The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.08.16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 25-2011 Steve Dow/Glens Falls Ready Mix 1. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-21 Subdivision No. 6-2011 Gerald Monrian, Jr. 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.20-1-32 Site Plan No. 56-2011 Lynda Johnson 7. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 226.12-1-18 Site Plan No. 17-2011 Randy Gross 8. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33 Site Plan No. 48-2011 Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts 16. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-49 Site Plan No. 46-2011 David & Evelyn Dufresne 17. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13 Site Plan No. 51-2011 Kubricky Construction Company 20. Tax Map No. 302.12-1-31 thru 35 Site Plan No. 53-2011 Michael Vittengl 22. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-42 Site Plan No. 55-2011 Frank & Debra Jelley 34. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-51 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD KREBS PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I will call to order the meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board, our first regular meeting on Tuesday, August 16, 2011. The first item on the agenda is approval of st minutes from June 21 and June 28, 2011. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 21, 2011 June 28, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JUNE 21 & JUNE 28, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SP 25-2011: STEVE DOW/GF READY MIX FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-And, Keith, you seemed to think that they would be ready in October? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think that that’s the closest meeting that we can table them to at this point. th Now that the deadline is gone, and Staff is recommending an October 18 tabling, with the knowledge that we have directed them to supply a survey for this particular parcel. That should alleviate any issues of ownership. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before we consider the tabling motion, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. For anyone in the audience, there are copies of the agenda as well as a handout for the public hearing procedures on the back table. If we do table this, we will table a public hearing until that date as well. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 25-2011 STEVE DOW/GF READY MIX A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes yard space to be used for the installation of four interconnected retention ponds. Ponds are to serve as a closed loop system for the containment of concrete manufacturing washout water. Modification to an existing use in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19/2011, tabled to 6/21/2011, tabled to 8/23/11; and No new information was submitted by the 7/15/2011 deadline, therefore, 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2011 STEVE DOW/G F READY MIX, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This will be tabled to the October 18 Planning th Board meeting. Submission deadline for new materials will be September 15. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2011 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GERALD MONRIAN, JR. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 47 DIVISION ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 2.26 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 1.13 +/- ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 51-11, BP 91-545 LOT SIZE 2.26 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-32 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 GERALD MONRIAN, JR., PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-And as stated by the Chairman, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Located at 47 Division Road, and the zoning is Moderate Density Residential. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: This is an applicant proposing a subdivision of 2.26 into two residential lots of 1.13 acres each. The relief and nature of variance is as follows: Side setback relief is requested for 13.3 feet for the existing garage located on the proposed northern lot, and 16.2 feet of side setback relief for the existing shed located on the proposed southern lot, and the second Area Variance is for lot size. It’s request for 0.87 acres of relief from the 2 acre lot minimum for both lots. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MONRIAN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. MONRIAN-I’m Gerald Monrian, Jr. COURTNEY FIFIELD MS. FIFIELD-Courtney Fifield. SHANE FIFIELD MR. FIFIELD-Shane Fifield. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. MONRIAN-I just, the lot, where it’s going to be split will be 150 by 328 for one, and most of the lots on the street are like 100 by 328 or whatever, and all the neighbors are all for it, just as long as the house is going to be built, which it is, and my garage that I’m getting that I’m getting the thing for, see, I put the property back together when they changed the taxes over years back, where if I combined everything my taxes would be a lot cheaper. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MORIAN-So that’s the only reason it was put together like that. I saved, my taxes went down almost $50,000, $60,000 back then. So that was the reason why everything got together, and another thing I don’t understand. When I went up to the municipal center to get the deed, I still have three separate deeds. I don’t have just one deed, and they said it was, I just put it 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) together just for the taxes, but my deeds are still separate, and how would I go about, if I got three separate deeds, how do I split things up if they’re already split? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think once you get approval for this subdivision, your deed language is going to change reflecting the two lot subdivision, and that’s pretty much where you’re going to be left. MR. MORIAN-Right, but what I’m saying is I’ve still got three separate deeds right now. I’ve got 150, 100, and a 50. So I still have to put the 150 and 100 together, then the 150? I don’t know how it works. MR. OBORNE-If those three deeds are within the Metes and bounds of your property that is up there, everything, it doesn’t matter. As soon as you get the mylar submitted to the County, you’re good to go. MR. MONRIAN-Okay. See, I didn’t know what I had to do, you know, as far as that goes. MRS. STEFFAN-You likely will have to go see an attorney because if your kids are going to put a house on it, in order for them to get a mortgage, they’ll have to present a deed that they own the property. So you’d have to have that done. MR. MONRIAN-But, you know, like I said, the shed, the cement slab was there. That’s why that one shed’s there, but the garage was built when there were 15 foot sides instead of 25 now. So, you know, that’s why that’s where it is. MR. HUNSINGER-So it used to actually be three lots? MR. MONRIAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-You combined them into one. MR. MONRIAN-Combined them altogether into one. MR. HUNSINGER-And now you’re looking to split it into two. MR. MONRIAN-Now I’m looking to split it up so that my kids can build a house right next door. MR. FORD-You’re not going to disturb that stone wall, are you? MR. MONRIAN-That one I put up? I built that. My wife passed away nine years ago, and she wanted that wall there. So I spent a week building it. No, I’m not going to move it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? One of the concerns that I have in your application, and I’m going to defer to Staff a little bit. The Long Form, there were a number of items that weren’t addressed, including some of the basic project information on Page Two. MR. OBORNE-We can have them addressed prior to the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s an Unlisted action. It’s a fairly straightforward subdivision, from what used to be a three lot subdivision. I don’t think there’s any environmental concerns, but, you know, the form should be properly filled out. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and obviously you will be conducting SEQRA tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s partly why I brought it up. MR. OBORNE-Well, if you feel that there are any environmental issues on the property that would have you table this application, then do so. At this point we’ll make sure that the paperwork is in order for your signature. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any environmental concerns that anyone on the Board has? MRS. STEFFAN-No, it’s a residential subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we do the full SEQRA? MR. KREBS-No. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We also have a public hearing on this application this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show there were no comments received. Since this is a subdivision, we will leave the public hearing open. And if the members of the Board are ready to move forward, we can consider SEQRA. It’s a Long Form since it’s a subdivision. MR. FORD-Let’s do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-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. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. KREBS-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. KREBS-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 6-2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16th day of, August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion for a recommendation? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I didn’t hear any concerns from any members of the Board. MR. FORD-Right. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 51-2011 GERALD MONRIAN, JR. The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of 2.26 +/- acre parcel into two residential lots of 1.13 +/- acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested for lot size and setback requirements. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) 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 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 FROM THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO RECOMMEND TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2011 AND SUBDIVISION 6-2011 FOR GERALD MONRIAN, JR., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Item A, the Planning Board based on limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MONRIAN-We’re all set. Thank you. Now I come in tomorrow for the variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, for the Zoning Board. MR. MONRIAN-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2011 SEQR TYPE II LYNDA JOHNSON AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 347 CLEVERDALE ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 937 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO INCLUDE ATTACHED GARAGE, STUDY, POWDER ROOM, AND HALLWAY SPACE REPLACING EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE WITH CARPORT AND SHED SPACE. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR DISTRICT AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-11, AV 93-04, AV 68-04, AV 9-02, SP 43-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/10/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.47 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-18 SECTION 179-9 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-This, again, is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The location is 347 Cleverdale Road. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County Planning Board has issued a No County Impact. I did not submit that to you folks, but believe me it’s a No County Impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Project Description: Applicant proposes a 937 square foot residential addition to include attached garage, study, powder room, and hallway space to replace existing detached garage with carport and shed space. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from the side setback requirements of the WR district as well as for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. The nature of the variances are as follows: Side setback request for 14.9 feet of side setback relief for the proposed garage/office. Side setback – Request for 11.3 feet of side setback relief for the proposed breezeway, and expansion of a nonconforming structure. That must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. I will say if you guys have visited the property and you’ve seen the buffer along the shoreline, it’s a good buffer, to say the least, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis Mac Elroy with Environmental Design, representing our applicant Lynda Johnson who’s with us as well as Attorney Mike O’Connor. This application for the variance is fairly straightforward, as Keith has identified. I would just point out that we’ve attempted to lessen any impact of this, of the new structures, which basically replace existing. It does increase the floor area, slightly, from the existing, but the permeability, the permeable area actually increases because we’ve tried to reduce other areas that are currently impermeable, such as part of the driveway and another walk area. So that, in effect, is slightly reduced, but to try to mitigate any other concerns that there might be as far as the addition of the structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I thought it looked pretty good, too. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m okay with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no questions, comments or concerns, I will entertain a motion for a recommendation. There is no public hearing on this one. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 52-2011 LYNDA JOHNSON The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 937 square foot residential addition to include attached garage, study, powder room, and hallway space replacing existing detached garage with carport and shed space. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from side setback and Floor Area Ratio requirements of the WR district as well as for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals 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 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 FROM THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO RECOMMEND TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2011 AND SITE PLAN NO. 56-2011 FOR LYNDA JOHNSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 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 16 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck tomorrow. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2011 SEQR TYPE REAFFIRM RANDY GROSS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CM-COMMERCIAL MODERATE LOCATION 487 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE CHANGES TO STORMWATER, LIGHTING, PARKING, GRADING, CLEARING, SIDEWALK CONFIGURATION, AND PARSONAGE LOCATION. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 21-10, SP 25-09, SP 10-08, SUB 19-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/9/2011 LOT SIZE 15.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-33 SECTION 179-9 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 17-2011. This is for New Beginnings Community Church. This is a modification to an approved site plan. 487 Dix Avenue. Existing zoning is Commercial Moderate. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. I would recommend to the Board that you reaffirm the previous findings, or if you feel there are some environmental impacts as a result of this change, you may want to go ahead and complete an Unlisted SEQRA for this one. Project Description: Applicant proposes to move the location of the approved parsonage to the north, increase east parking lot by 34 spaces, install 4 pole mounted lighting fixtures adjacent to the east parking lot, and reconfigure stormwater and landscaping as a result of the propose changes. I believe back in March you asked Code compliance to take a look at the property. That was provided to you last week or earlier this week, if you received it on Monday, and there are no glaring issues, but with that, Bruce does have some concerns, obviously. The issues with the neighbor were remediated almost immediately after that meeting. So there was not any cause for concern. Bruce was all over that one also, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. My name is Tom Hutchins. With me is Pastor Randy Gross, and as Keith indicated, I believe in January we submitted a proposed modification to an approved site plan. The modification essentially consisted of two items. One was to add a row of parallel parking along the eastern drive and the east side of the building, and the other modification was to re-locate the proposed parsonage further back from the back of the parking lot, back into a wooded area to get it a little further away from the main building. Along with that was associated stormwater and lighting revisions, and we left here from the March meeting, I believe, with five or six items, a number of them involved Code compliance. Bruce has been there. I’ve been there with Bruce on a few occasions. Bruce has been there on multiple occasions and has been working with the Pastor, and we believe we’ve resolved those concerns, and I guess with that we’re here looking for support for our proposed modification. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I’ll take any questions, comments from members of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Let’s go down the Staff comments. There’s a couple of things that are there. Additional clearing for the east parking lot appears excessive. MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t believe it’s excessive to fit what we want to fit in with the grades. If you look at the layout plan, it may look excessive. If you look at the grading plan, in order to grade it out, the clearing limit really isn’t excessive. We don’t want to grade it too steep. We need to grade it out at a maintainable and stable slope, and so I don’t see it as being excessive. When we set the clearing limit, we set the clearing limit based upon what we needed to make that grade. MR. HUNSINGER-So what is the grade that you’re proposing? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s the one on three. MR. HUNSINGER-One on three? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I believe it’s one on three. MR. KREBS-And as I remember the property, the property to the east is lower anyway. So you have a natural grade to that side. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just remember the conversation before, we talked about, you know, trying to maintain as many trees as possible and to have you take a look at perhaps not having the grade come out as far, but I know one of the issues is the soil conditions, because it’s just all sand. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s all sand. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it looks like somebody just dumped sand there. It’s hard to see where there’s anything else. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. HUTCHINS-And we have to be careful that it is stable, but I don’t believe the clearing limit that we’ve proposed, looking at the grading, is unreasonable. I can assure you we can certainly, or Randy certainly doesn’t intend to clear more than necessary. He has left actually a fair stand of trees, significant mature trees, on the interior of the loop that we had shown to be clear, and there are a great number of them, and he’s worked that interior a little bit such that we could save those. What are there, seven or eight trees in there. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How about Item Two, test pit number four data was gathered out of season. Was the determination of the seasonal high groundwater observed by a Town Engineer? MR. HUTCHINS-Test pit number four was gathered December or January. There was a lot of snow. I remember that. January. That is out of season. It was not observed by the Town Engineer. We did it at the time we were putting together the modification. MRS. STEFFAN-So what do we have to do to right that, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think that there’s two ways you can go about it. You can have the test pits accomplished once more, unless the engineer has accomplished those test pits in season since then. I’m sure you haven’t at this point. MR. HUTCHINS-I have not. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Or you can waive the stormwater, which I do not suggest you do, the stormwater requirements, which I do not suggest you do. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, test pit four is where the proposed septic is supposed to go. MR. HUTCHINS-The test pit was for the septic system, yes. MR. OBORNE-So you don’t have a choice on that one anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So if it’s done out of season, then it just has to be witnessed by the Town Engineer. MR. OBORNE-It does. MRS. STEFFAN-And since we’re out of season, so we just have to get it witnessed, then. MR. OBORNE-Yes. So I would think that when you’re installing that, has it already been installed? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. OBORNE-No, it hasn’t. I think when you install it then you should probably run another test pit. Make sure you run that by Dave Hatin at this point. MR. HUTCHINS-We’re fine with that. MR. FORD-Makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-We had a discussion on lighting but I can’t remember how we resolved that. MR. OBORNE-It had to do with fixtures that were not approved and installed, and I believe Bruce has mentioned that in his comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, he did. MRS. STEFFAN-They shielded them, so that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they shielded the lights. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. OBORNE-So if you are going to do any conditions to any type of resolution, I would suggest that you make sure that the Code Compliance Officer’s issues are resolved. MR. TRAVER-I had a question on the clearing. We talked about, a number of times, the number of trees and so on that are going to be cut, and you indicated that you’d be, try to limit the amount of clearing. Does that mean that you will not be selling anymore firewood off the site? RANDY GROSS PASTOR GROSS-Only what’s processed and ready for sale at the present. th MR. HUNSINGER-Bruce mentions in his letter dated August 12 that there were 15 additional trees that were planted, but he doesn’t identify where those are located. Do you know, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, not necessarily. No. I think that when this site gets developed and it’s done, you’re going to have to have an as built survey. I don’t know if you want them to locate the additional trees. I think additional trees are a good thing, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know where they are? PASTOR GROSS-The drive at the front has a, kind of a “U” shape, and we placed on the inside a row of crabapple trees. I think there’s 10 trees added there. There are two trees added on either side of the sidewalk on the west side of the building, near the utility area, above what was on the print, and then trees were placed at the back of the parking lot, near the edge of the first swale. We added three trees there. I think, and then there was an additional tree added on the east side of the building. There’s a large existing maple tree, and we added an additional maple, south of that, in case that tree died from, we’ve put a well around it to try to save it, but in case it didn’t, we wanted to have a tree growing comparable to the others. Plus we added beds on the south side, east side and north face of the building that aren’t shown in Bruce’s report. So there’s a lot of extra plantings that weren’t called for. MR. OBORNE-If I could offer, you may want to have any final plans revised to reflect that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, wouldn’t that be part of the as built? MR. OBORNE-No, not necessarily, not landscaping. That’s typically showing the location of the structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? Okay. I’m not hearing any. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? Okay. We do have at least one person. If you could give up the table, please. The purpose of the public hearing is to solicit comments from members of the public regarding any proposed project. I would ask anyone wishing to address the Board to state their name for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting, and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. So I would ask you to identify yourself and address any of your comments to the Board. With that, good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DIANA GILLIS MS. GILLIS-Diana Gillis. I’m the neighbor down the hill. As you’ve said, a lot of the, it’s sand, and I’ve taken a picture of the fill, and I’m not only concerned with when next spring comes and the water table, but I’m concerned, we have a well. We don’t have Town water, and I’m just wondering if asphalt is suitable fill, a lot of, you know, used asphalt, chunks, and this looks like construction debris to me, used as fill. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. Thank you. MS. GILLIS-Do you want to see the picture? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, you can, why don’t you start down there and we’ll pass it along and we’ll get it back to you before we finish. MS. GILLIS-Who do I contact about asphalt, used asphalt, the DEC? Because they’re not answering. MR. HUNSINGER-Who isn’t, DEC? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MS. GILLIS-Yes, I never get anyone when I call DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I mean, I would start with the Town Code Enforcement. MS. GILLIS-I have. I’ve had arguments with Bruce. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-What I can offer is that millings, which are the road debris, is considered clean fill. I know, by the DEC, but to get irrefutable proof of that, obviously you’d need to contact DEC, and I agree with you, good luck with that. They have just been chopped as far as staffing goes. You may want to look on the DEC website, see if you can dig anything out on that, somewhere along those lines. MS. GILLIS-Well, our water has been tested and I know it’s fine, right now. MR. OBORNE-Right. Yes, it is considered clean fill. I know that. MRS. STEFFAN-Ms. Gillis, how deep is your well, do you know? MS. GILLIS-Honestly, I don’t. No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Well, it’s good that you’ve got baseline data, you’ve already had the water tested. So that was good. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to address the Board on this project? No other takers? Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to come back to the table. MR. OBORNE-I don’t see any. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-There was one previously from March. I believe that that was entered into the record, concerning the septic and well system issues that have been resolved at this point. So there’s no additional. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything that you wanted to add as a result of the comments? MR. HUTCHINS-Not, well, I guess asphalt and concrete are considered clean fill, and sometimes when it’s going in place, it’s not the prettiest thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-And it is acceptable material when you need to bring up grade, and it’s the same asphalt that’s on all our roads and all our parking lots, and so. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. Any additional questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I would just say that one of the things that that does provide is a much more stable, when you’re in a sandy area like that, it provides a more stable foundation for the. MR. FORD-Tom, have you ever read or had experience where that was used, and I understand it’s clean fill, and have you ever seen a negative impact on adjoining wells? MR. HUTCHINS-No, not, certainly not that’s been traced to asphalt. I mean, I have seen construction projects that have been claimed to have a negative impact on adjoining wells, but, I mean, asphalt is everywhere, and new asphalt gives off the most gases and petroleum and otherwise and as asphalt gets older, it just hardens. So to answer your question, no, I haven’t. MR. FORD-Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We didn’t really talk about the engineering report. There was really just one outstanding item which was including a note 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) under Item Two. I assume you didn’t have any issue with that. Have you seen the engineering th letter dated August 12? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. No, we’re okay with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, you said that we should probably have a condition regarding the Code Compliance Officer’s report. The items that Bruce listed here, the eight items, you know, some of the things have been addressed. So it really doesn’t have any outstanding items. It’s things he’s looking at, but I wouldn’t know how to word that. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, as I’m looking through these, yes, I mean, you may not even have to do that at this point, because the site is not complete and he’s going to have to do another site plan inspection report, and with that, you know, it may be a moot point at this juncture, but I do, would offer that any of the additional landscaping that is proposed be placed on the plans, and with what you’ve heard tonight, is that acceptable to this Board, and by approving it, obviously it would be. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I can’t see us having a problem with extra landscaping. Usually the issue is not enough. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I totally agree, which is really why I brought it up, because there should be some recognition that it is there and that we don’t have a problem with it, because we don’t want the Code Enforcement Officer to say, hey, this wasn’t on your plan, you need to take it out. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that would be doing his job, and I’m not sure how we want to word that, just say? MR. HUTCHINS-It would be a very, very, very simple exercise to go there and spot them. We don’t have a problem with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-The language I had, provide a revised landscaping plan to reflect the current conditions and proposed landscaping. PASTOR GROSS-Bruce has noted all additional plantings on his copies. So he has that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, again, we certainly appreciate any extra landscaping. I’m sure the neighbors do as well. MRS. STEFFAN-So is this okay, current conditions and proposed landscaping? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’ve just got the test pit issue, the revised landscaping plan, and any approvals on Phase III work. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any issues that the Board has that would require us to re-open the SEQRA review? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess, one of my other questions, when will the parsonage be moved? PASTOR GROSS-It’ll either be demolished or we’re looking at the possibilities of moving it to another place. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Any idea when that’ll happen? PASTOR GROSS-Well, we’d like to see it accomplished last Fall or next Spring. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. One of the questions in the Staff Notes asks if we’ll be seeing you again. I mean, you’ve been here since you were initially approved on a couple of occasions, and so the question from Staff is will additional modifications be forthcoming. PASTOR GROSS-I think we’d have to come back if we build Phase III. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Right. PASTOR GROSS-So, but nothing cute planned. MR. KREBS-And I understand that this is a pay as you go project. So some of these things are determined not by what you’d like to have happen, but what you can afford to have happen. PASTOR GROSS-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the other Staff comments is regarding permanent signage. Do you have any signage plans yet? PASTOR GROSS-I don’t understand the question, what signage? MRS. STEFFAN-Will you have a sign at the road? PASTOR GROSS-There is one on the original, original, and, so, yes, we’re planning, and I won’t probably put that sign up until the house goes away. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Not from me. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, there’s one other outstanding Staff comment, and that’s on the proposed pole lighting. We’ve handled the details on the wall packs, but the pole lighting, it identifies that it exceeds the foot candle maximum and appears excessive. There were a couple of hot spots on the lighting plan, but they weren’t off the charts. MR. KREBS-As I remember, they seemed to me, the hot spots they were in areas that were along the, adjacent to the building where you would want good lighting so that people would be able to walk without any problem. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and again, they’re generally directly beneath the downcasting fixtures, and I’ve been here before on lighting, and we’re trying to maintain reasonable lighting at the perimeter. If you follow the perimeter of the parking area, and look just outside the perimeter, it drops right off. Now we lit the place up last night, in the dark, and, I mean, this is just my word, but I was really happy with the parking lot lighting. It was, I wouldn’t want it any less, I mean, if you’re going to have reasonable access for people out there. Now that’s just me looking at it one time one night. It’s a long ways from the road. The majority of it is behind the building. It is straight downcast and at the level of the parking lot it does a really nice job of lighting it. PASTOR GROSS-I think it’s notable that you consider it’s a very limited use facility in the night time hours. It’s not like a car dealership or a Wal-Mart that’s lit up or other type of plaza, where our usage is pretty much Sunday night, Wednesday night for two and a half hours, and because we don’t like to throw money at National Grid, we have, everything is on timers. So I don’t think, as an added benefit, it’s not going to be intrusive being on until 10 o’clock and the like. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the Board’s okay with what’s proposed? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-We’re going to re-affirm the previous SEQRA findings? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. All right. So we’ve dealt with all the questions that were in the Staff Notes. We have dealt with the Code Enforcement Officer’s note. We’ve dealt with the VISION Engineering comments, and so I guess, and we’ve had the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess we’re ready to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Since the Board appears ready to move forward, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-And entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 17-2011 RANDY GROSS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modifications to approved site plan to include changes to stormwater, lighting, parking, grading, clearing, sidewalk configuration, and parsonage location. Modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/15, 5/19, 7/26/11, tabled to 8/16/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2011 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff . 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Reaffirm previous SEQR; 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; 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; 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 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; 7)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; 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; 9)This is approved with the following conditions: 1.The applicant will do test pit four over again and have it witnessed by the Town Engineer. 2.That the applicant will provide a revised landscaping plan to reflect the current conditions and proposed future landscaping. 3.That any approval given this evening will exclude any Phase Three work. 4.Any future signage must be Code compliant. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2011 SEQR TYPE II JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SBLB II, LLC ZONING HI- HEAVY INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 26 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,440 SQ. FT. METAL STORAGE BUILDING. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH A COMMERCIAL VENTURE IN AN HI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 50-11, SP 63-10, AV 54-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 13.78 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-49 SECTION 179-9 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, I just need to recuse myself on this item. JBAP is a former client. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan Review is the requested action. The location is 26 Lower Warren Street. The existing zoning is Heavy Industrial. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of 1,440 sq. ft. metal storage building 4.6 feet from the west side property line. I believe the Planning Board is familiar with this application. You issued a recommendation last month. They have received their Area Variance, which is attached. It’s a pretty clear plan as to what their intentions are, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KREBS-Should Bill join us? MR. HUNSINGER-Bill, would you like to sit in for this item? BILL MAGOWAN MR. MAGOWAN-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floor is yours. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, I’m here from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, together with Larry Brown, on behalf of the applicant. As Staff has indicated, this matter was before you last month for a recommendation for the variance. The building we’re talking about is a 1440 square foot shed that’s located on the western side of the property. That building required a variance because of its immediate setback to that western property line. This matter was before the Zoning Board a year ago, but because of that impact, or to lessen that impact, Larry Brown and his brothers, as an LLC, purchased that immediately adjacent property, so that the impact was eliminated. As most of you know, part of their business is a vehicle dismantling facility. The vehicle is actually dismantled in the garage that’s located on the eastern end of the property. This shed will be utilized to store metal parts of the vehicle. I’ll open it up to any questions you may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we discussed it pretty thoroughly when we made the recommendation. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We sure did. Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show there were no comments received. This is a Type II SEQRA. So I will close the public hearing. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will entertain a motion, if anyone would like to make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 48-2011 JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,440 sq. ft. metal storage building. Accessory structures associated with a commercial venture in a HI zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/16/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2011 JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II SEQRA; 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; 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; 5)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, lighting plans, traffic, and topography; th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 46-2011 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 24 BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT HAS REMOVED AND REPLACED DECKING ON AN APPROXIMATELY 376 +/- SQ. FT. DOCK. REMOVED PREVIOUS SUNDECK AND REPLACED WITH A 450 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 47-11, AV 46-11, AV 45-11, BP 2011-140, 2011-141, 99-469, 98-785 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.29 +/- ACRES 0.13 +/- ACRES PER RPS TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION 179- 6-010, 179-9 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, disregard the recommendation aspect that’s on the Staff Notes on this. This is David & Evelyn Dufresne, Site Plan 46-2011. This is 24 Brayton Road is the location. Waterfront Residential is the existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) Applicant has removed an approximately 376 sq. ft. dock with a sundeck and commenced construction on a like sized dock with a 450 sq. ft. sundeck. This was in tandem with a deck issue that the applicant had last month. That deck issue is now stalled at this point, but we’re moving this plan forward. It has received its Area Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. As a quick, and I’m sure Stefanie will talk about the landscaping plan that is going to be submitted for the site plan aspect of the deck. You may want to consider that as part of any deliberation concerning shoreline buffering. If there are, obviously, any questions, you can direct them towards me, and with that, I’ll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Again, you may recall this application as well because it was before you for a recommendation last month. As Keith has explained, there’s a sundeck and a dock, as well as a deck, that were both in a state of disrepair. As opposed to taking the structures apart board by board, the applicant took the structures and re-built them. They were non-conforming structures and unfortunately didn’t obtain a permit to do so. So a Stop Work Order was put in place. The Area Variances for the sundeck and dock have been obtained. So that’s why we’re here before you. The landscaping plan we’re in the process of submitting together with the site plan application for the deck so that all of the land will be taken together at the same time. It will be before you at the next Planning Board meeting for that matter. So that we’re in kind of a two step process here. So at this point we’re just really looking at the sundeck. The sundeck, as it exists, is in the midst of construction, and obviously the applicant is very eager to complete it because of the safety issue that it presents. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? So we do get another crack at the landscaping plan when we look at. MS. BITTER-Mr. Miller, James Miller, is the landscape architect. He’s been retained. MR. HUNSINGER-Because quite frankly that was really the only issue I had was the landscaping. MR. FORD-Address that in due time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-And the dock configuration is pretty standard for the lake. There are properties that are similar to that. MS. BITTER-Right. Right. There’s not really another location for it. MR. SIPP-Has the applicant submitted a proposal for a buffer zone? MS. BITTER-The proposal is being submitted with the deck site plan application. We’re in the process of working with Keith to get that in. So, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s the sundeck and then there’s the deck, and they’re two separate applications. The sundeck is the only thing we’re looking at this evening. MR. FORD-Thank you for making that effort and working with Keith. It’s a good move. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Hearing none, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any takers. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s a Type II SEQRA. So unless there’s comments or concerns, is the Board comfortable waiting until the deck discussion to address landscaping? MR. FORD-Yes. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Since they’ve engaged the landscape architect. MR. HUNSINGER-Now that application’s already been filed, correct? MR. OBORNE-That application is on hold right now. MS. BITTER-It’s being supplemented as well. MR. FORD-In process, right? MR. OBORNE-So you probably will not see that until after the Zoning Board. Actually, it’s coming back, the deck is coming back to you for a re-recommendation for the Zoning Board. There are some issues with this which we’ll clarify for you at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But right now the deck and the hard surfacing that they have already installed along the shoreline will need to be added to this application, this site plan application for hard surfacing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is everyone clear? MRS. STEFFAN-Nothing’s easy. MR. OBORNE-I hope that was clear. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. All right. Well, since there were no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And if there’s no comments from the Board, I’ll entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 46-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant has removed and replaced decking on an approximately 376 +/- sq. ft. dock. Removed previous sundeck and replaced with a 450 sq. ft. boathouse with sundeck. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 7/26/11; the ZBA approved the variance request on 7/27/2011; A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/16/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Approved without conditions. 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II SEQR; 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; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) 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; 5)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ll get a whole new application. We can ditch this one, okay. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you’ll see that in October. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2011 SEQR TYPE II KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI- COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 238 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE OF USE TO EXISTING 15,580 +/- SQUARE FOOT CONSTRUCTION OFFICE/SHOP TO INCLUDE A RADIO STATION AND PERSONAL FITNESS CENTER; THE CURRENTLY UNUSED PORTION OF THE BUILDING TO BE USED FOR OFFICE SPACE. CHANGE OF USE IN THE CLI ZONE AND NO SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 47-11; AV 1-97, BP 96-771 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 LOT SIZE 1.78, 0.22, 0.13, 0.15, 0.56 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.12-1-31 THRU 35 SECTION 179-9 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. This has been before the Board for a recommendation for a handicap ramp along the north side of the structure. That was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the intervening time between that approval and this Board meeting, the applicant requests that approval be given for additional office space, that was proposed in the future, but now would like to be approved now, and I do have an addendum up above on the Staff Note that I’ll read into the record, and I will say that the applicant requests plans for an additional tenant to be reviewed at this time. Staff feels this is a reasonable request, as the recommendation and Area Variance associated with this project has no effect on this request. Application is Site Plan 51-2011 for the Kubricky Construction Company. Requested action is Site Plan Review for a change of use in the CLI zone. Location is 238 Bay Road in the Commercial Light Industrial zoning district. It’s a Type II SEQRA. No further action is required. 7/13 of this year Warren County Planning issued a No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant proposes a change of use to existing construction office/shop to include a 3,400 square foot radio station/office and 3,800 square foot personal fitness center; portion of existing building to remain as equipment storage and shop with approval sought at this time for future tenant space in that location of 2,880 square feet and 4,660 square feet respectively. Parking stripping and ingress/egress re- configuration is proposed. Current security gate associated with the southern entrance to be removed. Staff comments: The proposal will require the combining of the five lots into one to conform to current zoning area requirements; the applicant has denoted as such on the plan. Fire Marshall comments are attached and the project engineer, who is here, has observed on site drainage and is satisfied with the current existing conditions, and as previously stated, Area Variance 47-2011 for the handicap ramp was approved in July, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and Jeff Cintuala from D.A. Collins, the parent company of Kubricky. We have nothing to add. We’ll answer any questions you have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Entertain questions, comments from the Board. I mean, I have sort of a general question. I mean, I remember well the lengthy discussion that we had on the Comprehensive Land Use Planning Committee about, you know, when projects should come back for site plan review, you know, a change of use in a building and, you know, I think that 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) whole discussion, you know, was that there ought to be an opportunity to talk about issues. I certainly don’t have any issues with this one. So I certainly think your request is very reasonable, you know, the last minute alteration to get the office space approved as part of this review. MR. NACE-We just wanted to make sure we didn’t have to come back another time, you know, in six months. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I mean, personally, I think it’s a very reasonable request and I certainly don’t have an issue with it. Anything else from other members of the Board? MR. FORD-Just a point of clarification because as Keith read it, it’s accurate in the Staff Notes, there is a typo. We’re looking at parking striping, not stripping. For the record. MR. OBORNE-Well, be that as it may. MR. HUNSINGER-Do members have any concerns about any of the stormwater waiver requests? MR. KREBS-No, it’s been there for years. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any takers in the audience. Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show there were no public comments received, and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there’s any further concerns or comments from the Board, we’ll entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Now there’s two things that are in the Staff Notes. Add handicap rails for ramp and the landing, the signage, because we don’t know what’s going in there exactly, any signage will be Code compliant. We can make that a condition. Another one of the conditions that’s identified, that we talked about with the Zoning Board recommendation was that parking in the front of the building will be eliminated. MR. HUNSINGER-I see the applicant nodding his head. JEFF CINTUALA MR. CINTUALA-We’re not striping the front at all. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-All parking will be in the rear of the building. So those are the conditions I have, based on the Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sounds great. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 51-2011 KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a change of use to existing 15,580 +/- square foot construction office/shop to include a radio station and personal fitness center; the currently unused portion of the building to be used for office space. Change of use in the CLI zone and no site plan review within the last seven years requires Planning Board review and approval. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) The PB provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 7/26/2011; the ZBA approved the variance request on 7/27/2011; A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/16/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2011 KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II SEQRA; 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; 4)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, lighting plans, & buffer requirements; 5)This is approved with the following conditions: 1.Any signage shall be Code compliant. 2.That the applicant will add handicap rails to the ramp and the landing area. 3.That parking in front of the building shall be eliminated. All parking will be in the rear of the building. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 53-2011 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL VITTENGL OWNER(S) KEN ERMIGER ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 719 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A DISPLAY LOT FOR AUTOMOTIVE SALES. REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR PARCELS LACKING SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE PRIOR SEVEN (7) YEARS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 57-95,AV 74-95, AV 42-95, SP 38-90 BP 99-729, 92-075 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/10/2011 LOT SIZE 2.01 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-42 SECTION 179-9 MICHAEL VITTENGL, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. The requested action is Site Plan Review as this parcel has not had Site Plan Review within the past seven years. Location is 719 State Route 9. This is in the CI zone. This is a Type II SEQRA. No additional SEQRA action required. Project Description: Applicant proposes a display lot for automotive, marine and aircraft sales at the now defunct car wash between Outback Steak House and Weeks Road. Existing bays will be utilized for detailing and cleaning and display parking configuration has been submitted. Applicant is requesting waivers 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) from storm water, Topography, lighting, grading and landscaping. What follows is site plan review. There are some site issues that need to be cleaned up. Again, not anything that’s earth shattering. I do want to point out to the applicant that I’m not sure if you talked to Mr. Ermiger about the sewer hookup at all, but that will require a waiver or you’ll have to hook up, and I do put in here, in some of my additional comments, the site could use additional landscaping. The landscaping on site is not exactly of the greatest of shape, and that’s not because of the applicant. That is because of the condition of the structure at this point, and any lighting should be discussed. I know that Mike and I have discussed that, Cindy and I have discussed that, that they’re really not proposing any additional lighting, but if you are, offer it to the Board at this point, and finally any color change proposals, offer to the Board. One thing in my notes that does state, they do have a display template, and I just want to, just to the Board that the only requirements for parking are about four spaces, and the rest is going to change as they get different items in. So it’s kind of hard to have them nail down on where their displays have to go, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KREBS-Not only that, but I went there today, and looked at it, and, you know, you’ve got RV’s, you’ve got boats, you’ve got Jeeps. So all of those are going to require different spaces, different sizes, and if you put an airplane there, Mike, you know, it’s going to take a whole different situation. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I just wanted to make sure that the Board was aware of that. MR. VITTENGL-No, I mean as far as aircraft, Rich air, you know, that’ll all happen over there. Rich Schermerhorn’s been gracious. So we have a hanger space, and it’ll happen on the airport property, but other than that, yes, boats and RV’s, but as necessary as far as space, and then it’ll be flexible, and not to crowd it because that becomes an issue of damaging your own property as well. So it won’t be overcrowded. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, that was the one comment that I have is when you look at your site plan, it looks like you have parking laid out for, I mean, I assumed it was parking for about 38 cars. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, that would be like a car inventory situation which won’t happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, I don’t think there’s any way in the world you could fit 38 cars on that site. MR. VITTENGL-No. We won’t even stripe it. We’re not going to even go that route. It would be way less than that, and it’s just a display lot only, and I have access to my brother’s facility down at Exit 17 for seven acres for a lot of product. So this would be the display lot. Service and all the follow up oil changes, things like that will take place off Exit 17 in South Glens Falls at Auto World. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the plans for the carwash building? MR. VITTENGL-Just to clean detail vehicles as necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’ll be a wash facility? MR. VITTENGL-Yes, not for the public, just for our own private use. Just to put vehicles inside during the winter, some of the nicer vehicles, some of the nicer boats we have coming in. I have a Hacker craft on its way in. So that will be in at night out during the day type of thing. That’s 93 feet long. We’ll be able to put a couple of nice boats inside, display them outside and put them back inside, and that’s what some of the customers are going to request. It’s ideal for what we’re looking to do up there, and obviously that’ll take up all that space, very little water, very little activity, very little garbage, you know. MR. OBORNE-If I could interject, could I have you state your name for the record. MR. VITTENGL-Michael Vittengl, and this is Cynthia Mandese. CYNTHIA MANDESE MS. MANDESE-Cynthia Mandese, business development. MRS. STEFFAN-Now I went by and there’s a For Sale sign. So is this a situation where you’re going to lease the property from the owner? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. VITTENGL-I have signed a three year lease with Ken. He’s asking a million eight, and I think it’s cheap. (Lost words) maybe two and a half to three million for it, so that it doesn’t sell. It’s not going to sell right away, which is okay, but, you know, he does have it on the market. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. VITTENGL-If he does sell, I mean, I have other places to go, but I don’t see it happening right away, but whatever, you know, whatever happens happens. It’s a nice property. It’s perfect for what I’m looking to do and I look forward, I’ve dealt with Ken for over 10 years on different properties, and when he moved out of his place in Lake George and DP Dean and I moved in about six years ago, he moved over to Green Harbor, I moved into DP Dean, to his mansion he lived in. So I’ve known him pretty closely for over 10 years. I lived across the street from him in Green Harbor for about six years before I moved into that property. So we met in church, ironically, but he’s been good. So there’s not a problem there. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the reason I ask that question is because the Staff Notes indicated that they’re wanting you to do some things that may be expensive. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, I have no problem with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that’s why I just wanted to know that status. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, those improvements will be worth it to me even for the short haul. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Good. MR. SIPP-I think that you definitely need some landscaping. MR. VITTENGL-Absolutely. We’ll look the part. When you park a $250,000 motor home out there, you don’t want shrubs growing up around it. MR. SIPP-Yes, I think the buildings themselves. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, will get cleaned up. I actually asked if I could start jumping in to this moving and he goes, wait, wait, you’ll like what you see. MR. SIPP-And the other thing is, I hate to see, you’ve got competition down the road, this stuff put right out on the sidewalk. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, I hear you. MR. SIPP-And the boat size gives you a little problem there. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, we have to be sensitive to getting back off the street a little bit. MR. SIPP-You have a turnover of different items. You’re not selling just one item or two items. So that I think you need some breaks in there for some vegetation. MR. VITTENGL-It’s pretty well built in. I mean, the property itself is ideally set up. Where the pavement ends plenty close to the road. Don’t need to go any further than that. We did have to put Steve’s boat, Britton’s boat on the corner there. I mean, that’s been helpful, but I’ve got to get a truck and tow it out of there. It doesn’t have any motors in it. So it’s a big display, but it caused some attention. As far as the sign, we put the sign up and put Karma on there because we had tons of people coming in, soon as there was any activity, wanted to wash their car, we want to wash our car. So we just put Karma coming soon to try to at least defer that local traffic from spinning through the lot, and then the one other thing is through the back of the property over the years it’s become like a thoroughfare. There was no grass between there and the Outback Steakhouse, and then we put three boulders in to knock that down. That’s in there as well. MRS. STEFFAN-I never noticed that until I read the site plan. I was like, really, I didn’t know. MR. VITTENGL-You know, the light is there, and it’s kind of tough getting out of Weeks Road, to a certain extent, if you’re going to go left. It’s easy to go right, and then the traffic light does stop it, but there’s some anxiety to cut through and get the light at the Outback. There happens to be a light between Outback and Karma, which is, you know, we won’t be utilizing that. We’ll go Weeks Road as well. MR. HUNSINGER-So people from Weeks Road cut through so they can use the light? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. VITTENGL-Yes, on a regular basis. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Wow. MR. VITTENGL-It was getting knocked down. When we first went in there, I was like, whoa. When we put the dumpster in there to take out the storage stuff, we put it sideways, and that stopped it. So it is cut down. People change habits quick when they realize like something else is there, but without it, they flow through. It’s like water, you know, it just goes to the lowest point, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The status of the vacuum islands. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, there’s a light on one. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. The Staff Notes talk about removing the islands. MR. VITTENGL-I’d rather not move the lights from the middle of the. MRS. STEFFAN-These are the vacuum islands. They’re not the lighting. The vacuum islands. MR. VITTENGL-Vacuum island. There should be one. MS. MANDESE-Yes, there’s one vacuum island, there’s one light. MR. VITTENGL-Yes. There’s a light on one and the other is an island. MR. OBORNE-I know that we had discussed that that one island that was the vacuum island was driving you nuts, and you wanted to remove it. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, I don’t have a problem with that. I thought about putting the fountain there, doing something with the (lost word) that was there, and just make it a berm so that it wouldn’t be an issue. That would be the only other discussion. MR. OBORNE-Well, that would need to be discussed at this point. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, I mean, if you’ve seen like in Lake George where they took some stones and just put water up through them, it looks great, because there’s power there. There’s an island there. I would berm it, because the other one’s close enough to it that we would probably work it so that you wouldn’t be pulling between them. You’d just be going around it. Maybe put that together and berm it so that it’s not an issue. So if you back up it you’ll start coming up like this rather than clunking into something. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that what you want to do? MR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that okay? How does the Board feel about that? MR. TRAVER-Well, the only concern that I would have is emergency vehicle access. MR. VITTENGL-There’s plenty of space around it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess they can go in on either side, and it’s a single story. I guess it’s not a huge issue. MR. FORD-Do you have an approximate diameter for that berm? MR. VITTENGL-We looked, I was going to get it drawn out to either connect the two or just berm both of them individually so there would be space to move in between them. I guess that would probably the preferred thing to do, to berm each, and crown it up and then put the fountain on one and have the light on the other, and then the fountain would be lit as well. It’ll be nice. It’ll be like, are you familiar with Shepherd’s Park where they built those stones and the water just comes out of it? That’s sweet. I already have the stones to do it. Steve blasted a bunch of rock, and it’s nice rock work you’ll see down at the site. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-What about landscaping plans? MR. VITTENGL-First of all, what’s there is not bad if it gets all cleaned up, mowed down, trimmed, weeded, and it would look nice as is. I mean, I went and mowed and cleaned up a little bit just earlier this week. So there’s grass in the front. That’ll get cleaned up as well. That’s where the dumpster will go. It’ll be painted up, cleaned up, gated. That was another, I think, big issue that was discussed, and obviously not a problem, and there’s a new front door going on the tunnel, that’s kind of jammed up and ugly. I already have the door for that. So that’ll be cleaned up. Right there as you can see, that’s all jammed up. It’ll go to the extra height. They brought it down a panel, so it’ll go to the other height of panels. That’s probably eight by ten instead of eight by eight, give us a little more headroom, but the tunnel is vacant. It’s just, it’ll be straight (lost word) there’s no more carwash in there at all. Eventually, they do make a system for about $50,000 you could put in where you just swipe a card, go through, clean a car and go out the other end, but if that takes place, it’ll probably take place in one of those other bays because you don’t need 93 feet to do that. You can do it in a single spot, and be done. So it honestly will probably, we have wands that clean cars and clean up our own vehicles. That’s going to be just a place to park and detail boats, clean boats inside under cover, and like I said, storage of boats, like those nice wooden boats that I have available to me. MR. TRAVER-You said that large boat that’s parked in front has no motors in it? MR. VITTENGL-No. It’s got a big paddle. I told Steve, I said let’s got to Log Bay Day. We’ll go the night before, we’ll take it up, we’ll anchor it and we’ll party, and it’ll look like, look at that boat, and then we’ll take a five horse and bring it home, and put it on You Tube. Actually that’s a great way to buy that boat. Typically if you’re buying a 38 foot cigarette boat, the engines could be one hour from being torched. So you can go buy re-built engines. I’ve hunted engines for it. The hull itself is worth about $100,000. It’s a 2000, and if you spent $20,000, $30,000 and powered it yourself, with whatever you want, 525, 600, 650, 700 to 1,000’s. You can go anywhere from 80 to 120 miles an hour, depending on how fast you want to go and how much you want to spend, but that boat that we had powered goes 105 on Lake George, which is I guess right at the speed limit. MR. SIPP-If you’re going to landscape, you’re creeping up towards the point where. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, now’s the time, absolutely. Yes. We’ll go quick. You’ll be surprised. I’ve been like just waiting to get at it. MR. SIPP-I wish you would supply Keith with a list, so we don’t get any invasive species in here. MR. VITTENGL-Sure, okay. MR. OBORNE-If that is what you wish. MR. KREBS-Well, we have a list of approved Codes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It has to be Code compliant with our. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. MANDESE-I would think we’d more than likely keep it pretty simple, you know, with the landscaping. Like you said, we’re getting into the season now where we’re going to be going into the winter. MR. VITTENGL-What’s there is not bad. It just needs to be cleaned up and maintained. We’ll add to it, but you’ll see if I just get done with it, boom, I mean, in a few days, by next week at this time, there’ll be major improvements to that property. MRS. STEFFAN-So I’m not clear what the Planning Board’s looking for here. Are we looking for a landscaping plan or are we looking, you know, an enhanced plan? What are we looking for? We’ve gone like four different places. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he obviously has to have a plan what he’s going to do, and it has to be Code compliant. That’s one of the conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-But because, you know, we’ve got this application in front of us, if we approve it and they have to submit a plan, then it’s going to be up to the Land Use Planner to certify that it’s okay. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. VITTENGL-I think based on the fact that what’s there, if that was groomed and maintained, was that sufficient? MR. OBORNE-I think if that’s what the Board would buy into, absolutely, but you’re talking about taking those islands that are in the middle and doing some waterfalls and all that. That’s considered landscaping also. MR. VITTENGL-No, yes, that will be subsequent to this. I’ll do a drawing and propose that to you before I do anything. MR. OBORNE-If, I would caution the Board that if you are to waive the landscaping plan, that’s fine. Let’s just make sure that we have that 20 foot drive aisle for emergency access. That is imperative. That’s my main concern. MR. VITTENGL-I have no problem with that. MR. OBORNE-And with the new incarnation of the waterfalls and all that, I’m not sure if that can be achieved, but I’m sure Mike will make it happen. MR. KREBS-And Mike Palmer will probably go back again and look at it, once those are done, right, to make sure that he’s happy with it? MR. OBORNE-What I’ll need is a revised site plan showing all these new features that the applicant’s proposing, all these new features, the waterfalls and those islands, and, you know, we need to look through that and make sure that you’re showing 20 foot drive aisles for emergency access, and if the Board is comfortable with that, that’s fine, all plant species to be from the approved list, or not, just not invasive, however you want to go about that. You obviously have the ability to waive that requirement, but I would suggest you don’t ask the applicant to install invasive species, obviously. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. SIPP-But there are some plantings which could be used there that are not on that list, you know, some low growing hedge, barberry. MR. OBORNE-Well, I would think you’d need to be specific to the applicant as to what you want with that. I’m not sure what’s on site right now, to be honest with you. It’s all overgrown. MR. SIPP-I don’t think there are, there are a few trees. They’re not of the best quality. MR. OBORNE-It is overgrown. It just needs a little bit of maintenance on it. MR. VITTENGL-It just needs a haircut. MR. OBORNE-I would like to add, for the applicant’s edification, that it looks like you’re going to get a conditional approval tonight. You have to get that revised plan to me before you can start any work. It has to be signed off by the Zoning Administrator. So you still have another step to go. This obviously is the heavy lift. MR. VITTENGL-Okay. If we take the island out, end of story? Or do we need to (lost words)? MR. OBORNE-That depends on what you’re doing. Are you going to take the island out, or are you going to do a waterfall? MR. VITTENGL-If that’s what’s required to get done and get in business, I mean, I’ve been sitting on my haunches for 90 days. So I need to get in business, or 120 days. I mean, we missed three meetings. We missed, well, June, July, now we’re in August. We started in May. MR. OBORNE-Right. You missed one because you were bumped. MR. VITTENGL-No, I understand that. We missed one because we were delinquent, too. So that’s my fault. I’m not blaming anybody. I’m just saying, it’s been a while since I’ve sold a car. MR. OBORNE-I know, I’ve been talking to you. MR. VITTENGL-So if you say jackhammer that out and let’s go, that’s what I’ll do. MRS. STEFFAN-So, Keith, I just want to, in your Staff Notes you recommended the removal of these islands, plural. So the two islands, one has a light on it, though. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. OBORNE-Right, and the applicant wants to keep that light. So that, you know, is not something that probably should be recommended at this point, but the other island definitely. MRS. STEFFAN-And that probably should go because he won’t. MR. VITTENGL-I wouldn’t have a problem taking that out, and then just working with that one island, berming it. MRS. STEFFAN-I think you’re better off. MR. VITTENGL-I think so, too. MRS. STEFFAN-Especially when it comes to the drive aisle requirement for emergency access. You’d probably want to do that. MR. VITTENGL-I’ll do that. I’ll take it out. MR. OBORNE-So it sounds like it’s pretty easy to waive the landscape requirements at this point. MR. VITTENGL-I had mixed emotions about that extra spot, but, boy, wide open is better, when you’re backing up, it’s easy to hit something. MR. FORD-Smart move. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, 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 on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no takers. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and let the record show there were no comments received. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-So we do have a number of issues, in terms of a conditional approval. I just want to go back to my earlier comment about, you know, you presented a site plan here where you at least show on paper the ability to park 38 cars. I don’t think there’s any way in the world you’re going to get 38 cars in that lot. My concern is that, you know, because you do have a site plan that has 38 cars, that you’re going to say, well, gee, the site plan had 38 cars so I can put 38 cars there, but I’m sure if you put 38 cars you’d never be able to maintain an emergency drive aisle. MR. VITTENGL-Well, I think so, if you look at the configuration that’s all around the perimeter. There’s quite a bit of space inside that. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, so do you feel that these spaces are laid out according to Code? MS. MANDESE-It is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I would disagree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VITTENGL-You would? MR. OBORNE-Yes, they’re spaces for mini motorcycles it looks like. They’re very small. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, especially across the front. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. OBORNE-I think what you measured was just the curb length of it and not the actual width of it, or length of it, I should say. The spaces are supposed to be nine by eighteen. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-That’s not necessary for this. The only thing that’s necessary for it to be Code compliant is the required parking, which they show. So what I would suggest is have them go ahead and display it the way they want to display it, with the stipulation that you have to maintain a 20 foot drive aisle. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, there you go. That makes sense. This isn’t a parking lot. This isn’t Wal- Mart. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all I was driving at. Because we’ve had other instances where once it’s on paper, they’re like, hey, you know, I show that I can, I have approval for 104 cars, so I’m going to jam 104 cars on there, even though you can’t. MR. OBORNE-And you would revise that on your final plans, just remove it and I’m sure you’ll be calling me tomorrow, and we can sit down and go through that. That’s not a problem. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Make sure your 20 foot drive aisle gets to each of the buildings, each area. MR. VITTENGL-Each side, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because there’s nothing there over a story and a half that wouldn’t require an aerial truck in there. So as long as they can get a fire truck up, go through the building. MR. VITTENGL-We’ve got a lot of water in there, too. MRS. STEFFAN-How about colors, any color change proposed should be presented to the Board. Do you have any color changes? You’re going to go earth tones, leave it the way it is? MR. VITTENGL-Yes, absolutely. I like it. MRS. STEFFAN-And, okay, let’s decide on the landscaping. So we’ve got the Staff Notes say that they’ve asked for a waiver, but consideration of the installation of compliant landscaping as per Code should be considered or at the very least existing landscaping should be upgraded and maintained. What’s the will of the Board on that one? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think he’s talking about upgrading and maintaining the existing landscaping, removing the one, one of the two islands. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. We have that covered someplace else. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FORD-One without the light. So we’re not going to waive the landscaping and then put in landscaping requirements. MRS. STEFFAN-So how do we quantify upgrade landscaping? MR. SIPP-Replace with compliant, if not. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If not compliant now. All landscaping must be compliant. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if he’s using the existing landscaping and just maintaining it to its original intended condition, I don’t see that he needs to submit a landscaping plan, if he’s not planning any changes. MR. SIPP-Yes, but we don’t know what’s exactly there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We don’t know what’s there is compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except by site visit. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s unlikely, based on our Code, that that landscaping is compliant. It’s too sparse. So the decision that the Board has to make is whether we’re waiving that and just make sure that they at least maintain what’s there. It’s your decision. Upgrade it, maintain it. MR. OBORNE-If that is the case, then you would give them a waiver for the landscaping requirements, if that is the case, to cover yourselves. MRS. STEFFAN-So does the Board want to give them a waiver for that? MR. KREBS-I would. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Not knowing what’s there, I’m not going to say let him do whatever he wants with whatever is there. No. MR. HUNSINGER-So what would you like? MR. SIPP-Well, he should be compliant. In other words, if there’s a Norway Maple in there, then that’s an invasive species. It wasn’t when it was planted, but it is now, and therefore that would have to be removed, replaced. MR. KREBS-But there’s a similar business down the street that recently moved in that didn’t make any changes to the landscaping. The landscaping is very similar to what’s on this piece of property. I don’t know how you can ask Mike to do something that our Zoning Administrator didn’t ask the other people to do. Do you know where I’m talking about, the new Sea Ray dealership where Jeckel Honda used to be? MR. OBORNE-Right, but that didn’t require Site Plan Review. I think that’s the difference here. Craig can’t force somebody to put compliant landscaping in. Only the Planning Board can. MR. KREBS-Okay, but how long ago was the last Site Plan Review for that property? MR. OBORNE-It was less than seven years ago. MRS. STEFFAN-I can understand that, though, because it was the same thing. It falls under the category of a car dealership. This was a carwash. So it’s a change in use. So I can see the difference, I get that. MR. HUNSINGER-Point’s well taken, though, Don. MR. OBORNE-Well, they’re here because you have not had Site Plan Review in the last seven years. The location that you’re talking about has had Site Plan Review in the last seven years. MR. KREBS-Okay. It wasn’t for a boat dealership, okay, change of use. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think it was RV’s and now it’s golf carts. MR. KREBS-Golf carts is a little separate business in the back. MR. OBORNE-I mean, that’s kind of the same thing. MR. VITTENGL-If it’s not compliant, I’ll pull it out and put something else in that is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VITTENGL-That’s perfect. We’ll do that. MR. SIPP-There’s no sense in fooling with stuff that’s not. MR. VITTENGL-If what’s there is compliant, it stays, if it isn’t, it comes out, and the stuff that goes in is. MRS. STEFFAN-But the only landscaping I think that’s on the property is right in front of the carwash. MR. VITTENGL-No, it’s all along the side, too. There’s a berm right there. There’s landscaping out front by the sign. There’s landscaping on the side, and further back on the side. There’s like five islands of landscaping. There’s plenty of landscaping. All along Weeks Road there’s three. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-It’s funny. I drove by it and I didn’t pay any attention to it. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, and those trees along the side, they’ll be cleaned up as well. There’s, they’re right there, there’s landscaping around the sign. You can’t see it from there because the For Sale sign hides it. That’s along the side. I’m not sure what landscaping that is. It’ll clean up. You’ll see what’s in there. It’s nice, and I’ll add to it, obviously. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ve got, you know, this side of the table that wants to give the landscaping waiver and Don, on that end of the table, wants them to have compliant species within the landscaping that exists. How do we want to play this? MR. FORD-I like Don’s suggestion. MRS. STEFFAN-So can we give them a waiver but still? No, you can’t. If you give them a waiver, it’s a waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, a waiver’s a waiver, yes. MR. SIPP-It has to be all or nothing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just improve the landscaping to make it Code compliant. Right? MRS. STEFFAN-No, that would be species compliant, because Code compliant would mean that they’d have to add landscaping, because there’s no way that they have enough landscaping to meet today’s Code. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Species compliant is what we’re talking about I guess. MRS. STEFFAN-And so you can’t do one without the other, really. If you give them a waiver, you can’t say anything about the species part. What’s it going to be? MR. FORD-Go species compliant. MR. TRAVER-Well, let’s poll the Board. I vote give them the waiver. MR. KREBS-I vote to give them a waiver. MR. SIPP-It’s commercial, right? Well, you’ve got eight to ten feet between species. You can put in a lot of small stuff in there without much money and without much time. MR. TRAVER-Why don’t we poll the Board and find out where a vote will get us. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we kind of did that, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d give him the waiver. I think he’s going to do a good job anyway. That’s the bottom line is what I want to see. MR. VITTENGL-It’s going to be a major improvement over what it was over the last five years. I guarantee you that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How long has it been empty? MR. VITTENGL-I believe five or six years. MR. OBORNE-A long time. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t realize it had been that long. MR. FORD-While I appreciate that, I just want to caution the Board that we’re setting a precedent that could come back to haunt us in the future. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you make a judgment on each individual case. MR. FORD-Yes, but you set the stage right now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I could go the other way tomorrow, on another case, different circumstances. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. FORD-Well, maybe you can. Some of us can’t. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, different circumstances. MR. SIPP-That’s the problem. You set a precedent and then you’ve got a moral obligation. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Things have settled down, but I didn’t hear a decision. I heard the Board split in half. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it’s five, two. MR. VITTENGL-I think so as well. MR. OBORNE-What you have here is a site that has existing landscaping that needs maintenance. MR. VITTENGL-Exactly. MR. OBORNE-Okay. It does not meet Code requirements, hence why he’s asking for a waiver, and I just want to clarify that for you, and you just take it from there. You’re right absolutely. There’s, it’s on a case by case basis. The next one might not have as much existing landscaping. In fact, you have one that’s coming next, that’s across the street, that this’ll put your litmus, use this as your litmus. So, I think there are different ones, and that’s just my two cents. I mean, again, I don’t want to influence, but it’s probably too late. MR. FORD-A lot depends on the wording. How are you going to word that specifically, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know. I was listening to the debate and doing other things. The only other thing is, I mean, there was an applicant right next door to this site, less than six months ago, and we made them rehab the site to comply with the landscaping code. I want to throw that one out because it’s right next door. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Read what you’ve got and we’ll go from there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, one of the issues, though, with this site is the visibility along the right of way and also the poles that are there on the site as well, but we did talk about evergreen shrubs. MR. VITTENGL-They’re there. There’s several. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s that? MR. VITTENGL-There’s several evergreen shrubs there. MR. HUNSINGER-In the front that are small. MR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VITTENGL-Which is the way you want to keep them. We just talked about visibility. Coming in and out of where those entrance signs are, those all need to be cut down and kept way down so that there is good visibility. That’s what we’ll do. MR. KREBS-Because certainly part of the reason you would select that site is that you had high traffic and good visibility. You don’t want to have trees across the front. MRS. STEFFAN-So what’s the decision? MR. FORD-How about improving the. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How about reading us what you’ve got? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have anything regarding landscaping. I’ve got a bunch of other things. MR. FORD-How about improving the current landscaping, assuming that it is compliant, and if not, it would be replaced with something that is. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean bringing it up to a compliant status? MR. FORD-As far as species is concerned. MR. KREBS-As long as you’re only doing species, that’s fine. MR. FORD-That’s what I’m recommending. MR. VITTENGL-That’ll work, that’s fine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s really what we’ve been said, or at least you and I have. MRS. STEFFAN-So the elimination of parking spaces, do we put a number on that? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MS. MANDESE-The minimum number of spots, based on the size that I was told was 27, for a minimum. MR. VITTENGL-It doesn’t matter. It depends on vehicles. It’s four for employees, basically. That’s all we’re talking about, and then handicapped area, and that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. You need to show four for employees and then one handicap spot. MR. VITTENGL-That’s what we’ll do, and everything else will be variable. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VITTENGL-You could put two motor homes or four cars, that type of thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, as long as you maintain the drive aisles. MRS. STEFFAN-But, Keith, the parking spaces, so the Code only requires that they have four? MR. OBORNE-Five. MRS. STEFFAN-Five. MR. FORD-So would that give them flexibility? MR. HUNSINGER-And those are the spots that are along the front of the building. MR. VITTENGL-Yes, correct. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. So you closed the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did. Ready to roll. It’s a Type II SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 53-2011 MICHAEL VITTENGL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a display lot for automotive sales. Review and approval required for parcels lacking site plan review within the prior seven (7) years; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/16/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2011 MICHAEL VITTENGL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff: 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) 6)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 7)Type II SEQRA; 8)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; 9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 10)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, lighting plans, and topography; 11)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; 12)The applicant will comply with the following conditions: 1.The applicant will repair the dumpster enclosure so that it is Code compliant. 2.The applicant will remove the vacuum island to improve site access. The applicant should also note that underground electric service appears to be provided in the area of the vacuum islands. Extreme care must be employed when removal of the islands commence. 3.The applicant will maintain a required 20 foot drive aisle throughout the site for emergency access at all times. 4.The applicant will provide a landscaping plan to reflect current conditions on the site and the elimination of non-compliant species and the replacement of those with Code compliant species. 5.The applicant is required to either connect to the Town sewer district or seek a one year exemption from the Town Board. 6.Any additional lighting in the future should be Code compliant. 7.There will be no color changes on the building, as discussed. 8.The applicant will provide a revised site plan to Staff with all changes, including the elimination of display parking spaces sufficient to comply with Code requirements and satisfy the 20 foot drive aisle requirement. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-I have an issue with that last condition, because the language sounds like you’re eliminating all parking. If you could just put in the word display parking, that would clarify what you’re talking about, as far as the site plan revision. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 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. MR. VITTENGL-Thank you. All right. SITE PLAN NO. 55-2011 SEQR TYPE II FRANK & DEBRA JELLEY OWNER(S) FRANK BORK/MARILYN POTENZA ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) 870 STATE ROUTE 9, MILLER HILL PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE OF USE FROM ANTIQUE STORE TO PERSONAL SRVICE TANNING SALON AND DRAFTING/DESIGN COMPANY. CHANGE OF USE IN A CI ZONE AND NO SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 85-03, SP 29-03, SP 12-02, SUB 12-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/10/2011 LOT SIZE 1.56 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-51 SECTION 179-9 FRANK & DEBRA JELLEY, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-This is a Site Plan Review. The location is 878 State Route 9. Commercial Intensive is the zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County Planning Board issued a No County Impact on 8/10/2011. Project Description: Applicant proposes a change of use from Antique/Pawn shop to Personal Service Tanning Salon and Drafting/Design Company. The proposal includes new signage to existing free standing sign as well as wall signage on the front of the building. The applicant has requested waivers for Stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting. Just some clean up issues for the most part. Again, landscaping comes to the forefront on this parcel. It’s basically devoid on this parcel, but then again there’s really no green space by which to install any, hence why the waiver has been requested. So I’ll let the Planning Board take off with that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JELLEY-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. JELLEY-My name’s Frank Jelley. MRS. JELLEY-Debra Jelley. MR. JELLEY-Basically just what he talked about. We’re looking to put in a tanning salon and a small office space in the back to support the tanning salon and also I do drafting and design services. We are looking to utilize the parking the way it is, you know, it’s not going to be changed, you know, no site plan, no structural changes. It’s interior walls, you know, new sheetrock, you know, upgrade the whole inside the building. My wife is looking at maybe changing the siding. She has a color in mind. It’s not going to really change too far from the color that’s there, but that would be the only exterior change. We’re looking to clean up the outside area, you know, keep it clean, you know, take down any vines and growth that’s built up over the years. I did see on the Staff Notes the freestanding sign in disrepair. We are looking to utilize the existing signage frames and put new signage in there, but because that pylon sign is an existing nonconforming, we really weren’t looking at taking that down and putting up a brand new one, but certainly want to fix it up, you know, get it straightened up, you know, sand the pole off, get it nice and cleaned up. I mean, we want to have our customers come to a nice place, not, you know, a beat up place. So our purpose and intent is to make it a nice place for people to come and relax and do some business. The lighting is going to be internal. It’s basically the same exact way that it’s working now, just a different lettering, if you will, a little bit different color change. In speaking with Mr. Miller, he’s the plaza manager, I guess he’s related to the owners. The landscaping, seven and a half years ago, is almost exactly the same that was approved back then, according to him. Now I’m not, I haven’t looked at the landscaping plan, with the exception of, they called out trees along Route 9, and apparently he went to put the trees in, and called You Dig to get the approval to put the trees in there, and apparently he couldn’t put them in. One of the utility companies said you can’t dig there. They have utilities there. So they ended up working out something where they used landscape planters out there. So he put those out and after a while they died and nobody maintained them. So he still has those planters. So he has said that he would put the planters back out there, you know, and I discussed it with my wife, and she could maintain it, to try to get something out there, and we agree there’s really nothing we can do out front. I know in the back of the building we’re going to be renting there’s quite a bit of trees and stuff like that, but it doesn’t help the front part. MRS. STEFFAN-So what will be in the front? MR. FORD-Parking front in back? MR. JELLEY-Well, they don’t have designated parking there. That’s one of the things. So right now where Resnicks used to be, there’s no tenant there. Our business doesn’t really conflict with the other businesses as far as timeframe, you know, start seven o’clock in the morning, you know, people come in for their tanning and stuff like that. So we would utilize parking in the back, you know, and then a lot of where Subway is, you know. I mean, it’s all shared parking, 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) and there’s adequate pedestrian access and sidewalks and stuff like that, and so that’s the way that he, you know, he told me that it’s all shared parking. MR. FORD-Parking in front as well? MR. JELLEY-There’s a couple of, there’s no stripes there now. Don’t know what happened to it, but on the approve site plan from before there’s two spots I guess. I know when we go for the permit, it’s going to come up for the handicap parking. So we’re going to have to have at least a handicap space there or something to accommodate a disabled person, but our intent was to basically use the site plan that was approved the last time. We’re just renting the building. MR. FORD-Approximately how many customers might you expect at any given time? MR. JELLEY-Well, it’s hard to say, besides just looking at the parking breakdown that I did. Let’s see, we had six parking spaces for the tanning and two parking spaces for the design area, and typically I go to the people’s homes. They don’t typically come to, because I have to see their structure, I’ve got to see what they have there. So I don’t anticipate too many people coming to the office. Once in a while. It will mainly be in the tanning part. So, you know, six spaces are required by the Code. I wouldn’t say that many at, all at the same time. MRS. JELLEY-It just moves really quickly. Like a 10 minute process. So at any given time. MR. FORD-The majority of them parking down back and walking up the steps? MRS. JELLEY-Could go either way. MR. JELLEY-Well, our employees and the owner’s going to park in the back, and then, you know, it would be all the parking along the front of Subway, you know, that can be utilized as well. MR. OBORNE-If I can interject. I did have Frank vet all the parking, and the parking is compliant with the uses there. The only issue with this site plan is it’s a baffling site plan. It really is. I just don’t understand how it got approved, but it’s approved nevertheless. The handicap parking, I believe, is down the hill, and there’s also handicap parking up in front of Subway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And the issue with that is people who are not handicap park there all the time. That’s the issue. That’s neither here nor there, but the parking is, believe it or not, compliant for the whole parcel, and I had Frank go through that exercise, and he did submit that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s definitely a unique site. MR. JELLEY-I was just going to say, and again, the Resnicks isn’t there right now, and I don’t think they have anybody lined up. Papa John’s is basically a take-out. So they don’t really have anybody parking. Liberty Tax is seasonal. Nobody’s in that building except for around tax season. So it’s, you know, Subway and us. So, you know, this is probably, you know, there’s way more parking than there needs to be, but, again, it was done for other uses. It’s a plaza. So there’s many different uses they could do. We would not make it if it was an all retail. I did that calculation, but to (lost word) it is an odd parking area, but Tom is one of the owners of R & T, and they did tell me that they’ve never witnessed an accident out there, amazingly. So, I don’t know, something’s working. I mean, we’re essentially looking to utilize it in the same manner, as safe as we can, with people parking, you know, telling people to park in the back, you know, down by Subway, but as you know, people are going to do what they’re going to do. MR. KREBS-Well, and one of the reasons, I mean, I visited the site today, and one of the reasons I don’t think there are any accidents is there are no trees or obstructions, and you have two ways to go in and out of the driveway. So you’ve got a long visibility. So you can see the cars either coming up the hill or coming down. So I wouldn’t want to have any trees along there because I think they would cause possible accidents. MR. JELLEY-Yes, I’d say that’s what they were, that’s what happened the last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I thought what you were going to say about the trees from the previous site plan is they were told they couldn’t plant them because it’s in the public right of way. MR. JELLEY-I think that’s essentially, the way he explained it was, it was either the utility company called him and said you can’t put that there, we have utilities underground there, and it’s a right of way, and, you know, sight lines and access. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Put some barrel planters. MR. JELLEY-Yes, and he certainly said you could put them right back out there. He just, I guess he works in Troy and it’s not an excuse, but just they weren’t maintained. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or 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? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM WESSLING MR. WESSLING-Tom Wessling of R & T Antiques. You know what I’m talking about when an engineer kind of lays out a landscaping plan and how you get on site and there may be some necessary modifications. One of our trees was right where that pole was. So of course we got there and looked at the plans and measured off, decided to plant it. They moved it. We had already gotten final signoff, so I guess they moved it about 20 feet in, because even if it was nearby there, it would grow up into the wires, but with the parking there, I know if I’m in a spot or something, when we used to rent the building, if I’m backing out, I would need to look clear down Route 9 to that bend there, and be able to see like (lost word) said, if you put any kind of trees, sometimes you’re looking through that fence line. So if you put any kind of trees, even if you try to back them up, I think it could create an issue with safety, because you’ve kind of got to back up and try to stay in the parking lot so you don’t back into Route 9, but you want to make sure no one’s coming so that if you cross the fog line that, you know, you can kind of get out of there safely, and it’s worked for us for years and years. There’s elderly, sometimes we’d go out, we want to make sure nobody got hurt, and you just kind of keep an eye on it. It worked out well, and handicap, because everything in front there is easily accessible, it was never an issue either. So if you pull into any one of those spots, then it’s just a flat walk inside, and so that’s my thoughts. I think that’s all I had to comment on. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Since you’re here, I do want to compliment you on your new building. It’s really nice. MR. WESSLING-Thank you very much. We’re real happy. We’ve gotten settled in and it’s working out very well for us, and appreciate the help you guys gave us several months ago, and thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I have none. MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone have a problem with the waivers requested, stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting? MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No. There’s not much that can change. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-You know, and adding your own baskets or hanging plants or something in the summertime always improves the aesthetics and invites people in, so we don’t have to state that, but that’s just something that you do to make people want to come. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 55-2011 FRANK & DEBRA JELLEY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a change of use from antique store to Personal Service Tanning Salon and Drafting/Design Company. Change of use in a CI zone and no site plan review within the last seven years requires Planning Board review and approval. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/16/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2011 FRANK & DEBRA JELLEY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II SEQRA; 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; 4)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 5)The only condition here is any future lighting shall be Code compliant. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. JELLEY-Okay. Thank you for your time. MRS. JELLEY-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a memo that Keith had prepared regarding a joint meeting with the Zoning Board concerning Queensbury Partners. This was a discussion we had at our last Board meeting. MR. OBORNE-Just to let you know, what I’m looking for here, the Zoning Board is getting this tomorrow night also. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-What I’m looking for here is the potential for dates for this joint meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Okay. This is really the only issue that we should be discussing right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. stst MR. OBORNE-And what I would throw out to the Board would be August 31 or September 1. stst August 31 is a Wednesday. September 1 is a Thursday, obviously. So we need to throw those out, and if that works for the majority of the Board, that would be a good thing, but I need for you guys to come up with a date. Those are the only dates I’m throwing out. If you want to work through that, date wise, please do so. MRS. STEFFAN-Both of those dates work for me. MR. FORD-Yes. stst MR. SCHONEWOLF-August 31 works for me. September 1 doesn’t. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. OBORNE-Obviously we would prefer a full Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I could do either one. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s kind of an interesting issue. We don’t really need a quorum since it’s, we’re not going to be taking any action. I mean, it’s really just a, it’s a workshop. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think it’ll be sort of like a workshop, yes. I think so. I mean, everybody will be in this room, or we’ll be in the Supervisor’s Conference Room or somewhere. Probably in here I would think. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t think we could fit both Boards in the Conference Room. MR. OBORNE-We’ll have to figure that out. There may be, obviously, I believe it needs to be noticed, but we’d have to go through that whole issue there, and obviously the big issue is getting the Zoning Board’s input on this, and you, belaying to the Zoning Board why you’ve sort of driven this project to the point that it is being proposed, and I know that there are still some issues that Board members had with that last proposal with the residential, the whole residential within 300 feet and that, but, you know, we want to get the Zoning Board on board, so to speak, and obviously, Chris, you requested this last month and now here we are. MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, I respect some of the concerns that have been expressed by the Zoning Administrator. I mean, the purpose of the workshop is not to try to influence the ZBA. It’s just to bring them up to speed, make sure they understand the thought process that went behind, you know, how we got to where we are, and it’s really, I guess in my mind, I don’t know how other Board members feel. It’s really just designed to, I hesitate to use the work expedite the process, because we’re really not trying to speed anything up. We’re just trying to be more forthcoming with the information and make sure both Boards have the benefit of the same knowledge, is really what I’m thinking. MR. OBORNE-Right. I know you’ve obviously seen this three times now. MR. HUNSINGER-And they haven’t seen it at all. MR. OBORNE-They haven’t seen it at all. MR. TRAVER-It’s a complicated project, too. So communication’s going to be important. MR. KREBS-Yes, and I was almost wondering, if we’re going to have the two Boards together, could we also invite the Warren County Planning Board? Because that’s a County road, and so if we ever want to have turn lanes, etc., we’re going to have to have the County involved, too. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that would be highway, though. That would be the County highway more than anything. MR. KREBS-Yes, but wouldn’t they be, also wouldn’t the Planning Board be involved in approving? MR. OBORNE-We would certainly refer the project to Warren County Planning Board, absolutely, and they would give their County impact, or non, or whatever. MR. KREBS-Even if we just had a representative from them, so that they could go back and understand. I’m just thinking the more people we get on board early, that understand the complete process, that the better off we are. MR. TRAVER-Well, this would be open to the public, I assume? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-So they could maybe just be made aware of the fact the meeting was taking place, and then if their members wanted to go, I think that would be fine, in an unofficial capacity. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. I’d have to see in what incarnation this is going to be presented to the joint boards. They have to submit something, the applicant has to submit something. The applicant did not submit by the deadline date. So, I mean, we’re facilitating this to the point where we’ve asked Matt Fuller to submit some type of plan, specifically outlining all the 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) variances that are going to be proposed here, and again, we’re not looking for approval, and you’re right, it’s definitely communication, and I think that that would go a long way towards, for the applicant, to figure out what are the parameters I’m going to be in. What’s the use of it coming here for a recommendation and then a positive recommendation, yeah, and then it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals, they’ve got all their variances done. You’ve conducted SEQRA and they go for the Area Variance, and they get shot down. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And I’m reading your mind, I guess. I think that is why you want this to happen also, to a certain extent. MR. SIPP-Should Matt be invited? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely the applicant will definitely be there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, again, I don’t think the goal is to try to influence the Zoning Board to say, you know, we think you should approve the variance, you know. MR. FORD-A major component of good planning is good communication, and that’s the purpose of this. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, also you’ve made some changes, you know, by them coming to the table, we’ve forced them to make some changes around that have brought up Zoning Codes, and so to explain I think the best way you said it is to explain, you know, why we’ve come up with this and let everybody be on the same page. I don’t think it would be a forcing it down their throat issue. This is why we did what we did and what do you feel. Is we’ve got to give them the option to kick back at us, correct? Or them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Have you talked to Steve Jackoski about this? MR. OBORNE-No, I have not. I will be doing that tomorrow. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m sure that he’ll be receptive to it, because he knows how we operate. MR. OBORNE-I’m sure the whole Board will be receptive to it. Absolutely. Now as far as the variances go, I don’t know. That’s a different story. So quite honestly that’s up to the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-And I was going to say, I mean, I don’t know if we even know what the specific variance requests will be at this time, because it’s still sort of a concept plan, you know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It would be too early. MR. OBORNE-I agree. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They may change, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Will the Zoning Board members attending the meeting be given any handouts or drafts or anything prior to the meeting, so they’ll at least look at a rough? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would certainly have some type of Staff Note component to that, and anything that the applicant would submit would also be forwarded to both Boards. MR. TRAVER-Good. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and the whole idea is to facilitate, that’s really what it comes down to. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think we’d also have to have an opportunity for the public to comment. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. I don’t think you can get around that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t, either. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You don’t want to get the ZBA’s nose out of joint, because we spent a lot of time on this and they don’t even know about it, technically. MR. FORD-I feel it’s not a moment too soon for their involvement. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Absolutely, and I’ll be discussing that with them tomorrow, but again, st tonight, it’s come full circle tonight, is to pick a date, and it sounds like the 31 is working for the Board. Does that work for you, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-As far as I know. MR. TRAVER-We finally did it. We finally have four meetings in one month. MR. OBORNE-What I would also suggest, if at all possible, would be to pick an alternate date, st also, in case the Zoning Board can’t get on the 31. We have to give them an option for an alternate. th MR. TRAVER-How about the 30? That way it will stay in August. th MR. HUNSINGER-I actually have a conflict on Tuesday night the 30. MRS. STEFFAN-I do, too. I have a board meeting that moved from the week previous. st MR. OBORNE-Well, if we push it off to September, any of those days in September, the 1 or nd the 2. Well, I don’t want to do it Friday. MR. TRAVER-What’s the queue look like for applications for September? Are we going to need a special meeting? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so. No. MR. TRAVER-So it’ll only be three meetings for September. MR. OBORNE-Right, and three for August. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I do have something coming up in September. I don’t know what night it is. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Sixth, seventh or eighth. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, it’s not that early. So have it early. th MR. OBORNE-You want to give them a chance to turn this around by the 15 so they can get it in for the October agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So it needs to be done early. st MR. TRAVER-Well, why don’t we propose the 31, and if they, and let them suggest an alternate if they can’t? MR. OBORNE-But how would I get back to you? I mean, it would be next week obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, or by e-mail. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if we had e-mail, that would work. stst MR. OBORNE-We’ll have the 31. So the 31 is the primary date at this point. Let’s shoot for that, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business? Do you want to make a motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sure. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2011, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/16/2011) th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 42