to put that in context or have you put that in context. I’m not really sure what I should address for you, and so maybe I’ll open it up to questions and then maybe we can flesh out any confusion or questions that, issues that you feel you have. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember when we did this Sketch Plan before. On the east side of the lake, at the end of the day, you’re looking to demolish and remove seven existing structures and replace them with four? MR. JARRETT-Yes. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Okay. The math is we have 13 existing residential structures. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JARRETT-We’re removing 10 of them, ultimately, and then building seven new. So we end up with ten net. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Only three of them that are existing remain intact, and those are the family houses, Mary’s house. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like on C-3 there’s four. MR. JARRETT-Well, on C-3, those are not residential structures, per se. They’re accessory structures, those two below George Street, south of George Street. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Those are not inhabited structures. Those are rec buildings and a pool, and we do need a variance for those structures. That’s one of the variances. They’re existing. They’ve been there for years and years and years, but we need a variance for those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-There are quite a few variances, but I think if you pour a cup of coffee, roll up your sleeves and look at these, most of these are fairly benign variances and they’re related to existing structures and existing features that have been there for many, many years, and we’re actually trying to clean up the site and improve it greatly. MRS. STEFFAN-I applaud your use of color on these drawings. It was very helpful. MR. JARRETT-It’s helpful to us. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I usually take my highlighters and color things, and so this is much easier for me to be able to see what’s staying, what’s going. It’s very helpful. MR. JARRETT-My staff didn’t like me asking for that, but I needed it, too. MR. SEGULJIC-So if I understand this, the green structures, I guess once the lot is sold and someone proposes a house, that’s when the green structure comes down, and a new house is constructed? MR. JARRETT-Right. For now, when the lots are created, those green structures will remain, but we anticipate somebody will tear those down eventually and build something new. MR. SEGULJIC-But the purple structure says it will be removed upon subdivision approval. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s going to happen right away then. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Out of curiosity, why is that? MR. JARRETT-Because we would have more than one structure on a lot, which is not allowed. We would only maintain one structure on a lot. MRS. STEFFAN-In order to get the density, you have to take those buildings down. MR. JARRETT-Density and one principal use, one principal structure on a parcel. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. FORD-Why not, some of those green structures are too close to the lake, right? MR. JARRETT-Yes. One of them is. I think it’s Lot One is the only one that’s too close to the lake, if I recall correctly. MR. TRAVER-The one furthest to the north is, right? MR. JARRETT-Yes, but I don’t see that reflected in our chart accurately. We show it as 76 feet. That’s for the new structure. I’m sorry. So one existing structure would be too close, temporarily, right. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s 69 feet. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So then the subdivision on the west side of Glen Lake Road, you don’t need any variances for that portion? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Why not remove the, if there’s only one that is too close currently, as part of this, why wouldn’t you remove that? MR. JARRETT-We actually, the other structure on that lot is also too close. So, the family would like to keep one of those structures temporarily until someone buys the lot and tears it down, two on that lot. MR. FORD-And the purpose of that is? The reason for that? MR. OBORNE-The reason why you want to keep it? MR. JARRETT-Right now it’s rental income for Mary, so she needs to keep those structures as long as she can. MR. HUNSINGER-So the property on the west side, you’re just going to sell the lots. So you’re not showing, you’re not depicting actual clearing areas? MR. JARRETT-No. These are just theoretical structures to show the Board that the lots are developable, and we will prove that to you in preliminary and final design. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-That’s all we’re trying to do here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, because that, it’s a heavily wooded site, right? MR. JARRETT-It is heavily wooded. A lot of it is brush, but it’s all woodland of some type. There’s a couple of clearing areas that are shown on the survey map which you have in your package, and we are trying to take advantage of those, but heavily wooded, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wonder, you know, again, you’ve only depicted it for purposes of illustration, but, you know, such long driveways, you know, it might make sense to have the houses closer to the road, and it’s actually, you know, more consistent with the neighborhood, which is, you know, more, greater density. MR. JARRETT-You’re right. Yes, it depends on a lot of different factors on where they might build, you’re right. We just showed it back. We’re expecting that when people buy a three acre lot they want a little bit of privacy. They might want to build back off the cul de sac, and we showed it, we tried to show it realistically. Lot 17, for example, that house is shown in an existing clearing area that overlooks the wetland, and that’s a gorgeous spot. It’s private and it overlooks the wetland. It’s beautiful. MR. SIPP-Have you taken any test borings to see where the water table is? MR. JARRETT-Limited. We have to go out and do that now after we get done with Sketch Plan Review. That’ll be submitted with the Preliminary. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. SIPP-Is it, you know, two, three feet down, do you think? MR. JARRETT-No. It’s generally very deep, except down in the northwest corner of the western three acre zoning, on Drawing C-2. As you get toward the wetland, it’s much lower in elevation and the groundwater is shallow, but we’re not proposing to build there. Elsewhere on the property is all deep sand. MR. SIPP-And while we’re up in that area, what are the FEMA restrictions, are there any FEMA restrictions? MR. JARRETT-We show a FEMA line on here. That is the restriction, but we’re not building in that envelope. If you look on Drawing C-2, we show that. MR. SIPP-So that line doesn’t carry any? MR. JARRETT-We would have building restrictions and building requirements if we tried to build inside that envelope, but we’re not proposing to build in there. MR. OBORNE-That’s a flood zone, is it not? MR. JARRETT-Right. That’s correct, and it more or less coincides with the wetland setback anyway. So they really work together there. MRS. STEFFAN-What is the trail in there? Is that a walking trail or is that the, that’s not the bike trail. MR. JARRETT-That’s a walking trail. I don’t know, I could ask the family if anybody but walkers use it. MR. OBORNE-Tom and I used it in the summer, I believe. MR. JARRETT-That’s right, we did. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Were you walking or driving? MR. OBORNE-We walked, and we picked up quite a few ticks, actually, and walked on other people’s property, too. MR. JARRETT-We didn’t need to go that far. It is just a walking trail, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other feedback from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess a big picture question. I assume this is going to be phased in over a number of years, as lots are sold it’s going to, like as far as, you know, replacing the (lost words) taking down these homes, we’re talking a number of years, I assume. MR. JARRETT-It depends on the economy. You’re right, it’s going to take a little while to do this. Cash flow will dictate what happens on the western side of the road especially. The eastern side of the road is a little easier to accomplish because most of the infrastructure is in place. MR. KREBS-Plus the fact those lots are going to be very desirable. MR. JARRETT-They will be in higher demand. You’re right. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, anything with waterfront. MR. JARRETT-That economy is still there, I think you had said, or largely there. MR. FORD-It’s been hit somewhat, but not like the rest. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the total length of the cul de sac, less than 400 feet? MR. JARRETT-I didn’t measure that. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just looking at the scale here. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. JARRETT-I think it’s just slightly over 400 feet, not travel lane length, but the length of the tip of the cul de sac, just over 400 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Certainly within limits then. MR. SEGULJIC-And also on Sheet Three you also have a FEMA marker, is that the flood? MR. JARRETT-Along Glen Lake? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We find it hard pressed to see flooding that high on the property, but that’s the FEMA line. MR. OBORNE-It also corresponds with the CEA that’s on the lake, too. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my only comment is, I’m fine with everything. My only comment is vegetation and getting some buffering installed along the lake. MR. JARRETT-We’ve stipulated in prior correspondence, that we don’t plan to take any trees down, and we anticipate you may require Site Plan Review for those waterfront lots. So, vegetation we see as a plus here, and an individual buyer could come in with a selective clearing plan if they wished for you to review, but we think it’s a plus. We think the trees on those lots are beautiful. MR. SEGULJIC-Trees are a plus. MR. KREBS-I think in the long term it’s going to be a major improvement. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-No, it’s a complex project, but I think certainly, you know, phase, I think it would improve it, and certainly make it more marketable. MR. KREBS-Well, certainly on the lakeside you’re going to be eventually moving the buildings back from the water a little farther, and, you know, you’re going to get rid of some cottages that are not exactly. MR. JARRETT-They’re old and they’re tired. MR. KREBS-It’ll make it look much better. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and you’ve got wastewater reserve areas, and there’ll be new compliant systems and so from a. MR. OBORNE-And not to sound like an advocate for this, you know, I’m middle of the road, obviously, there will be stormwater controls and wastewater systems where those are very limited at this point right now. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So next month they come back for a recommendation. MR. OBORNE-The only way they’re going to get a recommendation is if they bring in Preliminary. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So you’ve got to get to Preliminary at this point. MR. JARRETT-And I’m going to want to sit down and discuss this with you, because the family doesn’t want to get too deep into design before we have some feedback from the Zoning Board, but I understand there’s a process we have to go through. MR. OBORNE-That’s law. I mean, it’s a coordinated review. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. SEGULJIC-And then when would we do the recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR. HUNSINGER-The first of January, the first January meeting. MR. OBORNE-The first January Planning Board meeting, correct. MR. JARRETT-That’s presuming we don’t prevail in the argument to move forward right now before Preliminary design, and then if we have to go to Preliminary design, then we need time to submit those documents to you. th MR. HUNSINGER-And our first January meeting is the 19. Anything else, any other comments from the Board, any questions of the application? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I think it’s a good start. MR. HUNSINGER-I would agree. MR. JARRETT-So your policy now is not to offer a resolution at Sketch Plan Stage, right? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. JARRETT-Okay, but it looks like we have concurrence to move forward on this. Is that a fair statement? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t hear any glaring concerns. MR. SEGULJIC-I think you already addressed this, but this comes in under the old Code? MR. OBORNE-It does come in under the old, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So don’t throw them away yet. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. JARRETT-All right. Thank you for your time, and we will be back in some fashion. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-And again, thank you for the color coded, I think that this made this plan much easier to review. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. JARRETT-We will carry that throughout. We will carry that kind of a clarification throughout. SITE PLAN NO. 57-2009 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL BREDA OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NC LOCATION 323 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE EXISTING USE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE SPACE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 5-09, SP 41-09 LOT SIZE 1.07 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30 SECTION 179-9-010 MIKE BREDA, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize your Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 57-2009, Michael Breda is the applicant. Site Plan Review for professional office in the NC zone. This is a change in use. Location: 323 Aviation Road, existing zoning is Neighborhood Commercial. This is a Type II SEQRA. You’ll notice under the Parcel History that Sub 5-09 was a three lot subdivision approved on 9/22 of this year. The Project Description: Applicant proposes to change existing use for this 1.07 acre parcel from residential to office space. Professional office in the NC zone requires Site Plan review and approval. Staff Comments: The applicant is proposing converting a single family dwelling into an adult rehabilitation office. The space is 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) proposed to be utilized as such until the prospected Dix Ave-Aviation Road-Farr Lane roundabout is built. The plan for the roundabout is currently at the design phase with utility re-location discussions slated for the week of November 16. The applicant has requested waivers from lighting, landscaping, grading, utilities, topography, waste containers, parking/traffic flow, septic/sewer, stormwater and land-use district boundaries for this project. As this is a very unusual request based on the cumulative amount of waivers sought, the Planning Board may want to review each of the waiver requests on their own merits. Fire Marshall’s comments attached, and what follows is Plan Review. It’s pretty boilerplate stuff, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BREDA-Hi. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. BREDA-Mike Breda, owner of World Class Kids and 323 Aviation Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Could you tell us what you’re looking to do? MR. BREDA-Well, you’re all familiar with the situation with that property. We subdivided, decided to keep the brown house, the 323 Aviation Road, until the roundabout goes in. I knew all along that I would rent it somehow instead of leaving it vacant at the time of the approvals back in September. Was going to it residentially, but then a friend of mine approached me, had a small rehab business she would like to run out of there. She lives on Dixon Road in Queensbury. So I said that would be great. I think everything would fit your needs, and then I was informed that I would need a change of use permit. Technically it was used as a residence before, although you could argue that because Tinker Malley, who lived in there prior, did have an office for his excavation business, but it was residential, so she has a small office use that we’re changing into. MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit that recently I, my mother lives two blocks behind there, and so I go by there many times a week, and you’ve cleaned up the house very nice with that excavation business gone, the property looks very nice. MR. BREDA-Thank you. MR. FORD-Nice improvement. MRS. STEFFAN-So I appreciate that. MR. SIPP-How many clients do you? MR. BREDA-She has five adult, five full time clients and one part time client, two employees. So there’s not a lot of, I’ve discussed with Keith. He’s been to the property. We went over a couple of things. I’m not changing anything on the outside, no stormwater issues, wastewater issues, parking, driveway. Everything stays the same. We did add, at Keith’s request, and after discussing it, just two gravel parking spots off the existing blacktop area, just to make it more convenient for the two parking cars. Nine to five, Monday through Friday. MR. SIPP-How many clients would be there at any one time? One? MR. BREDA-Six maximum. MR. SIPP-Six maximum. MR. FORD-None in residence there. MR. BREDA-No. Nine to five. Monday through Friday. MR. KREBS-And your prospective tenant does understand that at some point? MR. BREDA-It’s temporary, yes. That was all in, we talked about that. All she asked for was a six month notice before anything went forward. We had no problem with that. I’ve talked to Dan Stec and numerous other people and we know it’s temporary, whether it’s two years or five years. I do need to, I hate to leave it vacant and rotting. So I did put quite a bit of money into, I put a new roof on, painted some trim, as you noted, cleaned up the property, cleaned the sidewalk, the Town sidewalk which was just about buried, 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) uncovered that and I did three, I did plant three trees, one blue spruce in the corner of the house in the breezeway, and two arborvitaes at the front entry, just to enhance some landscaping. MR. SEGULJIC-So no changes to the site? MR. BREDA-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, my only concern is that it becomes, you know, a lot of people there at once, but you’re saying that’s not going to happen. MR. BREDA-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So there shouldn’t be any traffic issues, parking issues. MR. BREDA-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re going to install two new gravel parking spots. MR. BREDA-Parking spots. Yes. MR. FORD-You’re not adding any external lighting? MR. BREDA-No. I have two outside low watt dusk to dawn lights, one over the garage, and there’ll be one over the front door. MR. FORD-That’s current? MR. BREDA-The one over the garage is current. The one over the front door will be new, just so it’s not pitch dark. We went over, I have all my handicap accessibility, emergency lighting, exit lights, fire alarms. She has to meet all those. With her business, she has to get an inspector in there to meet all that stuff also, fire codes and handicap accessibility, so I accommodated her with all that is done already. MR. SEGULJIC-I have no problem with this at all. My only concern is that if she becomes wildly successful, let’s say. What is adult rehabilitation? They stop by for an hour, they stop by for eight hours, they stop by every day? MR. BREDA-Most of them are there for all day. There are some that just come by for a couple of hours. Most of them have some sort of brain trauma. She teaches them how to use a computer. They do arts and crafts. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s really intensive with each individual, then? MR. BREDA-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And so I know with like a daycare center there’s space limitations and size limitations. Do those same kind of standards apply? MR. BREDA-Yes. I do not know what that limitation is, how much space per client that she has, but as long as she’s been in business, which I think is six years, she’s only had that number of clients. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-And it’s a pretty good ratio, three staff to six clients. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So it sounds like most of the people get dropped off for a period of time. MR. BREDA-Correct. Most of them take a taxi. There’s two gentlemen that show up together, because I guess they’re in the same home or something. The taxi will pull in, back in to the other location, and pull out. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MRS. STEFFAN-It certainly seems like a reasonable use for the property in this location. There was, Staff Notes I think you said that you wanted access on Farr Lane versus Aviation Road, but it doesn’t seem like there’d be a lot of traffic. MR. OBORNE-I had to do some type of review on this. MR. KREBS-Well, and the other thing is I think if it was going to be a long term use, you know, for the next 25 years, that would absolutely make sense to go off Farr Lane, but with the temporary nature, that’s a huge expense to do for. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s very different, the farm stand that was there in the summer, it’s a great farm stand, but when there’s eight or ten cars, and they’re all trying to get on at Farr Lane and you’ve got people coming in from Aviation, it causes a little chaos. So I think leaving the driveway where it is, is probably the best idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone 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 commentors. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess the only comment, then, is the two gravel spaces. Where do you propose those? MR. BREDA-I can put those in tomorrow if you wish. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, where? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s shown on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-It is? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. On the one plan. MR. SEGULJIC-I missed that. Sorry. MR. BREDA-No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, to the east of the garage. MR. BREDA-I guess, we were going over it. I guess this way they could pull into those spots, back in to the east and then be able to pull out easier. That was the purpose of those, just more convenient to pull out. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. I just didn’t look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s a Type II SEQRA. So I guess if someone wants to offer a resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-How about garbage, because that’s one of the waivers, waste. MR. BREDA-Yes, it’s just one of those garbage that they pick up by the bar and dump in. I don’t know how many gallons that is, 60 gallons I guess, the green. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s the same as a residential. MR. BREDA-Yes, the same as a residential garbage pick up. MR. HUNSINGER-And is it, do you keep it in the garage? MR. BREDA-It’s just to the right of the garage door on a slab, on a concrete slab. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s okay, as long as it’s not one of those big metal things that a truck’s got to come, then I’d be okay with a waiver on that. MR. FORD-And there’s one? MR. BREDA-One. We went over, and that’s all she needs. They don’t have much garbage. MR. HUNSINGER-Any Board members have any concerns with any of the waivers requested? MRS. STEFFAN-So lighting, landscaping, grading, utilities, topography, waste containers, parking, traffic flow, septic and sewer, and stormwater. Okay. Do I even have to say anything about the two additional parking spaces? I mean, they’re depicted on that plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s on the plan. So I don’t think you need to say anything. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Great. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2009 MICHAEL BREDA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 5)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to change existing use from residential to office space. Professional office in the NC zone requires Site Plan review and approval. 6)A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/17/09; and 7)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 8)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2009 MICHAEL BREDA, 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, it’s a Type II action. Paragraph Four F does not apply. Paragraph Four G, the waivers requested for lighting, landscaping, grading, utilities, topography, waste containers, parking/traffic flow, septic/sewer, and stormwater are granted. No conditions. n)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 o)Type II action-no further review necessary; and p)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 q)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 r)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and s)NOT APPLICABLE The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) t)Waiver requests granted: lighting, landscaping, grading, utilities, topography, waste containers, parking/traffic flow, septic/sewer, and stormwater are granted; and u) 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; and v)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and w)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff x)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System]; and y)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; and th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. BREDA-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 58-2009 SEQR TYPE II SMAXL HOLDING, LLC & IT’S AFFILIATES AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) KNIGHTS OF GLENS FALLS ZONING CI LOCATION 989 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS OF A PORTION OF EXISTING KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS BUILDING TO CREATE A RETAIL SHOWROOM. CHANGE OF USE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 49-96, SV 36-97, BP 96-655, SV 97-3008, TB MTG. 10/19/09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/11/09 LOT SIZE 3.5 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-22 SECTION 179-9-010 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 58-2009, Smaxl Holdings, LLC. Change of use requires Site Plan Review and approval. Location is 989 State Route 9. That is the Knights of Columbus. Existing zoning is Commercial Intensive. This a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes renovations of a portion of existing Knights of Columbus building to create a retail showroom for the sale of custom cabinetry and appliances and office space. Change of Use requires Site Plan review and approval. Staff Comments: The site is located on a 3.58 acre parcel on the west side of State Route 9. The proposal calls for the creation of a 6100 square foot showroom with 3,890 square feet of ancillary office and storage space on the second floor. The Knights of Columbus Council 194, which currently occupies the site, will have 3,570 square feet culled from the first floor for continued operations. The applicant received approval for a third variance/waiver request from the sanitary sewer connection requirement concerning this property on November 2, 2009 from the Queensbury Town Board (see attached resolution). According to the applicant’s narrative, the site will remain in its current state with renovations occurring solely inside the structure with the exception of a change in the existing sign graphics as submitted. The applicant has requested waivers from grading, lighting and stormwater. Fire Marshal has reviewed the plan, and I have had discussions with him and has no issue regarding access for emergency vehicles. I think the only issue that I have is that the future parking spaces and small office be removed from the plan as I think it’s unnecessary at this point. Unloading area poorly defined, and they need one more handicap space, and that’s about it, and the landscaping, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicant, and with me is Stephen Jackoski, who is a principal of the applicant. Basically I think that the application speaks for itself. They wrote a very detailed narrative as to what their proposed uses are. Unless the Board has some questions, I won’t try to review the application. I would comment as to the Staff comments. The idea of showing the future use of the existing building that’s the rear of the main building was so that we wouldn’t, we would have an answer for you if you said what are the overall long term intentions for this site. We hope, some time, to use that for office space, and we wanted to show on the plan that if we did use it as office space we had adequate land for parking without infringing on the parking that’s associated with the front building. I think it probably would be a change of site that would require Site Plan when that building is renovated. That building right now is mainly a pole barn that’s been used for outdoor events during the summertime, but the building’s going to stay there in its present condition, and there’s no intention to put that parking in, but we wanted to show you that we had the space for it. As to the unloading poorly defined, I think that’s shown, or they show a tractor trailer along the north side of the building, and I would just indicate that there’s very little heavy duty truck traffic to this site. They basically set up displays, and it’s a display area that are there on a permanent basis. Right now they are down across from what used to be Woodbury’s or the Glens Falls National Bank, and a small building, which is Queens Kitchen, and that site is like a postage stamp compared to this site, and they have what deliveries they have to that site the same as they would to this. All they’re going to do up here is have more extensive displays, more variety in their displays of the merchandise and the cabinetry and what not that they do sell. Most of their deliveries to this site are by UPS or some other carrier of that nature. They have other warehouse facilities that they actually have the goods delivered to from manufacturers and they either go to the warehouse or they go directly to job sites. They don’t come into this building on an interim basis and then go out. So, I don’t think there’s going to be a great deal of unloading, and probably any one of the parking spots would be sufficient for the UPS truck to pull up there and drop off the few boxes that he might have. As to the additional handicap space required, what we are suggesting is that we would take the blocked area and move it into twelve, and then move twelve over to the blocked off area so that we would have 11 and the replacement of 12 as two handicap spaces. Staff has suggested that we put a handicap space at the top of the site. If you went into the building, you’d realize that when you go in that door, you either have a set of stairs to go up or to go down. The Knights who will have the use of the first floor for up to five years, actually will have access from the north side of the building on a level base just for their handicapped. So there’s not much space in putting a handicapped space up front. If you tell us to do it, certainly we will do it, but from a practical point of view, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. When we make the switch between 11, 12 and the blanked out space, we will add a parking spot to comply with the required parking numbers over at the end of the parking, the first row, right next to 35, there’s room to put a parking spot in there. So we will have the required number of parking spots, although, and I’d just say this, again, take a look at the present use or the present building that this business operates out of. They have parking for probably six cars at most down there. We’re complying with the Code that we’re going to have 40 some spots, I think, 46 spots. We won’t use 40 of those on a regular basis probably. We may occasionally use them, but the open house and maybe a couple of special events, but not on a regular basis. The other comment was clarify the removal of the three existing spruce trees. On the north end of the site, along Route 9, if you take a look at the shrubbery that’s shown there, the lighter drawn three trees are three existing scrub pine trees that have been partially damaged by salt or winter or whatever. They’ve been trimmed up because of their damage, and our thought was that we would totally remove those and replace those with new trees that would go all along the edge of our site, and I think would be like the trees that have been planted on the site to the north of us, the former auto dealership. They’d be more uniform and they’re a better looking tree, we thought. That’s really the comments. If you have questions, we’d be glad to try and answer them. MR. KREBS-I have a question really of Keith. In your Staff comments, you talk about 3890 square feet, and when I look at the drawing, it says 2570 square feet. I don’t know what the differential is. MR. OBORNE-I’d have to pull it out and look at it. You’re talking about the office area? MR. KREBS-Yes. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s a second story. MR. KREBS-See, they’re saying 2570, consisting of 1250 on this. MR. OBORNE-I’m looking at 3570 for this. So what did I say? Does that add up to 3890? MR. O'CONNOR-I think the 1250 plus the 2570. It looks like you added the storage and the second story associated with the retail showroom. MR. OBORNE-Second floor associated with the retail showroom is 2570. MR. O'CONNOR-And you added the storage. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Yes, so actually that’s the combination, 1250 and the 1320 is the 2570 then, correct, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. TRAVER-In terms of traffic and deliveries at the site, from your description it sounds as though the activity taking place on this, for this new use, would be predominantly a showroom. So that if a consumer comes in and sees, picks out a cabinetry or whatever, but the product would actually come from another location. So you wouldn’t have large volumes of product coming and going from this site, but rather it would serve as a showroom where the consumer could see displays of what the equipment and the cabinetry would look like. STEPHEN JACKOSKI MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I mean, very rarely would we ever have a client that would come in and custom order, you know, a custom made kitchen and expect to put it in their pickup truck. There’s just no way to do that. So these are displays that you come to the showroom down across from the Glens Falls National Bank that’s been there for five years. That stuff stays there. We periodically update it because trends and fashions change, but generally the stuff stays there. MR. HUNSINGER-So in terms of like delivery, a delivery truck, it’s once every few months. MR. JACKOSKI-As Mike and I talked, not even that. Once in a blue moon a manufacturer will accidentally send it to the billing address, you know, and the truck will show up on Route 9 and we’ll send them off to the warehouse, but the old Queens Kitchen used to actually get deliveries there. They’d pull up Route 9 and then back in to where we are, but tractor trailer trucks get on the site now. The Pepsi trucks come in, zoom around and go right back out. So we don’t unload there. I mean, most of the office is designers and the ladies aren’t going to be unloading a truck. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not an inventory based business. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s not inventory based. Certainly, by all means if we have a display sale, obviously the stuff’s going to sell off before. I think you might have seen signs in the windows recently, display sales, but we don’t have an inventory. I mean, somebody might come in for a hinge or a handle for a washer for a sink faucet or something like that, but generally everything is either sent directly to the job site or to our warehouse. MR. KREBS-I was in the furniture business for 12 years, and when I built my new store, we were required to have so many parking spaces, and I said, gee, if we ever have that many people at one time, I’ll have the most successful business in the world. Because this is the same way. This is a high dollar value sale per sale. So you don’t have the volume of traffic that you do in a store selling like a Wal-Mart where you’re selling $10 items. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. Generally we’ll have maybe the contractor there who might be building the house. We’ll probably have an interior decorator, and we might have the client themselves, maybe. That’s three cars at most. Obviously we have our staff. MR. FORD-But frequently by appoint. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. JACKOSKI-Always. I mean, we have very little walk in traffic. First off, we can’t give you the attention that you want if you walk in, because we’re not prepared. MR. FORD-You may walk in, but then you’ll get an appointment for later. MR. SEGULJIC-Really there’s no changes to the site at all, other than planting the trees along the road? MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, Knights of Columbus is going to stay on site, but they’re going to go on the first floor. MR. JACKOSKI-They are currently on the first floor. They utilize the back part for banquets that they rent out, and they utilize the top floor maybe for Bingo, but they are not going to be doing Bingo anymore, and they’re not going to be doing banquets. MR. SEGULJIC-So as far as the building façade, then, it’s going to stay the same? MR. JACKOSKI-Everything stays the same. MR. SEGULJIC-Everything stays the same, and how about the sewer, then, because we’ve a waiver for the sewer connection, if I’m correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But then the drawings say you’re going to go to future wastewater pump station. MR. O'CONNOR-We had to put that on the drawings in order for the application to be complete, because at that time they did not have a waiver. We have since received a waiver, and we intend to utilize the waiver and wait. This sewer connection is going to be an expensive connection because everything goes to the back of the site and is going to have to be pumped up to the road. It’s not a gravity hook up to the sewer. MR. SEGULJIC-So you got a two year waiver there, if I’m correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we did, two years from a week ago. MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds like this waiver has been going on for a while, though. MR. O’CONNOR-The K of C had two waivers prior to that. MRS. STEFFAN-And certainly the use now is going to be less intensive than it has been. I mean, they had regular banquets in there. I mean, now you’re just not going to have the volume of humanity going through there. MR. O'CONNOR-We recently had the septic tanks pumped out as part of the application for the waiver, and had a certification from the septic people that the systems are functioning, and we’ve compared just toilet flushes. You’re probably talking about five percent of what you presently have going forward, just considering the number of people that are there on a regular basis, now, as opposed to what will be there in the future, even if they’re very, very busy people, and I don’t know, really, Tom was asking the question. The K of C occupancy will be for a member home only . It will not be an establishment that is open to the public. They’re going back to their old way of operating. It’ll be. It’ll be their home. They will not have a license for serving of alcohol. MR. OBORNE-Then the signs will be coming down. MR. O'CONNOR-You mean the ones on the building? MR. FORD-The open to the public signs. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There is a sign. The only sign that Steve proposes is in the package. It’s his sign, and there’s a small mention of K of C home. MR. OBORNE-It’s a change of copy. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, of the existing freestanding sign. MR. SEGULJIC-And there may have been some comment about the K of C has a five year lease, then? MR. O'CONNOR-Up to five years. MR. SEGULJIC-Up to five years. At which time? MR. O'CONNOR-We have to prevail on his mother-in-law to tell him to be Christian. That’s how we got the five year lease. MR. SIPP-In regards to the evergreen trees along Route 9, they’re damaged, they were damaged by the snow throwing that the Town is doing on the sidewalk, and the past winter, the Town went to another machine which now loads it onto a truck, so that the damage would not be as bad as it is, but I see, you know, one tree is a fir tree, which is not doing well at all. The spruce is so, so, but if you want to remove and replace them. My only thought is that when you get up to the south end of the property, that tree is pretty close to the drive-in sign, and when that tree grows, it’s going to completely block the drive-in sign. So you may want to look at something low growing in there. MR. JACKOSKI-We tried to comply as best we could with the requirements. MR. SIPP-I understand every 35 feet, but I’m sure in a couple of years the drive-in is going to say, hey, you’re blocking the motorist’s view of my sign. MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t care. I put these trees in for Mr. Sipp. MR. O'CONNOR-So your suggestion is that the southerly tree be some type of low growth. MR. SIPP-Low growing, either that or keep it, hardwood you can’t trim back and have it survive. So you’ve got to go to an evergreen of some kind. Canadian Hemlock, you can butcher them and they’ll come back MR. O'CONNOR-He has no problem doing that, to just amend that or we’ll mark it on a map and show it. MR. SIPP-And the plantings along the building front, you’ve got a lot of work to do there. There’s a lot of weeds in that planter now. MR. JACKOSKI-There are weeds, but we wanted to keep the mature stuff, because it does hide the building. MR. SIPP-Yes. Well, anything in there, some daylilies, any kind of flowering plant. MRS. STEFFAN-In my mind, it’s up to them to make their building look attractive so folks want to go to it. It’s retail. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. My clients aren’t going to be too happy walking past those dumpsters out in the front parking lot. So we’ll make sure to get rid of those real quick. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. That doesn’t speak prosperity. MR. SIPP-Are you going to have any night operations? MR. JACKOSKI-We don’t currently. We certainly may have some specialized functions. When we were in front of the Town Board about the sewer interconnect, we did talk about possibly having some charity type guest chefs there talking about food preparation and stuff. So there may be some, very rarely, but it could be possible. We’re generally, you know, the sales staff is generally there from nine to four thirty. MR. FORD-Most night operations will be on the first floor. MR. SIPP-Well, are they going to use the picnic shelter at all? MR. JACKOSKI-At this time we don’t know what to do with that building. That’s why we ghosted it on the plan. So that you could at least see that if we do use it for office or retail or whatever, we could add the extra parking and not affect what was going to be 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) approved here tonight. It was a tough call. Keith had asked us at the review to take it off, and I was like, these guys are going to ask what we’re going to do with it. So why not put it on there and show what we can do. MR. HUNSINGER-So the Knights don’t have plans to hold picnics in the summertime? MR. JACKOSKI-No. They’re not allowed to by law. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-No. They’re lease is just going to be of the existing floor, or first floor areas, other than the kitchen, and where the existing office, they have an office in the bar. MR. HUNSINGER-So once a summer you have a staff summer picnic and that’s about it, right? MR. JACKOSKI-There’s a big barbecue pit. MR. SIPP-The sign, is there interior lighting? MR. JACKOSKI-It’s the exact sign that’s there now, just a change in copy. It is back lit. It is 14 feet one inch. It’s the exact sign that’s there. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening on this project. All right. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there are no commentors. Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any final comments, concerns from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-I wish they were all this easy. MR. HUNSINGER-The one question I had is on the pole lights. There’s only three. How often will those be on? I mean, the two that are in the way back over the crushed stone area, will those ever, even ever be turned on? MR. JACKOSKI-For security I guess they can, but quite honestly there’s not enough use in the evenings or at night. I mean, we just, they’re there now. They’re functioning well. They haven’t had a problem. I mean, if we were going to have a problem because of that they’d have it by now with the three, four hundred people on site at a time on the weekend. So we will continue to leave them like they are. MR. SEGULJIC-So where do the Knights go now? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, most of it was all public. I mean, it was Bingo. MR. O'CONNOR-Bingo Monday nights or weddings or what not. Their membership is, the active membership is down to probably about 20 people on a rotating basis, and most of the people are seventy and over, and they’ve just decided that unless they can somehow or other generate interest among younger people, it was time to make a graceful change of operations. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-At least you’re moving the dumpster out of there. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. O'CONNOR-I think they gave all the picnic tables to the City of Glens Falls. MR. SEGULJIC-Even their horseshoe pit. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s two of those out there someplace. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re soon to be removed, according to the plans, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Pull up the stakes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You closed the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I did, and it’s a Type II SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-So I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-2009 SMAXL HOLDINGS, LLC & ITS AFFILIATES, 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 renovations of a portion of existing Knights of Columbus building to create a retail showroom. Change of Use requires Site Plan review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/17/09; 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. 58-2009 SMAXL HOLDINGS, LLC & ITS AFFILIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four G, waivers are granted for stormwater management, grading and lighting. 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-no further review necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)Waiver requests granted: stormwater management, grading and 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. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) i)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff. j)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System]. k)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. l)This is approved with the following condition: That the applicant will increase handicap parking spaces to two, with those two spaces sharing a common unloading area. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-It was a pleasure being at the little table. MR. O'CONNOR-I want to make a couple of comments. He now knows the pain. MR. HUNSINGER-How nice we were. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not being here, it’s getting here, guys. The pain of getting here is something really to behold sometimes. It’s good to have somebody sit on this side of the table that’s going to sit on that side of the table and understand it personally. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know what I’ve said before, and you know, I’m not making this reference to any particular project, but if you’re a homeowner waiting to build a house and you have to wait two months, that’s an eternity, or if you’re a business owner waiting to open your business and put your shingle out front, two months or three months is a long time. th MR. JACKOSKI-We went to contract in August. It took us until the October 15 deadline to get all the ducks, you know, just the topo, just the contours. MR. O'CONNOR-You need survey, you need topos, you need an engineer to then come in and take a look and see what’s there, if it’s adequate. He went through the whole gamut, not making any external changes. It’s almost like a change of tenancy, and if anything it’s a change down. It’s a less extensive use of the property, but it’s a change from a fraternal home, or a place of public gathering to a retail space. So within the Ordinance it says you go the full gamut. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it triggers Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve said this before, and it’s just unfortunate. We have zoning in place, and we need that, but part of the reason why you have laws in zoning, some of the restrictive laws in zoning, is because folks have not done a good job previously, and so in all the years that have gone by, you know, you’ve had folks who haven’t done the right things, and so you have regulations to regulate it and it makes it difficult for the honest people. MR. O'CONNOR-They always affect the honest people more than the dishonest people. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely. MR. O'CONNOR-But I’ve decided I’m going to represent churches and the K of C in the future. I mean, they are the best Knights. Have a good evening. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) DISCUSSION ITEM: 1 MAIN STREET, LLC [PREVIOUSLY HEARD AUGUST 2009] CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-There’s really no summary of Staff Notes, again, it’s a discussion item. If you remember, this applicant was before you a few months ago. They’ve come back with pretty much the same plan, I believe, and they did try to get access through the CVS parking lot. There did not appear to be a positive outcome to that, and as such, again, they’re back trying to get some direction from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. DYBAS-Good evening. Curt Dybas representing Dr. Cavayero, who is the property owner, with me this evening, and I was before you in August and presented basically the same plan. I had two curb cuts off of Western Avenue, both in and out, in both locations on that particular plan, but we went through the building and discussed why the site was developed the way it was presented to you with the building in the center and the parking, and that seemed to be agreeable to everyone except the curb cuts, and the directive was made to go back to CVS and Dr. Koski who bought Dr. Cavayero’s practice, and see if we could secure access through this property from their parking lots. It took some time for letters, particularly with Berkshire who owns CVS, to respond, but Doctor sent out registered letters to both and in your packet both were returned negative, and I talked to Mr. Brown about that and the next step, and he said see what you can do with it. So basically from the last meeting, pretty much ruled out any idea of getting site access from Main Street or Luzerne because of the narrowness of the site and through the proximity of the corner. So before you tonight, I shortened the building up by I think four or five feet, in the east/west direction, to be able to get an access road around the back, and create an in only, which is basically in the area of the present parking, that is like a large curb cut on western. That would be the access point to the site, and then loop around the back of the building and come out farther to the north, back out onto western, away from the corner, and this is, we lost two parking places because of getting the turning radiuses, but at this point I think we’ve hit the wall as far as what we can do with this site, and that’s why we’re before you again tonight as a concept to see if we’re approaching something that could possibly work on this property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I read the minutes and I did most of the talking the last time. MR. FORD-That’s a good way to start the discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Still like your building design. It’s just too bad you can’t pull it, and put it closer to Main Street. MR. DYBAS-We talked about that the last time, but, you know, it becomes such a narrow building, an odd-shaped building, and takes away the economics of construction, and also we create a very blind corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DYBAS-And what we tried to do is, with the new Main Street zoning, is, you’ll notice on the plan there’s a series of masonry piers, and fencing between it to create the visual aspect of the boundary of the property, and also, since we have this property that’s basically the end of that entire block facing the, I think it’s the carwash and there’s a small convenience store I believe in that next block, but facing that, is to give that whole block some definition on the end of it. I mean, if we put the building right out on the corner of Main Street, we have like the dangling tail sticking out there with nothing on it except, you know, parking. We looked at it and looked at several different ways to handle it, and this seemed to be the best, aesthetically, and also for use of the property. I guess this is basically an economic building to construct. Everything is economics also as you know. MR. FORD-I appreciate your concern about the curb cuts. I tried to reverse those, but in my mind you came up with the best plan for those entrance and exits. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. DYBAS-I don’t know of any other way to do it, you know, but I talked to Craig Brown, Mr. Brown, and he said on your plan, show the two connections to both the CVS and the chiropractic center, so that if they ever come back to the Board for any action, we can hold them responsible for making that connection, and at that point, you know, we can probably adjust one of these curb cuts or something, but now it would be something that would be, upon a formal submission, if you approve, we make that, these will be shown as future connections to those parking lots. MR. HUNSINGER-No, just a comment on your traffic flow. I think that is the best way to go, because it encourages right in and right out. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, given what you had to work with, I thought you did a good job with this. MR. DYBAS-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-I know I couldn’t come up with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-And we try. KEITH CAVAYERO DR. CAVAYERO-I’d just like to make a quick comment, you know, right now, I know there’s a lot of approved funds for that whole corridor coming in. They have some great ideas. I think it’s really not going to happen overnight, but it’s going to really turn over time and with the work they’ve done in the City, and this is coming into the City, and what’s there now is such an eyesore, and just not right, and because of the size of the property, the positioning and where it widens where it’s not, I think Mr. Dybas really, you know, he was challenged with this lot, and the new zoning laws, and he really tried, he had every which way, and this is the only way that made sense, and, you know, as far as having to develop the property, even just losing those two spots and the size of the building narrowing down, you’ve got to remember, even in a good economy, in Glens Falls, the rate of return on rental and construction and land costs, even in a perfect world, keeping all, you know, everything, you’re still behind the Eight Ball on the project. So he’s really sharpened the pencil in every, you know, the best that he could to lease, so we could clean up the lot, make it look very presentable on the, you know, on coming into the, you know, your entrance, your gateway, and start the project moving, you know, downwards as time goes on and kind of setting the example, which, you know, as you know, I was very involved with the CVS project, you know, an original landowner of that, and, you know, worked on that project. So we’re trying to do the right thing, and by him, you know, and he came to me and said, look, you’ve got to lose two spots because this is not only safe, I know you’ve got, you know, it’s going to affect you economically, but it it’s safe. You have a good traffic flow, and the front side would be a real blindside. That could be a real danger and a real liability, and I think he really did his homework on this, and I was impressed, and I said, in looking at it, to work with, and the entrance, I was very pleased. MR. HUNSINGER-And I appreciate your comments about how this lot frames the block, and I think, you know, we need to have that perspective on that site. MR. DYBAS-You have such a narrow frontage. I don’t know what it is. It’s like 48 feet on Main Street. It’s such a narrow piece to focus that whole zoning to the 21 foot setback, just in that one little piece, and then not address the entire rest of the lot is, doesn’t work. If you look at the whole thing from the end, then it works. It’s similar to doing a flat iron building. A good example here is Sokols Downtown which is basically a flat iron. It fills that whole corner. If you had built it on Glen Street and left the rest, it wouldn’t be there. It just doesn’t function that way, and that was the approach, but as far as the building design losing four feet, you know, you still, you lose four feet of rental space because you still have stairs. You still have the elevator, nothing of that shrunk. You took that four feet out of rentals. So basically you lose 200 square feet of floor by squeezing it up, and that’s why he’s giving me jabs about it because, you know, 400 square feet is 400 square feet of rental. MR. FORD-And you’ve got back to back flat iron (lost word). MR. HUNSINGER-Well, do you need the sidewalk on the western edge of the building? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. DYBAS-On the western edge of the building. For access across the back, you know, you could probably cut across the front, but the problem is that if somebody parks in the back, they’re going to walk in the driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DYBAS-And also I wanted to give some visual to that corner for traffic going through. Otherwise the corner building is right there, unless we put a big steel plate on it, you know what’s going to happen to it. I do question, as far as the zoning, the double sidewalks along Main Street. I noticed you have, there’s, on the design drawings for the alteration of Main Street, there’s a sidewalk out by the curb, but the requirement is that there’s another sidewalk basically 21 feet in, so you have like a double sidewalk running down through there, and I don’t know if that’s necessary. I don’t know the purpose of that one, but that’s something we can resolve prior to a formal submission. MR. HUNSINGER-I look puzzled because I am. MR. DYBAS-Along Main Street there’s a, on the proposed redesign of Main Street, there’s a sidewalk out by the curb, and then in the zoning, they want you to address another sidewalk in at that 21 foot line. So you end up with two parallel sidewalks. It doesn’t affect the project, but it just, I don’t understand it, but I’ll get an answer. I don’t know what the Board does. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, 21 foot is the build to line, yes. MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. SIPP-What’s the matter with a flat iron building? MR. DYBAS-Nothing. MR. SIPP-Well, why can’t it exist here? Stretch it out. You’ve got a front there that’s 20 feet, where the existing house is right now. Right? MR. DYBAS-Thereabouts. MR. SIPP-So that if you made it 15 or 16, multiple of four, and then, like that. MR. DYBAS-Stretch it out across the back? A couple of things, is, Number One we addressed it the last time, talking about the visual limitations of it, you know, being right out to the corner, with traffic, particularly coming down Western and taking the turn onto Main Street heading toward the Northway. I mean, you create a very blind corner, and then also, as Doctor said, the idea of trying to rent that space, you have a very narrow, it’s a strange, very strange space to try to get a tenant to rent, because you’d have something 2,000 square feet, divided by 15. Now you’re going to have something that’s 100 feet long, is my math right, over 100 feet long. MR. SIPP-Make that your stairway or your elevator to the second floor. MR. DYBAS-Yes, but you wouldn’t want to waste the corner for elevator and stair. I mean, that’s prime exposure. You try to always put your elevator and stairs either in the core or on a back side. You keep your exposure to the public, you know, you have, in this particular layout, your exposures are north and south, and to the east. It gives you, you maximize your visual exposure to the parking and Western Avenue. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, the plan looks very nice, but I certainly know the area, and so, you know, if you decide to go forward with this, a traffic study is going to be critical because that intersection is already dysfunctional, and, yes, we’ve got the Main Street project coming, but the way that Western Avenue backup occurs every day at rush hour, it’s going to be very difficult for folks to get in and out of there, and so your traffic study is going to be critical to this particular project. There isn’t, you know, the last time you were in, we talked about the purchase of this property and what the intent was. Certainly if the connections, the future connections are there, that will serve your purposes, and if the CVS ever comes back and wants to expand or the chiropractic office ever wants to. DR. CAVAYERO-There’s no plan there. They’re a completely separate entity. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MRS. STEFFAN-That’s correct, but one of the reasons why we asked for the access as part of our zoning regulations is so if they ever do come back, that you will have the access on your property, and so, probably as a condition of their approval, we would put a condition of approval that they would have to connect to that. MR. DYBAS-Yes, and it wouldn’t necessarily mean CVS expanding, or the chiropractic office. It’s just a change of occupancy or something that would trigger a Site Plan Review would do that. MRS. STEFFAN-Perhaps, but I’m still very concerned about traffic flow and the true feasibility of this property, you know, as a viable, developable site, with the restrictions that are all around it. Just two weeks ago there was a pretty significant accident right at the four corners there of Luzerne Road and the cut off there, where the carwash is. There’s stop signs. There’s no traffic lights, and so, just from a traffic point of view, it’s a nightmare in that little quadrant. MR. DYBAS-I know right where you mean, people cutting. MRS. STEFFAN-So I’m just really concerned with developing this particular piece of property. MR. OBORNE-If I could add, present some comments, the size of the building, per the regulations, is too large, okay. You need to have basically a 13.3%, is what it comes out to, for your density. You’ll either have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a variance from that, if that’s even possible. MR. DYBAS-Wasn’t the, isn’t the FAR .3? MR. OBORNE-No, not in the Main Street zone. It’s, your density, you must have 15,000 square feet of land per principal use, and a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet per 2,000 square feet floor area. So I think it came out to 2390. I don’t have my figures with me right now. Keep that in mind, okay, and Mrs. Steffan is right. I mean, the traffic is an issue here. I mean, it’s an issue, two curb cuts on there is an issue. MR. DYBAS-I find the square footage is more of an issue, because it’s just not feasible at those numbers. It’s not a viable project. MR. OBORNE-Certainly speak to Craig about it. I mean, that is the Code. MR. DYBAS-Because quite frankly, you have 1,000 square feet, 500 square feet of floor for stair circulation and elevator. MR. OBORNE-I’m not arguing that at all. I can appreciate what you’re saying. The lot is a difficult lot. DR. CAVAYERO-Would the Town like to see it sit the way it sits for the next 10 years as far as, I’m just saying as far as the way, you know, I mean, we’re trying to do a serious investment in here, and with a, you know, again, looking at a very, we don’t even know if there’s a positive rate of return at this point. Everything has to go in a perfect fashion for that. It really has to be, for somebody that’s got to occupy the property at the same time, to do this development, to be involved in this, this really to work, but again, I’m looking at, what’s sitting there now is just, you know, with this project going on, that the house and the way the lot is sitting, it’s a real eyesore. MR. DYBAS-What would be the, what’s the natural progression now, you go to zoning to get a variance before you come back to planning? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, you would need to do that. MR. OBORNE-The first thing you would want to do is speak to Craig and he’ll have to make a determination. That’s the first thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And I just want to say, as an aside, I’d love to see this lot developed, absolutely, but you have to do it within the confines of the Code. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. DYBAS-I agree with you, but, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why there’s always an ability to get a variance because you have a slightly substandard lot. MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We can’t, in the writing of the Code, you can’t take into account every situation that’s likely to occur. So there has to be a vehicle, a variance, so that when you have an unusual lot or an unusual circumstance you can appeal it to the other Board and have their review. MR. DYBAS-If you look at the zoning that’s in place, and you’re requiring certain heights, and I don’t remember like 25 feet height in this new Main Street zone. Well, you wouldn’t build a stage front, you know, if you’re going to build that height, you would turn around and want to be a building, but you’d need a two story building. So, to look at a two story building with the confines of 2,000 square feet or whatever you can build, of which you’re giving away half for circulation, all of a sudden it doesn’t make any sense. The numbers don’t crunch, is basically what it comes down to. So the next step would be a zoning variance, and then come back, and then make a formal submission to this Board, pending a successful variance from. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Typically it would come to us for a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. DYBAS-Prior to, but the next application would be for the zoning for a variance. MR. HUNSINGER-If the Zoning Administrator determines that you need one. MR. DYBAS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why you need to speak to Craig Brown, yes. MR. DYBAS-I would speak to Craig. MRS. STEFFAN-And sometimes when the Zoning Board gets into issues of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and they’re in uncertain territory, they may ask the Planning Board for a recommendation, so that they can better consider it. MR. DYBAS-That’s fair enough. MR. OBORNE-The only thing that would trigger that would be clearing of one acre, which is not going to happen. MR. DYBAS-No. MR. OBORNE-And a commercial building 4,000 square feet or larger. MR. DYBAS-We have 4,000 square feet showing here. MR. OBORNE-It would probably be an Unlisted SEQRA. MR. DYBAS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If you were to present that. MR. DYBAS-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve been on the Planning Board going on five years. It doesn’t happen very often, but occasionally you get into a situation where you’ve invested in a property like this and it’s almost impossible to try to develop within the confines of our regulations and those kinds of things. I’m just saying because for the applicant it’s a tremendous investment to go through this whole process, the design process, which you understand, and it doesn’t always have a favorable outcome. So I just wanted to say that. DR. CAVAYERO-Well, with that being said, I mean, what else are you looking for, what else do you think, if this was your property, what do you think, what would you do with 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) this, I mean, looking at this plan? I mean, it’s like the gentleman said before, one months, two months, we’re carrying this property at $1600 a month, every month, sitting looking at it, we have other fees now invested in it, and we’re trying to make it appealing and make it workable, and I’m a simple man of simple logic. This, to me, you know, not because it’s my property, but, you know, with him doing all the work, just, it makes sense, you know, as far as. MR. DYBAS-I don’t own it. DR. CAVAYERO-Right, you know, so I guess this is discussion. I guess if we have to go back, I mean, what is the opinion? That’s a harsh answer to say that you have this investment. You might not be able to do anything with it. MRS. STEFFAN-There’ve been a couple of projects that have been before us in the last few years, and, you know, I just feel that, you know, I’m a businessperson, too, and know sometimes you make an investment and it doesn’t turn out the way you expected, and so I want folks to understand that you’re going to be going through a process and it may not have a favorable outcome, and so you have to weigh and consider how much you’re going to invest in the process, and I’m just trying to be honest. DR. CAVAYERO-I guess I’m not fully understanding 100%. I’m not, you know, that statement, you know, being on the Board and a businessperson, business owner, you know, what would you recommend? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I don’t know what to recommend. Because this is a, we’re right now, at a Sketch Plan or a discussion item, and right now we’re not doing a Site Plan. So I don’t know if all your setbacks meet the requirements. DR. CAVAYERO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know whether you can put the appropriate infrastructure that’s required here to meet all of the requirements of the Town Code, and so I’m looking at a nice picture, right now, and it looks like it fits, but in order for you to come back to us with a detailed Site Plan, that has all of the stormwater requirements met, the landscaping, the lighting, and then all the building requirements you want to meet in order to make it marketable, I don’t know whether it’s even feasible. DR. CAVAYERO-Right, but if he is able to fit all that in, and make those requirements, and meet that zoning, is that what the Board’s looking for? MRS. STEFFAN-And you have a marketable project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we can’t control the Zoning Board. So if you need a variance, you know, we can’t provide an opinion. MR. DYBAS-One step at a time. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I think that’s all, really, we’re saying. MR. OBORNE-Safety is paramount also, and it is the traffic. I mean, let’s cut to the chase. It’s the traffic. It’s the curb cuts, and that’s why we pushed so hard to get you to get those interconnects. That’s perfect. I mean, that’s a dream come true. MRS. STEFFAN-That would be the ideal situation. MR. OBORNE-But it is safety. DR. CAVAYERO-But do you think the change Mr. Dybas has made with the one, with shorting the building and looping around and having only an in and only an exit and turning back on to the correct turning lane down Western? MRS. STEFFAN-It certainly seems like the best solution for the restrictions that you’ve got in size and depth of the lot, but there’s still lots of other things to put into it to meet the standards from the Town. MR. DYBAS-Everyone have a good evening, and thank you. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. DYBAS-It’s a process. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that’s what we’re saying. Yes. Before we adjourn, we do have a workshop scheduled for next week. I think everyone saw the, maybe everyone didn’t see the e-mail, that Counsel is unavailable to discuss the ruling from the judge. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, she basically said, let me know what other night, and I can probably be there, but she didn’t give dates or anything like that. So I said we’d discuss it this evening. MRS. STEFFAN-Perhaps December. MR. HUNSINGER-And now I’m thinking it’s too bad we didn’t schedule the workshop for this evening because we probably could have accomplished it now. MR. OBORNE-We didn’t know how long Smaxl was going to take. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, maybe we could have Counsel come in December like a half hour before the meeting or something. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We’ve done that before. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fine. We’ve done that before. Okay. MR. FORD-And the alternative would be to get her dates and we’ll work around her. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s true, because, Keith, if the December meetings aren’t full, you know, even if we came a half an hour early, we would be ahead of the game. MR. OBORNE-I shall look into that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I assume the rest of the Board still wants to have the workshop? MR. KREBS-Yes, I would. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there an agenda? I haven’t seen an agenda for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the only agenda item is the scheduling, process and procedure scheduling. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone still in agreement? MR. SEGULJIC-Sounds good. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other business? MR. OBORNE-It would be in the Supervisor’s Conference Room. MR. HUNSINGER-Supervisor’s Conference Room, thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/17/09) th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 44