Loading...
01-22-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 78-2012 Jeff Schwartz 1. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 Site Plan No. 48-2012 Steve Kitchen 17. Freshwater Wetlands 4-2012 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 Site Plan No. 78-2012 Paul & Margaret Sheehan 18. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-20 Site Plan No. 2-2013 Frank Parillo 19. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2 through 9 Site Plan No. 3-2013 James & Elizabeth Papa 24. Tax Map No. 279.18-1-6 Site Plan No. 4-2013 Hayes & Hayes 28. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-97 Site Plan No. 5-2013 KAMCO Supply of New England 36. 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. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, January 22nd. For those members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have public hearings scheduled for most of the items, if not all of them, and I'll go over those in more detail when we open the first public hearing. There are a couple of projects that we will likely table this evening, and we'll get to those in the agenda. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What about Kirk Roberts? MR. HUNSINGER-Didn't we do that last week? MR. BROWN-Kirk Roberts? Yes, I think you did that last week. Yes, you did. That's the one you called me on and we did it last week. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY SCHWARTZ AGENT(S) PETER BROWN OWNER(S) MORRIS PRODUCTS, INC. ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 53 CAREY ROAD, LOTS 4& 13 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 30,300 SQ. FT. EXPANSION ADDITION TO EXISTING 30,502 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE RESULTING IN A PROPOSED STRUCTURE SIZE OF 60,802 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL USE IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 67-05 SP 69-00 WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2012 LOT SIZE 4.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-2 SECTION 179-9 EDWARD LA POINT & PETER BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BROWN-This application is a roughly 30,000 square foot addition to an existing warehouse that's there. This application started, I think, back in December is when the first public hearing was noticed. You guys opened it up. I'm not sure any comment was taken. There've been a significant amount of engineering comments prepared and Staff comments and Highway, Fire Marshal comments. We haven't received any responses to any of those comments yet. So I'm sure the applicant's here to kind of explain where they are in the process and if they're looking to go forward or still working on the engineering comments. So there's really nothing new to discuss. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LA POINT-Good evening. My name is Edward LaPoint. I'm working on the stormwater pollution prevention plan for the owner, Jeffrey Schwartz, Morris Products, and served on this Board from '93, from '90 to '93, and I just wanted to give you guys a measure of appreciation for what you do. I appreciate how hard it is and everything. The Town would completely come to a stop if we didn't have volunteers as yourselves. You guys are familiar with the project? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. LA POINT-Essentially it's the picture of an aerial up there. We're just doubling the size of that warehouse to my right into the back, and it's a strong steel building on frost walls and (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) concrete slab with a fire road of recycled concrete, shaped like a horseshoe going around it to give the fire trucks access. That's the only real principle change you'd see. The part I'm working on, I came to the project late because Bill Montgomery, the previous engineer on the stormwater pollution prevention plan has regrettably passed on, and he had the original permit from 2006 when was all approved ready to go for Phase Four. Since 2006, two things have happened. They've tweaked the plans just a bit for the stormwater pollution control, and of course some of the rules have changed. There's new guidance dated 2010 for design criteria for what it has to be included in a stormwater pollution prevention plan. I just recently got Chazen's, the Town Engineer's comments, and I'm working to revise the 2006 plan to meet the 2010 standard criteria for that work. Essentially if you look at the site today, I'm sure you guys have all been out there on your site walk, we're just proposing more of the same, infiltration galleries to manage the stormwater. It's a very sandy site, almost infinite deep sand, and it percolates very well. So what we're proposing is more than doubling the onsite infiltration for exactly double the size of the building, and I'm putting together the revised stormwater pollution prevention plan, and I'll get that off to the planner and eventually to Chazen Engineering for review and get that going. Did all that make sense? Because I am fairly new to this and you guys are probably right up to speed on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and in fact you mentioned our Planner, I was negligent in introducing our new Planner, Laura Moore, which is actually an old Planner. I don't know if you were here in '90 to '93. MRS. MOORE-No, it was '96 and on. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Welcome. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. LA POINT-Well, I hope the project hasn't been dragging on that long. Now I was supposed to be joined by Peter Brown. He's more or less the architect for the plans. I'm just working on the stormwater management plan. I'm not sure, I don't believe there's any other outstanding issues other than stormwater pollution prevention plan. Now, when I was in your seats, what I would have done was given us a conditional approval pending approval by your engineer for the revised plan. So that's what I'm asking for. MR. BROWN-There are other outstanding items. You can see there's a bunch of Staff comments that have come up. There's a Fire Marshal memo in your packets that talk about the acceptability of the fire road that they're proposing. I guess all that stuff hasn't been worked out yet, not to the Fire Marshal's satisfaction anyway. So that's it. There's more than just some engineering comments, and the engineering comments are pretty lengthy. I think there's 16 or 18 comments. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and they just seem to concentrate on stormwater, but there are other issues that I think will certainly require that a revised plan be submitted, and that's going to have to be reviewed. MR. BROWN-Yes, probably a lot of the engineering and the stormwater details can be worked out and not have a major impact on the layout of the site, but if you don't really know that, I mean, there are some talks about steep slopes on some of the basins and if those things have to be flattened out and gotten bigger, maybe drives move around and you really don't know until you see that revised plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any questions on any of the engineering comments? Do you see any? MR. LA POINT-No, it all made sense to me. What I have is, from 2006, the original plans, prepared by the previous engineer, but when I look at those, and try to reconcile with what the 2010 guidance is, for example, in 2010 you have to have the SWPPP, the stormwater pollution prevention plan on site, certified by all your contractors, etc., etc. Those were not requirements back in 2006. So there's some administrative stuff that has to be put in there. As far as the steepness of the infiltration galleries, we're going to eliminate L and I on the plans all together. When I did my math, we have enough infiltration with just the existing catch basins and dry wells, and then along the entire, what would be the south and north side of the building, we're going to put in trenches below the eaves, a stone V notch type trench filled with Number Two stone, and that'll take the vast majority of what runs off the roof, almost instantly, and given the perc rate of the soil, we should have no problem at all. Again, what I think the proof in the pudding is when you go and look at the existing site, the first thing I did is walk the perimeter and look for any erosion or sedimentation or any off-site impacts for what exists there today, and my valuation for the owner was that what was designed and installed in 2006 has worked beautiful. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) So going forward what we're doing is proposing more of the same, and unfortunately the Chazen review did not have the 2006 SWPPP, which, to me, again, I look at this stuff and I am working on it and I'll get it all up to speed, but it is an amazing amount of documentation for some silt fences and trenches, and I just comment because I did this from '90 to '93. Just like you folks do, I passed it on to Rist Frost in our day, and what I've done is I have my brand new computer and the entire wallpaper is completely covered with instructions for preparing SW PPP's. There are instruction manuals for the instruction manual. That's the truth, and you have United States Department of Agriculture rules, six or seven guidance documents from the State, etc. So I'm plowing through all that right now with Sean Doty. I met with him once. I got a very good idea of what we need, and I'm going to zip that together for him, but physically it's really no more than silt fences during the construction to protect the existing drainage system, make sure there's no off-site runoff, and then for the long term management plan are these eaves trenches and the existing stone catch basins. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of the issues that was brought up in the Fire Marshal's comments is the fire road. Is that going to cause any kind of problems with increase the load bearing capacity of that driveway? MR. LA POINT-Well, what was done, I'd say no, but let me see if I can address. I'm not doing that part of the plan, but I have a pretty good idea. What it is is when the building was built, there was none of this. So you had your concrete trucks, your excavators, your very heavy equipment, rolling across the entire area to install the footings, frost walls and slab right on the sand itself. There was no road for that. The bearing capacity of the sand itself is going to be just fine, and what we're doing is putting down a recycled, crushed concrete road around, just so the fire trucks can get in there and drive on there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you read Mike Palmer's, did you read what Mike wrote about that? MR. LA POINT-I'm sorry, I didn't, you're late. I've been winging it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because you're really looking at a paved road. You're looking at a $75,000, to meet the Code. P. BROWN-No, that is not the way the Code is written. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could have you identify yourself for the record. P. BROWN-I'm sorry. I'm Peter Brown. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. P. BROWN-I'm construction manager, okay. Jeff Schwartz will be here. We have a handout for everybody that answers all these questions, but there again, this is important, and anyway, the Code says it has to be suitable, whether it's pavement or whatever, and, you know, every fire truck, there's dirt roads, maybe not in Queensbury, but there's certainly in all the northern towns, and, I mean, they handle log trucks, you know, and they just started enforcing log trucks by they have a tag that they get at Finch Pruyn which some of you people obviously know, but anyway, a lot of those used to be loaded up to 50 tons, not counting the pup trailers, the little trailers that go on the back of them. So anyway dirt roads are fine. We're putting crushed concrete down, which is, I don't know how to describe it, but it's got a good mixture of crushed stone and real fine concrete and it's, you know, it'll bridge that sand, and there's two and a half inches of it. So it's not pavement, but it's just like, it's not like recycled asphalt, it's actually better, but recycled asphalt eventually adheres together to a point. It doesn't exactly meet the standards of new asphalt, obviously, but we're going to put it down with a paving machine, a regular asphalt paver, and it goes down, you know, and it's going to be compacted. The sub base will be compacted first. We'll pack it also, and the heaviest truck you have is thirty-seven and a half tons, okay, and that's on a standard frame, made by Spartan, and that is the ladder truck. It's actually heavier than the water truck, and what we're going to do, if you guys will approve it, we're going to specify it'll support a 45 ton truck, a concrete truck, but that's what a loaded concrete truck is allowed to carry legally, and every frame is built to the bridge (lost words) it's, across the nation, including New York State, and you're allowed so many pounds in the front tire, tons, so many pounds on the rear axles, whether it's a double, single, or a double with a couple of extra single axles. Those all add up, but then the bridge formula breaks it down even less. So 45 ton is the maximum you can get on the fire truck over there, and it's 37.5 tons. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We need a note from, we just need a letter from Mike saying that he approves that and it meets Code. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) P. BROWN-Well, he's just looking for something that says just plain tons, but we're going to include, in other words, you're not going to put a unicycle out there of 45 tons on it. We've got to specify the axle. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's not the point. He's got to say that it meets, I think it's 503 something. He's got to say that the road meets that Code, that's the State Fire Code. That's all we need. P. BROWN-Yes, but what he's calling it is a single weight, and doesn't specify. We're going to call it by the State bridge Code, and it's going to be a 45 ton for that particular. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So long as he agrees to it, it's fine. P. BROWN-Yes, that's the heaviest vehicle you've got, the 37.5. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, that's the heaviest vehicle that particular fire department has, but the one down here at Central which responds out there for the mutual aid is heavier. P. BROWN-Is it over 45 tons? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know. P. BROWN-I'll go check it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's the biggest aerial truck this side of the Mississippi. I'm sure it's more than that. P. BROWN-Aerial trucks generally run, this is a pretty heavy one, but usually less than 45. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. P. BROWN-So we're going to use 45 tons, because that's the maximum for the New York State Bridge law, and other than that, you have to have a permit, a special permit. Well, these aren't special permit vehicles. They're not going to use them, you know, driving into Story Town and going over a culvert pipe unless it's, you know, under that Code. MR. SIPP-How fine does this concrete get to? I mean, what's the diameter? P. BROWN-It's crushed up, and I'm going to say you'll probably have some two, two and a half inch, and then it goes down to fine. It's a nice mixture, okay. It meets New York State DOT and it's a green item, okay, and to be honest with you, we were going to get it right across the other side of the Northway, and we can't haul gravel from anywhere to that place. MR. SIPP-Yes. P. BROWN-And it's getting rid of their pile, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's a win/win. P. BROWN-Yes, right. It's the coming thing, and if we had asphalt, we'd do the same thing with asphalt. MR. SIPP-Is it cheaper than asphalt per square yard? P. BROWN-Yes, per cubic yard, yes, or ton, whatever you want to do it. MR. MAGOWAN-And plus you're not hauling it that far either. P. BROWN-That's the thing. We're going to be able to make four, five loads an hour, where if we haul it from anywhere else you're talking one or two at the maximum. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,just signoff from the Fire Marshal. MR. TRAVER-Yes, this might be another example of an application where getting the engineering, and in this case also the Fire Marshal cleaned up before they come back might make sense, because of the number of, the complexity of it. P. BROWN-And, Number One, I'm going to say this. It's not that complex. It's a very simple job. It's just that they required, for some reason, to have the existing done, and then also, which is (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) already done, because of the 2006 permit which was passed, okay, less those things. So all we had to do was hand that in, but they won't accept that, and we already got a permit for that, and I've already talked to DEC, and they said that just send in whatever you've got. It's, you know, it's a site that is just basic as can be. So we're going to submit everything to you guys, but DEC doesn't even want that stuff. So they'll take the new plan. MR. TRAVER-And you have correspondence, you're keeping a record of your correspondence with DEC? P. BROWN-The DEC and you people. Your correspondence with DOT is one short little paragraph. MR. HUNSINGER-So I know you came in late, but did you have any other comments on any of either Staff Notes or engineering comments? P. BROWN-The Staff Notes? There's a number of Staff comments there, and I don't know what you went over on it, but if you want to go over them by the list, we can get them behind us. So we're down to engineering issues only. Because there are engineering issues on. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and there's some crossover. P. BROWN-We might as well get those and sift them out, and then all we have to worry about is the engineering and the Fire Marshal signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, I mean, did you want to respond to any of the Staff comments? I don't know if you have them in front of you. P. BROWN-I've got them. They're not in order now. Okay. Where do you want to start? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess Page Two is where they really start. P. BROWN-Okay. Let's go right to Page Two. No immediate issues. I hope we're not chasing a moving target here. Every time we come back they're going to find another issue. Or is this going to be it? I've been through this before, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can't promise you anything. The comments are the comments. P. BROWN-When does the list stop, is what I'm wondering. Did they get it all this time, or are we going to have to worry about? MR. HUNSINGER-I would hope so. P. BROWN-Yes, that's what I wondered. So you're generally in agreement with me that this should cover it all between the engineering and the Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, unless there's some new issue created by the revisions. P. BROWN-Okay. The north arrow, can we skip that one? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. P. BROWN-It's been like that for 13 years. Ever since he started Phase I, and I have a GPS that doesn't always start off, it all starts out on north, but then the whole thing rotates around. It orients north a lot of times when I'm going south. What's the next one on there. MR. HUNSINGER-Southern fire road is located on existing wastewater laterals. P. BROWN-That's going to become an engineering question. This was designed for that. It's been like that since, for 13 years, and that's where the trucks all drove around loaded, okay, and they all exited off the other side, okay, and it was designed for it, and it's a commercial piece of property, and it's not like residential where you're not allowed to put, you're allowed to put a septic tank underneath the driveway, but you've got to bring the manholes up to, through the pavement, okay. Even leach fields were considered, if you appeal to the Health Department, they let you put those under a paved driveway. McDonald's did it for years, and several other ones in Queensbury. I don't think McDonald's ever has a problem. Okay. Concerning road compaction, that has nothing to do with anything. That's a design thing. I can assure you the engineers are going to have that compacted and it's going to be a vibratory roller just like they use on any other highway. Okay. Future loading dock ramp, that's explained in here, but I'll go over that, just so you guys understand it. There's pictures in your book, and what it shows is on (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) the front of the building we always have two of these loading docks that are in place, okay. Well we don't know if they're going to put doors in them now or ever. Okay. So what we're looking to do is to frame those in, and to frame the concrete in so we can just bust it out, if we ever do need it, or say Jeff sells the building, 20 years down the road. We can put the loading docks in there. There's room in there for man doors. So if they want to have a separate, in other words, put a fire wall right down through the thing, if some part of it's manufactured or something, then they can put the loading docks in, man doors in, plus the existing fire doors or whatever else. They can make it work. Okay. Same thing on the back. If he starts someday bringing loads in and he decides to come back to the Board, we want them to know that this was planned in and the drainage was basically planned in to a point. Okay, and that's what we're talking about here. So the drainage is an engineering thing, and what we have in there is a provision now for the drainage to go in, which will work fine, and we're just going to put the ramp in as far as the sand, okay, and that's just going to be left the way it is until somebody decides they want to put doors in it. At that point they'll have to come back, but it'll be all done basically except for, you know, and we don't know if that's going to happen or when it's going to happen. Okay. What's the next one there. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, just so I can keep up, so I know what to expect when the time comes, when they come back with information, I'm just trying to keep track with what's still outstanding. So Two and Three are still outstanding, and Four basically is about the ramp. The ramp's not going to be built at this time. You're just going to kind of frame the building and be ready for it in case you do it in the future. P. BROWN-Yes, and what happens is we have taken, you know, if we go over a year without getting a permit, we have to come back in front of you. So we're just saying, hey, we've already planned this thing in. We've made provisions for it if we have to. We don't even know yet, but what happens is that's lower than everything around it. Okay. Because the floor is up basically level with the original land, okay, and so what we have, we made the ramps down, and in the meantime what we did was we put one drywell in that would take that whole area in the front. What we did in the back is, we don't know if anybody will ever use this. Okay. We have no idea if, or whatever. So what we've done is we've made provisions. So if it does freeze over in the wintertime, which every soil acts differently. Will it pond up in there? And a January thaw is a good example. I mean, I don't know if we have these anymore, but, if we have anymore freezing weather except for tonight, but anyway, we want to make the provisions in there so they know we have planned it so it will work under normal circumstances and it'll store water in the wintertime, if that's what happens, and if it doesn't happen, they don't have to do anything. If it does happen, then you'll have to put two drywells in. Okay. So, does that answer your question? MR. BROWN-It does about the construction of the loading dock. Are the stormwater controls going to be constructed at this time or are you just going to show us that you have a plan for the future? P. BROWN-(lost words) it's going to be an impoundment area. MR. BROWN-Okay. P. BROWN-Later on if they have a problem with it, okay, and we'll know after a couple of winters, whether you have to put a drywell in and all that does is get the water down below the frost line. So it doesn't flood the ramp. Or if they want to put a set of stairs in somewhere and that's outside the ramp, then they'll have to do it, too. MR. TRAVER-I guess I'm still not fully understanding that issue. I'm sorry, maybe you can clarify for me. In the Staff comments it they're talking about, I think the question is whether or not the stormwater calculations are going to be submitted that include the loading dock or not. If they do not, then should the loading dock be added later on obviously that would require another engineering review because it would theoretically change the stormwater. What I think I hear you saying is that you are planning on stormwater to include a loading dock, even though you're not going to actually build the loading dock at this time. Is that correct? P. BROWN-What we're basically saying is this, okay. We don't know, have no idea if this will ever be built, okay. MR. TRAVER-The loading dock? P. BROWN-The loading dock. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the plan you're submitting does not include a loading dock, and therefore we don't need to worry about? (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) P. BROWN-It includes one that doesn't even show. In other words, it includes the framework, okay, and four different slots. So the tractor trailer could, if you put four doors in those slots, they could have four tractor trailers unloading at one time or loading or unloading, whatever the combination is. MR. TRAVER-I think the issue might be, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but if you say here is the stormwater, but we're including the, with the approval of this plan, even though we don't have a loading dock, our point is, with the stormwater that we've submitted, if we choose to add a loading dock, we don't need to consider stormwater again. Is that your position? P. BROWN-No. No, that's absolutely wrong. What we'll do is if we find that there's water accumulating in there, over the period of time, okay, and let's say that it doesn't. Let's say that soil just lets the water go right down through, then we've still got to come in with the application. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, you're talking subjective experience over a particular winter. I'm talking about the engineering. That's what we have to deal with is we have to have engineering signoff on not what might be, but what is. P. BROWN-That's what we're doing. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So if the stormwater does not include a loading dock, I think the plans are going to need to not have a loading dock on it. Am I misunderstanding? MR. BROWN-Yes. No, I think you and I are on the same page. It depends on what they want to do. If they want to not build the loading dock facility but have the building all prepared and ready to go if that happens in the future, that's different in the building, but site improvements, if you're going to plan for the stormwater from that area, and you're going to deal with it now in your plan, then you don't have to address it in the future. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BROWN-If you're just going to tell us that this may happen, and we'll deal with the stormwater if there's a problem, I would have that listed as an open item, that we need to get the engineering figured out on first. P. BROWN-That's no big deal. We'll just figure it's going to freeze up, put two drywells in. MR. BROWN-Okay. P. BROWN-It's absolutely not a problem. MR. BROWN-Okay. So I just had that listed as an open item, then. P. BROWN-It's a little bit more money now versus say Jeff sells the building, then the new owner would have to do that, but in any case, it has to come in front of the Board. Is that correct? You're putting overhead doors in. The framework is there, yes, but you're putting a loading dock in. You cannot back up to those walls and get, unload a trailer. MR. TRAVER-Well, if you put in a design for a loading dock but just choose not to build it right now, and you have approved plans and you decide to build it later on, I don't think he'd have to come back. MR. BROWN-There's probably not anything you'd have to come back to the Planning Board for, unless you're going to make some other site improvements, like now I have to pave this area, put some heavy duty concrete down for this loading dock. If that's what they have to do in the future, they may end up back before the Board. Yes. MR. TRAVER-But not if we're just talking about the loading dock, which is what we've, all we've been. We haven't been talking about adding roads later on and so on. We're just talking about this item on the comments. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. TRAVER-Specifically related to stormwater and the loading dock. MR. BROWN-The stormwater and loading docks, yes, but right now there's no area to maneuver vehicles to get to the future loading docks. If they decide to use the loading docks in (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) the future, they'd have to put all this heavy duty concrete or whatever the specs call for, and that's a site improvement that would probably bring them back to this Board. P. BROWN-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-And that site improvement would likely also entail another look at stormwater, would it not? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-So then in that case maybe it doesn't make sense for them to put stormwater in now, for a loading dock. The applicant's point, they'll have to come back anyway because of the other issues and deal with that in the future. MR. BROWN-Right. P. BROWN-Okay. We're going to do it now and the stormwater plan will reflect that. MR. BROWN-Okay. P. BROWN-And that'll be resolved by the engineer. So we'll have two drywells on each side, right in the center of those bottom (lost word). MR. TRAVER-Well, I appreciate your clarification on that item, because I think if we did not, you know, the discussion on this item, to me, was a little bit fuzzy, and I have found, having done this a while now, that it's a lot easier to get this settled now rather than have to come back and re- hash the whole thing. If we can get the resolved one way or another, which I believe it sounds like we have, then that will expedite the rest. P. BROWN-Yes, we're still going to leave the siding up there, but it's all framed out for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-That's fine. P. BROWN-And it isn't going to affect anything else, as far, unless it is subdivided, then that would affect something. So, anyway, that's fine. Okay. So that takes the Number One S-2, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. P. BROWN-Stabilize construction. Okay. The detail is in these supplemental things here. It's on the plan, too, but what I did on the plan was because we have a one way loop, that all the trucks go around that come in and go across the parking lot, obviously their tires are clean then. So we had a one way loop all the way around and put it in 20 feet, 20 feet wide, or 18 feet wide, whatever, 20 feet wide and the Code calls for 22. We've put it in 60 feet instead of the Code that calls for 50 feet, because generally speaking the 50 footers just don't clean off the tires, especially if there's any clay, which we don't have, but, you know, so we just made up the difference in the length rather than the width, and it's an issue now, so we're just going to do the State thing. It'll be easier for us, cheaper for us. We don't care. Okay. So, that's not an issue either. S-3 is the photometrics, and Jeff and I have discussed this a lot and what's going to happen is we're going to, what we're waiting for, Jeff, if you want to go into this when I'm done, but if not I'll fumble through it a little bit here, but anyway, what we have proposed now, he is an electrical distributor, okay, of all these materials, imports them and buys them locally, whatever else. So the first thing he wants to do is have the latest technology on his own building where he can use it, and also on the interior, okay, and as you said to me today, that these things are coming down in price. They're taking over certain factories in the United States, and they're going to be re-building, they're going to be manufacturing these things in mass, and there's even later technology out other than LED's. So we would like just to wait and work something out with the Building Department when we're getting ready to put it up, because we're going to put the latest stuff that comes in, and it probably won't be ready until the Fall to do it. So if you guys would go along with that, we'd appreciate it. It's not really an engineering thing, but it is a, you know, first of all we have a lot of fixtures up there now which aren't the dark sky, right? JEFF SCHWARTZ MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, like the 175 watt HID, we'll probably put in maybe an LED one that's similar lumens and similar, you know, so we don't have to go into somebody else's property or whatever. So probably something similar pattern as that. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) P. BROWN-And the other thing is we do have, we have a lot of traffic over there after hours, an we're, Jeff's building, along with the other two, are the three right in that vicinity, okay, which includes the new Morgan Marine building, I believe, is going to, we have a lot of vandalism over there, and, you know, it's a real problem. So you've got to have all four sides of your building lit up, and if it over shines, we don't mind it, okay. As a good example Northeast Electrical Products, their lights come across on us, beautiful. Lights the road up. There's nothing, and it gives these guys not very many places to hide. MR. SCHWARTZ-There's no lights on the road. P. BROWN-Right. It's an industrial area. MR. HUNSINGER-Is vandalism worse now that there's more activity or is it more? P. BROWN-Well, we had a bunch of nice natural trees growing up in front of the place, and the first snow storm somebody came in and, you know, decided to try their plow frame out, or whatever, and knocked them down. I mean, there was three inch pines in there, which are not the strongest tree in the world, but by the same token they drove through this and cut them right off. MR. SCHWARTZ-After hours you get a lot of, you know, because it's just businesses there. So evenings and weekends you get people snowmobiling, people four wheelers. You get all types of stuff. You get skateboarders, you know, people just, you know, we just have to deal with it. P. BROWN-And I see it as much better to have the lighting than go to the New Jersey style with the six foot high fence with razor wire around it or whatever else. I mean, I think this is a lot more natural, and, you know, until there's enough people over there working 24 hours a day, I think this is the only way to resolve it, and that's what Northeast Products has done. They've just, and they have their burglar alarm go off every night and stuff like that. I mean, it went off again last night, you know, there's a lot of things that go on over there. There's a lot of drug activity. So it's a real issue, and there's a lot of vandalism. MR. KREBS-The problem of not having a photometric plan, though, is that when the Town officials go to enforce whatever the approval is, you can't enforce something that doesn't exist. P. BROWN-That's what we said. We'll work it out. We'll bring the stuff in to the Building Department. MR. MAGOWAN-In order to get approval and stuff like that, is it possible to get the, you know, the latest, you know, LED light, you know, that will meet the Codes, and put that in there, you know, for your, and if you go to change it, then you can go to the Building Department in the Fall and say, look, we found this better light, we want to use this. These are the specs. MR. SCHWARTZ-We'll just go with the 175 metal halide light, and then we'll just say something that meets the same specs. There's a lot of changes in lighting that's going on. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would think that the changes would be by way of improvement, cost efficiency and that type of thing. P. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-For us, the issue, again, and in some ways it's not unlike the hypothetical loading dock. We can't approve a hypothetical photometric plan. I mean, light pollution is an issue that we are concerned about in the Town. So maybe what you could do, since we know lights are getting, the technology, as you say, is getting better and better, you can submit a plan with what you've got, and something that meets Code and we can approve on, and then should the light be higher quality, more compliant, whatever, you know, that shouldn't be an issue. MR. SCHWARTZ-I guess your concern is the lighting spectrum there, that it just falls in with there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, there's different parts of the Code regarding, you know, areas around the building, and that's they the photometric plan is called for. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just put in a baseline plan, and then if you change it, you change it. P. BROWN-Yes, that's not a problem. Okay. So that's pretty much it. Lighting cut sheets, we've already, that's just, we've reduced them down to put them on the plan and. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. SCHWARTZ-Did you give them the 175 metal halide? P. BROWN-Yes, it's going to be in this packet. MR. TRAVER-And you can submit, there was an issue about the cut sheets were, need to make better copies of them for review. P. BROWN-Yes. We took care of all that stuff. Okay. Landscaping plan on the west entrance. Planting schedule. Well, it's on the plans, the planting schedule. MR. BROWN-It's on the new plans or? P. BROWN-It's on the old plans. MR. BROWN-Okay. P. BROWN-It's on SWWP-4. Or whatever it is. Okay. Is that the last one of yours? Did I miss any? Because I re-wrote them on the (lost words). MR. BROWN-That's it. There's just two comments at the top of the page. The one's more of an editorial comment that Keith had put together about the amount of information that's submitted. I guess the one that has some substance to it is Number Two. Talking about the SPDES permit and that this is technically a phased project. This is going to happen in phases. So we probably want to revise, I mean, you want to revise your NOI when you submit that. P. BROWN-That'll be all taken care of. It'll all be addressed. MR. BROWN-Okay. Because it's answered no, and it's actually yes. So we're just looking for a correction there, and I guess a question for me, when it comes time to track the project and the SPDES coverage, is this going to be a continuation of your existing open permit, or are you going to close that one and file a new one for this? MR. LA POINT-This would be a modification to the existing. MR. BROWN-To the existing one. Okay. P. BROWN-And we weren't going to do that originally we were just going to re-apply, but then that wasn't acceptable to you, if you recall, and we had to re-do the whole thing. So we said, well, if we're going to re-do the whole thing, we'll get things the way we want them and if we're going to do all this work we might as well get it done correctly. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Was there anything else that you wanted to add? MR. SCHWARTZ-No, I think that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions or comments from the Board? P. BROWN-Can you give it conditional approval based on these items that are listed? MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to talk about that in a second. P. BROWN-We'd appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-If there's no questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-Not on this one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and what's the wishes of the Board? (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. TRAVER-Well, we have those additional plans that need to be submitted. There's plans to be revised, and that's going to have an impact on engineering. I mean, I know that we have given conditional approval on an engineering signoff, but we have issues that I suspect may result in a change in the plan. The issue of the fire road, the stormwater related to the loading dock, the photometric plans and so on. I'm not sure we've ever given conditional approval against plans we haven't seen. MR. MAGOWAN-There's quite a few engineering comments, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes, although they are largely, so far they're largely stormwater related, but we have basically an incomplete plan at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I agree with what he said. We've got a lot of items that are incomplete. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like you have new information to submit. P. BROWN-We've got new. Can I make a comment just regarding this? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. P. BROWN-Okay. Number One, we've already done these plans, two different times, okay, and I go and have to get the copies run off, and that costs Jeff, just to get the copies, not the engineer's time or the engineers, in this case, too, and also my time, Jeff's time, just the plans are $120 a set. That doesn't include all the specifications and everything else. Okay. So what we'd like to do is get the engineering done, have them approve the plans, have Craig review the plans, and if there's no objection we'll pass them to you. That's why I'm saying, if we have this whole list, you know, and then you can sign the plan and then they can be re-distributed from there, and we don't mind making copies, but we don't want to do, go through this exercise another time, and if you realized how many times we've done this in the last 13 years, and I understand. I'm not complaining about coming through the Board five times, okay. This is the fifth time we've been on this same project, but it's been in phases. So that's one thing, but each time we come we run off a set of plans for 20, we have to run off 20 copies of plans, 15 or 16 come to you people, and if you don't like them then we have to go back and re-run them off. It's just not practical. Okay. So what we're doing is. MR. TRAVER-I think in our discussions tonight we talked about having you take care of the engineering before coming back for approval. MR. HUNSINGER-We like that, too. P. BROWN-Yes, well then we'll, you know, the engineers are capable of getting together, sitting down and iron out all these items, you know, and then telling me this is what we want on the plans. Then they look them over again and they approve them or disapprove them, but we're only dealing with one set of plans, or two sets of plans, whatever. Okay, and then when they're complete, then we'll run off all the copies, they will stamp them all, okay, and they'll send them back to you people, but we would like a contingency, providing the engineer and Craig signs off on them, that you will sign off likewise, you know, and hopefully we don't have to come back. Obviously if we can't have agreements with all these people, then we'll have to come back. MR. HUNSINGER-We were in agreement with you until the last step. Because one of the things that we like to do is see the engineering finished before it comes to us for review. We are the body that has to make that decision. So we're in full agreement until the last step. P. BROWN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we would like to see you come back, and at that point, if it's just a rubber stamp, it's just a rubber stamp. P. BROWN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that's, we're in agreement right to the last sentence. P. BROWN-Do I have to bring in all these copies of plans and then somebody says, well, I don't like your lighting plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you know what the Code is. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) P. BROWN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And as long as the lighting plan meets the Code, we're not going to have problems with it. MR. TRAVER-We've had applications where, you know, people spend a great deal of time working with the Planning Department and the Code and doing things, and they will come in and they will have a plan that is not only complete, but there are few, if any, engineering issues, and we can see them, basically, in one meeting, maybe two at the most, and we have others where we come in and every time they come in there are outstanding issues and it has to go back and do the homework and answer, you know, Questions One through Ten and come back and we have to review it again. So we have limited control over what the applicant provides to the plan in order to complete the process that we have to (lost word). P. BROWN-And what I'm saying to you is we have done this before in the past, and things that didn't come up in the past were all of a sudden brought up on the second and third issue of plans, and what happens is, that's when I said, is this a moving target again. Okay. Now you know where we stand, and why we want to eliminate all this unnecessary cost, and if you really want to know, that's why I went through the book with pictures and everything else, okay, and that's why we've started an addendum, okay, because we don't want these questions coming back, okay. That is what your Staff is supposed to read and they're supposed to come back to us and say okay, that the other night they've agreed upon this, this and this, fine. We will put it in writing to us. You give us your things and we'll make sure everything is done as we agreed upon. MR. SCHWARTZ-1 think Peter is asking can we approve it contingent upon the (lost words) making a decision, all your points tonight that have been raised? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not hearing any other issues, other than, you know, what you knew coming into the meeting, the Staff comments and the engineering comments. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the Fire Marshal. We've got to have, he's got to sign off on it. Because he's not going to sign off on what you've got here. I can tell you that right now. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the problem that I see is, you know, because the comments are so lengthy, if we were to give you a conditional approval, if the plan changes, you're coming back in here, and the likelihood that the plan is going to change somewhat because of the depth and the length of the comments is pretty high. MR. TRAVER-And the plans are incomplete. I would definitely not feel comfortable giving a conditional approval at this point. I think that if they can come back with the flat engineering and they're able to work the issues out, the outstanding issues that, I know the applicant is saying there's no problem, but I think the Fire Marshal may have some issues with some of these things. There may be issues about the road going over the laterals or something. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know, but to me it's not, you know, oh, no problem. I see a problem here. There's a conflict between what's been submitted and what the engineer is saying is appropriate, and, you know, I just think those things need to be resolved. We cannot, I don't see how, I would not be comfortable passing judgment on this application assuming that those issues can be resolved, and not change the plan, and we have an incomplete plan. So I'm not comfortable addressing this tonight, not with a positive approval. P. BROWN-Let me just add one more comment about the sewer, okay. That sewer was put in 13 years ago. We followed the Rist Frost plan, which was an approved, shovel ready plan. MR. TRAVER-Then you should have no difficulty with that issue. P. BROWN-It's been inspected by the Building and Grounds Department, not the Planning Department. MR. TRAVER-Then there should be no problem with that issue. P. BROWN-Well, why is it even coming up is my point. Why is it coming up? We're not touching, we're not working anywhere near that. MR. TRAVER-That is an engineering question that you have to discuss with the engineer. P. BROWN-So it's wide open there, right back to the brand new. We had to include a floor plan. We had to include a racking plan. Have you had anybody have to put together a racking plan for (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) the existing and the proposed? This is a Planning Board. This is supposed to be the exterior. I'm telling you something. We've been through every song and dance you can imagine, and you're saying they're not complete. Well, they're complete when you read most of these things. MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate your frustration. I mean, one of the things that really frustrates me in being on the Planning Board is that, you know, things change over time, and some of it's, you know, most of it's outside of our control, unfortunately, you know, whether it be stormwater requirements or wetland requirements, or whatever else. So, you know, coming in with a plan that was approved 13 years ago isn't going to, may not pass muster in 2013. So, I mean, I appreciate your frustration and I share that with you, but that doesn't mean that, you know, we're trying to make you hit a moving target. We're just trying to get you through the process. P. BROWN-And all we have to do is run into Mr. No one more time and I'll guarantee (lost words) put a set of plans together that'll be approved by him. I mean, I've seen every question asked about this thing, and originally we were just supposed to check off, okay, the questions, okay. We included in there an answer to each one of the checked off questions. Okay. This is what we're up against, and if you guys can't understand that, we're at a standstill. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we haven't seen an answer to your, I mean, you verbally gave us your answers to the December 13th comment letter, but we haven't seen your written comments to that effect. Has the engineer seen those responses, yet? P. BROWN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. P. BROWN-Because we knew that if we brought them in a week ago, you know, that we would have had somebody comment about, just like he started out on phase one, or on the first question that the asked, or the first one of the comments, you know, stuff like the north arrows not going in the right direction. It is going in the right direction, you know, it's not oriented the way the normally do, and yet it's gone on for 13 years. Nobody seems to have had any problem figuring out where north is once they get over there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Staff comments are there for our benefit and your benefit. Not all of the Staff comments have to be met in order for us to approve a site plan. P. BROWN-But it's still there and I have to answer it. Right? Your question was to me, did I answer each one of the Staff questions, yes or no. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, I asked you if you had addressed the comments in the December 13th engineering comment letter. I didn't ask you if you had all the Staff comments answered. P. BROWN-No, because there again, we want to go meet with the engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Sir, I'm really not trying to argue with you. I'm just trying to get your through the process. P. BROWN-I know, and I appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-And what I'm hearing from the majority of the Board is that they're not comfortable moving forward without getting some engineering and Staff comments approved. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it sounds to me like the more we talk about it, the more outstanding issues there are going to be. This does not sound like a situation that's going to be easily resolved. Not what I'm hearing anyway. There are some real issues. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I suggest we table it until they get it resolved. P. BROWN-Can I ask one question? Can our engineers go and talk to the Town Engineer without having to go through Mr. Brown? MR. HUNSINGER-The protocol is to go through Staff if you want to comment. MR. BROWN-Well, yes and no. The protocol is if the applicant wants to have conversations with the Town Engineer, that's certainly workable to get through the comments. If there's going to be any formal submittals of plans, we ask that those come to us, so we have a record copy of them, but if they're working items out and they want to meet and do that, that's at the applicant's and the Town Engineer's, you know, pleasure to do that, but once it comes time to revise the plans and the submittals are to take place, they come to us. Ideally what I think I'm hearing is (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) the Board would like the applicant to go away and come back with hopefully the engineering items addressed and a very short list, if any, of engineering comments that are outstanding, a very short list, if any, of any Staff comments from the Staff Notes that are outstanding, and to address the outstanding Fire Marshal issue, and if all three of those things can be done, and they come back with that next set of plans to be submitted, with all those things taken care of, it sounds like this Board would be more comfortable proceeding, you know, with a little more review of this project. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and actually what I was suggesting was that there be no outstanding issues. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Not just a few. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Because there are a couple on here that are currently outstanding that we could be right in the same place we are tonight. MR. BROWN-Yes. Sometimes with engineering issues there's just, you know, two different philosophies on how things get done and, you know, with any engineering there's 50 ways to do it and they're all right, but. MR. TRAVER-It's our engineer that has to sign off on it. MR. BROWN-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-Right. So if we can get it back with all the engineering issues resolved and all of these other issues resolved, then there should be no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-And not to complicate this further, but there have been times when the applicant's engineer and the Town Engineer disagreed on an item, and this Board has ruled in favor of the applicant. We're not asking you to make sure that the Town Engineer is satisfied with every issue, and if there's a plausible reason why you have a different measurement or a different philosophy on a specific item, by all means, that's why we're here. I mean, we're not here just to rubber stamp a plan. We're here to make the final approval. P. BROWN-So we can go to the engineer and resolve these issues now. Then we can come back and present that to you people, okay. Does that all have to be taken care of on the plan or not? In other words, we'll take care of whatever, in other words, if there's an issue like the sewer system, the existing sewer system, okay, and I can show you where you've approved things, they're the same as what we've done in the past, okay, if he insists upon following the residential code, okay, which means we have to go point it out to him where it is acceptable. There's no foundation, no basement. There's a foundation but no basement, and it's 12 feet away from the building, and what we'd like to do is just do what the original thing was that we built this system up for that thing and we'll explain this to the engineer, okay, but when it comes down to the thing, that's going to be a comment on there. He's not going to approve that, I don't think, but maybe he will, and if he doesn't, then you people will consider it, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, you know, I don't want to get hung up on specific details, but the comment on the laterals, that was a Staff comment not an engineering comment. P. BROWN-I know, well, the engineering comment had other things, but what we're calling is an engineering problem because I'm trying to, it's never been an issue before. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. P. BROWN-In fact we're moving the road over a little bit this time. We re-aligned it rather than have the curve. MR. SCHWARTZ-1 think if the engineers can maybe talk together, then we can (lost words). MR. TRAVER-It's been our experience that these things can be resolved, when the engineers get together. This sounds like a process issue, not a Code issue. MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to give you the option. I mean, I know you have new material to submit this evening. If you're fairly confident that that's going to satisfy all of the, okay. So you'd rather meet with the engineer. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) P. BROWN-We haven't been to the engineer, and we were told until we went, that we had to go through Craig before we could come and talk to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. P. BROWN-And we don't want, we're paying for this engineer, okay. You understand. MR. HUNSINGER-We understand that. P. BROWN-There's a certain fiduciary issue here. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-There's a cap and they don't go above the cap. P. BROWN-Well, I know, but we've already exceeded the cap. Trust me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. P. BROWN-Okay, but when all these questions are asked, and we don't know what the Staff is presenting to them, okay, and they're working for him but getting paid by us. There's no reason for him not to run the bill up. MR. BROWN-We forward every item that you submit directly to the Town Engineer. We don't change it. We don't add to it. We don't take away from it. Whatever you submit to us, we forward to the Town Engineer. P. BROWN-Then why did you, when you reported back to me, why did you tell him to come through you? MR. BROWN-For any formal submittals, that's correct. For conversations. MR. LA POINT-I understand that process. I understand what the Town is looking for, once that's all resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we're trying, believe me, we're trying to get you through the process. P. BROWN-I understand that. I'm just, when you ask certain questions, I'm telling you my past experience. MR. HUNSINGER-This application or the prior application? P. BROWN-All the prior applications. Not with you as Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-I would hope that you're not (lost words) with a bad experience. P. BROWN-No, I am not, believe me. I see smiles on the faces which I never saw before. So I'm just trying to resolve the issue. It's nice to see there's new people. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, and so we're going to table this pending. MR. TRAVER-Resolution of outstanding engineering issues. MR. HUNSINGER-So the question becomes, when do we table it to? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, the photometric plan, too, has got to be, I mean, that's obviously got to be Code compliant or whatever. It sounds like that shouldn't be an issue. MR. BROWN-Yes, again what I heard during discussions was engineering comments, outstanding Staff comments and the Fire Marshal issues. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. BROWN-Those are the three things I heard. Include what you want to include, but those are the things I heard you talk about. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if there's a Staff comment that you feel is inappropriate, please tell us. I mean, you told us the comment about the lateral. The Staff that made the comment no longer works for the Town, but even the current Staff, they're not engineers. They're not experts in everything. So a lot of the comments are directed towards the Planning Board to get us to (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) ask the questions and flesh it out. It's not necessarily to get a written response from the applicant. P. BROWN-And I won't argue with that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is March full? MR. BROWN-March is not full. I would suggest a March date with a February 15th submittal deadline. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have a preference for the 19th or 26th of March? MR. SCHWARTZ-No. I guess the first one would be better. MR. HUNSINGER-The first one, March 19tH MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. Say the 19th. I'll check my calendar, and if I can't do it for some reason, I'll. MR. TRAVER-And that gives them roughly three weeks to get everything submitted? MR. BROWN-Yes, the 15tH MR. LA POINT-That was 2/15? MR. BROWN-2/15. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're asking the submittal date? MR. LA POINT-The submittal date. MR. SCHONEWOLF-2/15. MR. HUNSINGER-But by all means get together with the Town Engineer before that. MR. LA POINT-No, I'm right on it. I'm on it. P. BROWN-He's going to contact him probably tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make that motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2012 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled until the March 19th Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of February 15tH to address engineering, Staff and Fire Marshal comments. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2013, by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-Don't we need to have some conditions on that motion? MR. KREBS-Well, per what Craig just said. P. BROWN-The minutes are going to be run right off with what was said. MR. HUNSINGER-Engineering, Staff and Fire Marshal comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I just didn't hear that in the form of a motion. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. We'll see you in a couple of months. MR. SCHWARTZ-Thank you. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. P. BROWN-Do you want these or not? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I asked you if you wanted to submit them. If they're going to change. P. BROWN-There are going to be some changes. MR. TRAVER-Well, again, I think the submissions to us have to go through the Town office. P. BROWN-Yes, that's right, but what we want to do is put an addendum on it, okay, and do the addendum rather than the old book. I mean, there's a lot of probably photos, and you've got the original. We're not going to sign the original agreement, right? MR. BROWN-What do you mean agreement? P. BROWN-You've got the signed copies of the application. MR. BROWN-Of the application, sure. There's no new application. It's just addressing the comments that have been made. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we don't need all new sets of plans, either. P. BROWN-What if I give you all the sets of plans, because that way we can, we don't go back and, you know, we're going to change them all to be the way we're going to do it. There's a lot of changes, little tiny words and things like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, they need to be in the final one. I'll leave it up to your discretion. P. BROWN-For you individually. MR. HUNSINGER-For us, yes. P. BROWN-We'd like to be able to do that. Then we'll present the plans on time and we'll give the five that they normally have to have and one for the committee and they can (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHWARTZ-How many sets do you need to give them Craig? P. BROWN-What, six? MR. BROWN-Well, enough for all the Board members. I mean, we can talk about that before the February 15th submittal deadline. I'm sure somebody will be in and talk to Staff about the Staff comments. P. BROWN-If I give you peanut plans, the 11 by 17. 1 didn't give this to you, well, whatever. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, those are fine. 11 by 17 is fine for us. P. BROWN-11 by 17. It gives you everything. That's what I use most of the time. I carry a magnifying glass with me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if we have questions, we'll ask them, if we can't read something. P. BROWN-I can also give you this if you want to put (lost words). MR. BROWN-That's perfect. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, great. Thank you. P. BROWN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the record, we did leave the public hearing open. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2012 SEAR TYPE II STEVE KITCHEN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LINDA S. DE LAURA ZONING (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION END OF FOREST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE TOTALING 3,171 SQ. FT.; ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS PLANNED. DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. _CROSS REFERENCE SP 28-10, BP 10-556 (TEST PIT) WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 179- 9; CHAPTER 94 MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone in the audience here for that project? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The attorney is here. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-It got tabled at the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We're just going to table it. I didn't know if there was anyone here for the public hearing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll make a motion to table it. MR. HUNSINGER-This would be to the April 16tH MR. SCHONEWOLF-The first meeting in April, so we have a full Board. MR. BROWN-Yes, the zoning application was tabled until the March 27th Zoning Board meeting, so it would have to be after that. MR. HUNSINGER-April 16th is what the Staff comments said. MR. BROWN-April 16th. April 16th, that's what's in the draft resolution. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's right. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, we could make it to the 23rd MR. SCHONEWOLF-The 23rd would be better for me. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that okay? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. We'll make it April 23rd, then. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#48-2012 FWW#4-2012 STEVE KITCHEN MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 4- 2012 STEVE & JENNIFER KITCHEN, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the April 23rd Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in April. SITE PLAN 76-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 31 BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,950 SQ. FT. FOUR BEDROOM RESIDENCE. CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-12, BP 89-508 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-20 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-060, 179-4-050 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-There was an e-mail dated January 16th from Tom Hutchins the engineer requesting that we table this until March 26th. Has there been any further discussion on that, Craig? MR. BROWN-There has not. My understanding is the house plans and some of the site development might be changing. So they just want a little bit of time to refine their plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So they still have until February 15th to submit. MR. BROWN-February 15th. Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So I know we tabled a number of items to March 19th . We haven't tabled anything to the 26tH MR. BROWN-I don't think anything to the 26th yet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. MR. HUNSINGER-So we have a motion to table this to March 26th. Is there a second? MR. TRAVER-Second. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 76-2012 PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 1,352 sq. ft. residence and accessory structures and construct a new 3,950 sq. ft. four bedroom residence. Construction of a dwelling within 50 feet of 15% slopes in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 11/15/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 12/5/2012; Type 11 SEAR-no further action required; No waivers requested; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/202012, then tabled to 1/22/13; The applicant's agent submitted an e-mail requesting to be tabled to 3/26/2013; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 76-2012 PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the March 26th Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just let the record show for both of those projects the public hearings will be held open. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2013 SEAR TYPE II FRANK PARILLO AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 199 CORINTH RD., BIG BAY RD. & 507 BIG BAY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CLEAR 4.3 ACRES OF LAND ON A 6.7 ACRE PARCEL. APPLICANT STATES THAT THE PROPOSED SITE WORK IS FOR SITE MARKETING PURPOSES. DISTURBANCE OF LAND 1 ACRE OR MORE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 31-12, SP 54-11, SV 53-11, BP 2012-240 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2013 LOT SIZE 6.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2 THROUGH 9 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-010 JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Okay. This is a kind of a Phase II of a site plan you guys saw last year. There was an approval to do some site work in and around the Exit 18 Taco Bell site, and that site work was to clear the lot, kind of smooth grade it out to make it a little more marketable. The site (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) work outside of the Taco Bell site was not done. Now the applicants are looking to include additional properties in that site, clearing, grading, leveling application. Basically the lands that front on Big Bay Road kind of complete the corner, complete the block. So, again, this is like Phase I I of that project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins and Frank Parillo. Frank has always, he's owned this property for years and has always hoped to get the corner to square off that property and make it better for a re-development project. He was finally able to purchase that recently from the estate that owned it. So we're back just to complete, before starting, doing the grading of the whole lot and cleaning it up to do the whole thing all at once. So even though he had approval, rather than do it in pieces, he re-submitted to just do the whole thing, and that's really it. There was a note in the Staff Notes about leaving the trees behind the motel on the, by the Northway, and Tom went out there today to take a look at that, and feel that the significant trees are all within that 25 foot buffer that's already shown, but if the Board wants a little bit more, it's no issue with Frank. This is really just to clean it up and make it look good so he can get someone interested to come in and lease or develop the rest of the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I guess my only thought is, you know, I think most of the trees that are on the site are of marginal quality, because there are some, not many, but there are some mature trees that, depending upon how the site is developed may or may not leave. So my only concern is that we might be knocking down some mature trees that might stay, depending upon the re-development. MR. HUTCH I NS-There's a number of them that are toward the motel side, the east side of the parcel. There's a number of good sized white pines that will be staying because they're within the 25 foot area. The majority of it is small scrub brush. There are, and there are a few decent sized mature trees out towards Big Bay Road that our proposal is they'd be gone. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess I would feel comfortable, and I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, and I don't know how practical it would be to say, you know, put a condition on it that, you know, any tree larger than a certain diameter would remain. MR. SIPP-Well, (lost words) conditional on what shape the tree is in. If it's exposed to salt, it could be the death knell, or some trees just love it. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm just throwing it out for discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I would almost think, the applicant is obviously trying to attract someone to the property. So as they go through and expose, you know, they cut away this underbrush and so on, you know, they're going to want to keep something that's obviously attractive to make the property attractive. I would think it would be in their best interest not to completely clear cut it, if there was something worth keeping. FRANK PARILLO MR. PARILLO-The problem with leaving some select trees is that they're never in the right spot and we would have to come back with a landscaping plan at some point, and I just feel to pick out eight or ten or fifteen trees and leave them there, I mean, it's like, you know, chances of them ever being in the right spot are remote. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I know it's on the, and I'm not sure if it was on the Taco Bell property site or just over into the new site, there's that one mature tree that's been all by itself. MR. LAPPER-Pine tree? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it wasn't. It was a hardwood. I'm not very good with trees. MR. HUTCH I NS-Between Taco Bell and where the house used to be? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-In that area. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I didn't take any pictures. I mean, clearly it looks like you kind of(lost words) that one tree there, because, I mean, it's all snow covered now, but it looks like lawn all around it. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. PARILLO-Well, we could leave that tree and hope that it falls within the. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'm just using that as an example, because I think it's on the Taco Bell side. MR. PARILLO-Well, if it's on the Taco Bell side, we wouldn't be touching it anyway MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-Because that's subject to a lease that Taco Bell has with (lost word). MR. PARILLO-Most of the stuff in there really is pine, scrub pine and, I mean, there are a few, but. MR. LAPPER-The goal is to be able to grade it and seed it and maintain it. MR. PARILLO-Exactly. We're going to mow it, until we develop it, and, you know, like I said, to come back with a landscaping plan is really the way to go, rather than try to develop something around 10 or 12 trees is. MR. MAGOWAN-1 don't think you're saying develop around the trees, but, you know, right now what you're trying to do is clean up the lot, make it more presentable before sale, you know, so, that might be two months, hopefully, or that might be, you know, a couple of years. Instead of mowing it all down and making it one big field right there, actually just leave some of the mature trees, and if your client comes in and you have to decide the tree has to go, that's a different story. I mean, basically what we're trying to do is make it look like a nice park. MR. PARILLO-I see. MR. MAGOWAN-Because I know coming down to Curtis and looking over there, you know, it would look nice cleaned up, but if it had some of the mature trees still up there and you're going to mow it and it would be green and it would just look more like a park. MR. PARILLO-How do we move this to the next step, though? I mean, do you want us to, we could pick a number of eight or ten trees and, I mean, I don't know, I haven't really gone out and looked at every tree, but how do we move just to the next step and get approval here tonight to get started? MR. TRAVER-Well, you've already said that the one tree that the Chairman was referring to you think might be on the Taco Bell side. You wouldn't mess with that anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Let me just give you another example, I mean, I didn't get out and walk the site because you can pretty much see in from every angle, from every corner, but if you go into the Curtis Lumber site and you look back towards, you look north back towards yours, you know, there were a couple of fairly mature pine trees within, I don't know, 20, 30 feet in from the property line, just a little north of where your pointer is, Craig. There was a tree roughly in that area, very mature pine tree. It was probably this big around. I mean, I feel comfortable just saying. MR. LAPPER-Pick a number. MR. HUNSINGER-No, because I'm thinking of size. MR. BROWN-Diameter 12 inch. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, anything over, even 18 inch in diameter. I mean, I'm trying to find something, you know, I mean, if there's a nice mature tree, you hate to knock I down and find out, hey, we could have left it and it wouldn't have interfered with our plan. I'm not saying design the plan around the tree. MR. LAPPER-What if we say 18 inches. We'll make sure that we flag those, anything over 18 inches. MR. MAGOWAN-Craig, you've got a good reputation of doing things nice. MR. TRAVER-The only concern I would have with that kind of condition is, you know, what if, and I'm not familiar with this. I mean, I've been there but not recently. What are the odds that there's going to be a tree of that caliper right in the middle of where, obviously, he would need to clear. I mean, if we say he can't cut anything over a certain caliper. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. KREBS-Well, and not only that, but by the time he gets someone to use the property, you're going to have to come back for another site plan anyway. MR. LAPPER-I think we're just talking about making it look more like a park now, and I appreciate that. It's not a permanent condition, it's a temporary condition. MR. SIPP-Make sure you identify the tree somehow, a forester. MR. LAPPER-Yes, with ribbons. What Frank envisions, we put in the shared driveway that you approved. MR. SIPP-1 mean, there's no sense putting in poplar, poplar trees there. They're useless. MR. LAPPER-Right. They'll blow down. There'll probably be another commercial site at the corner across from Stewarts, and hopefully an office building in the back that doesn't need the visibility, and that's what he's thinking, but it depends who comes along. So there's nothing wrong with leaving a half dozen or ten trees now, just to make it look a little more like a park while he's marketing it, with everyone understanding that they might go, if there was a plan to build buildings. MR. TRAVER-And it might make it more attractive to potential tenants. MR. LAPPER-For now. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-Just one. From a Lorraine Troy at 471 Big Bay Road. "To Whom It May Concern: I will be unable to attend the meeting on January 22, 2013, but feel some valid concerns need to be addressed re: the above mentioned action. My first concern is where the egress will be from this parcel once it is cleared. Already egress is congested in the area of Curtis Lumber. Secondly, will there be some barrier between the parcel and Big Bay Road so that residents don't have lights from exiting vehicles shining directly into their residences. Also, is there going to be additional lighting installed on the cleared area? Thirdly, there is already additional litter on Big Bay Road from the recently opened Taco Bell. I assume once this application is approved even more will be deposited in our area. Please afford all Planning Board a copy of this letter so they can become aware of my concerns. Respectfully submitted, Lorraine Troy" That's it. MR. LAPPER-It sounds like she's contemplating that there's going to be some development, because there's not going to be an access road. That's just a little construction. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think she was here before when you had like a temporary road coming out there, and that was a concern. MR. LAPPER-That'll only be with site plan approval if you guys want an access up to Big Bay in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's also good to hear her concerns. Are there any other comments or concerns from members of the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-So was that 18 inch or 16 inch diameter? MR. HUNSINGER-1 was just picking a number. MR. SIPP-Go by species rather than number. MR. HUNSINGER-Go by species? MR. SIPP-Yes, They've got two pine trees growing together. You want to get one of them out of there. If you've got two oaks, you can't use ash anymore, you have a choice of the best looking one or the one that shades the area, so that you just don't say take 15 trees off this piece of land. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-(Lost words) there were any large mature pines that were really together. To me they seemed like they were kind of spread apart. MR. HUTCHINS-There was one good sized one to the southwest corner. That's probably the one you were talking about, near the Curtis entrance. I think our thought was at this time we'd agree not to cut any 18 inch, any trees 18 inches or larger that are healthy. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that sounds good. MR. HUNSINGER-That seems reasonable. All right. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type 11 SEAR. So no SEAR review is required. With that, I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #2-2013 FRANK PARILLO A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to clear 4.3 acres of land on a 6.7 acre parcel. Applicant states that the proposed site work is for site marketing purposes. Disturbance of land 1 acre or more of land requires Planning Board review and approval. SEAR Type 11-no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/22/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2013 FRANK PARILLO, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by Staff: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests rg anted: grading, landscaping & lighting plans 3) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 4) The one condition is that no trees over 18 inches in diameter will be cut, that are healthy. 5) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 7) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 8) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) SITE PLAN NO. 3-2013 SEAR TYPE II JAMES & ELIZABETH PAPA OWNER(S) MOHICAN GRANGE HALL ZONING NC-NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LOCATION 1135 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES USING AN EXISTING BUILDING AS A DANCE SCHOOL NAMED STARLETT DANCE WORKS. CHANGE OF USE IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 12-113, 05-939, 99-356 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2013 LOT SIZE 2.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.18-1-6 SECTION 179-4-030 DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. This is a recycle of the Old Grange Hall at the intersection of Ridge and Sunnyside. The applicant's proposing to make some minor site improvements, re-location of parking and driveway entrance. There's some, at least in the Staff comments, some outstanding issues relating to lighting, landscaping, stormwater, grading, parking. So we probably want to get those things addressed, but it's basically a recycle of the building. No additions or changes to the exterior, other than siding, painting and clean up, but the building size and shape doesn't change, just the site improvements. So that's what we have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MANNIX-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record, please. ELIZABETH PAPA MRS. PAPA-Good evening. Elizabeth Papa. JAMES PAPA MR. PAPA-James Papa. MR. MANNIX-Dan Mannix, attorney, but also her brother. MRS. PAPA-He's here for comfort. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So he's free. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. So do you want to tell us a little bit about your project? MRS. PAPA-We're just looking, basically, for a usage there. It's been used as a grange hall for years, many years, and we want to put a dance studio there for our daughter. We're just going to change, update it, the windows, the siding, the doors, the bathrooms. If floors need replacing, we're going to replace them, paint. Craig had brought about an issue with the parking. It is, I don't know, did any of you go up there and take a look? I don't think it's been plowed, but when you go in there, it's very close to Ridge Road, the opening. So I said to Craig, why don't we move that over a little bit so people don't come in out of there and get clocked. Move the driveway over a little bit, curb cut. The curb cut is huge, okay. We want to shrink it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MRS. PAPA-This way. Away from Ridge Road. So you've got more time to get out. Okay, just to make it a safer corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MANNIX-The essential use of the building is not going to change, to gather for church and to gather for meetings. There's just going to be kids coming and going. MR. KREBS-You have a church right next door. MRS. PAPA-Yes. MR. MANNIX-Not any more intense use by volume. The septic system has been inspected and approved. MRS. PAPA-No one's living there. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. MANNIX-(Lost words) six or eight hour intensive use of people using the facility, they're coming and going. The parking is going to be addressed as far as there's some pavement being removed, some pavement added. MRS. PAPA-Yes, the sidewalk coming out we're going to make concrete instead of blacktop, because it's got holes in it, and I don't want somebody to trip and fall. MR. HUNSINGER-So if you shrink down the curb cut, I just wonder if that would mean eliminating some more parking spaces. MRS. PAPA-Well, I had the surveyor go over that three or four times with the parking plan. MR. MAGOWAN-It's like the last page, this one right here, six. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MANNIX-Is the curb cut measured? MRS. PAPA-It's minimal. See right now it's right about here. So we're going to put this green space here. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you see what I'm saying? MR. MAGOWAN-As it is right now, it comes off the corner of the building, doesn't it? MRS. PAPA-Basically, yes, it's right there. MR. MAGOWAN-And you want to just put a little bit more green space in there? MRS. PAPA-Yes. MR. MANNIX-This map already shows the shrinkage in the curb cut. MR. HUNSINGER-This map does? MRS. PAPA-This one does. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, because the curb right now is right here. It comes right off the corner of the building. They want to bring it out here, make it green space. MRS. PAPA-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you can see my comment, though. If you pulled it up here first. MRS. PAPA-No, no, no. This is what they're proposing. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MRS. PAPA-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the name of the studio? MRS. PAPA-Starlett Dance Works. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought you were going to try to work grange into it. MR. MANNIX-She's been in Queensbury for about four years now. She was originally up in the Northgate Plaza, and then moved down to Collins Drive. She's been there a couple of years, and she just wants to get a spot of her own she can call home. MR. HUNSINGER-So there's a historic marker on the site. Is this building either on the historic register or eligible? MR. MANNIX-No, it's not. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MRS. PAPA-It's not on the historic register, I checked. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know how old it is? MRS. PAPA-I've got a deed. I haven't got a clue. MR. TRAVER-The eighteen hundreds, I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what I thought. MR. TRAVER-I remember seeing something on there. Although maybe that's from. MR. MANNIX-It could be the site. I don't know if it's that building. MR. TRAVER-Right. I was just going to say, it might be that State marker that refers to the location. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it refers to the settlement. MR. TRAVER-Right, the character or the guy that came and developed that. MR. KREBS-In the deed it was sold for $700. 1 don't know if that included the building or not, but that was back in 1914. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think the old firehouse is older than that. MR. TRAVER-The Historical Society is just a couple of doors down. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anyway, where I was going with this, it's a pet peeve. I might be the only person going down this rabbit hole, but I have to bring it up. Vinyl replacement windows, vinyl siding, replacement of (lost words), which would not be in keeping with the historic character of the building. MR. MANNIX-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-If you were to, if the building were either listed on the National Register or eligible to be listed on the National Register, you can get tax credits for doing historic preservation, which would be keeping of similar kind. So instead of vinyl windows, you'd be putting in wood windows. Instead of vinyl siding, you'd be repairing and painting wood siding, but the value you'd get back in the tax credit from both the Federal and the State government. So that's why I bring it up. Because if it is a historic building, you know, you don't want to do anything to it that would, you know, forever alter the character of the building. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we stumbled upon that up on the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Yes, I see your point. MR. HUNSINGER-So I don't know if Staff has any comments, if you're aware of any significance of the building or, I mean, certainly the corner is recognized, the Oneida settlement. MR. BROWN-Yes, I'm not aware of any specifics for this property. I'm not sure, the drafter of these notes how in depth they got into in reviewing that, but I'm not aware of that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you check with the Historian? MRS. PAPA-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What did she say? MRS. PAPA-We're not on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you going to leave it the way it is or are you going to pave it, what colors? (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. PAPA-We'd like to vinyl side it white, as it is right now, and put the maintenance free vinyl replacement windows. The windows in it are just about falling out. MRS. PAPA-They're shot. The place is shot. MR. PAPA-It just needs some work. MR. KREBS-And those vinyls will have insulated windows, too. MR. PAPA-Yes, exactly. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you plan to use the upstairs, or just the downstairs? MRS. PAPA-There's an attic we're not going to use. There's a basement that will be used for a waiting area, and then the first floor would be the dance area. I wasn't going to go for the sign permit until we were ready for the sign. He was asking me about the sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-1 can't believe you're going to re-do that bathroom. MRS. PAPA-That's disgusting. MR. MAGOWAN-That does look historic. MR. HUNSINGER-It's one of those buildings where, even though it's part of the culture and history of the community, it's like, how do you find a use for it. I mean, obviously it's been underutilized for a long, long time. MR. MANNIX-It's been for sale forever. MR. KREBS-And this is an excellent use. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's perfect. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-1 will open the public hearing. Is there any written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-Nothing in the file. MR. HUNSINGER-No written comments. So I will close the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Again, it's a Type 11 SEAR so no SEAR review is required. Are there any other comments or concerns from the Board? Any special conditions that you see? Then I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVE SP #3-2013 JAMES & ELIZABETH PAPA A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes using an existing building as a Dance School named Starlett Dance Works. Change of use in the NC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. SEAR Type II-no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/22/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2013 JAMES & ELIZABETH PAPA, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 6) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MRS. PAPA-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2013 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION 15 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT 13 NEW DUPLEX APARTMENTS TOTALING 15,483 SQ. FT. ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK ON 3.47 ACRE PROPERTY. APARTMENT HOUSES IN AN OFFICE ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2013 LOT SIZE 3.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-97 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. This is a project for the development of 13 duplex units, total of 26 units, on the formerly Podnorski nursery property on Luzerne Road. Staff comments talk about basically buffer requirements, stormwater, some grading questions come up. Waiver requests, lighting, landscaping, those type of issues. Basically buffering is the big thing. Between multi-family, as you know this came up one of our meetings last week, buffer requirements between multi-family and single family there's a requirement. Buffering between multi-family and commercial, which is, I think, on the east side of the parcel,just clarification on those issues look like the big ones in this one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Center, project engineer, Mickie Hayes and Jaime Hayes is here as well. Mr. Podnorski was looking to shut down his business as he'd gotten older and the property was for sale for a while, and what the Hayes are proposing is something that's permitted with zoning, with no area variances, just what fits on the property. It looks like a nice transition between the single family houses to the rear, the municipal use for the West Glens Falls Fire. There's apartment projects across the street and then the commercial, the CVS and the daycare center towards Glens Falls. So zoning calls for that but it seems to be a good transition designed this way, and we got the Staff Notes and the engineering comments and Tom's already beefed up the buffer in response to that because there's certainly room to beef up the buffer and the Hayes are happy with that. So those are general comments. Let me ask Tom to walk you through the design. MR. CENTER-Craig, can you go to that SP-2 drawing? (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. BROWN-This one? MR. CENTER-Yes. In response to the Staff Notes in regards to the buffering, what we did was add some, the white cedar and trees along the southwest corner of the parcel in here to screen from Luzerne Road, and the back buffer, the other two buffers were Type B buffers which are a 20 foot wide buffer along the parcel, but three trees per 100 feet of lot line. We've got a few more trees than are required per lot line, but I tried to bunch the trees, the shrubs and the trees, along the very end of the road, knowing that vehicles, lights, things coming down the road, will be buffered by the evergreens, the white cedars on that end, thinking ahead from other projects trying to block any shedding light. We are cutting down in the back here, if you can go to the, or actually, the other thing, the Fire Marshal's comments in regards to the fire access for the fire trucks, we softened this curve here to a 28 foot radius and 70 foot width, and also this radius right here to a 28 foot radius and a 70 foot width to allow a fire truck to be able to turn around within the development, and we did get a signoff letter from him today, met with him today. He just had a chance to review the proposed changes, but he was comfortable enough with them to give us a signoff as far as it meets the intent of the Code for fire access. I'm not sure, did you receive that, Craig, today? MR. BROWN-I did. MR. CENTER-Okay. So those were the structural changes to the road, were just a matter of the curves. We'll go to the next drawing, please. The only grading change that we did for stormwater was up in this pond here, cut down another foot in the pond to get additional storage within the pond, to address engineering comments that were, had to do with Hydro CAD numbers. What happens when we design these, according to the DEC standards you're only allowed to use 12 inches per hour as your exfiltration rate and we actually have probably closer to 30 or 40 inches per hour because of the well-drained soils. We've done all the test pits and the deep soil test pits at the bottom where the drywells would be, but we haven't even, to be even more conservative, the drywells that are in the ponds are not used in the calculation for the storage volume of the ponds. So we have even additional storage within the ponds, in trying to do this. Most of the engineering comments that are here have to do with Hydro CAD issues, needing additional information, nothing that can't be worked out between us. There's no large structural changes to the plans that would require (lost words) to answer those questions. Most of those have to do with the stormwater management report and coming into compliance with some of the DEC for the Notice of Intent requirement. MR. TRAVER-That includes the change in the road design? MR. CENTER-Yes. The change in the road design, I've already factored that in to the stormwater, the Hydro CAD, and all the ponds can accommodate any of the changes that we did to the road. MR. HUNSINGER-So you didn't take away any of the landscaping that would be on our plans, you just added? MR. CENTER-I added. No, we didn't, yes we didn't remove any landscaping. Like I said, we added this right in here. MR. KREBS-You know, one of the suggestions I was going to make is that at the end of the street that you have lights, just as you did in your other development up off on Dixon Road, where you put a little berm to start with, because initially, until the trees grow some, those lights are going to come down that road. So, you know, I don't know. MR. CENTER-We actually don't have as much room as we did in the, with the fire access and the turnaround as we did at Dixon Road. The one thing we have working for us here is we're actually cutting into the slope. This site is a little more depressed, because everything slopes down in this direction. Everything slopes here. So we're actually cutting back into the hill here. So this actually sits lower than the West Glens Falls Firehouse and it will sit a little bit lower than the neighbors next door. We could thicken, we could either do a stockade fence along the property line, or, you know, thicken up the plantings in this area. MR. LAPPER-Just in the center of that property line, where the road? MR. KREBS-Just where the road. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, what did you ask him for? (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. KREBS-Well, I was asking for a berm, but he was saying a stockade fence, so that when you come to the end of the street, the lights don't go in to the back of the neighbors' homes. MR. LAPPER-A four foot high fence, so they'd still see the trees over it, so they wouldn't be looking at a stockade fence. MR. CENTER-And we'll check that with Mickie before, we need to go to a six foot stockade fence, we can change that, but I think a four foot. MR. MAGOWAN-A four/six. MR. CENTER-Four/six. Yes, depending on the height. MR. LAPPER-How far is that turning area that you wanted to go, to extend beyond that? MR. KREBS-Just basically so that when they're traveling down the street with their lights on at night it's not going to go into the back. MR. LAPPER-So maybe six feet on either side of the? MR. CENTER-Yes. We've also increased, that's a 30 foot wide end of the road that the hammer head end is actually 30 feet wide. So, you know, probably 40 feet would cover it, to either side. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. CENTER-No. I think most of the engineering issues had to do with some note change and notice of intent issues that are non-structural. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Roughly these are single floor homes? MICKIE HAYES MR. HAYES-These are colonial style. They're like townhouses. They're the identical buildings that we did on Dixon Road, literally. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you didn't give us any elevations. Do you have any with you? MR. CENTER-I don't have them with me. MR. HAYES-We could get some for you, sure. MR. LAPPER-They're the exact same design. MR. HAYES-Exact same, literally the same building exactly. A front porch, and then you have the (lost word) from the sides, and they're just, basically they look like a colonial house but they're split in two. That's, you know, and then they have decks off the back or patios, depending on the, for each person, because you have a slider off the back. The front porch is kind of the style when you have the road come in and it encourages the front porches to be used. It's kind of a new trend, kind of got lost. This makes the buildings, because they're rectangular, it softens the building, the porch softens them up from being such a square. So they're actually good looking, but it also gives you an effect of porch, you made the porch five feet deep so you could actually use them, not just be a decorative feature. So we find people on Dixon Road have been using their front porches, which, being the house building apartments, people don't use them that often. You have to have almost like a dead end street to actually have that now-a-days because with the traffic, with the high traffic people don't have a tendency to sit in the front. So it's worked out for usability. MR. HUNSINGER-And how about colors? MR. HAYES-Usually we stick with earth tone on them, and we try to like change them up with the trims and stuff so they don't look like a mushroom, you know, so we alter the door styles just so people have their own identity, because a duplex community versus apartment community is, I think, people have, it's more of a house like environment, and they actually probably pay a premium for that, to be honest with you, but they don't feel like they're in an asphalt jungle. That's why they have their own driveways. It's kind of a different concept. It's a little more expensive to build this way, because you have more exterior walls, but in the long run it's probably better, aesthetically for the area and actually for us as a return. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. LAPPER-Rather than attaching them. MR. HAYES-Yes, exactly. It's cheaper to build more you stick together, obviously. Shorter road, but in the long run I think getting a nicer product people are going to choose to stay longer. It's good business as well as aesthetics. MR. HUNSINGER-Plus they can walk down to your (lost word). MR. HAYES-Exactly, but basically this site is access to the Northway. It's, you have a drugstore. You have a grocery store. It's a bus line. It's basically a great place to, and then with hopefully the park develops, so it's actually a fantastic site for a rental community like this. It's a good location. MR. LAPPER-And the lease restricts them. They aren't allowed to have coffeemakers. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board members? It looked like most of the landscaping is still there. It looked like a lot of it was (lost words). MR. HAYES-There's a blight that's going through. I don't know if you've noticed at your house. There's a blight going with some of the evergreen. There is a certain species, though, that a lot of them actually, in a funny period in November or October, a lot of them did turn, and we've noticed that in a lot of our, I don't know if you guys noticed at your houses that there's been some blight. I don't know if blight's the right word. I'm just using that as a layman's term, but there's been a lot of evergreens that have gotten sickly. MR. KREBS-Yes, I've seen it on the roads. MR. HAYES-And I don't know what it is. I don't know if it has to do with the ash bore. I don't know, but it has, definitely a good share of the stock actually turned sour, but we did, were able to transplant, we did use a lot of the good stuff out of there, to be honest with you. We left the stuff that, we're going to probably over-landscape this, you know, because we have, there's so much there, but we did, as a matter of fact probably about half the stock, I would say, is sickly at this point, which is like Mr. Podnorski, it's lucky he didn't own it and try to run his nursery still and then lose that kind of asset. For us a lot of the stuff is we'll use what we can everywhere and give away what we can to the church and stuff like that, but eventually some of the stuff is going to be cleared. MR. SIPP-It's caused by a mite. MR. HAYES-It's really. I can't believe how it just went like, whoosh. MR. SIPP-It seems to jump from one place to another. MR. HAYES-And to be honest with you a lot of these things, because his business has basically been semi in business for a lot of years, a lot of the shrubs have grown very close to each other because they're overgrown and they're almost like, some of them are just like one shrub. MR. SIPP-They haven't found what works on it yet. MR. HAYES-On this type of project we use the lighting on the houses themselves that people control. We have no timed lighting. They have lights on their porches, on their doors and stuff, and they control, treat it like a residential house. So everybody has a different idea. So you don't have a big lit. The lighting is actually on the structures themselves. Just like a house would be. MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of fixtures do you use? MR. HAYES-We use, we basically go for a lot of the looks, we go to more of a prettier light, like a house light that you have a lot of sconce lighting, and you have overhead lighting underneath the deck as well. So basically we go to find the prettiest thing we can find at Lowe's to be honest with you. There's no magic to it,just to match up with the color of the building. MR. LAPPER-So it's not the same light on every house. MR. HAYES-No, absolutely not. We try to make every place a little bit unique so you don't say yours doesn't look exactly. Even in the interiors we actually changed the colors, change the floor so that you don't feel like you're in just this homogenized setup. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was just wondering about the, you know, the brightness of the light. MR. HAYES-Most of them are basically between 60 watts, and I don't even know if they, most of them don't go much over 75 watts now. MR. MAGOWAN-The sconces and all are about 60, and the enclosed housing. MR. HAYES-So really they throw, they're not that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 have this, it looks kind of colonial that I put on my house, and it's a 16 watt for us, and it's amazing how much light, and there's no glare. MR. HAYES-Yes, so this isn't like, they're not really projecting a ton of light, and that's what people seem to prefer because they just want more like a lane, and they want their porch light on. If they don't, then everybody has a different idea. Some people want their house inviting so people come up. Other people want the light off so they don't have people walking up and knocking on the door. That's totally up to their discretion. There's no timers on automatic. It's all up to the individual. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PATRICIA JONES MS. JONES-1 can't really figure out, because of the distance, where my house is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we'll have you come up to the table. (Discussion between public and applicant) MR. HAYES-(Lost words) I'd leave it up to the neighbors. If they want it down, I'll take it down. It's all up to you. How do you feel about that? MR. CENTER-The stockade fence won't go the whole length. It will just go. MR. HUNSINGER-If we could get your name for the record. MS. JONES-Patricia Jones. MR. HUNSINGER-You're a neighbor? MS. JONES-I'm right behind this project, and I just wanted to be sure there was a buffer of trees. I have a row of trees, but you're going from no one living there, a business, to, what, 26 families moving in. So I just want to be sure there's a buffer there, for my privacy. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sure. Are you happy with what the applicant's proposed or the stockade fence and the landscaping. MS. JONES-Well, it doesn't look like the trees, if this is the buffer, that it's going all the way the length of my property. So I am concerned about that. MR. MAGOWAN-You also mentioned that there's a chain link fence that's already there, too? MS. JONES-1 would like it left. If they don't plan to continue their stockade fence to the length of my property, I would rather have the chain link fence left. It belongs to their property, but I'm using it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MS. JONES-And I have animals. So I would rather have it all fenced in. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that's Mickie right behind you, and you might want to ask him to meet with you if you want to exchange numbers and that after. He's always been, you know, both he and his brother have always been able to work things out with their neighbors. MS. JONES-My privacy and having the buffer would be really (lost word). (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments? MR. BROWN-Nothing in the file other than the Fire Marshal letter that says all Fire Marshal issues related to this project have been satisfied, and that's dated today. MR. HUNSINGER-1 will close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-We can add some more trees and shrubs in the back behind her property, and leave the chain link fence. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, if you have all the shrubs there, you can just transplant them right to the back. MR. LAPPER-If they're still alive. MR. BROWN-Yes, Mr. Chairman, just for my clarification, when these plans come in for me to say they're okay, the buffer requirement between single family and multi-family is a Type B. I think we talked about that recently. So if you're going to condition this with more buffer, just so I know what to expect, be specific with what kind of buffer. That's all. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you give us an indication of about how many? MR. FULLER-Four more would probably finish it out close to the property, four more, the eastern white cedar along there, and that's the north property line, and as far as the southwest corner, that's a total of 14 eastern white cedar and three red maple, and then just because you don't have the drawing he'll just clarify for the Zoning Administrator that that's in the southwest corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Additional four eastern white cedar. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? This is an Unlisted SEAR. The applicant has submitted a Short Form. So unless there's any questions or comments. MR. KREBS-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.47" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.67" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. DEEB-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-I move that we approve a Negative SEAR. MR. TRAVER-Second. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HAYES & HAYES, 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 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) 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 22nd day of, January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-If there's no other comments for discussion, I'll entertain a motion for approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #4-2013 HAYES & HAYES A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings and construct 13 new duplex apartments totaling 15,483 sq. ft. along with associated site work on 3.47 acre property. Apartments Houses in an Office zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/22/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2013 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) Waiver requests granted: landscaping & lighting plans; 4) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 6) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 8) With an additional conditions: a) North property line will have an additional four eastern white cedars; b) The chain link fence that exists will remain; there will be 40 feet of four to six foot stockade fence at the end of the road. 9) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 10)The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 11) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 12)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 13) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 14)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2013 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED KAMCO SUPPLY OF NEW ENGLAND AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SILVER CIRCLE ASSOCIATES, LLC ZONING CLI LOCATION SILVER CIRCLE INDUSTRIAL PARK, BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 37,500 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE/OFFICE/LOADING DISTRIBUTION FACILITY ON TWO VACANT LOTS. NEW INDUSTRIAL USES IN THE CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 20-99, SP 33-10, SP 44-99 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2013 LOT SIZE 2.97, 2.48 TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-18.1, 18.2 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS & JAIME ST. JOHN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-KAMCO Supply, 37,000 sq. ft. warehouse office loading distribution facility on two vacant lots. Proposal also includes associated parking, lighting, landscaping and stormwater management controls. Applicant's offered to merge the two lots prior to any site development. We've got engineering items out there and the Fire Marshal's looked at it and they don't have any comments at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. With me are Jaime St. John and Jeff Morton of KAMCO Supply New England, and KAMCO proposes to re-locate their facilities from Glens Falls to the Silver Circle Industrial Park. They've had a presence locally for 13 years, 7 years, and they found a site that would suit their needs. They distribute industrial and contractor supplies, and we've presented a plan to merge what was known as Lots One and Two of the Silver Circle Industrial Park. It's a 37,000 square foot building. It's a little unique in it's a drive through building. There are two drive thru's through the middle. If you follow the two entrances off Silver Circle. They both go directly into doors into the building. They do much of their loading and unloading inside the building, and then trucks can exit out the other side of the building, which is why we've shown a road cut onto Big Bay. So the traffic flow would be in Silver Circle for their delivery vehicles through the building where they're loaded and they're stored there at night, and then out the back of the building onto Big Bay. They do nine to ten loads a day out of, nine to ten flatbed and box truck loads out of this facility and they have two to three incoming loads, and we have shown a loading dock where they receive a couple, three (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) loads a week on large box trailers, and with that, I guess I'll turn it over to the Board for comments. Do you guys have anything to add? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my first comment would be, do you have any comments on any of the engineering or Staff comments? MR. HUTCHINS-Staff comments, there weren't many Staff comments as I recall. I really like those. Engineering comments, I will get through them. These are, they're not going to impact the layout of the site. This is about how much stone is underneath the infiltration areas, and this is about, should this grate be three tenths of a foot higher than it is based upon the grading shown. I think the stormwater is a good design, in that there's very little pipe. There is, outside the, underground the main structure there's one pipe. We didn't collect everything and run it in and pipe it together and concentrate it and run it into a four bay and overflow. It's all designed to sheet flow into the grassed spilling areas, and then should it overflow we have underground infiltration. I've told you folks before about the soils in that neighborhood. We did, we were here four or five years ago with the building next door, which was Parker and Hammond Construction, and Northeast Power Supply we were here a year or so ago with. It's very fast draining sands. The only way to, not the only way, but the logical way to deal with stormwater is to get it into the ground. All of the engineering comments have to do with how much stone we're going to have to have underground to get it into the ground and how we're going to treat those volumes. It's not to change the layout of the site at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Your explanation answered my big question. When I first looked at the plans, I said there's a lot of pavement there. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there's a lot of asphalt, there's asphalt. MR. TRAVER-I think Curtis has a similar thing where you can drive in the building and load up. It's pretty neat. The last time I was there it just saved a lot of fetching and carrying. MR. MAGOWAN-It's also great on those rainy days when you're going to get some insulation. Everything's dry. MR. HUNSINGER-No questions or comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's in the trailers that come in and out? MR. ST. JOHN-Insulation, drywall (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Standard building materials. MR. KREBS-You didn't request any waivers, correct? MR. HUTCHINS-That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So who are your customers? JEFF MORTON MR. MORTON-Commercial contractors, primarily. MR. ST. JOHN-Residential building contractors. MR. MAGOWAN-They've got the boom trucks there. They come in with the sheet rock. They boom the sheet rock through the windows, you know, they'll load up your rooms. It's a great company. I'm glad to see you move so you don't have to go up and down that Pruyn's Road anymore, boy, that's pretty bumpy. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that where you are now, Pruyn's Island? MR. ST. JOHN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think it's a beautiful site. There's a lot going on in that area. We've had three projects this evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No questions, comments from the Board. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Our alternate is the only one left. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MR. BROWN-Nothing in the file. MR. HUNSINGER-We will open the public hearing and close the public hearing, and note that no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any special conditions other than the engineering signoff? MR. TRAVER-No, I think signoff will do. MR. HUNSINGER-We have to do SEAR. Short Form. MR. DEEB-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.47' MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. DEEB-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.67" MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. DEEB-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. DEEB-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. DEEB-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. DEEB-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. DEEB-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. DEEB-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. DEEB-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. DEEB-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. DEEB-We make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-2013, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KAMCO SUPPLY OF NEW ENGLAND, 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 22 nd day of, January, 2013, by the following vote: (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we can entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #5-2013 KAMCO SUPPLY OF NEW ENGLAND A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 37,500 sq. ft. warehouse/office/loading distribution facility on two vacant lots. New Industrial use in the CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1-22-2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2013 KAMCO SUPPLY OF NEW ENGLAND, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. There was a Negative SEAR declaration. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; 4) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 5) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; 6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 7) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 8) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 9) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 11) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 12)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. MORTON-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Did everybody get a copy of the draft? In our Staff comment packets there was a copy of the draft letter for SHPO review. Any comments or concerns from any Board members? I mean, I thought it looked fine. I really see it as an administrative action. MR. BROWN-Okay. Yes, that's the thought is to basically. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that something that you would want me to sign or is that something that Staff would sign? MR. BROWN-I mean, that's up to you. My thought was it would be kind of a boilerplate letter that it's approved by this Board that can either have a signature from me or we'll just have one that we'll just run off with your signature on it, not an original signature every time, but that would go out every time we realize that applicants are going to need this type of determination. If you look at the outline there that we put together for you, there's an application that's filled out that we have the applicant fill out. They would bring it in and we would accompany our letter to that and send it in on Town letterhead, and then we'd get a response back. They say they could try and turn them around in 30 days, which is a good turnaround. MR. HUNSINGER-They've been pretty good lately. MR. BROWN-Yes, they have. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I'm perfectly comfortable with this going out under Staff letter, you know, Staff's signature. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. SIPP-So am I. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Again, I really think it's an administrative action. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-But do you need a motion for us to approve this? MR. BROWN-That wouldn't hurt. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion approving the draft letter and the procedure to submit materials to the State Historic Preservation Office? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. MR. MAGOWAN-So moved. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. RESOLUTION RE: PROCEDURE FOR SUBMITTING MATERIALS TO SHPO MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT LETTER FOR THE PROCEDURE TO SUBMIT MATERIALS TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 22 nd day of January, 2013, by the following vote: (Queensbury Planning Board 01/22/2013) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Now you can at least tell SHPO, when you get them on the phone that, hey, this was approved by resolution. MR. BROWN-That's right. The only other thing I had, if you guys don't have anything else, is just to confirm the February 19th early start at 6:30 with Warren County Soil and Water Conservation. They're going to come do a little presentation for you. MR. HUNSINGER-February 19tH MR. BROWN-February 19th. Yes. That's been confirmed. So it'll be on the agendas, but just another reminder, it's an early start for the 19tH MR. TRAVER-Six thirty? MR. BROWN-Six thirty. Yes, and that's all I had. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-How many members are going to the planning conference on Wednesday? MR. TRAVER-All of us. MR. BROWN-Laura's going, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Laura's going, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don't need to do this on the record, but we can certainly arrange carpooling, as we have in the past, and you're welcome to join us as well, Laura. If there's no other business, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2013, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman