The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-04-26 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 INDEX RESOLUTION Authorizing a Special Meeting, 5/10/05 1. Site Plan No. 10-2005 Robert & Janice Grillo 2. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-51 Site Plan No. 66-2004 Jeffrey Threw 3. Tax Map No. 316.5-1-12.1 Subdivision No. 20-2004 Jeffrey Threw 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 316.5-1-12.1 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 6-2005 Robert Reid 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 297.6-1-6.1 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 13-2003 James Newbury 4. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 307-1-47, 46.2 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 3-2005 Jelenik Construction, LLC 10. Tax Map No. 309.5-1-5 Site Plan No. 4-2005 Nasreen Khurshid 26. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-17 Site Plan No. 6-2005 Cingular Wireless 34. Tax Map No. 279-1-50 Subdivision No. 16-2002 Sandra Turpin/J. DeRespino 36. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 297.14-1-3.3, 297.14-1-3.2 Site Plan No. 19-2005 Mohammad Tariq 38. Tax Map No. 288.-1-56 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 MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT 1 ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY GRETCHEN STEFFAN TOM SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD GEORGE GOETZ, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ANTHONY METIVIER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-SUSAN HEMINGWAY MR. VOLLARO-All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to take this opportunity to open the meeting, the Planning Board meeting of April 26, 2005, and before I start, I think perhaps Mrs. Ryba would like to make a comment. MRS. RYBA-Thank you, Mr. Vollaro. I just wanted to introduce everyone to Susan Barden who’s standing right there. Susan is our new Land Use Planner, actually not that new. She’s been on board now for, I think, between three and four weeks. I apologize, last week she was here and I didn’t get to introduce everyone because I was on vacation, but I’m here today, and I just wanted to let you all know that Susan’s done a great job. She’s stepped right in. She knows the area, came to us from the Lake George Association, was with the Lake George Association for a couple of years, and we’re really happy to have her on board. As you know, right now we’ve been, as we get our entire Staff together and determine exactly what our roles are, you’ve noticed probably the last few weeks we’ve had a number of Staff coming to the meetings, Stuart Baker, our Senior Planner. George Hilton, who is now our GIS Administrator, but has worked extensively with the Planning Board, and so has been kind enough to really carry over and make sure that we can all get Susan acclimated, and, as I said, she’s doing a great job, and I also wanted to be able to let the public know who she is, and just another one of our team members available to help people with questions or concerns, and that’s all I had. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Marilyn. One of the things I was looking at, Marilyn, was, in terms of microphones, you know, it might be easier if we had clips, and then we wouldn’t have to do this. We could get to our work and not have to carry this guy to our mouths. That’s one of the things I thought about. It’s easy to do with the technology you have. You can just introduce the clip, as opposed to this mic. Anyway, now, there’s some housekeeping that I want to do first here, before we even get started on anything. I’d like to, I have a draft resolution in front of me for a Special Planning Board meeting on the 10 of May 2005, and I’d like to have a motion to th authorize the addition of the Special Meeting of the Planning Board, to be held on Tuesday, May 10, 2005, and if somebody would make a motion, and get a second, we’ll get that out of the way. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD ON TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Planning Board hereby authorizes the addition of a special meeting of the Planning Board to be held on Tuesday May 10, 2005. Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s one. The second thing we want to get off this evening is a resolution that would essentially change the By-laws of the Planning Board, where our current By-laws limit the amount of the agenda in a month to sixteen applications. We’re looking to change that, in our By-laws, to fourteen, and the reason for that is during this month of 2005, so far, we’ve been running meetings here that terminate later than 12 o’clock, and, you know, my brain turns to mush at about 11:30. So, that’s a resolution that we’re going to make. Does everybody have this resolution in their packets? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you know what it says, and if somebody wants to introduce it. MR. SANFORD-I’ll move it. RESOLUTION, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, the Queensbury Planning Board adopted Bylaws, Policies and Procedures (hereinafter “Bylaws”) on April 24, 2001, and WHEREAS, these Bylaws were last amended on June 24, 2003, and WHEREAS, Section II(C)(1) of these Bylaws specify an agenda limit of 16 items per month or 8 items each typical meeting, and WHEREAS, at a workshop meeting on January 13, 2005 the Planning Board agreed to limit the number of applications to 7 items per meeting (14 per month) through the May 2005 agendas, and WHEREAS, in discussion at the regular meeting of April 19, 2005, the Planning Board determined that it prefers to keep the agenda limit to seven (7) items per meeting or fourteen (14) items per typical month, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby amends Section II(C)(1) of its Bylaws, Policies and Procedures to read as follows: 1. Maximum Number of Items The maximum number of items to be considered by the Planning Board during a typical monthly review shall be fourteen (14). Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th 3 AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The next thing we want to do, now that we have a resolution to hold a Special Meeting on the 10, there’s a motion to change the scheduled Planning Board meeting th review of Site Plan No. 10-2005 for Robert & Janice Grillo from May 26, 2005, to the Special Planning Board meeting of May 10, 2005. We’ve got to do this because certain people were scheduled to be on May 26 and we’re now taking them into May 10. thth MOTION TO CHANGE THE SCHEDULED PLANNING BOARD REVIEW OF SP 10-2005 ROBERT AND JANICE GRILLO FROM MAY 26, 2005 TO THE SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING ON MAY 10, 2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry I’m late. MR. VOLLARO-The next resolution is also to change a scheduled Planning Board meeting on Site Plan No. 66-2004 and Subdivision 20-2004 for Jeffrey Threw, from May 26 to the Special th Planning Board meeting of 10 May. MOTION TO CHANGE THE SCHEDULED PLANNING BOARD REVIEW OF SP 66-2004 AND SB 20-2004 JEFFREY THREW FROM MAY 26, 2005 TO THE SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING ON MAY 10, 2005, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: The Planning Board authorizes the Community Development Department to duly advertise and provide notification to surrounding properties as legally required. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now we also have, and, George Hilton, you can move me through this, if you like, the application for Robert Reid. This has been tabled because the applicant hasn’t posted a sign announcing to the neighbors that there’s a subdivision in this area. It’s one of the requirements when you’re going to subdivide your property, there’s a subdivision sign that goes up so all the neighbors know they’ve got property that’s up for subdivision, and that sign wasn’t posted. So the applicant is not going to be on for this evening. George, is that, do you want to put him on for the 10? th MR. HILTON-Yes. I think that’s our plan to put him on the 10 also. th 4 MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I’ll make a resolution. MOTION TO RESCHEDULE SUBDIVISION NO. 06-2005 ROBERT REID, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: For the following reasons: Tabled to the Special Meeting of May 10, 2005. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. SANFORD-Just one question for clarification. How much in advance is the sign supposed to be posted? MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s 10 days. MR. SANFORD-Okay. There’s plenty of time then, okay. AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll be calling for approval of Minutes of February 15, 2005 and February 22, 2005. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2005 AND FEBRUARY 22, 2005, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. VOLLARO-With that out of the way, we can start the regular proceedings of our meeting, and we’ll start with the application of James Newbury. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES NEWBURY AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LC-10A, APA LOCATION: 6 CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF LAND – 24 +/- ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WITH THE BALANCE IN THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE – INTO 4 LOTS, WITH THE TOTAL SIZE OF EACH LOT RANGING FROM 8 +/- ACRES TO 16 +/- ACRES. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY ISSUE SEQRA FINDINGS AT THIS MEETING. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-2004 PENDING TAX MAP NO. 307-1-47, 46.2 LOT SIZE: 11.16 AC., 4.88 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MATT STEVES & LAWRENCE HAMILTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are? 5 MR. STEVES-For the record, I’m Matt Steves, representing James Newbury, and with me is his attorney, Lawrence Hamilton. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-Do you want me to go over it quick, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got some notes on it, and we can discuss those, but if you want to go over it, why don’t you do that now and we’ll talk about it. MR. STEVES-Okay. This is the property on Cormus Road, in the Town of Queensbury, the property fronts off Cormus Road in the Town. It was proposed to be at five lots. We had some numerous discussions in the past with this Board, with the five lot scenario, and you asked if we could come back with either an alternate or a reduction into four lots, which we have submitted to you the four lots, and also at the last Planning Board, there was a requirement for a stormwater management report, which we’ve had Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, perform, and that’s also in your packet. So we’re back to you with a four lot subdivision of this property, and the stormwater management topography is shown. All the other pertinent information is shown. I think what we’re here for tonight is your Lead Agent on SEQRA, to hopefully get the SEQRA out of the way, because of the fact that the property in Queensbury, even though they’re all 10 acre or above lots, the land that is within the Town of Queensbury on each lot, naturally, is less than 10 acres. There’s some question of whether or not that still needs a variance, but, just talking to your counsel earlier and they’ll check into that again, but just to keep the things moving, we will continue on to the variance, once we get the SEQRA determination because the Zoning Board cannot review this until SEQRA has been determined. Then once that happens, we can come back to this Board for approvals, any changes you might want to see based upon the plan you have in front of you tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have some written questions, but if you’re completed with what you want to say, I’ll throw this open to the Board for comments. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-If the Board would care to comment. If you want to go through the checklist, I don’t think it’s necessary on this one. MR. SANFORD-Bob, this should be a clear issue, but it’s not clear, at least in my mind. When you have a situation where within the Town you have less than the required acreage, in this case 10 acres, but the lots will all be 10 acres because they’re going in to another town, is this something that is unclear at this particular point in time? I mean, it seems to me it shouldn’t be an unclear issue. It should be, we’re either fine with it or we’re not fine with it. MS. RADNER-Right. It isn’t that we’re fine with it or we’re not fine with it. There’s no clear authority that says you can disregard your Town’s own zoning if the total size of the acre, when you include the out of town portion, will meet your lot size. Clearly that’s something you can take into consideration, both for site plan purposes and for SEQRA purposes. We looked into this issue and it’s now been, I want to say about a year ago, and the concern at that point was that because the Town of Queensbury’s authority ends at its own Town boundary, if you didn’t treat the Queensbury portion as a lot in and of itself, you run the risk that down the line there could be subdivision of the portion over which you had no jurisdiction, with the result that you ended up with substandard, or what would be substandard, lots within the Town. So there was no clear authority saying you can disregard your own Town’s minimum zoning and consider the portion out of town as part of that, and that was why, as I recall, Craig Brown made the determination, quite some time ago, that it should go for a variance, even though one of the factors to be taken into consideration would be the fact that this across town line’s portion would make it a conforming lot, but for the location of the Town boundary. 6 MR. SANFORD-Well, what do we do to protect our future interests, should they do exactly what you’ve just said, get all the variances and what have you and then basically develop on the Luzerne side, subdivide there, and leave us with substandard deed restrictions? MS. RADNER-Well, conditions of subdivision approval would be the most enforceable method, so that it’s on the mylars, it eventually gets filed, and so that a condition of any subdivision approval and of any site plan approval would be that there would be no further subdivision. MR. SANFORD-But we wouldn’t have jurisdiction if they did it over on the Luzerne side. MR. STEVES-One quick response on that, so I hopefully will head this off for you real quick. You’ve got the approval from Luzerne, and their approval block is on this map. We already have final approval, based on the fact that the lots continue and front on the Town road in Queensbury, and the note that no further subdivision will be on this plat and it’ll be signed by both municipalities and filed. So therefore it would take care of that. I understand it’s a little different situation because of it. MR. SANFORD-I just want clarification on it, because I’m not sure, you know, the variance issue, I guess you can go to the ZBA for an Area Variance, but I would think that it would be sort of, there would be a policy in place where it shouldn’t be too uncommon of a situation. That’s why I was wondering. MS. RADNER-It’s fairly uncommon. It’s only happened one other time in the last few years that I know of, and you may call that one, this Board ended up approving it and then APA disapproved it, and so the project didn’t move forward for that reason, and that’s the only other one I could think of. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So, all right. MS. RADNER-And that, I don’t think there’s APA issues here. I’m not suggesting there are. MR. SANFORD-There’s not. MS. RADNER-That’s the only other one that I know of that’s come up. MR. STEVES-But the note on there would take care of that, and we’re fine with it, it’s just we were kind of unclear as to why we needed, I talked to the State, and the State Statute says, in talking to the Attorney General’s office, that if you have that note no further subdivision, and that both areas within both municipalities are shown on the map, and both the municipalities have reviewed the same map, therefore, in their eyes, it’s not necessary. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. STEVES-Okay, but I understand. I mean, in their eyes, it’s not necessary. If the municipality wants to go one step farther and require, they can do that. MR. SANFORD-Got you. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, could you clarify for me what we’re doing? We’re going to do SEQRA, then the Zoning Board can hear the application? MR. VOLLARO-Right now we’re the lead agency on SEQRA, for this application, and if there’s enough of information presented at this stage for us to enter into SEQRA, we will. I have some questions about that that we can talk about. MR. SEGULJIC-So, we’re just going to do SEQRA. Assuming we get to SEQRA, and give a neg dec, then it will go to the Zoning Board? 7 MR. VOLLARO-That’s how I see it. It would go to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board will not do a ZBA until we’ve done a SEQRA. That’s the SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and assuming they grant the variance, it will be back again? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. STEVES-For Preliminary and Final. We won’t even have Preliminary until we get through this, the Zoning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-If nobody else has any questions, I just want to bring some stuff forward. First of all, I don’t see anything on here for a public hearing. We’ve had two public hearings on this. We’ve had one on 3/23/04 and 10/19/04, and I don’t see a public hearing posted for this. Is that correct, Staff? I don’t think this is open for public hearing, because I don’t see it on the Board agenda. MR. HILTON-I think, at the time this was tabled, it was tabled with the public hearing being open, so you can continue. MR. VOLLARO-So the public hearing is still open? All right. So long as the public hearing is still open, I just want to know where we are on that, for my own edification here. Okay. I have a couple of questions. The APA said in order for the Agency to determine if the proposed project is jurisdictional, it is advised that the applicant contact the Agency to receive a jurisdictional determination. That’s a comment out of the APA dated March 16, 2004. Do we have a letter of non-jurisdictional interest yet? MR. STEVES-We had a letter of non-jurisdictional when this project was originally looked at a couple of years ago. When you asked to send it back, I have sent the entire package to the Adirondack Park Agency, and they’re basically at one of these Catch-22’s again. They’re awaiting a response on SEQRA, because they also say they have to review it again. You’re required to send it to them after any variance determination. MR. VOLLARO-And then they have 30 days in which to answer that, I believe. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. So the package is sitting there and they’re waiting to see if the variance comes through to them, then they review it again, then. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Who did you talk to there at the APA? MR. STEVES-I believe it was Thomas Siddert. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because this letter is signed by James Connelly, and I was just wondering. There’s several people that work in that area. MR. STEVES-Every day I talk to somebody different, it seems. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand. All right. One question that I have, on the stormwater report, I’m not challenging the stormwater report itself, technically, but it talks, and this was done by Tom Nace. I think he bases this on a 25 year storm, as opposed to a 50 year storm. MR. STEVES-The design storm is 25 year, 24 hour, rainfall four and a half. MR. VOLLARO-Design criteria, 25 year. We really require, he talks about runoff and rain attenuation and the 50 year storm talks to those things, as opposed to 25 years. 8 MR. STEVES-Okay. I can have him revise that. Looking at the number, he’s well under, so the 50 year, I think, would still be suitable as far as the volume is concerned. I mean, I’ll have him address that. MR. VOLLARO-I think, you know, 183-27B talks about 50 year storm and requires 50 year storm design for infiltration, other than drains for, eaves drains and things like that. So, I think that’s got to be corrected. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now, if we go through SEQRA, there are a number of things that the Board has to know, that Part I of the SEQRA dated 11/12/03, this is a fairly long ago Part I, has, a lot of it has to do with the five lot subdivision before, as opposed to the four lot subdivision we’re dealing with now. So, I’ve noted the parts that don’t square with the change from five to four. We can go through that and have the applicant agree to make those changes, and then we can determine if we have enough information then to go forward with the SEQRA. I don’t know, how does the Board feel about that? The Part I doesn’t reflect what they’re doing now. MR. STEVES-Part I, to clarify, Bob’s, that’s a good point. You asked us to bring back an alternative plan, and you had the five lot and now you have the four lot. We just said we’ll just leave it with the four lot, if you like it, and not go back and forth with the two. So therefore the SEQRA application takes into account five lots, and it’s actually less of an impact now with four lots. So if we go through the SEQRA, as far as basically I guess the Number One question would be instead of being five lots, we would reduce it to four lots in the SEQRA form. MR. VOLLARO-See, I have a couple of questions. I’ll just go through them. On Part I, Page Three, I’ve written them down so I won’t go back to the form. I’ll tell you where I am. Page Three, Number Eight was how was the depth to ground water determined? I think you have four foot to groundwater, and, you know, there’s no, you haven’t done any test pits up there yet, I don’t believe. MR. STEVES-Correct, 48 inches, I did perc tests and hand auger tests. MR. VOLLARO-You did? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Is that on the drawing? Okay. I see perc test information. Okay. MR. STEVES-Yes. At the perc tests is where they were done, in the areas near the septic system. MR. VOLLARO-So now that can be verified. Now the project description on Drawing S-1 dated February 2005 shows four lots. That’s what we’ve got now. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-With proposed houses. MR. STEVES-Three with proposed houses, one with the existing house. Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that has to be, because I think on the project description it talks about something other than the four. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-On Page Seven, they talk about the pumping capacity of the wells at six gallons per minute. That’s, do we know that we can get it from some well tests that we did? 9 MR. STEVES-That’s the well tests from the existing house and from a house across the street, Merchants, I believe it was. MR. VOLLARO-They’re getting that kind of flow? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You have no for the Zoning Board. I think that’s got to be changed to a yes now. This is Page Eight. We are going to go to the ZBA I guess. It sounds that way to me anyway, and Page Nine is, again, the number of lots are five and Page Nine Number Three and Number Nine should both say now four lots. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And these are rather minor, but I just wanted to make sure that Part I reflects what we’re going to do before we get into SEQRA. MR. STEVES-I have no problems with any of those. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Having said all that, I’d like to get the Board to determine whether we think, or whether they think, there’s enough data here being presented to go forward with the SEQRA. Mr. Sanford, how do you feel about that? MR. SANFORD-Again, I mean, I don’t want to be nit picky. The answer is yes, I feel comfortable enough, but yet when you raise the question, we’re going to be answering SEQRA questions regarding stormwater and basically they didn’t do the 50 year storm. So you don’t know, and this is the same discussion we got into last week, where we like to think it was okay, but we didn’t know for sure, and you’re the one that raised the issue. So, you know, I’ll save that for your comments. Personally, I feel that we’ve been dealing with this for about a year now. I feel okay with it. On site plan, when it comes back to us, I think there were some concerns, if I recall from public hearing, about visibility and things of that nature, but we’re not dealing with that right now. MR. VOLLARO-No, we’re not. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I will open, the public hearing is still open, if there’s anybody in the public here who wants to talk to this application, I’m going to have them come up, before we get into the SEQRA. Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m comfortable with moving forward. All the issues, I think, will come out in site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. George? MR. GOETZ-I have no problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I just have issues with clearing limits and things like that, and that’ll come out in site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay. 10 MR. VOLLARO-You’re okay. I think the transition from 25 to a 50 year storm can be done rather easily. Looking at the technical data, it seems to me that it basically meets it now. So this is a technical correction to the, so I think we do have enough to go forward with SEQRA. MR. STEVES-Looking at it real quick, from Tom’s work, once he runs the numbers again, but looking at the volume of runoff compared to the volume of storage he has, he might want to widen his trench by three or four inches, and that would be the extent of it, and it would cover a 50 year storm. So I would just say that we would have that reviewed, checked off on, and then if any modifications to the trench would be detailed out when you come back for Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, when you start to get to that level of detail, you’re basically dealing with engineering and mitigation measures, rather than overall impacts. MR. STEVES-Right, and we will conform to the 50 year storm. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. All I was trying to do there was to get in conformance with our A183. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. STEVES-You’re looking at a site, it’s not like we have a site that has so much non- permeable area on it now we can’t accommodate a 50 year storm. It’s not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-I’m comfortable with going forward with those. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment on 183-27B Number Four, it talks about rainfall intensities that are considered for storm drainage design, and it says 10 year storm for local collector streets and residential districts, and then 25 year storm for arterial highways, potentially high developed commercial or industrial districts. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. HILTON-And this appears to me that it could possibly be considered residential, which would only require a 10 year storm review. So the 25 may be in keeping with our Code. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think if you read a little further, though, it talks about 50 years in there to be talking about infiltration trenches. MR. HILTON-For retention and detention basins. MR. VOLLARO-And I think we have some retention and detention on this plan. So, you know, it’s anybody’s call, I suppose. We’re on a 50/50 basis there. MR. STEVES-I know, typically, on a subdivision we do a 25 year, unless we get into a large site plan with a lot of impervious area, we’ll do a 50 year. I think George will concur with that, but I have no problem going with 50 years, though. We want to leave it at that, if the Board’s comfortable with 25, but looking at the numbers, it’s not going to change enough to say so. MR. VOLLARO-The only reason I thought of changing it to 50 was because 183 talks about needing 50 for infiltration trenches. It’s a minor change. Looking at actually getting into it, and I did look at the stormwater management report. It looks like it would probably squeak by on 25. MR. STEVES-Yes, it does, but like I say, I know that they’re building a little bit of extra, as you always try to do. It’s not a problem. 11 MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’ll just change it to 50, and that’ll be okay. I’m sure Tom will do that. With that, I would like to go forward with the SEQRA on our Part II. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you close the public hearing, now? MR. VOLLARO-No, I did not. The public hearing has been left open, and if anybody here wants to speak to this application, they can come up and talk about it before we get into the SEQRA. Anyone? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing, and we will go into Part II of SEQRA. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-“Will the Proposed Action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What type of impact? MR. SEGULJIC-Construction on slopes with 15% or greater, small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And then construction on land where the bedrock is exposed. Small to moderate again. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is everyone in agreement on that? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that sounds reasonable. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. RADNER-Chris, may I make one interruption? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MS. RADNER-There’s a typo on the resolution as prepared for Staff, in that it doesn’t list the involved agencies. The involved agencies have assented to the Town being Lead Agency, but they should be listed there, the ZBA, the APA, potentially, and the Town of Lake Luzerne, and they are listed on the EAF. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So noted. MS. RADNER-Thank you. RESOLUTION NO. SB 13-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: James Newbury; and 12 WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26 day of April 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’ve got a negative SEQRA declaration. Now you’ve got to go to the ZBA. Then we’ll see you here on Preliminary and Final. MR. STEVES-Okay. One quick question for the Board. I know that Gretchen asked about the clearing limits. We’ll show them. We’ll clearly define them. Is there anything else that they want to see when it comes back for Preliminary, just so we know? MRS. STEFFAN-I’d like to know where the hill crests, because in our Subdivision Regulations, 183-34, one of the things it says in here is building lots shall be set back away from ridges or military crests in order to protect the natural silhouette of Queensbury’s mountain ranges, and so I want to look at clearing limits around the property, and to make sure that there’ll be no clearing so we take out the ridge tops. So that’s what I want to see. MR. STEVES-Understood. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. See you when you get through the ZBA. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing, Matt. This area is on Queensbury’s Scenic Views and Vistas map. So just so you know that it’s a protected area. MR. STEVES-Yes. Thank you. 13 SITE PLAN NO. 3-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JELENIK CONSTRUCTION, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: FINCH PRUYN & CO., INC. AGENT: PAUL TOMMELL/CLARK WILKINSON ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: SHERMAN AVE., JUST WEST OF I-87 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT FOUR SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS (9,800 SQ. FT. TOTAL) ON SHERMAN AVENUE, JUST WEST OF INTERSTATE 87. SELF-STORAGE USES IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 10-05 TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-5 LOT SIZE: 1.00 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVE JELENIK, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. WILKINSON-Certainly. MR. JELENIK-Dave Jelenik, Jelenik Construction Company. MR. WILKINSON-Clark Wilkinson will Tommell and Associates in Saratoga, the engineer for the project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want to discuss your project before we get started. MR. WILKINSON-First of all, again, my name is Clark Wilkinson with Tommell and Associates, the engineer for the project. We were before this Board back in January, introducing it, and at that time we were looking for a Zoning Board of Appeals approval for a couple of Area Variances. Due to the concerns of this Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals, we actually went back and modified the design from that January design, reduced the number of buildings, by the way, this is a .98 acre site, zoned Light Industrial, fronting on Sherman Avenue, but we reduced the number of buildings from four to two, and also rotated them 90 degrees to have the long face of the building not be facing Sherman Ave. So we made it perpendicular to Sherman Ave. So the only thing facing Sherman Avenue now would be the gable ends of the building. We do, we did also cut down on the total number of units from that first January plan that we presented to this Board, and we revised the development plan by moving the whole development to the rear of the site as much as possible within the building restriction lines for the building. This was done, again, hearing the comments from this Board of the neighbors and the Zoning Board, to reduce the visibility, further reduce the visibility of this project to adjoining sites. We left an approximately 30 foot buffer along Sherman Avenue, which includes a natural berm that’s higher than Sherman Avenue as well, so that the property will be fairly well screened using the natural trees that exist there. The only cut through would be where the access is and to tie out the grading to make that access. We also modified the number of variances down to one single variance that we applied for, and obtained, from the Zoning Board of Appeals, to increase the impervious area of the site by five percent. This was done to accommodate the 12 parking spaces that are required under the zoning law, and to provide a large enough turning radii around the corners of the building on a fairly narrow site to provide emergency and fire access to the site. If you’ve looked through the notes, you can see that we’ve worked with fire safety and they currently have no comments on this project and are in favor of the proposal we’ve put in front of you. We also, in rotating the buildings, we modified the site plan. We eliminated the proposed chain link fencing. We’re proposing no fencing at this time. We also ensured, through the stormwater calculations and the report that was submitted and reviewed by C.T. Male, that all of the pavement and runoff from the site will meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Town. We did this because we were asking for additional impervious. We wanted to make sure the site would not have any down stream problems, should a 100 year event occur, and we actually have enough storage on site to withhold the 100 year storm, and not just the 50 year storm. The self-storage use on this site is an allowed use, and in our opinion it’s one of the lowest intensities uses allowed within the LI zone. This use generates less than one vehicle trip per hour, according to the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, and this is due to the fact that it uses the background traffic and it does not produce traffic. So that’s how the ITE Trip Generation Handbook defines it is that it’s a 14 background traffic user rather than a generator. So therefore the number is less than one. The site distance issue was also a comment on the Staff comments, and I personally measured the site distance, and to the east, there towards the bridge, towards I-87, we have approximately 490 feet of sight distance, again, measured in accordance with the ITE and Traffic Manuals, and 30 inch eye height to 6 inch height on the pavement, and that distance exceeds the required minimums for the 45 mile an hour posted speed limit on the road. The sight distance to the east is well over 1,000 feet, and is virtually, about a half a mile to the east, or to the west, I’m sorry, to the west, towards West Mountain Road, you can virtually see forever in that direction. I also, while walking around, looking at the sight distance issue, I also queried, because of the location of this site, looking up over the hill towards I-87, I also noticed Oak Circle, I believe it’s called, coming out of, Oak Tree Circle, coming out of the subdivision across the way, and said, geez, that’s closer to the top of the hill, but do they have a sight distance issue as well, and in checking that sight distance, what happens, after the crest of the hill towards the Northway, is there’s a little sag in there, but it comes back up to the Northway, and the location of that road also is more than adequate for sight distance towards the bridge. So I was questioning whether or not there was an issue there, and there is not, and again, to the west, there’s virtually unlimited sight distance from that intersection as well. Having that intersection approximately 150 feet from the location of our driveway actually helps in traffic being able to make the left turn, even with the distance exceeding what’s minimum required, because by looking at the traffic up on that intersection, if somebody was turning left to go, then you know there’s no traffic coming from that direction, and you can actually make the left across the street, provided, you know, you have an open lane. So it does help. The two intersections actually work in conjunction with each other when it comes to sight distance and using the spaces that are available by traffic. MR. VOLLARO-One of the problems I had was I couldn’t do that analysis, myself, because the drawing didn’t allow for it. It didn’t have enough space on it for me to determine those kinds of things. So, as far as the sight distance is concerned, it’s on the record as you’ve put it. So I’ll accept your analysis that way. Have you got anything else? MR. WILKINSON-Yes. I was just going down through some of my things. This project would not have an undue adverse impact on natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational, or open space resources of the Town, or upon the ability of the people to provide supporting facilities and services. This statement is made because of the addition that was submitted to the Planning Board of a letter from New York State DEC. This site was also looked at back in December of last year, for Karner Blue habitat, because it was a concern of us, as designers, the project applicant, as a potential owner and impacter of those possible things, and it’s also homework to do prior to putting in an offer of purchase. We have a letter from Kathy O’Brien, who is a Biologist I, Wildlife Endangered Species Unit from DEC, and it basically says that there are no Karner blue habitat on the existing site. She recommends, however, that at least, she doesn’t specifically say here, but I talked to her by phone, at least a 10 to 15 foot buffer to the rear of undisturbed vegetation would help to keep and maintain the habitat that exists a short distance off the site, behind the site, on the lands of Niagara Mohawk. MR. VOLLARO-She doesn’t mention that in her December 1 letter. st MR. WILKINSON-She mentions that she would like to leave a buffer, but she doesn’t give a specific dimension, and she said it’s not a requirement. It’s something that she’s requesting. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to do that, is that what your intention is, to provide a buffer? MR. WILKINSON-We left approximately, it was about eight or nine feet there, but there was also another concern that we heard from the neighbors and from the Boards as well, to try to buffer the residences across the street. We can’t do both on this site because it’s such a small site. We left the design as is, with approximately eight feet at the rear of undisturbed, and 30 feet at the front to try to maintain the buffer to the neighbors. 15 MR. VOLLARO-I have in my notes, actually, I would like a 30 foot of natural buffer on the north property line, and that’s what you’re doing. MR. WILKINSON-And that’s what we’re proposing. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t see, Kathy doesn’t seem to be very forceful in her December 1 st letter about the buffer. MR. WILKINSON-No, she’s not, nor by phone is she forceful at all. She’s pleased that we looked at it before anything and just noted that there is nothing on this particular site. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. MR. WILKINSON-The location, arrangement, size and design of the general site is as stated and discussed, that we went through the metamorphoses of changing from the four buildings, as originally proposed, to two, and the rotation to help minimize impacts to all the neighbors and to the site itself, so that it could be a better developed site under the regulations and zoning laws of the Town of Queensbury. We also noted that, again, the vehicular traffic meets or exceeds what’s required by fire safety and by the Town Code. We have the 24 foot aisles on the outsides of the building. We have 20 foot between the two buildings, which is not considered an aisle, and we have the parking spaces that run parallel to those aisles on the outside of the parking lot. Parking is provided in accordance with the Town zoning law at one space per five units. We have a maximum of sixty units, we’ve provided twelve spaces on site. This facility is not conducive to pedestrian traffic. It’s conducive only to traffic that uses the facility for the purposes of storage of whatever, and it’s just an issue that we wanted to make sure is at least presented, that we don’t feel that there’s going to be the need for pedestrian access throughout the site, because pedestrians aren’t going to carry gigantic backpacks on their back to get in and store their stuff. So the stormwater management, as stated, meets or exceeds the minimum required in the Town law. We have also provided an adequate arrangement of existing vegetation as stated, the 30 foot buffer to the front, and we, at this time, have proposed no other landscaping because of the natural berm that exists. It’s something that is definitely up for discussion with the Board. There is some, some of that growth is fairly light, so it could fill out underneath, and some of it is a little larger in diameter, about eight to twelve inches is the largest one on top of the hill, but that is an issue that we’ve at least addressed, as far as screening and preventing the visual impacts to the neighbors. MR. VOLLARO-In the landscape design, you talk about 11 proposed plants. MR. WILKINSON-That was left on from the original one. When we left the 30 foot buffer in front, that box never came off. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-But we’ve removed the 30 foot landscaping because we left the 30 foot buffer. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was wondering where you were going to put these 11 plants when I looked at that. Okay. That makes sense. I have a couple of questions. On the stormwater report that was prepared, and I guess it was prepared by you, that’s your stamp on there. MR. WILKINSON-By me. That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that was dated 12/15/04. Your mod, your latest mod, is March 25, 2005. MR. WILKINSON-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Your stamp is not on that. I just have to ask you, you know, you did prepare this, right? 16 MR. WILKINSON-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I need to know. Now, one of the problems is that the last letter from C.T. Male is dated March 9, 2005, and this modified proposal for the stormwater management is March 25. I’m just wondering, based on the fact that the last C.T. Male letter is March 9, did th they get a chance to review the modification of March 25? th MR. WILKINSON-I’m not aware if they did. That would be a question for. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, the plans were sent to C.T. Male for their review on March 30. th MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BAKER-And we have not received additional comments from them. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the last comment letter, just so I’m on board, is the 9. Is that th correct? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. WILKINSON-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to be perfectly honest with you, I haven’t looked at the deviation between the January 30 and your March 25. I did not get a chance to in-depth review that. thth MR. WILKINSON-That’s fine. The difference between the two was when we modified the site plan to gain the additional five percent of impervious, that’s accounted for in the second calculations to show that the design also accepts the five percent increase with no off site impacts, and still maintain the 100 year storm on site. MR. VOLLARO-I saw the 100 year storm calculation. I guess what I wanted to do with the Board is to probably use our site plan review criteria and quickly go over that, and I don’t think there’s very much more to go. I have a couple of questions on lighting. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. I saw those with Staff comments as well. MR. VOLLARO-The buffer situation was taken care of. I personally, until I open the public hearing and see, after the public has now had a chance to see your modification, what their comments might be, before we get into SEQRA. MR. SANFORD-We have a public hearing, don’t you, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I said we left the public hearing open, and as soon as we get through with our own discussions here, I’ll open the public hearing. Let’s just quickly go through on the site plan. Design standards. I, personally, had no questions. Does anybody else have anything on that? Okay. Site development design? MR. HUNSINGER-On design standards, do you have a sample elevation? MR. WILKINSON-The elevations were submitted with the package. There’s no color with them, but they were elevations. I think the maximum height is like nine feet three or nine feet six, and I call it ten to be safe. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess what I was really looking for was color. Have you chosen a color? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. 17 MR. JELENIK-You guys can push me in any direction you want. Something green would be good, you know, that’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, that was one of the things on my list. I was out in New Jersey and saw self-storage units that were dark green with dark red doors, and they virtually disappeared into the landscape. MR. JELENIK-You’ve got it. MRS. STEFFAN-They were the best self-storage units I have ever seen, just because they disappeared into the landscape. MR. JELENIK-Like a Forest Green and a darker red? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It’s kind of like barn doors, that’s the red. It’s kind of a Burgundy Red, Brick Red, something like that, and a dark green. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, getting back to the variances, if I recall, you said you had gotten one variance, and that was for parking? MR. WILKINSON-No. The variance that we received was a five percent increase in impervious area. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and how about the Area Variance, then? MR. WILKINSON-There was no Area Variance. The only variance that we applied for and received was five percent increase in impervious area on the site. MR. SEGULJIC-You don’t need an Area Variance? MR. WILKINSON-We do not need an Area Variance. We eliminated everything except the increase in impervious. MR. BAKER-They’ve received all the variances they need for this project. MR. SEGULJIC-The site is .9 acres. MR. WILKINSON-It’s nonconforming, pre-existing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So this lot has been there for a period of time? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, it has. MR. SEGULJIC-Just continuing on that, so this lot was broken out of a much larger piece of land. MR. WILKINSON-Somewhere in time, yes. MR. JELENIK-It’s owned by two different people. Niagara Mohawk owns the large chunk. MR. WILKINSON-Around it. MR. JELENIK-And Finch Pruyn owned the small piece. MR. SEGULJIC-And this particular piece has been subdivided off for? MR. JELENIK-I have not done any research on the deed yet. (Lost words) final purchase of it. 18 MR. VOLLARO-I think the basic thing, Tom, is that it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. It just seemed weird like they just broke off this one piece. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at that myself, but I determined from looking at it that it was, you know, a pre-existing lot. So there wasn’t much I had to say about that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Stormwater we’ve talked about, I think. There will be no sewage, I suspect, on this. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. There’s no on-site facilities whatsoever, no office, no nothing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, the lighting design, anybody have any questions on that? I do, but let the Board take a crack at lighting design. Anyone? MR. SEGULJIC-Just the one foot candle on the edge of the property, I believe. MR. WILKINSON-And we meet that. MR. VOLLARO-See, there’s 20 wall mounted fixtures are shown on Drawing Six of Six. What fixtures are you using? MR. WILKINSON-They’re detailed in the plans. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I looked at those. I couldn’t pick the fixture that you were going to use out because, in the plans it talks about high pressure sodium versus some others, the wattage is not clear. I mean, I just don’t know, you’re getting one foot candle at the. MR. WILKINSON-At the limits. MR. VOLLARO-It can’t be very much, but I wanted to make sure that they’re all downcast lighting? MR. WILKINSON-They’re all downcast lighting, wall mounted downcast. They even have additional shields that you can get with the unit to deflect, so that there’s no spillage on the outsides of lights. So someone walking by, for instance, couldn’t look into the light. It would be recessed above, with the shields to deflect it down. MR. VOLLARO-See 6 of 6 gives you a lot of information. You just haven’t highlighted which fixture you’re talking about, because they talk about a whole bunch of fixtures here on Six of Six, where you laid that out. So I had no way of knowing exactly what you were going to use, other than you were going to get one foot candle at the perimeter. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. I believe it was the 100 watt that we were looking at. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-Does the Board have a preference between the sodium or non-sodium? MR. VOLLARO-We’d prefer high pressure sodium as light, yes, downcast shielded and so on. MR. WILKINSON-It’s already downcast. It’s just the wattage is 100 watt. 19 MR. VOLLARO-Now, you know, what our policy is, or what the Staff’s policy is, and our policy as well, is that during the construction, somebody will come out and take a look at, from Staff, take a look the lighting fixtures before they go in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s in the draft resolution. MR. VOLLARO-I just want them to know that. MR. WILKINSON-It’ll be no different than what’s on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I had no other comments on the site plan review criteria, other than if the Board has any comments on it, they can make them now. As far as neighborhood character, I’d say there was no major impact. MR. HUNSINGER-I just would comment, I mean, I would tend to agree with the applicant. This being a Light Industrial site, there’s a lot of different kinds of uses that could go in there, but since it’s such a small site, what else would be practical, I mean, I think it’s pretty close to an ideal use on that site. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do, too. I do, as well, I agree with that. MR. SANFORD-But, Bob, just in anticipation of perhaps what some of the public comment would be, as sort of a follow-up to what Chris just said, just to indicate a few other uses that this zone allows, just in comparison, because I think that, while no one really appreciates having these storage sheds in close proximity to their neighborhoods, there could be a lot more intense uses, such as building supply, lumber yard, a bus storage facility, construction company, distribution center, heavy equipment storage, sales, service, among others, and so, at least in comparison to what some of the other uses, I believe that the applicant’s made a fair case in stating that this would have low traffic and be well buffered and perhaps be a preferred use, compared to what some of the alternatives could be. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. MR. SANFORD-But I would like to hear what the public has to say. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and since the public hearing is open, I think I’m going to ask anybody who wants to comment on this application to step up. Anybody here who would like to talk to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NICOLE BURTON MRS. BURTON-Good evening. MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MRS. BURTON-I have for you a picture of the lot. This is standing on my deck. I’m the second house in. Nicole Burton, 63 Oak Tree Circle. I am the second neighbor from the entranceway to the development. This picture shows you the lot, just to give you a visual, in case you haven’t been able to see, and also behind it is a petition with over 120 signatures, people that live in the area and people that don’t live in the area. So my other notes are there, and I’ll give you this back. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll pass these to the Board. MRS. BURTON-Okay. Unfortunately, when we saw the For Sale sign on this lot, I have contacted the listing agent and we were misinformed. The spoke that it was residential. So I 20 left it at that. With seeing the application in front of us, I have been on a mission, hopefully, to rezone the lot residential. One of the people that has signed our petition is Larry Clute. He’s not a neighbor. His children are, and he just would like to purchase the lot as well and put a house there, something that would certainly be more suitable for this area. As we were talking about, it is currently zoned Light Industrial. However, Hidden Hills was Light Industrial, and there was a proposal of a trucking facility. The neighborhood protested, rezoned that, and then left. It’s almost forgotten about the lots across the street. Every one of our neighbors that I spoke to all thought that NiMo owned this whole strip. We are afraid, because this lot panhandles back to Luzerne, and I spoke to the person that did all the zoning for this, and they also said this lot was not meant to be accessed by Sherman, but to be accessed by Luzerne, and kind of panhandle outward. So there are say 20 or 30 acres behind that NiMo could subdivide out, which would just make a horrible unattractive, Light Industrial mess for our entire area, and that’s what we’re afraid of. We do understand that the applicant has every right to propose this, and I have just a few reasons why the neighborhood feels otherwise, one of them being, as they were speaking about, the knoll in the road. If you are coming up Sherman, right before our neighborhood, you cannot see on the other side oncoming traffic. There have been multiple accidents in the last year. A neighbor down the road severely rear ended trying to pull into her own driveway. My neighbor on the corner lost his fence due to someone speeding, crashing into it. Last year, someone crashed into the (lost word) behind our house, and we are directly next to this site. So now you’re going to have tractor trailers trying to pull in to this site. There is no easy way. Northway Storage is in walking distance from this site. They have an easement. They have an easy access that you can drive down. This, all of us are afraid of a tractor trailer trying to pull in and cars, they’re always speeding, top speeds. This is a 45 mile an hour road. It just seems like this lot is over developing. I’ve been monitoring Northway Storage, and just the other day there was a tractor trailer, bigger than any storage building there, a moving truck, and many cars, and being that it is not something that you can regulate, yes, it might not pose traffic going every day, but you could have all these, how are they going to fit back there? They’re going to be on our side of the road waiting. They’re going to have their engines running, trucks, diesel fumes, these are all reasons why the neighbors are very concerned. Another thing to talk about, the hazards. People store things such as lawn mowers, snow blowers, leaf blowers, anything that contains gas, being, again, that this is a small lot, God forbid there be a fire. How is it, you’re going to have multiple fire trucks to get there, or any type of needed ambulances. Where are they going to go? And with all of us kind of in front of that, we are afraid of a fire, and especially with the NiMo Substation being next door. The neighborhood property value, that’s a huge concern for all of us. This is the entranceway to our neighborhood, as well as adjacent from the streets such as Lupine Lane, and I just don’t understand how could anybody say that building a warehouse type facility in a residential area, near the entranceway to a development and neighboring streets have little impact on property value, over $200,000, and also, in addition to that, there are two new developments going up from us that pull over $200,000. I realize, again, the applicant has submitted, but I do know that this lot has not been purchased yet. It is under contract pending the outcome of this. So, it just seems fair that they can pursue a different lot that is more appropriate for warehousing, and we understand that other things could go there. However, it is less than a one acre lot. So technically businesses such as warehouses or logging facilities that you had mentioned would not be a desirable location for any of them to apply for. That furthers our fight to pull the residential line from the left as the next door neighbor is a log cabin. They don’t want it as well, pull that line just a little further and put a beautiful home there. Again, the petition I have of over 120 signatures shows that, and I’m happy about the buffer, but basically, let’s call a spade a spade. It doesn’t help our property value, and ten years from now, this person could sell. You could get someone in there that’s not going to monitor it and not going to regulate it, and what’s it going to do to the neighborhood? Nothing, it brings it down. That’s a big concern. I’ve also been e-mailing James Harding, who is the New York State Codes Division, and he forwarded me to Lori Heathoff, who gave me some information on standards that they like to see in Saratoga for their storage, especially if they are in a neighboring community, and one of them being, which we had just listened to, the vegetative buffer. So we do have it, but also front yard fencing of a decorative type should be appropriate. Lighting should be limited to a low impact, and not 24 hours, as 24 hour lighting times 60 units, that’s a lot of lights to be on in people’s windows, and instead, have the nighttime lighting for purposes of security that can be 21 regulated by timers or sensors. That’s something if, and we hadn’t talked about this because none of the neighbors wanted this, and it seems like this would be accepting it, but if anything, at the very least, these were things that we were hoping for. I like the option for the green with the burgundy. Another thing they said was the building should be designed to be in harmony with the neighborhood, and to protect the public from the hazardous materials that that an attendant might keep in the storage unit. There is a neighbor that we have that manages storage units, and she said there were constant auctions. There were things that were left, things that were rotting, things that were leaking out smelling, because people would leave their items there, especially when you have smaller units that are not that expensive, it’s cheaper for them to leave it there than bring it to the dump, and we’re afraid of it becoming a dump. The flammable liquids is a huge concern. Currently, that area is a huge party zone for neighborhood teenagers. You can see from my neighbor’s window fires back there all the time partying. So now you’re going to be creating a fenceless little shelter for them to party near or around. That a lot of our neighbors brought up who have teenage kids, and they’re very concerned about that. I think that pretty much does it, and, you know, just that the set hours would be something that would be appreciated, to provide the surrounding land owners with a peaceful use of our homes, to us, I mean, I understand that there are many uses for this lot, but these are our homes. This is our lifetime investment. This is not a business deal for us. These people, I feel, could purchase another lot, continue their business, help us, or let us fight to rezone this residential, as, like I said, this is our lifetime investment, and we’re just trying to protect it. Thank you. Do you have any questions for me? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. Do you have any rezoning applications before the Town Board? MRS. BURTON-I have been to all the Zoning Board meetings and I’ve also been in front of the Town Board, and it’s a little confusing for me. This is my first time ever being in the middle of all of this, but because there’s an application in currently we cannot do anything about the zoning, but if there is not an application in, then there would be help to pursue the zoning, as it is less than a one acre lot. It’s not going to affect taxes. I know that, technically, I’m also a real estate agent, and people don’t like to see Light Industrial go to Residential if it’s large parcels of land because of taxes, because of taxes, but this isn’t going to affect anything or anybody. The only thing is, as an agent, I just feel that it will, and 120 other people feel that it’s going to hurt our property values. MR. HUNSINGER-You are aware that the lots immediately surrounding this particular lot are also zoned Light Industrial, right? MRS. BURTON-Right. Well, next to that is the NiMo Substation. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. BURTON-To the left of that is where they are proposing the skating facility. To the left of that, going back, is where they’re doing the sports arenas, which, again, every neighbor brought that up. That’s a little more neighborhood friendly, and everybody was rather fearful because it’s such acreage, something worse could have gone there. So nobody really wanted to fight that, but when you go back is when you panhandle. That is all owned by NiMo. This one less than an acre lot is what Finch & Pruyn owns. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. BURTON-And that’s another thing we were talking about, and I’ve talked to everybody at the Town of Queensbury, and one of the things is, if we can rezone this one lot, we can pull, it would be easy to pull the line, especially when they see how Hidden Hills used to be also Light Industrial, and it seems like old zoning, and unfortunately, I found this out after someone had submitted an application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 22 MR. VOLLARO-Would you be proposing to just do this one lot on a rezone or all of the property that’s currently in the Light Industrial zone? MRS. BURTON-I would first go with this lot that is the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-Because you talked about pulling the rest of them in. MRS. BURTON-If you pulled back, see, I have a few people who are interested in buying the lot, and I have a neighbor of this lot who’s interested in purchasing the surrounding lots and just leaving them, that go behind the lot. So it’s kind of like you couldn’t access it anyway from Sherman. It’s more of, if you cleared through Luzerne, and came through, that is where, I don’t know the chances of NiMo even wanting to subdivide it. I just know there’s acreage there. There’s that Lake Zoli back there. So it wouldn’t be an easy task, I don’t think, for anybody to develop back there. MR. VOLLARO-We’re trying to hang on to some of our Light Industrial zoning. That’s part of it, you know. We feel, in some cases, it’s better than housing. MRS. BURTON-Certainly. MR. VOLLARO-Because of the impact on traffic, Number One, impact on the schools, Number Two. So we take a, try to keep our Light Industrial zone. MRS. BURTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have an awful lot of them left in Queensbury, and we’re trying to hold on to it. So that’s one of the reasons why. Now, I don’t know how this is going to go. We’re going to take what you’ve said under advisement, and I’m going to let the applicant come up and speak to things like hours of operation, the timing of the lights, the colors, no gas or flammable storage, and the partying by the teenagers, I think, is a local law enforcement problem. MRS. BURTON-It’s on the record. MR. VOLLARO-So the Sheriff’s Department ought to know about that, and when those fires start, they’re going to go back there. MRS. BURTON-You can’t see it from the road. You can only see it when you live where we do and you’re upstairs and you can see the fires back there. Being that I grew up in Queensbury as well, I went to school in Queensbury. I know all about that area, but we are certainly interested, really, in just pursuing this one lot. Like I said, Larry Clute would like to, I also understand, being that it is Light Industrial, the lot is more expensive than if it was residential, and if we could get it to be residential, he would like to put a house on that one lot, and I just don’t see how further development from NiMo would happen because you cannot access the rest of it through Sherman. So that would actually, I don’t think less than an acre would hurt taxes like you had mentioned, school taxes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if we’re only talking one house. MRS. BURTON-Just that one, right. MR. VOLLARO-No, but if you’re trying to rezone the entire Light Industrial area into a residential type of area, then that opens that up for development. You’ve already got on Sherman some pretty good sized developments going in now. There’s the Schermerhorn development on, I guess it’s on the south side of Sherman. MRS. BURTON-That’s right, and that’s where they stopped in their tracks because of the blue lupine that we were talking about. 23 MR. VOLLARO-We’ve been through the lupine thing. We’ve got a letter from Kathy O’Brien here stating that she’s walked this particular property with the applicant and sees no lupine at all. MRS. BURTON-I thought it was a phone call. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-No. I have a letter from her dated December 1, 2004. MRS. BURTON-Okay. Now that would be when they walked it it was around December? MR. VOLLARO-She walked it at that time, but she’s an environmentalist, and I have her statement here to Mr. David Jelenik, who’s the engineer, and she says, Dear Mr. Jelenik: This letter will inform you of what I told you on the site at the property on Sherman Avenue, Queensbury where you are proposing to build your storage unit. I’m going to go through this. The property is in the vicinity of the Karner blue butterfly, however, the butterfly does not extend on to your property, and that’s the real kicker to this thing. She says there is no Karner blue on this property. That’s dated December 1, 2004, from the Department of Environmental Conservation. MRS. BURTON-Okay. I’m surprised they could tell that in December. That’s why I questioned if that’s when she walked. MR. VOLLARO-Well, she’s pretty good at what she does. I mean, we’ve gotten many, many discussions with her on Karner blue and she’s very knowledgeable about their habitat and things that they feed on and so on. So she can take a quick look at stuff. Because when you’ve got an area that’s very wooded and overgrown, that’s not where they go. That’s why they go in a lot of the NiMo areas, because NiMo keeps it cut, and the lupine grows nicely there, and that’s what they feed on. MRS. BURTON-And that would be right next door. I’m surprised. MRS. STEFFAN-The other issue you had, regarding tractor trailers, the Fire Marshal has already addressed being able to turn around fire apparatus in the driveways, and so that issue should cover the tractor trailers. MRS. BURTON-Okay, but the concern that I was bringing up, too, was a tractor trailer trying, if you could picture that lot, and you can picture mostly storage, if you’re familiar with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, the sight distance. MRS. BURTON-And now they’re going to be stopped, in the middle of Sherman, and come to almost a screeching halt to turn into this, and you’ve got cars that are going 55 miles an hour, and races, there’s motorcycle races, daily, in the summer that happen back there. It’s just a high speed road, but if we could rezone that one lot, it just seems like it would be appropriate to have a house there instead of a business of any sort. It seems like Sherman, they’re trying to make the property value higher with the three new developments that are north of that. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask my Counsel a question. Cathi, would this kind of border on some spot zoning, if that’s what took place here? MS. RADNER-It could potentially. I mean, that would be an issue for the Town Board. Your Board, of course, has no authority to rezone this, and that would be a Town Board decision, and it’s my understanding that there is no application currently pending before the Town Board. MR. VOLLARO-That is correct. I’d like to ask Councilman Brewer, is there, do you know of, Mr. Brewer, that there’s any kind of an application for this particular site before your Board? 24 TIM BREWER MR. BREWER-No, there is not. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MRS. BURTON-Now, I was under the impression that I couldn’t put an application through with an application already on the lot. Is that correct? MS. RADNER-We’re kind of getting far a field, beyond what this Board’s scope is, and I’d encourage that you might have other members of the public who want to comment. Remember that what you’re doing now is a public hearing on this application. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MRS. BURTON-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. ROBERT SCHILLE MR. SCHILLE-Good evening. My name’s Robert Schille. I live on 400 Sherman Avenue, and the facility proposed is going to be just down the street from me. I’d like to start off with a question. Since there is not an office on site, where is the business of renting the units, the exchange of keys, the exchange of locks and the exchange of money actually going to take place? A storage facility of this kind for this piece of property, in my opinion, is not a good fit. A business such as this is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, people can come and go any time as they please, without supervision. We already have a storage facility, barely a half a mile away, clearly visible from Sherman Avenue, and on the same side of the road. Sherman Avenue is already a heavily traveled road, leading into and out of the City of Glens Falls. Any increased traffic from this type of business is unnecessary, and where this storage facility is proposed, entering and exiting the driveway could be hazardous. It is already difficult to negotiate the Hidden Hills exit and entrance roadway. The property is unique, in that it is ever so delicately close to the endangered Karner blue butterfly habitat. Also, pole lines are nearby where youths of the area ride their recreational vehicles, sometimes they hang out, have parties, especially during the summer months. With the proposed storage facility so nearby, it may entice further unacceptable behavior and further the endangerment of the butterfly habitat. This unacceptable behavior could also spill over into the private properties that border on the pole lines, which would be my property, along with the few other neighbors on that roadway. Currently, my home was reassessed. My assessment went up, although be it not very much. The trend was still up. It is in my opinion that with this type of business so close to the value of my home, and my neighbors’ homes, the value will decrease, and I will have no choice but to challenge my current assessment. At this time, I would like to ask the Board to think to yourselves and honestly come up with a number. Please keep it to yourselves, with this latest craze of storage type businesses, you, the Board, have to ask yourselves, how many storage facilities of this type does one Town need. I opened the phone book to the yellow pages, and just for Queensbury I counted 10, of various sizes. There are bound to be more applications of this type that the Planning Board will have to review. In a Town that boasts, and I quote, home of natural beauty, a good place to live, unquote, or should it read, home of shopping malls, restaurants, car dealerships, and storage facilities? A good place to stop, shop and store? And that would conclude my comments. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. RICHARD GALE MR. GALE-My name is Richard Gale. I live at 65 Oak Tree Circle. My house is the house that Nicole made mention of that I lost my fence a couple of years ago. About 2:30 or 3:00 in the 25 morning every Sunday morning kids drive through that are drinking, usually, and the motorcycle races up and down Sherman are very intense on that time. I’m also an RN. I’m trained to think logically and critically. When I pull out of Sherman Avenue, out of Oak Tree Circle to pull on to Sherman Avenue, I have to have my wife look to the right, to the west, and I have to look constantly to the left, the east, to make sure that we don’t get nailed pulling out of here. So the points that you’ve heard are all very well taken. Again, I’m trained to think logically. So logically I say to myself, if one person dies on that road because of an incident pulling in to the left, when you’re pulling in to the right on Sherman to Oak Tree you wouldn’t run into that situation, then that’s one too many. I’m just a normal peon. I pay my taxes. I’m not rich. I’m not famous or politically correct, but I’ll tell you something, you know, there’s 120 people that pay a lot of taxes and we don’t want it, and as far as I’m concerned, majority rules. I don’t know. We’ve got good points. We’ve been to all these meetings. We were told nobody can do anything. Nobody can do anything. If you guys have the power, we’re begging you to just hold this up until we can get to the right meeting, whichever one that might be, to get this rezoned or whatever we need to do to keep the safety factor, the logic factor. We don’t want it. Now I’m not saying that you guys are bad. I’ve been to three or four meetings with different people. I’m just saying, you know, think how most people would think logically and strategically about what the possibilities might be. We don’t want it. Now there’s only three of us here this evening. There was about 25 of us here last time. We’re discouraged because we don’t believe democracy works for the small person. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. Hearing nobody else, we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And have the applicant come up and address all of these comments that we’ve gotten here so far. I’ve written most of them down. MR. WILKINSON-As have I. MR. VOLLARO-As have you, I’m sure. Okay. The first question I have is about the office. Not having the office, how does the exchange of keys, dollars and business get transacted? MR. JELENIK-At my construction office, at 376 Broadway, in Saratoga Springs. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You will dispense keys, take the money, and do the. MR. JELENIK-Everything. MR. VOLLARO-All the office type transactions are being done off site. MR. JELENIK-I have staff that will handle this, as well as the regular duties for the construction company. MR. VOLLARO-The next one we’re looking at is hours of operation. Are you going to be a 24 hour facility? MR. JELENIK-It does not have to be. We have no, it makes really no difference. If the public would like to see a time limit, I would think that, you know, seven a.m. to eight p.m., whatever seems to be an acceptable number. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We can certainly look at something like that. You’re saying seven a.m. to eight p.m.? MR. JELENIK-Yes, I think that would be reasonable. MR. VOLLARO-It seems to me that might be a logical. 26 MR. JELENIK-You’ve got to also think, someone works until 5:30, 6:00, goes home to get something. MR. VOLLARO-He needs access to the facility. Yes, I understand that. MR. JELENIK-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-The timing of the lights, now, the young lady who was here before talked about having 60 lights. I think we were only talking about 20 wall mounted fixtures here. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, at 100 watts a piece. MR. VOLLARO-At 100 watts a piece, with the perimeter being at one foot candle, and so I just want here to know, she’s sitting in the audience, that there’s not going to be a proliferation of lights. There’s only 20, and they’re held to our Code, the Code would be that they’ll be downcast, that they’ll be. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. The only question that she raised is, you know, like an automatic switch, and if the hours of operation are a certain time limit, then certainly, that would go with it. MR. VOLLARO-That would go with it. The hours of operation would go with a timer that says, okay, at eight o’clock, click, the lights go off. MR. JELENIK-Well, it would probably be a day/night sensor. So they’ll come on when it’s dark and off when it’s light. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Okay. Well, some people, in the winter, if somebody accesses it at eight p.m., without lights, it would be dark. MR. JELENIK-Well, it’ll be early in the wintertime. MR. VOLLARO-So that may have to change, based on the seasons as well. I don’t know. If the light, you know, in the wintertime they go off pretty early because it gets dark earlier. MR. JELENIK-Well, they’ll come on earlier. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, come on earlier. MR. JELENIK-They’ll come on at five o’clock instead of eight thirty or nine o’clock. MR. VOLLARO-Who’s going to access them at five in the morning? Somebody may. The storage of the flammables. MR. WILKINSON-That’s going to be in the contract agreement of the rental units themselves. No hazardous materials. It’s something that you can’t specifically police, but there are going to be provisions in the contract documents. MR. JELENIK-It’s a standard agreement between renters and owners for that type facility. A special, separate waiver that you need to sign. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the problems I would have with that is that you’re conducting your business in Saratoga. Does anybody monitor what goes into these? MR. JELENIK-I actually have a partner on this project who lives at 3 Oak Tree Circle, which is as close to the project as any of these other people. 27 MR. VOLLARO-So he could monitor that site. MR. JELENIK-He’s absolutely going to monitor the project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Interesting. Now the partying that takes place out in the back, I think that’s a law enforcement problem. I think the neighbors are obligated to notify law enforcement when they need. MR. WILKINSON-That is correct, and as you noted earlier, the lupine does grow where you cut the canopy out, so that the sun can get access to actually grow. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think the Karner blue is an issue here. We have a letter from DEC that covers that. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, but one of the issues I was going to bring up is that the riding and things that occur already on those tracks, just by going outside of a beaten path, you’re already impacting those things as well. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no question about that. If they’re using off the road vehicles in a cleared area like that, they’re beating up the lupine, which is the food source of the butterfly, and they’ll kill it in any event. MR. JELENIK-That’s correct. I actually did the lupine prior to signing a contract for purchase of this property. So that was the first step. I’m a pretty prudent businessman. So I went ahead and had Kathy come out first, and then once I knew we had a clean bill of health, we went along with purchase of the property. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, okay. We’ve already talked about the color being sort of an Adirondack Green and a barn door red. MR. JELENIK-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, that’s about all I’ve got. The tractor trailer situation I don’t understand that entirely, but maybe you can lead me through that. It is a storage facility. My view is normally storage facilities are accessed by a private automobile, or maybe a pick up. MR. JELENIK-Or even the cargo things, the U-haul cargo vans, about 24 foot, but if it can suffice for the 42 foot long fire truck apparatus, then a 24 foot box van is going to maneuver around that site without a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, she’s concerned, she has a valid concern, in my mind. In a way, this guy comes up. He’s got to stop, negotiate the turn, meanwhile you’ve got the traffic coming both ways on Sherman. MR. WILKINSON-But also a very large truck like that is a lot more visible through that dip in the road, and you can see that before you even get to the site, because the top of it is higher than the elevations on the rise and then the dip going towards the east, towards the Northway. It’s, the heights on those vehicles are typically 12 to 14 feet, which are well above the eyesight coming over that hill. MR. JELENIK-Plus the facility will only have spaces 10 by 10, 10 by 15. So a truck of that size, unless someone’s going to rent 20 spaces, it just seems impractical for me to have. MR. VOLLARO-How usual is that or unusual is that? MR. JELENIK-This is my first venture in this. I have no idea. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. 28 MR. WILKINSON-But because of the size of the units themselves, the site is not conducive to have tractor trailer or large trucks on a regular basis. It’s more geared towards the homeowner and local people, and that’s how we’ve marketed it and that’s how we’ve presented it and that’s how we’ve pursued it. The smaller type units that the people that don’t have room in their house, locally, can go some place. MR. VOLLARO-See, I rented one of those units from Mr. Schermerhorn some time back, and maybe two years ago or something like that, and I had to go back and forth to it to put stuff in and take stuff out, and I’ve never saw anybody in there other than private vehicles or a pick up truck, in the time I used the storage facility. MR. JELENIK-And that’s typical. MR. VOLLARO-That I don’t know. I don’t have anything else. Maybe some of the others, maybe you do or maybe some of the other Board members do. MR. WILKINSON-Well, only one other comment that I had. The one adjoining owner, she kept saying that warehouse, and this is not classified as a warehouse. It’s classified as a self-storage facility. I just want to make that clarification. MR. VOLLARO-I thoroughly understand that. Does the Board have any questions based on? MR. SEGULJIC-A clarification on the lighting. You said hours of operation, seven a.m. to eight p.m. would be fine. Does that mean the lights go off after eight p.m.? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we’re talking about a timer here. MR. WILKINSON-My personal opinion is that eight p.m. is a little on the early side, but, you know, I’m not the businessman, he is, but he just threw out that number. Whatever the cut off time is, the timer will be set so that they go off. MR. VOLLARO-They’ll be on a timer. They’ll go on at a designated time that the timer is set, and they’ll go off at the designated time the timer is set. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you’d, since you don’t have any fence there, how would you police that? MR. JELENIK-Why would we need to police it? It’s private property all the way around there. MR. SEGULJIC-If it’s shut down at that time, I think the neighbors may be concerned about noise. So you put that in the contract, I assume, hours of operation go into the contract? MR. JELENIK-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can specify here the hours of operation. MR. JELENIK-Those lights can also be turned on by motion, too. So not only will they have the effect, somebody comes there in the wintertime, and the lights are off and the actual passing by the light will turn it on, and set it on for so many minutes so they can get in and get out, and then would shut itself back off. each one of those lights has that capability. Day, night and sensors. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s good to know. Let me throw this out to the Board, and I don’t know where I’m going to go with this. The people who came up do not have an application 29 before the Town Board for rezoning. In order for them to get that opportunity, we would have to table this application, I would think? I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-Bob, I don’t believe it really falls under jurisdiction to really engage the possibility of a rezone here. We all recognize that zoning has its limitations, and not everybody’s happy with zoning, and in this particular case, it’s an allowed use. It could be, as I stated earlier, a more severe use if other projects were contemplated. I have sympathy for the neighbors, and I have storage units at the end of my neighborhood as well and don’t particularly welcome them, but I will tell you this. I rarely see cars in there. I see very low traffic in and out. MR. VOLLARO-That was my experience. MR. SANFORD-I think with proper buffering they could be visually screened. I think in the case of the vandalism or the partying, it will probably improve that situation rather than a wooded lot. So I think we need to move forward with this, make sure that in our resolution we put some kind of appropriate mitigation of standards in there to address some of the needs, and let’s hope we can have a good project out of this that won’t be a problem to the neighbors. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Anyone else want to comment on this? Okay. I think we’re going to go forward and do our SEQRA. One of the things that you have on the SEQRA form, I notice that this project consists of construction of four self storage buildings, that has to be changed. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. I didn’t modify that from the changes on the. MR. VOLLARO-So we’ll just make that as a change to this, to the SEQRA when we go through it. MR. WILKINSON-And agreed. I don’t know if I wrote the square footage in there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you did. MR. WILKINSON-Ninety eight hundred is what’s currently. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I put it in. I said it should be two, a total of 9800 square feet. You’ve got it at 10,200. MR. WILKINSON-Right. The application was submitted originally, the plans were changed, and the application was never modified. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s 9800. MR. WILKINSON-Which happens frequently. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. MR. HUNSINGER-And this is the Short Form? MR. VOLLARO-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-You already closed the public hearing, right? MS. RADNER-The public hearing was closed. 30 RESOLUTION NO. SP 03-2005 Jelenik Construction, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Jelenik Construction; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: **** 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we have to go forward with the project as it’s presented and take a look at the resolution. This resolution would probably have to be modified somewhat to reflect some of the things that we discussed about the utilization of the site. The draft resolution has been prepared for this date, April 26. Okay. Now, does somebody want to take a couple th of minutes to put a condition together that reflects the things we talked about? In other words, we want to talk about hours of operation, on a timer, storage, color, office transactions. We want to talk about site monitoring. MR. SEGULJIC-What is site monitoring? MR. VOLLARO-The applicant has stated that there is a resident that lives on Oak Tree Circle, I believe it is, that works for him, who would be monitoring this site on a pretty much continual basis. MS. RADNER-You can’t really make that a condition of site plan approval, though. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I don’t know how we would enforce that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. 31 MS. RADNER-You want enforceable conditions. You can condition it on the color. You can condition hours of operation. You can condition that that be in the contract, but keep it workable. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s where I am on it. That’s the extent. MR. SEGULJIC-Actually, downcast lighting, that’s in there already? MR. VOLLARO-That’s part of the lighting plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s part of the resolution, too. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Bob, are you ready to go with it, or do you need time to work it out? MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to take a couple of minutes to put some language together? MR. SANFORD-Yes, why don’t you and Tom do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I think I’ve already got it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2005 JELENIK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 3-2005 Applicant: Jelenik Construction, LLC SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Finch Pruyn & Co., Inc. Agent: Paul Tommell / Clark Wilkinson Zone: LI-1A Location: Sherman Ave. just west of I-87 Applicant proposes to construct two self-storage buildings (9,800 sq. ft. total) on Sherman Avenue, just west of Interstate 87. Self-storage uses in the LI zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 10-05 Tax Map No. 309.5-1-5 Lot size: 1.00 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 1/25/05 Tabled WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/15/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/18/05, and 3/18 Staff notes w/ 3/16/05 ZBA resolution, 3/9 CT Male Engineering comments 3/15 Staff Notes 3/9 CTM engineering comments 2/28 Meeting Notice 2/22/05 Revised submission 1/26/05 Letter to applicant+: 1/25 PB resolution: Tabled 1/25/05 PB resolution: Tabled 1/25/05 PB minutes 1/25/05 Staff notes w/1/19/05 ZBA resolution, 1/18/05 CTM eng. comments 32 1/25/05 E-mail to S. Smith from James Harding, Sr. Bldg. Construction Engineer NYS DOS Codes Division: Turn-arounds 1/24/05 Fax: staff notes 1/18/05 Notice of Public Hearing 1/11/05 Memo to ZBA from S. Smith Fire Marshal 12/17/04 Revised Site Dev. Data sheet, Cooper lighting cut sheets, 11 x 17 map dated 12/14/04 12/16/04 Memo to CB, DH, SS from M. Palmer WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 1/25/05, 3/15/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. All lights shall be inspected by Staff for compliance prior to installation. 3. All lights shall be downcast cutoff fixtures and shall not exceed 100 watts. 4. The approval is subject to a final signoff by C.T. Male. 5. The hours of operation shall be 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. 6. The lighting shall be controlled by an auto timer to coincide with hours of operation. 7. That all leasing and business transactions shall take place off site. 8. The color shall be Adirondack Green with Barn Door Red doors. 9. Unit leasing contracts shall include provisions that no flammable or hazardous materials will be stored on site. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. MR. JELENIK-Thank you. 33 SITE PLAN NO. 4-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NASREEN KHURSHID AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: RT. 9 JUST PAST WALMART PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 6700 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT ALONG WITH AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9, NORTH OF WEEKS ROAD. RESTAURANT AND HOTEL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 6-05, SP 58-04, AV 67-04, SP 70-89, UV 114-89, SP 7-93, AV 7-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/12/05 TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17 LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MIKE BORGOS, TOM JARRETT & DON DAVIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Mike Borgos for the applicant, with Tom Jarrett and Don Davis the architect. MR. VOLLARO-Just a note. The public hearing was left open the last time. If anybody is here who wishes to comment on it, they may, and we will be doing a Short Form SEQRA tonight. So go ahead. MR. BORGOS-Well, I think I can try to synopsize this very briefly. We’ve identified all the, and responded to all the issues that were raised at the last meeting, and I believe to the Staff’s satisfaction. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. BORGOS-And we have signoff from C.T. Male. We have approval from DOT. I guess we’re ready to answer any questions that remain, and Mr. Davis is here to talk to us about colors and some options. So, with that, I’ll leave it up to the Board to ask questions. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have some questions, but I’ll throw it open to the Board, if the Board wants to question anything. Basically, I’ve read, believe it or not, I’ve gone through all of this, don’t ask me why, but I have gone through everything. It looks like everything’s been covered here. I think it’s a pretty good application. I think we’ve finally arrived at it. I don’t know how long we’ve been doing this now. This is about our fifth or six sit on this thing. So it’s been a while, but we’ve brought it to this point, and I think we’ve brought it well, myself. MRS. STEFFAN-I’d actually like to compliment you on the package, because it’s just, it’s very nicely laid out, and you identified all the things that we asked you to cover in the last Planning Board meeting, and you answered those, and it’s just, it’s very logically laid out, and we appreciate it. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-It was well done, I thought. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one question, with regard to the neon lighting. I forget how that was left. MR. JARRETT-We agreed to delete the neon strip. MR. VOLLARO-And that was an issue that was raised some time ago. MR. HILTON-And, Mr. Chairman, if you will, I’ve, in my notes, included some, I guess stipulations for your consideration, and one of them does mention, well, it does address neon strips. 34 MR. VOLLARO-I think we sort of put that to be in the last, in probably one of the last meetings. I remember discussing it. Having read the record on this, I think we discussed that at one time. MR. JARRETT-It was actually brought up two meetings ago, and then last meeting we discussed it and agreed to delete that. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-George, I think the answers to your questions in your Staff notes, does the applicant propose to incorporate this equipment into their building, they’ve covered that in their submissions. They do plan to have provisions for them. MR. HILTON-I’m sorry, I don’t understand. MR. VOLLARO-This is in your notes. The applicant has supplied correspondence indicating that The Outback Steakhouse is looking into design changes that will allow equipment. MR. HILTON-Okay. Right, because the information I saw, not to interrupt you, but mentioned that they could potentially incorporate that at a future date, and I guess my question is, is that something that will actually take place now, or are they still leaving that possibility open for the future? MR. JARRETT-We talked with Outback today, or actually this week, as a result of getting your Staff notes, understanding there was still some question about it, and Outback has provided a memo through their HVAC consultant, which I can provide a copy to the Town, stating that they will provide the space and the electrical connection for that equipment in the future, if it’s ever needed. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s stated in there. MR. JARRETT-Yes, we did state that, and I just wanted to make sure it was clear tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It was clear to me when I read your Staff notes. MR. JARRETT-We are certainly willing to do that and provide that space for that equipment if needed. MR. HILTON-I think that letter will certainly help answer everything. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, my understanding was we were really pretty much concluded, the last time we met on this application, and we did want to see the drawings reflect some of the changes. So that was pretty much the reason why we didn’t wrap it up last time. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-And we wanted to basically make sure we were comfortable with color schemes. So, unless I’m missing something, everything seems to be in order except for the color schemes. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve done a review, Mr. Sanford, of the 4/8/05 revision and the previous drawings, and I laid them out, almost did a light table type exercise on them, and found out that the latest drawings of 4/8/05 are in conformance with everything that we’ve stated, as we went through this. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the tabling resolution was very specific about what we were looking for. 35 MR. SANFORD-Right. I think then all we really want to do is, I mean, unless there’s something that anybody has, we just want to deal with the colors. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a couple of things. I don’t see a signoff on C.T. Male’s January 19 th and March 16 letters. Do we have that yet? th MR. JARRETT-We have an April 22 letter, from C.T. Male, that states the stormwater system is nd acceptable, but we’ll have to file a Notice Of Intent that will require a 60 day review. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What’s the date of that, March 22? MR. JARRETT-April 22. nd MR. VOLLARO-April 22. We don’t have that submission. nd MR. HILTON-No. This came in after the Friday deadline that the Planning Board has for receiving information. I have it available, but again, per your policy, I didn’t hand it to you at this time. MR. VOLLARO-I think we, in this case, I would like to condition our response to this as including that, and just wanted the date on that to be April 22. MR. JARRETT-Item Number Two in their letter was the southern entrance was revised per discussions at the March Planning Board meeting. We would recommend that the applicant confirm that a fire truck would be able to safely access the site if needed, which we have done, and C.T. Male’s confirmed with Staff that that is acceptable. MR. HILTON-Yes. I spoke with Jim Edwards today, and he did confirm that it looks acceptable. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And last, the status of New York State DOT comments should be provided along with a signoff from the DOT, which we have. You probably have not seen. MR. VOLLARO-I have it in Book One, the DOT signoff letter to CME letter of April 4, 2005 to William Logan. MR. JARRETT-Actually, we have an April 25 letter that was drafted on Friday, but we didn’t th get, we’ve been waiting all this time for it and finally got. I’ll read it to you. It’s very short. “Dear Mr. Jarrett: We’ve reviewed the Creighton Manning Engineers April 4, 2005 response to our March 22, 2005 comment letter, in addition to the information submitted with your letter of April 21, 2005. Our comments are: 1) We accept CME’s opinion that in concept the existing signal poles can adequately accommodate the proposed signal modifications, and that the loading of the final head arrangement will be recalculated to confirm this opinion prior to the issuance of a Highway Work Permit. 2) We conceptually approve the location and layout of the proposed drive opposite Sweet Road. 3) We accept the stormwater management report. 4) We have completed a conceptual level review of the plans and have no objection to the Town of Queensbury granting site plan approval at this time. A more detailed engineering review will be completed as our workload allows. Any comments that result must be resolved prior to our issuance of a Highway Work Permit. If you have any questions on this, please call Matt Bromirski. Sincerely, Mark J. Kennedy Assistant Regional Traffic Engineer” MR. VOLLARO-The date of that letter is? MR. JARRETT-April 25. th 36 MR. VOLLARO-The last letter I have from him was April 4. MR. HILTON-Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a similar situation. The letter was received past the Friday deadline for receiving information. We have it if you’d like it. MR. VOLLARO-I think when we get into our conditioning, I think we’re going to have to add those as a condition of approval, because I think we’re going to go for an approval on this tonight. The only one thing I think that’s left is to pick the colors from Book One. We haven’t done that yet, and he has supplied colors from Book One. All you folks should have a stack of this material to go to Book One. I just want the Board to be able to look at what we’ve got here and make some sense out of it. MR. JARRETT-I think we’d like to discuss that with you, before you ask any further questions. We have some ideas I think you’d like to consider. MR. DAVIS-My name is Don Davis. I’m the architect with SD Atelli Architecture. What I did was I brought, to hand out to the Board, which you can pass around, two color schemes with the real, and actually the second scheme that we came up with, I actually have enlarged the entry, just so that you can get a better visual on it. Part of the problem with this presentation, I think, last week, not last week, last month, the scheme that we submitted really wasn’t giving us the visual that we wanted, per what we had for samples. Some of that’s due to the translation with the plotter and the computer resolution. So I’m hoping to bridge that tonight with something a little more specific. So there’s two options. One is Option One, which was the initial, original submission of colors. The second it Option Two, which is the second one that we’re coming before you tonight with. MR. JARRETT-This is in your book. MR. DAVIS-That’s right. I’m just giving you a larger palette, because it’s very hard to use these very tiny little samples to get a visual on it. I also have a sample of the colors for the window, of Option Two, and then the roof for Option Two, which are real samples. So if I could, I’ll bring them up, and if need be, I also have internal samples for the actual siding. Although those are not in the specific colors that we’re looking to get approval on this evening. At least you can get a sense of what the product is. So if you’d like, I can give those to you as well. What I’ve got, on the floor level here we have the original option that was presented last month. The new option is this one here, which has got basically a darker scheme to it. The concern that the design of this building, as well as the color scheme all along, has been the fact that the site has an awful lot of density, in terms of shrubbery and forestry to it. So we really wanted to pick up on that and respect it. To the north you have a pretty modern looking white structure which is very commercial in its imagine, but in our opinion isn’t something that we need to really sort of pay attention to from a color perspective. We’re more interested in looking at the streetscape and in trying to work with the datum and the massing of our building. The other element that was a challenge for us with this structure is that presently the original buildings that are on site look out of place. There’s also questions about the color, but in terms of its massing to the size of the site, it’s very tiny. So that was a struggle and something that we wanted to deal with in this building and this design. Coming up with the raised roof with the master plan’s Phase II, we were very concerned about this building having a very low horizontal feel to it, almost of a strip mall. That was something that was of a concern. Again, that generated for us to go to a more darker palette. What I’ve also done to sort of help with any issues that you may have with dated colors is I’ve taken a few photographs around the City of Saratoga, both commercial and residential structures, which make use of these darker green, olive natural colors. Again, that palette, that color and the use of them, we feel is very appropriate for this site here, with all the vegetation, and frankly going north or south on this is really sort of a gateway to the Adirondacks and we’re just sort of playing off of that theme as well. So, with that being said, I’ll pass it back to you. MR. VOLLARO-The bottom rendition, is that what we have as the Benjamin Moore Great Barrington Green? 37 MR. JARRETT-That was the intent, that it was supposed to match that color in the book. It’s not exactly the same shade. MR. VOLLARO-But the shades that are going around now are closer? MR. DAVIS-Yes. Absolutely. The larger blow ups are more true and correct to the second scheme. Correct. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now this piece is the accentuation on the façade. MR. DAVIS-That piece is the sample of the metal roof on the second scheme, which is the darker roof. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The second scheme being? MR. DAVIS-The one on the top, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right, and this Brushed Aluminum is what we have here in the trim and doors? MR. DAVIS-Correct. Actually, that’s a sample of the window and door, and then the trim that goes around the windows and doors is actually spelled out on the booklet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That would match this, then. MR. JARRETT-The bottom right color in your. MR. VOLLARO-The Benjamin Moore 1485? MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. Okay. If you want to pass that down. That’s going to be the roof. I guess I’ll toss my vote in now for Option Two, just as one. We’ll see how this goes. This is always an interesting position by the Board as to what we do with colors here. MR. SANFORD-Poll the Board, Bob. I like Option Two as well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right, I will poll the Board. Tom, now that you’ve had a chance to look at it? MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know. They all look the same to me, I hate to say. They all look very good. I’m fine with either. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re Option Two. George? MR. GOETZ-I think they’re both good. Take your choice. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s another Option Two. That’s the way I see it. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I think, you know, if I have to make a choice, I think Option Two, because it’s farther away from The Outback. The first combination is close enough to The Outback so that it clashes. That bright green that we’ve got on The Outback would clash with, I think, the Great Barrington Green. So I think Option Two is probably a better pick. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Chris? 38 MR. HUNSINGER-I think I would throw my weight into the Option Two, as well. It’s nice to see the actual paint chips, because those are the actual colors, and the concerns that, you know, I had with the original option, I think, have been resolved by the actual paint chips, but I do like Option Two better. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s unique. We’ve got across the Board agreement here. So we’ve resolved that. We’re happy with the roof color in that brown. I think that that compliments the green myself, personally. So, what are you using for the accentuation on the façade on the second floor there? MR. DAVIS-I’m not sure I understand your question. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a dark strip, right below the roofline. MR. DAVIS-You’re talking about this line here? That’s the shadow line. MR. VOLLARO-Just a shadow line. MR. DAVIS-To punch it out, to give it a feel of depth. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. DAVIS-But that color is actually the color of the siding, which is the Sherwin Williams. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you. I see what you’re doing. All right. Fine, thanks. Okay. So we’ve picked the colors. Just a note that the Notice Of Intent will be required prior to a final signature of the site plan by the Zoning Administrator. That you know for sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Can I ask a question about the phasing? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re talking about this motel, and I understand that we’re going to knock down the office, then we’re going to add the joiner between the two buildings, and do the façade change. When will that start and when will it be finished, the first phasing? MR. JARRETT-We were talking about that just before the meeting. Technically now because of the stormwater permit we need, we cannot start for 60 days, or up to 60 days until the State has a chance to review this, and it will start, I would imagine, as soon as possible after that. We think it’ll be a pretty quick turnaround once we have that permit in hand. That’ll be Phase I with the in-fill and the façade. The owner is actually trying to combine the two phases. Don’t know if we can pull it off yet, but he’s trying to combine the two phases. MR. VOLLARO-What do you think the end to end time would be, start, stop for this project, roughly, in time? MR. JARRETT-If Phase I goes by itself, Outback has said they can be serving steaks within 90 days of breaking ground. It sounds a little aggressive to us. MR. VOLLARO-It sounds aggressive to me, too, but they’ve done this before. MR. JARRETT-They’ve done it a few times before. MR. VOLLARO-So they know what they’re doing, in terms of erecting a building, if they go by a standard set of plans. MR. JARRETT-We’ve been using October as kind of a date to be in the building, but they think they can beat that. 39 MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This coming October of 2005? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and jumping off from that point, October 2005, when do we think we’ll see the rest of the operation complete? MR. JARRETT-Well, we know we have to start within a year to be able to hold the variance and the site plan approval. So we wouldn’t go beyond that. Actually the owners are looking, right now, at trying to combine Phases I and II, and do it all at once, if they can manage the financing and the cash flow. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’ve got a year to start, essentially, to hold on to the approvals, and then, a building like that, with contractors the way they work today, that’s probably the inside of a year project, as far as I’m concerned, from the time they start. MR. JARRETT-You mean the entire motel second story? Yes. I don’t think, we haven’t looked at an exact schedule for that. MR. DAVIS-Well, no, but I think in terms of logistics of how to build the second phase, I’m sure that six to eight months is reasonable. MR. VOLLARO-Inside of a year, probably. MR. DAVIS-Most of the infrastructure work will actually occur with that second phase in Phase I. So we will be prepping the water for the sprinkler system in Phase II. So a lot of that utility stuff will be set, set up, but it will be occurring in Phase I. So hopefully that will make. MR. VOLLARO-Now you refer to Phase II as the second floor and all of that. MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-What do we need, a motion? MR. VOLLARO-Now the Type A light fixtures along Route 9, we’ve talked about that, I think Staff has mentioned that in their notes, shall include the house shields to minimize the light spill onto Route 9. MR. JARRETT-We actually had those shields on there, but they didn’t show up on the plan very well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I looked for that and didn’t see it. So that’s why I mentioned it, and obviously all of the lighting will be downcast, cut off fixtures, and the lights will be inspected by Staff for compliance prior to installation. This is kind of a standard routine we’re going through now. So you’re aware of that, and that’s the only comments I have. I’ll throw the rest of the comments open to the Board. Gretchen, you had anything? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I got mine answered. MR. SANFORD-You still have a public hearing open. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I want to get the Board finished up here as far as we’re concerned. Chris, how about you, are you all set? MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing. 40 MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody in the audience have any comments to make on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And we have to do a Short Form SEQRA. RESOLUTION NO. SP 04-2005 Nasreen Khurshid, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Nasreen Khurshid; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: **** 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2005 NASREEN KHURSHID, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 4-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Nasreen Khurshid SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers 41 Zone: HC-Int Location: Rt. 9 just past Walmart Plaza Applicant proposes construction of a new 6700 sq. ft. restaurant along with an addition to an existing hotel located on the west side of Route 9, north of Weeks Road. Restaurant and hotel uses in the HC-Int zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 6-05, SP 58-04, AV 67-04, SP 70-89, UV 114- 89, SP 7-93, AV 7-93 Warren Co. Planning: 1/12/05 Tax Map No. 296.13-1-17 Lot size: 3.52 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 1/25/05 Tabled, 3/22/05 Tabled, left open WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/15/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/22/05, and 4/26/05 Staff Comments 4/25/05 Letter from DOT 4/22/05 CT Male Comments 4/8/05 Revised Site Plan per PB and CT Male Comments; Revised Stormwater Management Plan; Revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; Fence Catalog Cut; Budget Inn Building Renderings and Color Alternatives 4/5/05 Response to CT Male Comments Re: Traffic Impact Study 4/1/05 Meeting Notice 3/23/05 Draft Comments by Jarrett-Martin Engineers, Public Hearing Comment by S. Davidoff of Robert Gardens North; Jarrett-Martin Engineers response to CT Male comments; Revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: to PB Members 3/23/05 Letter to applicant+: 3/22/05 PB Resolution: Tabled 3/22/05 PB Resolution: Tabled to April 26 3/22/05 PB Minutes 3/22/05 Email from J Butler Outback to Jarrett-Martin Engineers Re: Neighborhood concerns re: lighting, noise, odor 3/22/05 NYS DOT Comments Re: Traffic Impact Study 3/22/05 Staff Notes 3/21/05 Revised Stormwater Management Plan; Revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; Response to 3/16 CT Male Comments 3/16/05 CTM engineering comments 2/23/05 Revised submission 1/26/05 Letter to applicant+: 1/25/05 PB resolution: Tabled 1/25/05 PB resolution: Tabled 1/25/05 PB minutes 1/25/05 Public hearing comment from Robert Gardens North Apartments 1/25/05 Staff Notes w/1-19-05 ZBA resolution, 1/18/05 DOT comments from William Logan, Regional Traffic Engineer, 12/22/04 transmittal of application for review and comment, 1/19/05 CTM eng. comment, 12/22/04 Water Dept. comments by Bruce Ostrander, Deputy Superintendent, E-mail from M. Shaw, Deputy Director Queensbury Wastewater Dept. to C. Brown, 12/16/04 Memo to C. Brown from M.J. Palmer, Deputy Fire Marshal 1/24/05 Fax to agent: staff notes 1/19/05 ZBA resolution: Approved AV 6-2005 1/18/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 1/12/05 Warren Co. PB recommendation: No Action, meeting cancelled [weather] 12/23/04 Updated plans submitted by Jarrett-Martin Engineers 12/15/04 Application submission 42 9/15/04 ZBA resolution: Approved AV 67-2004 WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on1/25/05 & 3/22/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. All lights shall be downcast/cutoff fixtures. 3. All lights shall be inspected by Staff for compliance prior to installation. 4. A final signoff from C.T. Male 5. The approved color scheme is Option 2 as presented, the Sherwin Williams Roy Croft Bronze Green and the Benjamin Moore Brushed Aluminum, that’s shown in Book Number One supplied by Jarrett-Martin Engineers and received in the Town Planning Board on April 8, 2005, Sheet Number DR-1. Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 2005, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-Is the April 22, 2005 letter a signoff from C.T. Male? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t think it was, but, just to make sure. MR. HILTON-I just want to jump back to colors, if there’s some way you can reference the colors, either by a number, a type, instead of Option Two. I see that potentially as difficult to track down the line. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Congratulations. It’s over. This is the fifth time we’ve done this, but like Wal- Mart, I think we’ve done a good job. 43 MR. JARRETT-Thanks for working with us. MRS. STEFFAN-Again, nice package. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 6-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED CINGULAR WIRELESS PROPERTY OWNER: DALE BALDWIN AGENT: SHANE NEWELL ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 1447 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND ANTENNAE FOR ONE PROVIDER NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROUTE 149 AND RIDGE ROAD (ROUTE 9L). NEW TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACCEPT SEQRA REVIEW LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND PERFORM SEQRA REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 15- 2004, SP 17-94 APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 279-1-50 LOT SIZE: 25.24 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-030 MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe either the property owner or the agent are here this evening. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see them. No. Just to let the Board know, I spoke today with the APA at Ray Brook, and there’s nothing in their file at Ray Brook to indicate that this applicant has submitted anything to them, including Mr. Baldwin, who’s the owner of the property, or Cingular, who’s the applicant. So there’s nothing there. Now, I would like to have some quick discussion, very quickly if we will, on our 179-18-030. Just what is our situation on that with respect to Class A projects before this Board with the APA? MR. SANFORD-Mr. Vollaro, before we ask Staff to comment, when I was reading through the material, following my conversation I had with you on that, I noticed that the APA basically wrote a letter saying, in essence, they had no problems with us proceeding, provided that we recognize that it couldn’t prejudice their review. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-In other words, if they disagreed with our findings, then of course they would take whatever steps they thought necessary. So I’m really confused. I’d like some clarification. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s why I’m kind of asking the Board the same question. I think what this is is this, that the APA grants this Town a pass, if you want to call it that, on the use of our property. When it comes to a Class A Action, however, they want to be involved with that decision to see that what it does, as far as they’re concerned, within the Park, satisfies the use of the land. Because usually we take that responsibility from, it’s given to us by them, except in Class A projects. MR. SANFORD-Right, but what I read into it is they didn’t seem to have a problem if we went first, and in other words, they didn’t need to have a concurrent review. MR. VOLLARO-You know, I’m somewhat confused by that, because of the statements in 179- 18-030. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m going by their letter, though. MR. VOLLARO-Right. In their letter they don’t talk to that. See, 179-18-030 is imposition on the Town. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-As opposed to an APA requirement. 44 MR. SANFORD-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to table it? MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to make a motion to table this application, first of all, because the applicant is not here. Secondly, because they haven’t supplied the information that’s required, and we can go through this and state what they need, but I’m just going to table it. I have a whole list of stuff that’s required for them to do. MRS. STEFFAN-The Staff notes are already there. MR. VOLLARO-And the Staff notes, I think, take care of that pretty well. So, I was just going to go over those. I was going to like ask a question. I notice that these are both Southwestern Bell installations, now, and the tower on 149 is a 195 foot Southwestern Bell tower. They never speak about that. It’s their own tower. They never even talk to it. So I’m going to make a motion to table this application. MR. GOETZ-Could I ask just a question? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, George. MR. GOETZ-I’m new, so it’s probably an obvious answer to this, but what happens when you have an applicant like this, and they continuously don’t get back to the Staff, and, like tonight, they don’t show up? They’re taking valuable time from some other applicant. MR. VOLLARO-No question about it. MR. GOETZ-Particularly when we’re down to seven, and is there some sort of a policy or procedures that you use? MR. BAKER-I’d like to speak to that. The reason it was back on the agenda for this evening is because the application was specifically tabled to tonight’s date. So it did need to be heard in some form or another this evening, as per the Board’s tabling resolution. In my recommendation for a further tabling, I state, I hope clearly that it should be tabled, not to a specific date, but until such point as the applicant provides all the necessary information, thus putting the responsibility and the timeline clearly in the applicant’s hands. MR. VOLLARO-I think it clearly stated that, too, in the Staff notes. I got that pretty clearly. MR. HUNSINGER-My comment was we need to at least open the public hearing and then table the public hearing, re-open the public hearing. MS. RADNER-Well, the public hearing has been opened and remains open. So if there’s anyone here who wants to speak to it, you can certainly give them the opportunity, but the public hearing is still open. MR. VOLLARO-And I’m going to leave it open. MR. HUNSINGER-And so that’s why we had them on the agenda, because we tabled them until tonight’s meeting. MR. VOLLARO-So I’ll entertain a motion to table to no specific date, and tabling it to a point, to a position where the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this application. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll make that motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 06-2005 CINGULAR WIRELESS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: 45 For the following reasons: Tabled to no specific date, until after the applicant has provided the items as specified in the Staff comments for tonight’s meeting date. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2005 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. VOLLARO-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2002 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED SANDRA TURPIN/J. DE RESPINO AGENT: LITTLE & O’CONNOR ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 260 CRONIN ROAD, 511 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY LOT LINES WITH A RECENTLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RIDGE RD. AND CRONIN RD. MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUDIVISIONS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 297-14-1-3.3, 297.14-1-3.2 LOT SIZE: 1.00 AC., 1.01 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SANDY TURPIN, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are? MR. O'CONNOR-For the record, I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m here representing the applicant. One of the two applicants, Sandy Turpin, is here with me. This is basically two neighbors who, after their homes were constructed, determined that there was a better configuration of their property. They have reached a boundary line agreement by one gives to one a triangular piece, and one gives to the other a triangular piece, equal in size, so as not to disturb the overall size of the parcel. There’s no impact on anyone other than the two people. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s clearly stated in the drawing, I think. Clearly stated in your letter of February 11. My only question, Mr. O’Connor, is on your Paragraph Four, I guess, it says we th will enclose a full size of the proposed modification and approved subdivision and will attach a letter, a copy of the pertinent portion that shows the two triangular pieces. Are you referring to this? Or is there a further submission? MR. O'CONNOR-I think for Staff I gave them a full copy, or a full size map, and for each applicant I did make a copy of a portion. MR. VOLLARO-That was the intent of that statement. Okay. I’ve got you. No problem. There’s no SEQRA required. This is a mod, and a public hearing is not required for modifications, and I think that I would ask for a motion myself. Is there anybody else on the Board that has any questions concerning this application? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think it could be more straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty straightforward. So I would ask for a motion for approval. 46 MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2002 SANDRA TURPIN/J. DE RESPINO, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 16-2002 Applicant/Property Owners: Sandra Turpin / J. DeRespino MODIFICATION Agent: Little & O’Connor SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SFR-1A Location: 260 Cronin Road, 511 Ridge Road Applicant proposes to modify lot lines within a recently approved subdivision located near the southwest corner of Ridge Rd. and Cronin Rd. Modifications of previously approved subdivisions require approval from the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 297.14-1-3.3, 297.14-1-3.2 Lot size: 1.00 ac., 1.01 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: Not required for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received in 2/15/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 4/22/05, and 4/26/05 Staff Notes 4/1/05 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary / Final Stage is hereby granted and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. O'CONNOR-I will submit a mylar for your signature. 47 MR. VOLLARO-As Vice Chairman, I’m not sure I can sign a mylar. There is no Chairman presently assigned to this Board or appointed to this Board at the present time. I don’t believe the Vice Chairman has the authority to sign a mylar. I’m not sure. I don’t believe so. MS. RADNER-I believe you’re Acting Chairman at the moment as well, and you’re the only person who could sign. MR. O'CONNOR-Just sign as Acting Chairman. I also suggest on your list for improvements to our Ordinances, this is something that Staff could handle. MR. VOLLARO-No question. MR. O'CONNOR-And somebody doesn’t need to go through this two month process, to take up an agenda item simply for a lot line adjustment, boundary line adjustment where there’s no impact. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you. This is something that ought not be before here, if there’s a, you know. MR. SANFORD-Or, it’s very easy. Couldn’t this have been an expedited item? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the expedited item still gets before the Board, still goes through it’s transactions. MR. SANFORD-I understand, Bob, but it is somewhat fast tracked. MR. HILTON-Yes, I agree 100% that it is a very minor application. Unfortunately it’s not listed as an expedited review item, and in the Planning Board’s policy’s and procedures, this, as New Business, comes after all the Old Business that we just looked at, but I agree with you. MR. VOLLARO-We can certainly make changes to that. I happen to agree with the applicant’s attorney that that’s the right thing to do. MR. O'CONNOR-You have a provision for Staff to approve two lot subdivisions where there are no new infrastructure required. You just add (lost words) modify approved subdivision lots where there is minor adjustment, you know, with proper phraseology. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. O’Connor, they sound like good ideas. Could I ask you to just submit a paragraph or two to Staff, so we can have that. That’s something w e would really want to look into, I think. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d be happy to. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 19-2005 SEQR TYPE II MOHAMMED TARIQ ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1449 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A PORTION OF A 5 FT. BY 38 FT. SECOND FLOOR DECK (NORTH SIDE) AND PROPOSES TO CONNECT IT TO THE EXISTING DECK ON THE WEST SIDE TO CREATE A 190 SQ. FT. DECK ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING OFFICE FOR THE RODEWAY INN ON ROUTE 9. HOTEL CONSTRUCTION/EXPANSION IN THE HC-INT ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-56 LOT SIZE: 1.02 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MIKE BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MOHAMMED TARIQ, PRESENT MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Mike Borgos for Mohammed Tariq, with Mr. Tariq. 48 MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want to just give us a little, I’ve looked this all over, but you can have your piece up there, if you like. MR. BORGOS-I think you probably have a very good understanding of what’s going on here. I don’t know if you understand the rationale for why we built this deck. He bought the Rodeway Inn about two years ago, and he was occupying the upstairs as the manager’s/owner’s apartment. His six year old daughter has developed a need for some traumatic surgery for her legs, requiring a wheelchair. She’s had one surgery. So he’s moved the family downstairs and moved his office from the downstairs to upstairs. This deck will allow access to the upstairs. MR. VOLLARO-I see. So there’s extenuating circumstances here, connected with this as well. MR. BORGOS-It was a misunderstanding. So he’s gone before the Zoning Board and received the variance necessary for the Area Variance. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. MR. BORGOS-(Lost words) waiver. MR. VOLLARO-This is Type II. So no further SEQRA action is required, and I’ll open the public hearing, if anybody wants to discuss this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And I’m going to ask this Board if they have any questions concerning this? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I thought it was pretty straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, so did I. So I’m going to ask for a resolution to approve, per resolution prepared by Staff. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2005 MOHAMMED TARIQ, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 19-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Mohammad Tariq SEQR Type II Zone: HC-Intensive Location: 1449 State Route 9 Applicant has constructed a portion of a 5 ft. by 32 ft. second floor deck (north side) and proposes construction of an 81 sf corner deck extension which will connect it to the existing deck on the west side to create a 190 sq. ft. deck attached to the existing office for the Rodeway Inn on Route 9. Hotel construction/expansion in the HC-Int zone requires site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 22-2005 Warren Co. Planning: 3/9/05 Tax Map No. 288.-1-56 Lot size: 1.02 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: 4/26/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/15/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/22/05, and 49 4/26/05 Staff Notes 4/ /05 CT Male Comments 4/8/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent 4/1/05 Meeting Notice 3/9/05 Warren Co. PB recommendation: No Action 3/1/05 RPS Data Summary Report 2/24/05 Letter to Applicant: Review bumped to April WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 4/26/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. SANFORD-All set. MR. VOLLARO-This is another one that might fit the kind of thing that Mr. O’Connor was talking about. I don’t know, but. Thanks a lot. I officially adjourn this meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman 50