Loading...
2007-04-24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 52-2001 Jean Hoffman (Cont’d Pg. 29) 1. MODIFICATION #2 Tax Map No. 227.17-1-9.1 Site Plan No. 40-2006 MT Associates, Inc. 1. Tax Map No. 288.-1-59 Site Plan No. 30-2002 Adir. Girl Scout Council 14. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.16-1-10 Site Plan No. 8-2007 Stewarts Shops 29. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61 Site Plan No. 18-2007 BBL Construction 41. Tax Map No. 301.10-1-82, 83, 84 Special Use Permit No. 17-2007 Karen & Peter Bogert 54. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-5 Subdivision No. 5-2007 Prospect Child & Family Center 62. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.18-1-73 FINAL STAGE THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER MEMBERS ABSENT TANYA BRUNO LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Before we get into the agenda, it was brought to my attention that there was a typo in a public hearing notice. There’s at least one project that’s scheduled th for review on Thursday night that said Tuesday April 26, and I know there’s some people here. I’ll read off the three projects that are scheduled for a public hearing on Thursday evening. The meeting will be here at seven o’clock. Subdivision 13-2006 for Thomas Brennan, Special Use Permit 15-2007 for Boats by George, and Site Plan 19- 2007 for Taylor Welding Supply Company, Inc. Those three projects will be heard on Thursday evening. The meeting starts at seven o’clock. Again, Thomas Brennan, Boats by George, and Taylor Welding. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2001 MODIFICATION #2 SEQR TYPE JEAN HOFFMAN AGENT(S) WILLIAM KENIRY, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 93 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 978 SQ. FT. DOCK AND BOATHOUSE WITH A 704 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 46-05, AV 90-04, AV 91-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 7.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-9.1 SECTION 179- 5-050 MR. HUNSINGER-Is Mrs. Hoffman here? Did Staff hear anything? MRS. BARDEN-I did not. I know that we tried to get in touch with her, and I’m not sure if anyone on Staff was able to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I guess what I’ll do is I’ll skip over it for now. We can always come back to it. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I know Counsel is here really just for that purpose. I guess if she’s not here after we finish the next item, then you can be excused. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MT ASSOCIATES, INC. AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): DANIEL LOMBARD ZONING: HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1477 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,135 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE STORAGE W/FAST FOOD VENDORS, A 3,160 SQ. FOOT FUEL ISLAND AND A 1,025 SQ. FT. CAR WASH. CONVENIENCE STORE/GASOLINE STATION/CAR WASH USES IN THE HC-INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-06, AV 54-89, UV 74-89, SP 35-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/11/06 LOT SIZE: 1.99 ACRES [2.43 RPS] TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-59 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & JOHN SECOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-I will. MT is the applicant for the request of site plan review for a 3,135 square foot convenience store with fast food vendors, 3,136 square foot fuel island canopy, and a 1,025 square foot car wash. The property is located on the west side of Route 9, just south of Route 149. Most recently, this application was tabled at the March thth 20 meeting. A Vision Engineering comment letter dated April 20 was received. The SEQRA status is Unlisted with a Long EAF submitted, and the public hearing remains open for this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Jim Secor, the project engineer. Our architect is in Mexico tonight and couldn’t be here, but we did have a lengthy discussion about the architecture of the building last time, and I think that that issue was settled. We received, we made a submission in response to the tabling motion last time, and the engineering comments that were on the table at that point, and we have Staff Notes and very short letter from the Town Engineer this time. I guess if it’s all right with you, we’ll start out going through the engineering comments, and you had asked us to submit photos of some other sites that had a drive thru Dunkin Donuts and a gas station, some other facilities, and on the submission information we included the address of four, but we also brought with us tonight a disk with photos which I’m sure Susan could put up if you’d like to see it, just some in Vermont and some in New York. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be helpful. Thank you. MR. FORD-Yes, please. MR. LAPPER-Do you want to go through the engineering? MR. SECOR-Sure. This is a, I’m Jim Secor, MSK Engineering. We also have Ken Wirstead for the traffic. Basically there were two comments. We supplied, in the last submittal, a detailed, or more detailed, turning motion for the vehicles on site. One comment, the last one that was made by Vision Engineering, pertained to our drainage plan, and I’d like to introduce Jason Dolmich from my office who did the design work for the drainage, and also I had discussions with Vision today, as a matter of fact. JASON DOLMICH MR. DOLMICH-Hi. Jason Dolmich, MSK Engineering. I had a brief discussion with Dan Ryan this afternoon regarding Item Two on his comments regarding the original Vision comments of 19 and 21. Item 19, if I may speak correctly, deals with, excuse me while I th pull it out here. This is from the March 13 comment, Item 19 addresses runoff flowing to the southern part of the site, potential for runoff to flow onto the southern end of the site to the abutting property. What we came back with in the next submission in response to that was a six inch high berm, provided a detail on the detail sheet, and in our conversations today, what we will do is move Catch Basin Three, which is located within the AOT easement, to the base of that, where the berm will stop. So right now it’s kind of in the center of the drive. It’s going to get pushed up right to the edge of that pavement area. So what we’ll be doing is, so now we’ve channeled the stormwater along the southern end of the berm, and then it will drain directly into the catch basin, and verbally he was satisfied with that. We’ll obviously submit a written response as well as a plan change, and then Item Number 22, we discussed a little further in detail. He was questioning, just as a background, he questioned what we were showing as a diversion swale around the rear parking area, that basically, we’re not showing enough positive drainage. What I showed to him, in further clarification in our response was that the positive, we have about a half percent in drainage as well as I provided a detail on the detail sheet to show that we were going to have 18 inches of depth, 12 inch wide swale, that would drain to the catch basin. So there’s enough positive drainage, as well as enough storage area to prevent any potential overflow from what will be draining to that swale onto the parking lot. Essentially what that diversion swale is doing is the neighbor to the north piles all of his snow right at the back of his parking area, which then drains onto the property. So basically just ensuring that that snow melt comes off the property and the stormwater plan adequately addresses that issue. So, based on the fact that we had provided a detail, shown enough positive, shown enough depression storage, essentially, in that swale, Dan said that he felt comfortable with that comment. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Let me just make sure I understand that. I’m sorry to interrupt. The concern from Vision Engineering is that there was only about a nine inch elevation difference over 110 feet. MR. DOLMICH-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And so what you’re saying now is, because of the make up of the swale itself, the elevation change doesn’t matter so much because the water will still be maintained within the? MR. DOLMICH-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DOLMICH-Yes, and there is positive drainage. It’s not substantial. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DOLMICH-I’m usually concerned more with too much slope in a swale, at which point you’ll get erosion. MR. FORD-I have a question on Item Nineteen, if we could go back to that berm. Could you address the recommended composition of that berm? MR. DOLMICH-Yes, and in the re-submittal, we included on our, on Detail Sheet, I believe 201, we provided a berm detail. Let me pull this out here. What is, essentially, is just an elevated, right at the bottom right hand corner of the sheet, showing a six inch high berm, and then some positive drainage, kind of a gutter essentially on the pavement line along that edge, to channel water down to that berm and to prevent any off site drainage. MR. FORD-And the composition of that berm, again, will be? MR. DOLMICH-That it’s going to be soil, and it’s going to be stabilized with a rolled erosion matting, during construction. MR. FORD-And after construction? MR. DOLMICH-Post construction it will just be grass, and then essentially there’s an asphalt gutter that is along the edge of that. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-So that was in response to the three items that Dan had mentioned in his letter. He signed off on everything else. He talked about the traffic that was re-submitted under 27 and under 28 where those two clarifications of Items 19 and 22 that Jay just discussed, and then we have the Staff comments, most of which I think we addressed in our submittal. We did the calculation for the interior area, for how the parking was calculated. The cover letter from the architect indicated that that was done on a CAD system, so that the calculation wasn’t included but the number was, and we indicated that if the interconnect happens that the parking spaces will be moved and I think that we were all set on lighting. The Board had agreed that the slate color, even though the Code says generally dark color fixtures are preferred, that in this case the slate color was chosen because it matches the window molding on the building, and the Board indicated last time that was okay, and I think that Dan was satisfied with the lighting after our last submission, and if you’d like, we can take a look at the disk and see what you think about these other sites. Certainly the buildings aren’t as pretty as what we’ve proposed here. This is just a better design. Frank, do you want to explain what these are, and where these are? FRANK TREMBETTA MR. TREMBLEY-I’m Frank Trembetta with MT Associates. MRS. BARDEN-Would you like me to go back to the beginning? MR. TREMBETTA-Yes. If you could go back several, no, that’s our storm damage in Rutland last week. Move forward. Okay. You can go to the next one now. Okay. This is a Mobil On The Run location that they call it in Latham, New York, and we got a 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) picture of this one because it’s a fairly large convenience store, as you can see. It’s probably about 3,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet, but the actual reason for showing it is the pumps are perpendicular to the road, and there was some discussion at the last meeting about that, that we wanted to address, and I think if you move forward you’ll see the pumps a little bit better, and that’s their vacuum, right there, the building. Can you go to the next one, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. TREMBETTA-One more, one more. Again, if you would, again. No, back. One more. Okay. That’s probably the best one there and the building is on the opposite side of it, yes. There’s four dispensers there and they all point in, which is a layout that really works better. I think we can show you as we go through these pictures. Those are facing the building, and they can very easily just drive out in either direction, when they’re in there, and you can have eight cars at the pumps and nobody gets backed up. It lays out very well. MR. FORD-So that building is actually to the left of that? MR. TREMBETTA-Yes, sir. I was hoping there was a better picture of it, but I didn’t take them myself, and it doesn’t really show. MR. HUNSINGER-Has anyone else ever been to that one? MR. LAPPER-That’s on Route 9, north of Latham Circle. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s actually close to the Route 7 interchange. MR. TREMBETTA-Okay. This is on Washington Street and West Avenue in Saratoga Springs. This includes a Dunkin Donut fast food restaurant. I believe there’s also a Subway restaurant in there that has a drive thru. It’s a different design than the Mobil On The Run. This is a Mobil dealer there in Saratoga. This is a very nice layout, too, and it works well. The drive thru is on the side, similar to our proposal. MR. FORD-Does that also have a car wash? MR. TREMBETTA-No, sir, and the pumps are, again, facing, generally facing in. If you could go forward, please. That’s his parking in the rear, that’s his sign. Okay. Could you go one forward, please. Go back. Those pumps are one behind the other. There are four dispensers there, and they are facing the building. The next one. MR. FORD-They’re facing the building or, they looked almost as if they were on a diagonal. MR. TREMBETTA-It’s on a point at that location. It is on a corner. So they sort of are. They’re facing the building, but it’s all skewed toward the road. MR. FORD-So the building would be back to the right. MR. TREMBETTA-Okay. This one is on West Street in Rutland, VT. This is our store there, which includes a Dunkin Donuts drive thru and it has three dispensers in the front. Again, it’s a Smart Shop. That’s the front. That’s in the back of the building. That’s Route 4 in Rutland, and you can just pull right out of the drive thru and head out right into the road there. That’s a pretty good shot of it there. The pumps, again, are by the front door. Could you go forward? Okay. Again, please. All right. That’s a good shot of it there. It’s a little shaded, but you have the three dispensers facing right in toward the building. You go around, the menu board is on the side of the building to your right. You order and then you go around to the back of the building, pick it up, and you can go right out on the road there. MR. FORD-Can you dispense gas from each of those islands on either side? MR. TREMBETTA-Yes, sir. There’s six fueling points there. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TREMBETTA-If we could go on to the next one, please, it’s a fourth site in Rutland. It’s also on Route 4 East heading up towards Killington. It’s right there. This has a Dunkin Donuts, although no drive thru, and this has four dispensers across the front. If 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) you could just scroll ahead to the pictures. Okay, and it has a business behind it that we also own, the Midas Muffler shop there, front entrance to the Mobil Mart. More storm damage. Okay. If you could back up a few for me, please. A few more. Let’s go two forward. Right there. Okay. You’ll notice I think the point, at the last meeting, you know, somebody suggested putting the dispensers parallel to the road. This location in particular used to have the dispensers just like that, and what would happen is, in this location you have four dispensers. You can have eight cars gassing up. They can all pull in easily and they can all be lined up across the front, eight vehicles. If you were to put them in the other direction, okay, if people, if the first two cars that pull in go to those front pumps and somebody wants to get around them, sometimes they can’t. So they wait behind them, and what happens then is you can get backed up into the street. So those kind of stations can look real busy with six cars in the yard, but this would look less busy. You’d have eight vehicles pumping at the same time, whereas another layout might really be more congested with just four to six vehicles in the yard, because they stack up and they get behind each other. So this is a very, really relatively a tight site to what we’re proposing here, and it really wouldn’t work if we put the pumps the other way. It works better with the pumps perpendicular to the road. MR. HUNSINGER-I also noticed in that picture there’s a trailer, a truck pulling a trailer. MR. TREMBETTA-Yes, you know, that’s by accident. We didn’t stage that, but that is there, yes. MR. LAPPER-But by comparison, our photo renderings on the ground, it’s not that easy to see from where you are, but just in terms of the size of the site, it’s much bigger what we have here, and certainly the architecture of the building and the site design is a lot nicer than these older stations. So they’re certainly, after all the meetings and changes, they’re making an effort, in Queensbury, to do something better. MR. FORD-Also, more facilities are being included in this, Jon. MR. LAPPER-The car wash, yes, but I think what we’ve shown with the traffic analysis, from Creighton Manning, is that the site can handle it, and that photo shows pretty well that it’s still not a lot of stuff on that site. It’s a good sized site. MR. HUNSINGER-Those pictures were helpful. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. LAPPER-No. We’re ready for any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Will this be an Exxon station or a Mobil station? MR. TREMBETTA-This would be an Exxon station. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’re proposing the red strip, I’ve got last, the last time you were up in front of us, this is the picture. MR. TREMBETTA-Yes, ma’am. MRS. STEFFAN-So the slate blue that you talked about making the lighting fixtures? MR. LAPPER-It’s just what you have, that’s what’s right there. MRS. STEFFAN-It just looks a little light green. So this slate blue, and then these’ll be slate blue. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s the same color as the window trim. They’re really slate, which is gray. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-No. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you know my concern, it still remains. As you’ve stated, if things don’t operate properly, you can have cars stacking up into the street. The traffic engineer, last meeting, stated that, when I asked him about mobile homes and RV’s and so forth, he stated there are areas that can accommodate them, and they’re (lost words). There are areas of this site that cannot accommodate them, and they’re not going to be able to go through all of the single, all of the pump islands. MR. LAPPER-He’s here, Ken. He can respond to that. MR. SEGULJIC-And our engineer also stated, based on my request, you provided a drawing say that you could make it through all of them. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we did provide that. MR. SEGULJIC-So I’m a little suspicious about that early stated it couldn’t, and now there’s a drawing that it can, and our engineer is saying, well, yes, it will be able to work, however, it’s noteworthy to state that the diagrams assume no obstacles exist. MR. LAPPER-If there’s obstacles it just means that people have to stop and hover. I mean, this isn’t something, going through something at 30 miles an hour. MR. SEGULJIC-And as the applicant just stated they have potential to have a site where you have problems where the traffic stacks back onto the street. This is a very busy corridor. People are known to bring RV’s. MR. LAPPER-He didn’t say that at all, Tom. What he said was that if it was a different configuration where the pumps were parallel rather than perpendicular to the street, that’s where. MR. SEGULJIC-No, he did not state that, okay, yes, you did state that, but (lost words) potential problem. I think you’re just doing too much for the site. MR. LAPPER-But let’s put the traffic engineer on to respond to you, if that’s okay. KEN WIRSTEAD MR. WIRSTEAD-Ken Wirstead, Creighton-Manning Engineering. As part of our last submission, at our last meeting we had shown you diagrams one through three I believe. We brought these with us, and we had presented them in our last comment response letter. In addition, we had provided two addition diagrams. They were numbers four and five. Each one of these show the patterns of a truck and a trailer and an RV traveling through the sites and going through each one of the bays as you had requested. Now I believe there was a slight modification from the previous site plan which took this island curbed area here and reduced that and pulled it back towards the edge of the property line to be able to accommodate the vehicle turning through there. So as you can see here it is very cluttered in here because we have so many turning movements shown on one diagram. Previously we had shown just a couple of them, just to demonstrate, you know, the ability to drive through the site, and since then we had reviewed each one of the turning bays, and we put the turning templates for each vehicle going through there, and what these two diagrams are demonstrating that these vehicles can pass through each one of the bays here. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any further questions on that? MR. SEGULJIC-Other than under ideal conditions they can. MR. SIPP-My concerns are that there’s just too much on this site, and my thoughts here are, one, at the entrance way going south, there are parking spaces there which somebody may park in with little kids and head for the Dunkin Donuts on the inside, and somebody whip in there, and between the pump right next to Number 15 on your little sketch, I’d eliminate that pump. I’d eliminate the car wash, move the building over 10 feet, and I think you’d have a much better traffic pattern without so much clutter in the whole thing. I think there’s just too much going on here, especially on a Sunday afternoon or a Friday night, people going to Vermont and coming back. It just seems to me that we’re boxing ourselves into a position where vehicles have very little room to maneuver. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LAPPER-I guess I would ask you to look to the traffic report from the traffic engineer. MR. SIPP-Yes, but I’ve read them before. MR. LAPPER-I understand that, but this is a lay Board. Not a Board of engineers. The picture that we, the photo rendering that we showed, which obviously doesn’t have cars at every gas dispenser, shows that this site actually is a large size site. There’s not a lot of building on the site, and it really fits quite well, you know, there’s nothing magic about a gas station convenience store. They’re all over the world. This is really quite an attractive one for Queensbury, replacing a building that certainly needs to be replaced in a corridor that has traffic, but that just means that people would drive slowly on this site. Nobody speeds through a gas station convenience store. I feel that the last time when we were here, we had a full Board, the majority of the Board was very favorable about this project, and sent us home with just a few items to respond to, which we did, and we got the engineering letter with, you know, a couple of tweaks that happened in discussion today because we just received the engineering letter, but, you know, we feel, based upon the last meeting, that this project is ready to be approved, and, you know, obviously there’s some members of the Board that are still saying that they feel that there’s too much on the site, and we don’t agree with that, based upon the traffic report. MR. SEGULJIC-But, if I could just clarify, excuse me. It’s a gas station, convenience store, proposed Dunkin Donuts, car wash, and did I forget anything? Is that accurate? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it fits fine on the site. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s more than just a gas station and convenience store. MR. LAPPER-Well, if you have a gas station that sells breakfast items, they’re not called Dunkin Donuts. Obviously Dunkin Donuts advertises and is more popular, but this is not any different than the gas station that used to be at Exit 18 that had a sub shop. It just didn’t have a name on it. It’s not unusual that you get breakfast items at a gas station, convenience store. This is nothing new, and there are plenty of other gas stations in Queensbury and elsewhere that also serve breakfast items and lunch items. I don’t think there’s anything remarkable about this at all, other than that this is a, you know, very nice design with brick because that’s what this Board had asked for after this process. MR. WIRSTEAD-As we’ve discussed with the Board on a couple of other meetings, too, is there’s different functions going on, but realize that the peak demand for those functions are not all at the same time. Peak demand for the convenience store and the gas station’s going to be during your seasonal peak during the summer months. The car wash is going to be an off season peak. They’re not all overlapping. They’re not getting everything at one time. It’s not like a factory that’s turning out people at 3:30 to put people back in at 3:45, and we’ve already proven that we can make the turning motions that have been requested by the Board. We’ve tweaked the site, moved the back stations to the back, which also allowed for a better curbing design in the front, and it allowed for the larger vehicle turning motions as well, as was discussed previously. I mean, I think we’ve done a lot to try to alleviate the concerns of the Board and still meet our client’s needs. MRS. STEFFAN-How big is this site compared to the four pictures that you showed us? Is this site bigger than those four or comparable? MR. TREMBETTA-Frank Trembetta with MT Associates, again. If you look at this site, I don’t have the information with me about how large they are. It has a six by Midas Muffler shop that’s a million dollar a year business. It has four dispensers on it with a Dunkin Donuts and a convenience store. All it lacks is the drive thru, but it’s less than an acre. The site here in Queensbury I believe is about 3.2 acres. This is probably one of the largest sites I’ve ever worked on. It is. It’s the largest site, in my 20 years, I’ve ever seen to work on. So there’s no comparison. It’s plenty big enough to do what we’re trying to do here. A car wash, compared to a gas station, you don’t generate that many trips, if that’s what you’re worried about. It just doesn’t. Whether it’s seasonal or not, it’s nothing like a gas station where you’ve got three or four cars at the pumps all the time, if you’re doing well. MRS. STEFFAN-The reason I ask, I’ve been to three out of the four of these, and this site appears to be bigger than those that I’ve visited. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. TREMBETTA-Perhaps in terms of comparisons at least twice as big. The one on West Street, I’m sorry, West Street in Rutland, back one more. That’s probably the best shot of it we have. We built a retaining wall on the side, but that is, that’s not an acre, six tenths maybe. MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the developed area of the site in Queensbury? How much are you going to develop within Queensbury? It’s a two acre site. MR. SECOR-We’re at a little bit over an acre in disturbance right now, with this. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that site’s .6 acres but it’s only a convenience store/gas station. You don’t have a car wash on there. MR. LAPPER-The car wash is a small physical component, though. MR. SEGULJIC-I think everybody knows where I stand on this. MR. FORD-Do the actual comparative square footage. Jonathan just mentioned that it’s a small component. Square footage wise between the donut shop, convenience area, so forth, compare that square footage wise, please, for everyone, compared to the car wash. MR. TREMBETTA-Okay. That building right there is 2500 square feet. MR. FORD-No, on site, the one proposed, please. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-The store is 3188. MR. WIRSTEAD-The car wash is 1,000 square feet, and the store is 3100. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-No, if we look at the development, the site development data for this particular parcel, green space is 64% of the parcel, and what’s existing versus what’s proposed. I mean, there’s quite a bit of green space, compared to the, when you look at the paved area, the building space and the green space, I think it’s a fairly good proportion. So I’m not having any problems with this site, the way it’s laid out right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any questions or comments, Steven? MR. TRAVER-No. They’ve all been answered. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any final questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-My personal preference was addressed at the last meeting, but I still would like to state it, that it would be that I would like to see the main structure moved south and the car wash, however it’s configured, like that or a different design, but put it at the back of the site. MR. LAPPER-And we certainly considered that, Tom, but the problem is that they feel that if the car wash is invisible, it’s not going to be used, it won’t be successful. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening that th was tabled from the March 20 meeting. Is there anyone here that had questions or comments to the Board? Anyone that wants to address the Board, if you could just make sure you state your name for the record into the microphone so that we could get you on the record, and if you could address your comments to the Board, we will ask the applicant for any answers or clarifications if it’s necessary. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-Good evening. My name is David Kenny, and I happen to own the property across the street. I think I addressed this to the Board twice in the past couple of months 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) about some of the development along Route 9. I happen to have gotten a phone call this morning which I was very upset about, by Craig Brown. He got a phone call from Boats By George. I’m dumping all my water on his property. I said, what are we talking about? I’m not dumping any water on George’s property. I haven’t been back there in a while. I know I mentioned to the Board, all the water’s coming across the road. The groundwater, I don’t know, there’s a culvert that dumps on my property. The State has it there. I guess my fight’s with the State or with you people. MRS. STEFFAN-You’ve mentioned it before. MR. KENNY-I know I have. Well, guess what, that water is running so fast now because of all the development on that side of the road. It is running onto George’s property. Craig’s coming down Friday morning to look at it at 11 o’clock. There is a lot of groundwater and there is a lot of surface water. Apparently the Comfort Inn and Suites had a problem. They got permission from the State to tie in to the overflow. Well, we’re not talking surface water. We’re talking groundwater. You’re diverting groundwater all over the place. Right now I’ve got a full fledged running brook behind the Reebok Mall. I went back there today because I’ve got to take care of it. I don’t know why I have to do it. It’s not my water. It’s pipe from the road. Every time more water gets dumped into it, I’ve got to, is it my responsibility? There’s no easement. I own the land. MR. SIPP-Where is it basically coming from? MR. KENNY-It’s coming from down Route 9, the Northway, across the other side of the street. There’s no drainage. MR. SIPP-Well, is there a pipe under? MR. KENNY-There’s a pipe under Route 9. All the water that comes down Route 9, there’s a catch basin there, and the State, years ago, just put a pipe out behind into the woods. There was a pond on the other side of the street that’s been filled in. Now it’s all running into a stream, running right, there’s no drainage left anywhere anymore. I don’t have a problem with it. I like the development. The problem is, I don’t want to be responsible. My property gets developed, I can’t develop it because I’ve got a running stream on the property now. MR. HUNSINGER-Where does the pipe dump? MR. KENNY-The pipe comes out behind the Reebok is. Do you know where the Reebok is? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. KENNY-Out behind there. I had a site plan, it’s been approved years ago. We filled the property. We left the place because a little water would come out of it in heavy rains, but it was State water still. When the State re-did the road, I brought the issue up, and the State said, well, that’s the natural lowland in this area. So we just piped it back there. I guess back 30, 40 years ago when they put the Northway in they just chose to dump water on people’s properties, but now with the development along 9, I went back there today, and yes, there is water on George’s property, but it’s not mine. Craig is going to go up there Friday. I had O’Connor up there this afternoon because he put the fill in. We’re going to have to do something with the bank, but the problem is how am I going to develop that property? I mean, I just want the Board to be aware of it. If the time comes, I don’t feel I’m responsible for all the water up and down Route 9. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KENNY-My property wasn’t meant to be just a drainage pit. That’s what it’s becoming. MR. HUNSINGER-So, just so I understand, this water is coming from the Northway as well as Route 9, or don’t you know for sure? MR. KENNY-It’s coming from all over. It’s piped, you know, we own property over there on the other side. We own north of, right next to where the Mohican built. You dig down four, five feet and there’s springs. There’s natural springs. I mean, once you get across Route 9, we can go down 20 feet and it’s all sand. The other issue is, you know, I mean, all the water would naturally flow, probably, down towards the bike path. There’s a brook there and eventually goes into Glen Lake, but now it’s, you know, I don’t think it’s surface 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) water. I think it’s more changing the course of groundwater, and no engineer looks at it because they don’t what, once you dig, you’ve got a big puddle, you know, once you blacktop it, now the groundwater’s going some place else. Now the groundwater’s coming further south, coming into the stream probably behind their property, coming across Route 9. It’s all been diverted. No one addresses that issue, I guess. MR. SIPP-Have you ever talked to New York State about it? MR. KENNY-Sure. I had Betty Little on it and everybody else. MR. SIPP-And what did they say? MR. KENNY-Back then they said they’d look at it when they widened Route 9. MR. SIPP-Has it been worse? MR. KENNY-Yes, every time you add to it, you just add more water to it. Maybe there was some type of groundwater running on their property years ago. It was never meant to take the development of everybody’s water, or re-do the groundwater. I mean, groundwater’s an issue. It’s just not surface water. I’m stuck in the middle of it now. I’ve got to pay to retrofit my property, to do something with my property, which I don’t know what’s going to happen. Because I’ve got to satisfy Boats By George, and I’m meeting with him at 11 o’clock Friday morning, but I walked back there today, because that was the first I was made aware of it, and I looked at where that pipe comes out, and I couldn’t believe that water that is running there right now. It is, I don’t know if it’ll ever stop. It’s a full fledged stream, and it was always as dry as a bone. So obviously more water’s coming from, I do know across the road they did fill in the pond, back behind the other project that got built, where Scooters is. That was all a big pond back there. Now all that water’s running to a stream, rather than sinking into the ground and dispersing, it’s all coming across the highway, I would assume. Just adding, adding, adding to that one pipe that goes onto my property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KENNY-And that is, so I wanted to make the Board, Craig told me I had to show up tonight, if I don’t say something, so I’m here. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate it. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Did anyone else have any questions or comments on the project? Okay. Would you like to respond? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that Dave’s comments really addressed this site, but I did notice that the site, the Scooters site, does look kind of a mess behind there, I noticed from the Northway. Anything you want to respond? MR. TREMBETTA-Honestly, I mean, we’re going through DEC review with it. We’ve got on site storage, detention. No basements on this like it is on the pre-existing site. I’m not aware if there’s any drainage that may be in that building now. That’s got a full basement in it, and every time I’ve been in it it’s full of water. He’s definitely right. There’s high groundwater. So I can’t see this project causing any adverse effects to the adjacent properties. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. You said that the existing property now has water in the basement most of the time? MR. TREMBETTA-Yes, they’ve got a full basement, partial basements in it and full basements, and I can remember going in there and seeing two feet of water in the basement area, block foundations. So we definitely know there’s a high groundwater table in there, but we’re constructing with slabs. So we don’t have to worry about that. We’ve got on site storage for our stormwater, as well as soil detention. MR. FORD-Could you address, again, for us please, the procedure that’s going to be used with that car wash and the water that will be used there? MR. TREMBETTA-That’ll go into the sewer system. It goes through a sand infiltration for separation of sand products. We’ve already discussed it with the sewer department, and 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) then that goes right directly into the sewer system. That does not in any way go into stormwater. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s high groundwater on the site, how can you install the gas tanks? MR. TREMBETTA-They’re ballasted, to prevent buoyancy problems, and that’s part of the permit process with the Building Inspector and the State, as well as their permit for the tanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we have any public comments, written comments on this project? MRS. BARDEN-We don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I probably should know this. Are the gas tanks in the back of the building, or in the front of the building, right where the gas pumps are? MR. TREMBETTA-In the front. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. On the last application that we had for the neighbor, as well as this application, you know, we’ve noticed that there’s a runoff stream behind both of those properties, but it’s not designated as a wetland, and it is just runoff, and that’s what we’ve been told. MR. TREMBETTA-Correct, and that’s what we got from DEC. We contacted them to see if it was a stream, and they said no, it’s not, it’s intermittent. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because the Board was concerned, when we did our site plan reviews, and walked around out back, I mean, there’s obviously, there’s a lot of garbage and stuff that is thrown into that stream. We thought it was a stream, it’s just runoff, but we were concerned about that. MR. TRAVER-We also saw the pipe across the street. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we did. We went behind Mr. Kenny’s building, probably two or three months ago we went and did a trip behind. We didn’t see any. MR. TRAVER-We noticed some cattails, but we didn’t see any water. That was a couple of months ago. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. We did see wetland vegetation. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other final comments, questions from the Board? I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Are we ready to move forward with SEQRA? This is a Long Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 40-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MT ASSOCIATES, INC., 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 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) 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. th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Are we ready to move forward with a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Do we need to specify any, the colors were already presented. We do want a Vision Engineering signoff. Do we have to note that any of the changes that were listed on the Staff Notes? The lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-The lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-A photo metric plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the Staff comments talk about changing the L-2 fixtures to L-1 fixtures. Did the latest drawings include that change, though, Jon? MR. DOLMICH-The only L-2 fixtures are in the back. I thought that those comments may have been something from the previous review that the L-2’s were on the side. Those were changed to L-1’s, I thought. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I think that was all taken care of. MR. DOLMICH-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You think those are already included in the plans? MR. DOLMICH-I believe so, yes. I was a little confused on the lighting comments. It almost looked like it was the same comments that were there before, because we already agreed to change the colors. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It wouldn’t hurt to specify it if they already made the change. Is there any other special conditions? MR. SEGULJIC-Did you get the one about the movement of the catch basin, based on engineer comments? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think those are engineering. So Vision will have to sign off on those, Tom. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that certainly could be mentioned as a condition. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-The reason why those comments remained is because the most current drawings that were submitted didn’t have the full lighting plan. MR. DOLMICH-You mean the photo metrics? MR. HUNSINGER-The photo metric plan. MR. DOLMICH-I don’t think we did re-submit them because we just agreed to change the fixtures as Tom. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why it’s not on the plan. MR. DOLMICH-That makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why the note’s still on the Staff comments. I also noticed on the draft resolution it didn’t have the standard language about verifying the wattage of the bulbs before they’re installed, that standard language about Staff verifying the lighting fixtures prior to installation. I think that would just satisfy that. Is there anything else? MR. FORD-We want to make sure that this gets covered, sanitary sewer connection plan. MRS. STEFFAN-On the resolution there is an Item Six, the sanitary sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review before. MR. FORD-As long as that’s in there. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, in the interconnect, it says here that the adjoining property owner has been consulted with regard to the interconnect. What was their response? MR. LAPPER-I think what’s going on is that the tenant is in the process of buying the site from the owner. So they’ve been positive and he said he thinks this is good for his business, but at this point nothing official has happened. So we’ve submitted it to them, as a condition. As soon as they agree, we’ll build it to the property line. I mean, it’s on the plan. It’s there as an easement, and I don’t know, you know, officially they haven’t said that they’re ready to do it, but I think that’s where it’ll go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2006 MT ASSOCIATES, INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,135 square foot Convenience Storage w/ fast food vendors, a 3,3160 square foot Fuel Island and a 1,025 sq. ft Car Wash. Convenience Store / Gasoline Station / Car Wash uses in the HC-Intensive zone require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and scheduled for 11/28/06, 1/23/07, 3/20/07, 4/24/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. Where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2006 MT ASSOCIATES, INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Nine is not applicable. It is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant will get a Vision Engineering signoff. 2.That the lighting fixtures will be slate gray to match the window trim color. 3.That the applicant, before installation of the lighting, will have the Community Development Staff verify that the lighting fixtures are appropriate and as agreed to. th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TREMBETTA-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Good luck. Is there anyone here for Jean Hoffman, Site Plan No. 50-2001? You’re here to speak, but you’re not here representing the applicant. Well, I’ll just continue to hold off on that. We’re probably just going to table this, ma’am. SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS SEQRA ADIR. GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 213 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPILCANT IS SEEKIG APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTED CHANGES TO THE 4,428 SQ. FT. ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING. IN ADDITION REVIEW OF THE MASTER PLAN SUBMITTED AS A CONDITION OF PREVIOUS APPLICATION IS REQUESTED. CROSS REFERENCE AV 47-02, FW 1-02, UV 12-02, AV 37-05, UV 44-92 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/12/02 LOT SIZE 13.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10 SECTION 179-9-020 JON LAPPER, TOM HUTCHINS, DEAN LONG, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t have much for you. Our Executive Director reviewed this plan. nd However, I will say that this was recently tabled at the March 22 meeting for three items. My understanding is that the first two were not completely submitted. Additional information has been submitted, following a meeting with Staff, and there is also Vision th Engineering comments in your packet as well dated April 20. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Whenever you’re ready. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Dean Long, wetlands biologist from the LA Group, and Tom Hutchins, project engineer. This was on last time, after a long delay of getting the DEC and Army Corps approval. I think it was sort of a case of first impression for the Board because you hadn’t seen us in a while, and there’s some new Board members. The tabling resolution really asked us to address the stormwater issue. We’ve met with the Town Engineer and addressed the stormwater issue, and I think that we have a letter from the engineer. Let me ask Dean to go into that. th MR. LONG-Yes. We have the letter that I believe Susan just spoke of, of April 20 from Dan Ryan. Basically the first item is concerning the stormwater basin in the back of the site. In our last communication to Dan, we proposed three different solutions. One was the historic solution that was proposed back in 2005, which was to tear up the paving and re-pave to re-direct and pitch all the stormwater back into the basin as it was originally designed. The other solution that we proposed that he selected was to add some more curbing to aid in the re-direction and pushing the stormwater back into that basin. The other thing that has to be done to that basin is that the side to the McDonald property isn’t properly graded. It’s a little high. Earth material from that side has to be moved to the other side so that the basin gets back to its full capacity and then also prevent, well, as it was designed, to weir overflow into the wetland. Dan has also requested that we put some small graded rock material in between the basin and the parking bays there to eliminate any scouring or gullying that might effect that. The other item is the stormwater basin that’s in front of the building. That basin was created primarily, you know, we needed some stormwater capacity, but the other issue was, in the original building, was that people would park in front of the building and then tend to back out onto Meadowbrook Road. So we wanted to create a basin there or a device there that would prevent that. Part of the basin does exist in the Meadowbrook right of way, and as originally designed, we had it as a grass basin. Obviously, you know, being partially in the road right of way, and receiving stormwater, sheet flow runoff etc., it’s a very difficult area to maintain. What Dan had suggested in his prior correspondence was consider putting down a gravel pack on top of the four inch drain pipe that was added as th part of the construction of that basin. The other thing that he requested in the 20 letter, which we can do, is put in a backflow preventer on that four inch pipe. So that when the flood levels rise up in the Meadowbrook stream corridor, that it doesn’t just backflow into the basin and possibly, you know, aid in the inundation of Meadowbrook. So we’ve agreed to, you know, modify the pavement as necessary, install the concrete curbing to aid in the re-direction, re-grade the basin as we had agreed to in 2005. So that will fix the back basin, and then the front basin, add the gravel pack over the top of the pipe, and add the backflow preventer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-There’s a lot we could talk about on this project, but I think that covers the issues that you asked us to look into last time. We’re answering questions. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open it up for questions from the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a very broad question. What are we trying to accomplish? We’ve submitted, in 2005 we submitted an application for modification after the project got going. The bridge detail changed because of C.T. Male and Dave Hatin review, because of the stream crossing. That was a completely different design that because that’s a floodway and it had to be above the floodway. So that had to be submitted, and there were some light changes that had to be submitted. The stormwater issue that had to be submitted. We did a wetland mitigation area which DEC and Army Corps had to approve, which they did, and the Planning Staff wanted us to wait until we had those approvals before all these modifications were heard by the Board. So this has been pending for a while, and now that we have the agency approval, it’s all these smaller issues. That’s what the, we did a draft resolution. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-So what the applicant is seeking for us to do is to approve the modification? MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s right. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we approve this, but most of this has already been done. MR. HUNSINGER-Most of it has already been done, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. These are ones that are very confusing. MR. LAPPER-This is legitimately confusing, and part of what happened was that it was intended that the building would be modified rather than replaced, and when they got into it, the foundation was all rotted. So the building inspector said it’s not structurally sound. They got started, realized that they had to go back to the Zoning Board because it changed the variance, the front setback variance. So there’s been a lot of changes, but it’s essentially, I mean, it’s a good project. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any (lost word) with the changes as I see them, but I do have concerns with the fact, with Mr. Bruce’s letter, and my biggest concern is he talks about filling of 850 square feet of a wetland. That’s one of my biggest concerns, and then also, the fact that we had requested an updated stormwater plan, and I don’t believe we got one. MR. LONG-The breakdown of the 850 square feet basically goes like this. When we originally proposed the building, it was going to be an expansion of the existing building, adding half again on to it. We had proposed in the back a system of wooden supported post ramps and decking. What happened during their construction is that they expanded the decking and they changed the wooden ramp to a concrete ramp, okay. So then what happened, out of those, there’s three things that make up the 850 square feet. There’s 453 square feet of additional decking that’s immediately behind the building. There’s 368 square feet of additional space taken up by the concrete ramp and its fill slope, and there was 28 square feet of additional building put into, put on as part of the overall modifications. If you have in your packet there the, if you have in the packet there this illustration that shows all these various areas. So what I was just speaking about, this was, again, green, green is the as built and the red is approved color. The 450 square feet of additional decking sits in here and in here. The additional 28 square feet of building sits in here, and the additional ramping is just this thin green line that sits right up in here. So that’s how the 850 square feet came about. That’s why we had to go back to DEC to request their re-approval of the wetland fills and the wetland activities, and the Army Corps determined it wasn’t just jurisdictional, because again, all the activities in the Army Corps wetland were so small that it was below the nationwide permit system. Because we had always had a small amount of fill as part of project, the Town required us to have mitigation. We originally started out with 1200 square feet of mitigation, and then because of the additional 850 square feet, we went up to 2600 square feet, which is the final mitigation plan, of mitigation wetlands, which we had already gotten the variance approval for those activities. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. These are always the worst type of projects to deal with. So you got approved plans. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-You went out and the Girl Scouts hired a contractor. The contractor went about his business and, oops. MR. LAPPER-Well, it wasn’t so much, part of it was that the approval said that the bridge crossing would be subject to C.T. Male, Town Engineer, and Dave Hatin approval because he’s the Floodplain Manager for the Town, and so there was some back and forth, and the bridge design changed dramatically because it had to get raised higher. So instead of just being like a boardwalk, it became a real bridge, and that was done based upon the condition in the approval that said that Dave and C.T. Male had to approve it, which they did, and there’s correspondence, but as a result of that, then you needed ramps. So it sort of grew from there, but it wasn’t that somebody just went and did something different. There was a reason for it. MR. FORD-Who actually approved the change from a wooden structure to a concrete structure? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LAPPER-We’re asking you to approve that tonight. MR. FORD-But it was done without approval. MR. LAPPER-It was done without approval. MR. FORD-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Why? How did that? MR. LAPPER-It was done in 2005 when the project got built, because, as a result of changing the bridge, the ramp to the bridge, there were design reasons that it was better to do it this way. MR. LONG-Yes. The concrete sidewalk was built during the construction process. The contractor and Girl Scouts did not come back to the Planning Board to change it to a concrete. So that, and then there’s the 28 square feet on the building shifting around and changing there. So that piece of it, and then the changing of the decks which I have just explained. So the concrete sidewalk was built. The concrete sidewalk was built because it improved the handicap accessibility around the building. It improves the evacuation capabilities around the building. It also improves maintenance around the building. The building gets heavily utilized year round for instruction space, which is all in the back of the building. So having the more easily maintained concrete sidewalk made sense to the contractor at the point at which they were finishing out the building. MR. FORD-So it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission? MR. LAPPER-No. Nobody came back to the land use attorney or the design professionals and said, gee, if we change the wooden deck to a concrete sidewalk, is that going to change the approvals? I mean, obviously they should have, and this was a couple of years ago. So we heard about it when Bruce Frank went out to do the inspection and said, that change which may look insignificant to a contractor is a change that requires Planning Board approval, and so an application was immediately submitted to approve that, although it was after the fact, but it was two years ago because we had to go back and deal with DEC and Army Corps. So, I mean, certainly it wasn’t done the way it was supposed to be done, but none of us were involved in telling them just go ahead and do it. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct me if I’m wrong, but to me the bigger issue is by constructing a sidewalk you had to go into the wetland. MR. LAPPER-Well, the boardwalk is exempt. It’s not considered impervious, but as a result of that, something had to be a give back, and the give back was this 2600 square feet of wetland mitigation elsewhere on the site to create, to expand wetlands to make up for this impact. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s what you agreed to do, and if I recall, that’s in the southwest corner, if I’m correct. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And that more than makes up square footage wise. That’s how you started out asking about the 800 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-So, as a give back, you agreed to increase the wetland mitigation measures? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Another thing is, explain to me again how the deck went from 450 to 660? How did that come about? And the other question is, did that impact the wetland at all? MR. LONG-The four, the additional decking, this was supposed to be an open well, as in the original design, that was going to be an open well, which creates, that was going to be an open well and that was going to be an open well. Those two areas, the green here being the concrete sidewalk, and then the green in here being decking, that got decked 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) over. This part got filled in as part of the whole sidewalk system, etc., because it had to ramp down to meet the grades in the parking area. So the biggest additional deck sits right here, and that’s just about, this is about 102 over here, so this is 530, 553 or so right here, but total between those two areas is the 453, which really, again, as I was saying earlier, most of the space in the back is instructional area. One of the issues, too, is going back and really looking at this, the doors out of here, under the original plans, there’s barely 12 feet from here to here. Ten feet would have been the minimum for that kind of egress. So it was very tight egress wise under the original plans, and by having the deck, sidewalk and all that system working together, it alleviates that evacuation issue. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and my last question for now is the stormwater plan, which we requested last meeting. MR. LAPPER-After the last meeting, Planning Staff contacted us and suggested a meeting with Planning Staff and the Town Engineer to work through the stormwater issues, which we had. We discussed it. We made changes, and we made, with submission through the Planning Staff to the Town Engineer, which resulted in his letter with these changes. So the only changes to the approved stormwater plan are what’s th referenced in the April 20 letter from Dan Ryan. MR. SEGULJIC-So your opinion is that that meeting with stormwater engineer and that letter meet your requirement? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and that meeting did occur, I assume? MRS. BARDEN-That meeting did occur, and I think that you have the meeting minutes, as well, in your packet. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not sure what I’m looking for. th MR. FORD-April 4 meeting? MRS. BARDEN-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s in a memo from Blanche. MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the question that I had, and I couldn’t quite put it together, th maybe I missed something. On the April 20 letter from Vision Engineer, it talked about three alternatives for the west end of the parking lot, and he says three options have been offered. Based on my proposed review of the proposed alternates, Option Two would be acceptable, but I don’t know what Option Two is. MR. LONG-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Was I the only one confused on that? MR. SEGULJIC-The whole thing’s confusing. MRS. STEFFAN-We just got this letter tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LONG-Okay. Here’s the area that we’ve been speaking about. There’s two parking bays in here. This area, when it was paved, was supposed to always pitch and go back into this basin. What happened is that it got pitched up this way and then it tends to flow out, tends to build up and the come back this way. So it’s sneaking out through this point right here, okay. One of the fixes that we agreed to in 2005, but we couldn’t implement until we got the wetland permits and all the other things straightened out, is to re-grade this basin. This side over here has excessive material in here so that it doesn’t have the adequate storage. So we need to take materials off of this side and put it over here, and create the berm. Okay. So that’s one of the 2005 fixes. Now, in the latest set of, and in 2005, we had proposed cutting, removing all the necessary pavement, probably out into 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) here somewhere, and re-grading it so that it pitched correctly, okay. What we proposed th on I think it was April 9, to Dan, are the three solutions. One is the cut and re-pave, two, which is what he accepted is install six inch curbing along the north side, right along in here, to force all the water to come, to go back to where it’s supposed to, where it was always designed to go to, and then the other thing was to remove the existing asphalt paving of the two parking bays and install new pavement pitched originally designed to the west. So basically we had two cut and replaces and one adding curbing, in order to correct the water where it’s not moving correctly back down into the basin. So, he has selected, he has selected or said that he thinks that the Option Two will work best. The other thing is, is this is the other front basin that I was speaking about that’s basically, you know, pour grass. He’s recommended, and there was a four inch outlet pipe, piped out here. He’s recommended putting in gravel on top of the pipe to catch any of the sand and dirt materials, abrasive materials that are applied to Meadowbrook Road, and put a raised inlet, and then put a backflow preventer. So that will all go on in that basin. MR. SIPP-Now, if I’m correct here, that pipe, is that perforated or is that solid? MR. LONG-I believe it’s perforated up here and then it’s probably just solid as it goes out. MR. SIPP-All right, now, I’m looking at both maps here. The elevation of the road is 303? MR. LONG-Yes. MR. SIPP-And the elevation of that pipe is 303.5? MR. LONG-It’s like 301 and, it’s just below 302, because this is a very, very, very shallow basin. There’s not much of a basin in that location, again, because we’re all suffering with a high water table throughout this site. So, you know, the road is basically at 303. The basin’s only like a foot, foot and a half down. MR. SIPP-What was in it before, nothing? MR. LONG-Nothing. MR. SIPP-Just dirt. MR. LONG-What was there before was pavement from. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it used to be paved, the whole thing. MR. LONG-Right, because the original building was basically there, and what they used to do is they used to nose in park into the building. So then what was happening is that people would back out onto Meadowbrook. It’s not a great basin, but it does us some good on stormwater, and it prevents people from backing out on Meadowbrook. So that now they can only do parallel movements through here. MR. HUNSINGER-And what it also does is it helps, I mean, any time there’s a good rainstorm you get standing water on that section of Meadowbrook Road, and it does help alleviate that issue. MR. LONG-It does help that, right. MR. SIPP-What’s the distance from that stand pipe from the edge of the road? MR. LONG-It’s in the right of way. It’s probably only going to be a matter of probably five or six feet, again, down in that little swale. MR. SIPP-What happens now when you get a 15 inch snowfall and that gets buried? MR. LONG-It gets buried. MR. SIPP-There’s no movement of water there at all? MR. LONG-Right. MR. SIPP-You have to wait until that melts down. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LONG-You have to wait until that melts down. That’s why, you know, Dan’s concern was, which is legitimate, is that he wanted to minimize the amount of settlement movement out into Meadowbrook, and so that was his real goal is put the gravel on it, raise the inlet a little bit, and prevent the movement of settlement out of that basin. MR. TRAVER-One of the issues of this whole area, obviously, is the water problem affecting that whole Meadowbrook area. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And the Town, to that end, has asked the Town Engineer to do a fairly comprehensive study of that whole corridor, and his recommendations are going to be very important to the Town to mitigate that issue, we hope, in that whole area. One of the concerns that we might have would be if, as a result of his survey of this area, if there are recommendations from his office on additional stormwater management issues on this property, would you be willing to comply with that? MR. LAPPER-I guess there’s two answers to that. As I understand it, the issues that are being addressed are downstream of this, north on Meadowbrook Road. MR. TRAVER-That may be. MR. LAPPER-So that the, we feel that we’ve addressed the stormwater and the wetland issues by the changes that we’ve proposed and also by getting the wetland permits. To the extent that there is mitigation for that northern problem proposed for this area of Meadowbrook, I don’t think that The Girl Scouts would be opposed to having something done on their site. The problem is that as a not for profit, you know, it’s a question of whether it’s something that they should be asked to or can afford to actually make changes themselves. So, in terms of letting the Town or somebody else make changes within the Halfway Brook corridor that runs through this property, I don’t see that as a problem, but in terms of them having to pay to fix this problem that’s downstream, I just don’t think that they have the financial resources. Everything that they do requires fundraising. All these changes that they’ve done have been as a result of a lot of fundraising activities. So if that’s an acceptable answer, I think we could commit to that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Dean just pointed out that the mitigation of wetland also creates some flood benefit also, because it creates more storage area by creating that extra wetland area. MR. HUNSINGER-While you’re talking about fundraising, I never say no when I see them out selling Girl Scout cookies, never. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? MR. FORD-Not at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-These stormwater plans take a lot of cookies. MR. HUNSINGER-They do. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here that had comments or questions of the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-I have one other question, and that deals with the, I believe it’s the nature camp. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we approve this tonight, we’re also approving the nature lodge. MR. LAPPER-We submitted that, but we did not get on the agenda for that. MR. SEGULJIC-So we have to approve the modification, then they can submit the? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-They’ve actually already submitted it. It just didn’t come up on the agenda control. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that part of the Phase III of the development? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-It says Phase I and Phase II have been completed. So this would be Phase III. So it would a standalone application? It would be like a new application coming in. MR. LAPPER-Right. Yes, it’s a minor change to this building, but an important part of their camp activities. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. th MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then one last question. I’m dealing with the April 5 memo, and there’s a reference here to clearing limits have been exceeded and a remedy for this should be included in the revised mitigation plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Where is that, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-On Page Three of Blanche Alter’s memo. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I see it, the second sentence from the top. MR. SEGULJIC-Page Three of that memo. MR. LONG-Well, I haven’t seen Blanche’s memo, but I assume she’s referring to really the area where there was any significant deviation from clearing limits had to do with the bridge, and the bridge process evolved, over quite a long process. Originally, it was proposed to have a structure ramp, and a structure ramp to a boardwalk. I’m pointing at the red now, with a path through the wetland and this clearing limit that was, the original intent was for that to be a handicapped accessible path. When it came down to really the reality of it to get anything that’s accessible and usable for any portion of the year. It can’t be down in here. To further complicate that, that’s floodplain, so we can’t build that up. So the only logical solution that we, well, the solution that we came up with that we thought was logical, was to run the bridge at an elevation above the floodway from high point to high point. We deviated significantly from the clearing limit. It is slightly more. However, with this bridge design, if you go over the bridge now, the disturbance is essentially non-evident. It’s a functioning wetland below the bridge. MR. SEGULJIC-So just clarify for me. So your clearing limit was originally going to be where the red trail is going through? MR. LONG-Where this red trail is, this red trail. MR. SEGULJIC-So you were going to clear all along there? MR. LONG-We were going to cut that, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But instead you cleared where it’s green. MR. LONG-Instead we cleared where it’s green. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So she says in the memo, a remedy should be included in the revised mitigation plan. Has that been done? MR. LONG-I think that’s re-growing. It was re-growing last year. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Okay. MR. LONG-It was a temporary disturbance, and it was wider, simply because when the original concept for the bridge, it was going to be a wood post supported bridge, but you couldn’t build a wood post supported bridge through the floodway because you would have needed too many posts. Every time you put up a vertical post, the risk in the floodway is a stick’s going to come across it and create a dam. So during that process, when Tom designed it, they had to go to concrete posts so you’d have fewer vertical 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) posts, bigger openings. To build concrete posts, you need a bigger area, a little bit more equipment than doing straight vertical posts. The other complicating factor is that the floodplain managers, of course, would love us to clear a lot more of the floodplain to preserve the capacity, which is an obvious conflict. So, you know, again, one of the complicating things here is that there’s three sets of, well, four sets of rules operating that wetland. Three sets of rules, one are left alone, and one set of the rules wants all the vegetation out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? One of the questions that we were discussing is when do you feel that the wetland mitigation plan will be completed? MR. LONG-Right now what we’d like to be able to do is be able to rough grade it, cut down the, after the close of the camping season, or the major portion of the camping season, go in there, take down the large trees. There’s a, you know, fair number of large hemlocks back there, and rough grade it and cut it down to the proposed grade, minus six inches. Then what we want to do, because this is the way wetland construction works best, is wait until the Spring, bring in the wetland soils in the Spring, and plant it, basically between April and May. We have to put in temporary sandbagging and diking so that you don’t end up washing away the topsoil that you’re importing, but what ends up happening is that you give the plants the best opportunity to grow. All of probably about three dozen wetlands that I’ve done, every one of them has always been successful if I plant them in the Spring. MR. SIPP-What do you plant, cattails? MR. LONG-Actually we don’t plant cattails because they’re going to come in naturally. Mostly it’s a seg mix and then some wetland shrub mixes, gray dogwood and silky dogwood for this one, and again, we like using shrubs because there’s less risk of it washing away if we get any fast moving water, and this was the same schedule I think we outlined to the ZBA last November, is that, you know, last November we had hoped to be able to grade it this Spring, but we talked over the whole issue that we may miss the, you know, it’s hard to grade and backfill topsoil and plant during Spring construction. It’s pretty easy if we have it all rough graded in the Fall. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’d ask a question of Counsel, perhaps. The discussion that we were having is trying to identify a date by which the wetland mitigation would be completed. I guess there’s sort of a two-fold question. Should we do that first, and what would be the consequence if we did not specify a date? MR. FULLER-I think the consequence of not specifying it is that it remains open-ended. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-We’re going to check the DEC permit to see if that has a date. MR. HUNSINGER-See if that has a date. MR. FORD-I’m trying to determine how much we’re being asked to approve tonight, already exists, and what is new that we’ll be asked to approve? MR. LAPPER-The stormwater mitigation that Dean just discussed, the changes to the stormwater plan that Dan Ryan just approved is new, and the mitigation, that includes also by the road, the gravel by the road, and the wetland mitigation is not new for this Board. It was approved by DEC, but that has to be implemented later this year and next Spring. MR. LONG-This Board had originally approved 1200 square feet of mitigation back in, the original approval dates back in 2003 or 2002. So those are approved. So the repair of the blacktop and that part of the stuff was discussed in 2005. We agreed to it. Until we could get all the wetland stuff, we’ve just been waiting to make that repair. MR. LAPPER-Until we had permits. MR. LONG-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s no completion date in your DEC permit? MR. LONG-It’s 2011 they gave us to. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Wow, I don’t think we want to do that. MR. LONG-No. MR. HUTCHINS-There is a calendar during months of the year that we cannot work within the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure that’s true. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m understanding, it’s going to take about a year. MR. LAPPER-You have to verify, once you create a wetland with DEC, you don’t just build it and leave it. You have to have reports and make sure that it takes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-So, I mean, what we could commit to is the grading in the Fall and the planting in the Spring, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not going to require going back the next season and fixing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So if we gave a year from this evening, is that enough? MR. LONG-June 1. MR. HUNSINGER-June 1. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. FORD-I have a concern. May I, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead, Tom. I’m sorry. MR. FORD-The Town has already initiated a study of stormwater, groundwater and wetlands along Meadowbrook Road. Last week this Board tabled a presentation, an appeal before us, awaiting the results of that study. It would seem to me that a sense of fair play would be to follow a similar pattern to what we initiated last week when we tabled that until such time as, in a relatively short amount of time, we’re going to have that study before us, before the Town, for review, for our edification, and therefore future decisions on Meadowbrook projects should be weighed against that study. I think that’s the fair way to handle this. MR. LAPPER-Well, remember, this is a wetland project to begin with, and even though we had to tweak it because things changed, this project involves creating more wetland than there is wetland disturbance. So it’s a net increase in wetland and in storage capacity, and the wetland disturbance is relatively minor in terms of the number of square feet. Most of the, the program area takes place in the upland, on the north side of the site, and the area, and we of course have the stream corridor that goes through the site, and the disturbance area is on that border of the stream corridor and where the Administration building is. MR. FORD-It’s my understanding, however, Jon, that that study is going to include the Girl Scout property and all properties on either side of Meadowbrook Road going north. So this would be included in that. MR. LAPPER-What we have here is, you know, Girl Scouts is a charitable organization. They have a camp in the summer, and they’ve committed, as they do every summer, to hundreds of kids, of campers, and this has been languishing because we had to deal with the State agencies. We came in, in 2005 to seek modifications. We finally got the State permits. We’ve gone through the Town Engineer, and what’s most important to them is to get this behind them, because of the demand for these services and part of this is because it’s in a wetland. It’s a nature. I mean, this whole facility is to get campers in with the bugs and the trees and the leaves and the water, you know, it’s about education, and camping, and they have a real need to expand one of their buildings, which, these are little cabins. I mean, there’s not much construction on this site, but they can’t get to the next step to accommodate the campers that they’ve already committed to this summer, and again, it’s not, this is not a developer saying that they need some tenant facility. This is a not for profit that’s got a bunch of little girls as 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) campers, and until we get the modification done, we can’t come back and talk about the minor but important modification to one of their old buildings on the site. So they’ve been waiting a long time to get through this process. MR. FORD-And I’ve tried diligently to review the history of this. It is voluminous, as you know, because, and it was initiated long before many of us were on this Planning Board. So we’ve been trying to play catch up on it. Is there anything that a tabling of this motion tonight would do to prevent this not for profit organization from functioning this summer? MR. LAPPER-Yes, because the Planning Department has taken the position that we can’t come in and talk about the changes to the nature lodge, which are not anywhere in a wetland, until we get the modification approved, because this is an open issue. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we’d resolve that next month, but I did want to make a comment to Mr. Ford’s comment, and I, you know, respect the effort to be consistent in how we view projects, but I guess in my own mind I view this project as being different only because I think what we’re really being asked to do in this case is to fix something that’s already there, and there’s, I mean, we are modifying the stormwater management plan, but it’s not because there’s new construction being proposed. It’s because new construction has already been made, and it needs to be corrected in order for it to operate and work properly. So I guess in my own mind I think if we delay approval, that just delays the correction and creates a greater, I mean, not that I think anything that has been constructed is going to cause, you know, significant harm to the environment, but I think the longer it’s put off the more potential there is for the systems not to work as designed. MR. TRAVER-They also have agreed, in principle, to make modifications if revealed in Dan’s evaluation of the area for stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-We couldn’t even do the wetland mitigation. If the study goes into the Fall and we miss the Fall grading season, you know, we wouldn’t even be able to do the wetland mitigation this year without your, we have DEC’s approval, but we need your approval Board approval for the modification because that’s a site plan issue as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re expecting this stormwater report within two months. The other application we tabled, we tabled it until June. MR. LAPPER-But you never know. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-I also agree it’s a different situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So I would recommend we move this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I have a question. Any of the contractors that have worked on this, we don’t need to know names or anything, have any of these folks donated their services, or are these all paid services, and if you could identify yourself for the record. KIT HUGGARD MS. HUGGARD-I’m Kit Huggard. I’m the Director of the Council. The contractors and all of the people who are working here have all donated some. MRS. STEFFAN-The reason I ask that question, I was just trying to understand. This is a very difficult project to piece together and we have so many pieces of information that don’t fit a timeline, or the decision matrix doesn’t seem logical to me. There’s no logical progression and so I asked that question, for my own edification, it just may explain some of the changes that have happened. So that’s why I asked the question. Thank you. MS. HUGGARD-Right. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tom? MR. FORD-I’m still trying to get to the bottom line of what an approval is basically going to approve or disapprove what actually exists? MR. HUNSINGER-By enlarge, yes. MR. LAPPER-Plus fixing the stormwater problem and creating the wetland. MR. FORD-Then it directly goes to the point of why we tabled last week the motion awaiting the results of this study which has been needed for years and now we finally have it, but it would seem to me premature to be approving this until we await that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else have comments or questions? Is everyone else to move forward, other than Mr. Ford? MR. SIPP-If the study done by the Town Board changes these modifications that we might approve of this, is there a possibility of that? If they come out with a study in two months and it’s different than what the modifications we would approve with this? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think it’s a legitimate question. I think the question that we need to sort of ask ourselves is if that happens, I mean, if they need to modify the bridge, for example, it’s already there. So either way you’re still going back to. MR. FORD-So that’s my point. What’s the point of approving something that already exists if that’s the purpose of our motion tonight? MR. LAPPER-We have a stormwater problem that needs to get fixed right now. That’s what Dan was addressing. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the other thing is, Mr. Ryan’s the one who’s going to be doing the plan. So I would hope he did it in light of the. MR. LAPPER-That’s a good point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was thinking of that as well. MR. LAPPER-Yes, Dan approved it. MR. SEGULJIC-Overall basin, what’s best for the basin I would hope. We’re not in the best position. MR. HUNSINGER-No, no, we’re not. MR. FORD-Well, and we didn’t cause it. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s correct also. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re just trying to understand it. MR. LAPPER-And we’re trying to fix it. MR. SEGULJIC-And they’re trying to get their camp built. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we need to re-visit SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any SEQRA issues that members feel we need to address specifically? MR. SEGULJIC-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-I think you’ve got to wait on this report before you can, I agree with Tom. Is there a way to leave this open-ended, so that if this plan, this study does change their plan, it would? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess we need to direct the question to Counsel, that in our Staff Notes, the Executive Director made some recommendations about what we should be 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) doing this evening, and one of the comments was to agree that once the Meadowbrook watershed analysis, which is my term for the study, once that’s complete, that the applicant has agreed to make the modifications as necessary. We’re, if we put that in a motion, it is open-ended and debatable. So I’m not sure, is that acceptable from a legal point of view? MR. FULLER-That’s a good question. As the conversation was going, I figured it was going to come up here, and they’ve given you their response. Certainly the applicant is entitled to have a decision rendered on the application as submitted, and one of the concerns with leaving open something like that is, you know, you leave the veritable open check, you know, blank check for what it’s going to cost, and that is a concern. MRS. STEFFAN-Especially for a non profit, yes. MR. FULLER-So I think the applicant’s suggestion was, yes, we would be willing to look at those changes, though, ultimately, we can’t promise that it’ll be on our dime. I mean, if the Town needs to come on site and make some changes, they’re, if I hear correctly, they’re willing to allow that, though they don’t necessarily know that, given their budget, they can leave that open ended check, and that is a legitimate concern. So when you say you’re in a really interesting situation here, you are. Because to leave something open like that is very difficult, because it doesn’t give them the closure on a decision that they are entitled to, more or less, but also your comments are very well pointed as well, that, you know, there are some significant issues in the area that need to be mitigated, and the Town is looking into it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I could say this. There would be nothing that would prohibit the applicant, once that report has been published, of reviewing that report and coming back to the Planning Board and saying we have reviewed the report. We don’t feel that we need to do anything, can we have that condition removed from the approval resolution, and we could consider that. So there would be closure, there could be closure after the fact. MR. FULLER-Yes. I think that it’s very difficult to define what those issues could be, something like moving this bridge or something like that, which would obviously be a very substantial change, which brings with it very substantial financial implications. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and the applicant’s, I guess my feeling is the applicant is not going to be in any better position later or no to do that. MR. FULLER-It was a good point. MR. FORD-But there also is a separate issue, and that is that the Town, I sense, is committed to not only seeing that something gets done, but being a party to that being done, once this study is completed, and it is very possible that the Town may be doing mitigation, making corrections and so forth. Who knows what is going to come out in the way of recommendations from this report, and I don’t foresee it being exclusively thrown on the landowners along Meadowbrook Road to be the total responders to whatever recommendations are forthcoming from this report. MR. FULLER-Yes, or necessarily past approvals. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-I think it’s important that this letter was issued yesterday or a few days ago by Dan Ryan, after he’d already been commissioned to do the report, and he’s recommending approval of these stormwater modifications, and he’s certainly aware of his study. MR. FORD-But he is not aware of the Town Board or the Planning Board’s response to the study. MR. FULLER-I’m not entirely sure I’ve answered your question. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think you’ve provided us guidance, yes. MR. FULLER-It is a difficult situation, because the fact that things are already there doesn’t necessarily give them justification for remaining if they are, in fact, in conflict with the plan that Mr. Ryan may ultimately draft and that the Town may adopt. It’s still an after the fact approval and carries with it some potential liability to have to do things. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MRS. STEFFAN-When we look at Phase III, when we look at their next application for the Phase III development, we could always, we would have the analysis done by that point. Can we go back and re-open the stormwater at that point? Because when we do a site plan review, we have the opportunity to look at those things. MR. FULLER-Yes. Absent something on the applicant’s side, it’s going to be difficult to re-open that, absent something they did or didn’t do, it’s difficult to re-open it. It is, it’s a difficult situation. MR. TRAVER-I think the remaining piece to be approved, it’s not going to impact on the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s your feeling, Steve? I think pretty much everyone else has stated their opinion. MR. TRAVER-I think Tom certainly has a valid concern, but I think that the applicant has made a reasonable accommodation to our concern about the Town’s response to a serious issue in that corridor of the water. I understand, too, the concern of the potential expense to the Town if we identified something on this site that the Town would have to foot the bill for, but I think that the, in context of the larger issue of the tremendous water problems that we’ve been dealing with, it’s probably, this particular site, particularly since they’re adding wetlands and not adding new development and removing wetlands, this property doesn’t, to me, seem like it’s very likely to be a major issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-We don’t know that, and that’s why I asked the question about them being open to modifications down the road. In reality, my sense is probably, any adjustments to this stormwater management are likely to be very minor, if any. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess it’s the consensus, then, to move forward. I will, if I didn’t already, close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We already asked about SEQRA. I didn’t hear any takers. So I guess we’ll entertain a resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant is seeking approval for constructed changes to the 4,428 sq. ft. Administration Building. In addition review of the Master Plan submitted as a condition of previous application is requested. 2. A public hearing is not required for a modification; 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative / Positive Declaration; and 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five needs to be struck. We have considered SEQRA, and it does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impact. Paragraph Seven stays. Paragraph Eight stays. Paragraph Nine is deleted. Paragraph Ten is struck from the resolution. The motion is made with three conditions: 1.That the applicant complete wetland mitigation by June 1, 2008. 2.That a final Certificate of Occupancy will be withheld until modifications are complete, which include the stormwater basin modifications as noted in the th April 20 Vision Engineering letter. 3.That it’s recommended that based upon the April 5, 2007 meeting between the Adirondack Girl Scouts, their agents, and the Town of Queensbury Community Development Staff, the applicant agrees to consider future stormwater modifications as recommended by the outcomes of the Town Engineer report on the analysis of the Meadowbrook watershed. th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: MR. FORD-I just have one request. As each member votes, I ask you to search your heart and say am I being consistent. Am I being fair along that corridor? Thank you. MR. SIPP-I can see your point, Tom, but I think there’s two different problems. One is on the north end of this basin, and this is on the south end, and there could be solutions that effect only one end of the basin. So we don’t know. MR. FORD-That’s a possibility. When we don’t know, what should we do? MR. SIPP-Plus the fact that that project is not even in the digging stage yet, while this has already been constructed and re-constructed. MR. FORD-Yes, they did not dig before getting permission, or they didn’t get permission and then dig something else. MR. SIPP-That’s water over the wetlands. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Ford 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I just, also, for the record, want to thank Staff for the th notes and comments on this project. Particularly Mr. Frank’s memo dated April 4. That really clarified a lot of the issues for me, and I just wanted to say on the record, particularly, that must have been a tough memo for him to write. So I want to put on the record that I appreciated his comments. MRS. BARDEN-And I will pass that on to him. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. MR. FULLER-Do you want to call one more time for Mrs. Hoffman? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m sorry. Thank you, Counsel. Just put the call out one more time if there’s anyone here representing the applicant, Jean Hoffman? Since there is not, I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-And I will look for a tabling resolution from someone on the Board. I think my inclination would be to, seeing how I know this is on the docket for the Zoning Board tomorrow evening, do you know if that request has been answered? MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a letter in the file. MR. HUNSINGER-It is on the Zoning Board’s agenda tomorrow evening? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-One question. The Zoning Board gave us 60 days to review the application, I believe? Didn’t the Zoning Board, in their decision, give us 60 days to act upon? MR. FULLER-No, the Zoning Board gave them until the end of May to have the project, the mitigation completed. That may or may not happen now. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So we just table it to the first May meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-My inclination would be to table it to the first meeting in May, unless I hear otherwise from Counsel. Is that the proper course? MR. FULLER-Yes. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let me just get the date. That would be May 15. Would anyone like to make that resolution? MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION #2 TO SITE PLAN NO. 50-2001 JEAN HOFFMAN, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled until the first meeting in May, which is May 15, 2007. That the applicant did not show for the meeting, nor submit application materials in a timely manner. th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno SITE PLAN NO. 8-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 777 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,128 SQ. FT. STEWART SHOP AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. CONVENIENCE 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) STORE AND GASOLINE STATION USES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 59-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 1.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 SECTION 179-4-020 TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan? MRS. BARDEN-The applicant requests site plan review for a 3,128 square foot convenience store and fuel pumps at Quaker Road and Dix Avenue. Most recently this th application was tabled at the March 27 meeting. In response, revised lighting and landscaping plans were submitted. A couple of outstanding issues remain, including documentation regarding the peak hour trips and sign information. A comment letter from Vision Engineering dated April 21 was received. This is a SEQRA Unlisted action. A Long Form was submitted, and the public hearing is still open for this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LEWIS-Hi, folks. Good evening. I’m Tom Lewis, real estate representative of Stewarts Shops. May I attempt to address the comments from the Staff? MR. HUNSINGER-You can start wherever you’d like. MR. LEWIS-Okay. Everyone’s got a little packet, and I’ll go over it sheet by sheet, that hopefully addresses all this. Okay. The first item on the EAF, I thought I had addressed this last month. On the top of the sheet, we had passed out how we had calculated 102 cars on the EAF. So I thought that that was the document, and I know I had said that I don’t think traffic’s an issue here, so that I thought that that was acceptable, but just because I said that doesn’t mean it’s so. You have to say that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LEWIS-So does this address the EAF line on the traffic? I mean, I think this is an accurate count. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEWIS-Can we go on to the next one? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. LEWIS-On the 24 foot drive aisles, in, when I get into the site plan, which is in the packet, you’ll see that we’ve added the dimension right there between the building and the gas island to show that it’s 24 feet, which we had discussed last month. So it’s on the site plan that will be on the final. So I think that will address that and we’ll show you that, as we get into the site plans that you’ve got. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEWIS-Now, let’s talk lighting, because that seemed to be the biggest issue that hopefully we can resolve this evening. Now everyone’s got five or six sheets here, but in front of the sheets, because it would be hard to hand out, you know, four or five different sheets of the large kind, so I have a summary on the sheet that was right on top of the site plans that shows the four different ones. Now it was said at the meeting a few months ago, I think, in January, and it was said again at the March meeting, at least a couple of times, that everyone thought that our site at 9L and 149, that everybody was happy how that lighting was. Did I misread that? MR. SEGULJIC-I was, that’s all I can say. MRS. STEFFAN-No, you heard that, because that’s what the Board said. MR. LEWIS-We heard that a number of times. MR. HUNSINGER-You heard it from more than one member. MR. LEWIS-Yes. Okay. So on the bottom of this sheet are the foot candles of 9L and 149, and then there are four different sheets here, and then the fifth one will show the 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) numbers on 149 and 9L. So if I could just go over this master sheet here, I hope I made this simple and not more complicated, you’ll see that the Board had asked under the canopy that we be under 10. Now the third and fourth sheets are under 10. They’re 9.4. The difference was whether the bulb under the canopy is recessed or not recessed, and there was a desire made by at least a couple of members last time, I know Gretchen wasn’t here last month, when I was here, to have the light flush, but the flush light concentrates light more down, so it actually brings it a little bit over 10, which is 10.21. Now, I would offer that if you look at what some of the members liked at 9L and 149, which is the least amount of light we’ve ever had, that was 12.26. Now we’re a full 20% under that. So I would ask the Board either go with a flush mount, at 10.21, which would be like the two percent, or we could go, you know, to 9.04, but then the lights won’t be flush. MR. HUNSINGER-Let me make sure I understand. When you use the term recessed, is it up into the canopy? Because that seems counterintuitive to me. MR. LEWIS-There’s reveal about that much. MR. HUNSINGER-So they actually stick down a little bit. MR. LEWIS-Well, just, I mean, you really can’t tell. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I wanted to make sure I understood. So when you say recessed, they actually stick down. MR. LEWIS-No, flush. MR. LEWIS-What is flush? MR. LEWIS-Flush means that almost all the canopies you’ll see anywhere, the light is about that much below the canopy. Most of them are like. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s considered flush? MR. LEWIS-No, no. MR. FORD-That’s why I asked. What is flush? MR. LEWIS-NO,. because recessed would be in it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEWIS-So this is un-recessed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t want to see the lights. MR. LEWIS-Right, right, and so if we go with the lights that are flush, that means that it’s. MR. FORD-Almost flush. MR. LEWIS-Yes, you know, the actual light is, in fact, the light is recessed, but then there’s a part, some metal park, that shows, and there should, and one of the notes it said there were no cut sheets. So here are the cut sheets. So on the four that you have that are stapled, you’ll see the third one is what we’re calling flush, and the fourth one is not flush at all, but the fourth one gives you under 10, but this Board consistently showing rational and common sense, I thought might go with the 10.2, but have the lights not be seen. So, what if we tackle these one at a time, because then we could get into the light poles. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my own personal feeling when I read Staff Notes saying that the canopy lighting had been reduced from 13.89 to 10.21, to me that was close enough, but that’s just me. I don’t speak for the rest of the Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I concur. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I don’t have any marks. I thought it was fine. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LEWIS-Great, and we’re under 149 and 9L. Under it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LEWIS-Even though one could make a case that in an area so isolated in such a more residential type neighborhood, that would be where you would want the lights lower. This is even lower than that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LEWIS-So, hopefully we could go with as submitted with the lights flush. Now as to the poles, we had shown nine light poles that were 400 watts. The engineer suggested that we go to 15 lights, with 250, which I think makes no sense, but it’s not worth arguing about. So again, on the bottom you’ll see we had less lights with 400 watts, rather than 15 at 250, but, I mean, again, the foot candles are like almost the same. I don’t care. Then there was also a note that we show them as 15 feet high, and the Board wanted 11 or 12, and if the Board wants to go to 12, that’s fine with us. I don’t care, 15 or 12. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we did talk about that last meeting, though, that 12 feet is the Code requirement. MR. LEWIS-I didn’t hear that. MR. HUNSINGER-And they were shown as 15 on the plan. MR. LEWIS-We’re happy to go to 12. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEWIS-How does that sound? MR. HUNSINGER-Is everybody on board with that? MR. SEGULJIC-So that would be 12 foot light poles? Twenty, actually. MR. HUNSINGER-Twenty. I’m sorry. MR. LEWIS-Yes, I didn’t think that was Code. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. I think it was just, it was discussed at the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Yes, you’re right. MR. LEWIS-If you want to go to 12, we’ll go to 12. So let me just mark this down. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, wait a minute, before we get off that, though, what’s the difference in foot candles, though, because it will make a difference. It will be brighter if they’re lower. MR. FORD-Didn’t you figure that 10.21 or whatever on the basis of a 12 foot pole? MR. LEWIS-No, those were the canopies, and, hang on, I don’t know why I didn’t have the foot candles on this sheet. I should have. So let me look on the sheet, inside curb. All right. So the ones that have nine, the maximum is 21.4, and then the ones with 15 are 21.2. It’s almost the same. There’s only two tenths of a foot candle difference, between whether we do the 15 lights or the 9 lights. So we’d just as soon, with the assumption that we’ve built enough of these that we know kind of what works, we would much rather have 9 than 15, but with a 400 rather than a 250, was the engineer’s idea to go 250’s, but have 15 of them. MR. HUNSINGER-And you have 400 watt lights at the Route 149 and 9L site? MR. LEWIS-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEWIS-So if it’s okay, we’d like to do 9, 400’s, just like 9L. Unless the Board wants 15 at a lower wattage. I think you’re going to find, when it’s all said and done, you know, when the site’s built, and again, it will be less than 9L. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone want to comment? MR. SEGULJIC-My only comment is you said the maximum would be 21 foot candles? I believe on. MR. LEWIS-You want to look on the line that says inside curb. That’s the line that’s for those lights, and so when you look at the sheet that we submitted, which on the lower right says one. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LEWIS-And then look down at that bottom. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve got you. MR. LEWIS-Okay, but then on the next sheet you’ll see there are 15, and it actually goes, wait a minute. Yes. It goes down two-tenths. It goes from 21.4 to 21.2. MR. SEGULJIC-What does inside curb mean? MR. LEWIS-That it is around the parking lot, it’s right next to the curb line. MR. SEGULJIC-So I don’t see a 21.4 anywhere on here. MR. LEWIS-Okay. Look on the first sheet, just about where I’m pointing. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I see that, but I don’t see any. MR. LEWIS-Under max. MR. SEGULJIC-Under your, when I look at your lighting. MR. LEWIS-Yes. I didn’t leave that on the sheet. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that a computer calculation? MR. FORD-What about up here? MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see a 21.4 anywhere on the lighting plan. So I’m assuming it’s right under a light. MR. LEWIS-I don’t know how they calculate those things, but I think, I would think they do, I think the way they calculate it is there’s an average around the light, so they don’t look only under it, but they also look around it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’ve got you. MR. LEWIS-Then also there was a note that we didn’t have the cut sheets. So here are the cut sheets of the soffit light and the wall pack, and that I did put on the sheet here to match it up, again, against 149 and 9L, and you’ll see they’re all lower. So under parking areas, we’re proposing to be 3.61, and at 9L we’re 5.62, and then on, it says over by the gas approach we’re at 3.09, 9L is 3.88, and then the third one was the building entrance, and there we’re lower again, still. So hopefully the Board would accept the lighting plan as proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEWIS-Knowing that we exceed what some of the members have asked for. MR. HUNSINGER-So, just so I understand that we don’t usually accept new information on the night of a meeting. So, if we’re looking at that sheet with that table, the Line One, that corresponds to the lighting plan that had already been provided to us. MR. LEWIS-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEWIS-Yes. So, can I go to the next one? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. LEWIS-Okay. As to the landscaping, there was a note that we need to ask for a waiver for the interior lot. We had added more landscaping last time, there was, and I thought was acceptable, which is on the back of that sheet, but everyone has it inside. Apparently there’s a phrase, the interior parking lot, but there’s nowhere to put any landscaping there. It’s just, you know, both of our other sites we’ve done where there’s room for landscaping, I mean, bushes are cheap. That’s never an issue. So we’re formally asking for a waiver for the interior landscaping, with the hope that that addresses that. Then the next note was about the sign detail, but the sign detail was submitted. It’s on the first sheet. It’s on the cover sheet. Right at the bottom it says typical building sign. That’s the building sign. It’s just our name, but the Board did ask for a verification of the freestanding sign, of what the wattage was, and that’s in the packet that I handed out the first time, which shows the wattage is, I’ve got the amperes, too, 1.19 amps. It’s 96 inches at 110 watts each, and this is exactly what’s at Bay Road. What we handed in is what’s at Bay Road. No different, and then the last item, on all these different site plans here, on the last sheet you’ll see there’s an updated site plan, where the Chairman had asked for some pavement to show from the gas island to the building, and in those sheets you also have one of these which is what we did in Greenfield. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask where that picture was, yes. MR. LEWIS-Yes, which was the last people who had asked us for that. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think this was an issue that we had talked about for the Stewarts Shop down at, near Exit 18. Isn’t that when we had the discussion? MR. LEWIS-I don’t recall that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s my recollection. I’m not saying we asked for it, but I remember the discussion. MR. LEWIS-So, you do have it shown on the site plan, which is on the last sheet, and then here’s a photograph of what it would look like. So hopefully I’ve addressed the Staff comments, and shall I go to the five or six comments from the engineer that I only got this morning? Number 24, we’re hoping some of these really minor things that if the Board’s willing to do a final vote this evening, some of these things we would have to get an okay from Dan Ryan. Things like we separate our, plumbing. So we need two lines, and this was already run by Mike Shaw and he’s fine with it. So I would hope that Mike Shaw would okay it, but I’m sure that if Mike Shaw called Dan Ryan, then he’ll be fine with that. MR. TRAVER-May I ask why, why do you separate? MR. LEWIS-I have no idea, not a clue. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s a good answer. MR. LEWIS-All I know is they all have separate lines. Maybe one is for ice cream and one’s for washing your hands. I tried. That’s why we have an engineer who deals with this stuff. The same thing with Number 28 with the visual and audible alarm is on the plan, but we’ll have Mike Shaw discuss that with Dan Ryan. Number 29, the construction entrance is going to be removed before we build the new ones. So, I’m not sure why he didn’t get that, but again, that should be a simple, the answer is we’ll do what he says, but we thought that was sort of obvious. Number Thirty-Nine, the detail he asked to be deleted will be. Number Forty, we’re not going to do any blasting. If it needs it, we’ll use a pneumatic hammer, and they’ll be using what they call a concrete dead man to resist any buoyancy if it interferes with the water table, and that’s a standard thing and I just don’t see that as an issue at all. If we need to have a verbal with Dan Ryan, we can do that, and then Item Number Forty-One we’ve already addressed here. So hopefully, from my point of view, we’ve answered all the comments, but my point of view doesn’t matter. You guys vote. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions or comments from members of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m assuming you don’t own this property that you have a contract? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LEWIS-That is absolutely correct. We never buy property without approvals. Ever. MRS. STEFFAN-So you would have it surveyed before you bought it? MR. LEWIS-We have a survey, we did a survey on it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The reason I ask that question is just because we approved a modification to a site plan on one of your buildings, and you have an inaccurate survey in your files. MR. LEWIS-I heard that. I also heard this Board was very gracious to my partner. I’m serious. MR. FORD-We don’t want to be pushed too far. Our graciousness has a limit, you know. MR. LEWIS-We should always be held to a standard that we build what we say we’re going to build, and it’s terribly annoying to me who’s, you know, in the field, out in the public, to have one of my construction people not do what’s on the plan. So, that really should not happen again, in any town. MR. FORD-I agree with that. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a question. What are we approving tonight? Because we’ve been getting things piecemeal. Would we approve these plans, then, the 9/13/06? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it would be the most recent plans plus any corrections that are discussed this evening. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it would be these plans here? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LEWIS-It’s really only adding on the pavement, was really the only thing left off, and the freestanding sign is as it is, except we just now have what the wattage is. Of course when we hand in final mylars, we’ll add the wattage on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I mean, overall I’m okay with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Which lighting plan? That’s why I made the point to ask for clarification. Because I know we all reviewed the one that was in the original plan, and we have a policy to not accept new information. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe I’d like to see Number One. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is the original proposal. MR. LEWIS-Which is what we handed in. MR. HUNSINGER-And our engineer did have a comment on that about uniformity ratios, which could be alleviated by adding additional poles and reducing wattage, and that’s always the trade-off, you know. MR. LEWIS-You know, Mr. Chairman, I really did think about submitting more than one lighting plan for that purpose, but I just, you know, assessed where I thought the Board would be, so just to submit one, but discuss others. MRS. STEFFAN-But the plan would also change based on the height of those fixtures, the pole lights. Because I think we’d need to see a revised plan, with some of the decisions that were made tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Now Plan One includes 15 foot poles, right? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know, Chris, you talked about 12 foot poles? I don’t know what the decision was. There was discussion, but I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think we made a decision. That’s why I brought it up for further consideration. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LEWIS-And I would just offer that if the Code is 20, we showed 15. The Board wants me to go to 12. We’re not objecting to go to 12. So I would certainly understand it, but it would be a minor disappointment to have to go another month because of the pole, or we could work with the Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know. I’m just feeling like, because of the changes that were identified in the Vision Engineering letter, the lighting change, and some of the notations in the Staff Notes, you know, I think if some of the changes were made in May, we could do an approval pretty quickly, but I think that the changes have to be made. That’s my opinion. MR. FORD-We have to see those rather than making conditions of approval. Is that what you’re suggesting? MRS. STEFFAN-I am suggesting that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments for the applicant? MR. SIPP-You have a copy of this stormwater management, Page Two, where you describe these soils as being an Oakville loamy fine sand. I seriously doubt that. MR. LEWIS-I don’t know what to tell you, other than we pay these guys a lot of money. So I figure they know what they’re talking about. MR. SIPP-I mean, if you take your test pit data, which shows a clay loam on Number One and a clay loam on Number Three, and a sandy clay loam on Number Four, on clay, and all these are at depths of five to six inches, this clay soil and being in that area, knowing that area, water doesn’t penetrate these soils very fast. Plus the fact that you’re at bedrock. MR. LEWIS-Well, we are hooking into the sewer. You know that, right? MR. SIPP-Yes, you’re hitting bedrock at two or three feet in a lot of cases. MR. LEWIS-Yes, in certain places there are. MR. SIPP-You have to get the tanks in the right place, or somebody scouts them out beforehand. MR. LEWIS-We spent lots of time figuring that out. MR. SIPP-Have you made provisions for holding the (lost word) tank down? MR. LEWIS-Yes, sir, we have. MR. SIPP-Allowing this water to flow both on the Quaker Road, parallel with Quaker Road and parallel with Dix Avenue, I seriously doubt that it’s going to penetrate the soils. MR. LEWIS-I don’t know that your engineer had any difficulty with this. MR. SIPP-Especially with development to the east and McDonalds and the liquor store and whatever else is in that little. It’s supposed to go down Quaker Road to the Glens Falls Feeder Canal, I guess it would. It’s all downhill. On Quaker Road you’re going downhill. That’s a very, very poorly drained area. It goes quite a ways down Dix Avenue. Heavy, heavy clay soil. I can’t say that it wouldn’t work, but I’m a little skeptical. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else, Don? Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that had questions or comments of the Board on this project? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the opinion of the Board? We have at least one comment saying they would like to table it to a May meeting. What’s the Board’s feeling? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the question would be, what are we going to table it for? MR. LEWIS-Would it be acceptable, what I heard on lighting was that I think the only thing that changed was the Board asked to have the lights go from 15 feet to 12. Therefore that would change the foot candles. So is it acceptable to vote for an approval contingent on this Board just, you know, getting the new sheet, seeing just that one item to the satisfaction of the Board, the Staff, someone, because I think we’ve submitted everything except that one item, and it’s the Board who’s asking to have it changed. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would think that, based on the tabling motion, we should be able to come back fairly quickly and it shouldn’t take very long. MR. HUNSINGER-I would imagine. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, if we’ve got it down to just a couple of issues. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just I think that if we ask, for example, if we approved and put a condition that Vision Engineering would have to sign off on it, then the whole lighting plan would have to meet Code. There couldn’t be any deviations. Otherwise, Dan would not be empowered to make that decision. He would have to throw it back to the Planning Board. So that’s why I thought that the tabling motion to come back. MR. LEWIS-So let’s come back next month. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I’m just afraid if it doesn’t meet all the Town criteria. MR. LEWIS-I understand. So, when I re-file, do I only need to file that one sheet? Or do I need to file everything all over again? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we’ll give you some, I think we’ll give you some real direction on that in a minute here. MR. FORD-I like Gretchen’s rationale. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Can we be as specific as possible with what we’re looking for? Why don’t we talk about the pole height for a second, so we can come to a resolution on that. MR. SEGULJIC-Twelve feet sounds good to me, if he can do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Understanding there will be more poles. MR. SEGULJIC-No, I believe you could still do it with nine, correct? MR. LEWIS-I’ll do it nine or fifteen. I don’t care. MR. SEGULJIC-That was my understanding. They could go with the nine. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, typically the tradeoff is the lower the poles the more poles you would require to meet a Uniformity Ratio. It’s kind of like the same exercise as the 400 watt versus the 250 watt. You reduce the wattage then you need more lights. So you reduce the poles, you need more. MR. TRAVER-You have some buffer, though, because it’s slightly over Code, 10.21. So maybe that will mitigate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m just trying to make sure that we understand what we’re asking and giving him the right direction. I’m not trying to be argumentative. MR. SEGULJIC-We want the minimum height with the minimum number of poles with the minimum lighting required. That meets Town Code. How’s that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we already have enough information that he’s given us that we can be more specific. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LEWIS-Well, may we say that it needs to be equal or less to what’s on 9L and 149? Does that work? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think you already gave us that, which is why I think we’re in a position to be more specific than what you’ve already given, because you’ve shown us on the sheet you handed out that the proposed plan is less than the 9L site. The only calculation that you don’t have in here, though, is the Uniformity Ratio, and I think that’s really what the engineer was addressing in his comment, and I don’t know, maybe we as a Board need to just take these plans that were handed out this evening and make a decision on which one we like best. Is it that simple an exercise? MR. FORD-Well, if it’s that simple an exercise, then I see that as an additional reason to table, because, you know, we just received these tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s what I’m saying. MR. FORD-For us to sit here and take the time to study it. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I wasn’t suggesting that. I was suggesting to take them home. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-I can do that. MRS. STEFFAN-The only other thing I’d like to see on the plans, we’ve talked about the landscaping and that there’s no interior landscaping, but I’d like to see some planters added, like maybe around the building, and then under the canopy. They wouldn’t be year round, but in the summertime you’d plant them with flowers. MR. LEWIS-Well, I don’t know where to put anything under the canopy, and we’ve done planters at the entranceway, but we can’t do them around the building because of the overhang, that we cannot function without having an overhang, and then we’ve been asked rarely, like in Guilderland they do it all the time, they ask for plantings on the side of the building. We cannot do that because that means that the sidewalk, which is now five feet, has to become eight feet or nine feet or ten feet, and the overhang can’t be that large. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. LEWIS-Now I don’t mind doing plantings behind the building, but no one’s going to see them. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. LEWIS-So I don’t know how to get there from here, Gretchen. MRS. STEFFAN-Not going to fly? Okay. MR. LEWIS-And you know we like saying yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I know. I just thought with so much blacktop and barren pavement. MR. LEWIS-I know. This is not a happy site for me. MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, they can fit whiskey barrels on the toll booths on the thruway. MR. LEWIS-This is not a happy site for me. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Does anybody else have any input on that? Any recommendations? MR. SIPP-You don’t have a good growing area, though. If you follow the sun, you’re going to be in the shade 90% of the time if you put it up tight to the building. MR. LEWIS-I mean, Exit 18 had lots of room for it and we were happy to do it and it looks great. They’d just have to be within the constraints of what I’ve got to work with. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. If the rest of the Board’s okay with it, I guess I’m okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I certainly agree with your comments. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’re tabling this for a lighting plan? MR. SEGULJIC-The only other thing would be the Staff comments, the comment about the waiver, interior landscaping? MR. LEWIS-Well, he said in his comments that they would be requesting that, that they have officially requested that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’d have to do that in our final approval. So we want them to st address Vision Engineering comments from the April 21 letter. We want them to provide a revised lighting plan with cut sheets and Uniformity Ratios. MR. HUNSINGER-And you may not even need to give us anything in addition to the lighting plans that you just provided us with this evening. I can’t really answer that question for you. MR. LEWIS-If you want the lights at 12 feet, then I do need to submit a new cut sheet that shows the lights at 12 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So is that the will of the Board, that you want 12 foot poles? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s my preference. I believe that’s what you have at 149. MR. LEWIS-149 they’re at 15 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Fifteen feet? MR. FORD-What’s critical, the height of the pole or the Uniformity Ratio or the max? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the difficulty in it all. MR. FORD-I just want to make sure we’re giving him, at this juncture, sufficient direction. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me for one second. On your drawing for 149, if I’m understanding your drawing correctly, you labeled the six main lights are C and it says 12 foot poles, if I’m looking at it correctly. MR. LEWIS-Well, if it says that, then I misread it, because I’m sure what’s on here came right off of, you are right, sir. My mistake. That’s even more reason why we want to do 12 foot poles. MR. SEGULJIC-So let’s try to do it in poles then, is that what we’re saying? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And I just, I think if we do the 12 foot poles, then we’re going to end up with the 15 with 250 watts, is going to be my guess, because I think otherwise the Uniformity Ratio’s going to be too out of line. MR. LEWIS-I’ll do 15 poles. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay, but when you run the plan, I think when you look at it and you look at the Uniformity Ratio, I think, you know, you’ll know which is the right way to go. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LEWIS-Okay. If there’s more than one option, should I submit two sheets when we file in order to make the next meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would advise you to do that, yes, and then, you know, while we’re sitting at home we can individually consider them and analyze them. MR. LEWIS-You guys look at these things at home? MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. FORD-That’s why we don’t like to receive them the night of the meeting. MR. LEWIS-Understand. MR. FORD-We do study them. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think we’ve given you enough direction on the lighting plan of what we’re looking for and where we’re headed? MR. LEWIS-If I have any question, I’ll call Susan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEWIS-She’s always helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Then I’ll ask Susan. No, I was kidding. When do we want to table this until? nd MRS. STEFFAN-I think the second Planning Board meeting, which is the 22, if we give th him a submission deadline of May 4, because the submission deadline’s already missed, but that will give the applicant a week, well, a little more than a week to come up with the revised drawing and the lighting plan. th MR. LEWIS-Sure, I’m sure we can do May 4. th MR. FORD-You can do that by the 4? MR. LEWIS-Yes, and then we’ll be on 5/22? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. LEWIS-Okay, and then hopefully, Susan, hopefully we could get that off site thing on at the same meeting, that off site sign on May. MRS. BARDEN-We’ll try. MR. LEWIS-We filed that I think about a month ago. There’s an issue about a sign also that, let me keep this simple, let me try to keep it simple. There’s a deed restriction on this property. When McDonald’s brought the land from King, they put in a deed restriction that you can’t sell hamburgers or meat products. I’ve been negotiating with the McDonald’s Corporation since last June. They’ve agreed to how much money we’d h have to give them to remove the deed restriction, which is we’d never sell that many hamburgers. In exchange for money and a sign better defining their entrance. So we’ve filed for that already, but it’s just not before the Board. So just to let you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that come to us for site plan review? MRS. BARDEN-It’s an off premises sign. nd MR. LEWIS-So hopefully we could do that on May 22. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-As long as it’s not a reader board, we’re okay with that. MR. LEWIS-You mean with items? No, no. It’s just the “M” and just, like, you know, an enter sign, you know, with an arrow. MR. FORD-Did you file a counter requesting that they not sell ice cream? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LEWIS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you’re going to keep the public hearing open? MR. HUNSINGER-We will keep the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll do SEQRA next time. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2007 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: nd So that the applicant can come back to the May 22 Planning Board meeting. The th applicant must submit materials by May 4, and we are tabling it so that the applicant can address all the Vision Engineering comments from the April 21, 2007 letter, and also so that the applicant can provide a revised lighting plan with cut sheets, at 12 foot poles on the fixtures, and the appropriate uniformity ratios to meet our Town Code. th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: MR. LEWIS-For the light poles. We’ve dealt with all that other stuff, the canopy lights. We’re just down to light poles. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Well, in your lighting plan, you will identify the things we talked about tonight. MR. LEWIS-Right, yes, well, that’s all the plan we submitted already, except for the light poles. All those other things are all. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. LEWIS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-See you next month. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED BBL CONSTRUCTION AGENT(S) B P S R; JIM MILLER OWNER(S) Q.E.D.C. ZONING MR-5 LOCATION OFF LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 60,000 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THE MR-5 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 LOT SIZE 3.72; 3.30; 3.80 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.10-1-82, 83, 84 SECTION 179-9-020, 179-8-070, 179-8-050, 179-6-020, 179-4-040 JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This proposal is for construction of a 66,000 square foot office building and associated site work including 425 parking spaces to be located off of Luzerne Road, with access off of the Main Street connector road which has not yet been built. An Area Variance was granted from the maximum parking requirement, providing 161 st additional spaces on March 21. This is a SEQRA Unlisted action. A Short Form was submitted. However, Staff suggested the Board request a Long Form for this project. Per correspondence from the Wastewater Department, this parcel is not within the Town’s Tech Park Sanitary Sewer district. WCEDC is currently working on a plan to extend the district to include this parcel. Warren County Planning Board recommended no county impact at their April meeting, and a public hearing was advertised for this project for tonight’s meeting. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Hello. For the record, Jon Lapper with Jay Hoepeke from BBL, Inc., and Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. This is a our first opportunity to discuss this project with this Board, but we’ve been to the Zoning Board a few times because it was another case where we needed additional parking spots to accommodate the employees. So we have met with Staff a few times and the Town Engineer to try and refine the project, but I guess we’d just like to start out at the beginning, give you a little history to the project, and then let Jim walk you through the site plan, and then we can (tape turned) Main Street project, it was determined that a significant number of cars so there was a traffic study done for the Town by Barton and Loguidice. Somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of the cars on Main Street are actually heading to the west side of the Northway, and the way that they usually get there is by going up Pine Street by Hess Station, and it was determined that this would be a better, safer, quicker way to get traffic that didn’t need to be on Main Street off of Main Street. It was also important because during the construction of the Main Street project, which has been in the works for 10 years and is now apparently about to get started, finally, to change that to a three lane road with a center turning median, underground utilities, and put street trees, street lighting, sidewalks, bike path, major improvements to that corridor, that putting in a connector road through this property would facilitate the, those traffic improvements would last longer because there would be less people on that road. It would also create an opportunity for economic development, which is QEDC’s mission to develop the part of this property that wasn’t needed for a connector road for economic development purposes. The impediment to that was that the Town, the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad was located right where the intersection needed to be to make this work. So that was another complication that the Town Board worked out with the Emergency Squad to re-locate their building. Their building, I understand, is going to get a CO in May, and they’re going to quickly demolish the building, and at that point the Town is going to construct the connector road. The Town received grant money for that. Ultimately the plan is to re-locate Big Boom Road where it comes out now next to Carl R’s. All the UPS trucks, the traffic hazard there is that it’s very close to the on and off ramps for the northbound Northway lane. So there’s not enough stacking distance, and there’s no traffic light. So as part of the Main Street plan, the re-location of Big Boom Road is now included in that project. Ultimately there’ll be a four way traffic light where Big Boom Road comes out, which is exactly across from where this connector road is. So there’s been a lot of planning and a lot of grants have been given to the Town, but, you know, we’re still right about when that work’s going to get started, nothing’s happened, but in the interim, BBL came to QEDC requested to purchase the property for, this was the preferred site for the re-location of an existing local business that wanted to consolidate operations at a number of sites in Glens Falls and Queensbury to accommodate approximately 400 employees which is why we needed the 425 spaces to cover the employees plus some visitor spaces, and because of the proximity of this site to the Northway, it’s a good place to have a lot of employees, easy on, easy off. The new road was going in separate and apart from this project, but it’s perfect to have a new intersection, a new traffic light and the new road, and as was mentioned in Staff Notes, Warren County Economic Development received a grant to extend the sewer line to the emergency squad and through this road. So that’s all, there’s already an application pending before the Town Board to extend the sewer district, the Luzerne Road Sewer District, to encompass this property. So, in terms of traffic, this is all part of the traffic plan for that corridor and sewer plan as well. It’s an important project to BBL, I mean, just in terms of the size of this, and I think important to the community, because it’s a way to retain a lot of jobs that other communities have been vying for, and fortunately the tenant really likes this location and that’s why they’re here. At this point, let me ask Jim to walk you through the site plan. MR. MILLER-Good evening. The site is located, Luzerne Road is to the left side of the plan here. This is the site where the new EMS is being built. This is a new connector road that goes to Main Street, heading south in that direction, that Jon was talking about. To the east side of us is the Pine Street town homes that Rich Schermerhorn presented to you and is under construction. There’s two single family residences in this area. There’s a single family residence that fronts on Pine Street that extends back to about the mid-point of our property line, and then the remaining land along the south property line is a cemetery. The proposal is for a two-story, 66,000 square foot office building. It’s sited so that there would be a visitor parking area in the front. The main visitor lobby would face the new access road. There would be two driveway connections off that new connector road that would loop around. The bulk of the parking, as Jon talked about, is 425 cars to accommodate the employees. The bulk of the parking is being put to the rear, and to the side, to present a good image off of the new connector road, as well as 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) this site will be most likely visible from the Northway. The parking, you can see it’s laid out in a way with a significant number of islands to meet the Town’s requirement for 10% green space within parking, and significantly landscaped. There’ll be, you know, the main parking areas are going to be employee parking and the employee entrance will be located in this area on the north side. Also, between the EMS and this facility is the Park and Ride facility that’s being constructed as part of a connector road, and there’ll be public parking in this area, and there’ll be a bus shelter in this area and a bus service will come to this portion of the site. So we’ve provided sidewalks connections to the building to take advantage of that bus service in that area. This site, Thank God, it’s very well drained sands. There’s no wetlands, and what we’ve proposed for storm drainage, right now there’s no runoff from the site. Everything that drains in this area infiltrates into the ground. So there’s a series of three basins that are proposed. These basins are going to be an infiltration basin where water collected from the parking areas, and also we, as part of our agreement with the Park and Ride is that their storm drainage will be accommodated in our stormwater basins. What we’ve done is we’ve brought that water into each of the basins where there’ll be a pre-treatment area, and then a significant area that would allow for the 100 year detention, and we’re going to utilize the infiltration of the soil to infiltrate that water. So there’ll be no runoff. You’ll see there’s some drywells throughout those basins, and that’s to increase the infiltration rate and to allow infiltration in times when there’s frost in the ground. The site lighting, one of the things you may have seen in the application is we’ve asked for a waiver on the height of the lighting, and I heard Chris talking a little earlier about the lighting and the heights of it, and that’s why we came to ask for that. What we have asked is that the lighting through the area of the parking lot’s going to be a cut off style lighting, high pressure sodium, and we’ve asked that the single pole lights could go to a 22 foot height, and the internal lights in the parking lot could go to a 25, and the reason we asked for that is we looked at different scenarios at different heights and spacing, and if we lower the lights down, then we start getting hot spots under the light, then we lower the wattage, and before you know it there’s a significant increase in the number and the number of light poles. So we felt that it would be worth entertaining, in this bigger parking area, going up to 25 feet, which would give us a more uniform distribution, and fewer light poles throughout the parking area. So that was one of the waivers that was asked for. The other item is we are required to have some buffering on the perimeters where we buffer single family and multi-family, which is these sides we’re required to provide a 10 foot landscaped buffer, which we’ve provided. This buffering will be a combination of new planting, as well as this is outside of the area we’re grading, and the site is substantially wooded. So any trees that exist within that buffer area, existing trees, will remain. There’s a second area, there was a 50 foot buffer requirement in the area where we border the cemetery, and this was the other area, a second waiver we proposed. Right now this area of the cemetery is not developed. This area of the cemetery is wooded and it’s probably planned for future expansion of the cemetery. Because of the size of this facility, we’re a little cramped for space, and what our thought was, in that buffer area, was that, you know, even though we provided, if we provided a 50 foot buffer there and left the existing trees, we would meet the requirement, but I think what we would end up with is most of these trees are high crowned, you know, existing woods, and if we had 50 feet, you would look right underneath them. So what we have proposed for the Planning Board to consider is that in that buffer area, we’d provide a buffer that varies from a minimum of 10 feet, similar to what we have in the other areas, and in areas where it could be wider, it’s out to about 25, I believe, but our proposal is that we would significantly increase the amount of landscaping in that area, especially using evergreens. We would keep the existing trees that occur along that line. So we would end up with a much denser buffer. I believe we have, you know, like 20 trees would be required, and we could consider the existing trees to meet that requirement, in the 50 foot buffer, and what we’re proposing, I believe, is like three times that number of trees, but in a narrower buffer. You can see, this is for an area about 400 feet that we’re talking about. The front portion of it you can see is there’s no parking or anything in that area. There’s a stormwater basin on that part, and the rear portion borders the service area and some of the parking lot, and then what we’ve proposed in addition to the landscaping in that area where it would be more active is we’d put a solid masonry wall about 120 foot long section of wall, along that area to provide a very positive buffer on that side entrance. We’re looking at a single monument sign. One of the questions that Staff asked for was a detail of that, and at this point we don’t have any design standards from the future tenant, but, you know, we’ve shown the sign showing where it would be located, where, you know, most of the access is going to be coming from Exit 18 down the new collector road. So the sign would meet all of the Town requirements, as far as size and setbacks, and lighting and so we’re not looking for anything unusual in that area, and with that, I think that’s pretty much an overview of the proposal. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LAPPER-We did get some engineering comments from Dan Ryan, which we just got yesterday, I guess, and we have no problem with any of the issues that he’s raised. Jim, do you want to just go over that briefly? MR. MILLER-Sure. Did you get a copy of Dan’s? MR. HUNSINGER-We did. MR. MILLER-He had 14 items, and, you know, as Jon said, we didn’t have an issue with any of them. I’ll go through them very quickly. The handicapped curb cuts, he’s asking me to coordinate between the detail and the site plan. I don’t see a problem with that. He wanted a detail added for the stone weirs that we show in the plan and identify in the stormwater report for the detention basins, and we’ll add that. The third item deals with the rock outlet protection measures. What he’s asked me to do is label each one of the culvert outfalls that we have, giving a description of the length and the width of it, based on the specifications for erosion and sediment control. So we’ll confirm that and make sure that that’s labeled. The site testing data and test hole locations, at this point those were in the stormwater report but not on the plans. So we will add that to the plan. The overflow pipe, the stormwater for infiltrator, the storm report, I didn’t mention that. What we did, the roof, it’s a flat roof on the building, and the roof drainage will go into an underground infiltrator bed. The roof drainage doesn’t require the pre-treatment. So we could go directly into an infiltration device, and that would fall within that lawn area along the front of the building, and the report talked about an overflow from that infiltrator bed into one of the stormwater basins, and we didn’t show that pipe on the plan, and it should be added. Item Six, protection measure for steeper slopes into the basins, he’s looking for us to show some kind of netting or erosion control fabric or something on those slopes, and we would add that. Inlet protection for drywells and catch basins. Typically he’s looking for like a filter fabric fencing around those inlets to protect those and we would add that to the erosion control plan. The stormwater report comments, a draft Notice Of Intent should be submitted. We’ll do that. I believe we have that done. It just hasn’t been submitted. There’s a mention of hay bale dams in the report. That was sort of a standard item that the hay bales aren’t being used on this project. So that would be deleted from the report. Asking for a descriptive paragraph in the report talking about the water quality treatment methods, we’ll add that, as I talked in the presentation, we’ve got like a two stage basin here, and the initial stage, which we didn’t use any infiltration, was primarily a settling basin. That would be our pre-treatment volume would be handled in that first stage of the pond. So we’ll identify that in the report, and then he’s asked for a section in the report, and this is a thing that’s required in the stormwater report and should have been in there, is the stormwater report requires us to do a maintenance guideline based on the type of stormwater devices that are being proposed. So we would add that. His comment on the lighting, he agreed with the lighting plan, and then the other general comments, he’s talking about the coordination between the construction of the connector road with our project. As Jon said, it’s our understanding that as soon as the EMS moves into their new facility, that this road will start, but we would coordinate with that project, even if we had to have a temporary access in to start the construction. The road design, as we reviewed the Barton and Loguidice road plans, and they did not have any stormwater or any storm drainage. All of their drainage appeared to just be a crowned road sheeting off to the side. So where their road would run past the front of our property, that road would essentially drain on to the front of our site and we’ve accommodated that into our stormwater basins. It’s our understanding, and we checked with Tom Jarrett, who’s working on the engineering for the sewer and water, or at least the sewer on this project, but it’s our understanding the water line will be installed coming from Luzerne Road south to Main Street. I’m not sure it’ll go all the way to Main Street, but it’ll at least be in the front of our project. So there’ll be water service on the new collector road that’ll serve this building and in speaking with Tom Jarrett, if you recall on the Pine Street townhouse project, Rich Schermerhorn was bringing the sewers down Luzerne Road to service that, and this project, the road project will bring the sewers down to extend to this property, and we talked to Tom today and what we show on your site plan is pretty close. They’re still engineering that, but it’s fairly close to what he’s saying there’s going to be. So the sewer and water will be available at that collector road. So we don’t have a problem with the comments. We’ll address these and get them back to Dan, but we didn’t see anything here that was of any concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And we can comment on the Staff comments or specifically or briefly. We submitted a Short Form because a Long Form wasn’t required because it’s not a Type I action. I think that Blanche just looked at it and said, gee, it’s a significant project, but it 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) didn’t require a Long Form, otherwise we wouldn’t have been deemed complete for submission. Ken Wirstead is here from Creighton-Manning, and he can address traffic if there are any questions, but in general, as I mentioned in the opening, the Main Street project was designed to accommodate the traffic, and we don’t exceed any threshold that requires any other traffic devices. The pedestrian interconnect, when Rich’s project was approved for the apartments, it was anticipated that the Park and Ride would be adjacent to his property, but the Park and Ride has changed in size and scope, partly because of the re-location of the EMS facility, which took a lot of the land. So the Park and Ride is not adjacent to Rich’s apartment complex property, and in fact there’s a detention basin in the middle. We’re not sure it makes sense to have a pedestrian interconnect to go around a detention basin to get to a Park and Ride facility. It might be better for people to walk along Luzerne Road, but in any case, I mean, that’s something we can talk about. All the parking spaces are needed immediately. Certainly it would be cheaper to not build them if it wasn’t needed immediately, but they are needed. Then on the site plan, Jim has to add a scale bar. Did you check the aisle width on the one? MR. MILLER-Yes. The 22 foot aisle width pertained to the very back aisle of the parking lot, and I think maybe I was, maybe I misunderstood. I thought the 22 foot width was acceptable. We were trying to maximize the size of those islands, figuring it was at the back area of the parking lot with parking only on the one side. If it’s required, we would have to take the two feet out of those islands, since, you know, we’re right at the 10 foot setback on the back, so we could correct that. There was one other thing on there that Jon skipped over, is in our meeting with the Town Staff, the building we had shown, on your site plan shows 59,466 square feet. While the design of the building was still going on, as we were doing this, and as you can see on the plan, we had actually outlined a possible expansion to the rear of the building, and what’s happened is the building design has evolved. The building would increase to 66,000 square feet, which adds 18 feet to the back of the building. So it actually falls into that area that’s a lawn area along the back there where we were anticipating the expansion of the building, and just expanded sooner than I thought, and I went through and I checked the calculations for the green space, and the Staff Notes say in there that the percentage green space, even with the expanded footprint, is still about 41%. MR. LAPPER-I think what I just heard you say was that the 22 foot wide drive aisle is all that’s required because you don’t have cars backing out on both sides. MR. MILLER-Well, I’m not sure. If we need 24, we would add it. MR. LAPPER-That’s why you designed it that way. You don’t have cars on both sides of the drive aisle. MR. FORD-Jim, green space is what percent of the lot? MR. MILLER-Forty-one. MR. LAPPER-The detention basins are part of the green space? MR. MILLER-Yes, and that includes the actually there’s a piece that’s across the new collector road. That’s part of the property also. That’s going to be used for storing water. That’s included in this. MR. LAPPER-It’s along the cemetery in the front, along the road, and the two detention basins, and the islands and then the 10 feet along the rest of the site. MR. FORD-What portion of that 41% would be on that far side of the road, the bottom side as you’re looking at there? MR. MILLER-I knew you were going to ask that, so I calculated it. If we discounted that, it would drop from 41% to 36.7%. So if we just looked at our parcel on that side of the road, it would be 36.7%. MR. LAPPER-So it would still comply with the 30% requirement. MR. MILLER-It would still comply. MR. FORD-My eyes are failing to believe you, but intellectually I know you’re probably right. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LAPPER-The Staff Notes talk about the possibility of a three story building which would, of course, reduce the footprint, but the problem with that is that the tenant specification, because of their business, are to have a two story building. That’s all that they’re looking for. So that was not a possibility as an alternative. Jim talked about the waiver issues, the cemetery waiver and what we’re proposing to mitigate that, and then there was a comment about the building design. Jim mentioned the lighting fixtures also, could have 20 foot fixtures, but there’d be a lot more of them. So we felt this was optimal, and the building design, the Staff looked at the BBL website, and looked at some other buildings. Can you turn to the colored rendering? This was a design that was reviewed and approved by the tenant for their corporate image. I guess that’s it at this point. We’re ready for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions and comments from the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-I have to ask the obvious question, what I consider to be obvious. Why so many parking spaces? JAY KOEPEKE MR. KOEPEKE-Right now there’s in excess of 380, 390 employees. By the time this is scheduled to open, it’ll exceed 400, with visitors. There is a requirement. MR. SEGULJIC-They really pack the people in there, in a sense. MR. KOEPEKE-It’s an efficient layout. Honestly, we don’t want to build any more parking spots than we have to, but there’s a necessity to, you know, accommodate the employees and a minimum amount of visitors. They’re not selling gadgets. So they don’t have 100 cars coming in and out every day, but there’s minimum requirements for visitors and deliveries. So it is, it’s something that was determined by the employee count. MRS. STEFFAN-Is this a three shift operation? MR. KOEPEKE-That is correct. Not, there’s varying numbers per shifts. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess if it’s three shifts, let’s say they have 450 employees working there, you have three shifts. MR. KOEPEKE-The main shift has the greater majority, which is, from my understanding, close to the 400. There’s a graveyard shift with a handful of people, but the main day shift has the higher quantity. MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’s the same situation we ran into with Angio Dynamics, is that you’ve got one shift coming in, and the second shift. MR. KOEPEKE-There’s overlap. It is. MR. SEGULJIC-You have this area marked in the back, potential future parking expansion? MR. MILLER-I’ve just shown that in there. If the building were expanded, we would be displacing some parking. So I was just showing where there may be some additional parking spaces. MR. SEGULJIC-So does that mean you’re going to take that now, since you’re going to 66 from 59? MR. MILLER-I’m sorry, pardon me? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there’s a spot in the northeast corner. MR. LAPPER-That’s to go beyond 66. MR. MILLER-That’s right. Yes, I mean, that’s just there for, you know, the applicant, you know, the tenant asked, well, you know, if we need to expand our building, would it be possible? We’ve explained to them that, it may be, but it would take additional approvals and things. So that’s not here before you. That was just on the plan. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. FORD-Right now that’s part of your green space calculation? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. That’s correct. MR. SIPP-Has anybody got any idea of the elevation of the Northway, the roadway? MR. MILLER-Well, I don’t know exactly what it is, Don, but at that point, if you have Luzerne Road right here. So the Northway passes over. So you’ve got 14 foot of clearance at the highway at Luzerne Road plus the height. So you’re probably 16, 18 feet, the Northway here above our site. MR. SIPP-So all of these 25 foot lighting poles will be seen from the Northway, and 22 foot. MR. MILLER-If they were 16 they’d be seen. They’re going to be seen. I mean, you know, when we get a light pole, whether it’s 16 or 20 feet, it’s going to be, essentially, at eye level from the Northway, but they’re all cut off lights, downcast lights, but we’ll have fewer of them. I mean, if we lower them down, you know, we can do it. We’re just going to have an awful lot of lights. Look at the Saturn Dealership. I mean, that’s a car dealership, but I mean for that little, look at all the lights you’ve got, and that’s what you get. As Chris was saying earlier, it’s a tradeoff, and our thinking was for the additional five feet we’re asking for, we’d have probably substantially fewer lights and it would be a better solution. MR. KOEPEKE-But there will be a buffer between the Northway. I mean, not all these trees are being cut down. So where the new road’s coming in, there is a buffer. MR. SIPP-That’s my next question. Is this Niagara Mohawk land? Is this tree? MR. MILLER-Partly. There’s a power line that runs through there. So obviously where the power line runs through, they keep it cleared, but I think to the sides of it there’s trees. MR. LAPPER-Susan has the map up that shows the power line and the trees, between the power line and the Northway. MR. SIPP-Yes. That’s only a small portion. To the south end it doesn’t show any woods. It shows wooded area up on the north end, across from the EMS building. It doesn’t show it on the south end, but these are, what is on this land is 30, 40 foot white pine, right, basically? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Well, if you go to the south side where you want to cut back the buffer, really, I’ll agree with you, those white pine are useless because you can see right through them. There’s nothing that low to the ground, but I also am afraid that in putting in evergreens, which are shaded by these white pines, and the soil which is terrible in that area, you’re not going to get a heck of a lot of growth out of those evergreens. MR. MILLER-Well, I think what’s going to happen, I mean, it’s hard to tell. I think what when we clear that and you plant along there, I think we’ll get enough light through there. MR. SIPP-You’ve got the upper story shaded, 10, 12 feet of sand underneath there, they’ll survive, but they’re not going to grow particularly, unless you go with white pine let them (lost word). MR. MILLER-Well, we could do white pine. I show Norway Spruce there, and the problem I’ve had with white pine is once they start getting big enough, they’re starting to provide some screening, they start to lose their bottom branches, and now you’re looking underneath them again. So that’s why I prefer to use Spruce in those situations. MR. SIPP-Now, in looking at this parking lot plan, where’s the snow go? MR. MILLER-Well, that was a discussion we had with Staff, and what we had talked about was that, you know, the snow would have to be plowed to the rear portions of the lot, like, you know, they do at any of the big lots, and if it became an issue where parking was being compromised, it would have to be removed, and we talked about, we’ll probably have a contract with some local person to do the plowing and a lot of people, 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) you know, who typically have a gravel yard or something where if they do have to truck the snow, they would take it to an area like that and dump it. So that would be how we’d have to do it. MR. SIPP-You wouldn’t use your stormwater areas for that? MR. MILLER-Well, we try not to do that, because the problem is if you fill it full of snow and it freezes hard, then you get a heavy rain situation, you know, you have no area for your stormwater. MR. SIPP-Fifteen inches or twenty inches of snow is a lot of snow to remove. MR. MILLER-It is. MR. KOEPEKE-We would be our own property managers, and we have removal plans. It’s a typical procedure to remove the snow, especially if we have 400 cars on there. There is going to be nowhere to stockpile it. So that’s just a standard management procedure we have. MR. SIPP-Now, Schermerhorn is going to bring the sewer line down to Pine? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MILLER-Yes, I believe he agreed to do that, bring it down to the townhouses to the east. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That map plan and report, the sewer line extension has already been prepared. Tom Jarrett did that, and Rich would be responsible for constructing it up to his property, and that’s, as soon as it gets approved by the Town, the construction will start. It’s in process. MR. FORD-Sidewalks are only planned between that one opening and the other parking lot. Is that correct? MR. MILLER-What we’ve shown is that it would go across the front section here from the bus stop into the building, and then it’s across the two sides where we have pedestrian entrance to the building. It extends back into the parking lot, there’s a collector for that back parking area. MR. FORD-What’s the separation of the curb cuts there, the one you just mentioned and the one into the Park and Ride or the parking area. MR. MILLER-Well, I don’t have a dimension on that, but I’d have to give you a dimension, but I’d say it’s probably 150 feet. MR. TRAVER-The lighting levels in the parking lot are twice the standard, and there are residential properties in the area, as you pointed out. Can you lower those down to? MR. MILLER-Well, when you say it’s twice the standard, are you talking about the minimum areas? MR. TRAVER-You can see on the Staff Notes, the parking lot levels are shown at 2.3 foot candles where 1.0 is the standard. That’s a substantial difference, a substantial variation from the norm. MR. MILLER-Okay. That’s the minimum level. I mean, our Uniformity Ratios were well within, but I think what you need to do is look at the light distribution. Sometimes some of these averages and things are, you know, they get a little bit skewed, and if you look at our light levels, the very, the hot spots, right underneath the light, you’ll see, you know, there’s like six to seven, which is pretty good. If we lowered it down, they would go up to like 12, but our big concern is looking into some of these areas in between, making sure there’s adequate lighting, and you can see our foot candle levels are like 1.2, 1.3, 1.5. So that average is taking into account, you know, the whole thing, and I think what would happen if we dropped that average down, we’re going to be below a foot candle out in some areas in the parking lot, and quite honestly that’s not a safe condition. I mean, one foot candle should be an absolute minimum for any spot on a parking lot like this. So, you know, I don’t think that 2.3 is really that high. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. TRAVER-Even the lowest number that you mentioned, though, is still above standard. MR. MILLER-But one of the things I never could understand with your Code, it talks about one foot candle, but it doesn’t say is that a maximum or a minimum, and in my opinion one foot candle is like a full moon. It’s not much light, and it really should be a minimum, you know, when you’re talking about safety of people, you know, in a parking lot like this, you know, going below one foot candle, in my opinion, is just unsafe. So I think to have the 2.3, whatever it was, as an average, is probably a pretty low level for a parking lot of this type. MR. LAPPER-There’s a comment from Dan, also, on the lighting. MR. MILLER-Dan reviewed it and commented that the Uniformity Ratio is only 3.3 to 1, you know, less than the 4 to 1. MR. HUNSINGER-So you did a good job on Uniformity. MR. TRAVER-Right, Uniformity’s a different issue than the level. MR. SEGULJIC-I agree you should drop it down. As a matter of fact, you’re having spillage. MR. MILLER-Drop what, the height? MR. SEGULJIC-No, the lighting, overall lighting, because the last thing I would like to see, as you’re driving up the Northway, it looks like an airport, one very low subtle lighting. MR. MILLER-You’re talking about foot candle levels or height? MR. SEGULJIC-Foot candle levels. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I think you can do better. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, how about the height? How do people feel about that? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like the lights lower, also. How many poles do you have now, are you proposing? MR. MILLER-I’m not sure off the top of my head. MR. SIPP-It doesn’t say. MR. MILLER-I think it lists the quantities. One of the comments was we showed eight lights and there was only two cuts. The kind of lights are the same. The only difference is we’ve used, to try to get better light distribution across the parking lot, we’ve used different lenses. In some areas, you know, we’re fairly close. We’ll use what they call a road spread, where it’s more of a wide elliptical area. In some areas, like along the back here, we’ll have light that’s a forward throw to try to get as much light into the parking areas. One of the things you’ll see, if you look in the legend here, is wherever we have lights on the perimeter, they would all have shields. So if you were to the back side of those, there’s actually a shield down that helps cut the light off, and if you were on that side of the light, looking up at a cutoff light, you wouldn’t see the light source. MR. FORD-Jim, could you please, while you’re there, point to approximately where off the map, because it’s not on there obviously, but where would the northbound exit for I- 87 be, relative to that? MR. LAPPER-It’s south of what you see over there. MRS. BARDEN-I can move it. MR. MILLER-Yes, this is our site right here. See, here’s the cemetery where I was saying that part’s not developed. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. FORD-Thanks for pointing it out, because I was just concerned about the potential for either exiting or entering 87 and the impact of a high volume of light, but it’s a ways a way. MR. LAPPER-We’re a ways. MR. FORD-Thanks, Susan. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, bicycle racks. The Code says one for fifty. MR. MILLER-One bicycle rack for every fifty parking spaces, is that what it is? That seems low. MR. SEGULJIC-Overall, it’s got a lot of parking. You’re saying you need it, right? That’s going to be a cozy building. MR. MILLER-Computer stations. MR. SEGULJIC-A lot of heat generated in that building. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s nothing else from the Board for right now, I guess I would like to open the public hearing. Imagine there’s people here that have comments or questions on this project. I would just ask anyone that wants to address the Board to state your name for the record. We do record our meetings, so if you could speak into the microphone and address your comments or questions to the Board, I would appreciate it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB HOMKEY MR. HOMKEY-I’m Bob Homkey. I live on Grant Avenue in Glens Falls. I’m a member of the Glens Falls Water and Sewer Board, and my compatriot here is also a member of the Water and Sewer Board and the whole deal. We both received a notice of public hearing. It’s interesting to note that it says meeting date, Tuesday April 24, 2006. Boy, I’m a year late. It says please note that this notice is given in order that you, as owner of property in the immediate vicinity that may be affected may appear at said hearing and be heard with respect thereto. We have no idea why we were asked to this meeting. This has nothing to do with the Glens Falls City Water and Sewer Board. If you have a problem with the City of Glens Falls, you should contact either Mayor Leroy Akins or you should contact our City Attorney. I don’t see where I can be of any assistance or we can be of any assistance unless you have some questions that you want to ask us. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don’t have any questions of you. I think that the reason the notices are sent out is in case you have questions about the project, and what it does is these notices are mailed to the taxpayers, the address that’s on record in the Assessment Office. MR. SIPP-Do you know what was once called Mount Trashmore? MR. HOMKEY-Yes, I know where this property is that you’re talking about, but I don’t own anything there. He doesn’t own anything there. So we just figured, well, maybe we better go to the meeting and find out, maybe we know something, but it’s interesting to see how you run your meetings. Your meetings run longer than ours do, and they last about four hours. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HOMKEY-Now is there anything that we can help you with? MR. SEGULJIC-Shorten our meetings. MR. HOMKEY-Well, it’s interesting that you say that. I would make a suggestion. I would make a suggestion that you have two meetings. One for the little guy and one for the people that are up here to build a Mobil gas station or something like that, instead of having these poor people sit here while we listen to who’s going to build another gas station. Thank you very much for having us. I’m sorry we couldn’t help you. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks for coming. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No other takers? I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. I did save sort of my comments for later, and I guess the one comment that I really wanted to mention is the building design, and, you know, you did say that the building design was approved by the tenant. I guess my feeling is this building may be the most visible building in the Town of Queensbury when it’s constructed because you will clearly see it from the Northway. It will be very visible, and my only thought is, I think we can do better. I don’t have any specific suggestions, other than it just, to me it’s just very bland. You’re going to see the top of the roof. I don’t know if there’ll be mechanicals on the top. You said it’s going to be a flat roof. You’re going to be looking down on a big expanse of flat roof and a bland façade. MR. SEGULJIC-And then a big parking lot around that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then a big parking lot around it. I don’t have any suggestions. I’m just posing the question for consideration. MR. SIPP-I would go along with that, because we’ve got one building as more prominent, I think, The Great Escape, and that water park, which is as ugly a building as you’re going to find. Let’s make this one a little better looking than that. MR. LAPPER-I guess in general, it’s a brick building, brick in front and. MR. SIPP-Well, you get some white marble or limestone on the corners. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess maybe another thought on building design is I’m also trying to visualize how this will look next to the new EMS building, you know. I think the building designs are going to clash. Because that’s a fairly large building as well. MRS. STEFFAN-And it has peaked roofs, so the two designs are incompatible right next to one another. So I have similar feelings. MR. SIPP-Are these individual, these windows, are these individual offices or just total work areas or open space? MR. KOEPEKE-A combination. MR. SIPP-Could we vary some of that? It gets to, get the nice line of windows all the same height and all the same width, how about a little blank spot with a, I don’t know. MR. KOEPEKE-There’s always a lot of opportunities with the architecture of this facility or anything. The design and the function, the overall site, I mean, it’s budget driven. Our potential client has a number that we, for the record, we built and are partners in the water park, thanks for the compliment, but we try to do as much as we can within the given budget that we have. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, see what you can do. So the issues appear to be the building and the lighting. The thing I kind of liked in the variance, you know, they gave them a variance for all the parking, and then they asked us to see if we could improve the landscaping, and the green space. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s not much we can do. There’s not much room. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s not much room, yes. I mean, there are a number of waiver requests asked for, mostly the buffers being the main one. I noticed that the Floor Area Worksheet wasn’t completed. MR. LAPPER-This is an MR-5 zone, it’s not required. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not required? Okay. What are we missing, other than what we’ve already mentioned? 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Certainly if you’re going to utilize some of the landscaping, as I went through and highlighted the plan, you’re identifying that you’re going to keep a lot of existing trees. Somewhere in your plan you would have to indicate, or you’d have to cordon off those sections where you’re going to keep the existing landscaping, because in our experience, it never comes to pass, between the heavy equipment interfering with the root systems, those trees are either dead, nicked up, or they end up dying. So even though you’re identifying it in the plan, there need to be areas roped off so that those trees are going to be protected. MR. MILLER-It’s kind of hard to save them in a job like this, because they have to fall within an island where you (lost words) that site’s kind of rolly polly. MRS. STEFFAN-Sure, obviously it’s the ones around the edges. MR. MILLER-There’s a couple of places in the interior where, you know, (lost words), a lot times we don’t have individual tree survey on a site with this many trees, and a lot of times you identify an area and you save them, and when you get down to that, it’s nothing of any value. So you never know until we get to that point, but we can identify those as no grade areas and we could put some kind of (lost words). MRS. STEFFAN-As you identified in your presentation, certainly on the property line between the cemetery and yourself, you’ve got some trees that are taller that may stay, but you’re going to have to beef up that landscaping. I think all of us, when we did the drive around, we were disappointed, because we hadn’t been over to Pine Street since that last project was approved, but, you know, what we envision when we do site plan review is very different than the reality. I mean, it looked like a very substantial tree buffer around that project, and it’s very insignificant. It doesn’t provide much of a buffer at all, what was left. So even though, on the plans it always looks like it’s adequate, in reality it’s usually not. MR. MILLER-Well, I think that was our thought on the buffer along the cemetery, is that if we left 50 feet there, it’s not going to be very significant. What’s probably going to make more sense is to have a denser buffer that would have more impact than the existing trees. MRS. STEFFAN-I am a little concerned about the tall light fixtures toward the new residential development that’s going to be there, and I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but certainly the light fixtures toward the back of that property on those new townhouse units that are being assembled, I don’t think we want 25 foot light fixtures there. Whether they’re downcast or not, they’ll be going right in the windows of the apartment building next door. MR. MILLER-One of the things we talked about with Jay a little bit, at night it’s not a full shift. It’s a much lower shift. So one of the things we could do was some of the lights, some of the perimeter lights and things, could probably be turned off after the majority of the employees have left. There has to be some areas lit for the people that work there at night. I think that would solve a lot of the concerns I think, especially around the perimeter. Because what happens, you know, in a site like this, you always look at what’s the best way to light that, you know, either have the lights inside shining out towards the perimeter, which is hard to control. I think that’s a worse condition than if you have the light near the property line shining back in. By having those shields and things, we could control that, and I think those areas in the rear portion of the lot are probably going to be the ones aren’t going to be used at night. They’re going to park much closer to the building. So we could probably have those off, if we could find out what time would be appropriate. I don’t know what their schedule is. MR. FORD-Height and intensity are critical issues in this. You’ve already heard the previous case, and we weren’t anywhere near the 25 foot level. It’s going to come under a great deal of scrutiny, and you know that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we have a list, it sounds like? MRS. STEFFAN-Vision Engineering signoff, address the Staff comments, provide building design options. MR. HUNSINGER-Lighting plan, bike racks, engineering comments, you had that, Staff comments. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve got those. That’s it? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I think so. MR. LAPPER-We were not planning on submitting a Long Form, unless you said otherwise. Staff had mentioned it. MR. HUNSINGER-We really haven’t talked about traffic. I mean, you addressed it briefly in your opening comments, but we haven’t really asked any questions on traffic. MRS. STEFFAN-We just don’t know, with the new connector road and what do you use? MR. LAPPER-The funny thing is that’s all a Town project, the connector road. The County project is Main Street. So it’s not stuff that we’re being asked to contribute to. Because that’s happening separate and apart from this, and it was done to handle the capacity. Ken Wirstead is here if you’d like to ask him any questions. MR. SEGULJIC-He’s here. We might as well bring him in. KEN WIRSTEAD MR. WIRSTEAD-I’ll just over briefly what we looked at. Ken Wirstead, Creighton- Manning Engineering. We had looked at, I guess when we began this project in some form back in 1999 we prepared the Exit 18 Corridor Study, we had developed a number of (lost words) scenarios. That information was taken and used to develop the current proposal of a three lane section on Main Street. We used the traffic volume for the PM peak hour, which was determined to be the worst case scenario. (Lost words) We had looked at the plan for the relocation of Big Boom Road and the connector road coming through the ambulance squad and connecting up to Luzerne Road. We had used that information, projected out the traffic volumes from this project and we’ve estimated that this office building itself would generate, in the peak hours, anywhere from 140 to 150 vehicles at peak hours. We also looked at the shift change information and that information seemed to indicate that the employees, based on the way they were staged, would actually generate on the order of about 100 vehicles in peak hour. So we had used the larger estimate to include this because it was more conservative and it offered essentially a kind of worst case scenario. We had used that and looked at the information, the traffic volumes on Main Street and into the connector road and also Luzerne Road and the north end of the connector road. There is a traffic signal proposed at the southern end, and there wasn’t a proposal for a traffic signal at this location. (Lost words) We also looked at the distribution of the trips and because of the way Luzerne Road extends to the east and intersects with Main Street. The traffic from this particular site that would head north would mostly turn right to head east and towards the City, and the traffic heading to the south, to Main Street, would then make a right at the Main Street and also head over to Exit 18. We distributed those traffic volume and projected out what the levels of service were going to be. The levels of service were going to range between B & C during the peak hours. The traffic impact on Main Street, we assumed that the traffic volumes, the traffic signals on these would be prioritized for Main Street, and that the side road would actually operate at approximate Level of Service B because obviously the main line is the priority, and we can improve those levels of service so that the side road would operate better, but we didn’t see the need to do that (lost words). We’ve prepared a draft report. We’re currently reviewing that internally now. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’ll be submitted. Okay. MR. SIPP-If there’s going to be a traffic signal on either end of the connector road, there is definitely one on Main Street, and there would probably be one on Luzerne. Are these going to be operated by the emergency squad if they need to? Can they change the signal in order to get out quickly? MR. LAPPER-Actually one of them is going to be the County jurisdiction on Main Street. That’s the County project, and Luzerne would be a Town signal. So the emergency squad has to coordinate (lost words – problems with microphone). MR. SIPP-It seems kind of foolish for the emergency squad to sit there while they go through a cycle of a red light. Somebody ought to make that a priority, just like they should have it on Quaker Road and they should have it a lot of places that it doesn’t seem to happen. Are they going to change the northbound entrance to the Northway? Is that going to be expanded or moved north? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. WIRSTEAD-I don’t know that it’s any change of any significance. I know Big Boom Road is looking at moving over further east, but essentially staying in the same location. MR. LAPPER-There was talk that the north and south were both going to be located along Big Boom Road a few years ago. As far as I know, that’s not part of the project. (Lost words – problems with microphone). MR. SIPP-Are they ever going to start this project? MR. LAPPER-I hope so. MR. SIPP-I wouldn’t bet on it. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as shift changes goes, is it going to be the type of operation everyone has to arrive at eight or is it going to be flex hours, any thoughts on that? MR. KOEPEKE-I don’t think it’s that stringent. I think there’s flexibility in the shifts. We could provide that. MR. SEGULJIC-If you could check on that, because if it’s flexible, I’d feel much more comfortable. MR. KOEPEKE-We’re pretty certain there is flexibility. We’ll check on that. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2007 BBL CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: nd Tabled until the second meeting in May, May 22, with an application deadline for th materials of Friday, May 4. The applicant needs to address Vision Engineering comments in their April 23, 2007 letter, to address Staff comments, to provide a traffic study, to provide building design options, to revise the lighting plan, and add bike racks to the plan. th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: MR. MILLER-Could I just ask for a clarification on the lighting? You want the light poles dropped below the 20 foot requirement? MR. SEGULJIC-We’d like that, yes. MR. MILLER-And then you want the average lowered, the 2.3 was too high, you want to get it below two? MR. FORD-It’s going to be a whole lot better. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to caution the applicant. We had a problem for the current month, with tabling the applications from March to April. By giving you a later submission deadline date, if you don’t submit everything that’s required, you may get tabled until June. MR. LAPPER-Procedural question. Are you going to get through the entire agenda tonight? I’m hoping you will, but. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we will, yes. Thank you. SPECIAL USE PERMIT 17-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KAREN & PETER BOGERT OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 133 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH A CLASS A MARINA FOR TWO NON OCCUPANT BOAT SLIPS. CLASS A MARINAS REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-5 SECTION 179-10-10 KAREN BOGERT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. Quickly. The applicant requests a temporary Special Use Permit for a Class A Marina to utilize their existing dock slips to provide for the berthing of two non-occupant boats. The amount of time that a permit would be valid should be included as a condition of any approval. This is a SEQRA Unlisted action. A Short Form has been submitted and a public hearing was advertised for this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. Thanks for your patience. MRS. BOGERT-Good evening. Not a problem. I’m Karen Bogert from 133 Seeley Road, and I don’t want to build anything. So that might be a relief to you guys at this point in time tonight. If I can just take a few minutes to read through the cover letter, I think that covers what we’re asking for. You guys probably read that already, but I’d like to get it into the meeting notes tonight. This application is being submitted to obtain a temporary Special Use Permit to pursue a Class A Marina permit from the Lake George Park Commission. There are no proposed changes to the existing configuration or usage of the property. We respectfully request a waiver from submitting landscaping, storm water management, grading, and lighting plans. And I see you guys are very big on lighting plans. A Class A Marina permit is being sought to accommodate two non- occupant boats at our boat dock. One being a friend, the other is our neighbor across the street. This temporary Special Use Permit from the Town of Queensbury and Class A Marina permit from the Lake George Park Commission is being sought to accommodate these specific users. We would like that to be taken into consideration and we do not have any problem with that being a stipulation of granting the temporary Special Use Permit. The Class A Marina Permit is only necessary to be in compliance with the Lake George Park Commission when more than one non-occupant boat is berthed at a dock. I should have put in there a residential dock. Their regulations specify that boats berthed on residential property must be registered to either the property owner or the occupant of the house. This alienates family and close friends and makes it necessary to obtain commercial marina permits. We have received acknowledgment from the Lake George Park Commission concerning our Class B Marina registration. A copy is attached. The Lake George Park Commission has notified the neighbors on either side of our property of our intentions and both owners have no issue with us seeking a Class A Marina permit to utilize our dock slips for boats. Our immediate neighbors are: Yvonne Konowka & Martin Dion – PO Box 764 Averill Park, NY 12018 and Florence D’Avignon – 5826 Newman Road, Albany, NY 12203 I’ve also listed our immediate neighbors, but I see that other neighbors within a certain amount of footage from our property also got notified. So I’ve gotten a lot of calls over the weekend to discuss what we were doing and clarify that. Although not needed by the neighbor, our property has ample area to provide both users with parking on the property. The neighbor is also not in need of rest facilities as they are within easy walking distance to their house. An aerial view of our properties is attached. The friend will be given a key to use the restroom in our home. Our friend, who is actually over on West Mountain, will be given a key to the house so that they can use the bathroom if necessary, and actually anybody coming up to our dock in an emergency, I would let them in to use the bathroom, you know, if they were in a panic. I’m here to answer any questions or concerns that you guys may have, and I don’t know, if you think of anything that I can clarify for you, I’d like to. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you clarify temporary? MRS. BOGERT-When I was discussing the application with Craig Brown, I had said that it could be contingent on just these two specific users, and he said there was nothing in place to really control that, which, you know, I can understand. Nobody’s going to come around to see if, you know, if it is in fact the two people that I’m indicating. So, it was suggested, I had seen that it was possible to make it a temporary permit. So you could make it contingent on a set amount of time that we would have to come back in and appear again if it’s approved tonight. So in other words, you could set a limit on it saying we’re giving you a Special Permit to do this, but, you know, put a time limit on it. That way you’re not giving us carte blanch to run wild with a Class A Marina permit. We have no intentions of any quick launches, gasoline, you know, nothing that comes with the commercial dockage, really. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The other thing is, in your letter, and just your presentation now, you’ve used Class A and Class B marinas interchangeably. MRS. BOGERT-Well, the difference between the two has also been pointed out to you guys in the Staff Notes that were provided. MR. SEGULJIC-My understanding is technically you have to go for a Class A Marina, if I’m correct. MRS. BOGERT-Yes, but in the interim, the Lake George Park Commission has already granted us a Class B, and our dockage has been measured, and we’re paying commercial dockage this season, and that’s been taken care of. So as far as they’re concerned, we’re commercial dockage now, because we have been granted the Class B, and what that accommodates you for, though, for residential dockage, you’re allowed one non-owner occupant boat at your dock. Anything over one, starting with two boats, the only thing that you can do to be in compliance with the Lake George Park Commission is apply for a Class A Marina. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess a question for Staff. Do they need Lake George Park Commission approval and Queensbury approval? MRS. BARDEN-They do. MRS. BOGERT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So their Class B Marina permit is. MRS. BARDEN-Is okay for now, but they will have to go and modify. MR. SEGULJIC-But we haven’t given them, Queensbury hasn’t granted a Class B Marina permit. MRS. BOGERT-We don’t need permission from you guys for that. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. Class B does not need a Special Use Permit, Class A does. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So actually you’re asking for a Class A? MRS. BOGERT-Yes, I should have been clearer pointing that out. MR. SEGULJIC-So does that mean, then, that they have to go back to the Lake George Park Commission? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, for a Class A. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you all set, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll let someone else go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? MR. FORD-That was good clarification. That helped. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have a problem with this. I just think we have to come up with some kind of an expiration date or something. MR. TRAVER-That and perhaps the specific owners of the vessels that are allowed to use the dock space. MRS. BOGERT-That can be provided. MR. TRAVER-Because even if we have a time permit, and then you have another customer, if you will, that perhaps you don’t want to give a key to your house to, which is quite understandable, we have another issue. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MRS. BOGERT-And that’s also something that gets registered with the Lake George Park Commission. When you put in a request to register your boat for the season, you do have to tell them where you’re going to keep it. MR. TRAVER-Gee, I don’t remember having to tell them where I keep mine. MRS. BOGERT-Well, it’s on there. MR. TRAVER-Is it? Okay. I’ll take your word for it. MRS. BOGERT-It’s on there. They ask you where do you moor your boat. MR. SIPP-This will not be used for a daily boat launch site? MRS. BOGERT-No, no. There’s no accommodation there at all for launch. As a matter of fact, both of the people that are involved here are folks that would only use it sparingly on weekends. MR. SIPP-Are they here tonight? MRS. BOGERT-No, they’re not. MR. FORD-Approximate size of the boats? MRS. BOGERT-One is 17 foot, and I think the other one, if my memory’s correct, I think it’s about 21 foot. The 17 foot is a bough rider, and the other one has a small closed cutty cabin. MR. SEGULJIC-It looks like you’re going to have plenty of parking on your site. MRS. BOGERT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But that leaves a question. It looks like your septic system’s under your driveway. MRS. BOGERT-It is partially. Not the entire driveway, the bottom piece of it, where there’s gravel between the garage and the house. MR. SEGULJIC-You, if I’m correct, under the Code, you can’t have a septic system under your driveway. MRS. BOGERT-I didn’t put it there. It was there when we purchased the home. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing is, if you have 50 feet of lakefront, you can only have one “I” dock, but you have a boathouse, which you wouldn’t be allowed to do that, but that’s an existing condition also. I would say then, with regards to the Class A Marina, we’d just have to strike all these other, because they can sell and lease boats from there. They can operate a boat launch. We just take all that out, because all they want to do is dock two boats. MRS. BOGERT-I think in the description that is in your notes, your Staff Notes, one through five is not applicable in this case. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we’ll just strike those out. We’ll put a timeline on it, one year. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have a public hearing scheduled. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that had comments or questions of the Board on this application? MRS. BARDEN-I have a couple of written correspondence. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Do you want to do the written comments first? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED st MRS. BARDEN-This is dated April 21, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, regarding Special Use Permit No. 17-2007. “As an owner of property in the vicinity of applicants, Karen and Peter Bogert, we would certainly have no objection to their request of having two non-occupant boats parked at their docks. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our approval on this action. Respectfully, Robert & Geraldine Middleton 2746 Hamburg St. Schenectady, NY 12303” MR. FORD-They’re not one of the ones who’ll be docking their boat there, will they? MRS. BOGERT-No. They’re a few houses down from us. They have their own lakefront. th MRS. BARDEN-Here’s another letter faxed April 20, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, reference Peter and Karen Bogert, 133 Seeley Road. “We would like the following noted at the zoning meeting scheduled to hear the proposal by the Bogert’s to utilize their dock for two non occupant boats. We live close to this property to the north and find no reason why this Special Use Permit should not be granted. The Bogert’s are responsible neighbors and I have no objection to the use of dock slips for boats. This will in no way change or harm the area. Sincerely, D. Jos. G. Guerra th Seelye Road, Cleverdale” Another fax dated April 20, Planning Board, Town of Queensbury reference application. “I am writing on behalf of my neighbors, Peter and Karen Bogert. The Bogerts live adjacent to us and their waterfront is just one residence to our south on Warner Bay. Please note that we do not oppose the use of their dock for two non occupant boats and would ask that you approve their request for a Special Use Permit so that they may obtain the necessary Class A Marina classification from the Lake George Park Commission. Sincerely, “Rose M. Guerra 127 Seelye Road, Cleverdale” That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone here this evening that wanted to comment or ask questions on this application? Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. I think it should be pointed out that the requirement for a Class A Marina Permit exists in our Ordinance as well. It’s not just because of the Lake George Park Commission. We require it also. We define it in our definitions, and it is a requirement. With regard to, my biggest concern with this whole operation is that we adequately address wastewater. What happens here, we have a residential dwelling whose wastewater system is designed for that dwelling, and now we’re going to load on top of it two additional families, if you will, that are going to use that wastewater system, and I don’t know if it’s sized properly for that. The Lake George Park Commission just requires that you have toilet facilities open at all times. Open at all times. Now if you’re going to give a key, you’ve got to give a key to everyone that’s going to be able to use it. They shouldn’t have to go searching for a way to use the toilet. It should be access free. The other thing that I think we should address is the fact that this is listed as an Unlisted action. This project is taking place in a Critical Environmental Area, and I think the Lake George Park Commission is on record with this Town as requiring it to be, to have a full SEQRA review, in a Critical Environmental Area. They have done that on other projects of a similar nature. In addition, we have regulations in our Code, 179-6-060, entitled Shoreline and Wetland Regulations. This is essentially a zoning district, even though we don’t call it that, but it’s a Shoreland Overlay zone is what it is, and that section of the Code, Paragraph D, speaks to miscellaneous provisions, and one under that says sewage facilities shall comply with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal. Again, I think that we should address this issue of the wastewater capacity and disposal, and as we deal with Class A Marinas, they are commercial undertakings, and therefore the standards for commercial wastewater apply, and we’re overlooking that in all we do, in issuing these Special Use Permits. It’s commercial that applies, and there’s nothing saying that a DEC permit for commercial wastewater discharge should not be required, even though the discharge is less than 1,000 gallons a day. The 1,000 gallons a day applies to residential use, not commercial. You might need a SPDES permit for four gallons a day of discharge of something, but that we’re overlooking. So I think that should be addressed, and in this Shoreland Overlay zone, we should treat this in a Critical Environmental Area as a Type I action. The other aspect of all of this is that we’ve got to begin to address the fact that this is a commercial operation. Class A Marina deals with the collection of rents, and as it says in Staff Notes, or I should say in 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) Sub Part 645-2 F-1, The sale of marine products or services is what brings this into a Class A Marina. Services are sales taxable. The services they offer are parking, toilets, trash, and they have to provide proven access for pump out. We haven’t talked about that yet, but to the extent that these services are not separately stated, then the whole dock fee is sales taxable, and commercial entities are required to get a sales tax license for the collection and the payment of the sales tax. This is another thing that’s being overlooked in our community. We don’t have a business license arrangement. Other communities around the lake have a business license requirement, requires you, when you get this kind of a commercial permit, to register with the sales tax authorities, get a sales tax license. This is also being overlooked. This is a commercial activity going on in a residential zone, and no Use Variance has been granted. None has been applied for, none has been granted. They haven’t been told they need one. These aren’t the only people. Every one of these Class B Marinas is commercial operation. The subject of pump out, I would hope that these people don’t discharge their port-a-potties into a septic system, but that’s the easiest thing to do. Just take the port-a-pottie and dump it down the toilet. The chemicals that are used in that are not compatible with a septic system and it should not be allowed. Frequently, these small marina operations will rely on someone like Fischer’s Marina, it’s very close in the area, for the aspect of proven access, but we do know that the Fischer’s Marina may not be a marina much longer. So where are all these people going to take their waste, okay. This has to be addressed. So those are my comments. I would, this use of a temporary Special Use Permit, to me, is going to burden this Town and this Board with review upon review upon review upon review, and who’s going to police this? Number One, for re-look at the permit. Number Two to see that there’s compliance. I don’t know how, what you’re going to do about that. We can’t enforce what we have on the books, let alone adding to it with this sort of thing. I, frankly, don’t know of any other temporary Special Use Permits having been issued. So, specifically wastewater and Type I SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. There were a couple of issues that Mr. Salvador raised, mostly related to wastewater. Did you have any comments on that? I mean, do the boats that, are going to be using your docks, do they have toilets in them? MRS. BOGERT-No, neither one does, and ours does, but we don’t use it. It’s in the same pristine condition as it was 10 years ago when we purchased our 23 foot boat from Pilot Knob Marina. I don’t know how I can possibly convey that usage of the toilet on the property would be minimal. As I said, this is specifically to accommodate a friend and a neighbor. The neighbors across the street, 500 feet from our house where a toilet is, so I don’t know how I’d be able to prove that it’s not going to be an issue. These other things that have been brought up as far as, you know, Code regulations, shoreland, wetland, you guys would have to direct us. Because we’re just following what we understood compliance should be, as directed, first by the Lake George Park Commission, and then through the help of Craig Brown in his Department. If the Planning Board, you know, has more concerns over these things that have been brought up, I guess you’re going to have to let me know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I have a question. The issue of the vessels and the wastewater impact and so on, would you have any objection if the permit were to specify the particular vessels that you name are the only ones allowed to use the dock? MRS. BOGERT-Not at all. That would be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the will of the Board? It’s been a while since we’ve reviewed one of these. MRS. BOGERT-And I thought I was bringing you something different to break up your evening after all the construction. MR. SIPP-Are you charging these people for use of these docks? MRS. BOGERT-There will be charges this summer, yes. MR. SIPP-Are you selling anything else? MRS. BOGERT-No. As I said, the other things that are associated with a true marina, there’s no intention of, you know, no interest to go in that area at all. We’re just seeking compliance at this point. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Where do you launch your boat? MRS. BOGERT-Our boat gets put in by Pilot Knob Marina. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It doesn’t get put in at your site? You take it to a marina? MRS. BOGERT-No, we don’t have that facility by us. Our friend’s boat gets put in by Smith’s Marina on the other side of the lake, and I believe Joe Koenig, he puts his boat in just a few places away from it at Castaway, because we’re only about five properties away from Castaway Marina on 9L, so although it’s residential area, we are within viewing distance of a marina that has quick launches and all that type stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we noticed that when we went out for site visits. MR. TRAVER-I must say it surprised me, driving around on our site visits, to walk down to the lake at your property and all of a sudden I realize, there’s Castaways, just all the driving around, I guess I lost my location, and I’m used to seeing it from the water, not from the shore. That was interesting to look out and see, there’s Castaways down there. Interesting. MRS. BOGERT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what I would suggest is we give them one year. They’re asking for a Class A. So we have to strip out, I guess, one through five of that definition, which deals with the sales and the launching, and we say no port-a-potties, dispose of in the septic system. You’d have to file the letter for the pump out agreement. MR. FORD-We have to specify the boats. MR. SEGULJIC-And we specify the boats. MR. TRAVER-Actually, rather than 12 months, would we want to make it like Columbus Day or something, so that when the season ends they come back in the Spring and they apply for another next year if they wish? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to make that in the form of a motion. Actually, first, I should close the public hearing, which I will. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry, SEQRA, Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form, okay. Thank you. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 17-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KAREN & PETER BOGERT, 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. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) 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. th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Tom’s writing. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m struggling with this Class A Marina. How can I, should I just say the only activities allowed under this Class A permit is storage of boats? MRS. BOGERT-Or berthing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 17-2007 KAREN & PETER BOGERT, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: With the following conditions: 1.Class A permit will only allow the berthing of two vessels. 2.Class A permit will expire November 1, 2007. 3.No discharge of port-a-potties to on site septic system will be allowed. 4.The applicant must provide a letter for proven access for pump outs for the vessels. 5.We will grant waivers for lighting, landscaping, grading and stormwater management. 6.Applicant will provide registration numbers for the boats. th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: MR. FORD-We’ll want to specify the specific boats. How are we going to do that? Do you have the numbers? MRS. BOGERT-I’ll get them. I’ll have to get the registration numbers on both boats, owners and registration. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MRS. BOGERT-Very good. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2007 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD AND FAMILY CENTER AGENT(S) B P S R; V D S; MILLER ASSOC. OWNER(S) UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 160 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.98 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.10 AC., 2.87 AC. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 42-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3.98 TAX MAP NO. 295.18-1-73 SECTION A-183 JONTHAN LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This is a request for a review for both Preliminary and Final subdivision stages for a two lot subdivision of a total four acre parcel into lots of 1.1 and 2.87 acres. The property is located at 160 Aviation Road. This subdivision is to accommodate a future independent residential alternative facility. SEQRA Unlisted action. A Long Form is submitted with this application and a public hearing was advertised for tonight’s meeting. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Jim Miller, and our client, on behalf of Prospect School, Larry Gouge and Pat Bennett are here to answer any questions. The Executive Director and the Treasurer. We are only here seeking approval of a two lot subdivision tonight. We will be back for site plan review for the proposed IRA, Independent Residential Alternative, but we only made it on the agenda for the two lot subdivision. What we’ve proposed for the subdivision is a conforming two lot subdivision in a one acre residential zone with a shared driveway to minimize curb cuts on Aviation Road. I think that most of you probably weren’t here at the time that we sought and received approval for an IRA on Dixon Road, which is constructed, designed, owned and operated by Prospect School, across from Dixon Heights. So when we get to talking about that, and I know that a number of neighbors are here, but that, again, is really beyond the scope of the subdivision. The subdivision is a two lot subdivision, but when we come back to talk about the site plan, what is designed this time is nearly identical to what was designed last time, with the exception that this site is larger and much more wooded, so that this facility will be more secluded, but that’s not really an issue, because it’s a fairly quiet facility anyway. What it’s designed for is to house eight developmentally disadvantaged people, young adults, with some Staff to take care of them. Exactly what has been done at the Dixon Road site. It’s the policy of the State that these are important facilities to have in your community, and that they’re considered a residential facility, but again, we’ll go through the two lot subdivision discuss that and we’ll be back to talk about the IRA next time. Would you like to walk them through the subdivision? MR. MILLER-Sure. Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. FORD-Hi, Jim. MR. MILLER-The two lot subdivision before you tonight is the existing building there. We were here a number of years ago. This was an existing residence that was converted to administrative office for the Prospect School. The existing site is about 900 feet deep, and it’s a little under four acres. A one acre lot will be subdivided off, identifying the existing facility, and then the rear portion, which is like 2.9 acres, will be the newly created lot and will have frontage along Aviation Road of about 41 feet, and as Jon discussed, the proposal was that there would be a shared driveway between both of these lots, the newly created lot as well as the existing lot, and what would happen is the existing driveway which is in this location in front of the existing building, that would be removed, and the landscaping that was established when this project was done would be extended across that front area. So the driveway access would come in at this point and across to serve that existing parking area. Soils are all good, well drained sands. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to hear what the public has to say. They’ve been waiting a while. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll open the public hearing. I would just ask that members of the public address their comments to the Board. Please state your name for the record, and I would also ask that you try to keep your comments specific to the proposed subdivision, because that’s all we’re addressing tonight. We’re not addressing the use of 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) the property, which would be considered at a later site plan review. So, would anyone like to make comments or questions to the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOANNE SIGISMONDI MRS. SIGISMONDI-My name is Joanne Sigismondi. I live at 168 Aviation Road in Queensbury. My property is adjacent to the proposed site, which would put the driveway that they wish to put in which is going to go back, it’s going to be, I don’t know how to do this, and I wrote it all down, and I don’t think it would take long, but like getting my thoughts out clearly, I thought it best that I do it this way. So I hope it’s not offensive, but this is what I wrote. I oppose the application for Prospect School to subdivide. I live at 168 Aviation Road and have 700 feet of property adjacent to Prospect. It is SFR-1A. I want it to stay that way. I don’t want it to be changed to a mental health hygiene facility for eight unrelated residents. If the subdivision is approved, they will be approaching you next month to build a mental health facility. It will devalue my real estate. People have told me no. I have called three substantial local real estates, all of which have told me that it would. They are going to have a driveway, and it will be 24 feet wide. Twenty-four feet wide is the size of Aviation Road from white line to white line. That’s not, I don’t think, for a residential area. It will be over 200 feet long, and the buffer zone, which now goes from my property line to, with a whole bunch of trees in between, and the next thing I see is the private house that they have as their Administration Building, which I would say it’s at least 100 feet of their property. The buffer zone they proposed is 23 feet wide, and then right after that there’s going to be this 24 foot, what I would call a road, since it’s going to be to get to the parking area, it’s going to be 200 feet, and it’s going to come out onto Aviation Road. This will lead, this driveway is going to lead into a circle and a parking area for approximately 20 cars, didn’t have time to look at the papers to see exactly how many. In addition, the parking area for the house that is currently existing, which they’re going to have on the one acre lot, which is for 10 cars, is going to be moved so when I look out my kitchen window, I’m going to be seeing that parking lot next to the house and they are going to be using that parking lot and that 24 foot driveway going up and down very close to my house. There will be heavy traffic. They say no, but I’ve gone down and looked at the one, the facility they have on Dixon Road, and I would consider it busy for a residential place. It’s going to be noisy. It’s going to require snow plowing, dumpster removal, etc., and major traffic studies have been done on Aviation Road, where the traffic that goes into like the area of Potter Road is super heavy. This is going to add more traffic to it. There’ll be buses and vans coming in and out of this property. It’s not like there’s going to be cars going in and out, just cars. There will be cars, but there will be other things, also. I think the dangerous condition will exist, as 100 feet from this new road that will be coming out into Aviation Road, if you turn right, it’s almost up to Crownwood. Crownwood is a very busy, major school bus stop, as the kids from the whole Crownwood division up in there, come and get on there. There are many buses that stop, morning and afternoons, to let these kids come and go and putting this additional traffic is going to cause congestion and I think dangerous conditions and very much congested. I spoke, yesterday, with four people representing Prospect on the property. They said they would leave the existing trees that go from Aviation Road back as far as 23 feet buffer, and they would add more foliage from the point where I wanted it back about 200 feet where it would be the part where they would go into the parking lot. If construction of a 24 foot wide driveway and the parking lot and the building and the cess pools would require very heavy equipment, they may kill the existing trees, both on their property and my property when it gets into the roots, and I don’t think that would be good. The house which they are proposing to build will be behind the parking lot. There’ll be eight non-related residents who’ll need bathrooms for residents, caretakers and visitors. The septic will be behind the house, and that’s going to be septic, not for one or two people. It’s going to be for the people and their caregivers and whoever else goes back there. I don’t want septic or drainage near my property, because that much septic could affect my surface and my groundwater. I have two acres. If I want to put a well back there, that definitely might be contaminated. Lighting will be an issue. I already have a light, and they’ve been very generous. They shut it, one of those three lights that are up, it’s 500 watts, I think, and we see that until nine o’clock at night, but after speaking to them, yes, they did turn it off at nine o’clock. However, if this driveway is going to be a 24 hour driveway, I would assume that they’re going to have to have an awful lot of light going from Aviation Road all the way back to the facility. As far as wildlife in the woods, if people say it’s not there, today, I had people, some who were here who were out and they saw the deer poop in my back yard. So we know that the deer are still out here. Four years ago, Prospect did everything that they could to protect my quality of life. We sat, we talked, we got along, we agreed, they did everything that I asked for. It was very good. Did not harm my quality of life whatsoever. Now they are 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) only giving me a 23 foot buffer between my line and their new road. It’s not like they’re putting this in a residence that’s already, because a lot of places that put these type of residence, they’re putting it in a place where there already is an existing building and they’re going to re-do it and take care of it and stuff like that. They’re using an area that is residential, and they are putting this, which I think they could find other areas where they could put this, and having these changes, they’re going to make a major negative impact on my quality of life, and I thank you. MR. FORD-Could you step up there, please, and point out your lot, please. MRS. SIGISMONDI-Sure. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. SIGISMONDI-This is their lot. There is going to be 23 feet of trees going down to somewhere in this area. There’s going to be a 24 foot road coming down this way. Over here, there is a 10 car parking lot, and this is on that side of their house, so I really don’t see it. There’s very little traffic. MR. FORD-Ma’am, could you please point out where your lot is? MRS. SIGISMONDI-That’s it. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. SIGISMONDI-And you can see that my house is very close to there. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. UKNOWN SPEAKER-I’d like to say something, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Speak into the mic, please, sir. UNKNOWN SPEAKER-They’re talking about a driveway. A 200 foot road is not a driveway. Secondly, it goes right into Aviation Road, and as soon as they hit Aviation Road, there’s street buses stop right there every morning, for picking up kids, and in the afternoon, right across from that road, and the people own the house straight across the road, and what are they going to do about drainage, sewers and if you have storms. There’s no drainage, no storm sewers. Something’s got to be done. MRS. SIGISMONDI-May I say one other thing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you may. MRS. SIGISMONDI-I don’t know if it was mentioned, but there have been a lot of people, especially because of the time, are not present, but there have been petitions that have gone around, and I believe they have all been submitted. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Eileen Soprano MS. SOPRANO-Hi. I’m Eileen Soprano, and I live on 23 Kiley Lane. So their property goes into my, basically my back yard. There’s multiple people here that we all wanted to speak, but you’re limiting it to the subdivision. So, my question is, because we were here four years ago, why do you need a subdivision? That’s my first question. Of course I’m a bit ignorant to how these things are proceeded, but I know I was here four years ago for a reason, and so I anticipate we’re going to be back. I would like to prevent that by tonight, you know, if possible. We were here four years ago because it’s residential, and they wanted to change it to an office building, from my memory. It was fine for us. I was very impressed with the Board and relieved of any issues because basically any of my concerns you guys took care of before I could even speak. You kept it residential. They made an office out of a home that existed, and we are supposed to speak to the subdivision, except we know what’s coming. So my question number one is, why subdivision? How can we not speak to what the goals are going to be? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and please understand, I’m not trying to limit public comments. MS. SOPRANO-I know you’re not. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just trying to make it clear that that’s the only thing that we’re considering tonight, and if we were to approve this subdivision, you know, the applicant could then go ahead, they could sell the lot, somebody could put a house in there, you know, we’re not, I mean, while we all anticipate and we know that there is a plan, that plan is not before us this evening. MS. SOPRANO-Right. So I mean, I think just us as neighbors and community, we’re concerned for the reason for this subdivision. I mean, if we have to leave it at that, we have to leave it at that. We know what’s coming. The plans have been drawn up, and we are against it for many reasons. It’s not residentially appealing. It does involve multiple properties, affects property value, quality of life, and I know this doesn’t speak to specifics. We need specific reasons why we don’t want it done, but if my seven year old daughter can overhear me on a phone mentioning what’s going on and be in tears when I get off the phone, if this seven year old can pick up how this is going to impact her, how it’s going to change things immediately, you have to understand, us as a community we’re concerned about what’s going up. I trust the Board from the last meeting that you guys, and from watching you tonight. I commend you on your time and how stringent you are about how things are done. So I wouldn’t leave here. I know we’re going to be back, but I feel that we can have faith in that if this does have to take place, we don’t want it to take place, and we’re going to fight it, and there is a petition, you know, and whatever we have to do, we have to do. I know these people need a place to live, but this is definitely not, from what I’m hearing, it doesn’t fit in. It doesn’t fit in the community. It is a residential community, and that road is congested. It’s horribly congested, but I have to leave, I have to defer to the engineers and talking about drainage and all that because, again, you know, that’s not my expertise and I trust you guys to make sure everything that needs to be done is going to be done, but we are concerned, and we can’t pretend we don’t know what’s coming. So we kind of, ultimately would like to prevent it from even going there. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. SOPRANO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-I understand the Planning Board is here to just look at a subdivision, and I think the neighbors and residents are not necessarily here to send the message to you, although that’s part of it, but they also wanted to send a message to the applicant, in that, you know, why pursue the subdivision if the end product is not something that’s desirable, and maybe the applicant needs to hear that. So, you know, the two, the subdivision and what’s being proposed there, are intrinsically linked. I mean, even in the onset of this discussion we talked about additional pavement in what used to be a front yard. Now I was on the Planning Board at the time this came before us the first time, as were many of you, and we were concerned that the proposal may look commercial, because the original proposal was to put the parking in the front yard, not have any front yard. So, I got them to rearrange the driveway, put some landscaping up front, put the parking off to the side, and I think maybe some of you remember, I tried to get parking in back, but the compromise was to put the parking on the side, and then we tried to get some bollard lighting, low level lighting, so that it stayed basically residential in appearance and nature and character, and I think we did a good job in accomplishing that, with the exception of the lighting. I don’t know if we approved the lighting, but those three lamp poles and those 500 watt halogens are, you know, you can see that from outer space. It’s way excessive for the residential nature that this was supposed to be, but again, to get back to the subdivision and the eventual proposal, the two are intrinsically linked. The subdivision wouldn’t be taking place if the eventual proposal wasn’t also at least in the air. So we have a proposal that’s, you know, looking at paving more of what used to be a front yard, offering a 25 foot driveway, to a parking lot area that’s going to be lit up, as a parking lot probably has to be, because it’s basically a commercial enterprise. It’s going to be of a tenant nature, as opposed to a Single Family Residential, so that the nature of it has changed. Now they may be allowed to do so. It doesn’t mean that it’s in the neighborhood character, which I would argue that it’s not. I would argue that the additional pavement, the additional impermeability, the commercial nature, the tenant nature and the parking lot and the lighting are all not in character with the neighborhood. It has nothing to do with the actual use, which might be an adult home, but also I think I remember we, the applicant stated how protective they were, and that they would leave the vegetation as buffer. Now they’re proposing now to take down 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) most of this vegetation that they offered as a buffer before, and another thing is that they’re proposed use, now they have immediate use, but we don’t know what the long term use, and looking at the long term situation with two structures, one rather large, sharing what was originally one lot, I think is something we all have to consider when we’re considering this subdivision. So that’s what I mean, we should be talking about the use, but the subdivision is intrinsically linked to the use, and they might argue that, well, we’ll make it look like it’s a residential. We’ll make it look residential. Well, you know, you could also counter argue that they have not made great efforts to make the institution as great as it is. Prospect is a great community resource. Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad that it’s here. I’m glad it’s located where it is, but the expansion of it, and I think we’re going to have to be careful with it. So, you take, for example, the signage that they put up, a sign on Aviation Road. It’s an internally lit white sign. I mean, you can’t get much worse than that. You were even worried about that on Route 9, but this is a residential area, and I thought they could have softened that sign or put a sign in that was more in accord with residential use. So I’m not so sure the applicant really fully understands the nature of what they’re doing and the impacts they are having on the neighborhood. So, that being said, I just thank you for listening and I know it’s late. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-I do have a petition here dated April 24, 2007, attention Town of Queensbury Planning Board, regarding Prospect Child and Family Center subdivision. “Dear Sirs: As a property owner in the immediate vicinity of the above referenced subdivision, please be advised that we are not in favor of the Prospect Child and Family Center’s proposal to subdivide a 3.98 acre parcel into 2 lots at the 160 Aviation Road, Queensbury, NY site. On November 23, 2003, Prospect Child and Family Center applied for the conversion of a residential home located at 160 Aviation Road in Queensbury, NY into an administrative office (Cross Reference #SP42-2003). At that hearing the administration of the center advised the nearby residential neighbors that no additional lighting or expansion would be added to the existing house and that the existing house would only be used as an additional office for the center. It is our understanding that if this subdivision is approved that an apartment or group home would be constructed on the site. A 24 foot wide driveway off Aviation Road leading back 200 feet from the road would be constructed along with housing and additional septic systems in the rear of the dwelling and additional parking. We have concerns in regard to the effects that this new construction would have on neighboring properties. We feel that since this is a residential area that the construction of this mental hygiene facility would decrease not only the property values of the existing nearby homes but cause additional traffic on Aviation Road and would also cause the wildlife of the area (deer, pheasants, turkeys and numerous birds) to seek refuge elsewhere. As stated at the bottom of the notice of public hearing, Queensbury is “HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY…A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE”. Let’s keep it that way and preserve what we now have. We, the undersigned, respectfully request that this application not be approved.” I have nine signatures from residents on Kiley Lane, Willow Road, Aviation Road. Would you like me to read the names, or is that sufficient? MR. HUNSINGER-I think we got a sense for the. MRS. BARDEN-We also have nine additional signatures from residents on Willow Road, White Pine Road, Willow Road, Willow Road. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we got a sense for where they’re located. Yes. Thank you. Was there anyone else that wanted to speak? Yes, sir. DALE TAYLOR MR. TAYLOR-Yes, my name is Dale Taylor, 15 Kiley Lane. My wife and I built our first home in Queensbury in 1960, on West Mountain Road when it was partially dirt, and it was a beautiful area, and all the, I won’t say that all of the improvements that have been made in Queensbury have been great, but it’s a tremendous place to live. I worked for 25 years for Ceiba Geigy before it shut down, moved to Maryland in 1980. I worked down there for 18 years, retired, and we decided to come back to Queensbury, because we missed the mountains, the lakes, and the general area. In a case like this, I think it’s kind of a cut and fit, and I don’t think you’ve done that in Queensbury. If I had come to you with a piece of property that was five acres or whatever and said, this is my property, I want to subdivide it, and you would approve it or deny it or whatever. In this case, the applicant came to you and said, I want to subdivide this property, but I’m going to come back later and we’re going to put such and such on. To me, I’m a little confused, I guess, 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) that you wouldn’t want to address that. Planning means looking to the future, and here’s somebody who comes and tells you what they’re going to do, and I understand it hasn’t formally been presented to you, but they’re laying it out in front of you. They could have said to you, I want to subdivide it and it’s none of your business what I’m going to do with it. Now that would have been a different approach. We could have all sat here and scratched our heads and said, I wonder what’s going to go on, but we all know what’s going on in this room. So I think you have to address it that way. That’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. LARRY VOSH MR. VOSH-My name’s Larry Vosh. I live on Willow Road. I’ll be brief. I just was sitting thinking I’d like to talk about the character of the neighborhood, and I realize with State laws it’s different. When I think of a single family dwelling, I think of a single family dwelling. I realize, now this is an eight individual person home which, in the laws of the State, that’s considered Single Family Residence, but I’m sitting back and thinking if an apartment developer wanted to build a building and put eight people in it, that would not fall into this zone. This would not be considered a single family residence. So, aside from what it’s being used for, in the character of the neighborhood, I look at this, what I would consider a commercial building, kind of landlocked right in the middle, like a peninsula, with traffic in and out, which is going to put a little bit more burden on Aviation Road and that traffic intersection, and it’s out of the character of the neighborhood, what I would consider single family dwellings. It, to me, is more of a commercial operation with a heavy, wide road, elevated traffic. Aside from what it’s being used for, and who the applicant is, it looks to me like a commercial building. It’s about 6500 square feet, single level. That’s a large footprint. So, it just seems out of character to me to what a residential neighborhood. That’s all I wanted to state. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. TOM HEINZELMAN MR. HEINZELMAN-First of all, thanks for staying awake tonight. I know, as I’m looking around, everybody’s eyeballs are down on their cheeks. So I’ll attempt to be brief. I’ve had the privilege of living in Queensbury for about the past 25 years, and I’ve been in my current residence for about 15 years. I’m Tom Heinzelman. I live on 27 Willow Road, right here, okay. During these past 25 years, and I’ve seen the growth that’s happened in this community, and it seems as you drive around, on every single street corner there’s a new building going up, there’s a new housing development, new commercial enterprise. There’s always something going on, and I made it a point to be here somewhat early tonight so I could listen to some of the dialogue that was going on prior to this situation, and one of the things that continually seemed to surface was the fact that we talk about green space and we’re trying to protect green space, and as I look at this picture, this could no more clearly define and depict great green space. I’m sure you’re aware, this development is called The Pines. It’s referred to very commonly as The Pines. Now the word “The Pines” for a residential area, conjures the notion of pristine, wooded area, and if you can take a look at this parking lot that’s right up here, this is part of the current Prospect School situation, and imagine if we took that blacktop area and basically made this whole area in here blacktop, okay, what does that do for our green space? And so we’re trying to protect the pristine condition of our beautiful community, and it just seems to me that when you have an overhead view, and an aerial view like that, you can see the dynamics of this community that we’re attempting to protect, and I think the more than we destroy these kinds of issues, you know, the further we’re losing ground in the whole scheme of things, and somebody mentioned that fact that, you know, it’s tough to debate and argue against the Prospect School. Prospect School is one of the finest facilities that we have available to the people that are in need of that, and there probably is a good place for this place to be. I’m not so sure that it fits into the residential area that we’re looking at from this particular photograph, and I don’t know, you know, what the impact is going to be relative to traffic. I don’t know what the impact is going to be in terms of lighting. I heard you guys talking about candle powers and how tall the lights are and all those kinds of things, but when you take a look at this view, again, if you think about cutting the middle of this out and putting lights and black top and parking lots and all those kinds of things, I think it destroys the aesthetic beauty of our community. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I guess I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. Did you have any comments you wanted to make relative to the public comments that you’ve heard? 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LAPPER-Just some general comments. What we’re seeking tonight is a two lot subdivision, and it’s a one acre zone, and each of these parcels will be larger than one acre. One will be substantially larger, and sharing one curb cut, as we’ve proposed, is a positive thing. So we think, in terms of the subdivision, whether somebody was going to build an independent residential alternative or single family home, that this subdivision stands on its own to take two lots out of this three plus acre lot. This is a large lot. You can just see just the configuration of lots on Aviation Road. This is a large lot, just because of the way it was divided years ago, that this one has so much land in the back, and there’s certainly plenty of land to build a facility, whether it’s a residential building for eight developmentally disadvantaged people or whether it’s a single family home for a family with kids, there’s plenty of room to do a conforming subdivision, you know, we’re not seeking any variances. We don’t need any variances. In terms of the larger issue, I don’t want to think that the neighbors are mean spirited in they’re saying that we understand there’s disadvantaged people, but we don’t want them in our neighborhood. I think that they just aren’t really aware of what this facility is all about, and the facility on Dixon Road, I know that at the time there were a number of people, the Dixon Heights people and the neighbors were equally concerned, and we went through a process with a number of public hearings, and my understanding is that the neighbors acknowledge that it’s a very quiet and good neighbor, and Prospect wants to be a good neighbor. This is not a school use. This is a residential use, and it’s supposed to be put in a residential zone. That’s why it’s considered a residential use by the State, and if the State didn’t have the law that this is considered a residential use, then these wouldn’t be anywhere, because you can always find somebody to oppose it, but there is a public policy that developmentally disadvantaged young adults need a place to live, and they get to age 18 or age 20 and they don’t want to live with their parents anymore, and this is a way that they can be supported, their needs can be supported, and they can live semi- independently. They go off to work generally during the day and come home at night like anybody else, and it’s important to have these kind of facilities in your community and in our community, and there’s nothing about this site, in terms of what’s proposed, the land that we have here, that’s going to be of harm to anybody, in terms of this lot can certainly support the development of a house, and, you know, I hope that as this process moves forward, not the subdivision, but when we get into the site plan, that people will go take a look at the site on Dixon Road and understand that this is a quiet and positive facility to have in the community. It’s just, if you have friends, as many people do, that have kids with disabilities, it’s hurtful to hear people act in fear, because, this is, you know, it’s a necessary service, and these people need a place to live, too, and to the extent that they feel that this is going to cause them some harm to their neighborhood, I know they’re wrong, because we already have a facility on Dixon Road, but I hope that, through the course of this, they’ll get educated about it and they’ll change their minds. MR. HUNSINGER-I think I’m going to suggest something that would be a little unusual for me anyway, but in listening to the comments made by the neighbors, and more specifically the comments made by Mr. Strough who was on the Planning Board with me at the time the office use was approved, I think what I’d like to do is table this and the specific reason is I would like the whole Board to have the benefit of reviewing the minutes from those meetings when the office building was constructed, because there was, even though the Planning Board at the time didn’t condition the approval on no further subdivision, I think that there were some, I don’t really want to use the word promises, but I think there were some, I mean, there really were promises made by Prospect Center to the neighbors, and I think we really need to take a look to make sure that some of the things that were decided and agreed to back in 2003 would not be mitigated by what’s being proposed here, and I think it is appropriate to separate a subdivision from the use because I think a lot of the concerns that I’ve heard from the neighbors aren’t necessarily related to the use, but they’re related to development, and whether it be another home there or some other use, other than a single family home, it still would change the character of the neighborhood, and it may change what was envisioned back in 2003 when we approved the current use on that site, the current site plan. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but that, at this late hour, was my feeling. MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds like a good idea, actually. MR. FORD-I have no problem in becoming better educated on this site. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I guess from what I’m hearing the residents say, they’re not concerned about the residents themselves. It’s more the overall impact of the project, especially an eight unit apartment I guess. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LAPPER-It’s not. It’s eight I individuals who’d be living there, but. MR. SEGULJIC-An eight bedroom house? MR. LAPPER-Eight bedroom, yes. I want to just correct one thing I think that everyone isn’t aware of. The reason why the Administration Building was approved is because a school use is a permitted use in this zone, and that’s totally separate from the residential use we’re talking about now, but that was permitted as a permitted use, as a school use. MR. FORD-May I digress? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. FORD-Because I want to ask for clarification on why the suggested configuration of the two lots? MR. MILLER-Well, the subdivision was actually done in conjunction with the site plan, and what, we wanted to, you know, the existing septic system is to the rear here in this parking area, and with this configuration, the shape of it, we had to have the minimum one acre, and when you see the site plan, what happens is there’s a turnaround that occurs in this area to access the rear facility, so part of the shape it is has to do with the planning for the rear portion, but, you know, right now we have what was constructed for the office, the parking lot and things. We left that intact and located a driveway in this location. So this wouldn’t have to be, this area wouldn’t be disturbed. One of the comments that one of the neighbors made was that there was going to be parking on her side. That’s not correct, and when we met with her, we had discussions and said, you know, one of the reasons we put the driveway here is that if the driveway was on the other side, then we would have to re-locate the parking lot and then the parking lot would be on that side. So there’s no plan to move that parking lot, and that’s why we left it that way because that would leave this facility essentially intact the way it is now, and then we would have a shared driveway. We would just have to re-locate the access to that one. MR. FORD-But that shared driveway be, as we face the map, moved further left, closer to the existing structure? MR. MILLER-Yes, we probably could do that. I mean, at this point, you don’t have the site plan in front of you, so you’re at a bit of a disadvantage, and some of the things we’re hearing about, you know, we’ve been trying to, you know, be sensitive to the neighbor where the driveway is, and, you know, she’s correct that when we met with her the driveway was to be set back 23 feet from her property line to the edge of the driveway, and we propose some landscaping in that area, in like the width of the driveway, 24 feet, basically needed. It is a 200 foot driveway. We basically have to have two vehicles pass, but certainly when we get to the site plan we could look at narrowing that or we could look at shifting it somewhat. It’s required that it straddles that property line. In order to not require a variance, that driveway has to straddle that property line and then essentially, according to our Code, both lots have access. If the driveway was just on one property, then the other one wouldn’t have access. MR. LAPPER-We could move the driveway over without shifting the property line. It doesn’t have to be centered on the property line. So certainly there’s room to move it over 10 feet or what have you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Can you expand the existing Administrative Building to accommodate what you want to do? MR. LAPPER-No, because this has to be architecturally designed to handle physically handicapped individuals, in terms of handicapped bedrooms, bathrooms, so it’s very difficult to retro fit, to meet the Building Code for this type of a use, to retrofit an existing facility. It’s much better to build a brand new one that’s designed for handicap people for wheelchair access, etc. MR. SEGULJIC-And how big is this facility going to be, about? MR. MILLER-Sixty-five hundred feet, but it’s one story because of the accessibility, and that includes the eight rooms plus staff. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. LAPPER-And common rooms. MR. MILLER-And common rooms. MR. SEGULJIC-And refresh my memory. Why do you have to subdivide the property to accomplish this? MR. LAPPER-Because for one reason. You have one principal building on a lot in Queensbury, so, to meet the Zoning Code. Another would be for financing purposes, to have a mortgage to, you know, finance this facility, to give a bank a lien. MR. FORD-Back to your recommendation, Chris. MR. SIPP-Yes, I would agree with Chris that maybe we ought to look into the background of what was originally stated and how this worked out and what were their objections at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a lot of public comment, a lot more than we have heard this evening. MR. SIPP-I think we need to be brought up to speed. MR. TRAVER-Especially with some of us not having been on the Board at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and that was what was really paramount in my thinking. MRS. STEFFAN-And the other thing is, since I’ve been on the Planning Board, one of the things that we’ve tried to discourage is flag lots like this, and so we’ve talked about this before. So I think the minutes are very important. MR. SIPP-I live in a subdivision that has one way in and one way out, and they’re always concerned about that one road being blocked in case of emergency, and then this would happen in this case, a tree across that road would not allow emergency vehicles to access the property. MR. LAPPER-It’s not a road. It’s just a driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s just a driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Just thinking out loud here, would it also make sense for us to ask them to submit, I’ll use the term master plan, an overall plan for this site? MR. LAPPER-We submitted the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But I mean beyond that. MR. LAPPER-This is it. There’s no room. We’re leaving a very big buffer in the back for the neighbors in the back. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I’ll step forward and make a tabling resolution. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2007 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: The reason to table is to give the Board the opportunity to review the minutes of the Site th Plan No. 42-2003. Tabled until the first meeting in May, which is May 15. I did keep the th public hearing open. There will be another opportunity on May 15 for the public to comment. th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-So, members of the public, we will,, I did keep the public hearing th open. So there will be another opportunity, on May 15, for you to comment. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/24/07) MR. FORD-I just want to point out that as we move on this motion, or vote on this motion, it is a way of being fair to these applicants and all applicants, maintaining the same standards. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing, Chris, is maybe in May we should put this on first. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and just for the benefit of the public, we will put this first on the th agenda on the 15 of May, so you don’t have to stay until midnight. I appreciate your patience. If there’s no other business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2007, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 71