Loading...
2011.11.15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 71-2011 Lafontaine's Ice Cream & Grill, LLC 1. RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 295.12-1-3 Site Plan No. 72-2011 Dennis & Nancy Defayette 3. RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.7-1-40 Site Plan No. 25-2011 Steve Dow/Glens Falls Ready Mix 5. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-21 Subdivision No. 1-2011 VMJR Companies 9. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 FWW 1-2011 Site Plan No. 69-2011 T & T Body King, Inc. 25. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-24 Site Plan No. 70-2011 Queensbury Plaza LLC 29. MODIFICATION TO SP # 35-1992 Tax Map No. 302.6-1-51 Site Plan No. 75-2011 697 Upper Glen Street, LLC 32. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD KREBS PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, November 15, 2011. I'd like to welcome members of the audience. If you are here as a member of the audience on the back table is a copy of the agenda. Most of the items have a public hearing scheduled. If you are here for a public hearing, there is a handout on the back table as well, procedures for the public hearing, and we'll talk about those more when we get into projects that have hearings scheduled. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from September 20th and September 27th, 2011. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 20, 2011 September 27, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20TH & SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items that are recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 71-2011 SEAR TYPE II LAFONTAINE'S ICE CREAM & GRILL, LLC AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1133 STATE ROUTE 9 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 440 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICE WINDOW AND PREP AREA. EXPANSION OF USE AND PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CI ZONE AND EXPANSION OF A NOW CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 68- 11; SP 62-07, SP 23-07, SP 21-96, SP 74-89; AV 122-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 8.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-3 SECTION 179-9 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is Site Plan 71-2011 and Area Variance 68-2011 which is ostensibly known as Martha's. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application. The location is 1133 State Route 9. This is in the Cl 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) zone or Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 440 sq. ft. expansion of existing structure for additional service window and prep area. Relief and nature of the variances are as follows: front setback relief. They're requesting 21 feet from the 75 foot requirement; travel corridor relief, same amount of relief, 21 feet from the 75 foot requirement for, that's the service window portion of the project and for the prep area of the project there is a request for 19 feet of relief from the 75 foot setback. The only thing I ask for, that the Planning Department's looking for at the end of this project, is that the parking gets quantified at this point. I think there's plenty of parking there. This is based on seating, not based on square footage, as this is considered fast food, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Dennis Lafontaine and Tom Nace. I'll give you the simple explanation first and we're here to answer any questions. Obviously it's a small addition, the 440 square feet for both sides, but very important to Dennis in terms of production area and service. MR. KREBS-Is it 440 or 448? Because the drawing says 248 and 220. MR. LAPPER-I was reading the Staff Notes. I didn't go back and check my application. MR. KREBS-Just so when we approve it, we approve the right number of square feet. That's all I wanted. MR. LAPPER-Tom will look that up while we're going forward. The bigger picture here is that when Dennis leased this back from Six Flags, he had the option to purchase it, and that's what he's about to do. So this small expansion is part and parcel with exercising the option, which he's already done, and, you know, hopefully in the next month after we get the approval there'll be a closing and he'll own the parcel again and before he opens for business he'll have these two small additions done. In terms of the planning aspect of this, it was all impervious paved surface. So it doesn't change anything, in terms of stormwater. Because it's a pre-existing, nonconforming building, he has to build it in the front obviously, and it does require the relief from the Zoning Board and your recommendation, because Route 9 was already expanded to the third lane, turning lane, it's not likely that there's ever going to be a four or five lane road there. So in terms of that relief, and if that happened, he would lose parking and it would be in the back. To address Keith's issue, there's about another 40 spaces behind the seating area. They're just not striped because it's gravel. So there's not a count there, but according to Dennis, he's got 80 spaces. So it's adequate for the use, and certainly exceeds the Town, but that was all approved as a site plan before they sold it, when they put the grill in, it was before the Planning Board, and it was a little bit more intense use when they were serving hot dogs and hamburgers in addition to the ice cream. So, what have you got, Tom? TOM NACE MR. NACE-In accordance with the drawing, it's 440. MR. OBORNE-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-That's what the motion says. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Could we address the handicap parking, please? MR. NACE-We will re-stripe the front lot. There is one handicap existing, and we'll re-stripe the front to make sure it has an unloading area, and that was the issue, it's unloading area would be taken over by the one addition, and I understand we will need a second (lost words) from the parking on the left hand side if you're facing the building from the road, the parking is to the left of the building. We have room there to add a handicap. MR. FORD-Good. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I think we're good for the Zoning Board, in my mind. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. LAPPER-Is there anything you'd like to tell us before we come back on Thursday for site plan that we should be thinking about? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind it was just the handicap space and so if you delineate that when you come back, I think we'll have what we need. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess I would just pick up on Staff's comment, too, about counting the number of parking spaces, and just show those. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll put forth a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 68-11 LAFONTAINE'S ICE CREAM The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 440 sq. ft. expansion of existing structure for additional service window and prep area. Expansion of use and proposed site improvements requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from front setback, travel corridor overlay requirements of the Cl zone and expansion of a non-conforming structure. 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 requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2011 AND SITE PLAN NO. 71-2011 FOR LAFONTAINE'S ICE CREAM & GRILL, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option A - Based on a limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-See you soon. SITE PLAN NO. 72-2011 SEAR TYPE II DENNIS & NANCY DEFAYETTE AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR- WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 29 REARDON ROAD EXT. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 140 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 70- 11; BP 11-375, BP 03-553 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS, CEA LOT SIZE 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-40 SECTION 179-9 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 72-2011 and Area Variance 70-2011 for Dennis & Nancy Defayette. Again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The location is 29 Reardon Road Extension. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. It's a Type II SEQRA. This qualifies for your review based on the fact that an existing deck is encroaching into the side setback, and as such it's a nonconforming structure located in a CEA, which requires Site Plan Review. Basically what's going on it's a 140 square foot addition to basically their water closet, so to speak, and the variance is for 7.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback, and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA is what he's going to need to be approved for, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, before we start, I just want to disclose that I do have a professional relationship with Mr. Defayette. I don't think that it will interfere with my impartial decision. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I'm Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering Queensbury. With me is Dennis Defayette, and Dennis' property is at the far northern end of Reardon Road Extension on the left. It is a nominally 1500 square foot residence they wish to add this 140 square foot addition to accommodate laundry facility. This summer, well this spring and summer we put together a replacement wastewater system, and that was installed completely this summer. I think the plan is reasonably clear. The 20 foot side setback is a tough one on this one. We've got a whole lot of shoreline, and this is the location that the addition works with the flow of the house traffic. Dennis, do you want to add anything? DENNIS DEFAYETTE MR. DEFAYETTE-No unless there's questions that I could answer. MR. HUTCHINS-I believe we're here seeking your recommendation for the Zoning Board tomorrow night. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-And we would request your support. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I don't have any issues. I think that, you know, since they have a new compliant wastewater system, I mean, since they're putting in laundry facilities, you know, those things go hand in hand. So I'm okay with it. MR. FORD-How about the potential for shoreline plantings? What is the potential for shoreline plantings? MR. HUTCHINS-There is, there's a fair amount of growth on this shoreline naturally, as it exists. Right now you basically have a path down there. Is that right? MR. DEFAYETTE-Yes. Going down the hill, there's a path, and then along the hill is quite a bit of ground cover that's there. Right at the shoreline there isn't anything. There's rocks, you know, there's a rock shoreline. There isn't any large trees or anything like that, well, there's a couple here and there, along that area. MR. HUTCHINS-It certainly isn't a manicured shoreline. MR. DEFAYETTE-No, there's a lot of rock. MR. FORD-1 was just picking up on Staff comments. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that's basically a boilerplate comment at this point in time. Anything along the shoreline. MR. FORD-And so is my response, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that's fabulous. Any time you have any shoreline issues. MR. FORD-We've addressed to my satisfaction. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. SIPP-We can address this Thursday, right? MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. SIPP-There's no sense working on it now. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I don't hear any significant issues. So we can make a recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MRS. STEFFAN-I do. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 70-11 DEFAYETTE Tax Map ID 289.7-1-40 The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of a 140 square foot addition to existing single family home. Expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from side setback requirements and for expansion of a non-conforming structure. 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; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2011 AND SITE PLAN NO. 72-2011 FOR DENNIS & NANCY DEFAYETTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. DEFAYETTE-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MRS. STEFFAN-We'll see you soon. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a couple of items on the agenda that were tabled from prior meetings. SITE PLAN NO. 25-2011 SEAR TYPE II STEVE DOW AGENT(S) STEVE DOW; MARK KUGLER OWNER(S) GLENS FALLS READY MIX ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 112 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 80' X 75' (6,000 SQ. FT.) CLOSED LOOP WASH-OUT RETENTION BASIN FOR TRUCK WASH. MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING USE FOR PROPERTY THAT HAS NOT HAD SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 8322, 8839, 88-007, 88-714, 2000-857 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/13/2011 LOT SIZE 3.64 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-21 SECTION 179-9 MARK KUGLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Keith. MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is also known as Cranesville Block. This is a modification to an existing use, and as such requires Planning Board review and approval. The location is 112 Big Boom Road. It's in a Commercial Light Industrial zoning. Again, it's a Type II SEQRA. Warren County Planning Board issued a No County Impact on 4/13/2011. Project Description: Applicant proposes yard space to be used for the installation of four interconnected retention ponds totaling 6,000 square feet in area. It's basically a closed loop system for their wash outs of their cement trucks, and to save my voice here, I'm just going to jump to the back. The hold up with this application had to do with the property line, especially to the south. That has been resolved. They do need to get the survey signed and stamped in order for it to be valid at this point, and I think that's really the only thing I'm looking for. It is an industrial site. Air quality is rather poor, and that's why that comment is on my notes, but this, I think, will help mitigate this issue, but not being a professional in the cement industry, I really didn't delve into it too much, and with that I'll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KUGLER-Good evening. I'm Mark Kugler. I'm representing Steve Dow and Glens Falls Ready Mix. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KUGLER-We would like to construct a series of interconnected ponds. This is an example from one of our plants downstate, and what it's for is it's a proactive approach that we'd like to take to ensure environmental safety. When the trucks are finished loading after production, they need to wash down and get all the cement off of their shoots, and they would wash down on this pitched pad which would rout water into these ponds. When the ponds overflow, the water would go to the next pond, and then when the solids build up, we would clean them out and take them to a transfer station for disposal, and what this would do, it would prevent water from getting into the earth, and potentially harming the environment. MR. FORD-That transfer station is not in Queensbury, but in Moreau. Correct? MR. KUGLER-It would be, the one I'm looking at is Hiram Hollow, and I believe that's. MR. OBORNE-It's in Wilton. MR. KUGLER-In Wilton. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. KUGLER-And I do have, I've got sediment and erosion control measures that I recently obtained, and I also have signed and stamped the survey for the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Questions comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-1 know there's not too much cement poured in the wintertime, but there is some. Now what do you do about the salts that may be mixed in? MR. KUGLER-This particular plant will be closing, I would say by the middle of December it will be closed for the season. MR. HUNSINGER-So what you said you have with you this evening is the erosion and sediment control measures that were requested by the engineer? MR. KUGLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-No, you know, the Staff comments about the vegetative buffer along the Northway, you know, just by going to the site, it's very industrial. There is some scrubby stuff there, but I just, even if they planted it, I don't know if the roots would die. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. FORD-What about the issue of crystalline silica dust and any air quality evaluation tests? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. KUGLER-Well, I believe those are conducted regularly upon request. MR. FORD-Upon who's request? MR. KUGLER-Usually it would be the DEC would request that, and then we would certainly conform to that. MR. OBORNE-It's my understanding that there is a certain amount of monitoring that must be done on a yearly basis. I'm not sure what it is, but I just, I threw that in there because I had troubles when I came off the site, to be honest with you, and it might not be related to that. There may be other troubles, but when Mark and I were walking around, it was caustic, but that's the nature of the practice. I understand. I was just curious as to what monitoring has been done in the past, if any. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-The applicant's requested waivers for stormwater, grading, and lighting. Is the Planning Board okay with those? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except they did submit an erosion and sediment control plan that we haven't seen yet. MRS. STEFFAN-So, potentially we could do a signoff with the engineering signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if the Board is comfortable with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Because he really can't submit it to us tonight. He would have to submit them to Staff and the engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right. MR. SIPP-Is there a survey map? MR. HUNSINGER-He said he has that. Anything else? MR. KREBS-But we can do it conditionally on the engineer's approval of that. MR. TRAVER-Just a condition of the survey. I know he's got them tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? We have at least one person. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to provide comment to the Board. I would ask anyone wishing to address the Board to state their name for the record and to address any questions or comments they have to the Board. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-Hi. My name is Don Kruger, and I'm a neighbor to the project, and I've been a concrete contractor for 52 years. This is state of the art situation that will greatly improve what they're trying to do. Normally, what they're doing now is they basically have a mud hole. They dump it in there and once and a while they clean it out and crush it up and sell it for recycle. This would use that wash out material, and they can use a percentage of that. It's kind of like when they mill the Northway. They take a percentage of that millings and mix it in with blacktop, and they use recycle. They can do that and I'm 100% in favor of this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KRUGER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there are no other comments, I will close the public hearing. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What's the will of the Board? Are we comfortable with a conditional approval? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Could I make sure that there are no comments? It's been a while. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. I remember it was cold out when we went on that site visit way back when. MR. OBORNE-Bear with me. Okay. I do have public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-This is from American Van Service, Big Boom Road, Glens Falls. This is dated 4/13/2011. "Dear Planning Board: This Cement plant should not be there in the first place it must be forced to move to proper zoning, Heavy Industrial. They have very serious charges with DEC and O.S.H.A now. The cement dust blowing over on my property from cement being transferred to their hoppers is terrible. The piles of wash-out cement is huge. Part of their first entrance is on my property. There 2 entrances are only 80 feet apart. The garage in the front of the property is only 10 ft. from the edge of Big Boom Road. Second they have very poor safety issues. On several times concrete is being dumped on to road. Concrete dust is being tracked from there yard down Big Boom every day. My neighbors with children are breathing in this dust. The Town of Queensbury years ago issued a building permit for this concrete plant on the wrong zoning, even back then your zoning laws did not allow these plants to be permitted in Light Industrial but Heavy Industrial. Do we want pools of cement water near our properties? No. There are pot holes in the driveways so deep you can submerge a small car in. This place is a dump. Turn this down so they can move this plant down to their gravel pit on exit 17. Douglas Mabey, Douglas Mabey, Inc. American Van Service" Mr. Chairman, that's the only one I see. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. That's it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Conditional approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. Did you have anything to add as a result of the comment? MR. KUGLER-No, I wish not to comment on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN 25-2011 STEVE DOW A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes an 80' x 75' (6,000 sq. ft.) closed loop wash-out retention basin for truck wash water. Modification to an existing use for property that has not had site plan review in the last seven years requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19, 6/21, 8/23, 10/18 tabled to 11/15/11; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2011 STEVE DOW & GLENS FALLS READY MIX, 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, no further action required; 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) 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) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, and lighting plans; 7) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 8) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; 9) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. 10)This is approved with the following conditions: a) That the applicant will provide a sealed survey which is signed by a licensed professional engineer. b) The applicant will provide erosion and sediment control plan. c) The applicant will obtain a Town Engineering signoff. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So you can just submit those to Keith. MRS. STEFFAN-To the Town, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And you're all set. MR. KUGLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE I FWW 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) MJ ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISE MGMT. ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT IND. LOCATION QUAKER RD./QUEENSBURY AVE. SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) COMMERCIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 6.49 ACRES TO 29.78 ACRES WITH 10.69 +/- ACRES PROPOSED AS OPEN SPACE. FURTHER, EXTENSION OF QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD TO ACCESS MAIN PARCEL PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS [GREAT CEDAR SWAMP] REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 65-10, SP 49-10 SKETCH PLAN: 1/25/11 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC, ACOE LOT SIZE 6.39 & 84 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.11-14, 303.15-1-25.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MARY BETH SLEVIN & BRIAN OSTERHOUT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I'm just going to read in the memorandum that I sent the Planning Board and then also read in the tabling motion back in, I guess it was in September, but with that, The applicant has submitted an additional road length waiver request for the above referenced project, which is Quaker Ridge Technology Park; please see Stockli Slevin & Peters, LLP AMENDED WAIVER REQUEST dated August 15, 2011. The purpose of this memorandum is to 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) update the Board regarding the tabling conditions of the previous meeting dated September 20, 2011. At this point in time, the road length waiver request will need to be addressed by the Planning Board in order to move the application forward. Please note that staff responses to tabling conditions are in bold, and I'll just go through them quickly. The first one was to obtain an FAA approval and submit evidence to Staff of that approval. An approval hasn't been given per se, but the applicant has submitted the form to FAA and they've actually submitted a revised form I believe as of the 7t", I believe this is the right one. I have not had a chance to look at that. I received that today. MR. FORD-Seventh of November? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. TRAVER-Does that resolve what appeared to be some discrepancies in measurements and so on, or you don't know because you haven't (lost word)? MR. OBORNE-1 don't know. The second one was the applicant needs to discuss the road design with the Highway Superintendent, and they have, and I have a letter from Mike Travis, and I'll read that into the record. This is dated November 14t", Planning Board, Michael Travis, Quaker Ridge Technology Park. "I have reviewed the updated plans and have no problem with the removal of the connector roadway. It has also been noted that the sidewalks are not on the Towns right of ways, as per my request. What I requested is at the end of the proposed road that a hammer head is constructed to accommodate snow removal. If you have any questions, please call me at the office, 761-8211." So it's a pretty positive note from Mike in that regard. Now that's assuming, the hammerhead would be required if you allow this waiver request to go through, and then they're allowed to stub out. The third one is the Planning Board will need to receive feedback from the Highway Superintendent on the acceptability of the current and amended road design. That is also stated in that previous mentioned note from him. Also, the applicant will provide clarification of the feasibility of the existing right of way to the Queensbury Avenue for emergency use. We did not get a response, but I will say that there has been action between Mr. Dusek and Mr. Macri. There have been discussions. There has been quite a bit of movement on that issue, also a lot of movement on the road actually coming out to Queensbury Avenue. I'm not privy to the particulars of that, but I'm sure the applicant will bring you up to date on that, and finally the applicant will address all 50 engineering comments. I think the 50 are down to 13 at this point. So, I mean, that's, again, a step in the right direction, by again, we're here for the road waiver request, and the five tabling items, and any more information you may require of the applicant, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. OSTERHOUT-Good evening. It's been a while. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. OSTERHOUT-Sure. Brian Ousterhout with MJ Engineering, on behalf of VMJR. MS. SLEVIN-And Mary Beth Slevin with Stockli, Slevin & Peters, on behalf of VMJR. VIC MACRI MR. MACRI-Vic Macri, VMJR Companies. MR. HUNSINGER-What else did you have to add? MR. OSTERHOUT-Sure. A lot of positive news since the last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OSTERHOUT-We have had back and forth correspondence with the FAA, actually most notable the FAA's consultant, who's the County's consultant for the Airport on this, in terms of the information that they've requested. There's been good positive movement there and we expect that there shouldn't be any FAA issues at this point. Their only concern was a light pole that has been changed its location. So in terms of their height restrictions on that, we don't foresee any problems with the FAA and we're waiting for their final signoff. That information has been given to Keith, but like he said, he hasn't had time to digest it yet. On the connection to Queensbury Ave., there was a meeting with the County to talk about possibilities for that. It was a very favorable meeting in terms of the outcome, and there was an understanding that came out of that meeting. That understanding's been memorialized by our side and given to the County, but the County needs time to review that in its proper procedures and either agree to it 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) or not, and obviously with the budgets and everything else, I think the County's been kind of busy in the last several weeks, but we view it as a very favorable positive outcome to bring a connection over to Queensbury Ave., at least from our perspective. MR. HUNSINGER-So while we're on that topic, and I don't mean to interrupt you, but there's the e-mail from Paul Dusek who says anything that is presented would have to go to the County DPW Committee. Have you submitted something to the Committee for their review or not yet? MR. OSTERHOUT-We've submitted draft concept plans to the County Highway Superintendent, and he's waiting to look at those concepts in Committee. So, yes, we've submitted information to them in concept form, but we're just waiting for feedback from them, but yes. MR. FORD-Have you been given any indication of a projected timeline for a response? MR. MACRI-They have a committee meeting on the 29th where they'll review our Memorandum of Understanding and also the (lost words). They haven't met since we've met with (lost words). MR. FORD-And that's on their agenda? MR. MACRI-Yes. MR. FORD-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you have any sense for how likely it would be for some kind of approval from the full Board? MR. MACRI-(Lost words) to predict, but I think it's up to the DPW. We have a favorable response from Jeff Tennyson and Paul Dusek. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So what is it that you have presented to the County? Is it just to extend the current right of way that you have out to Queensbury Avenue, or is this something different? MR. OSTERHOUT-There's a couple of different concepts. One draws the connection on the north end of the piece, where I'll say the FAA restrictions would be the greatest from a future building perspective, as you know, the layout was done in a way that took into account the future, I'll say the available air rights with the proposed runway extension that Don Degraw had mentioned to you back several meetings ago when he came in and presented. So right now that connection is looking like it may be on the north end of that property, through where one of the common roads connects the two buildings that are shown on our concept plan, and it would come down through the County property and out to Queensbury Ave., another connection brings it over to that, I'll say the proposed trail dirt road area that I think everyone's familiar with from the first concept that was presented to the Committee. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OSTERHOUT-So we're not really sure where it's going to connect, but, I mean the intent is to clearly connect to Queensbury Avenue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MACRI-And understand that their studying the other connection currently, Glens Falls Transportation Committee. That's under study. It would be separate from what our agreement is. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any sense for when that study might be completed? Because I know that's something we've talked about before. MR. MACRI-I think they were targeting a public hearing within the next month, to make a presentation. In fact, I believe I got an invitation to that. MS. SLEVIN-Yes, it was in December. MR. MACRI-Yes, December. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. I'm sorry; again, I didn't mean to interrupt. MR. OSTERHOUT-So, and like I said, you know, this connector road, whatever concept is hopefully agreed upon by the County and VMJR, you know, we're working with the County's 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) FAA consultant on that, so that, you know, basically a lot of people were on the same page now, in terms of communication and sharing of information to come up with the most, I'll say workable plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MS. SLEVIN-The only other thing is that we are asking the Board to consider the waiver request this evening, and we would like to proceed to some sort of conclusion on that issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board then. MRS. STEFFAN-So walk us through the waiver request, please, and maybe, Ms. Slevin, you could walk us through it, and, Brian, you could point it out on the plan for us. MR. OSTERHOUT-Sure. MS. SLEVIN-Okay. As we reviewed with the Board the last time we were here, this is a phased approach to the project. We are looking for a waiver request for the first phase, which would provide the initial access into the property. MR. OSTERHOUT-Down here. MS. SLEVIN-Which has been reviewed with the Highway Superintendent and modified in accordance with his request. Originally we had proposed this as a loop, and he had requested that we remove the loop portion of it, so that it was just an individual road with a hammerhead turnaround at the end of it and those revisions have been made, and that's the plan that's before the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OSTERHOUT-And it was a phased approach, such that this would be done, and then the future development past the initial phase would be conditional upon the connection to Queensbury Avenue. Like I said, we feel like we've made substantial progress in that regard. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Unless I'm missing something, we're right where we were last time we were here, and the time before, except that the Highway Department cleared up one issue. You're still looking for more development into a dead end. Because that's what that is that's a dead end until you reach a conclusion and are in agreement to have a road go out. MR. OSTERHOUT-Yes, correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Until you do that, speaking for myself, I can't support that, because that's nothing but a disaster as you keep piling cars on top of cars, for more development, and don't have a way to get them out the back. It doesn't make any sense. When you've got that issue resolved, then I think you ought to come to us. MR. OSTERHOUT-But I think that that's what is before you in a conditional phased approach. That's why it's a phased approach. We're not building out the whole thing without the condition. We're only doing, the phased approach is Phase I with the road request, and you can't develop the rest of it, the Phase Two portion of it, the north end of it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You shouldn't be developing anything until you've got the road issue settled, in my opinion. MR. SIPP-I mean, you've still got 3,000 feet of road, one way in and one way out. MS. SLEVIN-But it is fairly limited development, and that's why we're asking the Board to consider that. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that (lost words) limited or otherwise is still putting somebody in danger. MS. SLEVIN-It's not without precedent within the Town. There are other instances where there have been cul de sacs approved in the Town for lengths in excess. MR. SIPP-Any precedent we set just allows a little more leakage in our ability to control things. MR. OSTERHOUT-Understood, but I would also like to point out that we're not talking about a standard width road the entire length. We're talking about a boulevard entrance that extends up 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) to the National Grid easement. So from an emergency vehicle standpoint it is a much wider road that we're talking about. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Still one way in and one way out, which is a disaster if you've got something in between. I mean, you've already got a big market there. Anything happens there, you know, you can imagine the mess you're going to have, and now you want to stack cars beyond that. Cut de sacs aren't even good in a residential area, and in many towns, they're now outlawed, from a public safety standpoint. Now you want to put a cut de sac in a commercial development area? I think that's ludicrous. MS. SLEVIN-If I could just remind the Board, too, this is zoned for the uses that are proposed here, and what we are asking for is, or I guess what we're proposing to the Board is a limitation on the development that could be possible on the site, with the understanding that the second phase could only be developed in the event that the connector road becomes available. We've made significant progress with the County in the past two months towards the actual eventuality of that connector road, but in the meantime, we're hoping to at least advance a portion of this project so that Mr. Macri can go out and begin to try to attract utilization for the initial part of the project. The zoning has been in place for a substantial period of time. Certainly the proximity of the roadways to the land was considered at the time that the zoning was adopted. So those are issues that have really already been addressed in the context of a larger review, and finding that it is appropriate to put commercial development on this site. We understand the Board's concerns and certainly don't take them lightly, that there is a length of road that is going to need to be developed in order to provide access for this. That's the very reason why we're proposing a phased approach at this point in time in the request for a waiver to look for only a portion of the development that would otherwise be possible on this project, until such time as the connector road does become available, which would traverse through really the entire parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-We had a fairly lengthy discussion, the last time you were here, about your right of use over the right of way. Has there been any clarification on that, in terms of, you know what that can be used for, and the capacity of that? MS. SLEVIN-We certainly didn't do anything further on it because we were focused on the conversations with the County. There is an existing easement, which we believe could be utilized for emergency access. We haven't submitted anything to this Board in support of that, for the simple reason that we thought it was more appropriate to pursue the larger scale access which would be the connector road, which would be full access in and out, not just emergency. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, okay. MR. MACRI-We also have the ability to traverse the property, come out through another area of our property, which we do have right of way crossing with NiMo over five areas. I mean, we could go in that direction. We prefer not to. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MACRI-But we could. I think the plan as it sits now is a workable plan. It will benefit the development; it will benefit the Town in the future. MR. OSTERHOUT-Right and I think that it's important to note that there's a lot of moving pieces here. You've got the (lost word) expansion project to the north of this, which we're keenly trying to work with and understand, because there's aerial rights involved. That project is in the planning stages but isn't under construction or anything of that nature. You've got the connector road study, which is albeit connected to our project, but not within our purview per se because that study's being conducted by Adirondack Transportation Council. So we're trying to work with all these different moving parts and make everything concisely work, and that's why we think that the motion before this Board is still the good idea. I mean, if there's confidence that there's going to be a connector road and do that, then for us to, as Mr. Macri said, use another connection that would take away developable land, doesn't make a lot of sense if that connector road's going to go in. So we still feel like this phased approach is the most prudent method that everyone's on board with at this point. Everyone seems to want this connector road. We haven't had any kind of push back on that, and it works within the FAA aerial rights and it works within the Airport expansion, and the whole thing is an economic driver in this area to begin with the runway expansion and the tech park and the connector road to alleviate traffic. So it's just been a lot of moving parts, and that's why we still go back to the phased approach which we think is a prudent thing, understanding that you have, and I don't disagree with you, something could happen on that road, but you can sleep well at night knowing the fact that there's a condition on this for the real bulk of the development which isn't going to be (lost words) connection to Queensbury Avenue. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can't take that chance. I mean, you've already got a ton of people at Wal-Mart, and you don't want to put a couple of hundred people beyond there and trap them in it. MR. OSTERHOUT-Trap them how? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Trap them how? MR. OSTERHOUT-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let's say a small plane comes off that runway and lands on the top of Wal- Mart? How are those people going to get out? Those roads aren't going to be open. There are going to be those little red trucks and cones and everything else. MR. MACRI-We can't predict disasters. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You have to plan for them. MR. MACRI-Just as a point of understanding, okay. I was on this Board when we put in that 1,000 feet, okay, and the 1,000 feet was specifically for residential development. For some reason it has now been stretched to commercial development, which I don't think has the hazard level that residential development has. So I just want to bring that to your attention. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Commercial is more hazardous than residential when it comes to public safety. You have more people. MR. MACRI-Potentially it could be five people back there. I mean it could be a data center. You don't know that. I don't know that. Up until we bring the project to you and you can look and see what the project is and see what the impact could be on the roadway should you be making those comments. I mean, if there's a three person operation back there and 200,000 square feet of building, is that a danger? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You wouldn't be going through this if you weren't going to build something. I don't know what you're going to build. MR. MACRI-Well, we don't know either. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Then make it a safe site and then bring us a project. MS. SLEVIN-Part of the decision to allow commercial development in that parcel has already been made. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. SLEVIN-So by deeming the commercial zoning appropriate for that site, the property owner has a right, expectancy, to be able to utilize the site for commercial development. (lost words) there's a length of road that exceeds the threshold that the Town has, is something that can be considered, but it can't be used to deny the opportunity to develop the parcel, and at this point, that's what we're talking about. The waiver is necessary because of the length limitation, but it can't be used to trump the underlying zoning of the property, and I think that that's what we're potentially running afoul of. MR. OSTERHOUT-And we're clearly going and moving in the direction that everyone has been trying to tell us to move in, to have the discussions with the County, because we don't own the property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't dispute that. MR. FORD-And we appreciate that, and we recognize the progress that has been made in that direction. MR. SIPP-You're putting the onus on us, rather than you taking it. In other words, you start developing here, and what's your next step? Well, you've got one and nothing happened. Let's try two? MR. OSTERHOUT-I'm sorry, I'm not following you. MS. SLEVIN-The applicant has expressly said that Phase II would be conditioned upon the connector road being available. So we understand that that would be an express condition for any further development of the parcel. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Then why are we talking about it now? MS. SLEVIN-Because we're seeking a waiver for Phase I. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. One of my thoughts on the whole phased approach is we've done a couple of, I'm not sure what the agreement is called that we have like with The Great Escape, that once certain attendance figures are reached. MRS. STEFFAN-Thresholds. MR. HUNSINGER-Then it triggers, you know, a certain action on behalf of the applicant, and it was something that was discussed and negotiated during their Environmental Impact Statement, and my concern with what's being requested here is that there's no real threshold. I mean, personally I would feel, and I think I had said this at a prior meeting, I might feel comfortable saying, okay, you could be allowed to develop, you know, so much of the park, up to a certain traffic count or employee count or some quantitative measure that we could all know and understand. The fear that I have right now is if we were to consider the waiver request, and to grant that, there's really nothing that would prohibit you from coming in with a project that does have a lot of traffic, which could cause the concerns that are being expressed here, and I guess, you know, now my feeling is, I feel like we're so close on the connector road that the discussion over the waiver request is almost moot because it sounds like we're going to end up with some relief out on the Queensbury Avenue anyway. Maybe it's a month away or even two months away, but you're not going to start building it tomorrow, because we're now into the winter season. MR. OSTERHOUT-Absolutely correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OSTERHOUT-I'll go back to almost a year ago today, which was my first concern. MR. HUNSINGER-1 know, and I appreciate that comment. MR. OSTERHOUT-Which is the grant that's currently out there for VMJR, which is expiring this month, unless there's an additional deadline on that. So you're absolutely right. We're not going to go out and put a shovel in the ground tomorrow. We can't. We don't have approvals yet, nor would we. I mean, but the longer we keep delaying, I guess, the process, the longer it puts the grant that's already been out there for the shovel ready building on Build New York Now grant in jeopardy, and it just, you know, extends the process. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes, I appreciate that. MR. OSTERHOUT-We've been a year, and we still haven't done SEQRA. MR. MACRI-And I would also believe that the County and the Town, if we were to bring a project and to bring a large group of people to this property, and, you know, have 500 new employees within the Town, that they would do something to make sure that we had all the access we needed. MR. TRAVER-Well, be careful now. We want to keep it like three or five people that are back there. Right? MR. MACRI-Well, we are, but in reality, all we're trying to do here is (lost word) a plot of land approved. MR. TRAVER-Right. We understand that. MR. MACRI-We're not approving any buildings. Okay. We keep, you know, all we're doing is trying to get to the point where we can present the property as a shovel ready property, so that we can attract development, okay. That's what we're trying to do. That's all I've been trying to do for years. MR. TRAVER-I'd like to inquiry, in your negotiations with the County regarding the connector road, I know that in some of the discussions we were, what you were projecting was really an emergency access. What you're now proposing, as things look more positive, more of a conventional roadway, so that some of the traffic would be mitigated through that connection as well? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. OSTERHOUT-Yes, in accordance with what they're currently studying, I think that we're going down the same path that they're going down. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you have anything that you could, anything in writing that you could submit to us that would at least give us some record of what you had proposed to the County that would document that effort, other than your conversation this evening? MS. SLEVIN-We have submitted it, a letter of understanding to the County. They asked us not to share that until they've had a chance to review it, and as Brian explained earlier, because of budget discussions, the elections, they just hadn't had time to get to it. MR. TRAVER-Not good timing. MR. OSTERHOUT-We'd love to, if we could, trust me. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand. Well, and I understand your concern about the time. Although I must say there have been times, and we've had a lot of material to review, and this isn't really in the form of a complaint, but rather a bit of a response. I think that there could have been greater progress sooner if there had been more communication perhaps with the Town and some clearer responses to some of the tabling motions and things like that, but understanding your need to want to take advantage of the opportunity. Can you show us on the map where this hammerhead would be installed? MR. OSTERHOUT-Yes. It would be at the terminus up here, and right now down here is where it's terminated with the future connection to Queensbury Ave. So snow would be plowed there. I think that was his concern about plowing. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it was for snow removal. MR. OSTERHOUT-Yes, for snow removal. There's a ton of green space for snow removal. MR. OBORNE-And I'd like to just add to that thought is Mike Travis, the Superintendent of Highways, he's not concerned, although he may be personally concerned about it, about the access and the emergency access and traffic mitigation. His main concern is that his plows can do the job. That's his main concern. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-So just to make sure that that's understood. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-1 want to weigh in on this, because I feel that it's pretty clear, per our current zoning, that dead end streets shall not be longer than 1,000 feet. This is nearly three times that, and I have not yet been convinced that this would be prudent and appropriate for this Board to move forward with an approval of that at this juncture. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? One of the comments that I had, one of the questions that I had, during the introduction, apparently there's a street light that's of concern to the FAA? MR. OSTERHOUT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If they're concerned about a street light, what kind of limitations might? MR. OSTERHOUT-We spoke with their consultant. We called the FAA on several occasions. We called Ralph Gatta who's the FAA consultant for this area, on numerous occasions. Ralph would not return our phone call. We were then called by the County's consultant, which is C & S Engineers out of Syracuse who's also working on the runway extension. They were asked to speak on behalf of the FAA, for whatever reason. This is before we started having; I'll say meaningful discussions with the County. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OSTERHOUT-And, Chris, you can fill us in, because you had those discussions personally, but the street light issue that they had was incorrect, as reported by C & S. So that's why the revised, I don't think they understood the plan. So that was re-submitted. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, because my question was if they have concern over a street light, what kind of a concern might that have over a building that would go in that same? MR. OSTERHOUT-Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that these air rights have been looked at. I can assure you that we're well aware of every building height on every corner of that property, on both the existing and the proposed runway, because it obviously greatly affects our clients' ability to do a future development on certain portions of that land, and we are working with C & S and the County on that, and we feel like we've come up with a good compromise for what that looks like, but at this point, we're proposing a road. Those buildings will have to go, because we don't know how high each building's going to be, and where they're exactly going to be located. Each of those buildings will have to come before you on a site plan by site plan basis, just like it would for any other project, albeit with a hopefully abbreviated SEQRA review process, which is the point of the shovel ready grant. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. Okay. Any 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 on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not seeing any takers. Any written comments, Keith? Okay. I will open the public hearing and we'll leave the public hearing open. I just wonder if I could kind of think out loud for a second, you know, trying to, understanding what your need is, at this point in time from this Board, but also understanding where this project is headed. I wonder if there's some way we could provide a conditional approval on the waiver request, so that it gives the applicant some leeway that they need so they can maintain that State grant, but still provide us with, you know, the direction that, again, you know, I think two months from now you're going to have the access that you need for the project to move forward anyway. MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's a good point. I mean, we know there's engineering and there's a lot of paperwork to be done before that shovel gets in the ground. So it would be nice if we could do something. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-But, you know, we've got to feel comfortable with what the process is that we're committed to. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Come back in two months. MR. SIPP-If you do that, you're setting a precedent for anybody with a 2,000 foot cul de sac, right? MR. TRAVER-Well, actually I got some clarification on that. Evidently, since we're not an adjudicative body, we don't set precedence. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MR. SIPP-We don't what? MR. TRAVER-We cannot set a precedent because we are not adjudicators. MR. SIPP-1 see. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Every project stands on its own. MR. TRAVER-Now that's not to say that applicants can't present such a precedent to us, but I think that we do need to be mindful, not of precedent, but of practice. I think practice is really more the context of what you're talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would agree. MR. TRAVER-1 think we do need to be mindful of that, but, in terms of literally precedent, I think we're covered there. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Again, I was just thinking out loud, trying to think of a way that could give us some protection, but give the applicant some clarity and give them, you know, some positive direction so that they can maintain that State grant they have and make it look like they're making progress. MR. FORD-1 think our direction's very positive, but I believe it's premature to grant this waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other thoughts or comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Could we, we're not meeting again until the day after tomorrow, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Would it be possible to get an opinion on your suggestion from Town Counsel, so that we could have something for Thursday night maybe? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-You can't do that. Number One, that's an assumption that Town Counsel can respond, and, Number Two, you would have to have that meeting and that response noticed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So there are some issues with that. I think the first and foremost is getting a response. MR. TRAVER-Right. Sure. There's no guarantee. It was just a thought. I'm trying to give us some elbow room this time. MR. FORD-A good thought. MR. TRAVER-So that we could all walk away some elbow room. MR. OSTERHOUT-1 mean, just one thought. I know there was the comment about, you know, what prohibits you from, you know, you get one and then you come back and you do two, you know, and the response that we gave was that, you know, because it's a conditional phased approach, but let's face economic facts. This is going to be an expensive project to build for the developer. The developer wants to obviously maximize the use of this space that he has and the acreage that he has. So, you know, him going in and putting in all the infrastructure for one small building in Phase 1, you know, if you want some assurances or, I'll say some discussion on that fact that that's not going to happen, look at the economic viability of just doing one building in the Phase I approach, it's not economically viable to do that. It's in his best interest to meet that condition, to get the connector road done, which we've clearly demonstrated since the last meeting in our meetings, you know, and while it's, you know, other than your condition, it's definitely in the economic benefit of the developer to get that connector road, to meet the condition so that he can do the full build out. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly right. So do it. MR. OSTERHOUT-It's not within our control, as I've stated on numerous occasions. We don't own the property. We would love to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I understand that, but you're eventually, you must eventually think you're going to get it or you wouldn't be wasting your time on the project. MR. SIPP-1 mean, you've got a piece of land there, which by your own test, soil tests, is not the best piece of land to develop at all, the roadway. MR. OSTERHOUT-What's wrong with the soil? MR. SIPP-Water at three feet, rock at two and a half. MR. OSTERHOUT-There's nothing wrong with the soil. We've met the stormwater conditions. MR. SIPP-Well, your stormwater, but how about building, you start taking some of that open space, put it under a building. MR. MACRI-That's what the stormwater plan does. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. OSTERHOUT-It's all infiltration, the drainage ability of the soils. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There aren't going to be any three person buildings back there. Let's not kid ourselves. You're going to develop it as best you can, and you're going to come up with the best buildings and clients that you can find. So if you're going to do it, do it right and put the road in. MR. MACRI-(lost words) possibility, because of what's there, the (lost word), the power, whatever, that is an attractive (lost words) for that location. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not at that cost it isn't. MR. KREBS-I was just going to say, I would be uncomfortable with approving this tonight, because the responses to Chazen Engineering, about two-thirds of them say they would be submitted subsequent to the, you know, after the road waiver approval, submitted subsequent to a determination on the road waiver request. MR. OSTERHOUT-Can I address that? We had a meeting with Keith and the Town Engineer. You have to understand that a full SWPPP, a full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, what Chazen was requiring, is a very detailed analysis, and so there's not a lot of purpose in us going down a path. If you guys are going to reject our road layout, then why would we go through, it's a Catch 22, and that discussion was had at the Town with Keith and the Town Engineer Chazen, and it was agreed upon that the stormwater system would work as proposed, and they understood, while, they agreed with that approach. So that's why the number of comments have been significantly reduced, and, yes, we absolutely have to meet all those conditions. MR. MACRI-Can I just remind the Board, from Day One, we presented this plan as a fictitious plan, but as necessary in order to maximize the site, make sure that we met all the SEQRA criteria, so if we had a client who wanted half the site, we've covered all those bases. So, you know, we keep going down the path of these roads and where they're located and whatever, and it may never happen, but what we're trying to accomplish is meeting the SEQRA criteria, building the project out in the worst most congested possible build out that we can do, to demonstrate that the site will work to any project, and we've created a lot of paper, and done a lot of engineering for something that, I hope, since we've spent the money, that we'll use it, but it may never get done. MR. TRAVER-We're going to be doing site plan on any construction that follows the road, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So if we require the connector road prior to approving any site plan, there's going to be a road with no buildings, until that connector road is done. So, hypothetically, that might give us that elbow room. I'm just, you know, I'm trying to come up with a scenario that would give us. MRS. STEFFAN-It would work. MR. OSTERHOUT-And then nobody can come in until that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there won't be anyone there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Define the connector road. Because they've got three options. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's site plan review. MR. OSTERHOUT-They all go to Queensbury Ave. MR. TRAVER-1 think that they have a pretty good idea of what we think of as a connector road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's got to be a through road to Queensbury, and it's got to be of the proper width. MR. OSTERHOUT-It has to meet the Town standards. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So, I think we all know what we're looking for. I mean, we've made that clear from the beginning and they've presented that the issue has been this negotiation process that we now know is, seems to be making progress. Of course we've heard that before, too, and who knows what can ultimately happen. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-But we know that the fundamental issue, other than the engineering issues, in building the road, is the potential risk to the people that are at the end of the road, as Paul pointed out. Right? And we also know that we have the second window of opportunity in site plan review. So if we condition, if we let the applicant know, coming into any site plan review, that there's going to need to be that secondary access before there's going to be any construction, does that give us a little bit more assurance? MR. KREBS-Yes, and plus that would then give them the opportunity to come back to the engineer and get all those things resolved, so that we would know what we were approving. MR. OSTERHOUT-And move forward with the grant. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Because I think, Mr. Chairman, I think you and I are on the same, with the applicant a little bit, in that this connector road issue may well be resolved before we even have the engineering approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It certainly seems that way to me. MR. TRAVER-So I'm just trying to think of something that we can do to move ahead without. MR. KREBS-That gives us an out if they don't get the connector road. MR. TRAVER-Hopefully we don't need the out. MR. KREBS-I would hope that he has five full buildings in three years, you know. I like those taxes. MR. FORD-Is your recommendation, Steve, that there would be no, not only no building construction, but no road construction until that, the connector road? MR. TRAVER-Well then that's the Catch 22 for us, because if we approve the road for Phase 1, theoretically they can put the road in. So that's the Catch 22 for us. MR. KREBS-But if they put the road in, and we don't approve any site. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, the road, it's a bridge to nowhere, unless they. MR. MACRI-Well, it's a bridge to off road vehicles. MR. TRAVER-Yes, which are already back there probably. MRS. STEFFAN-What are the conditions of your grant? MR. OSTERHOUT-We have to have preliminary approvals. MR. MACRI-I think we presented that to the board before. We have to have the SEQRA approved. We have to have site plan approval. The site has to be shovel ready. MR. TRAVER-And that has to be done by this month? MR. OSTERHOUT-Originally it had to be done by this month. MRS. STEFFAN-They've extended you. MR. TRAVER-Well, because that's what you have been representing. MR. OSTERHOUT-We're waiting. We asked for an extension because we're at the end of the year. MR. TRAVER-Until when? MR. OSTERHOUT-Whenever the EDC. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. MACRI-They asked us how long we need it. We've told them a year. They said what about six months. We said, we don't know. We know what we're up against. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So six months. MR. OSTERHOUT-Maybe. MR. MACRI-We don't know. They may come back and say three months and that's it. CHRIS DOOLEY MR. DOOLEY-They want to see some progress. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, when you start talking SEQRA and site plan review, I mean, that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, would you like to put that in the form of a motion, and it's only specific to the waiver request? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-It's specific to the waiver request. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, I guess. MRS. STEFFAN-You could take a few minutes to do it. MR. TRAVER-After the, well, after listening to the response of the applicant with regards to their application, we know that they have a window of six months to get a completed application, hopefully. MR. FORD-1 have a comfort level of living within that six month framework. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, it seems doable, although, again, it's, I don't know. MR. OBORNE-Could I make a suggestion? MR. TRAVER-Please. MR. OBORNE-And that would be to potentially flesh out the thought process here a little bit more, because I'm certainly not comfortable with what you're proposing at this point, but again, I'm not making the decisions here. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Would it be worth going into Executive Session for perhaps five minutes to discuss it? MR. OBORNE-If the Chair wishes to do so, I mean, I think that's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's not something that's. MR. OBORNE-It's not anything that's really sensitive. MR. HUNSINGER-It's not something that's worthy of Executive Session, but we could have a couple, three people work on a resolution, if that's what you're suggesting. It would have to be less than a quorum. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Yes, just for my edification, I would like to be clear exactly what the Board is proposing here. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I also, just by listening to the conversation, because obviously I'm trying to document this, you know, the Board is split. According to the earlier conversation, there were four folks who were opposed to this and two that were on the fence, and so, you know, I'm just not sure. Steve's going in a direction, and I think maybe we should poll the Board to see whether. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's a good point. MR. HUNSINGER-That's partly why I suggested you put it in the form of a motion, so you get an up or down. MR. TRAVER-1 think I would like to have some input from Staff, you know, before proposing a resolution, I think, any concerns that they might have to be consulted, but, yes, I think hypothetically if we were able to come up with a way to approve this Phase I waiver for the road length, giving the applicant the understanding that at site plan, that no further construction is going to be recognized or approved without that connector road, does that, I'm curious as to other Board members that were initially uncomfortable with the. MR. FORD-Let me respond with one question, one word. Why? We've just been given an opportunity, apparently, because I was feeling a lot of pressure about the end of this month being a termination point, but when they started talking about a year, and they countered with six months, there is an encouragement there that this is going somewhere. MR. MACRI-That was the response from the grant officer who has to present it to the committee. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'm sure they're very anxious to, I mean, I'm sure they want to support this as well, and what I'm suggesting is not just to do something. I'm just saying is there a way that we can comfortably come up with a means to allow them to go back and make some further progress on this proposal. Maybe not, I'm just trying to think of a. MR. FORD-In lieu of our approving this, you know, we can encourage that. They've been very responsive to our encouragement in the past, and I see us that much closer, but I don't see the point of proceeding with an approval of this waiver at this juncture. I don't see the need for it. I don't see the purpose of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other members want to comment? MR. SIPP-What I'm afraid of is that once they get the foot in the door, then the door is going to be pried open. I see, from comments made here tonight, that we're trying to be nice to them, and I say until they get that other road out to Queensbury Avenue, no way would I vote for any half baked solution. MR. HUNSINGER-Don? MR. KREBS-How do I feel? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Well, you know, I'd like to see it move forward, but I didn't like, you know, if we approve the road, they've got to come back for site plan, but if we only approve the waiver for the road, does that do any good to them at all, because it can't, I mean, it's not going to progress at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, we still have engineering issues to resolve and other things. MR. KREBS-Right. Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's just specific to the waiver request. MR. KREBS-So I think we should table it and let them work on it. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you mean table it or deny it? MR. OBORNE-Yes, exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Because it's a waiver. They've asked for a waiver. It's approve or deny. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Deny the waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, that's five out of seven. So, it doesn't seem that there's willing of the Board to approve the waiver request. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MS. SLEVIN-We would ask that the Board table it rather than deny it, for the simple reason that we'd like to report back to you before you make a decision on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Just on the waiver request specifically? MS. SLEVIN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And the purpose would be to gather more information from the County? MS. SLEVIN-Correct. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Because up to this point it's been anecdotal, as you know. I mean, we don't have anything firm at this point or in writing. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have the e-mail from Paul Dusek. So, I mean, it does indicate that they're in discussion. MR. OBORNE-Yes. We know there's discussions going on and the applicant and the County (lost words). MR. FORD-That's very positive. We're a lot closer to resolution than we ever have been before. MR. OBORNE-But I think that the road that you're going down with this, it's almost like a temporary waiver approval, and it's just, I don't, I'm not on board with that, but again, it's up to you. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, quite frankly, I saw it as a way to provide encouragement that then you can report back to the grant agency saying, hey, look, the Planning Board's willing to go this far. It doesn't really mean anything, you know, I mean from our perspective because it would be conditioned. Until the condition was met, you couldn't do anything. MR. OBORNE-The Board, I think, has shown the applicant that there's definitely some leeway here, just need to have a little bit more information. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I will entertain a motion to table this. MR. OBORNE-That's leaving the waiver request open. MR. HUNSINGER-It is leaving the waiver request open, at the suggestion of the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, realistically, if a meeting happens on the 29th, the January deadline for submissions would be on December 15th, and so if any action was taken by the committee, you know, the County, then they potentially could submit more information so that this waiver request could potentially be approvable, but that wouldn't be until the January meeting. So that's if the scenario played out, they got a decision in November. We had the December 15th submission and then they might be on a January agenda. I'm assuming we have room in January. MR. OBORNE-Yes, certainly for this project. MRS. STEFFAN-Does that seem like a reasonable scenario? MS. SLEVIN-That's probably the best that we can do, and we appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm just looking up what the dates are for January. MRS. STEFFAN-The 17th and the 24tH MR. OBORNE-Now I just want to make sure that the Board is aware that the applicant is still under the potential belief that they can get this waiver request. I just want to make sure everybody's aware of that. MR. FORD-And they may not even need it. MR. OBORNE-That's our hope. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-1 mean, if the scenario, if they don't, let's say the County says no, forget it, that's it, you can't do it, would you grant them the waiver request? That's my question to you? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, yes, the more information would potential change the waiver, but the applicant, remember, put a phased approach to this development in place because we had issues with the cut de sac road, so that's what started this. We wouldn't even be looking at a waiver on this Phase I situation if we hadn't, you know if we had been okay with the extended cut de sac. MR. TRAVER-I would also say to the applicant, you've heard, obviously, our discussions about struggling with our concerns and our recognition of your interest in moving forward, and as you, during this time period, when you are collecting more information, if you have, and also, with reference to the Chairman pointing out that we had an agreement or some conditions with the Six Flags project, if you have a suggestion for a way to proceed with the waiver request in a way that gives us a comfort level with that secondary road, we'd certainly be, that might be very helpful I guess is what I'm saying. MS. SLEVIN-We may be able to look at some terms of a development agreement which I think is what you're referring to, and we'll see if that makes sense. MR. FORD-Yes, certain thresholds. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. January 17th meeting. MR. OSTERHOUT-Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Would there be any, just, I mean, I assume you'll also be continuing some of the engineering questions that are outstanding and the other items that remain outstanding as well? MR. OSTERHOUT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So we can table this pending, you know, Staff Notes and engineering comments. MR. SIPP-1 would wonder if we could ask them to produce a traffic report with the potential of 200 more cars, 300 more cars. MR. MACRI-We have. MR. SIPP-Five hundred more cars. MR. OSTERHOUT-We did, we have. MR. SIPP-All of those? MR. MACRI-Full build out, without the connector road, with the threshold for the connector road. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes that was submitted back in May or July. MR. OBORNE-Yes that was submitted and reviewed by Chazen. MR. SIPP-1 thought they just picked one number of extra cars. MR. OBORNE-No, they had different scenarios. I have it in the office. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Or we could say table it at the request of the applicant. That might be the easier way to table this. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make a motion to table. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of an 84 +/- acre parcel into five (5) commercial lots ranging in size from 6.49 acres to 29.78 acres with 10.69 +/- acres proposed as open space. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) Further, extension of Quaker Ridge Boulevard to access main parcel proposed. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Proposed construction within 100 feet of wetlands [Great Cedar Swamp] requires Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: At the request of the applicant, to the January 17th Planning Board meeting. Deadline for any new submissions will be December 15tH Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Thanks. MS. SLEVIN-Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. We have three items under new business this evening. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 69-2011 SEAR TYPE II T & T BODY KING, INC. AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) 60 BIG BOOM ROAD, LLC ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 60 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES HEAVY EQUIPMENT SALES AND SERVICE OPERATION. CHANGE IN USE ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS NOT HAD SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 11-493, 11-018, 07-153 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/9/2011 SECTION 179-9 JOE ZAPPONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 69-2011, T & T Body King Incorporated is the applicant. This is a change in use on the property that has not has Site Plan Review in the last seven years. That's why it is before you. This is 60 Big Boom Road is the location. Commercial Light Industrial is the zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes heavy equipment sales and service operation. Site alterations include a fenced in equipment storage yard and landscaping fronting Big Boom Road. Applicant requests waivers from stormwater, grading, and lighting. As far as my Staff comments, I have spoken to the property's owner, Mr. Kruger, and he has taken care of that with the submittal of an updated survey showing the site that was, parts of the site that was disturbed. If the Planning Board wishes to look at this now, I could distribute it to them, but with that, this would be their final submittal right here, to close out the application, if you were to approve it, based on the way I think things may go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So attention has been paid to my Staff comments, put it to you that way. MRS. STEFFAN-So you've been able to look at it? MR. OBORNE-1 have been able to look at it, exactly, and what follows is review. Some of the items have been taken care of, again, in that. There's really no major issues, with the exception of when I made the site visit that there was potentially an acre of disturbance. With Van Dusen and Steves taking a look at that and mitigating that, that issue, they're not required to have a SWPPP at this point. That was the road that we potentially were going down, and, again, to save my voice, I'm going to turn it over to the Board. It's a pretty easy application. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FORD-But the follow up sentence to that was, either way, disturbance will need to be quantified. MR. OBORNE-There you go. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. ZAPPONE-I'm Joe Zappone. I'm the attorney for T & T Body King. This is Ben Racky, one of the owners, and Mr. Kruger is present with us tonight, and I think he'll help us and talk a bit about what in fact happened out on the parcel, as far as any disturbance. We'll get to that in a moment, but the Board had made some comments, and we've addressed those in an additional site plan which has been submitted, and just to run through them very quickly, there was a question regarding the dumpster. The revised site plan moves the dumpster behind the building. There was a question, I believe, about the gate. There is a gate right off the building that was in the site plan, and our engineer also submitted the travel road or the roadways into the back property to where we're going to be storing our equipment. We changed the species. I guess one of the species was an invasive species and in a revised site plan we changed that. So I think that we've met all the requirements, and we are requiring or requesting that we have a change in use approved for the site plan. Now the question that relates to the property, and quantifying the amount of property, and correct me when I'm done if I make any mistake, it's an approximately two acre site, and Mr. Racky and myself were out at the site, and Mr. Kruger did have some earth moving, but I don't think it was substantive earth, as far as re-grading or anything. He just cleared up some vegetation, but I don't believe had any substantial tree removal or certainly didn't change the slope of the land. I believe Mr., you know, without getting into an exact survey, I think Mr. Kruger can show quite simply it was a very small portion of this lot. The entire lot's two acres, and obviously it was way in the back and only on one side. So at this point I'd like Mr. Kruger to give his best shot to satiate the Board that in fact it didn't even approach anywhere's near an acre. DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-Again, I'm Don Kruger, and I'm currently the owner of the property. The trailers were there for many years. I moved the trailers out of the way to clean them up and there was some brush behind them. To me brush is anything under four inches. There were no trees. We just cleaned it up and graded it up. We have a map, a photo taken from the Town of Queensbury archives, showing the site which was graded up in the 80's. (Lost word) did that, and of course he had all his approvals at that time, because Bruce is no longer with us, unfortunately, but to move those trailers out of there and just clean the brush up behind was no big deal. I had no idea that I was offending the Board by cleaning my property up. I apologize if I did. MR. FORD-Nobody's taking offense at that, sir. All we wanted to do was get it quantified. That was the issue. MR. KRUGER-And there's certainly less than an acre of brush clearing there, and it's not like we went in and radically changed the site. MR. FORD-Thank you for that clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else? MR. ZAPPONE-No. I would just like to add that I believe on the northern portion that abuts the UPS there is a slope, and I think it's clear that that actual grade and tree line wasn't touched in any way, shape or form. There was no grading activity out there, and there was no tree removal. So it was in the back piece abutting, getting closer to the Northway and the southern area where some of these trailers were. There was just some overflow. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Keith, when was that picture taken? MR. OBORNE-That's got to be '07 or '08. Some of the brush was removed, but there weren't any large trees. MR. TRAVER-I think it was April, April of'07 when they did the last (lost word). MR. OBORNE-1 believe so, and this was updated to state 2000. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I'm assuming, I just want to go through, that consideration for a 10 foot no display zone fronting Big Boom Road should be considered. MR. ZAPPONE-That's 10 feet off the road you don't want anything displayed. Yes. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Is that part of the new plan? MR. OBORNE-That's for line of sight issues. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. ZAPPONE-My understanding is (lost word) you wanted to have some sort of a display for some equipment just to make an attraction from the roadway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ZAPPONE-Yes, that's acceptable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ZAPPONE-The most we may do is just have some sort of a barrier right in front, just for a bit of display. MR. HUNSINGER-And I assume that your sign would be compliant? MR. ZAPPONE-We will comply with the Town rules exactly. Signage is not the biggest thing for us, and of course if we decided in the future that we need signage of a different sort, we'd come in for a variance, but at this point we only plan on getting whatever the exact signage is for the square footage of the (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-And you already commented on the invasive species. MR. ZAPPONE-Yes, I believe he took out the one I guess we had in there that was a bit invasive was a Japanese Bruberry or something along those lines, but. MR. OBORNE-It's a barberry. MR. ZAPPONE-It's a barberry, excuse me. That needed to be taken out. MRS. STEFFAN-They're also very nasty when they get big. MR. ZAPPONE-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-And the dumpster, is that moved to an invisible area? MR. ZAPPONE-The dumpster was visible from Big Boom Road. It's been moved from behind the building. What I would add there, once we get in there, if we decide we ever want to move that dumpster, and I've talked to Mr. Racky about this, we would come back and propose something that if we wanted to move it, we would put something around it, whether it fencing or maybe cinderblock. Right now we moved it behind the building. That's where it'll stay unless we decide to do something in the future. We'll come back to you with that request. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If that's even necessary. If you're going to approve it so it's behind the building, it's not visible from Big Boom Road, if you move it out, somebody drives by and is offended by it, you'll have to go before the Board. MR. ZAPPONE-We don't have any intent to do. MRS. STEFFAN-There are three separate storage areas denoted on the plans, access to these areas should be clarified. Are they clarified in the new plan? MR. OBORNE-They've got it on here, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and does the fenced area have an access gate or an area access from the building? MR. ZAPPONE-Yes, as you're facing the building, the left hand side, the original one I think said it's a gate. We're probably going to put in an approximately 20 foot gate so we have ingress and egress simultaneously, but that was on the original plan. I believe it just says gate. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it says proposed gate. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. ZAPPONE-Proposed gate. So as you're looking at the building, on the left hand side, right at the back corner of the building, there'll be a gate. So there's parking for customers and such. That gate opens, that's our backyard. MR. OBORNE-It actually says proposed gate for the proposed gate. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So that's a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Although Keith said that they submitted the revised plans already that satisfy all of those concerns. MRS. STEFFAN-But he just looked at it and said. MR. OBORNE-Yes, they're there, but you haven't seen them either. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-1 mean, it should be just satisfy Staff Notes, and you should be good to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That's how easy it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well , before we get too far here, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, I don't believe so. Again, let me check. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, double check. I will open the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-You can close it. MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that there were no comments received, and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The applicant has asked for waivers on stormwater management, grading and lighting. Will we grant those? MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns? No? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll put forth a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #69-2011 T & T BODY KING, INC. Tax Map ID 309.17-1-24 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes Heavy equipment sales and service operation. Change in use on a property that has not had site plan review in the last seven years requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/15/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 69-2011 T & T BODY KING, INC. , Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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, & lighting plans; 5) This is approved with the following conditions: a) The applicant will satisfy staff notes. Duly adopted this 15th day of November 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. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project. MR. ZAPPONE-Thank you, folks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 70-2011 MODIFICATION TO SP 35-1992 SEAR TYPE II QUEENSBURY PLAZA LLC AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PLAZA, LLC c/o THE HOWARD GROUP ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 756 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW TENANT - PETCO - WITH ASSOCIATED FAQADE MODIFICATIONS. FAQADE ALTERATIONS IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 11-61 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/9/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 12.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-51 SECTION 179-9 JON LAPPER & HOWARD CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Shall I present this into the record? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 70-2011 is Queensbury Plaza, LLC. This is a fagade alteration for 756 Glen Street, also known as Queensbury Plaza. Commercial Intensive is the existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Applicant proposes a new tenant, Petco, with associated fagade modifications. What I did receive today from Stefanie Bitter, Esq. was the parking calculations actually, and they are compliant, just to satisfy that one note. I just needed quantification of it, and it actually takes into account the area that has not been leased also. So they're still compliant at that point. Obviously there's an issue, not an issue, but there's a little cattycorner in the rear facing Quaker Road where there's a shipping container shoehorned in there, and access to that area is a little bit difficult to say that least. I had pictures and I apologize for that. They didn't get transferred onto here for some reason, but it is a little bit tight in that area. If you don't have a concern with it, I don't have a concern with it, but it's part of this approval if you could look at it that way, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Keith. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Howard Carr. One of my first land use projects in Queensbury with Howard was when we knocked down the Kentucky Fried Chicken and the old liquor store where Olive Garden is. That was like 22 years ago, which is 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) shocking, and since then Howard has brought all these tenants in, the Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Staples, and after Petco, it will be nearly 100% leased, which is a nice thing in this crazy economy. So, because of the fagade change it needs site plan review, even though there's no proposed changes to the site plan. Somewhat of a technicality. So we can answer any questions possible. MR. HUNSINGER-So the only real change is just the fagade? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are the colors depicted fairly accurate? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it orange, the peak? MR. CARR-No, it's the red. MR. HUNSINGER-It's red? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It looks kind of orangish on this. MR. CARR-Their corporate logo is fire engine red. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So how wide is that strip going up into the peak? MR. CARR-That's a typical drip edge. It's probably going to be maybe at the peak itself probably like three inches, a little show of it the red. The rest of it is all the white drivet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-There's no neon strip lighting or anything like that on this, on that? MR. CARR-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I just want to clarify. I didn't see anything. MR. HUNSINGER-What color is the dog and cat on the sign? MR. CARR-1 think the dog comes up sort of black and white like beagle would be. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks more bright red. MR. CARR-1 think then it's the other way around. Then the cat is brown. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CARR-That's just their corporate logo. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-They've asked for waivers on topography, land use boundary requirements, landscaping and lighting. Okay? MR. FORD-No problem. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Let the record show that there are no comments received. I'm assuming there were no written comments. Keith can verify that when he returns. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-And unless there's a written comment in the file, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And with that, I'll entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #70-2011 QUEENSBURY PLAZA, LLC Tax Map ID 302.6-1-51 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a new tenant - Petco - with associated fagade modification. Fagade alterations in a Cl zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/15/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-2011 MODIFICATION TO SP 35-1992 QUEENSBURY PLAZA LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 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 with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type 11, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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: topography, land use boundary requirements, landscaping & lighting plans; 5) This is approved without conditions. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you could just verify that there were no written comments received. MR. OBORNE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CARR-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, can I ask for a five minute recess? The applicant has just received the Staff Notes. He had not received the Staff Notes previously, and I would like to give him a chance to digest them at least. STEVE JACKOSKI MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to wing it. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-He's going to wing it. Never mind. Well, I just wanted to give him a little bit of time, but if he's going to wing it, we'll go for it. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. SITE PLAN NO. 75-2011 SEAR TYPE II 697 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT c/o STEVEN JACKOSKI ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 697 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE IN TENANCY FROM SHOWROOM TO SALON. PERSONAL SERVICE USE AND NO SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 05-281 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/9/2011 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-2 SECTION 179-9 STEVE JACKOSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is a site plan review for a personal service use and also there has been no site plan review in the last seven years. It's in a Commercial Intensive zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. I'm reasonably certain that it's before you that Warren County Planning issued a No County Impact on this. Staff comments, as far as the Project Description: Applicant proposes a change in tenancy from showroom to salon. Staff comments: An existing limiting factor on this parcel is the parking configuration. The site is utilized for access by the adjoining property to the north and the required 20 foot emergency access is not present. These are obviously existing conditions and should be considered during any review of this parcel. What follows is my site plan review. There are some site issues, but one of the issues that I wanted to bring to the Board's attention is that there is an existing nonconforming use on the second floor of this unit, but the keyword is it's an existing nonconforming use. So it's a (lost word) at this point. Now there are two apartments up. One is definitely a legal apartment. The other potentially could be a legal, but the apartment is being used as office space, and you have an 18 month moratorium on that. If there's any way that the applicant can show that that second unit that is currently being utilized as office has had a tenant in it within the last 18 months, then that use can continue. If not, you could combine them to one apartment, but with that, I just want to make sure that that's out in front and on the record, and again, any signage associated with this salon should be forthcoming. So with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. JACKOSKI-Hi. I'm Steve Jackoski. I represent 697 Upper Glen Street, LLC, obviously as the applicant, and I can answer any questions you want. MR. HUNSINGER-There must have been at least one night in the last 18 months that you slept in the apartment upstairs because you were working late, right? Would that qualify? MR. JACKOSKI-It's definitely an apartment. I mean, it's always been set up as an apartment. It's always been there as an apartment. There's a refrigerator. There's a dishwasher. There's a sink. There's no doubt that I had an office in there as owner occupied building. I don't remember when the tenants last moved out. I'd have to go back and look. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I honestly don't know. The new owner, if we are able to sell it, plans use the office, use the downstairs office area, showroom area, for her salon. She plans to live in one of her apartments and rent out the other one. So that's her use. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, these are the kinds of uses that we've talked about in other areas of the Town. Here it is happening on Glen Street. MR. JACKOSKI-It's always been that way, but there's no doubt I had to put my office up there. I mean, we're trying to move to the Knights of Columbus. So we're out of space, and that's what was happening. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-But that's her goal. Her goal is to live upstairs and rent out one of the apartments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments? MR. FORD-Sure makes sense to me. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. KREBS-Yes, it's pretty straightforward. MR. TRAVER-What's the situation with the trailer? There was a comment. MR. JACKOSKI-I just talked to the new owner this afternoon and she has asked us to remove the trailer from the site. So it will be removed from the site. MR. FORD-What about parking, Steve? It's an issue. MR. JACKOSKI-There's no doubt that it's a very tight space, and it's been this way for years. They used to have those great big six, eight foot wide concrete portable curbs. In fact, you'll see some of them along the side of the driveway there because over the years they've just gone off to the side, but they used to have all those out along the with striping. We removed those because people were tripping over them, because they were out in the middle of the space. There's no doubt that the owners and the employees park out back, because we know the spaces are tighter, and we really haven't had any issue with any people out front or along the side. It's the back two in particular that are at an angle, that are a little tight, but, you know, especially if you're living on site, they're your spots, so it's not so bad, and, you know, quite frankly, to allow four spaces for the two little apartments up there seems crazy, but that's what the Code requires. I mean, they're just little one bedroom apartments, but the parking requirement, I believe Keith found out that it requires two spaces per apartment, and it seems silly, but that's what the Code says, so that's what. MR. FORD-What about for the salon? MR. JACKOSKI-From what I understand, of course she and her husband will be living there, but she'll have one tenant and then she'll have her employees which she plans on using the side and then she'll have the four or five spaces out front. The salon's not that big to have that many people out front, and snow's always been a concern. We've had to hire Ellsworth Excavating. They come in and haul it away. I mean, unfortunately when the State came through, that's a big curb cut. So when the Town of Queensbury comes through with their little thing, they just blow it all back into the parking lot, and we've got to push it back out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, personally I think the proposed use is a good use for that site. MR. JACKOSKI-It's been on the market for two years. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it doesn't generate a lot of traffic and, you know, I think. MR. JACKOSKI-We had an accountant thinking about it, but they didn't like crunching the numbers. We did have an application that we had a potential for a bakery type place if you guys remember the little bakery that was up the street. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Similar to that, but right now it's the lady who has the salon in front of us. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-There's a comment about access easements to the parcel to the north? MR. JACKOSKI-The parcel to the north is a real estate office, and if you know real estate people, they're very familiar with the value of their property, and providing easements over it. We have a revocable license agreement between us to allow each other to access both parcels, us to be able to go out behind theirs onto Foster Avenue I think it is, and for them to be able to come in on the side to access the parking that they have on the side of their building. The only time we run into issues is when they have their I think it's Thursday morning meetings. They have all their realtors show up and they're parked all along Foster. They're parked everywhere they can just because they have their meeting there that one day, but otherwise there's just not enough traffic for us to have parking issues. Now we do have tractor trailer trucks come in. They come in off of Glen, right along the side of the building, and right out the back. In the old days we used to have (lost word) pull up along Glen and then back in. We try to avoid that. That's why the trailer used to be on the other side of the building. It's not there anymore, but that trailer will get removed. MR. HUNSINGER-No other questions? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I think that four spaces for the apartments is reasonable. If a husband and wife live in one apartment, even with a one bedroom apartment, lots of times you have two people and they're small. MR. JACKOSKI-Or they have company. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, so you need the four spaces for that, but those cars won't be there all day. If people go to work or, you know, then they can be used for other things. So I think it'll work. MR. JACKOSKI-I think we have 13 total spots actually that we utilize. Keith, I know, talked about possibly doing parallel parking along the side of the building, like I know we talked about that property on, in West Glens Falls on Main Street, that doctor's office or whatever. To me, the angled spots have worked much better. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Let the record show there's no one in the audience in attendance. Do we have any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-Yes, we do. This is from, I can't read it. I'll try at the end here. "As one of the adjoining properties, we at Mohan's Glen Dew, Inc. are concerned that there will be enough on site parking to support the business planned and that we won't have a problem with spill over into our lot. It has not been a problem in the past and we would like to keep it that way. Thank you, the RWR & R Company, Inc. Raymond W. Rohne, President" MR. JACKOSKI-It's the Rohne family. I think the previous owner and the Rohnes had concerns with the Widmore trucks pulling into their parking lot to unload product. We have had no one park over there at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-But I certainly would understand that. I met the potential new owner this afternoon and I think her current business is out of Saratoga and I think she's pretty reputable. So, I don't, I mean, you'd have to go over the split rail fence and then through the grass and then over to their parking lot. That would be a walk. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Well, with the letter read into the record, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Really the only condition, any signage needs to be Code compliant. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and she understands that completely. She understands that she has to come into the Building Department for a building permit to do any interior renovations. She understands that if she changes anything on the site, she has to go back. Right now she's just concerned that she can move her salon in there. She's got her 13 spots, and she can live upstairs and rent out the other apartment. That's her goal. MR. OBORNE-And if I can interject, as it is my wont, if you can put a condition of approval on there that the trailer must be removed. I know that it's going to be removed. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I don't mind. MR. OBORNE-Because if not, you need an Area Variance for that. MR. JACKOSKI-No, it should be removed anyway. That's no problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a custom subzero refrigerator moving vehicle. MRS. STEFFAN-And we are granting waivers for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting plan? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll put forth a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #75-2011 697 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC Tax Map ID 302.6-1-2 A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a change in tenancy from showroom to salon. Personal Service use and no site plan review in the last seven years require Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/15/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2011 697 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following comments: 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 11, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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; and 5. This is approved with the following conditions: a) Any new signage will be Code compliant. b) The trailer on the property must be removed. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 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. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-There is. MR. OBORNE-1 have business that I'd like to add for the Board. I'd like to discuss Chazen Engineering, and your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with them. We do have the Town Board, you know, approving those contractors in January. I just want to get the pulse of the Board on how they feel about Chazen. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) MR. SIPP-1 think they're the best thing that's happened to us in a long time. They're pretty thorough. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're better than their predecessors. MRS. STEFFAN-I'm very pleased with Chazen. I think they're doing a great job. MR. FORD-Thumbs up. MR. OBORNE-Would you be willing to put that in the form of a resolution so we could present it to the Town Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. RESOLUTION TO TOWN BOARD RE: RE-HIRING CHAZEN ENGINEERING MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS RE-HIRING CHAZEN FOR ANOTHER BUSINESS CYCLE FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. OBORNE-1 have one more thing. Soil and Water has issued an e-mail that there's E & S training coming up in December I believe. If anybody is short of training, which I think all of you, no, Mr. Traver, I believe, needs some training. I'm not sure. You may want to consider that. I believe that there's a couple of members of the Zoning Board of Appeals that could use some training also. I just wanted to bring that to your attention, and that's all I've got. MR. SIPP-Where is it and how long? MR. OBORNE-Where is it? That's a great question. I'll forward that e-mail to you. It's local. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-I'm also assuming that the Town Board is going to continue with Miller, Mannix, Schachner, Hafner, our current legal counsel, they're extending that? MR. OBORNE-That is true. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 think that's a safe bet. MRS. STEFFAN-Good. That wasn't always the case. MR. OBORNE-1 know. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MRS. STEFFAN-I make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We are adjourned. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2011) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 37