Loading...
2011.02.15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 10-2010 Babajani & Mama 1. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 296.13-1-17 Site Plan No. 6-2011 Inwald Enterprises 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 7. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 79-2010 Landcrafters, LLC, Carr Development, LLC 17. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-58.1 (Cont’d Pg. 33) Site Plan No. 75-2010 Hudson River Local Development Corp. 17. Tax Map No. 303.12-1-9.5 Site Plan No. 69-2010 James Kalock 24. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-77 Site Plan No. 2-2011 Great Escape Theme Park 26. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Site Plan No. 7-2011 Gregg Laber, GMS Realty, LLC 28. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4 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 02/15/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD KREBS STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning th Board on our first regular meeting in February, Tuesday, February 15. First on the agenda is thst approval of minutes from December 16 and December 21, 2010. Would anyone like to move that? APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 16, 2010 December 21, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF DECEMBER THST 16 AND DECEMBER 21 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 10-2010: BABAJANI & MAMA – ONE YEAR EXTENSION REQUEST TO 2/23/2012 MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested a one year extension on their Site Plan approval. There was a letter attached. Did you have anything else that you wanted to add, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, I don’t think so. It’s pretty cut and dried. MR. KREBS-Straightforward. Yes. MR. OBORNE-I will say that the resolution should state grant extensions for, as opposed to table. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Okay. Would anyone like to move that. MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s a one year extension? MR. OBORNE-Yes, that is the request. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION TO EXTEND SP 10-2010 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to an approved site plan with a change to lot configuration. Changes to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) On January 20, 2011 Paragon Engineering submitted a letter requesting a one year extension of site plan approval. Therefore, let it be resolved, that MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 10-2010 BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have several recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 6-2011 SEQR TYPE II INWALD ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LEE HORNING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN – SP 38-2008 [8/18/09]. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE A CHANGE FROM EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO TOTAL REBUILD. AREA VARIANCE: APPLICANT REQUESTS ADDITIONAL SIDE SETBACK RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-11, SP 39-10, AV 26-10, AV 45-10, AV 68-08, SP 38- 08, BP 09-384 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION 179-9 STEFANIE BITTER & LEE HORNING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 6-2011 and Area Variance No. 7-2011 for Inwald Enterprises. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The location is 38 Gunn Lane. It’s in Waterfront Residential and this is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: For the Site Plan, applicant proposes modification to an approved Site Plan. Modifications include a change for expansion of a non-conforming structure to a total re-build, and for the Area Variance, applicant requests additional side setback relief of an as-built survey due to the total re-build. The applicant is before this Board as a result of an inspection of the property by the Zoning st Administrator on December 21 . Please see attached. The applicant was given relief from side setback requirements and also for the expansion of a non-conforming structure back in 2009. The nature of the Area Variance is as follows. Side setback relief. Request for 16.7 or 83.5% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per Section 179-3-040, and please not that this is the greatest amount relief requested along the western property line and is measured from the wood deck/stairs. The entire structure requires setback relief. An expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA requires approval. What follows is Site Plan Review. You’ll see this in March, at a different time. Additional comments, and we’ll move on. It should be noted that this application is still considered an expansion of a non-conforming structure as the existing garage was not demolished unlike the unattached single family dwelling. Demo permit not obtained by applicant, nor required at this stage after consultation with Dave Hatin, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter here on behalf of Inwald Enterprises. Here together with Lee Horning, the builder for Ms. Inwald. Unfortunately we’re here because of some misconceptions or misdirections that occurred during construction. I’m going to let Lee describe the details, since he has firsthand knowledge, but initially this project started as an 863 square foot addition and a 400 square foot screened porch which was to connect the existing cottage to the existing garage. When the construction started, or I should say the first part of construction was to lift the cottage to see the structural stability of that cottage. At that time it was discovered that the foundation was crumbling. The floors were deteriorated, and the exterior walls were two by four as opposed to two by sixes, which resulted in certain situations that had to be discussed with the Building Department as to what alternatives existed to move forward. I’m going to turn it over now to Lee to carry on from that. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. HORNING-You took care of everything. MS. BITTER-Good. MR. HORNING-When I took the job on, it was, we didn’t know the conditions until we started taking it apart and we found all the inadequate construction there, and I did take the building, I lifted it off to replace it because we were going to replace the flooring and repair the foundation, which we did, but during the course of construction, both the Zoning Department and the Building Department, the inspectors came there and said they didn’t need to put the house back, which we didn’t, and we built this house exactly where the other one was. There’s some discrepancies on the setbacks on the corner, and I think that’s because of a drawing, a mechanical drawing or architect’s drawing, he’d messed up on his setbacks on that. MS. BITTER-The other addition, I think it was an addition, relative to the door on the southern end, which was included in the addition, there’s a wood burning fireplace in that area. In discussions we’ve had with the Building Department that that door would provide direct access to that area for purposes of wood storage. I think you said there’s a drainage, a hot tub. So that with that door, because it has an out swing, a platform was required by the Building Department together with a set of stairs. Unfortunately when that platform and set of stairs was constructed, it wasn’t identified that that encroached further into the setback area that relief was provided for back in 2008. So that’s where the additional setback relief comes into play. MR. HUNSINGER-So, just so I understand, the Building Department was aware that they were going to do a re-build as opposed to? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think the Building Department was aware of what the variances encompassed. What they’re looking at are general plans to re-build. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-As far as the Zoning Department, the Zoning Department did not know that that part of the house was not going to be re-installed. I wasn’t privy to those conversations to be honest with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because, I mean, that was my, and I was looking for my note, but in the narrative you had mentioned that you found that the existing house was in worse condition than you expected, so you just tore it down. MS. BITTER-Well, actually it sat on the site for over a year. Mr. Horning can identify that. It was moved over and left there until the Building Department was aware that they were moving forward in that direction. MR. HORNING-These pictures show the original house, and then the last one shows the foundation that we did use. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, why don’t you start them down on that end so that we can all look at them. MR. HORNING-I also have pictures of that, the rear step, to show you what was there, and I did take some pictures of her house from the neighbor’s yard, to show you what can be seen. One st is taken about two weeks ago, and the other one was taken I think around May 1 when we didn’t have all the foliage on the trees yet, to show you what can be seen. MRS. STEFFAN-So were the footings, I’m not clear, was the foundation just not structurally sufficient? MR. HORNING-Some of the foundation walls were collapsed, were buckled inwards. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HORNING-So we removed that part of it, and we saved maybe about, I’d say about 50% of the foundation. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. KREBS-Now the screened porch, it looked like it’s all glass, but are those, those are open, so you can have a screened porch in the summertime, or? MR. HORNING-It’s actually a four seasons porch now. The windows do all open up. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re talking about the garage. You’ve connected the garage to the house that you build, right? MR. HORNING-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s not that red building that’s out in the back? MR. HORNING-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-She owns it, but it has nothing to do with this. MR. KREBS-And if I remember correctly, you had to put the garage doors, the garage doors used to be facing the house, if I remember right? The back of the house, because there was a big space between the two. MR. HORNING-What you saw probably was the re-located house. We took that house and put it in front of the house temporarily. It was sitting there for about a year. MR. KREBS-When we went, the house was still there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t think I was there when it was like that. Keith, is the Building Department satisfied that the new house was put on the same foundation footprint as the old? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m sure that, yes, I mean, they’re ready to release the CO at this point. They just have to get through this process. MRS. STEFFAN-In my mind, this is just one of those frustrating situations, you know, when it’s, you know, we go through a process, we just expect that, you know, the building or the rehab’s going to happen according to plan, and then we get it back when things have all blown up and then we’re supposed to either bless it or be difficult. So, it’s just there’s no win for us. MR. OBORNE-It certainly is frustrating on our end, too. I mean, at the time we’re that the changes to the approval happened should have been brought back it wasn’t. So at this point we’re here for something that is after the fact. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and of course we’re holding up the applicant from use of the house, too. MR. OBORNE-Well, the applicant didn’t do the proper procedure. They built, they didn’t build the house as they presented it to this Board and the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MRS. STEFFAN-And the relief, I mean, and I know part of our responsibility is to make a recommendation to the ZBA, but part of the relief is because of an error that the building designer made regarding the setback. MR. OBORNE-True. MRS. STEFFAN-And so, you know, what do we do in that situation? I mean, this person is just out of the picture, and so we’ve made decisions on misinformation. So, you know, there’s no way to fix that. MR. OBORNE-I agree. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The only thing you can do is take it to the next step and let the Zoning Board rule again, basically. That’s what’s going to happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a record of when the Building Department was there to do site inspections? MR. OBORNE-I’m sure there was. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because I mean the time when they really should have come back here was when the decision was made that they weren’t going to put the house back on the foundation. MS. BITTER-And just to differentiate this situation from others that you might have, you know, Mr. Horning didn’t, in any way, hide the house. I mean, the house has been sitting on the property for over a year identifying that, you know, it was not going to be stable enough to put it back on the foundation due to the error, issues that he had discovered. MR. FORD-Okay. That was brought to who’s attention? MS. BITTER-The Building Department. MR. FORD-Immediately? MS. HORNING-Both the Zoning Department and the Building Department knew about this house being moved. MR. FORD-And how did they know about that? MR. HORNING-They visited the site several times, the Building Inspector was there every couple of weeks. I called him prior to every inspection. I never did anything without their approval, especially these steps. I called the Zoning Department and asked, I told them it would be in violation of the setbacks, and they gave me approval on that. MR. FORD-In writing? MR. HORNING-No. MS. BITTER-And like Peter will demonstrate, with the plans, you know, the actual house is right where it’s supposed to be. PETER LOYOLA MR. LOYOLA-Yes, that’s one thing I want to point out is this, you know, because we’re starting to talk about discrepancies and the fact that the foundation wasn’t put back where it was. The actual house and the footprint and the foundation was put identically back to where it was, you know, prior, and the discrepancies that we found, when we did this overlay, well, we did this, we took the site plan and we overlaid it over the as-built. MS. BITTER-Peter Loyola. I’m sorry I didn’t introduce him. MR. LOYOLA-Peter Loyola from CLA Site. What we did was we overlaid the site plan, which was hand drafted, and we overlaid it with the as built which was computer generated, and it was spot on, and what we found was that there was a drafting error in the property line, which was here, that when the site plan was submitted, the setback from the mis-drawn property line was just scaled, and it showed 7.9, I want to say, in terms of a setback, but that was scaled. The actuality was that the house was put back in the identical foundation and it was found to be 6.5 from the property line. So it was an architectural error, site plan error at the time, for the 7.9, and then he just scaled it to the line that he had drawn, but in actuality the foundation was put back exactly where it was, and it should have read 6.5. MS. BITTER-So we would have returned to you, regardless of any of these other issues, because of that scaling issue. MR. OBORNE-We don’t doubt that the foundation is in the right location. I mean, that’s not the issue. The issue is the setback from the porch, and the expansion of a non-conforming structure. MR. LOYOLA-That’s right, the platform, the platform. MR. OBORNE-That’s all you’re here for. MR. LOYOLA-That’s right. MR. HORNING-There’s another reason for that, too. When the surveyor measured it, he measured it, there’s a stone façade here around the front, and he measured to the corner of that stone. When the architect actually, he designed it from the corner of the house or the foundation. This thing projects out a good eight to ten inches more. So there is a discrepancy 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) there of, it would have been like 7.3 feet, something like that. So the architect was only off about six inches on that. MR. KREBS-Personally, having been at the house yesterday and looked at the house, I think it’s a major improvement over what was there before we started this process, and it looked to me like it’s in exactly the same location, it might be. I don’t know about the discrepancies, but I certainly don’t have any objection to the finished product I think is very good. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would agree with that. I was with Don yesterday when we saw it, but from a couple of hundred yards away, I look at it every day. It’s a lot better than what I was looking at, but I can’t tell one foot one way or another from back there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Any other questions or comments? One of the comments that I do have, and I understand that there’s two separate applications before us, but the site development data didn’t seem to match at all. I was trying to go from one to the other. The numbers weren’t consistent, and in fact on the one there were numbers missing, on the actual application form. So we would want to see that, certainly, for site plan review. Yes, it’s on the Area Variance application. You didn’t fill in the front yard setbacks. Any other questions or comments? Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MRS. STEFFAN-So it sounds like we don’t have any recommendations for them, I mean, we’re not giving them any insight here? MR. HUNSINGER-Well. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION REGARDING AV 7-2011 Whereas, the applicant has submitted applications for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes modification to approved site plan – SP 38-2008 [8/18/09]. Modifications include a change from expansion of a nonconforming structure to total rebuild. Area Variance: Applicant requests additional side setback relief. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 request 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 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2011 FOR INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option Number One. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 SEQR TYPE II INWALD ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R; CLA SITE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK ACCESSED BY HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP ABOVE TWO EXISTING DOCKS. BOATHOUSES IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: APPLICANT REQUESTS SHORELINE & SIDELINE SETBACK RELIEF FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE [RAMP]. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 6-11, AV 7-11, AV 26-10, AV 45-10, AV 68- 08, SP 38-08, BP 09-384 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION § 179-9, 179-5-020A STEFANIE BITTER & PETER LOYOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then the other application you have before us is Site Plan 39- 2010. This is for the handicap ramp. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. I will summarize. Site Plan 39-2010, Area Variance 45-2010 for Inwald Enterprises. Again, this is a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 38 Gunn Lane is the location. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. SEQRA status is Type II. Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 50 foot long by 4 foot wide handicap ramp with glass paneled guardrails leading to the ZBA approved boathouse location. The applicant must appear before the ZBA for side and shoreline setbacks concerning that portion of the ramp on land up to the mean high water mark, in this case 38.5 linear feet of proposed ramp. Further, relief is required for that portion that is proposed over the water and violating the side setback requirement, in this case 11.5 linear feet of proposed ramp. Additionally, the applicant proposes to import fill in order to decrease the length of the proposed ramp and install a gravel path. Further, the applicant proposed a 52 linear foot natural stone retaining wall not to exceed 30 inches in height on the north side of the gravel path. Staff comments are as follows. The applicant is seeking relief from shoreline and sideline setbacks for the handicap ramp as it is considered an accessory structure greater than 100 square feet as per 179-5-020; proposed structure to be 200 feet of which 154 square feet is located on land above the mean high water mark. The proposal also has an alternate plan to include the previously discussed lift associated with access to the approved boathouse and sundeck. If this alternate plan is requested by either the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals, an additional variance for permeability may be required. The site plan associated with this project is currently on hold pending a decision from the ZBA concerning the access ramp setbacks. Further, the Single Family Dwelling applications must be approved prior to any consideration of approval of boathouse ramp and associated site work. I’ll go over the Area Variances one more time. Side setback – Request for 6.7 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot requirements of the WR zone for the 38.5 foot ramp proposed above the mean high water mark. Additional side setback relief, request for 10.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement of the WR zone, for the 11.5 foot ramp proposed below the mean high water mark, and the shoreline setback request for 38.5 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot requirement of the WR zone for the ramp totally within the shoreline setback. What follows is the reasoning about the side setbacks that are below the high water mark. Follow down. Access ramp has been discussed with the Department Building and Codes and appears to be compliant with ADA standards concerning required slope. I do ask that you see letter dated from Craig Brown, and according to the applicant, a total of 5,450 square feet of disturbance is proposed. I will say that the Planning Board for the County issued a, was it for this one they issued a deny without prejudice? MR. LOYOLA-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So you will need a super majority in March, which is five, in order for this to be approved. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter with Peter Loyola, and William Springnether. They’re the designers of the ramp that Ms. Inwald hired. As many of you may recall, we were before you in June relative to this application. At such time, we received the variances necessary for the sundeck, and we had an opportunity to hear the concerns and questions that were raised by the Board relative to the ramp. Subsequent to the granting of the variances for that sundeck, the Zoning Administrator determined that further variances were necessary for that ramp. So with that knowledge, Ms. Inwald hired a design team to try and address those concerns, so that we can move forward in the right direction. At that time, back in June, the ramp was actually 58 feet in length. Since that time, we have shortened it, but as you may recall, the necessity for the ramp is due to Ms. Inwald’s disabilities that limit her mobility, which really necessitates the need to have this structure to get to the lake. With your comments and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) concerns, not only was the ramp shortened, but the panels that assist with the ramp, the railings, I should say, glass panels were implemented to lessen the visibility of that. In addition, they also included depictions, a visual depiction of that ramp as to what the individuals from the south would view that as, because I know there were concerns raised relative to that. As many of you may recall from visiting the site, there’s a lot of vegetation on the northern end, so that that side is well protected from the lake. I’m going to now turn it over to the design teams to get into more details relative to their efforts. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Good evening. My name is Bill Springnether with the CLA site. If you don’t mind, I’m going to stand next to the drawings over here. When we began working on the project, we wanted to come to a balance between structure and any sort of fill or berming that would have to happen on the berm side in order to make the ramp ADA accessible and shorten it. The original ramp that was proposed was not handicap accessible. It was designed at a 12% grade, which is four degrees steeper or four percentage points steeper than permitted. So if that structure had gone into construction, it would have ended up making it significantly longer than had been approved. So my first goal was to bring that structure into Code compliance by making it eight percent grade at the steepest point. In order to do that, and still have the ramp hit ground instead of have it in the air, we had to build up the land on this side. What that did is it allowed the ramp to be 50 feet long, end at the earthen berm, and then a user could travel, actually it would be coming back up slope to the patio at this side. We feel that the ramp in this location mitigates any visual impact that it could have on the lake. To the north it’s heavily screened with vegetation as well as a rise in grade. You can see this line of vegetation here on the property line, plus you have about four feet of rise in grade on that side, as well as the existing development that screens the view from the north. I’m going to skip right over to the proposal here, and you can see that from the south, the ramp is visible, it’s a full 50 feet. However, through painting and the use of the glass panels as side rails, we can really mitigate it’s visual presence in the landscape. We also looked at several alternatives. As the Board suggested, we first looked at a lift option, and we took the suggestion very seriously, drew it up. It ends up with 164 feet of handicap ramp, handicap accessible ramp that would bring somebody down to this deck area. Peter’s going to pass out some images of the lift. Start one at that end and one at this end, and then I have one for the record, also, but the lift itself would have a significant visual impact. Not only would the lift be in place, but in order to have full access to the sundeck, you’d need to have a stairway. So you’d have the stairway and the ramp constructed within the shoreline setback, both of which would probably need a variance. You have the 164 square foot handicap accessible ramp traversing across the center of the property, and that would probably need a variance also, because it would come, if it’s in this location it would come within seven to eight feet of the property line. That could be moved more to the center of the property. Still, it’s likely at some point it would cross the setback line. This structure would also introduce more impermeable surface into the property then the current proposal. So if this proposal was to go through as drawn right here there would also be a need for an additional variance for impermeable surface. Some of the other options we looked at included shortening the ramp more, what would that do? If we were to shorten the ramp more, you’d have to raise this berm up even higher with more grade, which either makes this retaining wall larger, or pushes this closer to the center of the property, which makes it a more visual piece in the landscape. So for those reasons we feel that this is really the best solution, looking at several different alternatives. We have a few more images here also of existing ramps on the lake, ramps and deck situations, again start them at either end, pass them to the middle, and though in the immediate area there probably isn’t a ramp of 50 feet in length that we could see, the property where this picture was taken from has a ramp that’s 35 feet, and the property to the north also has a large structure on it. So it’s, the precedence we feel is there for this type of structure. MR. FORD-Just not of this magnitude. MR. SPRINGNETHER-That’s correct. MR. KREBS-The Staff made a comment that you might want to consider permeable pavers as opposed to the stone. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes, well, actually the pathway as we’ve designed it is intended to match in surface treatment the existing walkways and patio that (lost words). We could do a permeable surface. That’s not objectionable at all, to reduce the impact of stormwater. We have included in the design a capturing system for any stormwater and an infiltration system. MR. KREBS-That’s exactly what I was thinking is that if you put the permeable pavers in, you’re not going to have the stone washed away, and if it’s for a person who has a problem walking to begin with, having that surface as a permanent surface is much better I think. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. Yes, the way we had designed it was a blue stone walkway with, that would slope to the south. You’d have a two foot gravel border with a drain in it that would capture any stormwater and allow it to infiltrate within this berm, and that continues all the way around the patio. MR. TRAVER-I had a thought, regarding the issue of the ramp. We know that that’s really the issue that we’re really looking at here. Trying to avoid additional ramps. On the other hand, obviously we have a person with a disability that has a medical need to enjoy the property by the use of a ramp, and I’m wondering, we don’t have counsel here, so I guess I’m thinking out loud for Staff and other Board members. Is there a mechanism by which we could, if we wanted to consider an approval of this, condition it upon some periodic medical review of the ongoing need for the disability ramp, and at the conclusion of that need, this hearing, that the ramp, through some agreement or perhaps bonding or something could be removed and the property could be restored to native appearance. MR. HUNSINGER-We had talked about that a little bit back in June, about granting the easement only for the duration of the need. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We’re talking about the duration of the owner, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my notes were the duration of need. MR. FORD-The need. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any thoughts on that, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I think that would be difficult to enforce, to be honest with you. MR. TRAVER-Well, we have, the example I was thinking of is the example of like a Special Use Permit that requires a periodic re-assessment. Might there be some way that we could have, or we could require a demonstration of a medical documentation or something? MR. OBORNE-I think that that is something that can be conditioned, sure. To me it seems, for lack of a better term, this is not a disparaging comment at all, just a little bit klunky from the point of view of Staff trying to monitor that. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-And then you’re beholding to the applicant, not the applicant or the owner of that property, to give you that every year. It’s not uncommon. We do that with Great Escape and their noise assessments every year. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And they’re required to do that. So it could be something along those lines. MS. BITTER-And if that was the case, I guess we would have to speak of the practical sense and the investment that the owner is obviously making in the structure, and what part of the structure could remain, you know, for the purposes of, you know, if she wasn’t the only owner or wasn’t, no longer part of the ownership of that property. I mean, that could obviously be something to discuss since counsel has to be involved anyway. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-And based on just the history of the package, you know, the property, I think, was turned over to the family, I think, you know, the grandparents passed it down. So we could get into a situation where it’s passed down from generation to generation and so it doesn’t, there’s no trigger, you know, even though we think there would be a trigger, there might not be a trigger. MR. TRAVER-Yes. The trigger would have to be in there, because I think Staff comments are correct that, you know, how do you enforce that? I don’t know how we would do that. Maybe we could get some suggestions from counsel on how to do that, or perhaps the applicant could volunteer some mechanism by which that could, if that was something that we even wanted to entertain. I mean, I understand it’s been denied by the County Planning Board. So I’m thinking of a way that we could approve this, with some level of comfort. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Can I clarify something about the County denial? MR. TRAVER-Sure. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-They denied it because it hadn’t been heard by the Town at this point. So they didn’t feel that they had the information to review it. They were essentially waiting for the Town to review the project before they reviewed it, but since they aren’t allowed to table, due to their law, they had to deny. MR. TRAVER-Maybe we could ask for clarification of that before we re-visit this. MRS. STEFFAN-Can they re-hear that, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, not unless Craig sends it down there again, at your request or the applicant’s request. I wasn’t there at the meeting. I’m not sure why they denied it. They certainly said it was for lack of information. MS. BITTER-It wasn’t this last meeting, right? Because it wasn’t on the agenda. MR. SPRINGNETHER-It was the meeting on, last week, yes. MS. BITTER-It was last week? Okay. MR. SPRINGNETHER-And it was denied because they did not have the information from the Town in order to review it. MR. OBORNE-Well, it was forwarded to them. So I’m a little confused as to what was going on. MS. BITTER-But this was our conversation last week, that it wasn’t on the agenda. Initially you said you had forwarded it to them when you didn’t have the packet. Remember? There was some issue. MR. OBORNE-They had already issued a, let me look in the file here. They had already reviewed this. MR. TRAVER-And what information would the Town be providing anyway? The applicant is providing information. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, they always review the project before we look at it. MR. FORD-They’ve not hesitated before. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, it’s worthy of our study I guess. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the reasons that’s important is because in March we may not have a supermajority to be able to give you the vote that you need. MS. BITTER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-In fact I think we know we won’t. MR. OBORNE-This is the comment from the County Planning Board. Deny without prejudice. The Warren County Planning Board recommends Deny Without Prejudice requesting more information regarding the entire project. The Board is concerned with segmentation. So, my comment to that is, we cannot be responsible for the process that they go through with their review. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-And I’ve said this in the past on many applications that have been denied without prejudice. It’s as easy as staff up there at the County to pick up the phone and give me a call. If you don’t understand something, this is not the first time this has happened. MS. BITTER-So I guess our request is we definitely wouldn’t want it to be reviewed requiring a supermajority. So, if it could get referred back to the County for next month to then be heard in March on the Planning Board’s agenda, I think that would be in our best interest. MR. OBORNE-And I would say that that would not slow down the house aspect of this. MS. BITTER-Right, because that needs to go ahead of the ramp. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-Yes, that totally needs to be cleared out first before the ramp. So that’s one positive, so to speak, and that can move forward, and it sounds like you’d like to have counsel present after they review this again. MR. HUNSINGER-Or maybe just comment on that one item. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes, at least. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-With your comments noted as well, that we would want, in addition to this conditioning of approval, some mechanism that did not require, you know, additional Staff effort, in some manner. Something built in to the. MR. KREBS-Where the applicant’s required, every two years, to supply medical records. MR. TRAVER-Well, I don’t know if every year, but at some medically appropriate periodic interval. Maybe five years, or even ten. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, actually with the nature of this particular situation, if you read the package, it’s degenerative. So it’s not going to get any better. MR. TRAVER-So eventually the need will go away. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but you know from the Planning Board’s point of view, we’re in a situation where, you know, you would like us to approve the project, understand, we’ve looked at the data package, we’re compassionate human beings. We understand the need. The difficulty is that there are lots of other properties on the lake where, if this gets approved, we’re going to be seeing applications just like this one, and folks will be providing information on different kinds of handicapping conditions, and will want to be doing similar things. MS. BITTER-Right, and we absolutely appreciate that, which is why we’ve made the efforts we have to try and make this as less intrusive to the environment as possible and try to make it blend and shorten it, and you know the disturbance to be at the lowest level. So, you know, we understand you’re going to look at this as a case by case situation. MR. FORD-Part of the presentation drew the comparison between this as being only 50 feet compared to another one 35, and the next time we see one of these, it may be saying comparison, it’s within 15 feet of the 50 footer, and 65 feet long. MR. OBORNE-One thing that would concern myself with the taking down of, or the removal of the ramp upon the use not actually being needed is you’re going to be further disturbing the site when you do that also, and it’s still going to require access down to the ramp, down to the boathouse, regardless. So, I would just, you know, keep that in mind. MR. SIPP-Also what should be kept in mind is that the shoreline buffer has to fit in here. You’ve got a 15 foot strip across the front of this lot that has to be, and several of the ones you show on your landscaping are not on the list. They’re close, but they’re not on the preferred list. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Of plantings? Where is the preferred list? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s in the Town Code. MR. OBORNE-It’s in the Town Code. The Planning Board can modify that list, but there is a preferred list, and I’ll reiterate for the Board that when I do my review I absolutely, positively make sure that there are no invasive species on the list. MR. LOYOLA-Well, we can certainly switch out to the preferred list. That’s easy enough. MR. SIPP-On another list, Serviceberry I think is the one that’s not on our list, and I had it here and I can’t find it. MR. LOYOLA-They’re real nice utility plants. That actually should be on your preferred list. Native, flowering. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-And deer love it. MR. SIPP-It’s on the Fund for Lake George’s list, but it’s not on ours. MR. LOYOLA-Well, I mean, just with regard to the length of the ramp, and again, as Bill mentioned early on, we could look at taking the land and kind of bringing it to the shoreline a little bit more to shorten up that ramp as far as precedent goes, by building out berm, and it just didn’t make sense because we’re actually creating more of an impact to kind of get to the shoreline, bring the shoreline, you know, to the boathouse, and again, we could take another crack at it to try and get that shortened up, but again, it just didn’t make sense for the site. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess part of the struggle that I have with this is, I’m no fan of boathouses to begin with, and I typically will say, when we review a boathouse, that if it were up to me, we wouldn’t have any, you know, because it’s certainly not a use by right. That’s why you have to come before the Board for, you know, a special permit. So it’s almost like we’re saying, well, because we’re building this boathouse, we need this ramp, because we have a handicap person that needs to use the boathouse, and, you know, it’s like, you know, there’s no inalienable right to have a boathouse to begin with. So, you know, so I’m having a hard time understanding, well, why do we have to, then, you know, make sure that there’s universal access to something that’s not a use by right. MR. KREBS-Well, except that I happen to disagree with you. Because that lake has been there a lot longer than the Town of Queensbury’s been here, and it’s had docks and boathouses on it since the beginning, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that. I’m not questioning that at all. MR. KREBS-So, you know, are you restricting the citizens’ rights by changing the laws, or, you know, is it an inalienable right. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not, though. That’s why it’s part of, that’s why they’re here. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Right, and with that discussion, I had that same question in my head as I was working on the project, and it came to me that it’s really not access to the boathouse so much as access to the water for the owner. If the owner, who happens to be handicap, wants to have lakeshore access from her house, the other option would be to do a ramp, handicap accessible ramp down to the docks, and that’s, as we discussed in the alternative’s concession, no less of an impact on the site. So, you know, it’s, in my mind, it’s waterfront access for the owner, as much as if not more than boathouse access. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is she going to have a deck over the dock? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was going to be my question. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. So it is waterfront access if she’s just sitting on the deck. MR. LOYOLA-That’s right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which is what most, 90% of the people do that are about her age. MR. LOYOLA-Just the access to that. MR. KREBS-And they’re two adjacent properties. One actually has a house on the top, and the other has a deck. So, it’s not like it’s out of the ordinary for the neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-When we talked about this back in June, there was an issue of liability, that there could be potential liability to the Town if this wasn’t built to handicap specifications? Remember that discussion? I mean, a public building, if it’s a public building, you know, a handicap person has the right to access a public building, and therefore, you know, you have to make sure, it has to be engineered to make sure that the handicapped accessibility meets Code. MR. TRAVER-Yes. First of all, this would be, it’s not a public building. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s right. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. TRAVER-Even if it were, it would be considered a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. MRS. STEFFAN-But Bill identified that it was ADA compliant. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It is billed as a handicap ramp. It needs to be built to Code. Now, my question is, if you have a handicap ramp leading to the sundeck, how are you accessing the docks? MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that was going to be my question as well. MR. OBORNE-Is there stairs going down to the docks? MR. LOYOLA-People who access the docks traverse across the lawn. MR. OBORNE-So there’s going to be a path down to the dock? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Not a path, but they just walk. They just walk on the grass. MRS. STEFFAN-What exists now. That’s how they get to it now. MR. HUNSINGER-So the handicap accessibility is only being offered to the sundeck, not to the dock. MR. SPRINGNETHER-And that’s why I think it’s really a question of providing the owner with waterfront access as opposed to sundeck access. MR. OBORNE-Well, it sounds like the applicant wants this to be referred back to the County Planning Board. I don’t know want to deal with that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’m hearing. MRS. STEFFAN-SO do we just have to put a motion forth to make a recommendation, Keith? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, how would we do that, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I’m not exactly sure what the County’s asking for here, either, to be honest with you. They were given the packet. MS. BITTER-Maybe we should hand deliver the packet to them. MR. OBORNE-Well, you can’t. We need to refer it as the referring agency, but I assure you they were hand delivered. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Did it have something to do with the house and the fact that? MR. OBORNE-Their concerns have to do with segmentation, which these are Type II SEQRAs. I don’t see what the issue is with that to begin with. The house was an issue long before the ramp was even in a conceptual phase. So, again, I can’t speak for the County Planning Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, but the other thing is, if you look at, every year the applicant has been back for some change to the, you know, to the structure, and so I’m sure they looked at that, and they were dealing with house issues and the dock issue. MS. BITTER-And I know the County did review this last Spring. The County did review this last Spring because I remember there was discussion relative to stormwater. So it could be that they just didn’t understand why we were coming back again. MR. HUNSINGER-The other comment that I had was would it make sense to have the Town Engineer take a look at this? MRS. STEFFAN-If we have liability, that would be appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. OBORNE-I think the Town Engineer will look at this. There’s stormwater proposed, absolutely, and that would go out for the site plan. They’re here for a recommendation. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to make a motion to refer this to the County Planning Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SIPP-So moved. MR. KREBS-Do we also want to do it to the Zoning Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’ll be in front of the Zoning Board tomorrow. MR. KREBS-Tomorrow, okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And so we’re unsure how they will respond. MR. TRAVER-Well, it won’t go before the Zoning Board if this is not the final, you don’t know what the final form will be. Right? MR. OBORNE-I think this needs to be tabled at this point. You’ve moved forward with the house. Let’s put that long national nightmare behind us, and then move forward with the ramp, which obviously needs to be looked at a little more myopically with this Board, you need questions answered, and you need the satisfaction of the County Planning Board because you don’t want to deal with a supermajority at this point. MS. BITTER-Right. That’s correct. MR. OBORNE-Especially in March. MR. HUNSINGER-So do we need to take a motion to refer this to the County Planning Board is the question? MR. OBORNE-I think that would be wise, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. BITTER-And then do they have openings to put it on their March meetings? MR. OBORNE-Well, they’ll be part of the referral packet back to them in March. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. SPRINGNETHER-So this project will not be heard tomorrow in front of the Zoning Board? MR. OBORNE-I don’t see how that can happen if the Planning Board can’t issue a recommendation. Unless you want to move forward and issue a recommendation. I would advise against that because the applicant wants to go back to the County Planning Board, and that needs to be front ended before anything. MR. TRAVER-We don’t know what we’d be making the recommendation on. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Everyone’s nodding their head, so we’re going to send this back to the County. MR. KREBS-Which means, in effect, we’re going to hear it in April. MR. OBORNE-Pretty much, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Okay. That’s fine with me. th MS. BITTER-Well, could we hear it in March? Because the meeting would be March 9, and then. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The County will hear it in March. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MS. BITTER-Right. Because their meeting’s March. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you don’t want it in front of us in March because there’d only be four people here. MS. BITTER-But at that point we would. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, assuming that the County, you can play that card. MR. OBORNE-You can roll the dice if you want to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, you want to roll the dice, that’s fine with us. MRS. STEFFAN-But, see, the first thing that has to happen is we have to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and so if this Board is not unified in making that recommendation, then we can’t make a recommendation. I’m assuming they’ll hear it anyway, but what happens if we they don’t get a recommendation from us? MR. OBORNE-No, it’ll be tabled. MS. BITTER-It’ll be tabled. MR. OBORNE-It’ll be tabled tomorrow. MS. BITTER-So that’s why I’m saying I think if we come back to your first March meeting, which th I think is the 15. MR. OBORNE-That’s a special meeting this month. So it would be either the second or third meeting in March. MS. BITTER-Okay. So then we can do the same thing. Then we’ll see the Planning Board Tuesday and the Zoning Board Wednesday. MR. TRAVER-And it would be at that meeting that we would be considering a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And then we would make a recommendation to forward the package to the County Planning Board? MR. OBORNE-You will have to put that in resolution form. MS. BITTER-Right, tonight. MRS. STEFFAN-In March, though? MR. KREBS-For tonight. th MS. BITTER-Tonight. So we go to the March 9 County meeting. MR. KREBS-We’ve got to do it now. MRS. STEFFAN-The reason I ask that is because if they don’t have any information that’s different than what they had before, they probably will reject it again on the segmentation issue. MR. TRAVER-Well, they have our minutes, and they have the presentation by the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQRA, though. It doesn’t make sense that they would have concerns. MR. OBORNE-See, I think that certainly you need to be present to explain what’s going on. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-Exactly. I think that’s part of the reason for the denial was just that there’s been so many submittals they’re confused. So we just need to go through, and we’re going to assume that, at the Zoning Board meeting, that whatever the results are of that action and that application that we can take that information to the County on this particular. MR. OBORNE-Well, we can’t issue any approvals. MS. BITTER-No, everything’s going to be tabled. MR. OBORNE-It has to go to the County before we can be heard again, because you’re requesting it to be re-heard at the County. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So the protocol starts all over again. MR. SPRINGNETHER-With the County. MR. OBORNE-Yes. So you’re not going to be in front of, you’re not going to have anything to offer the County from the Town of Queensbury. MR. SPRINGNETHER-I guess I’m referring to the previous application with regard to the house. That is going to be heard. I think once that issue gets cleared up, then the County can be clear to review this project. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, look, back in June we recommended this to the Zoning Board. I mean, I have no doubt that, you know, once the questions are answered satisfactorily that this won’t move forward, but. Yes. So would someone like to make that recommendation to refer this back to the County Planning Board for their review? MR. TRAVER-As requested by the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s fine. Would you make that in a motion, Steve. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think we’d note that it’s at their request. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION REGARDING AV 45-2010 Whereas, the applicant has submitted applications for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with sundeck accessed by handicap access ramp above two existing docks. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval Area Variance: Applicant requests shoreline & sideline setback relief for accessory structure [ramp]. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 request 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 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO RE-SUBMIT THE INFORMATION PACKAGE ON THE INWALD DECK, SPECIFICALLY SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010, BACK TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR THEIR REVIEW, AND THIS IS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) NOES: NONE MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-I will tell you folks that when you come back for our site plan, the Staff Notes specifically on the issues regarding Page L-10, permeable pavers, the additional planting, the shoreline planting, make sure that you address those issues, because you’ll be closer to moving it forward than if you do not. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Good point. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Okay. So would you want to have us revise the drawings to have those? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MS. BITTER-When should we submit it by? MR. OBORNE-And that should be at the March deadline because the site plan probably, I can almost guarantee you will not be reviewed until April. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. SPRINGNETHER-So we’ll have revised drawings for the April meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-Fortified landscaping plans, all those things. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Okay. Thank you. MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The rest of the agenda we do have public hearings scheduled on each one. SITE PLAN NO. 79-2010 SEQR TYPE II LANDCRAFTERS, LLC, CARR DEVELOPMENT, LLC OWNER(S) JOHN CARR ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 704 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE TO EXISTING SITE LANDSCAPING TO INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF ON-SITE SIDEWALKS, SEATING AND POTENTIAL FUTURE BUS STOP. CHANGES IN SITE DESIGN IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 7-01, SP 20-02, SB 4-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/8/10 LOT SIZE 1.07 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-58.1 SECTION 179-9 MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-On Landcrafters? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Let’s make sure the applicant’s here at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’ll give them one minute and then we’ll move forward. MRS. STEFFAN-Are they outside maybe? MR. HUNSINGER-Are they here, Keith? Okay. We’ll come back. SITE PLAN NO. 75-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HUDSON RIVER LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R; LA GROUP; JERSEN CONSTRUCTION OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI [COMMERCIAL LIGHT IND.] LOCATION 33 STONE QUARRY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 25,000+/- SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR USE AS AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING FACILITY. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 12-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/8/10 LOT SIZE 3.80 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.12-1-9.5 SECTION 179- 9 STEFANIE BITTER & JIM MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-I can make a quick comment on this application. The engineering has been completed. There’s been a sign off on this, and Staff has really no issues whatsoever. Let me just look at my comments here. The only thing that I see is the proposed setbacks for the buildings should be denoted on both Page Three of application and Page L-2 under Site Statistics heading, and lighting continues to be excessive, especially spots associated with the western face of the building. All that lighting should be downcast and cutoff in nature. Those are my only two issues, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. MR. MARTIN-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. As you know from the December meeting, our goal here is to have a shovel ready site in the industrial park. Since the last meeting we have received VISION Engineering signoff and we believe we’ve addressed most of Staff’s comments as was addressed. I’ll turn it over to Jim Martin to identify any changes that have been made to the plan. MR. MARTIN-Yes. As the Board may recall, a lot of the, I think issues swirling around this particular application were engineering related, and we managed to clean up all of those comments on the first go around, and with that said, I have no problem stipulating to Keith’s, I think the issue about the setbacks is really a clerical type of a clean up, and in terms of the lighting, you know, we’ll stipulate to some removal of lighting. MR. OBORNE-That’s up to the Board. MR. MARTIN-I don’t think that’s a problem. MR. KREBS-We’ll just have it Code compliant. MR. MARTIN-Right. I mean, that’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-It was hard to read the lighting plan. As much as we usually appreciate the small scale maps. MR. MARTIN-Yes, when you reduce those down that gets a little lost. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-I think it’s an appropriate for anybody to have a building, because when Global Foundries opens up, I think there’s going to be some opportunities to fill those buildings. MR. MARTIN-Absolutely. I think that’s the intent is to try and get in that position. MRS. STEFFAN-Most of the towns south of us are already. MR. KREBS-And that’s basically what the industrial park was set aside for. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-There were some neighbor comments when you were here last in December. Is there anything that specifically stood out that you felt needed any special attention? They mostly revolved around lighting and buffers. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think that was the primary concern. We tried to double check, make sure that we didn’t get any spill off of our site, in any direction, particularly in the direction of the residential uses, and I think by complying to Keith’s comment, we’ll reduce that even further. I would like to keep the lighting around the loading dock areas. I think there’s some obvious, you know, just safety concerns there with trucks backing in and so on, but, beyond that, and the good thing about that, I think that’s the north facing wall. So that’s not really in the direction of the residential neighborhoods. So, I mean, I think that was the primary concern, as I recall, and we’ll certainly make sure the lighting is downcast in nature and all that. MS. BITTER-And that you weren’t going to alter the stormwater. That was the other. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. MARTIN-Right. As a matter of fact, I think by virtue of the changes that were made in the drawing, or the planning, the stormwater substantially improved over the first submission and there was a lot of good comments from Paragon that I think cleaned up the operation of that system. MR. HUNSINGER-I think a lot of the neighbor concerns were they just didn’t know. MR. MARTIN-Right. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-They hadn’t seen the plan yet. It hadn’t been reviewed yet. MR. MARTIN-And if you recall, I think the basic plan with the stormwater is to obviously we have to treat things on site, but try and direct any overflow that does occur into the system that was designed for the subdivision itself. MR. TRAVER-Actually I think there was one neighbor that was, needed clarification on stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I think it was addressed that night. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other comments, questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? Were there any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. OBORNE-I think they were already introduced into the record at this point, but let me double check. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Well, I’ll read this into the record, just in case it hasn’t been. It’s pretty short. th December 20, this is a record of a phone conversation between Pam Whiting of our office and Ms. Bev Benway. Ms. Benway’s speaking for herself and on behalf of Stan Rymkewicz and others. They have concerns about water runoff, lighting and noise after 5 p.m., and who the building will be sold to, and obviously the last comment you can’t answer. MR. MARTIN-Right. We don’t have a specific tenant. MR. OBORNE-And that’s the only thing that’s in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And I believe those were the folks that were here, the adjoining property owner. The names are familiar. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Nothing else from the Board? It is an Unlisted action, and the applicant did submit a Long Form. So, if there’s no other comments, questions from the Board or the public, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And we’ll move on with the SEQRA review. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate, potentially large? Can the impact be mitigated by project change? MR. TRAVER-Potentially large, mitigated by Site Plan Review. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Everybody in agreement on that? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) 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. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) RESOLUTION NO. 75-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HUDSON RIVER LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., 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. th Duly adopted this 15 day of, February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So is the only issue remaining the lighting plan? MRS. STEFFAN-And the setbacks. MR. HUNSINGER-And clarification of the setbacks. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KREBS-Yes, and I think we can just condition it that the lighting be Code compliant. MR. MARTIN-We would be happy with that. MR. FORD-I’ll bet. MR. OBORNE-Do you want this lighting to be Code compliant with this final submission? Or do you want it when they, well, you’re done pretty much. So it probably would have to be. MRS. STEFFAN-I think your wording as I’ve looked at it is probably good, because if I say that the lighting continues to be excessive, especially in those areas on the western facing buildings, that it’s on the record. MR. OBORNE-Just to let you know. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I know, but that was part of the discussion. MR. OBORNE-Okay. My only concern is with the loading area. The other areas don’t concern me. It is excessive. If the Board is okay with that, then that’s fine, if not, then they have to get that lighting down to five foot candles. That’s Code compliant. MR. TRAVER-But we’ve asked and they’ve agreed to make it Code compliant. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-Okay. So with this submittal they’ll have to be Code compliant. MRS. STEFFAN-And if they want a change, then they’d have to come back for a modification. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. I just want to make that perfectly clear. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Just so I’m clear. Would you like a revised plan for your purposes, or is this at the time of building permit? MR. OBORNE-No, this would be at the time, for my purposes, for the four final plans that you must submit. MR. MARTIN-Okay. You’ve got it. Yes. No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It sounds like no one has a problem with it. MR. OBORNE-Fabulous. MR. HUNSINGER-Beautiful. MRS. STEFFAN-And then whoever gets to build that building will come back and we’ll get to meet them. What a nice place to live. Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 75-2010 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 25,000 +/- sq. ft. building for use as an office/warehouse/manufacturing facility. Office/warehouse/manufacturing facility in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/21/2010 tabled to 2/15/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2010 HUDSON RIVER LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 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)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 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) g)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 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; and i)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 j) 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. k) This is approved with the following two conditions: 1.That the proposed setbacks for the building should be denoted on both Page Three of the application and Page L-2 under Site Statistics heading. 2.The plan lighting continues to be excessive, especially spot lighting associated with the western face of the building as well as entrances. We’ve also noted that the lighting around the loading dock seems to be a little excessive. So what we would like is all lighting will be downcast and cut of in nature, as per 179-6-020, and Code compliant. th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. It doesn’t appear that anyone from Landcrafters is here. MR. OBORNE-No. Do you want to roll through the meeting, just in case he comes in, or? Obviously they’re not here, I don’t see John here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Let’s just keep going. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll keep going. SITE PLAN NO. 69-2010 SEQR TYPE II JAMES KALOCK AGENT(S) CURTIS DYBAS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 336 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS AND A 1,602 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO EXISTING 1,565 SQ. FT. THREE (3) BEDROOM HOME. EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 2-2011 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, 100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN LOT SIZE 0.36 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-77 SECTION 179-9, 179-13-010G CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-This is very similar. In fact, I think it’s even more ahead of what Hudson River was. Staff has no issues with what this Site Plan has been presented and engineering has been signed off on, and I just would like to say thank you to Mr. Dybas for doing the due diligence and move forward with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything that you wanted to add? MR. DYBAS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-Not here. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We were scheduled to hear this in January, and because of our snow delay we got pushed until tonight. So, well, if there are no questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I doubt it. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and let the record show that there were no comments received, either in person or in writing. It’s a Type II SEQRA. So, unless there’s anything else from the Board, I will entertain a motion for approval. MRS. STEFFAN-And you closed the public hearing on that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If not, I will again. The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 69-2010 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes renovations and additions to existing three (3) bedroom home. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval; and The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 1/20/2011; and The ZBA approved the variance on 1/26/2011; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/25/2011 and tabled to 2/15/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 69-2010 JAMES KALOCK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph One complies. And the applicant has asked for waivers on stormwater management, grading, landscaping, lighting plans and topography, and the Planning Board grants those. It is approved without conditions. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) 1)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 2)SEQR Type II, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3)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 4)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 5)Waiver requests granted: stormwater management, grading, landscaping, lighting plans and topography; and 6)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 7)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 8)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. DYBAS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. They wouldn’t happen to be the Landcrafters? MR. OBORNE-No, this is the first aid. MRS. STEFFAN-The Great Escape. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2011 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS FGEIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK AGENT(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC; LEMERY GREISLER, LLC ZONING RC [RECREATIONAL COMMERCIAL] LOCATION 1172 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 665 +/- SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF EXISTING FIRST AID BUILDING TO MEET HIPAA REQUIREMENTS. CHANGE TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/12/11 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI & DEC WETLANDS, GLEN LAKE CEA, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE 237.64 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION 179-9 BOB HOLMES & BOB CULVER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-I’m pretty sure everybody’s familiar with this. They received their Area Variance last month. Staff really had no issues whatsoever. This was not sent to the engineer. It didn’t seem to be needed, a referral, and at that point I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HOLMES-Good evening. MR. CULVER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any other new information to present to the Board? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. HOLMES-No. It’s just doubling the size of the existing first aid station. MRS. STEFFAN-For the record, could you introduce yourselves? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m sorry. MR. HOLMES-My name’s Bob Holmes with Jarrett Engineers. MR. CULVER-Bob Culver from The Great Escape Theme Park. CHARLES DUMAS MR. DUMAS-Charles Dumas, Lemery, Greisler. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-No, it’s pretty straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-And seeing that there are no commenters, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a project that falls under the Previous Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Are there any environmental concerns that the Board feels needs to be addressed that wouldn’t otherwise have been covered in the previous EIS? MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 2-2011 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 665 +/- sq. ft. expansion of existing First Aid building to meet HIPAA requirements. Change to an existing site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 1/20/2011; and The ZBA approved the variance request on 1/26/2011; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/15/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2011 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The applicant has requested waivers for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting. The Planning Board grants those, and this is approved without conditions. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) 2)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 3)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has acknowledged no impact on the previously approved FGEIS; and 4)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 5)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 6)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and 7)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 8)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 9)The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a)The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HOLMES-That works. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 7-2011 SEQR TYPE RE-AFFIRM GREGG LABER, GMS REALTY, LLC OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI [COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL] LOCATION 319 CORINTH ROAD, LOT 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE SIGNAGE AT THE ROAD, DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE FOR WHOLESALE AREA LEASE OFFICE SPACE AND A NEW EXTERIOR LIGHTING LAYOUT. MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 49-10, SP 56-10, SUB 10-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/9/2011 LOT SIZE 12.85 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4 SECTION 179-9 CURT LABER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-I just want to let the Board know that Curt Laber is going to be representing, I believe, is he your father? MR. LABER-That’s my uncle. MR. OBORNE-Your uncle. Okay, and Gregg’s got an issue with some health, and he has given me this as an okay for Curt to sit, just to let the Board know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-Let me go through this real quick. Site Plan 7-2011. This is a modification to Site Plan 56-2010. It has to do with Green Mountain Electric, Glens Falls Electric, I apologize. Site Plan Review is the requested action. 319 Corinth Road, CLI is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. So we’ll have to do the Short Form on this one, and the modifications are as follows. New signage at the road. Directional signage for wholesale area lease office space and new exterior lighting layout. Lighting schedule, cut sheets and proposed signage has been submitted. Just again to remind, applicant has gained approval for a wholesale, retail electric sales facility with associated warehouse and office located in a 17,000 plus square foot building fronting on Corinth Road. Additional access to the rear of the site has been built with the installation of a 25 foot wide drive. Staff comments. As we know, the main property was recently subdivided into four separate parcels, with this parcel designated Lot Two. Variances were given for this. Comments that I have on here are the subdivision app must be filed. It was ascertained today that that, in fact, has been filed, and it is all on the up and up on that, and the applicant is requesting waivers from grading, landscaping, stormwater and E & S. Obviously not for lighting, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LABER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. LABER-Curt Laber. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else that you wanted to add about the project? MR. LABER-No. Just, of course, the fixtures that are used are just full cut off fixtures. It puts all the light out front. Very minimum lighting throughout. I knew about this three hours ago. I was the lucky one in the area. So here I am. I’ll try to answer any questions as well as I can. MR. OBORNE-I think proposed lighting is LED, is it not? MR. LABER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I did have questions on the lighting. There were cut sheets submitted with the application, but the cut sheets didn’t say, and I’m flipping to the fixtures, didn’t say the number of LED’s within the fixture. So therefore you couldn’t tell what the lumens were. Did you have different information, Keith? MR. OBORNE-As far as what the locations are or? MR. HUNSINGER-No, the locations were clear, but the foot candles and the lumens weren’t clear. MR. TRAVER-Of the actual fixture. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-On the cut sheet itself? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Because I do have a lumens plan here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but the cut sheets, they didn’t check, you know, the number of LED’s on the fixture. MR. OBORNE-I see. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you see what I’m saying? It did have the lumens on the map. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And certainly everything looked fine there. MR. OBORNE-I guess I’m not following. What, specifically are you looking for? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess they just need to check the boxes so that, you know, when you go to verify if it’s the right fixture installed that you have the information. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-Okay. Now I know that he had a schedule of which fixtures were to be used, and it’s under a lighting schedule that looks like this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is that before or after the cut sheets? MR. OBORNE-That would be before. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And it has lighting schedule as a pre-page. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Found it. MR. FORD-One, five two eleven, twenty-eleven? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not trying to be nitpicky, but like the very next sheet is the cut sheet for the first fixture, and there’s, you know, it lists number of LED’s times ten. It goes from two up to twenty-four. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s actually not the cut sheet for the actual fixture. It’s the cut sheet for a whole series of potential fixtures. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So you just need to check the right box. MR. OBORNE-You want that clarified? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because otherwise you’re not going to know if it’s the right fixture that matches the, you know, the foot candles that’s shown on the plan. MR. LABER-Right. Well, you notice on that cut sheet it shows the number of LED’s listed here. You’re talking on the plan? Usually on the plan it. MR. HUNSINGER-The sheet that’s in your left hand. MR. FORD-Yes, the second sheet. MR. HUNSINGER-This sheet right here. MR. LABER-That sheet. It doesn’t show. Right. MR. HUNSINGER-See, that’s all. MR. LABER-Right, and then right here it shows, specs out like this, 06 would mean six LED’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LABER-That’s the number. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LABER-I did know something. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. So it is there. MR. LABER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You need the lighting experts to be able to tell you. MR. OBORNE-Would you like the cut sheets to have the check mark in it or is this sufficient? MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s okay. It’s clear on the schedule. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that matches. DA 06, DA. MR. FORD-Good. Good explanation. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. LABER-I was here for a reason. Good. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and we like the small numbers compared to that 24 number. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Absolutely. Six is better than twenty-four. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-That was a really good catch, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t usually find the little stuff. MR. FORD-And such a good explanation, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Keith, are you familiar enough with the new sign regs? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SIPP-Seven by ten? MR. OBORNE-But it’s not in the O zone. It’s in the CLI zone. MR. SIPP-Okay. Is that, well, now, what about this? May not have monument signs over six feet in height? MR. OBORNE-I believe in the Office zone only. I can look that up right now. I have the Code with me. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. What was the question? MR. OBORNE-The question was monument signs cannot exceed six feet in height, and I believe that’s in the Office zone. MR. LABER-Yes, I believe the sign next door to us is. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s pre-existing. MR. LABER-I see. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the Sign Ordinance is fairly recent. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we have a new Code. MR. KREBS-But, you know, sometimes having a sign a little higher, if you ever pull out of the Ramada Inn, and you want to look to the left, that sign where that’s located is right in the way to see down the road. MRS. STEFFAN-The Dunkin Donuts sign, the exit, if you’re in a car, it blocks your path so you can’t see the cars coming, and we’ve done that several times. MR. KREBS-I’m just making a point that sometimes maybe having the signs higher, so that you can see underneath the sign would be a benefit. BRAD MAGOWAN MR. MAGOWAN-Or lower so you can see over it. MR. KREBS-Yes, but they’d have to be so low that, you know, since you’re basically sitting at car level and looking, so they’d have to be almost on the ground then, but, you know, sometimes I think maybe having it so that you would be maybe five feet and above so that you could see underneath the sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Is Mr. Sipp correct? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-No freestanding sign shall exceed a height greater than the following, and we are in the Commercial Industrial zone, 20 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So RC, NC, CI, CM, ESC, CLI, and HI zoning districts is 20 feet. The O zone is six feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-You can’t go above six feet in the Office zone. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re good. Any comments on the planting schedule around the sign? I thought it looked pretty good. Yes. Okay. If there are no comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And unless Brad had a comment he wanted to make. MR. MAGOWAN-No, not tonight. Everything is going smoothly. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there were no comments received, and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted. The agenda says to re-affirm. MR. OBORNE-Right. It’s an Unlisted SEQRA. So you can re-affirm the previous SEQRA findings if you feel there are no environmental conditions that warrant it. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can’t see how putting a sign up would make us need to re-consider. MR. KREBS-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless members of the Board would disagree. MR. FORD-No, let’s re-affirm. MR. HUNSINGER-And I like the lighting plan. I just wanted to make sure you knew that. MR. LABER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I did close the public hearing. Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 7-2011 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to existing approved site plan. Modifications include signage at the road, directional signage for wholesale area lease office space and a new exterior lighting layout. Modifications to an existing approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/15/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2011 GREGG LABER, GMS REALTY, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 1)According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is approved without conditions. 2)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 3)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board shall re-affirm the previous SEQRA approval; and 4)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 5)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 6)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 7)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and 8)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 9)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 10)The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a.The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. LABER-Thank you very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 79-2010 LANDCRAFTERS, LLC; CARR DEVELOPMENT, LLC (CONT’D) MRS. STEFFAN-And I’m assuming Landcrafters is not here. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was just about to say. I don’t know if that’s really ever happened before where an applicant didn’t show up. MR. TRAVER-I think I can remember one time a few years ago when that happened. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you? MR. TRAVER-Yes. We just tabled them. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there are some outstanding questions that need to be resolved, and I don’t know if we can resolve them without the applicant being present. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure the applicant would want us to resolve them without them being present. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m not sure they would, either. They are on the agenda. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. So, I think we would need to do a formal tabling resolution. I will open the public hearing and introduce Site Plan 79-2010. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show the applicant did not show to the meeting this evening. Actually, the public hearing remained open from the prior meeting, and I will entertain a motion to table, I guess. Is there any direction that we want to give the applicant? Other than show up? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they can’t submit until March, so then it would be April. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do we want to table it until March? MRS. STEFFAN-But they had some outstanding things to address, and we have a lot of things on the agenda. I would say April. MR. TRAVER-Second. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to table. RESOLUTION TABLING SP 79-2010 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a change to existing site landscaping to include the installation of on-site sidewalks, seating and potential future bus stop. Changes in site design in the CI zone require Planning Board review and approval A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/21/2010 tabled to 2/15/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 79-2010 LANDCRAFTERS, LLC, CARR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As the applicant did not appear for their scheduled hearing today, so they will be tabled to the th April 19 Planning Board meeting. A submission date for any new materials would be March th 15. th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Since it’s early this evening, maybe we could talk about, spend a couple of minutes and just talk about the March meetings. MR. TRAVER-We’re going to have to have meetings in March? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, unfortunately. I can’t recall off the top of my head, Keith. What meeting did we table the Hayes project to? th MR. OBORNE-The 15. th MR. HUNSINGER-The 15. MR. OBORNE-You’re also going to be reviewing Provident Batavia, but they’ll most likely be tabled because we want to get, by direction of this Board, we want to get the engineering complete before you guys see that again at this point. So it’s most likely not going to be before th you in March. So Hayes and Hayes on the 15 is standalone. The following. MR. HUNSINGER-There wouldn’t be any Zoning Board recommendations. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) th MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, the 16 I guess it would be. No, strictly Site Plan. The NOA’s went through their course. There’s one tomorrow night I believe, but that doesn’t affect that. So what thnd we have is the, that’s 2010. So it would be the 15. So the 22 would be the first meeting th where you will have six items on it, and then I have reserved this room for the 24, which is the following Thursday after that, just based on the load that we have right now. I figured we’d have another meeting. I believe that was discussed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it must be. I have it written down in my calendar. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, we didn’t make it official. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We didn’t vote on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We had asked Keith to verify the availability of the room before we th made that official. So it sounds like there’s a need for a third meeting in March on the 24. th MR. OBORNE-Yes, being that the 15 is considered a Special Meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SIPP-Keith, can I send in a letter with some questions? MR. OBORNE-On? MR. SIPP-For Hayes and Hayes? MR. OBORNE-As a Planning Board member, I wouldn’t advise. MR. SIPP-Well, no. I have a question. I want to know how they figured the amount of water is going to come off the Northway and hit that (lost word). Is there a seven, how many have you got in there? MR. HUNSINGER-Seven buildings. MR. SIPP-Seven. Is there any difference in the height of the basement? MR. OBORNE-You certainly can submit the question. I think that discussing this outside of the public hearing without the applicant here is probably not a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-No, but I think Don raises a good question. I think it’s relevant to any meeting when a Planning Board member isn’t going to be in attendance, you know, what would be the proper forum for them to ask the question? I mean, you could e-mail your questions to Keith or e-mail them to one of the Planning Board members and we can raise them on your behalf. I don’t have a problem with that at all. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, and the light bulb went off. I don’t know if you saw that. You’re not going to be here. Okay. I absolutely understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I think that that’s a good idea, too, because if you sent an e-mail, for example, Don, to Keith, then he could make sure that VISION Engineering covered that in their review. MR. OBORNE-Well, that would have to be through the resolution, you know, I don’t know if they can answer your question at this point, but it certainly can be raised as public comment. I’ve never been faced with that, to be honest with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because I mean, submission deadline was today. MR. FORD-Well, they can address it. MR. MAGOWAN-Tom, are you gone, too? MR. FORD-Yes. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. MAGOWAN-So, gone, gone, gone, gone. That leaves. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s just going to be four people. MRS. STEFFAN-So the example that, the Inwald project that was here because they were denied at the County Planning Board level, they would have required a supermajority on the Planning Board. We won’t have a supermajority in March. So we couldn’t have heard their application. Even if we had wanted to approve it, we didn’t have enough people. MR. HUNSINGER-There has been a request made to the Town Board to appoint another alternate, but who knows if that would, if that would be done in time. So anyway, I guess we th need a resolution to hold a Special Meeting on March 24, if someone would like to make that motion. RESOLUTION TO HOLD SPECIAL MEETING TH MOTION TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL MEETING IN MARCH ON THE 24 TO ACCOMMODATE THE CASE LOAD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we will have three meetings in March. Is there anything else we need to do in advance for next week, Keith? MR. OBORNE-For next week? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’re pretty straightforward? MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s some larger projects. You have the Kenny project coming in, which is a 50,000 plus square foot wholesale center. MR. HUNSINGER-Have they submitted yet? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So I don’t see that on the list here is why I’m asking. MRS. STEFFAN-Because it’s in February. MR. OBORNE-Because that’s next week. That’s March’s list. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-We did do sketch on this, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did do sketch plan. MR. OBORNE-You did a sketch discussion. This requires Site Plan, and Richie has a project for Willows. So those are two rather large projects, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. th MR. OBORNE-I would ask of you, if it’s okay, on the 15, for the Hayes and Hayes meeting date, if I could put some light weight applications on that meeting and front end it with real light weight ones so we can move this stuff along. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely, yes. MR. OBORNE-I mean, by all rights you probably should have four meetings this month, but that’s nutty. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked you if there were any ZBA recommendations, those would be certainly appropriate. MR. OBORNE-Right. I see what you’re saying. Yes. I was anticipating something along those lines, and maybe a quick Site Plan or something along those lines. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, obviously we’ll want counsel and the engineer present for the Hayes review. MR. OBORNE-You’ve got it, and we’ll discuss, as in our workshop, how we’ll build the agendas, moving forward. We’ll front end it with engineering, and we have to change the language to our procedures at this point. We’re working on that. We’ll get that before you hopefully some time in March for your review. Craig and I are discussing how we want to go about doing that, and we know that the whole idea of getting the engineering flat on some of those larger projects is definitely a good idea, as long as they come to you first with a sketch plan so you can discuss planning issues with them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Good. MR. OBORNE-We’ll get that in front of you. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I think that’s a reasonable approach. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I do have a question. I mean, should that be something that should be offered to all applicants at this point? Because what’s the trigger for that, and I think we discussed that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Size was going to be the trigger, wasn’t it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we talked about size, but what we said was if they come in for sketch plan review, then we can expedite the engineering. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That was, you know, so we’re putting it back on the applicant, but, I mean, we have to feel comfortable with the sketch plan when they bring it in. So, I mean, if they literally give us the back of the napkin kind of drawing, and it’s not enough for us to do any kind of planning, you know, we’re going to have to say, gee, there’s not enough here. MR. OBORNE-And I’ll go over the minutes and read the discussion. I didn’t have a chance to read the minutes at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t know if we were very clear in the minutes. MR. OBORNE-That’s why I just want to make sure that it’s up to the applicant. We don’t want to have a trigger mechanism. The only trigger would be if you’re comfortable with the sketch plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, it would be nice to get some kind of definition to what it’s going to take for us to feel comfortable. MR. TRAVER-Well, we talked about things like contours and. MR. HUNSINGER-We did. Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. On the other smaller applications the applicant’s not going to come to you with for a sketch plan. They’re just going to submit for a site plan and hopefully get through in one meeting as opposed to doing two. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-I think that’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other items to come before the Board? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I would just like to compliment Keith, because I think that one of the reasons why we are done tonight at 8:40 is because of the work that you have done up front to make sure that the applications are complete and giving folks feedback. MR. OBORNE-I definitely appreciate that. I will say the applicants are sort of towing the line also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good. MR. FORD-But there’s a reason for it. MR. OBORNE-Yes, exactly. It’s through your direction, through my direction. Absolutely. I do appreciate the kind words. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You’re welcome. Yes. MR. OBORNE-I will say we’d probably still be here if Landcrafters was here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we would be. Absolutely. MR. OBORNE-You may want to thank John Carr. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 15 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 38