Loading...
2007-06-19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 14-2007 Red Bud Dev. 1. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 Special Use Permit No. 15-2007 Boats By George 2. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-1, 37, 38 Subdivision No. 5-2007 Prospect Child & Family Center 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.18-1-73 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 25-2007 Prospect Child & Family Center 2. Tax Map No. 295.18-1-73 Site Plan No. 57-2005 Northeast Dining & Lodging 3. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6 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 06/19/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNIING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 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 GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 REDBUD DEV.: TH TABLED TO JUNE 19, NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED; SEE LETTERS FROM B P S R & RED BUD DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING TABLING TO JULY MEETING DATE MR. HUNSINGER-There is a tabling motion attached. I’d be looking for a motion to table it again. MR. SEGULJIC-To a particular date? MR. HUNSINGER-At this point we’d probably have to re-advertise anyway, right? MR. FULLER-Did you open the public hearing or anything on it? MR. HUNSINGER-We did at the last meeting. MR. FULLER-You did at the last meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it was held open. MR. FULLER-Held open and tabled to this month? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-I would just table it again until next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The public hearing is still open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to make a motion? MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have a date, then? MRS. STEFFAN-It would have to be August since the deadline has passed. st MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the deadline has passed for July’s meetings. August 21? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 REDBUD DEV., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: To our August 21, 2007 meeting. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2007 BOATS BY GEORGE: TABLED TO JUNE 19, NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED – RE-TABLE MR. HUNSINGER-I’d be looking for a similar motion for Special Use Permit No. 15-2007. They were requested to submit additional information for this evening, which they did not do. st MR. SEGULJIC-So to August 21 also? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2007 BOATS BY GEORGE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: To the August 21, 2007 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2007 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PROSPECT CHILD & 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. AND 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 SITE PLAN NO. 25-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 160 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,542 SQ. FT. INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE WORK. CROSS REFERENCE: AV SB 5-2007 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE 2.867 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.18-1-73 SECTION 179-4- MR. HUNSINGER-For members of the public, there was a letter received. It was dated June 7, 2007, addressed to the Supervisor, requesting that the, actually stating that the Prospect School was withdrawing their notification so they can review project alternatives. It is the applicant’s intention to re-submit in the near future. So the applicant has officially withdrawn their request. Did you have anything to add, Mr. Lapper? MR. SEGULJIC-Do we need to do anything? MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t need to do anything, because they’ve withdrawn the site plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And the subdivision. So there would be no further action by this Board. If they do submit a new site plan, it would necessitate a new hearing. It would be noticed and notices would be sent to all property owners within 500 feet. It would just be like starting all over again, as if the previous meetings didn’t happen. I appreciate 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) members of the public coming out and participating in that project, and especially being here tonight, coming out in the storm. Any other comments, questions from the Board? Next item on the agenda is an Executive Session to discuss the Golden Corral project. Would anyone like to make a motion to go into Executive Session? MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have to say for what reason, or do we just say to go into Executive Session? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s to discuss the Judge’s ruling and the legal options. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE OPTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE GOLDEN CORRAL’S LEGAL DECISION, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno (WHILE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE BOARD MADE THE FOLLOWING MOTION) MOTION TO APPEAL THE ENTIRETY OF THE JUDGES DECISION REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 NORTHEAST DINING AND LODGING, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. SIPP-Are you going to do the questionings, Matt? Are you going to present this to them? MR. FULLER-I can go into a brief discussion, sure. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-We didn’t think you’d have that much to talk about. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, nothing’s ever simple. MR. LAPPER-That’s true. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll re-open the meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board, and we were discussing The Golden Corral. MR. FULLER-Just to give a quick synopsis of where we are, Judge Faradino had ruled, in an Article 78 brought by Northeast Dining and Lodging, that the, I’m just going to skip right to the very end. The decision of the Planning Board to deny the petitioner’s application for Site Plan approval is annulled and vacated. The respondent is directed to issue an approval for the petitioner’s Site Plan forthwith. After we had received that decision and at your direction I had contacted Mr. Lapper, after the Planning Board’s last 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) meeting, and advised I think, and I think we both agree with this, that that decision takes place as of the moment the application was denied. So we need to come to an agreement as to where the application was in its presentation, the plan specs as of that moment, negotiations back and forth, things that were agreed to as of that moment. I would believe, and I think Jon would tend to agree with me, that those are included in that order of the Court, but that’s where we are tonight. Figure that out. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to approach the Board, or ask questions or how would you like to handle it? MR. LAPPER-Sure. Very briefly, for the record, Jon Lapper and Neral Patel. What I submitted at Matt’s request was the last version of the Site Plan which was submitted in July, but in August we had supplemented it with the change showing the 50 foot buffer. That’s what I had in my cover letter. So there’s two more sheets that were submitted from the August submittal that showed the, reducing the parking by eight spaces to maintain that 50 foot buffer, cemetery buffer, in the rear. So it’s the July submittal with the two pages at the very end of this from August, and everything that we had agreed to as conditions, the no left turn out, the connection to the site next door, I believe that the site plan reflects everything that was done in the engineering review, everything that the Board had asked us to do, that all those changes are on the map, and certainly as conditions everything that we had already agreed to is what we expect is before the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t remember there being a, you just said there was a connection to the site next door? MR. LAPPER-We can only show it as a future connection. MR. HUNSINGER-Future interconnect, okay. MR. LAPPER-When the site next door agrees to it, like we’ve done for Lowe’s, and, you know, CVS and everybody else. MR. FORD-As I recall there has been no agreement. MR. LAPPER-No. They’re not, they said they weren’t interested at this time. I mean, part of that, and we’ve said this before, but it goes to their loading dock, just the way their site is configured. It’s not a great place for a connection, but that doesn’t mean that their site won’t be re-developed in the future, and that’s why the Code requires that you provide that, so it’s there for the future. MR. HUNSINGER-There were a couple of other specific issues that were discussed, but I guess at least in my mind it wasn’t clear if that was agreed to. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-One of them was certified as built drawings, specific to the stormwater prevention plan. MR. LAPPER-Yes, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and the annual maintenance reports. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there any other items along those lines, from members of the Board? MR. LAPPER-We had changed the architecture, and that’s not on these plans, but that’s in the record, that we had submitted fancier, you know, nicer drawings than what their typical prototype would have been, and that, of course, is included. MR. FORD-Could you refresh our memories on the hours of operation, please. NERAL PATEL MR. PATEL-Hours of operation are from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturday, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Sunday, and 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. the rest of the week. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m confused on that. Wasn’t this presented as dinner only? MR. PATEL-No. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that this was presented as a dinner only restaurant? That’s why. MR. PATEL-I don’t recall that. MR. LAPPER-I know our traffic study had. MR. PATEL-Breakfast, or excuse me, lunch and dinner. There’s only two periods of breakfast, on Saturday and Sunday. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there ever a color scheme that was agreed to? Because there was a handout that had some different cut stone blocks, and I know we wanted the Forest Green as opposed to the Red. MR. LAPPER-That looks like it to me. MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s three different. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a yellow. MR. HUNSINGER-No, actually four different stone designs. MR. LAPPER-Let me just see what I’ve got in the final submission. I know that there are elevation drawings. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know which one it was? MRS. STEFFAN-I believe that there’s a bigger drawing that was presented, and it looks like this one had stone on it. MR. HUNSINGER-All four of these had stone. Any other questions from members of the Board? MR. FORD-Mr. Patel, excuse me. I just wanted to make sure that I got that. The rest of the week was 11 a.m. to 9 p.m.? MR. PATEL-Nine p.m. MR. FORD-Nine p.m. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-I saw the elevation drawings in here when I was preparing this afternoon. So I know I have them. I think we’re looking at the same thing that you’re looking at, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it has four different options. Actually five, the bottom one was red instead of the green. MR. FULLER-What page is that on the record, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Fifty-five, of two out of four, but it’s not in color. Is there a preference that the Board has, in terms of color? Neral likes Forest Green. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s kind of hard to tell from the drawing. MR. LAPPER-Chris, can Neral stand up and take a look at that? We just don’t have it in color. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that there was a different drawing? I thought that you had submitted a final one that was a larger picture. It wasn’t several pictures on a page, it was one with the final. Unfortunately, I don’t have it. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have it. I have everything else. MR. LAPPER-What’s the answer, Neral? Is there one of those that’s preferable? A gray roof? Do you want to state that on the record? The third one. Neral’s preference is the third one, which is the gray with the green trim and the ledge stone. He thinks that’s a little more subtle. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you recall if that was in the minutes, the discussion of the colors? MR. PATEL-I think so. I think Staff and I had discussed it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I remember talking about the red and saying how we didn’t like the red. I should start bringing my laptop so I can pull up the minutes. MR. SIPP-Can we move on to something else while we’re deciding this? I’m concerned about the height and the size of that retaining wall, the retaining wall, and on your plans it gives no detail as to the materials to be used, the height, the foundation, the footing that needed to be made to support this wall. MR. LAPPER-What was on the table at the last meeting, as a condition, was that the engineering structure for the retaining wall would be subject to the Building Inspector at the time that the issue was that we weren’t going to go to the expense of having it designed for Site Plan Review because that was a building permit issue, but that the Board would make that conditional that the Building Department had to approve the structure to make sure that it was sound. I know that that’s in the minutes, in terms of that issue. MR. SIPP-And according to the zoning law, this has to be native stone or wood. MR. LAPPER-It’s our position that that’s only the case if it’s on, if it’s shoreline of the lake, not on a wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-Wetlands are considered shoreline. MR. LAPPER-For some purposes they are, but that has never been interpreted that way. The issue, I mean, by analogy, there’s the Applebee’s which has the analogous, they’re right along Halfway Brook and they’ve got a retaining wall that’s about eight feet, going around the corner of their parking lot, and certainly that’s not natural stone. I mean, this retaining wall, for the most part, faces a wetland in the back and a cemetery buffer. So the idea of investing in natural stone when nobody can see it, I mean, that’s quite an expense. MR. SIPP-I think that that wall continues down the south side or the west side of this parking lot, continues quite a ways down there. MR. LAPPER-In the back behind Mark Plaza. MR. SIPP-No, on what would be the east side. MR. LAPPER-The east side. You said the west side. The east side faces the wetland. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Well, that can be seen from the road. MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, Neral’s point is that it’s below grade in the front and it’s cattails that block it. I mean, it’s just not something that’s visual. That’s a real/ MR. SIPP-Yes, but if you go by the contours there, that’s going to be anywhere’s from six to eight feet in height, going by the contours that you’ve laid out on that map. Going west on Quaker Road, you’re definitely going to be able to see that, because the wetlands are not that high at that point. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess it’s our position that that was something that was in the litigation and in front of the Judge. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) MR. SIPP-And the railing, on your drawing I don’t know which number it is right now, but on the drawing it gives the railing and the curbing to be done by others, and we have no idea what that’s going to be done, how that’s going to be done. MR. LAPPER-I guess it’s our legal position that what was on the site plan was sufficient, at the time. The idea of facing that in natural stone would be an incredible expense that we believe would have minimum visual impact because of the distance to the road. MR. SIPP-Well, if this were to be made out of wood, then it’s got to be of a special type. MR. LAPPER-You mean the retaining wall or the guardrail? MR. SIPP-No, I’m talking about the wall. MR. LAPPER-No, the wall would be masonry, and that’s specified, masonry. MR. SIPP-Masonry. MR. LAPPER-It just wouldn’t be finished in stone. It would be a block wall, much like what Applebee’s did. It certainly wouldn’t be in wood. It’s a masonry wall. MR. SIPP-We have no conception of what size the footing is going to be. MR. LAPPER-Because the footing, that would be an engineering concept, not a site plan issue. I mean, that would have to be subject to review by the Building Department, to make sure, based upon the height, that there was a sufficient footing. So what we had said was. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that footing is going to now extend probably into the wetlands. MR. LAPPER-No, this was designed to avoid that, that nothing would be in the wetlands. I mean, this was all designed to give sufficient room to do the work and stay outside of the wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, part of the parking lot is in the wetlands, is it not? MR. LAPPER-There is a small amount that is the disturbance that’s under a tenth of an acre. Absolutely, yes. MR. FORD-And we repeatedly address issues on Halfway Brook, the Meadowbrook corridor, etc., all downstream from a number of buildings that have directly impacted the runoff and the flow of water there, and this is one of the concerns that I believe we have as to how this structure, the building itself, the parking lot, and the retaining wall, will impact that, the water in that wetland and in that Brook. MR. LAPPER-Well, I honestly don’t think, legally, that’s an appropriate discussion to have tonight, but I’ll give you a simple answer, is that the use of the wetland, excuse me, of the retaining wall, is a way to avoid disturbance of the wetland, and I know that we’ve explained this before, but if this were to, if there was no wetland, it would have to be graded out at a slope that was not too steep that would cause erosion which would mean the only way you could construct this parking lot would be to go into the wetland to have a gentle enough slope, you know, say not more than 15 percent, to pick a number. The use of the retaining wall protects the wetland because it allows the disturbance not to occur in the wetland, that the retaining wall allows that to be built in the upland with the exception of the less than a tenth of an acre disturbance area which is permitted. So the reason for the retaining wall is just the opposite of what you’re saying, Tom, to avoid disturbance of the wetland. In terms of the stormwater system, I mean, a very expensive and sophisticated stormwater system was designed for this site, so that there would be pre-treatment filtration, so that what went into the wetland would be treated water, as is required under the regulations, but all that would happen in chambers under the parking lot, and again, that’s a way of complying with the stormwater regulations and not disturbing the wetland. So we think that by engineering this has been designed to comply, and I know that C.T. Male had signed off on that, as part of the process. So that’s what we believe the answer is. Yes, I think, Neral’s reminding me that Lowe’s and Applebee’s, that they were also in the Halfway Brook corridor, and for similar reason, that’s why Applebee’s was designed with a similar retaining wall. So there’s precedent in Town that it’s been done before. It wasn’t faced in stone, but it was a way to avoid wetland impacts. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) MR. FORD-The fact that it has been done before does not necessarily mean that it was, that that was right, or that it did not have a negative impact on the corridor that I’m referring to. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess the question is whether it complies with the Town requirements. I mean, I think that’s the legal issue. Stormwater regulations have been seriously upgraded since Applebee’s went in, and we comply with the new stormwater regulations. So this is built to a different standard. I mean, our position is that we’re here to document everything that was on the table last time. The few things that you want to talk about such as the colors, you know, the architecture of the building, make sure that there’s conditions that we believe we’ve already agreed to, such as, you know, the no left turn out, that that should be in there, but we don’t think that this is the forum for reconsidering the site plan, just to codify what the conditions are that the Board had already asked for and that we had already agreed to. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Jon, what was your last comment? MR. LAPPER-That we were hopeful that the reason for the meeting tonight would be to go through the plans and make sure that the conditions that the Board had asked us for t and that we had agreed to are in an approval resolution, so that it’s clear what we’d agreed to, but not to, you know, re-visit the site plan review. MR. HUNSINGER-That was really the conversation that we were just having as well, that, you know, the purpose of the meeting was to, I don’t want to use the word negotiate, but for us to understand what the final conditions were, because, you know, just in looking at the final site plan, there were two proposals, you know, one with the 50 foot buffer, one with the 33 foot buffer, or the questions that we had already asked. So I just wanted to make sure we got out onto the table any of those related kinds of issues that the Board had or, you know, anything that you wanted to bring up again, but it’s been clear that we can’t really go backwards to discuss some of the initial issues that lead us down the path that we did. MR. FULLER-Yes, I mean, just to clarify, Jon, you and I had talked about this, too. The Board is and remains very concerned about that part of the Judge’s decision, that said, it’s flat out to be granted, the approval is to be granted. That’s the struggle is that a lot of times you see these decisions where it’s ordered approved, subject to reasonable conditions that address the concerns that gave rise to the denial in the first instance, and that’s my thought of tonight of where we were, is all right, what are those concerns, and could they be addressed? If not, and if the Judge was wrong on that, then so be it, the Board has it’s options on that. That’s, you know, a part of the consideration here is what were those concerns. Could they have been addressed through reasonable conditions? And if they couldn’t be addressed through reasonable agreed to conditions, then so be it, and I think that’s certainly open to discussion, and if can’t be agreed to, then that’s fine, too. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess, you know, it was certainly a difficult review process, but at the same time, our position, I have a reasonable client, and our position, as I try to be in every project with the Board, is to find a way to reach a consensus to give the Board what you’re looking for to address your issues, and we feel that it happened, and that your consulting engineer had agreed, and there’s a whole slew of changes that we made to satisfy issues that were raised by the Board, and so in terms of, you know, obviously it didn’t get to an approval resolution that would have had specific conditions, but the plans were before you were the full plans that reflected all of the changes that have been made. So we’re not here to take away anything from that, and we’re certainly here to be reasonable and to listen, but I think that, you know, going beyond asking us to reconsider something, I think the Judge was pretty clear that the site plan needs to be approved. That doesn’t mean that we’re not listening and that we wouldn’t consider something reasonable, but I don’t think that what’s appropriate is to open everything up for discussion, but certainly picking the colors, since we had submitted a choice of five different façade drawings with slightly different colors, you know, we’ll listen. Neral feels he picked the more subtle one. The Board didn’t want red. We did it with green and gray. We hope we can satisfy you on that, but I don’t think it’s the place to revisit the retaining wall. I mean, we think that’s a good part of the design, and we believe the record supports that because your engineer concurred. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other issues that the Board wants to address? MRS. STEFFAN-I think that the point I brought up, I think at the last meeting when the vote was taken, was that I was, I would like to have some kind of a construction bond, 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) construction bond’s not the work, some kind of insurance policy about the stormwater system. Because it is a new system, we’ve never seen it before, and even when Chris presented it, Chris Round from Chazen Group, presented it to us, you know, it’s kind of new technology, and so one of my concerns as a Planning Board member is, you know, if Mr. Patel decides that he’s not going to keep the restaurant and sells it to someone else, you know, I would just feel better if there was some kind of insurance that, in perpetuity that, you know, this system will be maintained, because it is in a sensitive environmental area. MR. LAPPER-Well, I’m looking at Site Layout Plan SP-3, and the note says, stormwater infrastructure inspection notes, and I believe that all of these things really were covered. The owner/applicant agrees to provide the Town of Queensbury access to the site upon reasonable notice for the purpose of inspecting the stormwater management infrastructure and the system after construction. The owner will inspect and maintain the stormwater management system, filter system, consistent with the manufacturer’s requirements, and as identified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP. The owner will provide the Town with a copy of the annual inspection reports generated to maintain the system’s operation as noted above. So, I mean, I really feel that the system does have to be maintained. All properties have to be maintained. Perhaps this more carefully, but that, as Chris had started off, you know, we agree that we would submit an engineer’s certification that the system is built to the plans and the annual maintenance reports that it’s being properly maintained. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I just reviewed the stormwater report and it said that there would be reports generated for three years. So that notation. MR. LAPPER-This says annual. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So there is no deadline for it. It doesn’t end at a three year. MR. LAPPER-We would certainly agree to annual, in perpetuity, and that would be, it’s on the site plan, it would run with the land, it would be something that, you know, the future Planning Staff would. MRS. STEFFAN-Anybody, and a future owner would be bound by the same condition. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I can accept that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? What’s the will of the Board? MR. FULLER-You may want to have another quick conversation. I’ve got just a couple of points to give you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Let’s do that. MR. FULLER-A couple of minutes. It isn’t going to be an hour. MR. FORD-So we need to return to Executive Session. MR. FULLER-If you could. Instead of giving it to you piecemeal. You’ve asked me some questions, and I’d like to give you specific answers to them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there a motion, Tom? MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR DISCUSSION, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Donald Sipp who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Are you going to summarize, Matt? MR. FULLER-Sure. I will. To summarize it, the discussion of the matter of Northeast Dining, et al. v. Town of Queensbury Planning Board, on a vote of four to two, four votes in favor, two votes against, the Planning Board has decided to appeal the Judge’s decision, and I will move forward with that forthwith. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Before we’re finished tonight, I guess what I would ask is that, because we’d certainly like to avoid an appeal. If there was a specific list of changes that you would ask us to consider, perhaps we could settle this tonight. At least let us know what it is that you’re looking for and save a lot of time and aggravation. MR. FULLER-That is a request that you could honor, as we discussed. That is a potential outcome from an appeal, that that exact scenario could take place. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open it up to the Board. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-My biggest concern is the retaining wall and its impact on the wetland, and then once again, I’m all for The Golden Corral, but I just don’t think it’s the right location. We’d have traffic issues, safety issues, again, way too much on that small site. MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly what the Court said, you know, the Planning Board can’t prevent a use. MR. FULLER-I do want to clarify. That’s not something likely to be, you know, heard or granted on appeal. MR. LAPPER-I mean, our job is to comply with the technical requirements in this zone, and in terms of the retaining wall, I mean, whatever is reasonable. The retaining wall has to be built to engineering specs. It’s not usually a Planning Board issue to get into the, you know, you don’t look at the construction of the wall of the building to make sure that it’s structurally sound. That’s the Building Department. I mean, we have agreed previously that we would have it designed by a structural engineer and it would be subject to review by the Building Department. Certainly the wall has to be structurally sound, and it has to be constructed in a way that respects the wetland. So, I mean, we’re not disagreeing with you or being argumentative about that, it’s just it has to be properly done, but that’s not something that has to be done at Site Plan. It has to be done like the building, for the building permit, you know, but in terms of the issue that Tom just mentioned about this site and the wetlands, I mean, I think the Judge’s decision was really strong, and I would ask, on behalf of the applicant, at this point, to not have to go back and get another decision from the Appellate Court, which I am confident would be the same decision. If there’s a list of things that you want us to consider changing, we’re here to listen. We’re certainly here to get this done and to get this built. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that was the biggest issue. It was easily the biggest issue that was discussed. MR. LAPPER-The retaining wall. MR. FORD-We can do it tonight or we can do it in the future. MR. FULLER-What’s that? MR. FORD-Address that. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) MR. FULLER-Yes, I mean, if the Board has concerns that it wants the applicant to address, I would, it’s up to you. MR. LAPPER-I mean, what about the retaining wall? What? MR. SIPP-I think it’s impact on the wetlands. The impact that this footing on this wall is going to have on the wetlands is one of our concerns. The other one has already been stated, but it’s not measurable is that this is not the right place for this restaurant, and we’ve said this, I think I’ve said it enough times, if you were on Route 9, you’d probably be serving meals right now. MR. LAPPER-I guess, again. MR. SIPP-But that’s not a concern that can be. MR. LAPPER-Well, this is one of the only zones in Town where you’re allowed to have a restaurant. There are no residents around. It’s a good traffic corridor. MR. FULLER-If you guys want to talk about conditions and stuff, if you need some reasonable amount of time to think about that, that’s fine, but I don’t want you to. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re re-hashing the old arguments. MR. FULLER-Absolutely. I just don’t want you to. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s the best thing. I’d like to have some time to think about what kind of conditions specifically. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I mean, we would be happy to come back for another special meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-That would be the best thing. MR. FORD-That would be my recommendation. That’s why I said, we can do it now, but I’d rather do it thoroughly and in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-I misunderstood what you meant by that. Yes. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Certainly our goal would be to get this done, and if you have a list, we will consider anything reasonable. I mean, facing this in stone is something that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I believe that’s for the lakes and not for a Federal wetland, but anything reasonable. I mean, you know, in the end, if it came down to it, would Neral agree to face the front in stone? I don’t know. It’s a big expense that I don’t think, it was not required on any other commercial project. Retaining walls are put in all over the place. The one at Applebee’s is fine, and this one has a wetland in front at the lower elevation that blocks it, so I don’t see the benefit, and that’s a real expense, but if it came down to it, you know, anything reasonable we would consider. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-So if you would consider rescinding that, and putting us on in a few days, we’ll certainly listen. MR. SEGULJIC-Would it make sense for us to put them on next week? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have the, actually, I probably do, next week’s agenda in front of me. I think we, it’s fairly full, but I think certainly between now and our next meeting, the Board members can get their comments to either Staff or Counsel, and we can convey that to the applicant, between now and next Tuesday, and perhaps it could be handled between the attorneys at that point. MR. FULLER-Sure. Are you fine with that, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) MR. FULLER-What I don’t want to get, though, is an outside discussion going outside of the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m saying as individuals, if they want to submit their individual comments to. MR. FULLER-I’ll compile them. MR. FORD-But then this does not become representative of the Board. It becomes representative of an individual Board member’s opinion, conveyed to you. MR. FULLER-That’s a good point. MR. TRAVER-What does that do to our time window, the 30 days? MR. FULLER-Well, what I would probably do is, if you are interested, in furthering this discussion, I’ll file it and we will leave it as a time to perfect if that ends up being the Board’s desire. MR. LAPPER-What about like this Thursday or something. Is it possible to just come back and do this again in a couple of nights? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if the room’s available. MR. LAPPER-I mean, you know, depending on everyone’s schedule, we could do it at five o’clock one evening, you know, it’s not a public hearing, so it doesn’t have to be, it’s a public meeting, of course, but it doesn’t have to be at seven o’clock. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FULLER-Yes, we’d just notify. MR. FORD-I can’t do it Wednesday, Thursday or Friday of this week. MRS. STEFFAN-Why don’t we just start earlier next week. We’re supposed to start at seven. Why don’t we start at six? MR. HUNSINGER-Are people agreeable to that? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FULLER-That’s fine. MR. FORD-Let’s do that. MR. TRAVER-Start at what time next week? MR. FORD-Six instead of seven. MR. FULLER-You could do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t we do that, but in the meantime, if people could get their individual comments to Counsel, and then you can compile them and distribute them to the Board. MR. FULLER-We’ll compile them. I would just put them together yourselves and bring them, but, Tom, your point’s very well taken. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-Because a majority of you may not agree that that’s a valid concern. I think that’s a very good point, and then they can address them and we can move on from there. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. Okay. MR. FULLER-Just a couple of quick questions. Number One, he’s got to make sure the room’s available. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Right, for six o’clock. MR. FULLER-For six, and that you would be limited to the discussion from six to seven, as you do have valid agenda items coming on at seven. So it would definitely be a time limited factor. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. We’d know by tomorrow if that’s possible. MRS. STEFFAN-We could use that little craft room. We don’t have to meet here. MR. FORD-Yes, that’s a good point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. HEMINGWAY-Do you want it taped? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the only problem. MR. LAPPER-We would like to get this settled. We’ll make ourselves available. Whatever works for the Board. Whatever’s reasonable in terms of conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Counselor. MR. LAPPER-Even though, I mean, my position is this goes beyond the Judge’s decision, but nevertheless we would want to work things out. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I appreciate that. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. FULLER-Yes, so going forward, we will file the appeal. It’s just a Notice of Appeal and Pre-Calendar Statement to be perfected at some later time. We have nine months to perfect, essentially. We wouldn’t hold it up that long. Okay. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. FORD-Perfection is our goal. MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is a SEQRA workshop discussion. You do not need to tape this. MS. HEMINGWAY-All right. So your meeting is adjourned? Do you need me to stay? MR. FULLER-What do you need later on, an adjournment motion? Do you guys keep track of that? If you want, just leave a piece of paper. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’ll take notes. Mr. Salvador, how much time did you want? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Three minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Three minutes. Why don’t we do that before we go into SEQRA. I’ll grant you five. How’s that? MR. SALVADOR-Thanks. Well, I’d like to speak on the subject of retaining walls, and I would like to comment on Mr. Lapper’s that it’s a Building Department issue. It’s a building permit issue. We don’t have anybody on this Town Staff in the Building Department that is competent to rule on, decide that a retaining wall design is sufficient. That’s why we get engineer’s stamps on things. The engineer is competent, and we rely on that competency for the design. It’s only been since 2003 that the Town has issued building permits for retaining walls. It’s because it is now a part of the Uniform Building Code, which it wasn’t before. It kind of fell into the cracks, and there are a lot of retaining walls in this Town that have not been approved by the Town, but in any case, I’d like to read a short paragraph to you from the Uniform Building Code of the State of New York, 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/19/07) as to the requirements for retaining walls. Retaining walls shall be designed to ensure stability against overturning, sliding, excessive foundation pressure, and water uplift. Retaining walls shall be designed for a safety factor of 1.5, against lateral sliding and overturning. Now I have to tell you, if you have any experience in foundation design, to accomplish that in soils that are considered to be saturated, considered to be unstable, considered to be, there’s another term they use, is quite a trick. To protect that foundation and that retaining wall from water uplift, you have to get it down below the frost line. You’re not talking an eight foot retaining wall. You’re talking a 12 foot retaining wall. So I’m telling you, from my experience, a competent design engineer of a retaining wall has first got to get a soils report. A soils engineer tells him the design criteria for the wall, and then he goes to work and he designs the retaining wall. Now this can be the same person if they’re competent in both of those fields. They usually aren’t, and I maintain that to meet the Building Code of the State of New York might preclude this from being accomplished, just from a cost point of view. That’s all. This is serious matter in this project. Whether or not it’s stone or wood or something, that’s kind of immaterial as far as I’m concerned, but the Town has adopted this Building Code, and it’s up to our people to enforce it, and I maintain that it’s a mean trick in this particular case. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Could you specify, John, please, what you were referring to there, please. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. This is the Building Code of New York State. It’s Section 1806, Paragraph 1806-1. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR- Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now we can turn the tape off and move into our SEQRA workshop. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 19, 2007, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 14