Loading...
2010.10.19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 2010 INDEX Site Plan No. 3-2010 Irene Marshall 1. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28 Subdivision No. 1-2010 Paul Poirier 3. Tax Map No. 209.14-1-46 Site Plan No. 57-2010 Paul Kasselman 5. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-8 Site Plan No. 63-2010 Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts 14. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-49 Site Plan No. 67-2010 Thomas & Maureen Valenti 17. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-41 Site Plan No. 53-2010 Bob Pilarinos; Dennis Pilarinos 22. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-97 Site Plan No. 62-2010 James Anthis 44. Tax Map No. 302.8-2-66.2 Site Plan No. 65-2010 Galusha & Sons, LLC 55. Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4 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 10/19/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD KREBS THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, October 19, 2010. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 17, 2010 August 24, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF AUGUST THTH 17 AND AUGUST 24, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items under Administrative Items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 3-2010: IRENE MARSHALL [TABLED TO 10/19/10 PENDING SUBMISSION OF NEW INFO BY 9/15/10 – NO NEW INFO RECEIVED] MR. HUNSINGER-The review was tabled to this evening, and they did not submit any new information. Has there been any discussion with the applicant? MR. OBORNE-There has been no new information submitted. I do recommend that you direct Staff to send a letter to her that a denial without prejudice action could be forthcoming if revised th plans are not submitted by November 15. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Again, that’s just a recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s appropriate. So I’ll open the public hearing, and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion to table this to. thth MR. SCHONEWOLF-November 16 or 18. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it would be December, right? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. FORD-It would be December. thth MR. OBORNE-The 16 or the 18, yes, would be to December, pending submittal of revised material. MRS. STEFFAN-So that would be December. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, just for clarification, when did we move the December meetings? Are they? th MR. HUNSINGER-We moved it to the 16. thst MRS. STEFFAN-The 16 and the 21? thth MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, the 15 or the 17, wasn’t it? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, we didn’t move December. We just moved November. thth MRS. STEFFAN-We just moved November, to the 16 and the 18. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s November. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but we did not move December? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, December’s still where it was. thst MR. OBORNE-You did. You moved it to the 16 and the 21. th MR. HUNSINGER-We moved December to the 16 also. thth MR. OBORNE-The 28 meeting to the 16. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I thought so. I had them circled. MR. HUNSINGER-So would it be better to have it the first meeting, before the ZBA meets or after the ZBA meets? MR. OBORNE-I would think after the ZBA meets, which would be either of those dates. th Because they’re meeting on the 15. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Let’s do the second one. st MR. HUNSINGER-December 21. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal and replacement of stairs / deck. Further, applicant proposes a new 216 sq. ft. deck adjacent to shoreline. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Site Plan review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/26, 5/20, 6/15, 8/17 tabled to 10/19/10 pending submission for new material by 9/15/10. No new information was submitted; Therefore, let it be resolved, MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) st Tabled to the December 21 Planning Board meeting. I’d also like to direct Staff to send a letter to Ms. Marshall telling her that if no new information is received by November 15th that we will deny without prejudice. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Next item is a similar issue. SUB 1-2010: PAUL POIRIER [TABLED TO 10/19/10 PENDING SUBMISSION OF NEW INFO BY 9/15/10 – NO NEW INFO RECEIVED] MR. HUNSINGER-It was tabled to this evening and no new information was received. Has there been any correspondence with Paul? MR. OBORNE-There has been no correspondence with the applicant at all, and I don’t see Tom Nace in the audience anywhere. At this point I would advise the Board with the same issues as far as Marshal goes with this. MR. HUNSINGER-It would certainly be appropriate. MRS. STEFFAN-Did you raise your hand on this? MR. OBORNE-He’s a neighbor. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re here for the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-Well, there’s no public hearing scheduled, but. MR. HUNSINGER-There isn’t? MRS. STEFFAN-But we have not heard anything from the applicant? MR. OBORNE-We have not heard anything from the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing wasn’t tabled to this evening? MR. OBORNE-I believe it was left open. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do we want to open the public hearing and take the comments? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-We might as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you want to address the Board, sir? If you could state your name for the record. You’ll need to get on the microphone. I’m sorry. MIKE WYNN MR. WYNN-My name is Mike Wynn, and I own the property that Mr. Poirier is looking to cross to access his project from East Branch Road? MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure what the name of the road is off the top of my head. MR. WYNN-Island View Drive. MR. OBORNE-That would be it. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a specific comment for the Board? MR. WYNN-Yes. It’s, the right of way that comes down East Branch Road differs from mine in that I own the right of way as it crosses my property. It’s private right of way. So I’m at a bit of a loss as to why this, why there’s even a proposed possibility. MRS. STEFFAN-When you’re not interested in cooperating. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. WYNN-No, not while I’m alive. I’m just wondering, is there something I don’t know about? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’ll certainly ask the applicant, you know, if and when he comes back. MR. WYNN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I just thought we could save you a trip from coming back if we could get your comments on the record now. MR. WYNN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you’re certainly welcome to come back when we do hear it again, if we hear it again. MR. WYNN-Okay. Understood. MR. HUNSINGER-I just thought I’d give you the opportunity to make your comments now as well. MR. WYNN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. WYNN-I guess not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, Mr. Wynn. st MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Are we tabling this to the 21 as well? MRS. STEFFAN-And do you want a similar situation, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I would advise, yes. th MR. FORD-Yes, by the 15 of November. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2010 PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Applicant proposes subdivision of an 18.50 acre lot into five lots ranging in size from 2.0 to 8.13 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands permit for disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland. Are Variance relief requested from minimum road frontage and access requirements. Planning Board to conduct SEQR review and provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and On 8/17/2010 this application was tabled to 10/19/2010 pending submission of new materials by 9/15/2010. To date no new information has been submitted; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2010 PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: st Tabled to the December 21 Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for any new th materials would be November 15. However, the applicant needs to ensure that he contacts th the Community Development Department by November 15. Otherwise we will put in a motion to deny without prejudice. th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-And just for your information, the public hearing will be held open. If we do st hear the project again on December 21, we will take additional comments. If you want to see if the project is on the agenda, you can go to the Town’s website, and it does list the agendas on the Town website. MR. OBORNE-And obviously you can call me, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, or you can call Keith. MR. WYNN-Will you notify me if it goes any further? MR. OBORNE-At this point, time has gone by where we probably would. I’d anticipate that they’d have to send a fee in for notification, because it has been a few months at this point. So, yes, me, personally we would not notify you unless, you know, we go ahead and enact that. Give me a call. I mean, you have my number, and just keep tabs on it. There’s been nothing. MR. WYNN-Good. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 57-2010 SEQR TYPE II PAUL KASSELMAN AGENT(S) DOUGLAS MC CALL OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 25 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. DOCKS WITH BOATHOUSES IN A WR ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 29-03, AV 133-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/13/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.93 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-8 SECTION 179-5-060, 179-9 DOUG MC CALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 57-2010, Paul Kasselman is the applicant. Requested action: Boathouse with sundeck in the Waterfront Residential zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The location is 25 Wild Turkey Lane. This is in the Waterfront Residential district. This is a Type II SEQR. Project Description: Applicant proposes boathouse with sundeck. Docks with Boathouses require Planning Board review and approval. I’ll just go through Site Plan Review quickly. The boathouse, as proposed, is to be 15’ – 6” above the mean high water mark and as such does not exceed the maximum 16 foot height requirement per §179-5- 060(11). The boathouse, as designed, appears to show no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities. Enhanced shoreline plantings have been submitted for review. Please see attached. Note: Plant schedule submitted does not have any species from the Invasive plants list, at this point. Additional comments: The applicant is requesting waivers from grading, lighting, and landscaping requirements, and the Warren County Planning Board Recommendation, I believe, was a No County Impact. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Since this was Expedited Review, I’ll just ask the Board if there’s any questions or comments. We did table it pending submission of the planting schedule, which was received. MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry. I believe it was also tabled because the County Planning Board didn’t take action on it last time. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Thank you. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And they have No County Impact now. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments? MR. SIPP-The landscaping that was submitted for review, none of those plants on there are in the Queensbury, Town of Queensbury’s selected plants. So, you’re going to have to have some, the steepness of that slope, you’re going to have to have something in there, and there is a tree on that far right there, far left, that needs more work there because of the steepness of the slope. MR. OBORNE-You’re looking for a more robust plan? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. SIPP-I’m looking for one that’s on the list. I think you’ve got a pine on the left hand side there. You’re going to need a lot of ground cover in order to make up for this, the 30% slope you’ve got there. MR. HUNSINGER-So what do you think’s lacking, Don? What do you think is lacking from the plan? MR. SIPP-Well, the slope goes right down to the lakefront there, and you’ve got to have something along that edge there, because it is downhill. I would also say that we should remind him that there should be no fertilizer, because the grass that’s there has definitely been fed, but he needs a good big tree, or two big trees or two smaller, one big and two smaller and some brush in there, and then some good ground cover. MR. KREBS-Who is representing? MR. MC CALL-I am, Doug McCall. MR. KREBS-Okay. Doug, do you know if they would be willing, one of the things that I looked at when I was up there is if you came back from the lake about three or four feet and then dug a five or six foot wide flat area, which would also give them a nice sitting area to sit by the lake, but then as the water came down off the very steep hill, it would land on that flat area and be absorbed rather than run directly into the lake. MR. MC CALL-I’m just the general contractor, and that’s something that would have to be the homeowner. I was asked to submit a landscaping plan, and I went to a qualified landscaper to have the plan done. He thought that this was to the specs of the Town of Queensbury shoreline buffer plan, and I was assuming that it was, too. MR. SIPP-Well, there are some good, there’s some good plants in there, but they’re not on the list. Therefore we cannot accept them, and you’ve got a ton of black-eyed Susans which are a good plant for holding soil, deep rooted, perennial, but it’s not, you don’t have enough of it, and the buffer strip is supposed to be 15 foot wide. So, coming in from the lake 15 foot. You need some brush in there like some dogwood or some low growing conifer that has some good root systems to take up the water. You’ve got an awful slope there. MR. MC CALL-That’s something that if somebody wants to let me know. I mean, it’s not. MR. SIPP-Well, it can be done. I think that’s the real problem on this lot is I don’t think that moving, altering the dock or boathouse is any big deal. MR. MC CALL-No, and that’s what I do. I don’t do the landscaping. MR. SIPP-But you’ve got to have some landscaping there, and you can get a copy of. MR. MC CALL-I did, and, you know, Rob Wing from Volt Landscaping told me that he’s worked with you guys a lot on these, and he said if you had any problems just give him a call, and he thought that this was sufficient to meet your requirements, and I don’t know. MR. KREBS-Maybe Rob ought to read the Ordinance. MR. MC CALL-Okay. I gave it to him when I had him do all this. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you show the other picture, Keith? There’s a picture of the other side of the dock right there. Yes, that one. Is that the kind of brush, Don, that you’re talking about, that should be in there? MR. SIPP-Yes. Right now it’s left open, I assume for view, but the way that house is built, it’s up high enough that you’d have to put in some, you put 30 foot trees. MR. HUNSINGER-And the view argument doesn’t hold any water anyway. They’re going to build the boathouse. The boathouse is going to block the view more than any shoreline plantings will. MR. SIPP-That’s true. MR. MC CALL-You’re not getting any argument from me. I mean, I just thought that I had submitted what I was supposed to submit. That’s all I’m saying. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. OBORNE-And you did. We did request a planting plan and you submitted a planting plan. I mean, it’s not on you at all. MR. MC CALL-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Part of the reason why I wanted to see that picture is because, you know, it says that there’s natural buffer already there, but as you can see there’s a big gap between the sidewalk and the vegetation, right in there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. We’ve just got to put a condition on it that he’s going to have to use the planting plan in our. MR. FORD-Well, I think it ought to be tabled until we get the plan. That was the provision initially. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, and we’ve got to give them the direction. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the bigger issue was we forgot to get it before the County. MR. OBORNE-Yes, the issue was that, for some unknown reason, this application went into the ether before it got to the County Planning and it was not on that Board. So you could not take an action on it. In lieu of that, I requested that the applicant submit a planting plan. You haven’t seen this yet. Only at the recommendation, no, you didn’t even see it at the recommendation. There was no Area Variance with it. I went ahead and asked him to submit a planting plan, and he has submitted a planting plan. My suggestion is we can go over this real quickly and maybe come to an agreement as to what type of trees you want to be put in there, because they do have some clump birch in there, which I think is pretty decent. They do have some juniper, which is good. Chokeberry also, but, I don’t know how the Blueberry’s going to work there, but. MR. SIPP-Blueberry’s aren’t going to grow. They take a very acid soil, with a pH of about four, five, six, seven. MR. OBORNE-True. MR. SIPP-But can we substitute for something that’s not on our list? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-As long as it’s not prohibited. MR. OBORNE-Right, and that’s the one thing. That’s how I vetted this. It doesn’t say they have to take from the list. These are acceptable species that can be used from the list. Usually the way I vet it is I look at it from the point of view of is this an invasive species that they’re offering here, and it’s not. There are no invasive species on here. MR. SIPP-The black-eyed Susans that are on there, and there are a reasonable amount of them, is good, but you need a couple of fair sized shrubs in there like, as I say, dogwood or choke cherry. I think that’s about, because you’re going to be a little damp there, the soil is going to be moist because of the runoff downhill, and you’ve got to have something that’s going to grow where it will be a little wet some of the time, and that would take in your dogwood or your choke cherry, serviceberry, what else? Not too many conifers, though. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions I did have on the boathouse itself, is there any lighting planned for the boathouse? MR. MC CALL-There would just be lighting underneath for, typical lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Just underneath? MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Nothing above? MR. MC CALL-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing that doesn’t have a downcast? MR. MC CALL-No. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-By underneath, underneath what? MR. MC CALL-Underneath where the boats, underneath the slip, inside the boat, typical lighting for a boathouse. MR. TRAVER-So with regards to the plantings, Don, it sounds like something should be substituted for the blueberry that’s on the current list. What would you recommend? MR. SIPP-Well, it’s got a shadbush in here. That’s legal. You’ve got to take out the blueberry and the Austrian fir and the clump birch. There’s no white birch. MR. TRAVER-So could we revised the list this evening and leave the applicant with a clear path to follow, so that we could move forward? MR. SIPP-Yes. You’ve got to have something that’s going to get its feet wet because of the way that ground is. Red maple, some white spruce, large or black ash would be, give you trees that would grow to 30 to 60 feet high. MS. RADNER-So how many of those do you want total? MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got to have one for every 50 feet, and you’ve got. MR. MC CALL-Do they have to be spread out? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SIPP-One hundred and twenty. So you’d have to have. MR. MC CALL-There’s already existing trees there. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, there are some existing trees. There are some trees on this side. They’re on the corners. MR. MC CALL-That whole corner. MR. SIPP-And under smaller trees, you’ve got the choke cherry. Meadowsweet, on the next page, red twigged dogwood, winterberry, underneath they have iris. You’ve already got the black-eyed Susans in there. Joe pye weed, which is a very good grower where it’s damp. It’s a funny name, but that’s what it is, Joe pye, p-y-e, and it tells you in the section itself that for every 50 feet, you have to have one large tree, minimum of three inch diameter, and one smaller tree or large shrub, and then you have to have some shrubs every 50 feet, one smaller tree or shrub. MR. MC CALL-So there’s 160 feet of lake frontage. So that means I have to have three, three, four, if you want. So I have four right over on that other side. That doesn’t work? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, they already have the large trees, I think. Maybe one more, but, I mean, they have them on the edges. There’s like you. MR. SIPP-There was only one within the, maybe two. MR. MC CALL-There’s some on both sides of the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s some on both sides. The other picture doesn’t show it very well, but there is a large tree on the other side. MR. SIPP-And the ground cover would be, as I said, the Joe pye weed or the blue iris, New York ironweed. These are easy to get. They’re not very expensive, but they do spread, and they do do the job. MR. OBORNE-If I could make a suggestion. It sounds like you’re going to approve this. If you want to be, I’d suggest you don’t be specific with the species, but do direct them to the list, but I would suggest you be specific with the quantity. MR. SIPP-Well, it spells it out in the Code. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. OBORNE-Yes, but there’s a lot of ambiguity here because it’s not, there are existing large trees on the property. MR. SIPP-Yes, but if you get into the ground cover, that gives you, for every 100 square feet, you’d have to have 10 plants, ground cover, herbaceous plants. MR. OBORNE-Well, again, I do suggest that you direct them to the list, and you specify the quantity, if you want to even specify the location, that’s fine, too, but I think you run into trouble when you start picking species out for folks. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Well, he’s got 28 black-eyed Susans on the list, which would work. The choke cherry, have three or four. MR. OBORNE-Don, is chokeberry and choke cherry the same thing? MR. SIPP-Yes. No, they’re not, not the berry, no. They’re two separate plants. The shadbush, which is a medium size tree, grows very quickly. MR. HUNSINGER-So that would qualify as the smaller tree or large shrub. MR. SIPP-You don’t have a copy of the thing I gave you the other day, do you? MR. FORD-They make reference to chokeberry. MR. MC CALL-The chokeberry is a small tree. Right? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MC CALL-And so the clump birch is also a small tree. MR. SIPP-That isn’t even on our list. Birch is, the white birch is not. MR. MC CALL-It’s not. MR. FORD-Who would be doing the installation of the? MR. MC CALL-Volt Landscaping. MR. FORD-Who? MR. MC CALL-The landscaping company. MR. FORD-The same one that said that they were following the guidelines of the Town and came up with this plan? MR. MC CALL-Yes. As for the large trees, I mean, does it state that I do have, I mean, I understand it states I have to have one for every 50 feet, but does it state that I have to have one for every 50 feet spread every 50 feet, or are you asking me to do more by, you know, I have, I would assume just by that I’ve got five or six on one side and probably four or five on the other. MR. SIPP-Yes, but if you’re going to leave them there, they only count as one, within the first 50 feet. That’s a large tree. MR. MC CALL-Right. MR. SIPP-But that doesn’t remove the obligation of smaller brush underneath it and underneath that, some perennial, low growing. MR. MC CALL-I’m just trying to reason why they did this like this. I’m just assuming that they thought that the large trees were probably there already. That’s what I would have assumed myself. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MC CALL-Because, you know, they’re there. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-And I think if you make that assumption, in my opinion, the only thing that this really lacks is just better ground cover, because it seems like you have plenty of smaller trees and large shrubs, with the shad and choke berry and clump birch and arborvitae. So I think the only thing that this really lacks is one large tree and then additional ground cover. I’d kind of open that up for comment, by the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, actually ground cover is important. When we were up there, the lawn is obviously maintained, it’s fertilized and those kinds of things. You don’t get a lawn like that without any weeds unless there’s fertilization. So the buffer in this situation is important, certainly because of the slope. What Mr. Krebs was saying about having a five foot buffer that’s kind of dug in down so it’s actually not a bad idea. However, the ground cover, regardless of whether it’s notched out or whether it’s just part of the slope, the ground cover is important to make sure that it acts as a filtering agent for anything that runs off the lawn. MR. MC CALL-I understand. MRS. STEFFAN-So how does the Board want to proceed? Do we micromanage the project, or just ask the applicant to submit another plan? Are we tabling it or are we approving it with conditions? What are we doing. MR. TRAVER-Well, the only concern that I heard specifically was regarding the growth potential or lack thereof of the blueberry. So maybe if they could, which is the primary ground cover in this particular plan. So if they could substitute the low bush ground cover, something from the list, as opposed to blueberry, I think they pretty much have it covered. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not concerned that there might not be enough ground cover? MR. TRAVER-Well, if they, with the current plan, the blueberry apparently doesn’t do well under these conditions. So they’d end up with a gap in the tiered cover, because the blueberry wouldn’t survive. So if they can substitute for that, I think, and as you pointed out, they have intermediate sized bushes with the choke cherry and arborvitae and so on. What seems lacking, assuming that the low bush blueberry would not survive, would be something to substitute for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, that’s my sense from looking at this, and I’m not a landscape person, to say the least. MR. FORD-I think my opinion is that we should be consistent, and we’ve had applicant after applicant before us where we have sent them back and asked them to submit a plan that was approvable, with minor modifications, and I don’t believe that this is approvable with minor modification. We’ve been shooting at it and I don’t think we know what the planting plan is. MR. SIPP-I’m in the process of making a folder of materials for this type of thing, and Keith has got one and I’ve got one that’s very rough, but I’ll bring copies Thursday and they can take them home for the month of November and read them and give me hell about it, but it does give you a breakdown of each plant and the height that they grow, its root system, whether it needs sun or shade, and what type of soil to plant it in. So maybe someday we’ll get to that, and that would be available to each applicant when they came in, and they could take one. MR. FORD-I think that would be very helpful, Don, and maybe even to this applicant, but tonight we have to address this planting plan, and I don’t think we have it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I don’t mind approving it with conditions, so long as the conditions are well defined. Okay, not just a tree here and a tree there, and the other thing on the fertilizer, and I think we ought to stop kidding ourselves and saying you can’t fertilize it because people do. What we should do is what the Town of Lake George said is ban the use of phosphorus fertilizer, because that’s our problem, that is the problem, and I have no problem with that, but I have a problem telling a guy what he can do on his own property, and I think that’s why the Town of Lake George did it that way. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that would be a recommendation to the Town Board, on the phosphorus fertilizer. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I realize that, but you can also make it a condition of approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-But one of the things that we’ve talked about is it’s difficult to enforce that. I mean, we could put it as a condition that no phosphorus fertilizer on the property. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s difficult to enforce no fertilizing, too. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. Well, that’s, it falls in the same boat. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s why I said, I mean, okay. MRS. STEFFAN-If we do it as a Town, though, you know, that could be a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but it’s not just fertilizer, it’s also the weed killers that we know is bad for the lake. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because what’ll happen is you’ll have an algae bloom in the lake water at the foot of this hill. MR. MC CALL-I understand, and if you, you know, deny the project, then the buffer will never be done. It’s going to be like that forever. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’ll be like that forever, and the kids will be tobogganing down there in the winter, and that’s the end of it. MR. MC CALL-I do understand the planting, and I understand what you’re trying to do, but I’m just trying to build a boathouse, you know, that’s all I’m trying to do, and, you know, you push him too far, he just won’t, he’ll bother, not even bother, and then you’ll have everything running not the lake, just the way it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MC CALL-So this is my, this should, I mean, I started this process in July, and I’m still here now. It’s getting to the point where it certainly isn’t enough work for me to mess with this. I’m just a builder, just a contractor. I understand what you guys are trying to do, but I think you might be, you know, I’ll wait another month, you know, take this plan back and get the plan done. I took it to a qualified landscaper, assuming that I would have it done correctly. I know nothing about it, so my best bet is to take it to somebody. I do that, I bring it here, I get denied again. MR. SIPP-The problem with landscapers is they try to make everything look beautiful. MR. MC CALL-Well, that’s their job, too. I try to make everything that I build look beautiful, too. It’s just what I do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m surprised at him doing this, because he does a lot of work in Queensbury, and I’ve seen a lot of his work up on Assembly Point, and he generally meets Code. I don’t know what he was thinking, or maybe he wasn’t. MR. MC CALL-He told me that he’s dealt with Queensbury a lot, and, you know, if they have any problems, just let him know, but, you know, this is what he gave me to submit, and this is what I submitted. I don’t know what I’m looking at. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that’s all you can do. MR. FORD-You’re not at fault here. MR. KREBS-One other thing, if you are going to go back, I’d like to see, and that is to the, facing the lake to the left of that space, if you can bring up the staircase again, there should be some kind of plantings right in that area, too, because that’s going to run directly into the lake, and it’s not a very big space to put a few plantings in, but, I mean, as it is, walking down those steps, they were tipped towards the lake. So water runs off it very well. MR. MC CALL-Again, it’s nothing to do with me. I’m just here to build a boathouse. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What date would we table this to? How quickly do you think you could get a revised landscaping plan in? MR. MC CALL-I would assume I could get it, I don’t know. I don’t schedule his work. So I have no idea. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, can we, I guess, put the responsibility on Keith to, if we tell them what we’re looking for, can we put the responsibility on you, as a Land Use Planner, to approve it or not approve it? MR. OBORNE-If you direct me to do that, I shall do that, and I will say that the planting season is closing rapidly, if not already closed at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. So they’re not going to plant until the Spring. MR. OBORNE-Correct, yes, but the building season’s not over. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-I do not have any issue with that whatsoever. MRS. STEFFAN-Since the language that I put together, it could be conditioned, if the Planning Board feels okay with it, that the applicant will revise the landscaping plan to comply with 179-8- 040, utilizing the acceptable tree and plant species identified. The applicant needs to fortify the design to provide sufficient filtration of stormwater runoff. Any exposed grass needs to have compliant ground cover. The revised plan can be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and acceptance. Does that work? MR. SCHONEWOLF-It works for me, sure. MR. KREBS-It works for me. MR. HUNSINGER-Not to be a critic. MRS. STEFFAN-No, that’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that puts a little too much burden on Keith, because we’re here debating the tree, the large tree issue. I think, you know, we could be a little more clear in terms of that. I mean, leave that, but then provide some more detail, and I guess really the only item that’s really lacking is the large tree, you know, how many additional trees do we want to see? MR. MC CALL-Is it large tree? I just understood it as being ground cover that was lacking? I mean, I truly believe that large trees are there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it depends on how you interpret the Code. MR. FORD-We need a plan, don’t we? MR. HUNSINGER-It depends on how you interpret the Code, because the Code says a tree for every 50 feet. So, does that mean you have to space them out every 50 feet, or does that mean? MR. OBORNE-If there’s an existing large tree, if you’re going to leave it on me, this is how I do it. If there’s an existing large tree, I’m going to measure 50 feet, and then there should be another large tree, and then go another 50 feet, if there’s an existing tree, then end of story, one large tree, which is what it looks like, to be honest with you. In a perfect world, you want it obviously treed up to the shoreline, but that’s what the Code states. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s why I wanted to have this little discussion. MR. OBORNE-It’s a 15 foot buffer, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think they have that, because this is a 20 scale plan, and it’s about an inch wide. It’s about 15 to 20 feet. I mean, I didn’t get a ruler out to scale it, but, you know, this is close. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MRS. STEFFAN-So, are we saying that they need to add one other large tree to the planting plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was just my opinion. If the rest of the Board’s comfortable, then I think we should tell them they don’t need to add a large tree. I mean, that’s the kind of detail I think, you know, I mean. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that makes it Code compliant, you know, certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-Just that piece. MRS. STEFFAN-Certainly. MR. TRAVER-Yes. My concern is more with the ground cover, because that’s really what’s going to be absorbing the water, but, you know, it’s, they’re not absorbing any of it now. MR. FORD-I’d just remind the Board, we are now setting the stage for future applicants and the way we’re going to handle them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But every case is different. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-And every case is similar. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it has some similarities there. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make that in the form of a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is the public hearing open? MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-They asked for waivers, grading, lighting, and landscaping, even though they provided a landscaping plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2010 PAUL KASSELMAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes boathouse with sundeck. Docks with Boathouses in a WR zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/30 & 10/19/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2010 PAUL KASSELMAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph 1A complies. Paragraph 1E, the applicant has requested waivers. We will grant waivers for grading and lighting. Approved with the following statements and conditions: a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) 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)Waiver requests granted: grading, lighting plans; and f)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 g)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 i) This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That any lighting added to the boathouse will only be on the lower level and would be downcast and Code compliant. 2.The applicant will revise the landscaping plan to comply with 179-8-040, utilizing the acceptable tree and plant species identified in the Code. The applicant needs to fortify the design to provide sufficient filtration of stormwater runoff. The applicant will add another large tree to the planting plan. Any exposed grass within the buffer needs to have a compliant ground cover. The revised plan can be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and acceptance. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Any exposed grass within the buffer, not any exposed grass everywhere. Correct? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, amend that, any exposed grass within the buffer needs to have compliant ground cover. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Ford MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MC CALL-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. The next two items on the agenda are recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 63-2010 SEQR TYPE II JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS OWNER(S) JERRY BROWN ZONING HI LOCATION 26 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 900 SQ. FT. METAL STORAGE BUILDING. PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE HI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 54-10, BP 10-012, SP 59-09, 54-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/13/2010 LOT SIZE 13.78 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1- 49 SECTION 179-9 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, I just need to recuse myself on this application due to a prior business relationship with JBAP. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Do you want to have somebody sit in? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just for a recommendation. Brad or Steve? Would either one of you like to sit in? Brad? Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 63-2010 and Area Variance 54-2010, this is for Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts. Again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application, as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 26 Lower Warren Street. This is in the HI, Heavy Industrial zone. SEQR status is a Type II, no further review needed. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 900 sq. ft. metal storage building 2 feet from the west side property line. Staff Comments: The applicant stated that the location of the proposed storage shed will promote better site management and efficiency and wishes this to be taken into consideration when deliberating the variance. The shed will be for parts storage and will not have electricity or water service. The applicant will install a similar shed associated with Site Plan 59-09, see photo of shed. Permeability, which stands at 11% for the parcel, will not be affected as the area for the concrete pad to house the shed is currently impermeable crushed stone. Nature of Area Variance: The parcel will require Area Variances as follows: Side Setback Relief – Request for 48 feet or 96% relief from the 50 foot west side line setback requirement for the Heavy Industrial zone as per Section 179-3-040. Fire Marshal comments should be attached. You’ve seen the similar shed last year, late last year. This one is close to the property line, hence why they’re here before you. You will be seeing this, obviously, next week, if they get through the variances, at Site Plan Review, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. My name is Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering in Queensbury. I’m here on behalf of Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts. I was not intensively involved with the preparation of this application. It is relatively simple. It proposes a 30 by 30 shed. I’ve colored it green on the one in front of me. It’s proposed a couple of feet from the westerly property line, and the reason it’s proposed for this location has to do with the logistics of their operation. I don’t know if you’ve ever had the opportunity to tour their operation. It’s really a neat operation. It is indeed recycling, and they do a great job. They are incredibly organized, and hopefully if you haven’t before the Site Plan Review , you could get a chance to go see this facility, because it’s really neat. The reason for the location of the building is because they have their finished parts storage, which are all parts that have been removed from vehicles, have been completely defluidized, have been cleaned up, have been inspected, inventoried, put into their system, and they have them stored in this general area. They store parts in this area presently. Some sit on the ground. Some sit on racks. This would allow for a little more enclosed storage that’s weather protected, and there’s not a whole lot to the application. We are seeking, we are requesting relief from the side setback. The building would be identical to the one you’ve shown. I’ve got a couple of photos of it here as well, with the exception it would be a mirror image. It would go right there, and it would just be mirrored, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board for questions. We are seeking a recommendation to the Zoning Board supporting our variance request. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE MR. MAGOWAN-What is the property right next door there? MR. KREBS-It’s vacant right now. MR. HUTCHINS-To the west? It’s vacant. MR. MAGOWAN-It’s vacant? MR. KREBS-Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. HUTCHINS-It’s vacant in this area. Out, it’s completely vacant back in here. It’s wooded and kind of brushy and just kind of ugly looking. MR. MAGOWAN-That used to house the Olsen’s gas station at one time, many years ago. MR. KREBS-Yes. Danny Olsen. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? MR. FORD-The County asked the question if a DEC permit required for what is being stored. Do you know the answer to that, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-I do know the answer. It’s no, there is not a permit required for what’s there. MR. KREBS-Having looked at the site today, there aren’t a lot of available places to put anything anymore, with all the cars they have over the entire back area. So, I’d just hate to see it that close to a potential lot that could be used for some other commercial purpose in the future. You’re kind of infringing on that Olsen lot. MR. OBORNE-I would say that if that lot ever came on line, it would be an act of the Federal Government at this point. I mean that, it’s a pretty, having walked that lot, I was amazed at the amount of 55 gallon barrel drums on the property, but that is not to say that it won’t happen. MR. HUNSINGER-So what type of auto parts would be stored in the building? MR. HUTCHINS-I’m not exactly sure which type of parts they would choose. They would all be finished parts, ready to ship, and any inventory. They might be engines. They might be fenders. They could be doors. They could be axels. I’m not that into their logistics of their operation to know exactly what they would store in there. MR. HUNSINGER-But I think you had said earlier that there wouldn’t be any solvents or chemicals? MR. HUTCHINS-No. All the fluids are, when they receive a vehicle, it can sit in the area that I’ve shown as staging, and what they do is they take the entire vehicle into their disassembly area. The first thing they do is all the fluids come out, and then they inventory what parts are reusable, and what parts are not. At that time, all of the reusable parts are, all the reusable engine and drive train type parts are removed from the vehicle, cleaned up and inventoried, and then the bodies themselves go out to the vehicle body storage area I’ve shown. So the vehicles are cleaned up and rendered, the fluids are taken out of them very early in the process. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Well before anything that would make it to this storage area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Where do the fluids go, into those 55 gallon drums that Keith was referring to? MR. HUTCHINS-Actually, they have a number of storage containers for antifreeze and coolant, waste oil. They heat a vast majority of the facility with waste oil, and they have a, where they wash the parts, they have an under drain collection system. They have a biological treatment process that adds bacteria and in a controlled environment treats the wash water and reuses it. So it’s pretty neat. MR. FORD-I was aware of some of that, but not to that extent. That’s good. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? The one question I did have for Staff, and/or Counsel, is the County denied without prejudice. I know that they need a supermajority for us to approve it. Does that affect the recommendation as well? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Just the final approval? Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. OBORNE-Well, Brad is sitting in Gretchen’s seat. MR. HUNSINGER-There is a sample recommendation in the package, basically one of two choices. I’ll do it. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2010 JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Whereas, the applicant proposes construction of 900 sq. ft. metal storage building. Site Plan: Proposed accessory structures in the HI zone require Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board will provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Variance: Relief requested from side yard setback requirements. Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2010 JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Selecting Option Number One. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. The next project is also before us for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2010 SEQR TYPE II THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 117 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF ROOF TO ADD A SECOND STORY CONTAINING 3 BEDROOMS, 1 BATH AND LAUNDRY ROOM. EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 56-10, AV 49-01, BP 04-459, BP 00-1-148 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.27 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-41 SECTION 179-9, 179-13 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 67-2010 and Area Variance 56-2010 for Thomas and Maureen Valenti. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application, as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 117 Birdsall Road. It’s in the Waterfront Residential district on Glen Lake. It’s a Type II SEQR. No further review is needed. Project Description: Applicant proposes removal of roof to add a 1,000 square foot second story addition containing 3 bedrooms, 1 bath and laundry room. Further, the applicant is proposing a 92 square foot deck off of the second story master bedroom facing to the east southeast. Staff Comments: Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. I do want to draw attention to this next comment that I wrote, which is erroneous. The proposed deck is over the driveway and does not affect site permeability but does add to the need for additional Floor Area Ratio relief. In consultation with the Zoning Administrator on this, he states that this is not considered Floor Area Ratio qualified, and is not part of the Floor Area 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) Ratio calculation. So in this case, the applicant is offering, or there’ll be less relief involved, as opposed to more relief. So it’s a good thing and not a bad thing, so to speak. So the nature of the Area Variance is as follows: Shoreline building setback – Request for 13.5 feet of shoreline building setback relief from the 50 foot setback requirement. Side setback relief – Request for 5.3 feet of east side setback relief and 3.4 feet of west side setback relief from the 20 foot setback requirement as per Section 179-3-040 for the proposed second story addition. Side setback relief – Request for 2.03 feet of east side setback relief for that portion of the proposed deck within the 20 foot side setback requirement as per Section 179-3-040. FAR Relief – Request for 540 feet of a 26.47% Floor Area Ratio. Maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio in the Waterfront Residential district is 22%. Finally, relief request for the expansion of a non- conforming structure as per Section 179-13-010 is also on the table. What follows is Site Plan Review. I do want to note that under plot plan, the shoreline building setback is incorrectly noted on the plot plan per 179-2-010 shoreline building setbacks. Setbacks are calculated by using the shortest distances measured horizontally between any point of a principle building or accessory structure and the shoreline of any lake, pond, river, wetland and stream. This will need to be updated on the Site Plan, and plans for construction waste and staging area should be qualified.. Additional Comments: Stormwater mitigation should be explored for this site as mentioned in the narrative. Bio-retention practices recommended. Shoreline buffering should be explored. The applicant has requested waivers for grading, lighting and landscaping. The applicant has had the wastewater system inspected and submitted the report with application. I’ll finish up here in a second. As far as that Floor Area Ratio relief, I don’t think the Board really has to worry about that. I’ll clean that up tomorrow for the Area Variance. That’s not an issue. As well as the shoreline setback relief will be cleaned up also. Again, as long as it’s taken care of at the Area Variance level, it’s not a big deal. These other issues obviously are Site Plan Review issues, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. If I could just ask for a clarification, though. On Page Four of the application, where they calculate the Floor Area Ratio, so should the request be for 25.8%, rather than 26.47, as stated in Staff Notes? MR. OBORNE-Could you repeat that question, please? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. On Page Four of the application, where they have the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, the calculation that they came up with is 25.8%. MR. OBORNE-Right, and with that additional request, it was, again, a mistake that I made, was I included the Floor Area Ratio underneath the deck that’s proposed. Well, they didn’t include that in the calculations. That’s why my calculations were higher than theirs. MR. HUNSINGER-So the 25.8 is the correct number? MR. OBORNE-Is the correct calculation. That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicants, Thomas & Maureen Valenti, who are here in the back row, and with me at the table is Gary Hughes who did the design on the structure, and Tom Hutchins who is going to do the septic and the stormwater. This is a pre- existing lot. It’s a pre-existing house, and basically they are trying to improve their living space. They’re not trying to change the burdens on the lake. In fact, what they propose will be an improvement to the treatment of the lake and what not. We acknowledged that when the draftsman did the calculation for shoreline we went to our shoreline, and that was incorrect. The neighbor’s shoreline is closer to the corner of the addition that we propose than our frontage is. We actually had Charlie Nacy calculate it, and he tells us that the actual distance is 36 feet 2 inches, or 36.2. So we will be looking for, I had it calculated here some place, 13.8, 13 feet 8 inches relief from the front shoreline, and we will change that on our plans. We’ve got to go to the Zoning Board and we’ve got to come back here for your Site Plan Review when we get all said and done, hopefully. I think we talked, or Keith acknowledged that the deck area that’s going to come off the back of the house is not a covered porch, which is what the first interpretation was. There’s going to be a slotted, open deck. So it doesn’t count in your Floor Area Ratio. Basically there are two issues I think that you’re going to have with the application, and one is going to be septic, and the other is going to be stormwater. This is a three bedroom home. The plans that were submitted didn’t necessarily, it says existing first floor, and it had not correct denotation or actually depiction of what was there on the first floor. Where the, we’ve got plans or a sheet that we will submit to the Planning Board, or to the Zoning Board, which will actually show the correct denotation. One of those two rooms behind the kitchen area is actually used as a bedroom. That’s bedroom number two, and the area downstairs right now is presently used as bedroom. When we remodel this house, those two areas will not be used as 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) bedrooms. The existing closets will be taken out of those rooms. It’ll be, one room will be an office, and the downstairs room will just be storage. In fact, there is a staircase that’s shown on the floor plans, toward the front of the house, which is the way you get down into that bedroom area. That staircase is going to be taken out. The floor is going to be completed in that area. So it’ll be storage only, and it’ll be accessed by going outside the building and coming around to the front and going into the bottom of it. When we first started this, we thought that perhaps we wouldn’t have to re-do the septic system, because the septic system has functioned and is operable. We did have IBS go up and they actually cleaned out the septic tank and then used their television cameras and went through the television cameras to the back part, which is a seepage pit. That may be the wrong terminology, and everything looked fine, and there’s a report in there, but since then we’ve talked to the applicants and they will put in a modern, compliant three bedroom septic system. So I think that’ll take that off the table. We’re trying to make this as uncomplicated as we can, and make it as straightforward as we can, also anticipating maybe concerns, and try and answer those concerns ahead of time. The stormwater is an issue. It really doesn’t get impacted by what we’re doing, though. We’re going straight up over a portion of the existing building. We’re not creating any new, impervious area. So what falls on that site right now is what’s going to fall on that site afterwards. The Town really didn’t help too much when they re-paved the road behind this property. They put no stormwater in when they paved that road, and we acknowledge that there is a lot of water that comes into the back of the site, and we’ve asked Tom to take a look at that and see what we can do to improve even the stormwater that comes off there, as well as the existing stormwater that’s on our driveway, which we already have there, and the stormwater that comes off our house, which is already there. That’s not fully designed yet, but what we’re thinking of doing, if we can get the proper separation, is some type of catch basin back by the roadway, and then do trenches along the side of the driveway, do eaves trenches where we can do eaves trenches, and we may even change some of the paved area to the new type of paving that is actually permeable. We aren’t talking about changing all of the driveway, but we can do the, if you take a look at the paving that’s along the west side of the house, there’s a parking area there. That we definitely can do, and we may come back one car length into the main driveway the full width and also do that. So, that, I think, will significantly improve the site from a stormwater point of view, and that’s basically it. We’ve got a three bedroom house before. We’ve got a three bedroom house afterwards. It’s a rather modest application. If you actually take a look at the Floor Area calculation, and kind of look beyond the gross figure, of the 3108 square feet, 587 is the garage, and 350 of it is the concrete patio that’s underneath the deck in the front of the house. So actually the interior living space is less than what’s permitted on this lot., 2660 square feet, to me, is what the Floor Area Ratio should represent, living space, but our Ordinance is written differently. It includes covered porches, attached garages or garages, and if you take out the 800, 930 feet from the 3100 feet, we’re actually less than the 2600 feet. I’m not trying to throw figures out, but this is not a McMansion. It’s just an attempt to update a house that was probably built, and I should have asked this, but probably in the 1930’s or 1940’s, something like that. It had been added on to a couple of times, and it’s done in even a modest way where 1,000 square feet is going to be used, the living space, the new living space that’s on the second floor, isn’t way to the front of the house. It’s set back to the house as far back as it can be, so that it’s not out on the lake. So, I don’t think we have any potential impacts. I think you have a couple of letters from the adjoining neighbors that say that they are familiar with the applicant and have no objection to the project, and we’ll come back to you. I’m not sure, if we get the variance approved this week, are we scheduled to come back? MR. OBORNE-I believe so. MRS. STEFFAN-Next week. MR. O’CONNOR-Probably I’m counting my chickens before they’re hatched, okay, but probably, if you approve this and we get the variance, we ought to consider tabling it, because, or not tabling it, whatever you want to call it, tabling our appearance before you because Tom won’t have the stormwater done, and I do want to have the stormwater done. I do want to have the septic done. I’m sure you do, too, and the septic, particularly was the latest, was just something that we decided we will do. We were going to come in and argue that we have proof that it works, but Mr. and Mrs. Valenti are willing to do the septic. So, any questions you have, I’d be glad to try and answer. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’s scheduled for next week, but you want to table it until? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We’re going to have to submit engineering on the stormwater and the septic. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you want to table until November or something like that. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Obviously I would wait until next Tuesday to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I’m actually very glad to hear that they’ve decided to change the septic. The letter from IBS Septic was okay, but it mentioned, it didn’t say anything about capacity and some of those were issues that I had, you know, the age of the system and the capacity. So I’m very happy to hear that they’re going to be replacing it. MR. O'CONNOR-The system is not that old, Mrs. Steffan. Unfortunately, though, we can’t find a set of the drawings that were used to put in, and I don’t know if it was put in under Town guidance or not, but it’s within the last 10 years that it actually was put in. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That woodshed goes with the property, right? Over on the right side. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, there’s a small shed, small storage shed there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s a storage shed for wood, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you certainly hit on the two concerns that I had. MR. FORD-Same here. MR. HUNSINGER-Although I think for me, the stormwater, I was more concerned with than the septic, but I’m glad to hear you’re addressing both of them. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re going to try to. MRS. STEFFAN-We also didn’t realize that there was the issue with stormwater running off the road into the property. MR. O'CONNOR-It happens. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s kind of common in this Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments? MR. SIPP-There is a handwritten sheet here, which the bottom paragraph is the owner wants to do something about shoreline plantings. Get professional advice on this. Whether the professional there should check the sheets. MR. O'CONNOR-Gary wrote that, Mr. Hughes wrote that as part of the application presentation, and since then it’s been brought to my attention that there’s a 10 foot easement that runs along that part of the shoreline that the adjoining owners have. There’s a common beach to the west of this property, to the west of the Jackoski property, and apparently when all those lots were set up, everybody enjoyed a 10 foot easement. So I’m not 100% sure what can be done. If you take a look at the pictures, there is already some planting down there. MR. SIPP-Yes, there are several pine trees and there are. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s some ground cover in front of the patio. MR. SIPP-You’ve got some shrubs. So you need a little more ground cover, because that is a steep slope. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re hopeful to catch some of the water before it gets there, and we can take a look at that, but I don’t think we’re going to have a full buffer, we can’t put a buffer there. MR. HUNSINGER-You don’t have enough room. MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t have enough room, and with the 10, I think it’s, actually from the bottom of that concrete, there’s only 11 feet, and there’s a 10 foot easement through there. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. SIPP-Yes, a couple of shrubs in there aren’t going to block off everybody from walking across there, and a narrow strip of understory herbaceous ground cover. Is this written into the deed? Is this in the deed to the property? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. You have a copy of the deed in your package. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s in the first paragraph of the description, which. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think they would have had a copy of it. Only the Zoning Board gets the copy of the deed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, we got it. MR. OBORNE-You did? MR. O'CONNOR-And I stand corrected, it’s eight feet. Also excepting reserving a right of way on foot across the premises hereby conveyed over a strip of land eight feet wide measured from the shore of Glen Lake, for the use of Hirsch, his wife his heirs and assigns, and that’s been passed on to whoever took Hirsch’s place. So there’s eight feet, and there’s 11 feet at our closest point, but we can, all right, we’ve listened and we will try and do that before we come back. MR. SIPP-Yes, but I think uphill from there you can get a few plantings, uphill from that. MR. O'CONNOR-They’re going to be right at the foot of the, there’s a concrete porch across there. MR. SIPP-Yes, I know. You’ve got distance in between there. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Hutchins says we will come up with something. MR. HUNSINGER-Any issues for the Zoning Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll put forward the resolution. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2010 FOR THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Whereas, the applicant proposes removal of roof toad a 1,000 +/- sq. ft. second story containing 3 bedrooms, 1 bath and laundry room. Site Plan: Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from minimum sideline, shoreline setback requirements and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Further, relief requested from maximum floor area ratio requirements. Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2010 FOR THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, considering new information presented this evening regarding the applicant intending to install a modern compliant septic 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) system and formulating a new stormwater plan to mitigate runoff onto Glen Lake, has not identified any adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the revised project proposal. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-Does Keith need to note, for the record, the public comment that he has? MR. OBORNE-No, there’s not a public hearing tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s no public hearing. MRS. STEFFAN-Next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Next week, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2010 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R TOM HUTCHINS, HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S) PYRAMID MALL OF GF NEW CO. ZONING ESC LOCATION 518 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE 8,800 SQ. FT. FORMER HOWARD JOHNSON’S RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,400 SQ. FT. DINER WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. FOOD SERVICE IN THE ESC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 35-10, AV 63-08, SP 21-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 2 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-97 SECTION § 179-9 JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 53-2010, Bob and Dennis Pilarinos. This is food service in the Enclosed Shopping Center zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The location is 518 Aviation Road. Existing zoning is ESC, Enclosed Shopping Center. SEQR Status, Previous EIS dated July 2001. SEQR Long Form requested by Planning Board for a previous proposal has been submitted. Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of an 8,800 square foot former Howard Johnson’s restaurant and construction of a 5400 sq. ft., 210 seat retro diner. The proposal calls for stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation controls as well as landscaping, lighting and associated site work. I am going to jump down to the portion that talks about lighting. A lighting plan has been submitted. You should have received those in your notes. If you look at that, juxtaposed against the Zoning Code, it has definitely been calmed down, so to speak. It’s not as hot as it used to be, and I think the Planning Board is up to speed on this project, on what needs to be discussed, and with that, I’ll turn it over to the Planning Board at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Bob Pilarinos and Tom Hutchins. On the open Site Plan issue, when we were tabled, you asked Tom to go back and revise the lighting plan and make that more compliant, and as Keith said, that’s been submitted, and they’ve reviewed it. So we also eliminated one of the bands of the LED lights. So now there’s just one blue and one gold. There were three that were previously proposed, and as Keith said Tom has minimized the lighting on the site. In terms of the Pyramid issues, there’s been a lot of movement since we were last here on the demolition issue with the Town Board, and what Pyramid has committed to in writing with the Town Board is to commence the demolition, not conditioned upon Site Plan approval of the diner. What they have put in writing and agreed to is that they made a submission to the Department of Labor for approval of the asbestos abatement project. They expect that that’ll be approved next Thursday, which would be three weeks from when that’s submitted, and they’ve committed that they will commence and continue demolition starting within 14 days after the Department of Labor approval. So, separate and apart from this process, that should be started in approximately three and a half 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) weeks, if not before, and the hotel will be gone. In terms of the issue of the connector road, I’ve certainly given that a lot of thought and had a lot of discussions, and I guess you‘ve expressed a concern as to how to make sure that that happens, because of the lack of satisfaction with how long it’s taken to demolish the hotel, and my thought on that is that at the time that the project comes before you for the land in the back, let me stop there. I’ve already put in the record the last time I was here that Pyramid acknowledges that the existing approval requires that connector road, and the only reason that this Board wouldn’t require it is if this Board determined in the future, when a project is actually proposed, that it wasn’t necessary, but unless that happens, that commitment is already required and it’s already in the record. So what I’m thinking is that, at the time that a project is proposed for the former hotel property in the back, if the Planning Board feels, at that point, that they need a performance bond related to the construction of that project, to make sure that the road gets built, that could be required as a condition of approval of Site Plan at that time. It wouldn’t, therefore, tie up some 800 or so thousand dollars until a project is proposed, but once a project is proposed, there would be financing in place for that project that would enable a performance bond if that’s something that the Board required at the time. So I hope that you view that as a willingness to work with you, but also, having plenty of hammer to deal with that at the time that you actually require the road to be constructed, but, of the two issues that you’d asked Pyramid to look at, the demolition is now a commitment, and I hope that you’ll see that the other issue is something that you can work with, and Bob is here, as the applicant, hoping to be able to get Site Plan approval so that he can move forward, close on the financing, close on the purchase of the lot, and get his project under construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll turn it over to the Board for questions and comments. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Jon, for that update on those two issues, and I understand it’s pure speculation on your part at this point with regards to development on what would become a vacant hotel property at some point. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-But do you have a sense, in your discussions with Pyramid, is that something that you can see happening in the relatively near future? MR. LAPPER-No. I don’t think so, because just right now the two likely projects, alternatives would be retail or hospitality, and both of those are pretty quiet. There’s certainly available spaces within the Mall that have to be re-tenanted. So I don’t see a retail project, you know, in the next few years, and while I think that that would be an excellent location for a hotel, the whole hospitality industry is pretty quiet right now. So I don’t see that happening. So I would say, you know, more likely three years or farther out. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Part of the reason for my asking that, aside from the long discussions we’ve had on the whole traffic issue aside is, you know, how that might impact on the business model of your diner applicants for this location, because obviously it’s going to be very awkward for people. Again, as we’ve discussed before, traveling from the Mall that may want to enjoy a meal at this diner, and if it’s going to be some years, that’s, you know, I would think from a business model standpoint, would be a real issue for them, not that there’s necessarily anything that we can do about it at this point, but, you know. MR. LAPPER-Your concern is that people won’t be able to make lefts out of the diner. So if you’re exiting, you’d have to go right heading east. MR. TRAVER-Well that, plus just the impact of, I suppose the existence of the connector road would, I would think, enhance business of people that are shopping at the Mall, because of the relative ease of access, as opposed to until the day and the years in the future, whenever, when that connector road is built. Now people have to exit the Mall and try to enter the diner separately. That’s, I’m just making that observation. MR. LAPPER-And I guess my response would be that the diner is both a destination and a pass by use, that people that are in the corridor will see it, and people that are at the Mall will see it, but if you’re at the Mall and you want to go to the diner, you’ll have that traffic light by Friendly’s to make the left turn, and then the left turn in you’ve got the striped lane, the median, to wait for a gap and to make a left turn in. So I don’t see that as an issue, and I think I’d like to put Bob on. You don’t see that not having the connector road’s going to be a problem in terms of your business model. You expect that’s going to be a successful location for you? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) BOB PILARINOS MR. PILARINOS-As far as the connector road, I mean, in a perfect world, we would have the connector road, but for us to do it, it’s, the cost is not feasible for the type of project that we’re trying to do here. Like Jon said, you know, we’re a pass by location and a destination location, and, like I said, in a perfect world, you know, Pyramid or whoever would build it, and, you know, we’d have the easy access, but, you know, that’s not at the table right now, and for us to do it, it’s not feasible for this project. Maybe in the future, you know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So what you really saying is you don’t expect a hotel to go up there in the near future. No hotel, no connector road. Right? MR. LAPPER-Well, when something. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just want to make sure I’ve got that understanding right. No hotel, no connector road. MR. LAPPER-When you say no hotel, you mean no existing hotel? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. You’re going to tear that thing down, but if they don’t replace it with a hotel back there, there’ll be no connector road. Is that what you said? MR. LAPPER-Well, there will be something, it’s a very valuable piece of property with visibility from the Northway and Aviation Road. At some point, there will be a project, and when the project is proposed, you will require a connector road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. So if nothing happens back there, which isn’t likely that it is, as you just said, there’ll be no connector road. MR. LAPPER-Until something happens. At this time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So a guy can come in on the right, and when he comes out of the diner, he’s supposed to turn right and not turn left. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And if he wants to jump across to make a left hand turn, he can. He will. There will be accidents. That’s been our point from Day One. MR. LAPPER-Well, but we have a letter from DOT that you guys read into the record last time, where DOT, it’s their road. It’s a State highway, and they have said that it’s acceptable without that left turn. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We’ll remind them of that at a later date. MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to address that, too. There was a design that was provided by th DOT. It was actually attached to a July 27 e-mail. MR. LAPPER-You mean the pork chop design? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I don’t know if you had actually committed to that design. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-What’s provided is a standard detail from DOT. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-And we have committed to that as it works with the particular cut we have, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-We have modified it to come as close to that as we can do with the conditions we’re working with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and it has been back to DOT in that form. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Jon, would you review that time sequence? Because as you know I, in particular, have been very interested in the completion, not the initiation, of demolition. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and what they’ve committed to in writing to the Town Board, and Cathi has been involved in those discussions and can comment as well. There were two filings that were required with the Department of Labor before the project can commence. One is a notice filing for the asbestos abatement, and one is a variance for the methodology of how the abatement project is going to go forward, and that variance request was necessitated by the condition of the second story roof on parts of the hotel, because of the fire training and structural damage to the second story. So they had to go to the Department of Labor and submit an application to say that they would do partial demolition of the second story roof before they do the asbestos abatement, then do the asbestos abatement, then do the rest of the demolition, but that all happens as one project, but it’s just the sequence of events is different than the standard sequence of events. So that required a variance application to the Department of Labor. That thth was submitted on the 6 or the 7. I have that documented, and the asbestos contractor submitted the paperwork. We submitted copies of the application to the Town Board, and they anticipate having that granted a week from Thursday, and they’ve committed that, once they have that approval from the Department of Labor, they will get the contractor marshaled and the work will start within 14 days of that date and will continue through completion. MR. FORD-Continuous? MR. LAPPER-Continuous. So they estimate some time in January they will be done. MR. FORD-Yes. I was wondering what their estimate of completion date is. MR. LAPPER-Mid January. MR. FORD-That’s assuming that the approval comes through on these two applications, in a timely fashion. MR. LAPPER-One is a notice, and the second one, according to the asbestos contractor, is standard. They have an engineering report that recommends that’s how this building should be demolished. That was submitted to the Department of Labor. They don’t expect any issue. They say that that’s standard. This is how it should be done. MR. FORD-Thank you. MS. RADNER-At the Town Board’s request, we did review the variance application, and we reviewed the regulations on which it is based, and it does appear to fit within the guidelines. So it’s not a farfetched plan to do something, you know, that’s unheard of that they’ve submitted. It does look like it makes some sense if you put yourself in the applicant’s shoes. What they’re doing is sort of short cutting the process, and as I understand the application, it allows them to remove the parts of the building, primarily the second story, that don’t have the asbestos concerns, and then sort of do their demo down on the lower level, with the acceptance that the asbestos is there and treating the demo as hazardous product and removing it. So it should be able to go forward more quickly than the original plan, which called for first doing the asbestos removal before they started any demo on the site at all. Am I mischaracterizing that, Jon? MR. LAPPER-No, I think that’s perfect. MS. RADNER-Okay, and again, there’s no timetable. This is State DOL, by the way, not Federal DOL, Department of Labor. There’s no procedure set forth in the State regulations of we will act on this variance within so many days. We will do it, it’s not the kind of thing that happens, you know, 83 times a year, so we don’t have a lot of experience to tell you, yes, they will get it, no, they won’t get it, but I can tell you that it does fit within the criteria. It does seem to be the sort of variance that can be granted and they seem to have filled out the right boxes to get it. They also satisfied the Town Board’s concerns regarding qualifications of the contractors by supplying us with a list of their intended contractors and a representation that those contractors had proper worker’s compensation insurance and so forth. The other point, as Jon said, is just a notice. They’re just required to give the notice to Department of Labor that they’re intending to disturb asbestos, and that’s now been taken care of. So we’re moving forward. It’s a good step at least. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. FORD-And the approved sequence is to remove the second story first and then do the asbestos removal? MR. LAPPER-Yes, because it’ll be safer for the workers to be in the building with the roof of the second story off. MR. FORD-Really. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why, are there asbestos shingles on that roof? MR. LAPPER-No, because of the structural damage to the building because of all of the fires and the destruction when they were doing fire training, and then the water damage as a result of having the roof opened. So structural issues. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s hard to believe. I’ve been in that building. MR. LAPPER-I do have an engineering report that was submitted to the Department of Labor with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? MR. SIPP-I have one. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Don. MR. SIPP-This has nothing to do with any road. I’m concerned about this sign, which you are putting out front. Now on this, in fine print, it says LED channel letters. Now last night the Town Board had before it a revision of the Sign Ordinance in which it says signs known as digital billboards, electronic display panels and similar LED digital advertising displays are prohibited. MR. LAPPER-I think what that is talking about is the Stewarts gas station model where you actually re-set it from inside the store and either there’s like the flashing that CVS has where there’s a message board. MRS. STEFFAN-Reader boards. MR. LAPPER-The reader boards, and also the gas price that are these large letters that can be changed, and that’s not, this is a fixed sign. MR. SIPP-Well, if this is LED and it says it’s prohibited, you’ve got to work with somebody to find out if the letters are permitted to be in LED. MR. KREBS-Well, we better get that straightened out, then, because the movement in lighting is to LED because it’s significantly less expensive to operate and also lasts for a much longer time. MRS. STEFFAN-But there’s a big difference between lighting, for example in a gas station overhang, and neon accent or LED accent lighting. They’re two totally different things. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Like next door, like the gas station next door. That’s what got us going on this sign kick in the first place, because of the glaring red lights which are a distraction. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that’s why this project was toned down, in terms of the lighting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I don’t know whether LED is permitted in this Town or not. I wasn’t at the meeting last night. MS. RADNER-Well, the new Sign Ordinance hasn’t been passed and isn’t likely to be for at least a couple of months. It does permit LED lights, generally, but it does limit their use. It also has a five year catch up that existing signs will have to come into compliance with that new Ordinance. So the applicant is well warned that they should review it and make sure that they’re going to be compliant in five years. Otherwise it’s going to be on them to replace the sign in five years, but right now your charge is the existing Sign Ordinance. That’s the standard that they have to meet. MR. SIPP-Yes, but the existing one has been amended now to prohibit LEDs. MS. RADNER-No, that’s what’s on the table before the Town Board right now. MR. SIPP-No, it was the last year or the year before. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MS. RADNER-He’s right. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s right. MS. RADNER-He’s looking it up right now. MRS. STEFFAN-The reader boards had to go. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because of that sign, we went to the Town Board and asked them for a Sign Ordinance, and that’s when they made the revision. My understanding is LED is not permitted now period. MR. SIPP-It isn’t. MR. OBORNE-I will get back to you on that. MR. LAPPER-We would certainly stipulate that the sign will have to be compliant with the existing Town Code. MS. RADNER-Yes, they wouldn’t get their sign permit if it doesn’t. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s true. MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly, the discussion on traffic, I mean, these are the same things I’ve talked about before. I’m still concerned about the traffic patterns of this particular development on that major intersection of the Town. The EIS that was presented was nine and a half years ago. The Town Board made a decision. The Planning Board made a decision based on information back then, and here we are, fast forward nine and a half years, and, you know, I’m sure that this diner will be very well utilized, but my concern is that, yes, we’ve denoted that it’s going to be a right hand turn out, and the last time you were here, that I was here, we talked about where are people going to turn around? If you’re from here, you’re very familiar with the area and where you can do U-turns. If you’re not from here, what do you do? It’s just, from my point of view, when you turn into the Aviation Mall where the Friendly’s is, it’s very hard to do a U turn. You have to go in the parking lot to do a U turn and come back out to get back up the hill. If you’re a bus, that’s impossible. I don’t know where a bus would turn around. The last time you mentioned, Mr. Lapper, that folks would go into Greenway North and do a turnaround. It’s just, if you’re from here, then I don’t what you would do. MR. LAPPER-I mean, I would answer that by saying the traffic laws are the traffic laws, and you’re only allowed to turn where you’re allowed to turn. I know I’ve been involved in a number of projects where this Board has required that no left turn out. Taco Bell is one. I know that the Applebee’s, the Queensbury Plaza, or, I’m sorry, Northway Plaza has no left turn. Burger King has no left turn. So there’s nothing, it’s happened many times, and you have to find a safe and legal way to turn. MRS. STEFFAN-The difficulty is this one’s right at the Exit 19 corridor. So if folks are coming off the Northway and they want to go to the diner, and they want to get back on the Northway, how do they do that? MR. LAPPER-The answer is to make a right at the Mall and go into the parking lot and turn around. MRS. STEFFAN-That seems like a reasonable answer, but if you’re not from here, you’re not sure where you’re going. MR. LAPPER-Well, people know how to drive. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, and I’m not saying that people are idiots and they don’t know how to drive. It’s just, we’re talking, you know, part of our job here is to plan. MR. LAPPER-When the EIS was approved, there was large, 150 plus thousand square foot project in the back, and now we’re only talking about a 5400 square foot diner. So in terms of traffic generation, that was a different time, a different day, a different project in terms of traffic. The widening of the bridge to five lanes, actually six lanes, has made a substantial difference in terms of that whole corridor, that it functions much better. Of course there are times, during peak hour, where there’s a lot of traffic. We all know that. Other times, not so much, but DOT has said that this is acceptable to have, to limit the no left turn. I fully expect that there’s going to be a project in the back some day because it’s a great piece of property, and at that point I 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) fully expect that this Board is going to require the connector road to be built, but for the diner, I don’t believe it’s necessary, and I think DOT supports that. We’re just looking to re-develop this site, replace an 8,000 square foot restaurant with a 5400 square foot restaurant, clean it up, do all the landscaping, all the updated site improvements that have been proposed, and you’ll still have plenty of teeth to deal with Pyramid on the back piece when the time is right. MRS. STEFFAN-The difficulty is that this applicant is here to develop this diner project. it should be Pyramid Corporation that is revising the traffic plan. It shouldn’t be this individual, but, you know, I still believe very strongly that the traffic plan should be updated. We would hold any other applicant to that standard, regardless of who came in front of us. With a major intersection like that, you’re traffic report, you know, the traffic counts are just not sufficient, in my mind, for us to give a thumbs up to the project. I’m only one person on the Board, but I still feel very strongly about that. MR. LAPPER-We did submit new traffic numbers from Creighton Manning, as part of this process. Everything’s been submitted to DOT, and again, there is no project in the back, and nothing can happen in the back without this Board’s approval, and that’s certainly going to include traffic. So if we were to do an update, we would have zero in the back now because it would only be speculation what somebody might want to do. MRS. STEFFAN-Which is the same thing that the original was based on, the speculation what the project would be. MR. LAPPER-But there was a proposal. There was actually, there were two story retail. I mean that was a real project that came close to having real tenants if 2008 hadn’t come along, but here we are. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and according to all of the material that was submitted by DOT, they also would like a traffic study. They were willing to put it off a couple of years, but they wanted it. That was part of the documentation you submitted. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that’s okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So, I just don’t see it as a thumbs up. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I just think that this is what the Town’s been looking for in terms of cleaning up this parcel. The diner’s a great use. The Pilarinos family expects that they’ll do well there. I mean, they’re excited about this and the Town gets a new development at an important entrance to the Town, and I assure you that when a project is proposed in the back, you’ll have the ability to look at traffic all over again based upon whatever is proposed, and I know you’ll condition it on the connector road if you feel that’s necessary. MRS. STEFFAN-The second issue regarding this proposed development is design standards. We’ve talked about that several times, and, you know, I’ve read the Code a few times, and I just can’t get my hands around. I know this is a diner and you’re proposing a silver diner, and it’s what you want, but I feel pretty strongly that the design standards of the Town are saying that this is not an acceptable project for that particular location, the gateway to the Town. MR. LAPPER-The design standards don’t apply to the Enclosed Shopping Center zone. I mean, that section of the design standards, the commercial design standards don’t apply to this zone, but nevertheless, we still came back to you, rather than say, hey, we’re going to push this through because the design standards don’t apply. We heard what the Board said. We took off the stainless steel, at the whole bottom half of the building, and we replaced it with stone. So they need to have some glass block and stainless steel so that it looks like a diner, but it was a compromise by removing it from the bottom half of the building, and I still don’t believe that the design standards apply, but I think that Keith would verify that. Of course we’re always trying to compromise and come up with something that the Board is comfortable with. MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s still, the top part of the building is stainless steel, and it’s proposed to have LED lighting, regardless of the color that’s there, and the reflectivity of that material is just not in. MR. LAPPER-People like diners. MRS. STEFFAN-I like diners, too, but we’re talking about a diner at Exit 19 of Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-And to soften it there’s substantial landscaping, and think about what’s there now. This would have 40 feet of grass that doesn’t even exist where there’s a parking lot. There’s no 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) parking in front of the diner. I mean, there’s a whole bunch of site improvements to really bring this into compliance with the Code. It’s going to look good. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The diner in Lake George, when the sun comes up in the morning down in Lake George, you could land airplanes on Route 9 by the light that comes out of it. We’re going to have that here, too. MR. LAPPER-You can’t compare it to that project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re still going to have the same kind of roof. MR. LAPPER-But I don’t think there’s a tree or a shrub in that project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We’re talking about the roof and the shiny part of the design standards that don’t permit the reflective roof is what the issue was she was talking about. MR. LAPPER-Do you want to pull out the elevation drawing? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s right in front of us, and I was reading that Sign Ordinance, Keith, and this, the Queensbury Diner, that’s above the natural roofline. Is that permitted in the Code? MR. OBORNE-Yes, no. I talked to Craig about that. That’s okay. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay? MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is. MRS. STEFFAN-And will the Queensbury Diner sign on the front of that building have LED lighting on it? MR. HUTCHINS-No, it’s back lit. It’s back lit. It’s not LED lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-The LED lighting is just around the trim. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the difference here is they’re using the LED lighting for illumination, as a substitute for fluorescent lighting, not as a form of communication, like with the message board LED lighting. MR. STEFFAN-Right. They’re using it as accents on the building, and, you know, one of the things that is in the Code about reflective materials, it’s not congruent with what we were trying to accomplish in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. If you have LED lighting around a stainless steel building, it’s going to reflect, and so you’re going to get a bounce. So it’s going to be two times the intensity, or even more, LED lighting reflecting off the stainless steel front. You have a wet parking lot. There’s even going to be reflectivity on a wet parking lot, and so, you know, this isn’t about me. It’s about the Code of the Town, and so the design standards, in my mind, are very specific about what it talks about, and, you know, I just don’t think that this is what we envisioned when we re-wrote the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the new Zoning Code, and there’s some language in the Zoning Code, and I know that there’s, you’re telling me that it doesn’t fit in the Enclosed Shopping Center, but this fronts right on 254 at Exit 19, and that part is specific in the Code. So, we can argue that point, but I think the intent was pretty clear, and the language in the Code specifically talks about shoulds and shalls, and it’s in several situations here where the language says prohibited, shall not, and, you know, I don’t know how to get around that. MR. LAPPER-Legally it doesn’t apply in this zone, and my point is that we’ve made major strides to tone it down, both in terms of what Tom did this time, and in terms of removing the stainless steel on the lower half of the building. It’s not going to be as bright as the Hess station across the street. MRS. STEFFAN-But one of the reasons why we re-did the Zoning Code was because, when re- development comes around, we can change what we don’t like about the Town, and it’s bright operations like that where the lighting is excessive, and where design standards have not been met, that’s one of the reasons why the Town invested all the money in re-writing the Comp Plan and the Zoning Code. MR. LAPPER-Bob, could you talk for a sec about how the other diners that you’re familiar with and how you think this is going to look? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. PILARINOS-I mean, as far as the reflectiveness, I mean, there’s diners that have a lot more stainless steel in high traffic areas, such as New Jersey, and I don’t see their accidents or chaos happening or airplanes landing there. I mean, why would it happen here? It’s, that’s ridiculous. There’s more traffic there in one day than there is in a month here, and I don’t see it chaos over there. I mean, why would it happen there? And as far as the design standard, I mean, we compromised, you know, we eliminated some of the stainless steel, you know, we’re meeting halfway, but you’re not meeting us, you know. You’re not giving us any leeway. We’re trying to meet you halfway, but you’re refusing to, and this is the fifth time we’ve been here. We’ve been coming here since June. MR. KREBS-Look at the Staff Notes, style is not cited for this particular commercial district, only compatibility with neighborhoods as stated above, and if you read the above, it doesn’t restrict the use of shiny buildings. So you can’t take something that’s applicable to Zone A and put it in Zone B. MRS. STEFFAN-If you read the Zoning Code, what is the difference, the line, if you look at the property line, there, the building faces out onto Route 9, and so the applicant is saying that Enclosed Shopping Center is not covered by the language within the Zoning Code, but yet it faces out onto the corridor, where it’s supposed to be covered by that part of the Zoning Code. So we’re mincing words, and I want to make a couple of other points. Mr. Pilarinos, you know, when you mention the accidents and the chaos, I didn’t say that, the design standards, I’m purely going by the Code, and, you know, one of the principles of classic negotiation is separate the people from the problem. The Planning Board has no issues, I have no issues with you. I’m sure you’re very reputable businesspeople and we would love to welcome you to the community. So it’s not us against you. It’s looking at the application in the context of whether it suits the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and so that’s what the debate is all about. It’s very unfortunate that you’re in a situation with a potential, that you’re buying property from somebody who has had some issues with the Town, and that’s one of the reasons why this project has been here repeatedly, and, you know, I would apologize for it, but I had no part in it. It was the Pyramid Corporation that lead us to this point in time. So, you know, I’m very sorry that you’re personally offended by what’s been going on over the last few months, but, you know, this project goes through the same Site Plan Review that we review other projects with. MR. PILARINOS-I understand what you’re saying, but the last time we were here, there were two issues, tone down the lighting, which we’ve done, and you wanted a commitment from Pyramid when the motel would be torn down. You have both, now we’re going back to the issues we started with again. We’re not resolving anything. We just keep on moving back, no matter what we do, and that’s what’s frustrating. MR. LAPPER-We’ve certainly been here in good faith trying to compromise. We always try to work it out, and the diner has changed in terms of the look, but for the applicant, it has to be a diner. That’s their business. If it’s not, if it’s just another restaurant, they can’t do it. It has to be a diner, and I don’t believe that that design guidelines apply, but, you know, nevertheless, it’s still stone where it used to be stainless steel. MR. HUNSINGER-I think at the last meeting I made some comments about this, and, you know, like Gretchen, I’ve struggled with the design a lot, and I totally understand the point that you’ve made, Jon, and I think you’re technically correct, I really do. The design standards don’t apply to indoor shopping center, and I also think that the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is very clear, in certain applications, but I don’t think we ever anticipated this kind of a project, and I think that’s kind of where I’ve been coming from is, you know, I understand both positions. I understand both sides of the argument, if you will, and, you know, at the end of the day, we have a project in front of us, and, you know, our job is to review and act on the project that’s before us, and I see a lot of positive things with the proposal, and I said this right from the very first meeting. The way the site is designed, the way the building is set on the site, the way the parking is designed, the way the landscaping is designed, I think is a very positive thing, and I think if you look at it on a whole, to me it’s an acceptable project. There are issues with the building design. I understand that, but again, I don’t think we could have anticipated this kind of a project. I think it’ll be wildly successful, I really do. I think in that location, this kind of a project, I think it’ll be beyond your imagination success. The location to the school, the location to the Interstate, it’ll be a destination. Am I concerned with the traffic? Yes, but I’m also weighing that in the fact that there’s an existing 8800 square foot restaurant and if that had never closed and if you weren’t proposing to tear that down, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. You’re replacing it with a smaller building. You’ve given us the traffic counts. It’s one percent of the traffic on Aviation Road. Do I think people will try to make an illegal left hand turn coming out of there? Absolutely. Just like they try to make them into Lowe’s off Quaker Road. You’re not going to stop people from doing illegal turns or from doing wrong things, but, you know, we can 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) only go so far, and there are lots of places where left hand turns are prohibited, Exit 15 being a major section where it’s prohibited, you know, for a couple of miles, I think. So I’m okay with that, and it’s not unusual to go into, you know, to come off an interstate and to then, you know, have to meander to get turned around to come back to the exit. I think anyone that travels, you know, you kind of get used to dealing with that. So, that’s sort of, you know, my opinion on the project as a whole. Is it what I would design? No, but, you know, we have a project before us that we need to act on, and I think if you balance the positive and the negative, I think it’s, I think it would be a fine project. That’s just my opinion. MRS. STEFFAN-Other thoughts? Apparently there aren’t any. So what do we do here? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on the project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I see no takers. Any additional written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Let me check. I don’t believe so. No. Could I make a clarification on the LED code, what it states in the Code? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Basically you just go all the way down to the last line. This was updated on December 15, 2008. Signs known as digital billboards, electronic display panels and similar LED digital advertising displays shall be prohibited. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, ma’am, did you want to make a comment? VICKY POULIS MS. POULIS-I just wanted to ask, if there’s seven members on the Board, we only usually hear comments from a few of you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’ll need to get you on the record if you want to make a comment. If you could identify yourself for the record. MS. POULIS-My name is Vicky Poulis and I live in Queensbury. I was just wondering, since there’s seven members on the Board, why we only hear from certain individuals, and I was just wondering if we could hear from everyone how they feel on this. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? Okay. I’m sorry, Keith. MR. OBORNE-So take that at face value. Digital billboards, I don’t think the applicant is proposing that, or display panels. LED digital advertising displays. I don’t think that that’s there, to be honest with you. When you’re talking about, and I’m not the Zoning Administrator, please keep that in mind. I don’t make these determinations, but the issue with the LED or neon lighting strips around, that is a subjective architectural issue, I believe, and it’s not what this, it’s not part of the Sign Code, per se. MR. SIPP-The same wording is in the new one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you’re saying the sign isn’t advertising, is what you’re saying. MR. OBORNE-Well, the sign is advertising, sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it says no LED advertising. MR. OBORNE-But if you took, if you look at what the intent is, digital billboards, electronic display panels and similar LED advertising displays shall be prohibited. If you’re not comfortable with that, then let that be known. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they’re coming up with a new one. MR. LAPPER-What that means is when you have words, when you have the reader board, like Gretchen said, or you can change it so you say on sale today. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And what’s a similar display? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. LAPPER-That type of a. MR. KREBS-But didn’t you say your sign itself is backlit? MR. LAPPER-The sign on the building is backlit. The freestanding sign has some LED on it, but what we’ve said is that the sign will comply, and so if there’s a determination from Craig that it doesn’t comply, then we’ll revise the sign and come back on the sign, but we’re certainly committing that it’s going to comply with the Sign Code. We’re not going to seek a variance. I believe that it does comply, but if it doesn’t. MR. FORD-And there will be vertical LED lighting next to the aluminum façade on the building itself? MR. LAPPER-There are two bands of LED, because we reduced it from three, a blue and a gold at the top to make it look like a diner. MR. FORD-I’m just saying that that type of lighting on a diner says I’m a diner. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. FORD-It’s a form of advertising. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a diner, but it’s Exit 19 and it’s the gateway to our Town, and we talk about all the economic development we’re trying to do, and that’s the first thing folks are going to see, and I understand it’s a stainless steel diner and it’s going to have beautiful landscaping. MR. LAPPER-It’s a fancy stainless steel diner. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but it’s going to be at the gateway to our Town. MR. LAPPER-It’s Americana. People like diners. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I understand, and in urban areas it’s a perfect fit, but I just don’t feel like it’s a perfect fit for Exit 19 in Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-When you leave Queensbury High School, when your kid’s in a play and you need, you to, go somewhere to go out, it’s two blocks away. MRS. STEFFAN-I know, and I understand that, but in my mind, it’s a conflict between what we went through with the Comp Plan and the zoning. So that’s why I’m struggling so much. This isn’t about me personally. It’s about the Comp Plan and it’s about zoning. MR. LAPPER-Well, the Chairman talked about the balance in terms of what we’ve got now, which is horrible and has been for a long time, and it’s a brand new site that complies with your requirements in every respect, as far as I know. I know that you’re not excited about the design, but I think on balance it’s really a good project, and important project for the Town. It won’t look like it’s dead anymore when you come into Queensbury, which is a vibrant Town, but that’s not a good entrance. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It might if he doesn’t rip the motel down. MR. HUNSINGER-Where are we at? MR. KREBS-Well, I think we’ve covered all the points. I think we need to call the question. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, before we do that, we need to address SEQRA. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant has submitted a Long Form. We do have a memo from Counsel regarding SEQRA, and she recommends how we approach it. MS. RADNER-Actually it was a he that recommended it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. You’re here, though. MS. RADNER-But I’m here. I’ll be (lost words) of Counsel. Mike gave you a rather extensive nd memo dated June 22 that’s saying what procedures to follow. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just to be fair, Cathi, it doesn’t say who actually wrote it. It says Miller, Mannix, Schachner and Hafner. MS. RADNER-Fair enough. We have established Miller Mannix as a female law firm. I like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Basically what Counsel has recommended is that we should review the project application and the environmental assessment and determine whether any further information is needed, and whether there’s any previously un reviewed significant adverse environmental impacts, and if additional information is needed to make that determination we should make a request of the applicant or engage an appropriate consultant. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’ve made a recommendation for a traffic study, but it does unsupported by other folks. So, that was the only issue that I think came up, that would affect SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-And the applicant has submitted a Long Form. Are we ready to move forward with review of the SEQRA? MR. FORD-Let’s do it. MR. HUNSINGER-If so, I’d like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 53-2010 BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-So do you want me to go ahead, or do you want somebody else to do it? MR. HUNSINGER-No, you can do it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate, potentially large, mitigated by project change? MR. FORD-Small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate, mitigated by the Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I would say yes, mitigated, again, by Site Plan, small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d say it would be more than that. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone okay with that, small to moderate impact? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. FORD-I’m not sure. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know. MR. TRAVER-Well, the question is will it impact traffic. We know that it will because the site is essentially vacant and derelict now. We’ve had a traffic study with counts. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not a traffic study. It’s traffic counts. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s not a traffic study. MR. TRAVER-Traffic counts, and we have looked at a DOT proposed exit from the site prohibiting left hand turns. MR. KREBS-And they indicated they felt that it was adequate for the volume of traffic for a diner. MR. TRAVER-Well, it could be interpreted that way, yes, and I think after a long discussion we’ve recognized that the future use with the diner is less than what the former use with the restaurant was and although concerns remain, we anticipate having an opportunity, in the future, to review traffic again with further developments, which we anticipate. MR. KREBS-I’m just going to re-read what Kevin Novak road. A proposed driveway configuration allowing right in, right out and left in movements is adequate for the anticipated trip generation for the diner proposal alone. That’s pretty clear to me. MRS. STEFFAN-Which is only based on a traffic count. Okay. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know, Cathi, I’ve never dealt with this before. So I don’t know, when you have disparate viewpoints, how do you handle it? MS. RADNER-Again, what you’re looking at here is whether there’s a significant adverse environmental impact not previously identified and reviewed with this project that would warrant additional environmental study. That’s what you’re determining here. So you might want to go down the Board and get a head count of who thinks that that has contributed and who hasn’t, if you’re kind of on the fence. I can’t make the decision for you. MR. SIPP-Is that on environmental only? MS. RADNER-Right now you’re dealing with environmental only, and whether there are significant potential adverse environmental impacts that were not previously reviewed with this project that warrant further review. MRS. STEFFAN-The descriptors under Question 15, will there be an effect to existing transportation systems. Examples are alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods; proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Those are the two. MR. TRAVER-And, Cathi, when you say warranting further review, you mean review beyond the review that this Board has conducted in this part of this application? MS. RADNER-If you feel you need further information in order to make that determination, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And then we can’t complete SEQRA, correct? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MS. RADNER-Then you make a determination that you need additional study and you require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. MR. TRAVER-Well, if we’re polling the Board on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, how do we poll the Board? MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, I’ll simply offer that I feel that we have looked at, with this, limited to this project, we’ve looked at enough traffic information to conclude that it’s not an adverse impact. MR. KREBS-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I think, Cathi, don’t we have to ask the questions? I mean, there’s boxes. I’ve never done this before. MS. RADNER-Well, you’re not doing a typical full SEQRA. MR. TRAVER-We’re just polling the Board at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. RADNER-You’re polling the Board right now whether you think you’ve triggered that FEIS statement or not. So it’s a little bit different than your typical SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. So, will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? You said small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve said yes, small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate, mitigated by. MR. HUNSINGER-Mitigated by the design. MR. TRAVER-Mitigated by the design. MR. HUNSINGER-And Site Plan Review. MR. KREBS-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-One in three. MR. FORD-I concur with that. I think it’s small to moderate and I think it can be addressed and mitigated. MR. HUNSINGER-Paul? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Don? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-How do you feel? MR. HUNSINGER-I feel the same. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So one in three. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re okay. Move forward. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re good. Sixteen, Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then based on the Planning Board’s responses, I’ll make a motion for a Negative declaration. MS. RADNER-Well, wait a second. Again, you’re not making a negative declaration tonight. What you want to make, then, is a finding that this diner project is not likely to result in any new or different significant adverse environmental impacts that were not covered in the 2001 EIS, and that no further EIS is required. MR. TRAVER-Second. MS. RADNER-That’s the motion you’re making. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, do you want to make that motion, then? MR. TRAVER-I could, I’m sorry, I wasn’t taking notes. MS. RADNER-I made it as slowly as possible. MR. TRAVER-Well, paraphrasing, I guess. MS. RADNER-You can just say I make that motion. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to say. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I’ll make that motion. MOTION TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS DINER PROJECT, SITE PLAN NO. 53-2010 BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS IS NOT LIKELY TO RESULT IN ANY NEW OR DIFFERENT SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT WERE NOT COVERED IN THE 2001 EIS, AND THAT NO FURTHER EIS IS REQUIRED, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of the 8,800 sq. ft. former Howard Johnson’s restaurant and construction of a 5,400 sq. ft. diner with associated site work. Food Service in the ESC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21/2010, 9/28/10, 9/30/10 & 10/19/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS DINER PROJECT, SITE PLAN NO. 53-2010 BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS IS NOT LIKELY TO RESULT IN ANY NEW OR DIFFERENT SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT WERE NOT COVERED IN THE 2001 EIS, AND THAT NO FURTHER EIS IS REQUIRED, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion for either approval or denial? And do we want to discuss any conditions? MS. RADNER-I would recommend that you be very careful to make sure that the conditions that you’ve discussed and that are very important to you, for example the modifications to the pattern that’s now before you, be specifically set forth in the conditions of your approval. So that, there’s been a lot of meetings here, and we want our Enforcement Offices to have one place to go to look for their conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, certainly one condition, there was a minor comment from Town Engineer that had to be addressed. I don’t remember what it was. The staging area. MR. OBORNE-But that’s been taken care of. MR. HUNSINGER-Was it taken care of yet? MR. OBORNE-No, you have it on. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s on the plan. It hasn’t been back through the Town Engineer, but I think he commented. MS. RADNER-They can certainly condition it on engineer’s signoff of the staging area. MR. TRAVER-And then I think to clarify on the sign issue, we wanted the sign to be evaluated by zoning with specific regard to the LED, the application of LED in this case and whether it meets the amended Town guidelines. MRS. STEFFAN-I was wondering if, the public hearing has been closed, and SEQR’s been done, or re-visited, if whoever puts the motion together wants to take a timeout period to do that, either right now or do it, take a week and do it, to make sure all the conditions are covered. MR. OBORNE-I think that’s a fine idea, to be honest with you, being that you have a split Board at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and since we are going to be, can we reconvene next Tuesday? That’s enough time for whoever puts the motion together to make sure all of the conditions are in that have been discussed. MR. OBORNE-I thought you meant tonight, to take a timeout for five minutes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, there’s, I presented two scenarios. Because I don’t know, I obviously won’t be making the motion, but I just wanted to make sure that somebody else includes all the things that have been in the record, that the Planning Board wanted. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that the new lighting plan, the one we got? I thought there was a revised lighting plan to that? MR. OBORNE-That is the revised. MRS. STEFFAN-It is the revised lighting plan. MR. OBORNE-That you got with my Staff Notes. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s the one that came with Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. That’s the first revision, and that’s all there is. MR. OBORNE-I believe it’s the second revision, isn’t it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Second. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s beyond second. MR. OBORNE-Definitely second. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s the third one that has been submitted, yes. MR. OBORNE-In totality, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And you reviewed that, right, you reviewed the most recent one that was submitted? MR. OBORNE-Well, this last one was submitted on deadline day so I didn’t have a chance to update my notes, but at this point, as I stated earlier in my briefing, was that it has been toned down. MRS. STEFFAN-Significantly. MR. OBORNE-Significantly, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It was in our package. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The third lighting plan but the second revision. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s rev. three in the title block. MR. HUNSINGER-What other conditions would members like to see? MR. TRAVER-At this point, I think the only. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m not trying to rush this. I mean, if there’s a need for us to consider a motion for a later date, that’s fine, but only if there’s a need to. MR. TRAVER-Right. I guess my concern was that the sign is a bit in the gray area in that it does involve specifically LED which is mentioned in the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, well that certainly can be in the conditions. MR. KREBS-But Jonathan, I think with his concurrence of Bob, said that the sign would be compliant. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Right, and the resolution would just codify that. MR. LAPPER-If the Zoning Administrator determines that it’s not compliant, we’ll revise the sign so that it’s compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-What other conditions do people still have concerns with? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they’re not going to do any of the ones we’ve got concerns about. I mean, I will always say there should be a road going back in there, and not left anybody make a left turn in front of some kid coming from Queensbury High School, because that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Because when you have a diner, you have to realize, and you know this better than anybody else, that a good deal of your patrons are not going to be from this 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) area. They’re going to be coming off the Northway and not familiar with this area. Because that’s a prime location for a diner, and so when they get off and it’s ten o’clock at night, what do they know? They don’t know how to turn that 18-wheeler around, so they just zip it across the road. MR. LAPPER-It’s the same with the Hess station to get off the interstate. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, except they don’t stop there at the Hess station with an 18-wheeler. They go to Exit 18 or one of the other places where they can get their diesel and there is room for them to turn around. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a comment made at I think the last meeting, and I think it was th made by Counsel. In Mr. Lapper’s July 28 letter, they indicated that the applicant was willing to accommodate the right hand turning lane for a connector road. Now if there’s in writing in the record, is that something that we would necessarily need to put in any approval resolution? MS. RADNER-I would recommend including it in the approval resolution anyway, just to be sure it’s there and it’s enforceable. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because I think those are some of the issues that we get into, you know, because there’s a lot to the record that’s already in writing, you know, and we talked a little bit about the lighting plan that was submitted. MS. RADNER-Yes, anything that, but for that concession, you would say no, make sure you get in your conditions. You want to make sure that, the applicant’s merely stating that they are willing to agree to it, isn’t lost along the way. If that’s an important condition to you, include it. MR. LAPPER-What I said was that if the State or the Town requires, at some time in the future, a right turn lane from the Northway, an additional right turn lane on Aviation Road, and land from the Pilarinos family is required to accommodate that, that they would deed that land to the State. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re letter’s very clear. MR. LAPPER-That’s offered, and that’s still offered. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any other issues? MR. FORD-We can’t mention the demolition in the condition for this, can we? That’s separate and apart. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t know why not. The guy owns the property. It’s not your fault. He represents both sides, both clients. MS. RADNER-You could condition it upon their compliance with the agreement they’ve made with the Town Board. You can’t step in the shoes of the Town Board, but you could certainly condition it upon the agreement they’ve already made. Is that acceptable to you, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Pyramid asked me to say that, if it came up, that they’re not going to all this trouble not to demolish it. They’ve retained everybody. They’ve submitted to DOL. It’s really going to be demolished. MR. FORD-Let’s make it a condition. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d make it a condition. Congel hasn’t kept any of his promises. MR. HUNSINGER-And how would we word that, then? MS. RADNER-I would say something like conditioned on the demolition of the Howard Johnson’s hotel, consistent with the agreement that they forged with the Town Board. MR. LAPPER-The only thing is that, if that doesn’t happen until, finish until January. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who picked that date? MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s how long it’s going to take. MS. RADNER-How long do you think it’ll take to finish your construction of the diner? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. LAPPER-It’s a question of, whatever this condition is, it would affect the closing, because their bank is going to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s been the problem all along. That diner would have been knocked down this summer if he wasn’t trying to play that game. MR. LAPPER-Well, what you’re saying is not a problem, because they really are going to demolish it. It’s just a question of timing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s what they told me three years ago. MR. LAPPER-You’ll see this time. MR. FORD-We will see. MS. RADNER-I don’t think that would impact his financing, though. MR. LAPPER-I mean, I guess the question is, can they get a building permit? What’s the hammer? MS. RADNER-Why don’t you make the hammer be the CO. MR. LAPPER-That they can’t get a CO for the diner until the demolition is completed, is what Cathi’s suggesting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But, see, I’m not sure, if I were a banker, that I would give them a loan with that kind of a condition available, all right, because he can build the diner, and then not get a CO, and then who’s going to pay for the diner? Is the bank going to foreclose on it? I mean, they can’t run it. That doesn’t make sense to me. MR. TRAVER-Well, one of the partners of the negotiations with the bank is the corporation that’s conducting the demolition. So I think that they’re probably going to all be on the same page before they walk away from the table. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t think so. I think that, Pyramid Corporation is not going to be responsible for the mortgage on their diner. MR. TRAVER-No, but they’re responsible for the demolition. MR. FORD-Let’s do it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let’s do it and let him worry about it. He should have torn it down a long time ago. MR. FORD-It’s not our fault that we’re still addressing the Howard Johnson’s issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right. MR. LAPPER-But you’ll be proud when it’s done. MR. FORD-We sure will be. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what else is there? Is there anything else? Any other conditions? MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you’re satisfied with the lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-With the lighting plan? How does everyone else feel? MS. RADNER-The only other thing that you might want to consider is the condition that there’ll be no further development of the hotel parcel without the connector road, or without re-visiting the issue of the connector road at the very least. That’s the only other one that you’ve talked about that I didn’t hear you mention. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can we connect that parcel to this one through that language? MS. RADNER-Right now they’re all one parcel. It’s all one site. MR. LAPPER-No, they are subdivided. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MS. RADNER-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. LAPPER-They’re separate parcels. MS. RADNER-But the applicant has offered that up that they will re-visit it, they’ll commit to re- visiting it, when there’s further development of the hotel, and they are here at the table. MR. LAPPER-Not the applicant, but Pyramid. MS. RADNER-Pyramid, right, but the applicant is the contract vendee. Pyramid is still the owner of the applicant’s site. Correct? MR. LAPPER-Pyramid is the owner, and the applicant is the vendee. MR. HUNSINGER-So so far there’s four conditions, or, I’m sorry, five conditions. That the applicant’s design for the proposed sign be reviewed by zoning to determine if the use of LED lighting complies with the current Town Sign Code. Final signoff from the Town Engineer. Three is that in the event that additional land is needed for a right hand turn lane from I-87 exit to the driveway to the Queensbury Diner parcel, applicant agrees that when requested they will convey title to such land to New York State so that a turn lane can be constructed. Four is that demolition of Howard Johnson hotel be consistent with the agreement with the Town Board, and then Five is that no Certificate of Occupancy of any kind can be obtained until the Howard Johnson hotel is demolished. MR. FORD-Would you read Number One again? MR. SCHONEWOLF-What happened to the connector road she read, the one that she suggested? MS. RADNER-I suggested, it’s up to you guys what you put on there. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re separate parcels, though. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They will be. MR. HUNSINGER-They are now. They’re currently separate parcels. MR. KREBS-They are now. MR. HUNSINGER-The first one, Mr. Ford, was that the applicant’s design for the proposed sign be reviewed by zoning to determine if the use of LED lighting complies with the current Town Sign Code. MR. FORD-I’d like to expand that to my previous point, relative to the use of any LED lighting on the site, not just on the sign, but on the structure itself, that the use of any LED is compliant with our Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, can I just say sign and trim? MR. FORD-Yes, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. TRAVER-Could I request that that reference to the LED lighting and the review for the building be distinct and separate from the sign? Because I think that water’s down, to some degree, the importance of the specific review of the LED in the sign. Not to negate the importance of reviewing it on the building as well, but I think they should be considered as separate examinations, if you will, or opinions, if you will. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I wouldn’t want to put someone in the position of having to make one recommendation that would have to cover both. MR. FORD-I would concur. I just, because there is LED on site, at more than one place, I want it all addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if no one else wants to move it, I will. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2010 BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of the 8,800 sq. ft. former Howard Johnson’s restaurant and construction of a 5,400 sq. ft. diner with associated site work. Food Service in the ESC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21/2010, 9/28/10, 9/30/10 & 10/19/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2010 BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. With the following: Item A, the proposal complies. Item B, we have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and determined that the project is consistent. Item H covers Paragon Engineering signoff. 1) Approved with the following statements and conditions: a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080]], 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 determined that the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)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)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 h)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator – From 9/17/10 Paragon Eng. comments: Based on our previous comment letters and the materials re- submitted, all of the previous comments have been adequately addressed with the exception of the following: A staging and storage area should be indicated on the plan. Based on the minor nature of this remaining item, our firm feels that you or your staff can adequately determine if the staging and storage areas are indicated on the sediment control plan; and i)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. j) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 1.The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. 2.The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) k) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 1.The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and 2.The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. l) It is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant’s design for the proposed sign be reviewed by zoning to determine if the use of LED lighting complies with the current Town Sign Code. 2.That the applicant’s design for the building trim be reviewed by zoning to determine if the use of LED lighting complies with the current Code. 3.Final signoff from the Town Engineer. 4.That in the event that additional land is needed for a right hand turn lane from I-87 exit to the driveway to the Queensbury Diner parcel. Applicant agrees that when requested they will convey title to such land to New York State so that a turn lane can be constructed. 5.That demolition of Howard Johnson hotel be consistent with the agreement with the Town Board. 6.No Certificate of Occupancy of any kind can be obtained until Howard Johnson hotel is demolished. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We really appreciate it. All’s well that ends well, and I think you’re all going to be proud eventually. Thank you, everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with your project. SITE PLAN NO. 62-2010 JAMES ANTHIS SEQR TYPE II OWNER(S) STEPHEN T. LANNING ZONING CI LOCATION 306 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LEASE A 10’ X 10’ PORTION OF EXISTING BUILDING FOR OFFICE SPACE AND LEASE THE FRONT ROW OF EXISTING PARKING LOT TO DISPLAY AND SELL AUTOS. NEW USES IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 56-05, PZ 2-02 BP 06-014, BP 08-648 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/13/2010 LOT SIZE 1.0 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-66.2 SECTION 179-9 DAVID LANNING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 62-2010, James Anthis, doing business as Evia Auto Sales. New use in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 306 Quaker Road. Existing zoning is CI, Commercial Intensive. It’s a Type II SEQR. Project Description: Applicant proposes to lease a 10’ x 10’ portion of existing building for office space and lease the front row of existing parking lot to display and sell autos. The owner of the property will continue the service use as Quaker Road Car Care Center with Evia Auto Sales continuing the dealer use on the property. Staff Comments: The applicant is seeking waivers from stormwater, grading, lighting and topographic requirements of site plan review. The existing use, Auto Repair, requires 2 spaces plus 2 per repair bay for a total of 18 spaces; 24 are present on site. Evia Auto Sales is proposing to utilize approximately 12 spaces fronting on Quaker Road for display. The applicant proposes to install a complaint sign on the space currently occupied by the “Have A Nice Day” sign. Review: All existing parking should be denoted on final plan. Note: Parking spaces to be accessed by a 24 foot drive aisle. Additional Comments: Fire Marshal comments attached The applicant, again, is seeking waivers from stormwater, topography, grading & lighting. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. LANNING-Hi. How are you? MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. LANNING-Yes. I’m David Lanning. I’m representing both Mr. Anthis and the property owner, my Uncle Stephen. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. LANNING-That’s about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-It seems pretty straightforward to me. MR. LANNING-I wish it was as exciting as the diner. Because I got an education tonight. MR. FORD-Don’t wish that upon yourself. MR. KREBS-It’s really just different use of internal space. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There are adjoining property owners, though. You may want to take that into consideration when you’re deliberating, but there seems to be plenty of room for an area to be for parking, sure, but my main concern is to have everything denoted on the plan, where the parking’s going to be, and I don’t think that’s too difficult. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s not being sold. It’s just this person’s leasing space. MR. OBORNE-Correct. It’s an allowable use. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I didn’t have any issues with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a concern, Keith, that you have? MR. OBORNE-Potentially, but I’ll let the public hearing run its course. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. I take it there’s members of the audience who want to address the Board? Okay. The purpose of the public hearing is to address the Board and provide information on the project. We ask that you identify yourself for the record. We do tape our meetings, and then those tapes are used to transcribe the minutes. So that’s the purpose of speaking into the microphone. You can be first, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Maclane Hadden MR. HADDEN-My name’s Maclane Hadden. I’m the neighbor. My issue was to the impact of how many cars would be at this location. We’ve been up against this once before, prior with another dealership there, the two businesses there were excessive in parking between customers coming in trying to, I think you have a couple of pictures on that. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, are you to the right or to the left of the applicant? MR. HADDEN-To the right. MR. HUNSINGER-To the right. Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-That parcel right there. MRS. STEFFAN-So are you on the side with the caps and the? Okay. MR. HADDEN-Yes. Mac the Knife. I’m all for working in tough times right now, and I guess what we had dealt with before is you had a large dealer there and he came in, he filled the lot. So now there’s no room for parking for the two businesses, while people come in trying to (lost word) the cars. I have five spaces on my side. So now I immediately came overrun. Kind of grew a friction between the two of us and the relationship has been kind of sketchy. So it has 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) calmed down. There was a small dealer in there that took a few cars out front and everything worked out good, and it was very compatible. My concern is I don’t want to go back to this pressure that we can’t have before. I think you need to have two parking spots for each bay, as they require, which I think he has up to eight bays. You have two, three, or four employees as it means there, by the time you get a parking for them. He has approximately 22 spaces I’m seeing up front, and now he’s already consuming 20, as well as putting another dealership in there. I don’t see where you’re going to fit all this. Now what happens, what we did see before is it rolled over into my parking, and I’m trying to make room for my patrons, and it’s just overrun. There’s just too much. That’s the front of my building, and that’s the left of my building. That’s the easement, that’s easement right of way down through the middle of it. The five parking spots up front are what he needs for drive in customers. There’s six spots behind there that are for the front row, and then there’s approximately about six parking spots on Quaker Road with another five to the side. So if your general business comes in the front, you’ve got the six spots that you see right there for the next row of cars, and then, which is on the edge of Quaker Road. If it’s a few cars, fine. If it’s going to be 20, 30 cars, because it’s Evia Motors I understand is coming in, they have a lot consisting of at least 30 plus cars, it isn’t going to fit. So the impact is like if we’re going for 10, 12 cars, or is it going to be 30 cars? So my concern is, is that I’ve addressed this before, and basically we don’t even talk anymore because it’s become the Hatfields and the McCoys, because there’s too much pressure. I didn’t want the pressure. It calmed down. It went away. Now it’s coming back again. I want to get along with my neighbors fine, but I just can’t stand the impact, and if it’s going to be 12 cars or 30, that’s what I’m here to find out. MR. TRAVER-They’re proposing 12. MR. HADDEN-Well, they’re proposing 12. How long is that going to be? Because now we have the car dealership on Aviation which is going to now move to that location. There’s a lot more cars than 12. This is my concern. So it’s like who’s kidding who here? So the next thing I know it’s going to be one more car, one more car, one more car, and then next thing I know all the impact is going to come in. Now he does a finance business. So people come in and do their payments there. So there’s going to be more traffic onto it. Like I said, I’m all about getting along, but can we stand that, and as it is it was too much before. I can see it going right back there again, and I’m all for staying alive in business, but it’s just too much pressure. It’s going to tread on me. I couldn’t bring a dealership on my side without treading on him, nor does he have the space to do the same there, and you can see the limited amount of space. I don’t know how you’re going to put it back in there without us being at each other’s throats again, and I’ve been there once. I don’t want to be there again. I just want to get along with my neighbors, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HADDEN-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks for the input. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No other takers? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you heard the concern. I actually had the same question, because it does appear as though they have more than 12 cars at their other location. MR. LANNING-And they do, and if you drive by any time recently, they are scaling down, anticipating this move. They’re going out of repairing the vehicles, and that’s where I’ll take over. They’re going to concentrate on just selling, but not only retail, a little bit of wholesale. So in answer to Mac’s question, there probably will be more than 12 cars there from them. Only 12 to maybe 15 at the most will be retail. They’ll have other vehicles there. They’re there for reconditioning repair and then sell, go to an auction. So there will be more cars there than just the 12 or 15 retail, but that’s why we have that big back yard. We can hold the vehicles, the larger area in the back here. There’s absolute total truth to what Mac was saying. I was young in business at the time, and we did but heads. Age is a horrible price to pay for maturity. So I just want Mac to understand I get his point of view. I’ve got to stay in business and move things in a positive direction for me, as, you know, Mr. Lapper said, if ’08 didn’t happen, I wouldn’t be worried about it. We were on an upswing. Now we’re trying to, Jimmy’s trying to scale down. Steve needs to rent. I need the service work. That’s what we’re here for, and I believe we do have adequate room to compromise. With my repair vehicles staying to the left of the building, the rear of the building being used for their wholesale recondition, and the upfront proposed area being used for retail only, and the financing question Mac brought up, that people come there to make payments. They’re not a weekly, (lost words) people come there by the week. They are through a legitimate bank, and they do make their payments through the mail. So 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) we’re not going to see someone coming through making payments each and every week. That’s not, that is not, that’s a misconception. That’s not how it works. MR. FORD-How are you going to differentiate these different services on site? MR. LANNING-Well, there’s a small fence that you really can’t see. It’s kind of right up by the setback of the building to the left, and there’s already a sign there that states that’s parking for my service customers, with about seven operating bays, I usually double that per day. I usually have seven cars inside, seven cars waiting to get inside. The front area that you can begin to see in front of that little sign coming down and then wrapping around, that’s going to be the display area. I’m leaving that second row open and the first row where my customers come in to, you know, set up appointments. So I’m going to leave that open, more than the two spaces required, probably the five right up front. My employees, which are three of, park in the rear, you know, and we’ll continue that. Mac can probably attest to the fact we’ve moved a bunch of abandoned vehicles that we have garage liens on and things like that out of there, set the lot up a little bit more efficient. We’re looking to have a dealership view. We want to look like the folks across the street, you know. So we want to build up our eye appeal or curb appeal. So that’s what we’re looking to do, and we need these new tenants to, you know, they need to downsize to keep moving forward. I need their service work, and my uncle needs the rent. So, that’s what we’re looking to do. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m trying to think if there’s another way that we can try to make sure that, you know, your business success doesn’t impede your neighbor’s business. MR. LANNING-I can’t give him anymore land. I’ve got to use the land I have. The land he purchased is what he purchased, and, you know, he has as many stationary vehicles on his property as I have on mine, and he has I think about as many employees as I have on mine. So I just happen to have more space, and I’m going to utilize the rear of the building and the side, the opposite side, for my business, for my employees and my service. The front will be for display, and the rear will be for where we put the reconditioning vehicles. They do come in and out on a weekly basis. We will have, you know, cars being dropped off, reconditioned, and then, you know, sent to auction. So that will increase our, you know, runway here, so to speak. So that will, in fact, increase that usage, but we’ll do everything we can to respect it. Mac and I have had some harsh words, but those were a couple of years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the lot out back, is that striped at all? MR. LANNING-It is on the right side, only to about half, to about the end of the building, you know, to about the end of the building, and then it’s. MR. HUNSINGER-I meant out back. We didn’t drive out back on site visits. MR. LANNING-No, it’s not striped. It could be. MR. FORD-Do you anticipate car carriers, wreckers, 18-wheelers, anything of that sort being used to convey vehicles? MR. LANNING-Flat beds? Absolutely. Irregular wreckers that you see absolutely. Car carriers, I’ve had them there in the past. There’s enough room to turn around. It gets a little dicey in the wintertime, but at this point, what Jimmy does when he buys the vehicles is they’re shipped up, you know, from the auction by individual drivers and dropped off, and I think that’s something we can continue. I don’t anticipate him having 18-wheelers and nine car, you know, hauler trailers coming in. I don’t see it, he doesn’t do it now. MRS. STEFFAN-He also has, Evia Motors, has those? MR. LANNING-Yes, the display. MRS. STEFFAN-The display racks, where they prop the vehicles. Are they planning on doing that at your site? MR. LANNING-I don’t know if they are or not. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Do you have an issue with that? MRS. STEFFAN-It would just kind of make that site kind of funky if they did that. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. OBORNE-Do they do that across the street? MR. LANNING-I usually don’t see that across the street, no. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I don’t remember any of the dealerships across the way doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-The Saturn dealer used to do it. MR. LANNING-You saw what happened to that. MRS. STEFFAN-They had the nicest landscaping in the whole Town. MR. HUNSINGER-They did, yes. MR. OBORNE-There’s gobs of dealers across the street. MR. LANNING-I don’t see the dealers across the street doing it. I look at them every day, and I’d prefer if they didn’t use them going into this time of year, you know, because we’ll be responsible for the snow removal and I just don’t want that obstruction. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. This would be easier if it was a Special Use Permit, because then we could put a timeframe on it. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think you have the ability to put some conditions on this to satisfy both. I mean, I’m not going to basically offer them up or anything, but I mean, they are required to have a 24 foot drive aisle. MRS. STEFFAN-At all times. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, that’s the Code. That keeps it away from Mac’s side of the property, and for the proposed use. Again, I don’t want to write it for you or, I just think there’s compromise. MR. FORD-That precludes any parking on that site, on that side, correct? MR. OBORNE-I know that the photo show, it shows Mac’s right here. If this was left open, all the way to the entrance through here and there’s no parking there, that might, you know, still would have your display up here. I don’t know how that would work for you, Mac? Because the issue is it gets tight. It’s busy. People are parked. MR. HADDEN-The issue right now is the, I think is parking out front is adequate for his business that he runs now. It’s very convenient and it’s enough for, it’s sufficient. Now (lost words) and now it’s going to get insufficient fast. Now you say there’s going to be 12 cars out front. Who’s going to monitor that? And now it’s going to be a wholesale business. The back yard will be full, and usually, I’m not going to date this, but I’ve seen tractor trailers come and go for a wholesale business, and that’s usually how they organize them to come and go. So I’m expecting tractor trailers to be back there. So there’s going to be a lot of pressure. So that easement/right of way that goes between the two buildings, I see it’s going to be pretty active. The back yard has no lines to it, no organization back there. He’s going to be in the wholesale business. What kind of volume of cars will be (lost words). That’s what I’m getting at, and it’s like this gentleman’s, my eyes, he may say he’s going to downsize. If you move to Quaker Road, nobody downsizes, just across the street, everybody wants to be top dog. You can’t do that with a small inventory. So I’m just trying to read between the lines, what’s real, what’s real. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, and that’s certainly your prerogative. MR. HADDEN-We’ve been there before, and it’s disastrous, and I don’t want to go there again. It’s like, I go in there, my blood pressure’s ready to explode because we’re wanting to kill each other because we’re on top of each other, and it’s just too much pressure, and it’s just, I don’t want to go there again. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my initial thought when I heard the concern, and actually, you know, one of my thoughts even reading the application is to limit the number of cars, but there is so much room out back, that if it’s managed properly, you can certainly handle more than 12 cars. So I like your idea of maintaining the drive aisle. MR. OBORNE-And the 12 cars, keep in mind, that’s for the display purposes, and that’s what he was offering in the front was the 12 cars. That’s why it’s written in my notes that way. I’m under 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) no illusion that there’s not going to be more than 12 cars. There certainly are going to be more than 12 cars. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. LANNING-There has to be because it’s a revolving inventory. Mr. Anthis averages 36 cars a month. So, you know, we’re going to have to make sure that that’s what he sells. So it’s not going to be just 12 cars and he’s going out of business. It’s going to be a constant, you know, revolving inventory, and I’m not going to lie about it, and I’m going to have my revolving customers, and of course as he sells more cars. My hope is the customers he sells them to, I gain their repair business. So I’m just looking to become as successful as possible. I think Mac and I have always maintained the main corridor pretty well, and we’ve both been pretty lenient on each other, because Mac works on quite a few 18 wheelers and logging trucks and large trailers and landscaping vehicles and has to cut across that corridor and even onto my property sometimes to get into his last bay, and, you know, we’ve not had issues with that in quite some time. So I’ve allowed him as many freedoms as he’s saying he’s going to allow me. If he only has seven spots on his parcel, that’s what he’s got, you know, I actually have a larger area, and I want to utilize it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other thoughts from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-What about site inspections, Keith? Can we have Code Enforcement go there? MR. OBORNE-Well, it depends on what conditions you put on the approval. That’s the only way that they can enforce the Code. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. OBORNE-You know, based on this site plan. I mean, we had an issue with a couple of neighbors down the road a little bit. We want to avoid that. MR. HUNSINGER-They finally worked it out. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s a lot of big boulders rolling around. MRS. STEFFAN-Rocks came, rocks went. MR. OBORNE-And we want to avoid that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I mean, certainly, you know, your suggestion is a valid one, that they maintain the 24 foot drive aisle. That’s certainly not an unreasonable condition, and that puts the applicant on notice that that has to be maintained. I mean, that’s a Code issue, public safety issue. MR. OBORNE-It is a public safety issue. Absolutely. MR. FORD-Can we maximize the number of display sites? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he’s got 12 on here, but he could, depends on probably how he swings it around. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I will say that the parking needs to be fleshed out. MR. FORD-That’s what I’m talking about. MR. OBORNE-Yes, especially in the front, if you’re displaying vehicles, they’re static, they’ll be there, and then obviously I don’t believe that there’s enough room between where they want to display the vehicles and the existing parking spots. (lost words) 24 foot drive aisle between there. So I don’t know exactly how that needs to be re-configured, and I’m not going to develop that plan. The applicant has to do that. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. You just put a condition in your Staff Notes that we needed to, all existing parking should be denoted on the final plan. I have that as a condition. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The drive aisle is on the other side, though, from the display, right? MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, it’s between the businesses. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. OBORNE-Well, the drive aisles, well this is a shared easement through here also. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I recommend that that be called a fire lane, and that no parking be there. Then you can easily police it. MR. HUNSINGER-You mean between the buildings? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. OBORNE-Well, there are parking spaces up here. MR. LANNING-Yes. That could be detrimental to Mac’s business more so than mine. I have a drive through shop and I have existing parking over to the left. MR. HUNSINGER-But we’d only be saying that for you, not for. MR. LANNING-Well, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we can’t impose on his neighbor because he’s here for site plan. MR. LANNING-Like it is now, we want to keep it a two way street. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-If it’s a fire lane, that just means there’s no parking there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right, and it has a minimum width. MR. OBORNE-It’s 24 feet for access, a fire lane’s 20, I believe. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Twenty. MR. OBORNE-That’s what Mike Palmer would require. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, and you have it posted on both ends with no parking, fire lane. That serves the purpose of being able to get emergency vehicles to the front and the back. MR. HADDEN-Can I show you something, here? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’re going to need to get you on the microphone, though. MR. HADDEN-Okay. This area right here is where traffic comes in to both of our buildings. The last time we were dealing with it, we had a lot of cars parked all the way to the exits, up to the curb of the road. You can see where the line of the driveway goes. Quaker Road is very competitive. We all like our retail space. We like to have our exposure. The pressure got real heavy here where it was really busy with cars. I was having a hard time coming in, where everybody now was coming across my property to get access to the building because the dealer was so busy in the front. You tell me you’re going to have 12 cars. Here you’ve got basically room enough for maybe four to five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. If you can get all those cars through here, without going into the road and being in the way of traffic, and the driveway coming in, it’s possible. Now with his business he needs five cars to park here. He needs six cars to park here for both of them for a business coming and going there. Now if he decides to run his business in back and organize and put more cars back there, that’s probably feasible, but it’s going to be, this is heavy impact. It’s a very busy parking lot, and that, a few cars, 12 cars gobbles that up fast. I could just see the pressure growing. So if someone wanted to walk by the lot and get to see it in action, and walk by it and truly survey it with both of us to describe our cases, the Board will come to the best decision. That’s an opportunity. This is a lot of traffic. MR. LANNING-And that kind of is what I’m looking for is a lot of traffic. Because I’ve got a lot of bills, but we’re going to, you know, maintain it. We’re going to, you know, be sheriff’s of our own property there, and it’s a two way street. I’ve got to remind Mr. Hadden that it’s a two way street there. If we decide to, you know, he’s talking about pressure. There could be a lot of other additional pressure if we let this go much further, and, you know, I mean, what if Mac does some vehicles and what if they end up in that fire lane and it’s now a Code violation? I mean, we’re looking for a very simple thing here. We’re looking to sell some cars and fix some cars. MR. HUNSINGER-His explanation of his biggest concern is a lot clearer now, what had happened in the past. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. LANNING-Which I totally understand, and that’s why I chose the number of 12 cars, and that goes according to the size of the cars. The SUV’s are done, you know, those big vehicles are done. So we’re going to see a lot of smaller cars, the mid-sized cars. We’re going to do exactly as he pointed out. We’re going to wrap around, come this way, and come down the side. I think Keith even said I only needed two parking spots for my customers, and how many for my? MR. OBORNE-It’s two for each bay. You need a total of 18 for the auto repair use. MR. LANNING-Okay, and am I allowed to use my usage in the rear to accommodate that as well? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. LANNING-Okay. So that’s what I would choose to do to alleviate that pressure up front. Mac will also let you know, we are a little bit of a turnaround there. Some folks go astray and have to come in and turn around. So it’s important for us to have to keep that both policed as well. There is a lot of traffic that may come through there, but it’s usually pretty, you know, usually pretty easy with it. We’re looking to display a dozen vehicles. We’re hoping to sell 30 a month. There’s no way we can be as big as the guys across the street, but it doesn’t mean we can’t, you know, look the part. MR. OBORNE-Is this the Salvation Army right here? MR. LANNING-That’s the Monroe Muffler brake, used to be East Coast Tire. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. LANNING-I think the issue we’re having more than anything is Mac felt a lot of pressure from a former tenant a number of years ago, and without seeing this project come into fruition, he’s making a judgment, a pre-judgment as to what our intentions are to do. We want to bring a known dealership with a long history in the Town, out of the situation they’re in, to a better one for all of us, you know, Stephen, James and myself, and that’s what I’m here for. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, okay. Anything else from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-You’re also not planning on putting any cars in the green space as well. MR. LANNING-As far as like directly on? I’ve run into a couple of Code Enforcement Officers in the past with that one. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to check. MR. LANNING-Yes, no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Keith? MR. OBORNE-I just want to make sure that, what my concern is, is the denoting the parking space locations. We don’t have that plan in front of us, to a certain extent. You do have a sketch plan for lack of a better term. I don’t know how you would word it, and I just want to just plant that seed in your head. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in your Staff Notes, you put all existing parking should be denoted on the final plan, and I was going to put that in the motion. Should existing parking, should that language be in there or eventual parking? MR. OBORNE-I think it should be all proposed. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But I don’t know if that would satisfy the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-No. I think that would be fine, because I think what’s going to happen is he’s going to have to show parking spots out back, and I think he may end up having to stripe it so that it’s clear. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s what’s going to happen there. MR. OBORNE-I think that would be an important condition would be that striping is accomplished. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think if we condition it on, that he has to donate the, designate the parking spots on the plan, I think he’s going to reach the point where you’re going to want to stripe it because you’re going to have to in order to keep it organized, to maintain the drive aisles. MR. FORD-And we need to set a maximum for the parking out in front, whether it be for display or for patrons. MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen and I had actually made the same comment at the same time. The issue is that the display cars not impede on the ingress and the egress aisle onto Quaker Road. So if you don’t impede on that drive aisle, and then you maintain 20 foot drive aisles, I think that would satisfy the concerns that have been expressed. MRS. STEFFAN-How many cars maximum? MR. HUNSINGER-Too bad there’s not a way to designate that point there, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Right here? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-You certainly can. It’s not on their property, though. MR. HUNSINGER-How would you, you know, what term would you use to designate that spot? MR. OBORNE-Let me see. I would say this is the east side of the building right here. A line due north to the island. Anything east of that, no parking. So basically from this point here. This stays all open, and from this point here, that line runs all the way to the road, and then on the west side of that line, that is where display can begin, if that makes sense, because then you would keep open this area through here, regardless, because that line’s going to be hitting you right here. I don’t know how you can word that, but you certainly would get your access in for both areas, and then it comes down to where the space is going to be. MR. FORD-That needs to be lined. MRS. STEFFAN-Now you said, Keith, east side of the building north to Quaker Road? MR. OBORNE-Yes. The east side of the building. It would almost be an imaginary line north to, it’s not going to go all the way to Quaker Road, but it’s going to the island on the south side of Quaker Road. That at least keeps that open, Mac. That’s one reason why I’m pushing for those 24 foot drive aisles, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I think the site will work. Does that work? MR. LANNING-If that’s what we’ve got to do to get going. MR. OBORNE-I’m willing to sit down and go over it with you, but I just can’t draw it for you. I certainly can show you what the requirements are and everything. MR. LANNING-The same scale and everything? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is everyone comfortable with this? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did I ask you if there were any written comments? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. OBORNE-Did you? I don’t think there are, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQR. So we can entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the conditions that we’ve got is that all the proposed parking should be denoted on the final plan, lot wide. Two, that 12 retail cars maximum are allowed without impeding ingress and egress to Quaker Road. Further, the east side of the building, north to Quaker Road, will be free of parked vehicles, and then, Three, the Code requires a 24 foot drive aisle, 24 foot drive aisle must be maintained. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it 24 or 20? MR. OBORNE-The Code allows for, it’s 24. If you’re going to go under that, you have to get a variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sorry, thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. The parking lot will be striped according to the proposed plan. See Condition One, and then, Condition Five is Code Enforcement should periodically spot check compliance to conditions. Too nebulous? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Bruce will be all over me for that one. He’s out there doing that regardless. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is there anything else? That fire lane. We talked about that. Is that a? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think by stating that that east side of the building needs to be clear of any parking does it. I would say that, for the 24 foot drive aisle, that’s for two way traffic, and for one way traffic it can be a 12 foot drive aisle. So, you may want to give them a little latitude on that. If for some reason maybe we want to do, in the area up in the front, you have the two way traffic, but as you’re going around in the back you have it at one way going flow. So you can park more vehicles, but it gives him that option when he’s designing it. So basically 24 foot for two way traffic and 12 for one way traffic. MRS. STEFFAN-Two lane or two way? MR. OBORNE-Two way. MR. HUNSINGER-And if we say there’s no parking to the east side of the building. MR. FORD-Right. We want to stipulate that. MR. HUNSINGER-That would solve the majority of the problems, and they did ask for waivers. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-I know we’re stipulating a 12 display. Do we know that there’s sufficient room for a 12? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, look at your diagram. You’ll see that you can put more in there if you want. Because it’s like this. MRS. STEFFAN-In front of the building’s supposed to be for retail traffic, and so in the front of the building itself is supposed to be for retail, but that 12 we’re supposed to fit around that hook, 12 to 15 they said, based on the conversation, 12 sounded like the target number. Speak up, Planning Board, what do you want? MR. FORD-A maximum of 12. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because it says 12. This projects 12. MR. FORD-Maximum 12. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Let’s try this. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2010 JAMES ANTHIS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to lease a 10’ x 10’ portion of existing building for office space and lease the front row of existing parking lot to display and sell autos. New uses in the CI zone require Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/19/10; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2010 JAMES ANTHIS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. The applicant has requested waivers for stormwater, grading, lighting and topography. Those are granted. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, lighting plans & topographic requirements; and g)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 h)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. j) This is approved with the following conditions: 1. That all proposed parking should be denoted on the final plan, lot wide. 2.There will be 12 retail cars allowed, maximum, without impeding ingress or egress to Quaker Road. Further, the east side of the building, north to Quaker Road, will be free of parked vehicles. 3.Our Code requires a 24 foot drive aisle for two way traffic. Therefore, a 12 foot drive aisle must be maintained for one way traffic. 4.Parking lots will be striped according to the proposed plan. See Condition One. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. LANNING-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 65-2010 GALUSHA & SONS, LLC SEQR TYPE UNLISTED AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISES MGMT., INC. ZONING CLI LOCATION OFF QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF FILL FROM ADJOINING SITE. GRADING OVER AN REA OF LAND GREATER THAN 0.25 +/- ACRES IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 49-2010 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/13/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 83.86 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4 SECTION 179-6-010 B, C MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 65-2010, Galusha & Sons, LLC. The requested action is grading of land exceeding .25 acres requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is off Quaker Ridge Road, vacant parcel. Existing zoning is CLI, Commercial Light Industrial. This is an Unlisted SEQR. Project Description: Applicant proposes placement of fill from adjoining construction site. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes fill activities on vacant lands north of the construction of the Super Wal-Mart off of Quaker Ridge Road. The applicant intends to remove up to 16,000 cubic yards of fill and deposit over an area of approximately 1 acre. The plan further calls for an additional 1 acre expansion area to the north for future fill operations. What follows is review. Although a waiver for stormwater details has been asked for, standards and specifications for the potential rip-rap spillway should be presented, and slope stabilization methods to include seeding mixture and rates should be presented for engineer review. Although a waiver for stormwater details has been asked for, the methodology for the sizing of the sedimentation pond should be presented for engineering review. Additional Comments: The Planning Board, as a condition of approval, may require the applicant to have the plans sealed by a licensed professional, and as a note, the nearest wetlands is located in excess of 200 feet from the site. Paragon Engineering does have some issues, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. One more thing, this is the same property that had the Warren County Airport timber clear cut for their flight path, but that was way up to the north, and east. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, Galusha and Sons, LLC, and with me at the table is Dan Galusha. This project will have really no impact on anyone, except for the lawyers and engineers who have charged outrageous fees to get them here. We’re moving a pile of dirt from one side of the power line to the other side of the power line. We’re moving it into an open field. We will get the plans stamped. We will comply with the comments of Paragon, except for one, and that was that they thought that we should include this in the SWPPP for the Wal-Mart property. This is a separately owned property, and it’s not appropriate to do that. We will file our own SWPPP with DEC. Other than that, they asked some questions about access and what not. There is a connection from the Wal-Mart site to the forced sewer line, and that’ll be disturbed as part of the Wal-Mart construction, or is presently disturbed. It is all the stormwater controls because it was disturbed. We will be going over that path to the site and from the site. This is a site that does have positive impacts to the developer, because certainly there’s a savings in trucking and what not by bringing it to the adjoining site. It has savings to that site owner that he has fill that he might use in the future, but it also has a positive impact to the community, because instead of putting 16,000 yards of fill on the highway, which is what you would have to do if you went out onto Quaker Road, you’re doing all this internally, and not putting the traffic on the road. There will be some that will go off site, but up, the calculation is up to maybe 16,000 yards would go back here. It depends upon whether you use the material or. DAN GALUSHA MR. GALUSHA-Right. We place most of the material, we probably don’t have 16,000 yards now, but basically we’re just going to place the excess material we have on site, which I showed some folks while you were over there. Whatever we have excess we’re going to put it there. Grade it, seed it, mulch it. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. O’CONNOR-Tom Center actually did the plans for Danny, put this all together in a couple of days to get on to this agenda. MR. GALUSHA-One day. MR. O'CONNOR-One day. We talked about the day and then we did the plans the second day, which I thought was quite an accomplishment by itself. He, unfortunately, is in New York. He got promoted, as a fire lieutenant, and he’s in a month’s school down there. So Tom Nace was going to come tonight, but Tom would just simply say that they’ll take care of whatever they have to take care of. So, unless the Board has some concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments? MR. KREBS-Well, we certainly walked the site with you driving through the mud. MR. TRAVER-Without four wheel drive. MR. KREBS-Yes, without four wheel drive. Luckily Dan and his helpers told us where to turn around or we’d never have been, we’d still be there. MR. HUNSINGER-Probably. MR. KREBS-But I thought what you were doing was absolutely perfect. It removes all of that from the highways. It’s there so that in the future we don’t have to bring more in on the highways, and certainly the location where you’re locating it, as far as I’m concerned, was just brush. There’s nothing there to preserve. So I don’t see a problem with it at all. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you remember the last big, and I always get into sidelines that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, but do you remember the last time that they did a major excavation at Pyramid Mall. All the controversy about the trucking, and whether it was going to be trucked in at night or trucked during the daytime, and all kinds of things, and this is on a short timetable. So you wouldn’t have heavy duty, a lot of traffic. MR. KREBS-Well, not only that, but I don’t care what you do, you always drop mud and debris on the road when you’re moving that stuff. MR. O'CONNOR-We do not acknowledge that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just clean it up. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it seems like a commonsense win/win all the way around, to me. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there were no comments received. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted action. MR. OBORNE-That is correct, Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a negative declaration. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. FORD-Second. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 65-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GALUSHA & SONS, LLC, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of, October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And I think the only condition is to satisfy engineering comments. MRS. STEFFAN-I have a couple that Keith put in the motion. So I’ll just include those with the wrap up and they’ll obtain a signoff. MR. O'CONNOR-We have asked for a waiver also for scale, because the map that we’ve presented is not to scale per the Ordinance, landscaping and lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-Did you ask for that? MR. O'CONNOR-On Page Eight of the application, and we also some place did ask for a waiver for stormwater, except to the degree that we have submitted it with the condition that we will satisfy the comments that have been made. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s the condition on the front. The Staff Notes say that although a waiver for stormwater details were asked, standards and specifications for the rip-rap, so I was going to put those conditions in the motion. MR. OBORNE-Ma’am, I don’t think that’s necessary, because Clark has hit on both of them. If you get an engineer’s signoff, I wouldn’t include anything that I say in particular. MRS. STEFFAN-What about a licensed professional engineer? MR. O'CONNOR-We will have it stamped. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MRS. STEFFAN-You will? Okay. So we’ll put that in. All right. Then there are just two conditions. That’s easy. All right. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2010 GALUSHA & SONS, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes placement of fill from adjoining site. Grading over an area of land greater than 0.25 +/- acres in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/19/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2010 GALUSHA & SONS, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph B, Negative Declaration. The applicant has requested waivers for stormwater management, landscaping, lighting, and scale, and those have been granted. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the 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)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f)Waiver request granted: stormwater management, landscaping, lighting, and scale; and g)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 h)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. i)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. j)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 1.The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. 2.The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and l) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 1.The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and 2.The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. k) This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant will have the plans sealed by a licensed professional engineer. 2.That the applicant will obtain an engineering signoff. 3.That we understand that the applicant will submit their own SWPPP. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-Except, can I also say, except as to the General Comment Number One, which said that this should be included in the Wal-Mart SPDES. Because it cannot be. We’ll do our own. MRS. STEFFAN-You mean in the engineer’s comment? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But once you point that out to him, he will sign off on that. I mean, is that not appropriate? MR. TRAVER-It’s a separate parcel. MR. OBORNE-It is. I understand his reasoning, though. I do understand his reasoning. MR. HUNSINGER-I do, too. MR. OBORNE-But, you know, I guess the applicant’s going to have to convince the Board of that. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s site plan for placing fill on a separate parcel, separate ownership, and the SWPPP that we file is for that parcel. They’ve already. MR. GALUSHA-The SWPPP’s already been filed. MR. O'CONNOR-Filed for the Wal-Mart. MRS. STEFFAN-For Wal-Mart, correct. MR. GALUSHA-So you can’t add to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Well, you can modify it or update it, but I think, my personal opinion, which we’ll just leave that alone, but it is, I totally understand what he’s saying. It is, a separate SWPPP for that separate parcel is not that big of a deal, to be honest with you, but again, Clark is pointing that out, and you’re looking for his signoff. MR. O’CONNOR-The biggest part of the problem with combining them is that the person who files the SWPPP is then responsible for the site, and Wal-Mart isn’t going to sign for being responsible for the site that he put this material on. They don’t care where the material goes to. It could go up and down the highway and they don’t really care. MR. GALUSHA-Well, that’s really not 100% true. They do care. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Wait a minute, it’s some version of the truth, though. MR. GALUSHA-They don’t care as long as we’re doing it in an appropriate manner. MR. OBORNE-So I guess the long and the short of it is, you may want to point that out that that one. MR. HUNSINGER-I think maybe we need to, in the motion, say that it’s understood, maybe we could say that we understand that the applicant will submit their own SWPPP. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that a way to clarify that? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I think that works. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we have a motion and a second, with the clarification. MR. TRAVER-I’ll second the motion as amended. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Got that, Maria, does that sound reasonable? There’s this amendment to, the motion that I made has an amendment that we understand that the applicant will submit their own SWPPP. MS. GAGLIARDI-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, and I’d ask for another amendment. I read this thing, the engineer is asking that the haul path is shown over lands of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, which we acknowledge. An access easement, permission to haul over property under separate ownership must be submitted to the Board. That’s a private agreement between us and Niagara Mohawk. It’s not in writing. MR. GALUSHA-We have access now. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith? MR. OBORNE-I would say just put that in your responses to his questions. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t ask for it. MR. O'CONNOR-All right, but he’s saying it should be submitted to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you saying you do not need it? MR. HUNSINGER-We just approved it without it, so we don’t need it. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Okay. That’s in the comments by the engineer, and that’s what I missed. Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there any other business to be brought before this illustrious Board this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/19/10) th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 62