Loading...
2005-08-23 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2005 INDEX Site Plan No. 36-2005 Northway Family Christian Church 1. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 302.8-2-5 Subdivision No. 13-2003 James Newbury 4. Tax Map No. 307-1-47, 46.2 Site Plan No. 27-2005 Diamond Autos 17. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-18 Subdivision No. 15-2005 Curtis Harrington 26. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 316.9-1-9 Site Plan No. 48-2005 Steve Quirion & A & Q Holdings 26. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-88.1, 88.2 Site Plan No. 21-2001 Pyramid Co. of GF NEWCO 35. MODIFICATION Tax Map No.302.5-1-92.1, 92.2, 92.3, 92.4 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO GEORGE GOETZ ANTHONY METIVIER THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 36-2005 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE II NORTHWAY CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH PROPERTY OWNER: DONNA L. DALY, INC. AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER; ETHAN HALL ZONE: LI LOCATION: 37 HOMER AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 8040 SQ. FT. RECREATIONAL USE BUILDING INTO A CHURCH. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS THIS IS AN UNLISTED USE IN THE ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 44-2005 TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-5 LOT SIZE: 0.65 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper. Thank you for quickly putting me back on the agenda. The Church is trying to close on the property. We have the bank commitment and we’ve received the approvals from the Town, of course. The zoning variance was granted, although the agenda is probably still the old agenda, it said that it’s still pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-And Stephanie was here at the Planning Board meeting, rather than me, but what the Planning Board did was to condition the site plan on a lease agreement for parking spaces on the adjacent commercial properties, and we were able to get a lease agreement from the Tackett Chiropractic property, which is two doors down, but not from the Day Care next door. You know what happens when lawyers get involved reviewing things. So, the site plan actually complied with zoning without any additional spaces, but just based upon anticipated use we felt that you would want to see more spaces, and that’s why we came in with verbal agreements from the neighbors. What we presented was a lease for 36 spaces, and there’s a question about whether maybe only 33 of them are approved. So we’d like to have the condition of the approval modified, that it would be 33 spaces on the Tackett Chiropractic site, instead of 36 spaces between the Day Care site and the Chiropractic site, and I hope that seems reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Just for the benefit of the Board, the approving resolution is attached, and it says that it was conditioned upon written authorization from both William Tackett Chiropractic and Child’s World Day Care. They weren’t able to get any agreement in writing from Child’s World Day Care. So that’s really why it’s before the Board, not because 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) there’s not enough places, but because the resolution was so specific, and they’re unable to meet that condition. Is there any questions? I mean, I really kind of saw it as an administrative item that we could just spend three minutes on, but I certainly don’t want to squash any questions. MR. SANFORD-I have some questions, Chris, but they’re more opinions. I’m looking for opinions. I’m not sure, you know, when I go to the bigger churches and look at them in downtown Glens Falls, I mean, obviously they don’t have adequate parking, and people park wherever they can. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SANFORD-If you’re going to like the Presbyterian Church or something like that. Their lot, obviously, doesn’t accommodate the total congregation. So I’m not sure what our rules might be in Queensbury along these same lines, and so I just would like to hear a little bit more, maybe from Staff, on this. We like to think that we have adequate parking for it, but I’m wondering if it’s a requirement and/or essential, or if it’s just desirable, as opposed to being essential. MRS. BARDEN-They were required to have 13 spaces on site, for the 80 seats in the Church. Required to have 16 and they have 13 on their site plan, and I think that the number 35 just came from the number of spaces at A Child’s World and the number of spaces at Tackett Chiropractic. So it wasn’t, that 35 was derived just from that. MR. SANFORD-Now people, if they don’t have, you know, a nice little parking lot to park in, they can park on the streets, and that’s in total compliance with all of our Codes. Is that correct? MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think that that’s why they’re trying to get an agreement to have parking off site, is so that you won’t have people parking in the street. MR. SANFORD-No, I understand that, but my question to you is, that’s great, and that’s really going beyond, and it’s a great thing that they’re trying to do that. Is it essential that they have on site parking? MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think it was Mr. Goetz that brought up, the night of the meeting, that on the weekends they may have weddings or they might need more parking on Saturday and then Sunday services. So, that’s where the 35 spaces, or the extra spaces off site might be utilized. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Still, though, I mean I’ve been to many weddings, for instance at St. Mary’s, and people park wherever they can to get to the Church, and it’s certainly not Church parking lots. I mean, they’re parking wherever they can, and sometimes over at the Civic Center, elsewhere, and somehow it gets done. The wedding happens, and so I guess my question to you is, you know, do we, in Queensbury, have any criteria that treats this like the same way that we treat retail stores, or is this sort of a situation where we were looking to dot the I’s and cross the T’s, but that it’s not a Code or a legal requirement? MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. I mean, they have, they’ve demonstrated that they have adequate parking on site, that meets the requirement. MR. SANFORD-All right. That’s all I have, Chris. MR. VOLLARO-Well, does that mean that we don’t need this lease agreement? Is that where we’re at? MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve got the lease agreement, and we submitted it. MR. VOLLARO-I know. I have a comment on mine that this is a one year, in other words, if this is a requirement that is going to be satisfied by the lease agreement, the lease agreement has a term of only one year commencing August 1, 2005 through July 31, 2006, and something like this that is designed to support these 80 seats ought to have a lease in perpetuity of some type, it seems to me, because if the lease is not renewed regularly, then the whole basis of these other 30 spaces we’re talking about, 36 spaces, goes away, and they’re back to the original 13. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. LAPPER-My response is that the 13 is what the Code requires, but that obviously it’s desirable to have more than that. To ask Dr. Tackett, to ask him to encumber his property for a longer period than a year is difficult. We expect that he’s going to continue, as long as no one’s breaking the windows in his office or something, we expect that this’ll get renewed every year, but in terms of tying up a piece of property for a multi-year lease, he said he’ll give it a year, and we’ll probably renew it in a year, which is just reasonable. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we say something about it, it’s going to be automatically renewed on a yearly basis unless such lease is terminated at the end of any term by either party. MR. LAPPER-I guess that for the Church and their bank, they’re about to take out a big loan to finance it, and if it was a question of, okay, the Church use would be terminated after a year, I mean, if they need parking and this isn’t available, I think that they’ll be able to park at the Day Care, even though they weren’t able to get a written lease. They have a verbal agreement. It just wasn’t something I could present to you, and there’s going to be a new dentist office being constructed across the street that you’ve just approved, and there is, as Richard said, there’s parking on Homer and there’s parking on Everts. So there is on street parking. MR. VOLLARO-See I’m lining up with Richard on this. I’m just wondering whether or not we need a lease agreement at all to satisfy the Code. If they parking satisfies the Code, they’ve got 13 spaces. I don’t even know what this lease agreement really does for us. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, the reason it’s here is because our resolution specified that they had to provide written authorization from both parties, and they couldn’t deliver that. MR. VOLLARO-And they couldn’t deliver that. MR. HUNSINGER-So we need to amend our resolution, or else they’ll need to do something different. MR. SANFORD-I’m comfortable with moving forward with what we have, provided by Mr. Lapper, because I don’t see where it’s a legal requirement that they have the proprietary parking, and I think that that’s traditionally how it works in most communities. It’s desirable to have on site parking, but it oftentimes doesn’t exist, and people park where they’re legally allowed to park, and I think there’s a lot of areas that they can park in that area. So that’s my position. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to make that in the form of a resolution? MR. SANFORD-Well, I want to hear from the rest of the Board. I’m just throwing my two cents in. MR. VOLLARO-I’m in agreement, essentially. My position is, I don’t even know what this lease agreement does for us, and I would go along with exactly what Richard has to say there. I just don’t know what this lease agreement does. I don’t even think you need it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else have a comment or question? MR. GOETZ-The only question I have is let’s say this becomes really successful and starts to bring in lots and lots of people, and they’re parking all over the place, because generally you’d think more than they need 33 parking spots for a church, and a while ago in Glens Falls I remember there was one that grew by leaps and bounds, and there were some problems, and just what happens if all of a sudden they do need new space, more space? MR. LAPPER-Well, under the Building Code, they’re only allowed to have 80 people, in terms of the gathering space. As a Building Code issue, that’s what the architect calculated, and assuming that people ride in cars of two, three or four people in a car going to church, it’s not like they really need 80 spaces, and probably the best answer is that there are other 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) commercial lots that won’t be used on the weekends, and it’s likely that they’ll be able to work it out, but if they couldn’t, the worst case is that there is on-street parking if someone’s there for an hour on Sunday morning, it’s not a bad thing. Parking’s allowed in Queensbury on the streets and those are pretty quiet streets on Sunday. MR. GOETZ-Okay. I have no problems with it. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. SANFORD-I mean, if you want a resolution, I’ll move it. MR. HUNSINGER-There isn’t one prepared, and at least in my mind all we’re doing is modifying the resolution that was previously approved to eliminate reference to The Child World Day Care. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Why don’t you make the motion then, Mr. Hunsinger, and we’ll just wrap it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you want me to do it, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 36-2005 NORTHWAY CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: So that the paragraph notation one reads: The applicant must provide written authorization from William B. Tackett Chiropractic for 36 parking spaces to utilize for their parking facilities [ previous resolution attached ]. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES NEWBURY AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LC-10 LOCATION: 62 CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 52.24 +/- ACRES OF LAND [24.34 +/- ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, 27.9 +/- ACRES IN THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE] INTO 4 LOTS OF 5.11 ACRES, 4.31 ACRES, 8.44 ACRES AND 6.48 ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY [WITH THE TOTAL SIZE OF EACH LOT BEING 10.64 ACRES, 14.24 ACRES, 14.1 ACRES AND 13.26 ACRES]. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-2004 TAX MAP NO. 307-1-47, 46.2 LOT SIZE: 24 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JIM NEWBURY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-No new information from the last set of Staff notes from the June 24 meeting when this was tabled, other than in your packet you have a record of resolution from 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) the ZBA meeting, Wednesday August 17, where the variances for minimum lot size for all th four lots was approved. MR. SEGULJIC-There were also conditions on that. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-APA. MRS. BARDEN-Conditions of approval include approval from the Adirondack Park Agency, approval from Lake Luzerne Zoning Board, Planning Board, and Town of Queensbury Planning Board, and no further subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we grant approval, then they have to go back to the APA. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves and Jim Newbury. I’m representing Mr. Newbury on this application. As Susan has just stated, this was in front of the Zoning Board last month, or last week, excuse me, and obtained a variance for the lot sizes within Queensbury. We explained to them, as we explained to this Board, about the geopolitical lines, and the State has stated that if both municipalities have the same zoning, then the State looks at it as there isn’t a geopolitical line. They look at it as all the same property, but yet it was still up to the Board if they wanted to make an approval on that, and it was the recommendation of Counsel, in talking with Mr. Newbury’s Counsel, to go ahead with that, and that’s what the Board had done last Wednesday. All these lots are over 10 acres in size, if you look at the entire property, not just what’s in Queensbury, and there was also a couple of stipulations, no further subdivision in either Town, and we agree to that. We agree to all the conditions of the approval. Any variance that is granted from this Town also has to be submitted to the APA and they have a 30 day time clock to review that variance, and we understand that. It goes without saying that we have to have the APA okay on that, and as far as the Town of Lake Luzerne, they had passed Lead Agency on SEQRA over to this Board, which we had a negative declaration SEQRA passed a few months ago. We were awaiting the outcome of the Zoning Board. We have that approval, so we’re back to you. There were a few comments from your Town Engineer, C.T. Male, dated June 20, 2005. I had met with Tom Nace, engineer on the application, and he had submitted the stormwater report, and had looked at the comments from C.T. Male and said that he has no problem with any of them. I can go through each of them. They’re all pretty minor. Just the total acreage of the disturbance as shown, which would be on the map. If it’s an over an acre, the existing stormwater plan would constitute the SWPPP, the stormwater requirements, which it does. It is under five acres. So that’s all you would need. It’s about 2.8 acres. Location of existing well and septic on Lot Two, we have acquired those and we’ll be putting those on the map, but they do not effect any of the proposed wells or septic on the other lots, and then a few minor things about moving the septic system or showing a pump detail, because it was inadvertently shown uphill from the house. It was just, he has revised the house and the septic well location, and we’ll be sending that back to C.T. Male for their signoff. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think I got a C.T. Male letter to look at. Is there one? MRS. BARDEN-There is one from a couple of months ago from June. MR. STEVES-June 20, to be exact. th MRS. BARDEN-It must have been with your old packet. I can get one for you. MR. SANFORD-Chris, how do you want to handle this? Are you going to go through Board member by Board member on this? Because I have a couple of questions. I just don’t want to jump in if you have a format that you want to follow. MR. HUNSINGER-No. I’d rather go through the Subdivision review criteria. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there’s strong preferences to do it a person at a time. Conformance with design standards, including Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Open Space Plan, etc.? MR. SANFORD-I have a question. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. SANFORD-There’s been some time, how long has this application kind of been in the process? Do you know off hand? It’s been a long time. MR. STEVES-It started with five lots over a year ago. MR. SANFORD-And we got it down to four. MR. STEVES-We’re right down to four, and then there was a few months of figuring out whether or not it actually had to have a variance, and working through that process, and then like I said the Town Counsel and Mr. Newbury’s Counsel said that there was no State information that said either way. Right? MR. SANFORD-Okay. I understand that. I guess my question is, and once again, when we have these types of things that go on for quite some time, sometimes we don’t always keep, I’m talking as a Planning Board member, all of our historical records. Has there been an analysis of the density calculation, subtracting slopes? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And my understanding, in terms of the algorithm that we use, is we would take the total parcel. We would reduce slopes greater than 25%, and wetlands from it, and then divide through by ten, and then you would come up with the number of lots that? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SANFORD-And that has been done and Staff will confirm that four lots meets density? MRS. BARDEN-That is correct. It should be on your site plan as well. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Again, as I said, there’s been a lot of material going back and forth over quite some period of time. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. SANFORD-And I must have discarded or misplaced. So we all are in agreement that density calculation isn’t an issue, right? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. The other point I have, I think it might fit into this, has to do with the APA, and I do recall a site that we had up on the mountain, and we went to the APA for determination of some sort. Mr. Vollaro, I think you were the lead on that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-I’ll defer to you to talk to that, but it is an issue that concerns me, in terms of process and procedure, as to whether or not we’re comfortable to condition an approval or whether or not we should first secure the APA signoff because I think if we had reversed the order in that other site, it might have had a totally different outcome. So I will defer that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Involved agencies is one of the other review criteria. MR. VOLLARO-When we get to involved agencies, I’ll discuss the APA. MR. STEVES-And can I maybe respond real quick to that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. STEVES-I’m not exactly positive of the application you’re referring to, but I believe it was in a five acre zone, and somebody obtained a variance for less than five acres, and that’s all that particular client owned was the less than five acres, and then the variance was approved and went to the APA and then was overturned by the APA. MR. SANFORD-Unless we want to get into particulars, I can’t comment on that. MR. STEVES-I’m just stating a fact. MR. VOLLARO-That’s, you’re correct in that. That was variance 53-2003. MR. STEVES-And that’s all the property he owned, and he didn’t own any property in Queensbury or Luzerne or anything like that. It was all he owned. In talking to the Adirondack Park Agency, I’ve already been in contact with them regarding this application numerous times, and they do not, and I repeat do not, take into consideration geopolitical lines. As long as both municipalities have the same zoning, they look at it as one lot. The State has already said that. So I’m assured that, again, I will still abide by the conditions that the APA has to review that variance, but I can tell you that in talking with them, that line doesn’t exist in the APA’s eyes, because it’s continually, you know, all the property’s owned by this sponsor. MR. SANFORD-I’ll move on. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions on design standards? MRS. STEFFAN-The last time that you both were here, I asked if we could know where the hillcrests were on the property, so that we could identify. MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Because this particular property is part of, is actually listed on the Scenic Views and Vistas Map. MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-And we didn’t get any revised map on that. MR. STEVES-Okay. The highest point on the property is at the 1290 mark in the very back of Lot Three, which we are not proposing to do any developing above about the 1270 mark. That’s the highest point. The other highest point that would be closest to, it’s actually a little knoll, at about 1242 on Lot One, is where the existing drive and clearing are, and there’s no proposed clearing outside of what is already cleared on that parcel. MRS. STEFFAN-That doesn’t help a lot. I highlighted that on the map, but I guess what I wanted more was the map with a notation to identify it, because part of that, that map is supposed to be something that the Planning Board looks at when we evaluate applications like this, and how it conforms to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and that being part of it, for what kind of impacts there would be, and from my point of view, what do we look at now when we look at the subdivision? What kind of clearing limits can we expect? And one of my concerns is what happens if this is subdivided, a lot is sold off, the person who buys the lot decides that they want to take a notch out of the top of the mountain, and then everybody down stream gets to enjoy that. That’s not what we’re trying to encourage. MR. STEVES-Well, we have shown the proposed clearing limits on each lot, to try to reduce the impact which you have stated, we had discussed that a couple of months ago, and the proposed clearing limits are shown, and again, as far as, this Board and the APA can put restrictions on that clearing, and we have no problem, but I mean, if you want us to help define that a little bit better, I don’t have a problem with that either. MR. VOLLARO-My question kind of borders on design. I don’t know, maybe I ought to jump in on it, because I don’t know any place else on that list. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there is one for buffering, landscape design, that includes clearing, no cut areas. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When we get to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments on designs standards? MR. SANFORD-Nothing other than a technical question. I’m looking at the Staff summary. Is the public hearing open? MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing was left open, yes. MR. SANFORD-So after we’re done, the public will talk? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions on development criteria, site conditions, utilities, street design and layout, traffic, pedestrian, sight distances, emergency access and services? Stormwater, sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-They’ve all been, I guess we covered the septic design the last time, if I remember. MR. HUNSINGER-Buffering, landscape plan? This would include the clearing plan, no cut areas, screening, planting, etc. MR. VOLLARO-May I go forward with that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Recently this Board did a subdivision, 11-2004, for Diamond Point Realty Corporation off Oakwood Drive. I suppose a lot of folks remember that, and that application there, the applicant prepared and submitted a restrictive covenant concerning cutting of trees and so on. So I would propose that we have some sort of a restrictive covenant concerning cutting of trees to the west toward Luzerne. This covenant would be similar to the document entitled Permanent Easement and Restrictive Covenant, dated May 10, 2004, and this document pertained to tree cutting on Subdivision 11-2004 for Diamond Point Realty, Oakwood Drive. Now the document is on file in the Warren County Clerk’s Office in Book 1383, in the Record of Deeds on Page 217, in case somebody wants to try to duplicate that kind of a document, and I think there ought to be some sort of a restrictive covenant on tree cutting here. That document gets pretty specific, if you look at it. I’ve looked at it, but it’s a pro forma that you could look at for developing something like I’m asking for. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that, Bob. That makes a lot of sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions on buffering, landscape? Neighborhood character? MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s a hard one. I thought about the neighborhood character, and I know that the folks up there are very, very concerned about the quality and character of their neighborhood, in terms of its wildlife and its ambience, because it’s a very, very pretty piece of property all the way back. It does get quite steep as you walk into it, however. You start walking into it, it begins to drop rather quickly. So you’re going to have to build, whoever is going on these four lots are going to be pretty close to Cormus Road, I would think. MR. STEVES-Only on one lot. MR. NEWBURY-It’s actually going to probably be on the back side of the hill to the west. That’s really where the view is. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, how long are those driveways? MR. NEWBURY-No longer than any of the other driveways. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. VOLLARO-Like Mr. Sanford said, it’s been a long time. My memory goes back, but have we looked into fire and EMS access on driveways back in there? I think we have. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-But I don’t remember what the outcome of those discussions were actually. MR. STEVES-It was fine. It was similar to other lots that existing along the Luzerne Road, Tuthill Road, Clendon Brook Road. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Part of the problem that I’m having, this was so long ago that I’m having difficulty recollecting what the presence of this Board was at the time we reviewed this. MR. STEVES-You reviewed a lot of that, as well, when we did SEQRA, too. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just clarify. The driveway on Lot One is existing, correct? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-The driveway on Lot Two is not? MR. STEVES-That’s an existing house. Correct, and the driveway on Lot Four exists. MR. SEGULJIC-And the driveway on Lot Three is only proposed to be added? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments on environmental? Wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historic factors, wildlife, including rare or endangered species? Questions, comments on involved agencies. Bob, I know you had some comments on the APA. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I did. If you look at Condition Number One on the variance that was granted, Number 22-2004 just granted, the first thing that they talk about in there is approval of the APA on this project. Now, having looked back on all the Inglee stuff, I had an opportunity to talk with the APA again, because I talked to Mr. Connelly, and he said that any time a variance contains the words, Approval by the APA, and that we send a document to the APA, standard form document, he said, that does not set the 30 day clock, ever. The 30 day clock is set in a different way. It’s set by sending up a copy of the variance, a copy of the minutes, a copy of the site plan in question, and sent up in a Certified Return Receipt Required. That starts the clock at the APA for a decision. MR. STEVES-Correct, which is required from any variance granted by the Zoning Board, which you just asked. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and the Zoning Board said in their first section that this is based on approval of the APA. So what has to happen here is we have to get in gear, and I have a letter here dated February 3, 2004, to James Connelly, from our Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown, who knows exactly what he sent up at that time, and he has a little statement. He says in that letter also for record keeping and timing purposes, we will comply with your request to forward all information via Return Receipt Request mailings. This method would allow us both to easily keep and monitor the 30 day timetable. So that’s how we’ve got to set the clock to get the APA to approve this. Okay. So that’s one of the conditions I would put on this, is that we get that kind of approval within the 30 day period. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody agree with that? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. SANFORD-I agree with it, Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Where do you stand with the Town of Lake Luzerne? MR. STEVES-They’re waiting for an approval from this Board. We had actually had an approval for, you know, conceptual approval, actually preliminary approval, and they wouldn’t grant preliminary approval because they wanted you to take Lead Agency on SEQRA, for five lots. The four lots, we’ll go back in front of them after we have approval from this Board. We will go back to the Town of Lake Luzerne with the approved plan you approved and granted your negative dec on, and we’ll go back to the Planning Board and Zoning Board in Luzerne. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other criteria that was not previously reviewed? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on behalf of them? Okay. If you could give up the table, please. The purpose of the public hearing is to review comments from the public about the application in question. When you come up to the table, if you could speak into the microphone your name, for the record, because we do tape the meeting, and please keep your comments to the application in question. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PATRICIA WASHBURN MRS. WASHBURN-Okay. My name is Patricia Washburn, and I live at 107 Cormus Road. As you know, I am opposed to the subdivision. I have addressed my many concerns at previous meetings, concerns such as my loss of privacy, increased traffic, increased driveways, a disturbance of animal habitat and some of my favorite hiking trails, added noise, the impact on our water system, stormwater runoff, emergency response time, should there be a fire, etc. None of these arguments has effected the steady progression of this application through the very lengthy process here in Queensbury. I was especially disappointed at the Zoning Board’s decision last week to grant Mr. Newbury an Area Variance. This meeting was held without notification of the neighbors or publication in the Post Star. So tonight I have gathered up those neighbors still willing to voice their opinion on this project and I would like to talk about the one issue that is at the heart of this application, an issue that every one of you in this room can relate to, and that is the impact of this subdivision on property taxes. First let me give you some facts. Mr. Newbury owns, according to his application, 24.34 acres. Mr. Newbury is currently paying property taxes on two parcels, a 13.91 acre parcel, which includes his home and barn, and a 5.85 acre parcel of rural vacant land. This adds up to 19.76 acres, four and a half acres less than what he is proposing to subdivide. Now, Mr. Newbury, who is already not paying taxes on four and a half acres, wants to sell three parcels, and he stands to make a nice profit at today’s market value on those three parcels. Mr. Newbury’s retaining an 8.44 acre parcel for himself, thereby reducing his taxable acreage by 15.9 acres, but we live in a 10 acre zone. We pay Queensbury property taxes on a minimum of 10 acres, and most of the neighbors have more than 10 acres. So I ask you, members of the Planning Board, is it fair that Mr. Newbury can create and develop three substandard taxable Queensbury lots at less than 10 acres, when everyone else in the neighborhood must have at least 10 acres? I ask you, members of the Planning Board, is it fair that Mr. Newbury can create for himself a lot less than 10 acres in Queensbury and reduce his own taxes when the rest of us are paying taxes on a minimum of 10 acres? We already have a serious problem in this Town with residential development and an unfair system of property assessment. Just ask the residents of Pilot Knob and Glen Lake. Please do not approve this subdivision as presented before you tonight with substandard Queensbury lots. You will be creating an unequal tax base in an LC-10 zone. This is just not fair. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. RICHARD UDAL 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. UDAL-Good evening. I’m Richard Udall. My wife and I own the parcel adjacent to the Washburns. We have been very concerned about the changes that were proposed to increase the traffic and change the character of the life of the people who live up there. They live up there for a specific reason, for the privacy, the wilderness that surrounds them, and the changes that are proposed are going to change this unendingly, and we feel very much that we are opposed to it, for the same reasons that Mrs. Washburn stated. We also feel that the character of the area, which is very valuable to the people, would be changed immeasurably by the development that’s proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? TOM & RUTH BARROWMAN MR. BARROWMAN-Tom Barrowman. I live at 956 Luzerne Road. MRS. BARROWMAN-Ruth Barrowman, same address. MR. BARROWMAN-I was about the third person that bought land up on top of the mountain, quite a few years ago, more than 30 years ago, and at that time, we looked over the maps and very carefully looked at where the Town lines were, and also how the land could be divided, and we carefully figured out, at that time, that there could only be another lot, if that, up on top of Cormus Road, and therefore we bought the piece of land that we bought, the 10 acres, underneath the FM Tower on the right hand side of the road, just before you make the turn to Cormus Road, and to change the rules, 30 years later, at this date, and forgot to mention when you originally lotted that land off, I don’t think the people that lotted it off made a conscious decision that there could be more homes if land in Luzerne could be used. In other words, this Town said a minimum of 10 acres per lot on the top of West Mountain. They didn’t say, well, we could, you know, the land could hold more if we combined it with Luzerne. They made a conscious decision. They checked over the land, and made that determination, and now we’re in a situation where the density would change completely, because of the land. You’re going to have the houses all combined together on that Cormus Road, and they aren’t going to be, the 10 acres will be deep, and it would be just like a neighborhood down in the valley, and we certainly do value that property up there. As far as road safety goes, not too safe up there on top of the mountain. I don’t know whether you’re aware that we do not get postal delivery up there on top of the mountain. Luzerne gets it on the other side of the mountain, but we don’t get postal delivery up there because of supposedly the danger, and now you’re going to have school buses go up there and children, more children up there on top of the mountain. I’m wondering if your perc tests were done on the soil, because there’s very little soil up on top of the mountain, and I would think the people that live down below, that drop off would be concerned about any type of runoff. I’ve also left my driveway as is. I’ve taken care of it myself for 30 years. I’ve decided to go another route now, and I’m just leaving it. So it’s getting worse and worse and worse. I hope it sends a signal up to the neighbors of how the Town actually takes care of that road. Every time it rains I have to take my driveway from the bottom and move it back up to the top with a winter plow, and I’m sick of it and want to at least raise a point that the road isn’t taken care of as it is, and now you’re going to put more homes up there. I don’t know what the people are going to do on the eastern side of the road, with runoff. I mean, I’m having all kinds of problems as it is now. So allowing this to go forward like it is, I just can’t see it, and I’d go along with what Pat Washburn said. It was zoned for 10 acres and that’s why I originally bought the land, and that’s the way I’d like to see it remain. MRS. BARROWMAN-And I second these comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? PHIL COOK MR. COOK-My name is Phil Cook. I live at 915 Luzerne Mountain Road. My property borders both Luzerne Mountain Road and Cormus Road. The last house that was built on Cormus Road about six or eight years ago, in the process of having the house built, about six inches of soil flooded a good portion of my woods. Those trees are going to die in the next 20 years or so. So when somebody builds let’s say four or five houses how much of that soil is going to land in my woods? That’s one of my concerns, and just like everyone else, I bought my house under the protection of the density not become too heavy, because of the minimum lot size, and I wish you don’t take any exceptions to that. Thank you. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Anyone else? GLEN WATSON MR. WATSON-My name’s Glen Watson. I live on 930 Luzerne Road. I like the character of the road very much the way it is, and I’d like it to stay that way without the variance. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Good evening. DENNIS WASHBURN MR. WASHBURN-Good evening. Thomas Washburn, Cormus Road. The plans submitted to the Planning Board show the Luzerne property going to the Glens Falls Mountain Road. If you look on the front page of those set of plans, okay, the corner goes to Glens Falls Mountain Road. This is where we were told by the Luzerne zoning officer that Mr. Newbury could start and access that property in Luzerne. It’s shown right on there. Mr. Steves stated that it does not. If so, why is it shown on the opening page of those plans? Anybody could draw the line properly. Can the property Mr. Newbury owns in Luzerne be accessed from Luzerne? Probably, for a price it can be done. It’s done all the time, at his expense. Why does the Town of Queensbury’s property tax office show Parcel No. 307-1-47 residence at 13.91 acres? Parcel Number Two is 307-1-46.2 vacant, 5.85 acres. This is on record at the Town Assessor’s Office. Total 19.76 acres assessed. Proposed on here, for some reason it grew, 24.34. I don’t know, the mountain shifted. Lot Number Four on the map shown an existing drive to the home in Luzerne. This existing drive is a deeded right of use to West Mountain Corporation. This is not going to work. With large equipment passing through, a possible conflict with the new property owner, as far as maintaining the driveway, West Mountain has a deeded use. So now am I looking at three driveways at my property end? If so, is there room right there on that lot? I don’t know, but area residents on Cormus Road that meet the 10 acre requirements, these people have all been before you already at some time. It’s been a long process. Eli Sokoloff, 25 acres, Steven Brown, 33 acres, Tom Washburn, 20 acres, Dick Udall, 34 acres. How can one person in the same area with only 24.34, as it’s stated on those plans right there, be allowed to have four lots, five acres plus or minus, when the rest of the property owners have 10 acres or more? This isn’t fair. Will there be an impact on the water supply for the current residents? It’s possible, especially up on the first house coming up on Cormus Road that’s proposed. You’re going to have now four clusters of homes in a fairly tight spot. We are all on drilled wells. Some of these are older. It depends on their depth that the existing people have up there already. Could there be a burden placed on all Cormus Road residents on property values, the way the subdivision has been submitted? At no time has Mr. Newbury submitted an alternate plan to this Board or the Zoning Board when asked and it was asked. The way I see it, the only one who makes out are the ones who own the real estate in the Town of Luzerne, based on the taxes for the real estate in Luzerne, and Mr. Newbury by reducing his own lot size in Queensbury. We, as a group of residents, have been before this Board throughout this process, and we have stated our feelings and discontent with this subdivision. I only hope that we have expressed these well. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else care to make any comments? I will leave the public hearing open for the time being, if you want to come back to the table. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, I do have a clarification question that I’d like to ask Susan. Was the Zoning Board meeting listed in the newspaper with the agenda? Was it published? MRS. BARDEN-It was not published, but it was tabled, which does not need to be re- advertised. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess you heard a number of comments, probably none of which were of any surprise. I think we’ve all kind of heard them before, but there were some concerns among the neighbors about noise, stormwater, neighborhood character, perc tests and runoff. There was also a question raised on the potential deeded right of use, and also some concerns about impact on water. I don’t know if there’s anything you want to address again specifically or generally. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. STEVES-I’ll go through some briefly. Yes, perc tests have been performed. Tom Nace also looked at the soils and prepared the stormwater management report and plan. So we’re confident that we won’t have any kind of increased stormwater runoff onto any neighboring properties. We are confident that we have addressed that concern. There was no real comment from your review engineer on that stormwater plan, just saying if it’s under five acres, which it is, then it constitutes the SWPPP, and so we have no problem with that. There was one, somebody brought up the fact on the map on the cover sheet, which is a requirement of the Town of Queensbury to have a location map, which is the tax map, and the tax map does show that one basically just barely touching Luzerne Road. That tax map is a vague, it’s not a survey. It’s an approximate area for taxing purposes. By actual survey his property does not touch Luzerne Mountain Road, and I can guarantee you that. MR. SEGULJIC-How close does it come? MR. STEVES-About 15 feet, 18 feet I believe it is. MR. SEGULJIC-At its closest point? MR. STEVES-Yes. There’s another owner that has property, his property does not front on any portion of Luzerne Mountain Road. MR. SANFORD-Well, there seems to be, Mr. Steves, some discrepancy regarding the total number of acreage. MR. STEVES-Well, I was going to get to that, too. The total number of acreage is what they’re talking about is what the Assessor is now assessing Mr. Newbury on in Queensbury. They’re basing it, again, upon scaled distance on the tax map. Once this survey is, if it is approved and when it is filed, then they have better information to tax upon, just like any survey once it’s filed. There’s properties in the Adirondacks now that are taxed at 80 acres and they might be 95 acres, or they might be 72 acres, because of the fact that they don’t have accurate survey information filed at the Clerk’s Office to help with the assessment. MR. SANFORD-So when was this last surveyed? MR. STEVES-I don’t know if this, this particular property, there’s no filed map on record at all at the County Clerk’s Office. MR. SANFORD-Well, how do you know how many acres you have? MR. STEVES-I surveyed the entire property. MR. SANFORD-That’s what I asked. I mean, when did you do it? MR. STEVES-When did I do it? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. STEVES-I started the survey in 2002. MR. SANFORD-And so you’re saying the differential between the tax survey, for lack of a better way of putting it, and yours, is simply that historically they didn’t really know what they were dealing with? MR. STEVES-Mine’s accurate. Theirs is not. That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s really, your survey showed 24 acres versus the taxable area of 19.76. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s really not uncommon. MR. STEVES-Correct. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Especially when you’re dealing with rural areas. MR. STEVES-Right, and also you have to remember that you look at a map typically one of the State maps when they draw in the Town line. It’s a, you know, they try to show it as close as possible. I mean, you’re looking at a 2000 scale map, and they’re drawing in a line that’s about the width of a Sharpy marker on there. We actually located the monumentation, north and south of this to establish the actual Town line. So, I can guarantee you of the acreage. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we go back to the septic systems? I’m looking at Drawing S-1., and on your perc test information there’s Lot One, Two, Four, and Five, and on the map it’s one through four. MR. STEVES-Well, I apologize. The test pit numbers are, perc test and test pits are there. We did do, there’s actually, that’s when there was a five lot subdivision, and I apologize we didn’t re-work the numbers on the lots, when we reduced it to four lots. Lot Five is now Lot Four. Lot Three is Lot Two, Lot Four is Lot Three, excuse me, and then Two and One. As you can see, the sustain perc rates basically three and a half minute soils. MR. VOLLARO-What is the depth of those soils up there? MR. STEVES-It varies. We’ve gone from less than a foot to about six and a half feet. MR. VOLLARO-So are you going to have to put fill systems up there? MR. STEVES-No. We want to put conventional systems in. That’s why we’ve placed the home sites and systems where we have, where we have the deeper soils. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Bob, what was that? You talked about the soils on site? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m asking how deep are the soils on the site and whether he had to use fill systems because there’s a requirement that you have so much native soil underneath. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, two feet, and what was he? MR. VOLLARO-He’s saying that they’ve sited the homes so that the septic system is in areas where they have the deepest soils. I think that’s what he just said. MR. STEVES-Like Mr. Newbury just pointed out. You’re on a mountain, given. You’re going to have some areas where you’re going to have some shallow soils. As he just stated, he had to dig a trench toward his barn last year and he had an eight foot trench and didn’t encounter any bedrock. You have to obviously look around and pick the best location. MR. GOETZ-I was walking the lots up there, and I couldn’t figure out where the septic tanks would go, because it seemed every place I walked was very solid. There was a little bit of grass growing on top, in some of the areas, but that was a big concern I have. It is a concern I have. MR. VOLLARO-I have the same thing. I took the opportunity to walk up there myself just yesterday. MR. SEGULJIC-I have to apologize, but was test pit information submitted earlier? MR. STEVES-I believe so. I’d have to go back through the paperwork. If you wanted some more specific test pits in the areas of the septic systems, just let us know. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m inclined to agree with George. When I walked up there, it’s pretty solid. I didn’t see any really good spots to site a septic system. I had a problem doing that myself. This is a tough one for me. MR. NEWBURY-At the face of the driveway, we dropped that quite a bit where it breaks the crest, as you go onto, Lot Number One, is the only place where the ledge is out there, but we dropped that to push that soil back. It was like a dish, and just to make it more usable, 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) and that whole top part where I threw a little seed down, you can dig down there. The ledge shows, it crops out in a few different spots, but a backhoe can dig right down in there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t doubt that you can dig in. I’m just wondering what the levels of soil would be for siting a conventional system. That’s my concern. MR. STEVES-We did the soil investigations and the perc tests and reviewed it with Tom Nace, and he said that there’s suitable areas for a conventional septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? What’s the pleasure of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think a tabling looking for more information. MR. METIVIER-I think that we’ve tabled this thing to its bitter end. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-I mean, what in God’s creation are we going to table it for again? MR. SEGULJIC-For the cutting plan. MR. METIVIER-I really think we need to do something with this. I don’t think a cutting plan is going to be the answer at this point. I have an issue. I have a terrible issue with the fact that the Zoning Board barely approved this thing, with no public input whatsoever. Every, not every, but most of the time when we table an application, the public is either re- notified or we table it to a specific date. There was not one person here from the public for the zoning approval. MR. STEVES-Yes, there was. MRS. WASHBURN-Yes, I was. MR. METIVIER-There was? Excuse me. All right, but, you know, I think we’ve exhausted our efforts on this one. I really do. To go and table it again. MR. SANFORD-Well, there is sequencing, Tony. I appreciate your comments, and I agree with them, but there’s one thing that, again, we can, before we make a decision and condition it upon APA approval, which, in a philosophical sense begs the question, we could not do it that way, and we could merely ask for the APA determination prior to making a decision, and I think there’s a subtle but an important difference there, in that if APA is under the impression that we have an approval pending, pending their approval, it’s different than an objective, independent review. Now, when I look at this, it was always a philosophical issue, is jurisdiction among Town lines, and what is the relevance of that, and we didn’t deal with that. That wasn’t our decision, as I understand it. That was the ZBA decision, but what I’ve been hearing from the public tonight is they feel strongly that, hey, Town of Queensbury has its own jurisdiction and yet we didn’t know how to deal with it, and I guess it went to the ZBA and if I’m understanding what the ZBA did is they said 10 acres is 10 acres, independent upon where it resides. Is that a safe statement? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Yes, I think it has to be. MR. SANFORD-Well, is that the conclusion that they reached? I think it was. I’m not asking a rhetorical question. I’m asking an honest question. I don’t know. I think that’s what they came up with. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what they stated in their variance. I think that statement was made by Lew Stone when he did the motion. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and so anyway, I mean, I don’t want to table this, you know, because we don’t want to make a decision, but I do feel that there is a difference between making a decision conditioned upon an APA approval, and/or saying, let APA make a decision and then we’ll respond. There’s a difference there, and you can debate that, but I do believe that 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) we’re sending a message if we send a conditioned approval. It suggests of an approval, versus just hearing what they have to say. I think that if we look at our other example that Mr. Vollaro pointed out, I think that’s applicable here. I think if we went to the APA and said, you know, we’re fine with this but you have to approve it, it’s different than, you tell us what you think. That’s all I’m saying. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I tend to agree with that. I think if we send something up to the APA that we’ve already kind of approved it kind of sends the message that, well, they’re happy with it, and, you know, their attorney may not do as much investigation as he would normally do if it was not sent up that way. It’s a human response kind of thing that I’m talking about here. I would just as soon have a clearance from the APA on this subdivision prior to our approval. I think we owe. MR. METIVIER-I wasn’t actually necessarily going towards an approval. Could I get clarification. Do we have to do SEQRA on this? MR. VOLLARO-We’ve already done it. MR. METIVIER-Why does it say Unlisted on the agenda? Is that just a typo? MRS. BARDEN-You have done. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s still an Unlisted Action. MR. STEVES-All subdivisions. MR. VOLLARO-I guess what Tony is saying, did we go through it, and if we did, why is it listed as an Unlisted Action? MR. METIVIER-Right. It should be a Type II if we already did it. I’m just asking the question, so I know. MS. RADNER-It doesn’t become a Type II because you’ve already done it. It’s still an Unlisted Action. It’s just already been completed. So for point of clarity on your agenda sheet, you might want to list it as already done, something like that, just so you guys aren’t thinking you’re going to be doing it here tonight. MR. METIVIER-Okay. I just wanted clarification on that. MR. GOETZ-I would like to see Mr. Vollaro or Mr. Sanford make some sort of a motion that this go to APA before we approve or disapprove. MR. STEVES-The question, Bob, if I can, you’re talking this same plan that the Zoning Board approved is required to go up to them. So that’s what you’re asking is the response from the whole set of plans from the Zoning Board go up to the APA and get their approval? MR. VOLLARO-The last time that that was done, in the letter to Mr. Connelly, and it was done February 3, 2004 by Craig Brown, and he had an agreement with Mr. Connelly at APA as to what the package would look like that’s coming there. MR. STEVES-But I’m saying, I’m asking, do you want something else, or are you talking about what was already approved by your Zoning Board? I’m just looking for clarification. I would think it would be what was already approved by your Zoning Board. MR. VOLLARO-I would assume that’s true. The last thing that was sent up to APA was for Mr. Inglee, up on the mountain, was a copy of the resolution by the Zoning Board of Appeals, a copy of all the minutes pertaining to that particular conclusion, a map and all the mapping information that was presented to the Board, for instance what you have in front of you there, and that was sent up on a Return Receipt Required. MR. STEVES-Right. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. VOLLARO-Now I’m not speaking for the Zoning Administrator. He would have to, again, assess this and decide based on prior conversations with the APA exactly what he’s going to send to them, or he may even talk to Mr. Connelly about this. He’s due back from vacation on the 29 or 30 I believe. thth MR. STEVES-And I’ve already had conversations. So I will make sure that the entire package goes up, which they already have. So that’s not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-See, my discussions with them say that if they don’t get this kind of information, their 30 day clock never ever gets set, ever. It’s just information into the inbox and God knows where it goes. MR. STEVES-No, you have to have the resolution with it so that they know what action was taken. That’s exactly correct. MR. VOLLARO-But if they’re being asked to make a determination on that action, then it has to go up with a specific set of a data, and it’s got to go up with a Return Receipt Required. That sets the clock. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-What is it that you’re asking the APA to review, though? MR. SANFORD-They need to make a jurisdictional determination. MR. VOLLARO-The APA has got to review the zoning variance that was given by the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-You haven’t been clear about that. MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely. MR. STEVES-And we don’t have a problem with that. MR. SANFORD-All I’m saying is that, and my heart goes out to the people who live up there, but, you know, I have to say that we have spent a lot of time with this, and all over the Town of Queensbury there are these types of issues, but I don’t want to get out of sequence here. If APA reviews this in an independent manner, comes back with their decision, and then depending upon what it is, I think then we can act in a rather prompt manner on it. I don’t want to act in a premature manner on it, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I appreciate your comments that were made before. I certainly don’t disagree with it. Do you want to put that forth in a resolution, Mr. Vollaro? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Can I ask one question first? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Something came up in the public hearing about the driveway on Lot Four being a deeded use to West Mountain Corporation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we didn’t get that addressed. MRS. STEFFAN-Could the applicants talk about that? MR. NEWBURY-West Mountain has access, I think he obtained that to work on his lifts. They use it periodically, and they maintain it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it’s like a dirt road that they use and so on this map it short cuts. I’m assuming it goes all the way on to their property, and they are the adjoining lot owners? MR. NEWBURY-Right. There’s a steel gate at the end. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MRS. STEFFAN-Now what would happen if you sell that lot is that it would be a shared drive? Because for me, as I look at this subdivision, this looks like this is the driveway for the property. Would it split off? MR. STEVES-As you look at the driveway, the existing road, and then you see the turn off into the house, which is the proposed portion of that drive. MR. NEWBURY-It’s quite a large area. MR. STEVES-That would be, you know, just like anything else, it would be, whoever bought that lot would then have the right of way on their property for the West Mountain Corp. to use, and they would access their house off of that shared driveway, and they would know, by deed, that they have that easement on their property, and that right of way across their property. MRS. STEFFAN-So would they share the maintenance of that driveway? MR. STEVES-That would be something that would be worked out, but at this point, I believe West Mountain Corp. is the one that has to maintain that road. MR. SANFORD-Chris, I think that the motion is pretty straightforward. Bob, you can do it or I can do it. MR. VOLLARO-It is, Mr. Sanford. Yes, I’ll do the motion, but I want to make one thing clear. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I just want to make sure that you’re clear on what it is that we’re asking the APA to do. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The APA has got to review and approve or disapprove on the ZBA variance that was recently approved. Number 22-2004. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to put that in the form of a motion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I will, but before I get into the motion, I would like to say, let the applicant know that when this motion comes back, whether it’s approved or disapproved, as far as APA is concerned, that the applicant prepare and submit some sort of a restrictive covenant concerning the cutting of trees to the west of Luzerne. MR. STEVES-We agree to that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and pattern that a little bit after the document that was prepared for Diamond Point Realty. MR. STEVES-No problem. MR. SEGULJIC-And also if we could see test pit information, if you could submit that again. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Bob, you’ve got to probably put it into a full motion. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003, JAMES NEWBURY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: 1. To allow the APA to review the approved Area Variance 22-2004 which was approved on a four to three vote by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The information would be sent forth to the APA in accordance with the previous submission that was done by Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator on February 3, 2004 and it will be sent up with a return receipt requested type mailing in order to easily monitor the 30 day timetable. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) 2. Also that the applicant prepare and submit a restrictive covenant concerning the cutting of trees to the west toward Luzerne. This covenant would be similar to a document entitled permanent easement and restrictive covenants dated May 10, 2004. This document pertained to the tree cutting on Subdivision 11.2004 for Diamond Pt. Realty Corp. along Oakwood Drive. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We did leave the public hearing open intentionally. Is there any way that the neighbors would be notified? MRS. BARDEN-We can do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DIAMOND AUTOS PROPERTY OWNER: ROBERT & GERALDINE TROUTMAN AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: NW END OF EAST QUAKER SERVICE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN AUTO & BOAT SALES AND SERVICE USE WITH CORRESPONDING SITE WORK. AUTO SALES AND SERVICE IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 30-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/8/05 TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-18 LOT SIZE: 1.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-4- 020 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes. I’ll just summarize quickly. The applicant proposes an auto and boat sales and service use with corresponding site work. Auto sales and service in the HC zone requires site plan review. Public hearing was opened on 6/21 and left open, and the project was tabled to this evening’s meeting. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers, and Tom Dickert, the applicant. If you wish me to start, I’ll just open it up by saying we tabled this application several months ago to address some technical issues that were raised by C.T. Male and a few minor issues, I believe, I’ll characterize them as minor, that were raised by the Board, and since that time, we’ve attempted to address those issues to the satisfaction of all parties. Unfortunately, the C.T. Male review was very late last week, for reasons unknown, and we just received the comments yesterday, and we’ve pulled together a very quick response letter that essentially, if you wish to take the time to look at it, shows that the comments are either, Number One, very minor, or, Number Two, not applicable at all really. So I’m hoping that you’ll take a few minutes to look through that and help us address those issues, and I think other than that, we’ve resolved all the outstanding planning and design issues that were raised. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Jarrett, usually we don’t, you know how it is, with this Board trying to review something like this. MR. JARRETT-I do know how it is, absolutely, and I understand, if you’re not willing to look at it, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just one member. You’d have to really poll the rest of the Board. MR. JARRETT-I discussed it with Staff, and we decided we’d hand it out and at least ask the question. If you wish not to get into it, we won’t, but I will characterize these as very minor or not applicable at all. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would let the Board make that decision. Typically, we don’t review new information the night of the meeting. We do appreciate you providing us with 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) the updated information, but I think that, at this point, you know, we’ll just go ahead with our review and we’ll see where the Board goes. I guess my inclination, since we already did a thorough review of this, would be to just open it up for questions, comments from the Board, rather than to go through the specific site plan review criteria, unless that’s your preference. MR. VOLLARO-No, I would go along with that, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to start us off, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have some just comments that I made. This is a single phase application now. MR. JARRETT-We’ve essentially made it a single phase application. I think the construction may lag by six months or so. We may build the front at first and then as economies allow, build the second part, but it’s all one phase. Previously we came in with really two solid phases, and there was no timeframe. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that the drawing still retained some of that phase two flavor. Let me put it that way. MR. JARRETT-You’re right, and I think there is some confusion. Staff raised that, and so we can clarify that. MR. VOLLARO-And so what I’m saying in my notes is to remove all references to boats in both service areas and boat display areas, and make this application for autos only. So we clearly understand that there’s a differentiation between the boat business and the auto business. I think that, I think the last time we talked on this, the applicant said that if he were to get a franchise for a boat, then he would get into the boat area, a franchise for Sea Ray, whatever it happens to be, and so I understood that, and what I’m saying here, on this particular area, is that the area labeled reserved for boat display to be removed from Drawing C-1, and that area remain grass, and if you obtain a franchise for a particular boat, return for a site plan modification that would now modify this for autos only application, to include a boat, once he gets a franchise. MR. JARRETT-Okay. I acknowledge what you’re saying. If we could hear the rest of the Board’s comments on that, I’ll defer, then, to my client to respond to that. MR. VOLLARO-If the Chairman wants me to, I’ll continue with my statement, then the rest of the Board members can go on, if that’s okay with the Chairman, I’ll just go through what I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, why don’t you go through what you have. MR. VOLLARO-Now, on the sewer thing, being this is a small diameter force main from the Sportline Honda, approval for hook up with their pump station and the location of your gravity sewer lateral by Honda must all be approved by the Wastewater Department, I would assume. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now have you been together with Mike Shaw on this connection? MR. JARRETT-Yes. Well, there are design details to work out yet, but we’ve discussed it with Mike, and the connection is fine, is allowable, and we’ve discussed it with Sportline, and they’re willing to share this with us. MR. VOLLARO-When I saw this was a small diameter force main, I was a little bit concerned about two people on the line, that’s all, but I suspect Mike will look at the flow rates and whether there’s any impediment to flow rates because of the hook up, I’m sure. MR. JARRETT-Actually, our intent right now is to connect to the existing active force main, so there wouldn’t be any velocity issues in either line. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to be gravity feeding to a force main, though, aren’t you? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. JARRETT-We’ll be gravity feeding to a pump station in the front of the site, and a common pump station for both properties, and then injecting into the existing force main on the NiMo right of way. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now on the prior applicant we discussed, and I didn’t see it on the site, but we discussed the status of an oil separator that must be stated. Do we need one or don’t we need one, based on the fact that we’re going to municipal sewer? I think Mike would have something to say about whether we use an oil separator in this system or not. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We’re going to install a grit separator, actually, a grit removal chamber, that’s what Mike wanted. He’s not worried about grease, the amount of grease that we would generate in this facility, but he wants a grit chamber to remove grit from the system. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Take care of the impellors on the pumps and stuff like that. Right. Okay. MR. JARRETT-And that’ll be approved by the Wastewater Department. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think an overall approval by the Wastewater Department is all I’m really looking for, whether he wants a different system than an oil separator or something. MR. JARRETT-There actually is a note on the Drawing C-1 to that effect, Wastewater Department approval. Two notes, as a matter of fact. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I did notice here, though, there’s a great difference between the seasonally high groundwater which is normally referred to as mottling, and the current level of water that we actually saw, like on TP-4 we saw 25 inches of mottling, but yet we saw 72 inches of water. Now this was done on March 9, 2005, the soils were still pretty stiff from February on March 9, and I’m just wondering. th MR. JARRETT-We also did it in July. MR. VOLLARO-You did? MR. JARRETT-And we saw the same water elevation, amazingly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I only saw March 9, 2005 on my drawing. MR. JARRETT-I’m trying to find it right now. I’ll look for it as you’re speaking, but we did it again. We went out and looked at it again. MR. VOLLARO-If you did it in July, that’s a little different story. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, July 15. th MR. JARRETT-Where are you finding it? MR. HUNSINGER-On Drawing C-2. I’m sorry, the test pit was on 7/7. It’s on Drawing C-2. MR. JARRETT-Yes, July 7. th MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it was done on March 9 and July 7? thth MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then I’m also inclined to grant the waiver, re: the NiMo northern portion of the site for buffering, and that’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen? Tony? MR. METIVIER-Would you be inclined to, Bob, instead of having them come back for site plan review for the boat display, to remove the reference to reserved for boat display, put in boat display, and move forward on it that way, or would they be inclined to do that? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I had asked for is to remove all references to boats and service area. MR. METIVIER-Well, what I’m saying is, why wouldn’t we just remove the reference reserved for, and assume that they’ll come in, they won’t come in, but assume that at some point he will have boat display. What would the difference be there? MR. VOLLARO-The difference, what he said in his last appearance before us is that if he were to get a franchise for boats, that he would get into the boat business, and if he doesn’t, I don’t want the plans to kind of reflect something that’s not going to happen. MR. METIVIER-I understand. MR. SANFORD-Explain that again? I don’t understand, Bob. I didn’t hear you, I don’t think, if you could repeat it. MR. VOLLARO-I think Tony asked the question, why don’t we just leave the references to the reserved for boats on the drawing, and my position is, when the applicant last appeared, he said if he were to get a franchise for boats, he would then get into “the boat business”, and what I’m saying is, let’s let this application be for autos only, and if he wants to come in for boats, if he does get a franchise, then we come in for a site plan mod in the future to include the boat display and service area. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m comfortable with that approach because it’s not known whether it’s even going to happen at this point. MR. VOLLARO-That’s my point. Why leave it on the drawing if it’s not going to happen. Why not make this an autos only, and then go to the next step when he gets a franchise. TOM DICKERT MR. DICKERT-It won’t happen in that process. MR. SANFORD-Why not? MR. DICKERT-The fact is, when I go to a manufacturer and tell them I maybe have a spot, or I do have a spot with a showroom that I can put your product in, they’re going to look at me differently than they would if I had a maybe. MR. SANFORD-I hear you. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s a question of when, rather than if. MR. DICKERT-Well, yes. Basically I’m looking to get approved to sell boats and cars out of the same facility, no matter what we do with it. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Then, Bob, does that change things? I really appreciate the applicant’s perspective there. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s how he presented it. MR. DICKERT-That’s how we presented it at the last meeting as well. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing that threw me off that track was that we were looking now, by definition, at the instructions I got, as to a single phased application. Once I saw that, my mind clicked in to autos only. MR. DICKERT-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That was my thought process. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. SANFORD-I hear you, but I think what we can do, Bob, is, I appreciate where the applicant’s coming from now, he did a nice job in explaining that very quickly. I think, though, if it doesn’t happen. So let’s say he goes to a boat dealer or whoever. MR. DICKERT-Manufacturer. MR. SANFORD-Manufacturer, but nothing happens, I think obviously he has to come in front of us for alternative plans, for any space, and I think that he’d be agreeable to that. MR. JARRETT-If the timeframe for construction of the project expires, then we’d have to come back for an extension or a modification or a new site plan. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’m comfortable with that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see what you’re saying. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any other comments, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you run that by me again? So now we’re saying it’s okay that we leave it reserved for boats? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But then, I guess, could you just clarify for me, so that’s the grassy area where you would have the reserve for boats? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So you would park the boats on the grassy area is what you’re asking? MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Right in front of the stormwater basin to the rear of the site is reserved for display of boats. MR. SEGULJIC-Between the stormwater basin and the parking area? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I think you understood what he said, I mean, he’s going to go to like. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, right. So he has to have that option open, but I guess one of my concerns would be then, is there a limit to how many boats you could put on site? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s limited by the area. MR. JARRETT-We have an defined area on the site plan. So, correct, depending on the size of the boats, too. MR. DICKERT-Even if the boats were moved to the front, it would put boats out there and eliminate cars, if we moved them and juggled them back around. We could put cars in the back or boats in the front, mix them any way that it would make sense to display them. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Yes. He wants to be able to say to a Boston Whaler type of company or Sea Ray or anybody, look, you know, we got the approval. Now if we can come up with an arrangement, we can do this, and if he comes in there and says, look it, maybe we can get an approval, I can appreciate where he’s coming from. MR. DICKERT-They look at the project, the whole. MR. JARRETT-We also wanted to make sure the Board was aware of what his ultimate plan was, too. We didn’t want to surprise you, six months down the road, and say, by the way, we want to put boats here, too. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. SANFORD-No, I actually appreciated the last meeting. I thought it was pretty comprehensive. I have no problems with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any other questions or comments? MRS. STEFFAN-One thing I’d like to mention is that, obviously you’re looking to get a dealership, a boat dealership, but one of the things that I would be concerned about, oftentimes, not oftentimes, but I see off season, in the winter, folks will store boats. They’ll shrink wrap them and store them. I would not like to see any kind of seasonal boat storage on the off season. MR. JARRETT-We didn’t request that. So we’d have to do a modification if we. MRS. STEFFAN-I know. Okay. MR. JARRETT-We purposely did not request it, because that’s not what he’s looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom, do you have any questions or comments? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. GOETZ-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have anything, other than some of the comments that were in the Staff notes, some of which we already talked about. Bob mentioned the buffer request between the property and the NiMo right of way. Is there anything else you want to add? MR. JARRETT-No. I think Staff comments, I don’t know, Susan, do you want to bring any of those up? MR. HUNSINGER-I think we pretty much addressed most of them. MR. JARRETT-I think we addressed them to a large degree. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, I think we did, and I think that, Tom, you also indicated that you might be willing to, or your client might be willing to address maybe some of the landscaping comments that I have, changing the perennial seasonal to maybe some kind of low screening shrubs. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Susan brought up the idea that perennial beds sometimes get neglected and don’t always, are not always kept up, nothing personal here. We’d be willing to substitute low growing permanent shrubs in place of some of the perennial beds or supplement it with some low growing junipers and that kind of thing. We don’t want anything that grows up high, because that’s a display area for vehicles and boats. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. JARRETT-But certainly we’re willing to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DICKERT-More of an evergreen. MR. HUNSINGER-We did leave the public hearing open from June 21. Is there anyone st here that would like to speak to this application? Okay. Since there’s no one here to speak at the public hearing, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? It is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. Do we feel that the engineering comments are? MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t had a chance to look at them. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a C.T. Male letter. We know what was outstanding as of August 19. th MR. JARRETT-I could ask this. If there’s anything that bothers any of the Board members, regarding the C.T. Male comments, I can address those specifically, without having to go through every one of them. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed his August 19 letter, you know, the material did not include a th response letter, but included revised plans. I see two comments from C.T. Male, one June 14 th and one August 19. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it would be the August 19 that would be the most relevant. th MR. VOLLARO-August 19 one is probably where we’re going with this, then, and your th comments specifically talked to that, to August 19. th MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Do members feel comfortable moving forward? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, they look pretty straightforward to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, there’s nothing, they all appear to be engineering ones that can be dealt with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SEQRA. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, can I just ask one thing? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. BARDEN-To Tom. That area that’s just grassed area that’s going to be boat display, and that’s going to be just area to put boats wherever. There won’t be defined spaces like the car spaces. So, I guess what I’m asking is, is there some kind of berm around the stormwater management back there that would keep the boats away from that area, or some kind of barrier? MR. JARRETT-There’s actually some landscaping there that would help to do that. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And the area is graded to drain into that stormwater basin, but I believe the landscaping plan does that to a large degree. We’ve got some trees right along that edge of the stormwater basin. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-In behind the boat storage area, that will delineate it pretty well, I believe. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, I don’t know where you’re heading with this, but my inclination is we may be able to just, even though we did get this information tonight, we may be able to condition on a C.T. Male signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s where I was headed. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. SANFORD-I thought we had a very good discussion last time they were in front of us, and that’s the way I feel. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Thank you. Have you got the SEQRA ready? Okay. Go ahead. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 27-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DIAMOND AUTOS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non- significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2005, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2005 DIAMOND AUTOS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant proposes an Auto & Boat sales and service use with corresponding site work. Auto sales and service in the HC zone require Site Plan review. WHEREAS, the application was received on July 15, 2005; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) 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 June 21, 2005 & August 23, 2005; 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, 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 Grant the waiver request reference to NiMo at the northern portion of this site. 2. Approval conditioned upon the receipt of a sign-off by C.T. Male Associates on their August 19, 2005 letter. 3. As to landscaping with the applicant’s agreement that they will replace the areas identified with perennial seasonal with evergreen glow, but evergreen tall screen scrubs for better screening and less maintenance. 4. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 5. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright 6. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 2005, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-And also, on record of resolution, Number Three, it says phasing plan approved or denied, and in this particular case, I don’t see a phasing plan here. It looks to me like this is all still all one phase. MR. DICKERT-The only possibility is, due to the additional cost, which has been considerable, with the items that C.T. Male wants us to do, that’s coming up to like another $226,000 to do it this way, that we may delay the back garage area, but we want to get it approved now. It may get done right away. MR. HUNSINGER-No, you have a year to complete your site plan. If you go beyond a year, you have to come back for an extension or ask for a modification. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. SANFORD-Yes, you’re fine with that. You come back to us if you need to make a change. MR. VOLLARO-Right now I’m still looking at this as in the motion to approve or deny the project phasing plan. MR. HUNSINGER-You can just strike that reference. MR. VOLLARO-Just get rid of that, in that particular one. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. DICKERT-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2005 SKETCH SEQR TYPE N/A CURTIS HARRINGTON OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR-1A, SR-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN LOTS RANGING FROM 0.72 ACRES TO 1.22 ACRES. CROSS REF. AV 56-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 3.55 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.9-1-9 SECTION A-183 MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, this was withdrawn by the applicant at the Zoning Board meeting, August 17. th MR. HUNSINGER-I was wondering. So we will move on to the next item. We were just saying, it wasn’t clear to either one of us if they were withdrawing their Area Variance request or if they were withdrawing both. So, then the next item is Site Plan No. 48-2005. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEVE QUIRION & A & Q HOLDINGS AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S): A & Q HOLDINGS & FLR ASSOCIATES ZONING: LI LOCATION: 55 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 27,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOR FURNITURE STORAGE. EXPANSION OF A USE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 54- 2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/10/05 LOT SIZE: 4.35 ACRES SECTION 179-9- 020 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STEVE QUIRION, PRESENT MRS. BARDEN-Do you want a little summary on this one? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, please. MRS. BARDEN-The applicant, again, is Steve Quirion and A & Q Holdings. Applicant seeks site plan review for expansion of an existing use. Project is located at 55 Luzerne Road and it is zoned Light Industrial. The application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. Project Description, the applicant proposes a 27,000 square foot warehouse building, expanding the gravel drive extension lighting and landscaping. Staff comments. The landscaping proposed is concentrated between the existing main building and Luzerne Road, with the applicant removing asphalt in this area for this purpose. Can the area marked six employee parking spaces be removed and planted, too, and these spaces moved in back of the existing main building, where the other four employee parking spaces are located? This could also serve to lessen the number of curb cuts from Luzerne Road, and help direct cars and trucks into the site. The limit of clearing is defined on the west side of the proposed building and should be left as an undisturbed buffer, and any substantial trees in this area should remain. The maximum Floor Area Ratio in the LI zone is 30%. With this proposal, the FAR is 29.8%. Previous site plan approval for this property limited the parking of commercial vehicles, tractor trailers, in the front of the site. Staff suggests a consistent position on this issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If you could state your name for the record and summarize your project. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I’m Tom Hutchins of Hutchins Engineering, and this is Steve Quirion, A & Q Holdings and Bare Bones Furniture. The proposal in front of you, or 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) the application in front of you proposes construction of a 27,000 square foot unheated storage building, to the rear of the existing building at 55 Luzerne Road, which is the former AMG Building. Bare Bones Furniture has been utilizing that building for storage, and they need more storage space. There is additionally a concrete block office building on the property that it’s not presently being used with the potential that that be either used as a separate office at some point, at which time another applicant would be before this Board, and I think that has happened in the past, on at least one occasion. That’s his intent. It’s not Bare Bones intent to utilize that office. It’s just the existing storage building and the new building. The parcel, the application is presented on two parcels, and the main parcel is L-shaped and encompasses all of the buildings, both existing and proposed. The second parcel to the north, if you will, it’s indicated as FLR Associates parcel, is part of the application. That area is essentially used for traffic and it is presently under separate ownership, and both owners, this is presented as a joint application. The reason for that is it is under contract to be conveyed to A & Q. However, there are issues with the adjacent remediation site that have delayed the transfer of that property. So it’s presented as a joint application. It’s under contract to be sold. It’s in the works. It has not happened yet. MR. VOLLARO-The other party is Steve Quirion. Is that correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Steve Quirion, yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s FLR Associates? MR. HUTCHINS-No. That’s A & Q Holdings. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Steve Quirion is a member of A & Q Holdings, and also of Bare Bones Furniture. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then who is FLR Associates? They’re outside that loop. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s the previous owner. They’re also on the, they’re the co-applicant, which is Fred Alexy. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I didn’t see that. Their name isn’t on the application. It’s just Steve Quirion/A & Q Holdings, and I didn’t see that as part of our application. MR. HUTCHINS-I believe it is part of the application. Maybe I’m wrong. I know he signed it. MR. VOLLARO-See, the applicant here it says is Steve Quirion/A & Q Holdings. I have a signature of the applicant. MR. HUTCHINS-Steve Quirion/A & Q Holdings, and Fred H. Alexy, FLR Associates. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I think I’m confused, too. Just to clarify. Is it both lots that are labeled as FLR Associates, or just the smaller one? MR. HUTCHINS-No. I call it the main lot. It is this lot contains the existing building, or the existing storage building, the existing office building, and the proposed storage building. The second lot on the application is this lot here, which is vacant. It’s used for gravel drive space, and the reason it’s in there is that the site traffic flow just doesn’t work without it. MR. HUNSINGER-So that larger lot that’s labeled FLR Associates is not part of the application. MR. HUTCHINS-This is not part of the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I was looking to clarify. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. HUTCHINS-It’s actually part of the remediation site next door. In fact they created this when they outlined the extent of this site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-So those FLR Associates parcels are landlocked, then. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and you’re talking about the remediation. Is that the Glens Falls landfill remediation? MR. HUTCHINS-No. That’s the PCB site, Luzerne Road, 53 Luzerne Road, that’s under remedial design right now. The Glens Falls landfill is on the other side. So we’re sandwiched between the hazardous waste site and the unclosed sanitary landfill, which is part of why we didn’t concentrate on landscaping back there. MR. SEGULJIC-Just for clarification, you mentioned a concrete block building in the corner. Could you just clarify where that is? MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-I can see where it is, but I don’t see the outline of it. It’s not clear. MR. HUTCHINS-The block building, you can see that from the road, it’s right up here, attached existing single story block building. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s defined by that line with 41.1 on the drawing? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that’s the length. There’s a hatch in it. The hatch didn’t copy very well. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess I see it now, all right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else you wanted to add before we start asking questions? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t we go through the site plan review criteria. Does anyone have any questions with design standards? Any questions of site development design? Questions related to stormwater, sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-I have one. There is a proposed six inch water service into the building. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I see that. That ties onto that existing 12 inch DIP water. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s the tapping point, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now, there are 13 employee spaces on this property, four out in the back on the FLR parcel, and three right behind the existing building. That’s seven, and six out front is 13. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now, what I’m driving at here is I see no reference to connecting to either municipal sewer or to on site septic for this and yet there’s employee parking spaces here, which leads me to believe people will be working here. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct. You’re on municipal sewer. MR. VOLLARO-The site plan doesn’t show a connection to municipal sewer anywhere. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. You’re right. MR. VOLLARO-I stretched it out, didn’t locate it, and that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman, on stormwater and sewage design. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on the floor area ratio. Is there any way that you can change it so that you are within the 30% requirement? MR. HUTCHINS-I believe I am within the 30% requirement. MR. VOLLARO-He’s at 29.8. MR. HUNSINGER-Twenty-nine point eight. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-I could actually add a little bit more, but not very much. MR. HUNSINGER-I was reading that the wrong way. MR. HUTCHINS-And we reduced the building to meet that. His original intention was 30,000 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-All right. When I looked at 27,000 even and I saw you’re almost 30, I said it had to be in that 27,000 square feet. You had to size that building to fit that requirement. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Anymore questions related to stormwater, sewage? Lighting design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a couple of questions on lighting. Basically you use wall packs to do your lighting? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-This employee parking space out in the back of the FLR Associates has absolutely no lighting at all. I think there should be some, at least a freestanding pole back there to, because I’m not sure, you know, people walking out there in January or February, it’s going to be pretty dark back in there, because the closest wall pack, looking at what you’re talking the light fixture looks like it’s going to generate there, it doesn’t even get close to that. It covers part of the three employee parking spaces, but not the four. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, the .1 foot candle level, and I think we’d be happy to add a light back there, but keep in mind, the .1 foot candle level, the light doesn’t just stop there. MR. VOLLARO-No, I realize that, but that line you have on there kind of indicates the photometric of that light, I would believe. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. That’s the .1 foot candle contour, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Right. That’s the .1 foot candle contour. So that’s what I look at. Now light spillage off the .1 is something else, if you’re saying that that .1 tends to illuminate parking space, what’s the scale we’re dealing with, one to thirty. It’s about 90 feet away. I think that that wall pack will not do much for those four spaces. So I’m proposing that we put a standing light fixture there. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t it more the practice that the employees tend to park sort of anywhere in that gravel area, though? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I would say that, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, they show the employee parking spaces in a specific spot. MR. HUTCHINS-The gravel area has to maintain, it has to be open for. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. VOLLARO-Once it’s on the map, on the chart, I don’t see any lighting addressing where they say it’s going to be. So maybe they have a reason why they want the four employees to park there. I have no idea. MR. QUIRION-Most of the time, they close at five o’clock, and the latest would be six o’clock. MR. VOLLARO-In the wintertime it’s dark. MR. QUIRION-I know. It gets dark at 5:30. MRS. STEFFAN-And it’s cold. It’s not heated in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments on landscape design? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I guess maybe I should have gone with site design, but I’m curious. You have the proposed gravel drive extension going to the back of the building by the stormwater basin. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s for access, to get access back there from a fire protection standpoint. In meeting with the Building Department, we had not proposed that. We had proposed it to here, and in meeting with the Building Department, it was suggested we do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, then getting to Staff notes, how about the comment of eliminating the six employee spaces and have that for additional landscaping? MR. HUTCHINS-We would prefer not to eliminate those six spaces, from the standpoint that this could be a standalone office that was say leased to someone other than Bare Bones Furniture, and that would keep that parking available for that use, where someone did not have to park back here. I think we could probably work some landscaping into that area. There’s a fair sized green area there. Granted, it needs a little sprucing up at this point, but we could probably work some plantings in between the sidewalk and the building, we’d prefer not to lose those spaces. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I recall, that is, there’s no curb cuts there, it’s all open space. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s all open. MR. HUTCHINS-Presently it’s open from here to here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Could you put, create curb cuts along there, put a planting area along the front of the building, along Luzerne Road, keep your six spaces and put one, I don’t know how best to describe it. MR. METIVIER-We talked about that the last time this came in front of us, and for some reason, they had put some plantings out front, and we actually removed them, and I don’t recall why that was, but we actually took them off the plan. Does anybody else remember that? MR. HUNSINGER-Vaguely. MR. METIVIER-And there was a reason for it. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it was because the salt and, you know, road plowing and things like that. MR. METIVIER-But even, we had even thought about putting the whiskey barrels out there with plants and for some reason it was, we did away with it, and I just can’t remember why that is. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you put some trees along there? I mean, that wouldn’t be affected by salt. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a stretch of 61 feet there it looks like almost 61.2 feet, right in front of that existing single story block building. Between the sidewalk and the building you could dress that up, so that it would tend to compliment the existing Bare Bones building somewhat, and it would look good from Luzerne Road. That’s what I thought. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We could do that. I believe there are some windows in the front of that office, and we could keep something that was below the window. MR. VOLLARO-Because what I said, you know, put some additional plantings and pretty up the front of the entire area, so it looks decent from Luzerne Road. MR. METIVIER-I think it had to do with the right of way, the State right of way on that road is right there, and they wouldn’t allow us, or we couldn’t, to encroach on that. That’s why we took all that stuff out. MR. VOLLARO-I’m saying just move it back to that small spot next to the sidewalk and put some low growing evergreens in there and just spruce up the front of that building a little. MR. GOETZ-I think, Tom, you mentioned it could use some sprucing up. I bike by there all the time. It needs a lot of work, and it would be nice to see some improved landscaping. MR. VOLLARO-Even though it’s just a storage building, it’s something that it’s in the Town, and it ought to look halfway decent. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and we are proposing to remove 2400 square feet or so of that asphalt in front of the building and dress it up nicely. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the motion has to talk to where we want the plantings in front of the existing single story block building. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and we’re certainly agreeable to that. MR. VOLLARO-Part of the motion would probably include that, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So, Tony, the problem was the right of way along the road, then? MR. METIVIER-I recall something like that. There was a problem with the right of way and we couldn’t put stuff on it, but I don’t know for sure what it was. It was something along those lines. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, if you planted right along the road, the salt would eventually kill it. Why not put it in a place where it’s got a chance to survive. When those plows go by, they really, they’ll dump everything in the world on those. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d go along with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments on the landscape design? Environmental concerns? Neighborhood character? Involved agencies? Any other criteria not previously reviewed or discussed? MR. VOLLARO-One thing not previously discussed is you tell me there’s an arrangement in the works with FLR Associates. However, is there any words of easement concerning the fact that you’ve got the proposed gravel drive extension over on their property? Have they granted you an easement of any kind to put it on before you get, or before that piece becomes tied in to this holding? MR. HUTCHINS-Not beyond being a joint application, with both parcels and both owners designing the application, essentially linking the parcels together. MR. QUIRION-When we bought that parcel, it’s in the contract that we can purchase that property, and we are, in fact the paper work is at Bill Wright’s office right now, just needs signing. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re looking to buy that small piece called FLR Associates, that Parcel Number 309. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. QUIRION-We’re buying it for a dollar. MR. HUNSINGER-And you would then combine the two lots into one lot. We’d want to make that a consideration of any motion. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I would like to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wants to speak about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-I’ll just tell you for the record. I represent FLR, and the deed’s already been signed and delivered to their attorney. So they already have it. They just need to record it. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks, Jon. Anyone else here? I think I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA, it’s an Unlisted Action. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 48-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STEVE QUIRION & A & Q HOLDINGS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non- significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2005, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-One of the things, Mr. Chairman, that I had that I didn’t get to add is that they have a set of elevations here, usually we ask the applicant what it’s going to look like in terms of color on the elevation. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s always appropriate. Go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-The elevation’s in black and white. I just wanted to get some idea of what that might look like in terms of. MR. HUTCHINS-Do you have an idea for metal building color, siding color? MR. QUIRION-I haven’t got that far yet. Any suggestions? I’d like to keep it to the contour of the other building, which is cement block, and a sage green. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is going to be a different kind of building than a block building. MR. HUTCHINS-This is going to be a metal building, and we have not, as Steve indicated, we haven’t selected a color at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-But is it going to be visible from the road? MR. HUTCHINS-A corner of it will be visible, as you come to the Pine Street intersection, about a corner of this new building, and that will be the only really visible point, unless you were, if you were stopped on Luzerne Road. MR. QUIRION-Do you want to keep it the same color as the other building? MR. VOLLARO-Probably a beige. The other building is kind of a light beige color. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, earth tone. MR. HUTCHINS-I mean, I don’t think it’s critical to us, and we’ll certainly. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll just put down an earth tone color, beige to be more specific. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember going into that building when they were still making the car carriers, and I’ll tell you, you’ve done a great job cleaning it up and fixing it up, since then. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there a C.T. Male letter with this? MR. HUNSINGER-There was, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I missed it, then. MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t have a signoff. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the next thing is a C.T. Male approval on their letter of August 19. th MR. HUTCHINS-That’s true. I received it, obviously, Friday afternoon, and I have not responded to get a signoff at this point. I have reviewed them. A number of them are simple modifications. A few of them I need to address, and I believe I can address them with them, and get them resolved. I don’t see anything that’s earth shattering. Some of them need a slight modification. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve been issuing approvals based on receipt of C.T. Male approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, as long as everyone feels that they’re insignificant. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve looked this over. I don’t see anything significant on the C.T. letter myself. I did get a chance to read that. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want some time, Bob, to draft a resolution? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s at least five or six conditions. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I’ll go over them real quickly with you, if you’d like. It’ll take five minutes to do this. Sanitary sewer connection is one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-A freestanding light on their 309.10-1-88.1, the FLR. That’s two. Landscaping between the building and sidewalk on the westernmost building. That’s the way I can identify it as the westernmost building on the site plan. We can be more specific and call it by its right name, if you’d like. MR. GOETZ-Bob, did you include sprucing up the existing landscaping? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what he meant by the. MR. VOLLARO-Landscaping between the building and the sidewalk on the westernmost building. That would be the building that’s labeled existing single story block building. MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant would be required to combine the two lots into one, once the lot is purchased, and then C.T. Male signoff. Is there anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-What waiver did they ask for? In the resolution it says waiver requests granted or denied. I don’t see any waiver request. MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t believe we did. MR. HUNSINGER-Strike that. We can strike that reference then. That’s all I had, Bob. Does that cover all the conditions? MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, did you want to put the specifications for the exterior of the building that we talked about? MR. HUNSINGER-The exterior color? Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll go down what we’ve got. Let me get a hold of the motion, and then as we go we might want to correct the motion. All right. Let me start it off here. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2005 STEVE QUIRION & A & Q HOLDINGS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 27,000 sq. ft. Warehouse building for furniture storage. Expansion of a use requires Site Plan review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/15/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 August 23, 2005; 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 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); 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. That the sewer connection be labeled on the drawings, and be shown on Drawing entitled Layout Plan which is dated 7/15/05. 2. Combining the two lots, bringing Lot No. 309.10-1-88.1 in as part of this overall holding. 3. The landscaping between the building and the sidewalk on the westernmost building, that building being identified on the map as existing single story block building, and that the landscaping would be between the building and sidewalk.. 4. The color of the elevation rendition would be an earth tone called beige. 5. We would need a C.T. Male Associates approval sign-off on their letter of August 19, 2005. 6. There will be a freestanding light on Parcel 309.10-1-88.1. Freestanding light close to the four employee parking spaces delineated on that parcel. 7. The height shall be no more than a 20 foot pole, which is in accordance with our spec, and the light wattage can be the same wattage as exists on the wall packs, and it shall be shielded for downcast lighting only. 8. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 9. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright. 10. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. QUIRION-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-2001 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE PYRAMID CO. OF GF NEWCO I- EIS AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: ESC-25A LOCATION 278 AVIATION MALL 11,288 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK TO ACCOMMODATE A 23,000 SQ. FT. BED, BATH & BEYOND RETAIL STORE. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CROSS REF. AV 60-2005 LOT SIZE: 56.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-92.1, 92.2, 92.3, 92.4 SECTION 179-9-020 JON LAPPER, BOB ORLANDO, & CHRIS ROUND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. The applicant is Pyramid Companies. The applicants request site plan review for an 11,288 sq. ft. addition with associated site work. The property is located at Aviation Mall and is zoned Enclosed Shopping Center 25 acre. The site plan modification requires a consistency finding relative to the prior EIS determination. This project appears to be within the scope of the SEQRA Findings Statement approved by the Planning Board on 8/27/01. Project Description. Proposal is for an 11,288 sq. ft. addition to accommodate a 23,000 square foot department store addition to the existing Mall. Associated site work indicates a new parking lot with 55 additional parking spaces. Staff comments, under landscaping, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement for the submission of a landscaping plan. The landscaping plan which was previously approved with the Target application will be displaced by the location of the new store to be reincorporated into the current plan. See the little crude reference to the crude drawing that I made for you. Specifically a large landscaped area holding two sugar maples, five flowering cherry trees, three pines and nine cypress trees, and a landscaped curbed island with two cherries and twelve cypress. Two grass areas shown on the plans need to be filled out with these existing plantings to be removed or a comparable alternate plan. Proposed interior parking lot island should be replaced with landscape islands as previously approved for the Target plan. The applicant is seeking a waiver from the required landscaping plan as earlier identified for the new overflow parking area. This waiver, if granted, would relieve the applicant of the required in Section 179-8-040 D & E, eight percent of interior landscaped area, 3600s square feet for the approximate 45,000 square feet of total parking area. Additionally, one shade tree for each 15 parking spaces for the proposed 161 parking spaces. Approximately 11 trees required. The required exterior parking lot landscaping may be met by the existing landscaped strip, if proposed to remain, this should be identified. Lighting. The lighting proposed on SP-2A, previously approved to be relocated or additional lighting added. On Drawing S-7 for Target, Planting and Lighting Plan, marked 10 A4 and 11 A4, are two 4-way pole parking lot lights, are these proposed to remain or be replaced? Under Access Management A connection from the new overflow parking area to the existing Burger King was discussed with the applicant’s agents, but is not identified on the plan. In Section 179- 19-010, “One of the most important objectives of access management is to reduce conflicts along the most heavily traveled roadways”, “Conflict points can be reduced by establishing provisions for vehicles to move, between parking areas to access abutting properties”. This connector should be incorporated into the new parking area plan. Another discussion item was extending the sidewalk or striping across the main mall entrance road for pedestrians to get from the overflow parking area to the mall. Some form of walkway should be provided to promote safe pedestrian crossing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Bob Orlando and Chris Round. I guess to begin with, we view this as a rather minor project, in terms of the scope of the Mall, adding 11,000 square feet, but nevertheless a very important project for the Mall to finish out that one empty space between the new 99 Restaurant and Pub and the new Target. We were here, in great detail, going over the plans for the Mall when we previously submitted for the SEQRA review, where we were talking about the scope, size and traffic generated by the Mall additions, and we’re pretty close to completing that at this point. Target, obviously, at roughly 126,000 square feet was a big deal, both in terms of visually cleaning up the front of the Mall. The whole parking lot got re-graded, drainage, everything was really cleaned up in front of the Mall to address that. After Target went in, Klein’s went out of business and left. So now there’s this sort of visual blight of having the vacant store in the front of the Mall. It’s both an opportunity to clean up the Mall and also to get in a really good national tenant, and that’s what Bob has done with Bed, Bath and Beyond. So we’re excited, from the Mall’s perspective, to be able to bring a quality tenant to the Mall and also to just sort of finish the project or get this to the next step. Needless to say, Susan raised some good comments, and so we certainly have, we’ve got some landscaping that Chris will go over with you that we should have thought about originally. There is a small landscape bed in front of the new store, and we’ll cover that, and Burger King was something that, the connection was 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) something that had been discussed previously, and now that we’re looking at that lot, we’ve now added that to the plan. It’s going to take Burger King to sort of actually to happen because we can only go up to the property line, but we’ve now shown that on the property line as a connection, but we only want that as a connection from people coming from Burger King to the Mall parking lot, so that they could use the traffic light to make left turns out, which you can’t do at Burger King. We wouldn’t want the Mall traffic trying to get around the parking lot, around the traffic light and avoid the traffic light and cut through the Burger King lot. That wouldn’t be smart. So we’ve got it on as a one way coming in towards the Mall to help their traffic, and we think that makes sense, but certainly that’s on there as well now. So we wanted to be responsive. Those were good comments. In terms of, the one thing that I really want to clarify and discuss before I hand this over to Chris to go through the site plan, the new configuration for the auxiliary parking lot that’s halfway down the hill would be to add 20 spaces from what’s there now, and Bob doesn’t really want to do that. I mean, he doesn’t feel that it’s necessary because of the remote location, and when you’re talking about, you know, 2,000 plus cars, or 2,000 plus spaces, another 20 spaces doesn’t make a big difference, but the reason why we did that was to show that we can comply with the Town parking standards, which we obviously have to do, otherwise we’d need a parking variance if we couldn’t show it, but in the Queensbury Code you’ve got the provision where, as long as it’s shown on the map, if it’s not needed, on the site plan, if it’s not needed, we don’t have to build them, and we can build them either if we think it’s necessary or the Planning Board thinks it’s necessary. So, with respect to that, we’re certainly, we’ve shown the Burger King cut on both the plan with and without the extra 20 spaces. We’re hoping, or anticipating that those 20 spaces won’t be necessary, but we want to have the right to build them in case we need them, and certainly you have the right to require them, but either way, the Burger King connection is towards the other end of the site, towards the western end of that parking lot, because, which is already existing, because that’s where the grade is more appropriate and it doesn’t interfere with the drive through for Burger King. So Chris will go through that in detail, but that’s the issue on the parking lot. We hope that that doesn’t have to get built. MR. VOLLARO-Is this parking lot for 161 new spaces, according to the site plan SP2B? MR. LAPPER-Not 100. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at that as 161 spaces, SP2A showing the difference between the two. It’s catamount at 161 spaces, or am I dreaming? MR. LAPPER-That’s with the new and the old together, reconfigured. MR. VOLLARO-At 161. MR. ROUND-Yes, the total lot size would be 161. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Let me hand it over to Chris, and he can go over the details. MR. ROUND-Chris Round, for the record. I think the best way to illustrate this project is to show you the existing condition versus the proposed condition, and what we have up here is I have an illustration, I have handouts for you so you can see that yourself. Susan has that up on the screen, and, Susan, I don’t know if you can just zoom in on that disturbed area at all. You can see there’s a zoom function up on top, if you pan to that, but I have the plat here, and what you have in front of you is this is the existing Mall façade. This is the Target store at this location. The existing service road is this routing here, and you can see it on the plan on here. The proposed routing of the road is this alignment here. This differs just slightly from the submission that you received on July 15. Working in response to some Staff th comments and response to the engineering comments, we pulled this road back in order to eliminate consumption of some parking facilities, and what that allowed us to do is we placed the Bed, Bath and Beyond store, which is a combination of a building expansion and a reconfiguration of existing space, and so you have that roughly 11,288 square foot expansion. What that does is that consumes some existing parking area at the face of the Bed, Bath and Beyond store. We’re consuming a total of 24 parking spaces under this plan. That’s slightly less than we did under the plan that you have in front of you, and I apologize. This is the plan that was submitted and approved by the Town’s reviewing engineer, Stantec, and what this does, it allows us to retain an existing island. The only island that we have to move and reconstruct is this island in the center. We’re proposing a slight modification to this island 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) here, and what that allows us to do is retain all the existing site lighting, with the exception of a single lighting pole. We’re just moving it probably six to eight feet to the west on this site plan, and then the balance of the site will remain as is. What we did to address, what you have in your handout, what we did to address the Staff comments was there was some landscaping area that was consumed as a result of the building expansion. What we’ve done, the third sheet you have in front of you basically replicates that planting area, with a planting area just in front of what is now the 99 Restaurant and a smaller planting area in front of the Bed, Bath and Beyond. The Bed, Bath and Beyond plan, you know, the other amendment that we have to heighten your awareness of is this, there’s roughly a 24 by 48 bump out of the existing Mall entrance. There’s no additional gross leasable area. It’s basically a reconfigured entrance to allow for an entrance into the Bed, Bath and Beyond store, as an internal entrance. That’s the plan in a nutshell. What we have here is a loading dock area. One of the concerns that the Town engineer raised was whether there was adequate turning radius to handle a large axel truck. What we did, the engineer signed off on it. We gave them a truck turning template and demonstrated that a truck could enter at that location without any unusual movements. The other engineering comment that was noted was there was a concern about ponding in this area of the curbed island. What we did was we tried to provide a cut through on that curb to just allow drainage to continue on and reach and existing drainage structure that we’re proposing there. All stormwater is being managed on site through infiltration at this location with a relocation of some existing infiltration devices as well as an addition of two additional drainage devices in order to accommodate relatively a minor increase in hard surfacing. We’re looking at about a six to seven thousand square foot net increase in hard surfacing. I think that does a good job of contrasting so you can see where you are. You can see the alternates. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, where is the main entrance to Bed, Bath and Beyond? Is that, I see those little doors in there. That’s the only place I see. MR. ROUND-Bob, it’s still to be determined. Our best, our understanding at this time is that the entrance is going to be at the face of the building, the building that’s facing the parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-I see. MR. ROUND-And I have, one of the other Town comments, one of the Planning Staff comments and one of the engineering comments, was how would the building appear from a visual standpoint, and what we have is basically a photo illustration that’s representative of the Bed, Bath and Beyond store as we know it, and it’s really, it’s a prototype that we’re illustrating on that photo illustration. There may be some nuances that change as the design gets finalized, but the building entrance is to be located at the center of the store, and there will be an entrance on the internal, on the Mall side of the store, an internal entrance from the Mall, and so we show an entrance there, and we’ll show an internal, you won’t see that because it’s not a building plan that you have in front of you. You have a site plan in front of you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. MR. ROUND-Any just general questions on the layout or on this plan that’s in front of you? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any problems on layout. MR. ROUND-Real minor. The lower parking lot layout, you have this on your original site plan, and this is SP 1B, Bob, that you have referenced. This is the existing condition. What we did, the revision I have here in front of you that’s not reflected on your plan is we show this interconnection to the Burger King parking lot. We’ve designated that location. The location we chose, there are two or three drive aisles on the Burger King parking lot. Traffic generally comes in from Quaker Road, enters the site. There’s a drive through at this location. We chose the drive aisle that’s the furthest to the west. We figured that would be where the least amount of conflicts and works for our configuration. So what we do is we show is under the existing condition, so that we show that it could be accomplished under the existing condition, and in the event that the parking lot is indeed constructed, we show it under the proposed condition. MR. VOLLARO-My concern on that lot was this requirement for the overall Mall overflow parking, or is this related to just the Bed and Bath? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. ROUND-It’s overall. MR. VOLLARO-I would assume that. MR. ROUND-If you go back to, on this figure that you have in front of you, there’s a parking calculation on that, and parking’s calculated for the entire site. MR. VOLLARO-I know the entire site is up to 2922, I believe. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So this does not add to that very much, to the 2922, or does it? MR. ROUND-Well, existing on site, there’s 2892 parking spaces. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. ROUND-The Bed, Bath and Beyond site plan is going to consume 24 parking spaces. That road realignment will consume 24 existing parking spaces. The expansion to the lower parking field will add 55. Okay, and that 55 is a little bit in excess of what you need to meet the municipal standard. MR. VOLLARO-It’s very close, from what I saw. MR. ROUND-Yes, it’s like 11, we need 2912 parking spaces on the site. MR. VOLLARO-And you’ve got 2922. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And that sounds to me like that’s close enough for government work. MR. ROUND-Right. So one of the comments on the parking area was landscaping. We’ve asked for a waiver from the internal landscaping requirement. This parking lot’s well screened from the public view. There’s existing vegetation around the perimeter of the site. You can’t see it from here. When you look at that parking lot, if you’ve visited it this weekend, is you’re looking down on the Tractor Supply store, the Taco Bell, etc. So you can see off the site but you can’t see onto the site because it’s at a plateau. We’ve added a note in response to Town Staff comments and engineering comments, that we would add a note that no vegetation would be removed from the perimeter, consistent with their request. I think that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Why don’t we go through the site plan review criteria. We’ll start with design standards. Any questions, comments on design standards? The big question I had was of course on the façade which, you know, was addressed in the photo. It’s pretty clear what you plan to do. MR. ROUND-We want to make sure you know that that illustrates the colors, the building textures, etc. That’s the color scheme that’s going to be utilized, as much as we can control. There may be some slight variation. MR. LAPPER-This doesn’t have the loading dock, obviously, but it shows the brick, which matches Target, and the white matches the Penney’s. So it fits in with the façade. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks great. MR. ROUND-What’s signed as Dick’s, that’s the existing entrance to the Mall. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-That threw me. Dick’s is not on that side of the Mall. Dick’s is on the other side of the Mall. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions with design standards? Site development design? MR. VOLLARO-It looks like they’ve got the pedestrian access pretty well cleaned up, to Burger King and to the parking lots and so on. So I don’t see any problem there. The parking field design looks pretty straightforward. MR. HUNSINGER-Stormwater sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-I couldn’t even begin to ask a question on that. It looks like if the Mall is working, it’s working. MR. ROUND-Just so you know, it’s served by existing municipal water and municipal sewer. So we’re not changing anything. We’re re-routing some on site utilities. Stormwater, as I mentioned, is handled through infiltration on the Bed, Bath and Beyond site, as an isolated area. It’s part of the Mall’s overall stormwater management system. We’re adding very little additional runoff. The lower parking field, if built, would have an infiltration gallery, and that’s all part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that we prepared and that Stantec looked at and signed off on. MR. HUNSINGER-Lighting design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I guess I’m going to have to get into this. For me to take a look at this parking lot, I need some better photometrics than we’ve got. Usually when we look at the parking lots, or when I do, and in this particular instance I’d be looking at the parking lot, the entrance to the lot itself, and the building face, in terms of lighting. So I would need to know, you’d need a luminaire schedule. Now, these lights, are they, the lights that I see, the poles, are they currently existing? MR. LAPPER-Existing. One relocation, right in front of the building. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So if we’re going to relocate lights, I would like to be able to take a look at things like Uniformity Ratios in this lot, because what I really need is the average over the min. I don’t really need the average, the max, the min, the min max and all of that. What I really need is the calculation to give me the four to one Uniformity Ratio, or close to it. So you’d need the average and the min to get that. MR. ROUND-I guess my response to that, Bob, is as a part of the Target site plan, you went through an exhaustive review of the lighting plan. MR. VOLLARO-Agreed. MR. ROUND-All we’re proposing to do here is move a single light pole probably five feet west from its existing location, and that’s just so you know where that is. MR. VOLLARO-It’ll have the same wattage that you’ve got now? MR. ROUND-Yes. Existing pole is here, and we’re moving it to here. MR. SANFORD-It doesn’t seem to be material, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-No. If that’s the only change you’ve got, then my question goes away in terms of Uniformity Ratio. MRS. STEFFAN-I think with the Target plan we even had less lighting than was ideal. There’s still plenty of lighting, but the plan was for less than was required. MR. ROUND-I think we’ve been through a number of projects where we’ve realized that the lighting standards can be modified and adjusted. I think the goal is there’s to reduce the playing levels and to light appropriately, and I think that the engineering community’s come a long way, that they’re looking at lighting as a design issue, where they weren’t five and ten years ago. So, trying to apply these hard and fast rules has probably reached it’s point where that’s really no longer necessary. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. VOLLARO-I think Uniformity Ratio has a role to play. I don’t think it has to be four to one exactly, but it’s got a role to play, based on the ability for us to adjust to varying light levels as we enter and leave them. That’s the whole idea of Uniformity Ratio to begin with, is to give us an ability to see when we come out of a very light area into a very dark area. That’s the tutorial on Uniformity Ratio. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s no new lights proposed for the entrance or anything else. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GOETZ-On the lighting, what about that parking spot, the outer parking spot? How is the lighting there for security purposes? MR. ROUND-That’s about it, is it’s security level lighting. There’s a single pole mounted light there. Bob will speak to its frequency of use. It’s really not utilized for parking. It’s used for equipment storage for sanding trucks, etc., and so it’s lit appropriately for those terms. It’s not over lit. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that was going to be my question, is has there ever been a need to use the overflow parking? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone park there. MR. VOLLARO-What happens during the Christmas vacation? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the question, like real peak season time. MR. VOLLARO-Peak season, you get some overflow into that lot? MR. ORLANDO-Very little. I’ve been here now for seven and a half years, and the amount of cars that have parked in that lot that actually interface with the Mall, I could probably count on two hands. We do have some enterprising folks who will go there, park, walk down the hill and go to Burger King, but besides that, we have had very little activity there, very little incidence there. So, in answer to your question, George, we monitor everything on our site with security, constantly with rounds and all different kinds of safety checks and just not even on the radar screen, no incidence. MR. HUNSINGER-How about parking in general? I mean, I think it’s kind of a two pronged question with that overflow parking lot because of it’s location. Number One, does it get used, but Number Two, is there a need for it. I mean, are there ever times when, you know, all the other parking spots are used? MR. ORLANDO-No. MR. SANFORD-Well, Chris, I think the future will tell that. I mean, this Mall is being revitalized as we speak. MR. HUNSINGER-I realize we haven’t had Target open yet for the Christmas shopping season. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and I think they’re saying historically it hasn’t been needed. May not be needed in the future, we won’t know until, you know, and these are big stores. I mean, these are anchor type stores, Bed, Bath and Beyond is a big time attraction and Target and all that. So I think they’re going to watch it. I mean, they’re going to want adequate parking, but I mean, I don’t encourage excessive building of parking if it’s not needed. MR. ORLANDO-I would agree with that as well, Richard. MR. LAPPER-Specifically the new field that was built behind Penney’s and Dick’s, all the way in the back corner, that’s never been filled. I mean, even with the movie theater, no one ever goes to the back there. So that’s always excess capacity, and we’ll see what happens this Christmas. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. ROUND-There’s a lot of perimeter parking that’s striped out there that you drive by that’s not used, and I think that’s the first overflow, near Penney’s, and I think conversation with the Mall management is that their snow removal has improved in the last several years, and so all the snow removal takes care of a lot of spaces that were getting consumed by snow removal. So you further open up parking areas with management practices. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Landscape design? Questions on landscaping? MR. VOLLARO-I mean, there isn’t very much you’re going to do to landscaping in front of the building there itself. Your parking lot’s running right up, almost right up to it. MR. LAPPER-Did you see the new plan that we submitted? MR. ROUND-Yes, the third sheet I handed you, SP-4A, just shows basically we’re replacing the landscaping that was being displaced by this expansion. There’s a landscape area right in front of the proposed store. There’s also some landscaping that’s proposed in front of the 99, and I just have to heighten your awareness that we’re proposing three trees at that location, and we’re proposing a tree to replace one that was on the existing reconfigured island, and those trees that are in front of 99, we may have to revise that species so that it doesn’t conflict with the 99 storefront, and so we need to have that discussion with the client and with the tenant. MR. LAPPER-I might as well point out that 99 didn’t require a site plan because it was all existing space. So it got upgraded and a window was added to dress it up and make it a restaurant, but it didn’t change anything on the footprint of the Mall. So we didn’t come in for that. MR. VOLLARO-Where you’ve got the landscaping in the front of the proposed building, if you put your entrance there, you might have to be removing some, move that around. MR. ROUND-What we want to demonstrate is that we can replace it in kind, and I think that’s what the Planning Staff’s comments were. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that’s a good point Bob raises. MR. ROUND-Yes. It may shift, but we’ll look for the same number and similar species to replace. MRS. STEFFAN-I know that we’re specifically looking at this project right now, but I do have a question about the overall landscaping for the Mall, because there are a lot of dead trees along Aviation Road, and I wondered if there were any plans to spruce that up. MR. LAPPER-Actually, it’s funny that you should ask that, because that just started this week. They’re spending $100,000 to re-vegetate, to fix all the beds, to just replant what stuff that’s died, including the dead trees going up that entrance drive that you’re talking about, and John Berrara, the Operations Manager, is behind us, and he’s in charge of that project, and he’s particularly focused on that right now because it’s just happening. MR. VOLLARO-Getting ready for the holidays are you? MR. LAPPER-Needed to get done. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other landscaping design questions? Environmental questions? Neighborhood character? Involved agencies? Any other criteria not reviewed? MR. VOLLARO-Where was traffic? MR. LAPPER-Our answer on traffic was that this was all contemplated when we did the SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just looking at Stantec’s. Stantec has a “no traffic impact” on 9/254 intersection, and I refer to Marilyn Ryba’s letter of August 19 that confirms that. I th can see that this probably doesn’t add anything to the traffic at all, Bed, Bath and Beyond, but what this Board is attempting, at least Tony and I are attempting to do, right, Tony? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. METIVIER-At some point. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve got it drafted out. It’ll be on everybody’s machine in the morning, is a resolution that this Board may or may not pass to the Town Board to do an integrated traffic study in the Town of Queensbury, on specific roads and specific intersections. Because every time we get an application, it’s always okay, and, you know, from one who drives around Town all the time, it’s not necessarily okay. MR. LAPPER-Since you mentioned that, and since last week, I did speak to Lisa Peniston at the County, and there’s a traffic study that the County did that you’d probably like to see for the whole Bay Road project that looked at every intersection and all the improvements, and contemplated future traffic, and they sent me the sections that I know you wanted me to submit. So you can probably get a copy of the whole thing from Lisa. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think it would be good to see exactly, because none of us up here get an integrated picture. I never do, because when you folks hire a traffic person like Creighton Manning, I wouldn’t want to work for Creighton Manning and tell you it’s not going to work. I’m going to tell you it’s going to be okay. MR. LAPPER-But they’re engineers, and they say, look, these are the improvements that have to be made, you know, you need to add a traffic light, you need to add a turning lane. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but they don’t ever take the comprehensive look that I’m looking for, an end to end look, if you want to look at it that way. They look at what their project will do to the existing traffic, but not how the whole thing flows. MR. LAPPER-When we’re starting out with a project, and we sit down with the Lead Agency and say, what’s the scope of the traffic report, and it’s a question of how many intersections out, you know, it’s reasonable to think that this project may impact. So there is, that’s the time to get involved, and not just looking right outside. MR. VOLLARO-Stantec says no impact. MR. LAPPER-And when we did the traffic study for the Mall expansion for the whole thing, we looked at not just 9 and 254, I mean, we looked at the bridge. We were all over that, and that’s part of the whole EIS that was done years ago, and we’re still within those thresholds. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m looking at specifically in my mind anyway is the entrance and exit to the Mall on Aviation Road, the main entrance. During the high peak periods of say Christmas time, for example, when people are trying to egress at that light, making a right turn into a very congested intersection at that point. I’m just wondering how much back up the Mall’s going to receive. MR. LAPPER-The project that’s going to be under construction soon is going to add double left turn lanes to that intersection, and that’s the DOT project with the Town. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot of what you’re saying that I don’t know about. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Stantec did a presentation that the Town Board went to, and there were Planning Boards, and, George, I think you attended that with me, and Marilyn did put a notation, and that project was supposed to start this Fall, but it’s going to be starting next Spring, but it addresses the issues of coming off Exit 19 going through the Mall, and how the traffic patterns are going to change and the additions of turning lanes, and so after I had gone to that meeting, I really didn’t have a problem with this proposal because those issues had been addressed and I think they’ll be largely taken care of in the Spring. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s Marilyn’s letter. I read that, her August 19 letter refers to all of that. MR. ORLANDO-Yes, I also have been following that project quite closely and we did make some contributions to some of those improvements with our Target approval, and, you know, certainly what I see is going to relieve some of the build up over there. Certainly from my 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) standpoint both as a citizen and as the Mall Manager, and even if this Burger King connection comes to fruition, I think that’s also going to help relieve some of the tension over there as well, because, you know, coming out of there, coming out of that Burger King parking lot is certainly an issue, and we realize that. MR. ROUND-And I’m obliged to beat the dead horse here. The 9 and 254 project, you know, contemplated the Mall expansion, and the Mall prepared an Environmental Impact Statement that projected traffic growth based on a build out of the Mall, including several expansions of the Mall. We haven’t reached that threshold. The 9 and 254 used the Mall’s Impact Statement to project how much traffic and validated how much traffic would go through that intersection. So all these things are being done in a comprehensive fashion. I think, Bob, your recommendation, if it should go to the Town Board, it should also go to, either through Susan or through Marilyn, to the Transportation Council, A/GFTC, because A/GFTC does do corridor planning studies. I think the next one on their list is Route 9, and so they’re going to look at Route 9 from the City to 149, and it’s difficult because it takes years to do studies, and the development community continues to progress at a much more rapid pace. So that’s the tension that exists, and you’re doing a pretty fair job of managing traffic in the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course the other one that we’re concerned with is Bay Road, and it’s really been mostly Route 9 and Bay Road. MR. ROUND-Bay Road, I don’t think anybody foresaw the development explosion that’s occurred on that corridor, but just trying to bring us back to this project, I think we, that the Town’s engineer and the Town’s Staff sign off on the traffic related issues. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that, and I agreed with that. I didn’t think that Bed, Bath and Beyond would contribute an awful lot to the overall traffic picture. I’m trying to take an overall view of what’s going on. We will be sending something possibly to the Town Board to take a look at a comprehensive study of traffic in the Town of Queensbury, and see where it goes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board or the applicant? There is no public hearing required for a modification, and the environmental review was part of the EIS that was adopted back in 2001. So what’s the pleasure of the Board? I think the only thing that we haven’t really talked about in detail is the overflow parking lot and how we want to treat that. MR. LAPPER-And we would just ask that you don’t require it to be built. MR. SANFORD-How do you guys want to handle the overflow? MR. LAPPER-We’d like to have the right to build it, but not the requirement to build it. MR. SANFORD-I actually find that suitable, myself. MR. HUNSINGER-So do I. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think that’s as good a compromise as you’re going to get. At least it gives you the option, in the event something great happens there you’ve got a place to put cars. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Because if you need that parking, your customers will be dissatisfied if you don’t provide it. MR. SANFORD-To me, I agree with the applicant’s opening statement. This is pretty straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-It is, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There is a draft resolution prepared by Staff. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. SEGULJIC-The only question I have is what exactly are we approving, because I’ve got like three different sets of drawings. MR. LAPPER-We apologize, but we’re asking you to approve it with the latest submission, because that was responsive to Susan’s comments and the engineer’s comments. MR. VOLLARO-This is the latest submission and it’s dated, what, I assume it’s this document you’re talking about right here? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ROUND-That’s dated 8/23/05. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-And one of the general comments that the engineer made was that to make sure that they layout was reflected on all the other drawings, which we agreed to do in our response to them, and they concurred. MR. VOLLARO-Now, when I reviewed this, had I had something like this and something like that, it would have made my life a lot simpler. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But the connection to Burger King. MR. LAPPER-That’s on the existing parking field and the proposed expansion. MRS. BARDEN-I actually know that I don’t have this set of plans. I don’t think that the Board does, either. MR. ROUND-No, these were generated Monday. MR. LAPPER-And they went to Stantec. MRS. BARDEN-You all should take a look at those before you. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what I’m saying is, these plans here don’t have the connection. MR. LAPPER-Yes, Chris, the three pages that you submitted. MR. ROUND-Yes, we’ve produced it and we’ve agreed in a response to the engineer. MR. LAPPER-It’s there. So you sent it to Stantec, but you don’t have it for the Board. MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-Why don’t you hand that up so they can take a look at that. MRS. STEFFAN-Has Stantec signed off on those? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We have a letter from them, and they saw the new drawings. Why don’t you keep that page open that you just closed so they. MR. SCHACHNER-Chris, do you all have the 8/23 plans, or no? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do. MR. VOLLARO-The 8/23 plans were just handed out tonight. MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t include the page with the auxiliary parking field. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. There’s only three pages that were provided. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. ROUND-That’s right. That’s all I gave you tonight. What we agreed to do, just to help you clarify the record, Stantec generated a comment letter dated August 18. We provided a th response dated August 23 that agrees to make the changes as suggested in their August 18 rdth letter, and all we were able to produce, drawing wise, were what we thought were the significant issues. One is the illustration to show you the alternate versus the existing, and then we have produced, which we haven’t distributed tonight, the interconnection locations. Our response to them is August 22, to Stantec, in regard to interconnection, which you nd should have this letter. So we have to revise the plans to identify the interconnection, and have a copy of all that correspondence. MR. LAPPER-They have the correspondence. They just need the sheet that shows the interconnection. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have the correspondence from Stantec, not from you. MR. ROUND-What we show is that the interconnection be shown on both the existing condition, that’s on SP-1B dated August 23, and under the proposed condition on SP-2B, rd dated August 23, we show those interconnections on both of those existing versus proposed rd condition. MR. VOLLARO-We have two communications from Stantec dated the same day, August 23, August 23, one is to Marilyn Ryba. rdrd MR. ROUND-One’s a fax coversheet for that letter, transmitting the letter. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and it says we have reviewed the August 22 response letter prepared by Chazen. The applicant has stated, represented evaluation will be presented to the Planning Board at the August 23 meeting. That’s what you’ve done. The applicant should be rd prepared to discuss any potential impacts the addition will have on the visual character. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s the same letter. MR. ROUND-The August 23 correspondence from Stantec, one’s a fax coversheet to rd Marilyn, and it copies Susan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s the same letter. MR. ROUND-Yes, and the 23 letter is the letter that they transmitted with that fax. My rd conversation with Susan is we’re showing a 12 foot wide interconnection, 12 foot wide would allow one direction, and what we’re proposing, if this comes to fruition, is that the connection would be one way on to the Mall site. Because the condition that you’re trying to address is people exiting from Burger King, making an illegal left hand turn. So what they need to do is they need to travel on to the Mall site, and then leave via a signalized intersection. Susan’s asked that it be 20 feet, and we’re open to that, I guess. We would like to see 12 feet so that we minimize the impact to the vegetation and minimize, you know, but we’re open. It can be 20 foot easement with a 12 foot drive width, I think either of those are probably acceptable options to the applicant, and we’ll take direction from Staff. MRS. BARDEN-And access management, 179-19-010, it says, B5, that shared driveways and/or cross access driveways shall be of a sufficient width, minimum 20 feet, to accommodate two way travel for automobiles. MR. LAPPER-And our point here is that that’s not appropriate, because you don’t want people getting on to the Burger King site, even the Mall that’s got thousands of cars, and they’ve got that problem with the left turn, but obviously we’ll do what the Board says. MR. GOETZ-Have you talked to them at Burger King? MR. LAPPER-They were involved when we were doing the EIS for the Mall expansion six years ago, and at that point they said they were interested in doing it. Nothing’s happened since then, but certainly the Town will contact them after we’re through with this approval and say that it’s there and it’ll be up to Burger King to make the improvement on their side. MR. SANFORD-You’ve got to keep in mind here, there’s probably some aspects that aren’t being fully discussed here. You’ve got to keep in mind that the Mall has a business, and they 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) have a lot of people like McDonalds and Friendly’s and tenants who are paying good rent, and they obviously want to capture that business, and I don’t blame them, and so I think that, while I can appreciate the connections that we all try to encourage, I also think you have to keep in mind that this is a business and they have to protect the people who are paying the rent to be part of the Mall, and so I think that it has something to do with the one way, but I think that the explanation is a very good one, and that is you don’t want people going out of Burger King and trying to cut across the traffic and go to the west. This would allow them to go to a light. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s amazing the amount of cars that will cut through parking lots to go around the traffic signal. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no doubt that that would happen. MR. LAPPER-We were out on the site walking around this week, to prepare for tonight, and we saw tire tracks of people coming up over the hill, which is, you know, you’d have to level it off, so they were coming over this hump from Burger King to get onto the Mall, which is pretty incredible. MR. SANFORD-If I was the manager of the Mall, I think I’d have a problem with people coming to the Mall, shopping, and then getting in their car and easily going to Burger King and not going to their own restaurants that they have. Again, I guess if it was Burger King, they’re going to probably talk to the Mall about their concerns about it being one way. That’s for them to deal with. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. What’s the will of the Board? MR. ROUND-Do you know what you want us to show on the plan, so that we’re responsive? MR. HUNSINGER-I think the Code requires 20 feet. MR. ROUND-Show a 20 foot wide location and then resolve with that form that’s in, as Burger King comes forward. MR. LAPPER-We’ll show a 12 foot drive aisle, one way, if that’s okay with you. MR. SEGULJIC-Show a 20 foot easement. Talk to Burger King and see what they have to say. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s a good approach. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry to interrupt you, but, there is that one other comment from Stantec about the pedestrian access from the overflow parking to the Mall, that was not discussed. MR. ORLANDO-I’d like to just address that quickly. Once again, I’ve been the Mall Manager for seven and a half years. That parking field has been there for over 25 years. There has been very little usage in that parking lot to date. There has been no incidence, from a safety standpoint, as it relates to anyone going from that parking lot to the Mall, to date. I would just ask that you allow us to continue to manage the site as we have in the past, and if it becomes an issue, then we’ll address it, but it hasn’t been an issue to this point, and we don’t think that this is needed. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I tend to agree with what the applicant is saying. That thing has been there so long, it’s on the drawing, and I would see where Stantec Engineering would look at it from a drawing point of view as opposed to an actual operational point of view, and they may make that comment, but when you take a look at the facts surrounding that lot, it doesn’t seem to me that it’s very consequential, actually, in my mind anyway. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. HUNSINGER-I guess in my mind the issue is, if there is a need in the future to actually build out the overflow parking lot, at that point then you’d probably want to have something, in terms of some sort of a designated walkway, because you don’t want people walking in the roadway to walk up the hill to the Mall. So I think it’s a question of, you know, similar to the overflow parking lot, you know, you show it on the plan, but you only build it if and when the time comes. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know how the applicant would feel about that. MR. SANFORD-Well, Chris, I think the issue is that, let’s say that Target and, what is this, Bed, Bath and Beyond, and the Mall really becomes much more popular than it has been historically, and people are parking there, then I guess we have a safety issue, unless the Mall acts in a responsible manner. In other words, we’re not controlling that the way it currently the way it currently is. I’m not sure, really, what protections we could put into place, maybe a pedestrian bridge, but I’m not 100% sure what we really could do or what would trigger our involvement. Obviously, if another modification came in, or if there was some other form of development at the Mall, and we were all seeing that that was being heavily utilized, and we were concerned about it, then we could re-open it because we have that kind of right. I’m comfortable with leaving it the way it is. It’s going to take a hearty individual to want to go to that lot and to truck on up to the Mall. Especially in the wintertime which is when it’s going to be heavily utilized. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-I can see more people traveling the parking lot. MR. SEGULJIC-If they need to do the overflow addition, they could do the pedestrian walkways. We have a sidewalk shown that’s to be installed if the additional parking is installed. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if the Mall decides to expand that lot. Let’s say that they decide to actually build a parking lot with designated parking spaces. This would be, in my mind, a modification to the existing, you know, we could come on in and. MR. HUNSINGER-As they presented it to us right now. MR. VOLLARO-I’m taking a different tact here in saying that while we acknowledge the need for it, and the use of it in the future perhaps, I would look at that, when the Mall says by golly, we’ve got to do that, let’s go back to the Planning Board and get a plan modification. MR. SANFORD-I think what I’m hearing here is that if that lot, which has been pretty much dormant, but becomes utilized to the point that you feel that you actually have to expand upon it, then we would like you to come back here, and then at that particular point in time, we would address other issues which might be pedestrian safety. MR. SEGULJIC-But with this plan we’re giving them approval. MR. SANFORD-No, no. What we’re talking about now is changing that approval to condition that if, in fact, they choose to expand the parking lot because of need, that they would re-visit with us and we would also then address the pedestrian safety in terms of the walking issue, and I think that that’s where I would like to go with this, because then we’re talking about a situation where we’re talking about pretty significant utilization of that lot. MR. VOLLARO-They would be the determinant for that, I believe. MR. SEGULJIC-So at this point we’re not? MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I’m talking about is a point of departure from what they’ve given us to what I’m proposing to be a condition. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So we’re not, so at this point, we wouldn’t approve the expansion of the overflow parking. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. LAPPER-Well, we need it approved, because otherwise we’d need a variance. We need to be able to show that we comply, but you have the right to tell us not to build it, or to allow us not to build it, but we need to have that, just for zoning we need to have those number of spaces. MR. SANFORD-You know what we’re trying to accomplish. How would you suggest we do it? What would be an agreeable way to do it? MR. VOLLARO-I think Counsel is poised, over there, to say a word. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don’t have an answer to Richard’s question. I’m just trying to clarify. Does the Board, I take it, am I correct that the Board is contemplating not establishing a particular threshold for this future activity in the overflow lot or parking area, but leaving that up to the applicant. Is that what you’re talking about? MR. SANFORD-We’re stating that if the applicant feels a need, then they will be able to expand that parking lot, but what we haven’t adequately addressed is, if that parking lot becomes heavily utilized in the future, then that also then begs safety issues associated with people leaving that parking lot of pedestrians and walking up to the Mall, and while we don’t feel an urgent need to address that now, we would like to reserve the right to address it in the future, and so what Mr. Vollaro was suggesting, and I thought it was a good idea, that if the Aviation Mall or the Pyramid Company decides to expand the parking lot, even though we’re giving them that approval now, that at that particular time it would trigger a review by this Board to look into pedestrian walkways and issues of that nature. Because they’re only going to expand the parking lot, obviously, if it’s becoming more and more utilized, which it is not right now. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So the question I have as Counsel is, if you approve what I’m understanding is part of the proposal as the expansion of the parking lot, then they can do that. They have the right to do that as part of your approval, and I think what you’re grappling with, and I think what you’re grappling with, and I think this may make some sense, is trying to attach some sort of condition to that approval that requires further site plan review in the event of, what, that they actually physically go ahead and expand it? MR. SANFORD-Right, that’s it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. ROUND-It sounds like a circular reference. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s my concern. That’s exactly my concern. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and one of my concerns, it’s their property, and, I mean, it’s, the safety of their guests who come to shop there is really of their concern, and part of their primary concern. MR. SANFORD-And paramount responsibility of this Town. It really is, Gretchen. I mean, you know. MR. METIVIER-I disagree with that. I can’t imagine for a second that they would expand on a parking lot and not take the necessary means to make sure that the public is safe getting there and getting back. I mean, you’re talking huge, you know, huge liability. MR. ORLANDO-Huge liability on our part. We would never have, you know, I wouldn’t have a job if I had a situation of this nature that had such a safety implication if I were to let that go. There’d be no way. MR. SANFORD-Well, I understand that, and I’m certainly not suggesting you would be negligent, but that’s not the point. The point is, independent of the responsibilities of the applicant, we have a primary responsibility, as a Planning Board, to look out for the safety and welfare of our people when we do site plan and subdivisions and things of that nature. I mean, you know, we can’t just make the logical assumption that they have a direct primary responsibility. Therefore we don’t have to be concerned. Of course we have to be concerned, and I don’t think there’s any question of that. So the point is, while I expect that the Mall 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) would do the right thing, and be responsible about it, we certainly have to have some way of addressing it at our end. That’s all I’m saying, and that’s fair. MR. ORLANDO-I guess one suggestion I might make is that if you wanted to make a condition that if that parking lot were to be used extensively by our customers at that time, we would provide some kind of shuttle service from that parking lot to the Mall. I would be amenable to that. MR. SANFORD-That sounds like a great solution, actually. Because the people would like that as well. That’s a pretty good haul, you’re up a little bit of a slope there. MR. ORLANDO-I’d be willing to do that, if that’s, if that would please the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that really practical, though? MR. ORLANDO-It’s practical. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, how often would you be willing to shuttle people back to that parking lot? So someone’s going to wait a half hour or an hour? MR. ORLANDO-We do it in other centers, believe me. We do this. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have a bus just idling there for them? MR. SANFORD-They’ve got a pretty big staff to take care of that, to take care of those grounds. MR. ORLANDO-No, we wouldn’t have a bus idling there, but we would provide some kind of a shuttle service for the people out of that lot when need be, and it would probably only be a very short period of time. Christmas holiday season, at best. MR. VOLLARO-I guess to summarize this a little bit, we would be giving you the right to build that lot, to satisfy your requirement for not having to go for a variance. That’s one of the keys to this thing I think, but once it becomes evident that they want to improve that lot or make it a viable lot, then I think they’ve got to come back to this Board for a site plan modification that talks to that lot, and talks to the safety factors associated with it. MR. SANFORD-Why can’t we just do this. This may sound a little bit strange, but we give them the right to expand the lot, which is what they want and they need, conditioned upon additional site plan review, and that’s merely to address safety issues, and leave it at that. I mean, that’s not necessarily a violation. MR. VOLLARO-It would be a site plan modification, so that we don’t get into the SEQRA thing with it and all of that stuff. It would be a mod. MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t have a SEQRA issue, so long as what’s proposed is consistent with the earlier Environmental Impact Statement. I haven’t heard anything to suggest that it’s not. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen anything that it’s not either. MR. SCHACHNER-So I don’t think you need to get hung up on the SEQRA issue, but I am concerned about what Mr. Round called the circular reasoning, what I call the cat chasing its tail component of this, which is, the applicant feels, and I think correctly, that in order to avoid the possibility or the need to go, the necessity of getting a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, the need to get approval for expansion of his parking area. If they need to get that approval, then you either have to issue that approval or not issue that approval. I haven’t heard much sentiment to not issue that approval, and I’m certainly not advocating that, but it can’t be conditioned on itself, if you understand what I’m saying. MR. LAPPER-Let me suggest this, listening to this whole discussion. Bob was talking about the traffic issue at Christmas, that in terms of the Mall at Christmas, and by analogy, if this lot gets built, it would certainly be something, because no one’s going to want to use it unless you have to. It would probably be for employees, because patrons aren’t going to use it unless it’s the last spot left in the Mall, which is unlikely, just because it’s not convenient. So 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) I guess I would envision that it would be employees that would be using it, and certainly if Bob’s willing to agree that they would have, you know, it wouldn’t be a bus, it would probably be a van, but they would have a shuttle service for employees, I mean, that’s something that we’d only be talking about from Thanksgiving to Christmas, because certainly January 2 everyone’s broke and nobody’s at the Mall. So it’s really for a very nd short period of time every year, and if he’s willing, as a condition, to say that if it gets built, he’ll commit to providing shuttle service, when it’s necessary. MR. SANFORD-I think, from a practical point of view, that that’s the best we can do. I think anything beyond that is being just impractical. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone comfortable with that? MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’m comfortable with that. MR. SEGULJIC-I think as long as it’s designated for employees, I can’t see customers using it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I guess we’re set on the fact that if it’s built, a shuttle will be provided to transport. Is that where we’re going with this? As opposed to them having to come back for a site plan review. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think so. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and I think the criteria is going to be utilization. If it’s built and utilization of that lot, you could say, exceeds 50% capacity, then the Mall will provide a shuttle service during that period of time. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-And that’s probably not going to happen. If it happens, it’ll happen during a two or three week period. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry. Are you saying if built and exceeding 50%, or as is, exceeding 50%? MR. SANFORD-I mean, my point is, if they build it and no one’s there, I don’t want them to have to provide a shuttle service. I mean, if they build it and it’s being heavily utilized, then I want them to provide. So I think that you have two conditions here. You have a lot that’s built but not used, then there’s no need for a shuttle service, but a lot that’s built, that’s being utilized, then the Mall will provide a shuttle service, and that’s why. MRS. BARDEN-What about if it’s not built but it’s being utilized? MR. SANFORD-Well, apparently they already have the approval. That’s what they have right now. We’re talking about if they expand it. They already have that lot right now. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, according to what Mr. Lapper said, we can put a condition on, the applicant has the right to build overflow parking with the condition that the lot be used for employee parking with shuttle service. MR. LAPPER-Shuttle service if needed. MRS. STEFFAN-As needed. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m comfortable with it. I mean, I’m comfortable with it no matter what happens because I think, from a practical point of view, we’re making a lot out of something that’s probably not going to be an issue, and it’s likely that the Mall’s going to be in front of us again for something else before it becomes an issue, in which case if we observe 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) that there’s a problem, we can re-open this thing, and, you know, we have that right. I mean, my understanding is when people come in front of us, we have that right to open up these issues again, but I think there’s not much more we’re going to be able to do with it tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve done most of them tonight. Let somebody else do this one. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the conditions that we want, we have a Stantec signoff. We have the overflow parking. What are the other issues? We have, we will grant a landscaping waiver. MR. LAPPER-Only in the parking lot, not, because we covered the landscaping at the store. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s it. MR. LAPPER-And just the right to not have to build the parking lot, and then the shuttle service. MRS. STEFFAN-Is the wording has the right to build the overflow parking lot. MR. LAPPER-But not the obligation. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And then you can add, if it’s built, then a shuttle service will be provided to transport people back and forth between this lot and the main area. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to say anything about the color scheme being? MR. VOLLARO-I like the way it looks in the front. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s beautiful. That’s why I wonder if we want to say anything about it, that it shall be in accordance with the, consistent with the photograph provided. MR. VOLLARO-It’s amazing what they can do with these computer graphics today. MR. LAPPER-That the colors will be consistent. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, colors and materials. I think you did a great job with it. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. This will allow it to get built this Fall. MRS. BARDEN-Gretchen, can you specify what plan you’re approving when you do. MR. VOLLARO-What plan we’re approving. MRS. BARDEN-Whether it be SP-2A. The ones that are dated 8/23 SP-2A. MR. VOLLARO-We can include all three of those, SP-2A. MR. SEGULJIC-But we also need the one with the interconnect. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we’ll submit that. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t have a reference to that, however. MR. LAPPER-You have one. MR. ROUND-We’ve agreed to amend the plans based on our. MR. LAPPER-Submission to Stantec. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MR. VOLLARO-This is really what happens when we get down to the wire and not all the information has been given to us, and, you know, now we’re trying to play catch up up front here where we haven’t had a chance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Have we got it? MRS. STEFFAN-I think so. Okay. I’m going to take a stab at this. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 21-2001 PYRAMID CO. OF GF NEWCO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: 11,288 sq. ft. addition and associated site work to accommodate a 23,000 sq. ft. Bed, Bath & Beyond retail store. Expansion of an existing use requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on July 15, 2005 and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; 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, 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. We will grant the waiver for landscaping in the parking lot. The waiver request for the parking lot is only for the overflow parking lot. 2. Conditioned upon Stantec sign-off. 3. Conditioned that the applicant has the right, but not obligation, to build overflow parking. However, if the lot is built, it will be conditioned that the lot will be used for employee parking with shuttle service if needed. 4. That we get the latest submitted plans from the Chazen Group dated 8/23/05 and the drawings specifically noted are SP 2A & SP 4A. On the Chazen plan SP 4A for the interconnect, it identifies that there will be a 20 foot easement and take out the 12 foot drive aisle. 5. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 6. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright. 7. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 2005, by the following vote: 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) MRS. STEFFAN-And on the Chazen plan for the interconnect it identifies that there will be a 20 foot easement and a 12 foot drive aisle. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you don’t want to say 12 foot drive aisle. MR. LAPPER-Well, how do you feel about one way versus two way? MR. SEGULJIC-Have you talked to Burger King yet about what they want to do? MR. LAPPER-It’s really your call. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to see it go both ways. MRS. STEFFAN-I would want it to go one way. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the basis for two way, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-What if someone wants to go over to Burger King from there? MR. LAPPER-They can just go out the traffic light. You’re only making rights. MRS. STEFFAN-Go out the traffic light and take a right and go into the lot. MR. ROUND-The practical issue, it’s not going to people to use, and one vehicle will be able to go. MR. SEGULJIC-But our Code says to have two way. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is why I said it shows a 20 foot right of way. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and then see what Burger King wants to do. MR. HUNSINGER-See what they want to do, yes. MR. ROUND-Okay. So we’ll show the 20 foot easement and then just delete the 12 foot drive aisle reference. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Well, Burger King is going to say, if our traffic can use their burgers, that would be good, but it may not be good for traffic, because you can’t make left turns. Because it’s so dangerous out of Burger King. MR. SANFORD-I know, but they could obviously come back and go out your exit. So, again, I understand the issue. You guys have to work it out. MR. HUNSINGER-My feeling, for what it’s worth, is it’ll be like the overflow parking lot. It may never, ever be built. So just put it on the plan as a 20 foot easement. MR. SANFORD-Just leave it at that. MR. HUNSINGER-If and when the day ever comes, we go through site plan review with Burger King or whoever. MRS. STEFFAN-The motion will be for a 20 foot easement but I will take out the 12 foot. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s just my own personal feeling. MR. SANFORD-I agree with that, Gretchen, though. I think to just say the 20 foot easement and leave it at that, and then not specify the 12 foot or anything, just leave it alone. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thanks. MR. ORLANDO-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? MR. VOLLARO-There’s only one, I guess and that’s my obligation to proposed resolution from the Planning Board to the Town Board concerning traffic. Now, I’ve got a draft at home. I put it on the computer so everybody could look at it, or, based on discussions that took place here tonight, we may not even want to do that. There’s probably a lot in the pipeline that we, as a Planning Board, understand comprehensively what’s going on at the County level, with respect to traffic and all that sort of stuff. So maybe we don’t want to bring this proposal up to the Town Board, I don’t know, this resolution. MR. SANFORD-I’m not 100% sure what you’re talking. MR. VOLLARO-Because you weren’t here at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-You had left early. MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-It was an agreement amongst the Board members that I and Tony would participate in the development of a prepared resolution to the Town Board that they examine, comprehensively, traffic, and then I listed all of the roads that I was concerned with and all of the intersections that I was concerned with. MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, of course you go forward with that, and if, in fact, what you’ve said is true, that we’re not in the loop, or that we don’t know what’s going on because we haven’t been informed, that’ll beg that question, and of course the Planning Board should have that kind of insight and knowledge, and then at that particular point in time, let’s be told that, well, wait a second, there’s a lot of things you don’t know about. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this was the intent, really. MR. SANFORD-You go forward with it, under the presumption that we are aware of what’s happening, and if we’re not aware, then someone maybe is negligent in not informing us of things, by basically definition of what a Planning Board is. MR. METIVIER-And, Bob, if they decide that there’s so much stuff out there, that they don’t need to do this comprehensive traffic study, then give it to us. Get us for it. It shouldn’t be us going to get it. It should be somebody in Planning or whatever giving it to us. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we should go forward. MR. VOLLARO-So it’ll be on your computers some time tomorrow or the day after. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other business. Let’s adjourn. Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 8/23/05) Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 58