Loading...
2007-06-26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 57-2005 Northeast Dining and Lodging 1. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6 Subdivision No. 13-2006 Thomas Brennan 9. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 315.0-1-12.1, 12.2 Subdivision No. 16-1992 William & Dale Smith; John & Patricia Logan 9. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 301.17-1-1, 2 Site Plan No. 31-2007 Jeff Howard 13. Tax Map No. 296.7-1-9, 10 Freshwater Wetlands Permit Joseph & Clementina Soprano 16. No. 1-2007 Tax Map No. 296.14-1-49 Site Plan No. 34-2007 Joseph & Clementina Soprano 22. Tax Map No. 296.14-1-49 Site Plan No. 35-2007 Michael Crayford 25. Tax Map No. 290.-1-22.122 Subdivision No. 15-2006 Legacy Land Holdings, LLC 30. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.15-1-28 Site Plan No. 36-2007 Henri Langevin 45. Tax Map No. 309.5-1-3.12 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 06/26/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD THOMAS SEGULJIC STEPHEN TRAVER TANYA BRUNO GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MARK NOORDSY STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If everyone recalls, we agreed to meet this evening to talk about any conditions that we may want to consider on the Golden Corral project, and, you know, the applicant agreed to meet with us again this evening to talk about what those may or may not be. I don’t know, I’ll just open it up, I guess, for members comments or discussion of any thoughts that they had since last. MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess for me, one of the things that was identified is the footings that will be installed for the retaining wall, and I understand that because that relates, if I remember the discussion, because that relates to the building permit, and those details are not normally part of the site plan, but my concern is because of the proximity to the wetlands, and from, again, from the discussion that we had last week, it sounds like these footings may be somewhat substantial. I’d like to, if we can, have some opportunity to have those designs looked at, maybe by the Town Engineer or somebody, to assess the impact and make sure that they’re minimizing. I gather that’s not (lost word) because it just requires a building permit, but I think in this case, it’s something you might want to consider asking for. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that there was a, on the plans it identifies a condition that it has to be approved, that the design of the retaining wall has to be approved by the Town Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-The Town Engineer, yes. MR. TRAVER-I thought it was just approved by the building. Okay. All right. MR. LAPPER-That is on the plans. That was a condition that we previously agreed to. MR. SEGULJIC-What would happen if they extended it to the wetland area, then? MR. LAPPER-Well, what happened here was that the, in April there was a sign off from C.T. Male that the retaining wall was buildable. That this Board had asked whether it was an issue of buildability, and they had signed off on it at that time, before the SEQRA approval, before the SEQRA Neg Dec, and then later we agreed as a condition that the, what you just said, that the Town Engineer would review it at the time it was submitted for a building permit, because it has to be designed just like I said last week, that the building has to be designed to meet standards. So that would be something that we agreed that we would submit it to a Town Engineer. I mean, in terms of the wetland, there is sufficient separation, with the exception of the tenth of an acre or less than a tenth of an acre disturbance, that it’s an Army Corps wetlands. So that’s permitted in the front. In every other case, the retaining wall you see on the Site Plan is not in the wetland. It’s adjacent to the wetland. So it’s being constructed. I mean, obviously you have to put up a silt fence barrier to make sure you stay away from the wetland, but there is sufficient distance between where the footings would be, and they’d obviously be built from the other side before it gets filled, but there is sufficient distance. So they could be 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) built without disturbing the wetlands. Because if you drove a tractor into the wetland, even for a temporary construction impact, it would still be an impact that would an impact that would require a permit. So this was designed to avoid that. MR. SEGULJIC-So in theory, the footings have to go down four feet or so, at least, I would say. MR. LAPPER-Usually for a house they’re four feet. I can’t tell you if it’s four feet for a retaining wall. MR. SEGULJIC-As if recall, in some of the places the wetlands are closer than the four feet. I believe they’re five feet and in some places they’re closer than the four feet. MR. LAPPER-But if you’re constructing something and you’ve got a stability issue, you know, maybe you put in a small piling that’s four feet deep to hold back dirt and dig out on this side. I mean, usually you use a trench. You use a bucket to dig footings, but if there’s a problem where it’s too close. MR. SEGULJIC-So are you saying you’re going to drive sheeting, initially? MR. LAPPER-Well, if there are some areas that are close, that’s what you’d do, but you’re not talking about sheeting like pilings. I mean, you’re only talking about for footings. So it’s not that, it’s not going to be that deep, but is your concern the impact on the wetland? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I mean, my answer is that the plans provide that there’s sufficient separation. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, in theory. I mean, have soil borings been done on the site? MR. SIPP-You’ve got to have a soil sample. MR. LAPPER-Soil samples were taken on the whole, I mean, that was all done, the geo technical. MR. SEGULJIC-But being an area that’s been filled, as we all know, it’s very variable across the site. MR. LAPPER-But the issue with the fill is that, where there’s some fill, we talked about this with the truck traffic. The fill that is not suitable to be compacted, it’s going to have to be removed, and that’s totally separate. I mean, in any case, it has to stay away from the wetland, and the rule is, the project was designed that it has to be constructed to stay away from the wetland. We talked about it last week. The reason for the retaining wall was to avoid wetland disturbance. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, to clarify that, the reason for the wetland is to increase the parking lot area. The reason for the retaining wall is to increase your parking field. MR. LAPPER-But there’s nothing wrong with building a retaining wall, as long as, I mean, the goal is to avoid wetland disturbance. I explained this, just like at Applebee’s where there’s a retaining wall along the front, it protects the wetland because you don’t have a slope. That has to be graded so it’s effective. I mean, the only, the regulation is don’t disturb the wetland. That’s a design that allows the wetland not to be disturbed. MR. SEGULJIC-But once again, we’re talking six, eight foot tall retaining walls, four or five feet into the ground. MR. LAPPER-There’s nothing that says, I mean, that prevents that. The Home Depot had a 30 foot retaining wall on the side by the wetland, and Applebee’s has at least eight foot of retaining wall and they’re right along Halfway Brook, right at the corner of the parking lot, you know, exactly the same. So there’s nothing that’s problematic with that. It just has to be constructed properly. MR. SIPP-My concern is that clay soil is not going to float a very heavy object. It’s going to push out, and in order to do that, you’ve got to make it wider or longer or so forth, to get more surface area, so there’s less pressure per square foot. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. LAPPER-I think that’s what you guys are trying to say, it sounds like is that there’s some reason that this project shouldn’t be built because there’s a retaining wall next to a wetland, and my answer is that there’s nothing unusual about that. MR. SIPP-I think it’s disturbance of the wetland. MR. LAPPER-But the wetland isn’t proposed to be disturbed, and I can’t be disturbed. MR. SIPP-We don’t know that. MR. LAPPER-Well, your engineer has signed off on it. I guess that’s. NERAL PATEL MR. PATEL-When any project is built, Jon, isn’t that like when you submit a set of plans, you get inspected throughout the stages to make sure that you’re complying to approved plans, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PATEL-So how would I be able to build something that would disturb the wetlands more than what I’m agreeing to not disturb. MR. LAPPER-Right, you can’t. MR. SIPP-(Lost words) factor of how much pressure you can put on that soil. MR. PATEL-But I guess the pressure versus disturbance are two separate issues, correct? MR. SIPP-No, but in order to spread out the pressure, you’re going to have to make the footings bigger than normal. I’m guessing this is a heavy clay soil that’s in the bottom of this swamp, wetlands. MR. LAPPER-The soil borings are all provided. I guess I’m just going to quote from the Judge’s decision, very simple. The Statement of Findings focuses on perceived negative impacts relating to parking, traffic on Quaker Road, driveway spacing, and the construction of retaining wall. The conclusions drawn with respect to each of these areas are supported by speculation and conjecture, based upon the Chairman’s interpretation and the section of data that was previously presented and accepted during the SEQRA review as not presenting a negative impact and conforming with the existing Town Code. All of these areas of concern were thoroughly examined by a variety of experts, utilizing accepted engineering and planning standards. So, I mean, that’s our position. MR. SIPP-Do we have an engineer’s report that says that? MR. LAPPER-Yes, we do. There’s an engineer’s report that says it’s buildable, and your engineer, C.T. Male, submitted a report saying that they agree, that they concur that it’s buildable. MR. SIPP-It’s buildable. Anything is buildable. What I’m concerned with is do we know how many pounds per square foot we can put on that soil? MR. LAPPER-Well, I don’t have that answer here, but it’s in the data. MR. SIPP-And I don’t think the Judge had that answer either. MR. LAPPER-No, but, I mean, that’s, the answer is that goes beyond the Site Plan review, and if you want another court to look at it, that’s your prerogative. I think there’s a benefit to the community in getting this thing settled, but the answer, to try and say that you want to deny the Site Plan, because you’re concerned, as a matter of engineering, whether the retaining wall can be built outside of but in proximity to the wetland, my answer is that’s already been ruled on by your engineer and they said it was fine. MR. PATEL-And that would fall under the umbrella of the structural engineer, the Building Department, to evaluate that? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. LAPPER-Yes, but beyond that, the actual building plans, we’ve already agreed, were reviewed by the engineer at the time the plans were submitted. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, why does the retaining wall have to be so high? MR. LAPPER-So that the parking lot will be flat and level. MR. SEGULJIC-Isn’t it also because your stormwater retention is under the parking lot? MR. PATEL-No. I think what I remember from Chris’ engineering, is to prevent the pitch so that the stormwater doesn’t runoff into the wild, because that’s the whole part of the stormwater prevention plan, to stay into the site. MR. LAPPER-It has to pitch into the filter, so that nothing runs off into the wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-So why not put a retention basin on site, then, instead of this expensive, innovative stormwater treatment? MRS. STEFFAN-As one Planning Board member, I scanned all the minutes that were available to us, and we’ve gone over this territory before. Chris Round, I thought, did a very thorough job of explaining the stormwater management program. I thought that he did a thorough job explaining the engineering behind putting a retaining wall in, and we did have sign offs from our Town Engineers, our representatives, and so, you know, from a science point of view, you know, we’re not scientists, and so we have the engineers who have signed off on the material that’s been presented. So I think we’d be on shaky territory, trying to dispute what’s already been agreed to. We have a negative SEQRA declaration based on, you know, this information, and we chose not to re-open SEQRA. So I understand some of your concerns, but at the same time, we’ve been through this and we agreed to the plan as it was presented, up until that point. I mean, we took the information that was presented and it was acceptable to us. So, I just think we’re on shaky territory there, is my opinion, as one member. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Tom? MR. FORD-I need to ask a couple of questions. If we were to guarantee expedited review, would the applicant consider building in any other location in the Town of Queensbury? MR. PATEL-No. MR. LAPPER-The answer to that is that Neral already has a multi year ground lease and he’s already paying for this site. MR. FORD-My second question is, would the applicant consider down scaling the project. A smaller restaurant would require less paved area, fewer parking spaces, therefore impact the wetlands less. It would also reduce the number of cars and buses leading to less vehicular congestion and fewer accidents. MR. LAPPER-Let me answer that this way, Tom. We did not seek a green space variance. The site is more than compliant in terms of the developed area versus the green area, and this whole sophisticated and expensive stormwater plan is designed to protect the wetlands by providing the required filtration of the expensively engineered system, designed system, but it accomplishes the goal of filtering and treating the stormwater before it runs out into the wetland, and you want the water to go into the wetland to create a wetland, but you want it to be clean, and we accomplished that. So if there’s no reason under the Town Code why the amount of building and the amount of parking is excessive for this site. It just would be a problem if we were creating wetland impacts, which we’re not here. MR. FORD-So the short answer is no? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else, Tom? MR. FORD-Those were my questions. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the concerns that was voiced by members of the Board was the truck traffic during construction, and we never really talked about possible mitigation 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) measures, you know, such as, you know, construction, traffic controls, flag people or whatever. I just wanted to know if there was any consideration given to that? MR. LAPPER-We had actually agreed before the last meeting that we would restrict truck traffic to right in and right out. I mean, this is an area, I know the Board raised it in the end as an issue of concern, but the State and County just did a much larger project with, you know, over eight weeks of construction to re-do that intersection with much heavier truck traffic, and in this particular area there’s very good sight distance and visibility and so what we had agreed as a condition to address that was that it would be right in, right out for construction vehicles, and we think that should take care of your concerns. We tried to agree to everything except stuff that would stop the project. MR. TRAVER-Do you have an estimate as to how long the construction will take? MR. LAPPER-Eight to, I’m sorry. MR. PATEL-Improvements to the site, or from start to finish? MR. TRAVER-Start to finish, well, let me put it this way, the period of time during which there would be the truck traffic. MR. LAPPER-That was about eight to ten weeks. MR. PATEL-No, it wasn’t even that long. When I spoke to Galusha, based on what was needed for import/export, he said he could have, it was eight to ten week for site work because of the lead time for the subsurface stormwater system, because the pre-cast units take eight to ten weeks to manufacture. So you can get site work started. You’ve got to stop at some point, but the actual truck traffic I believe he said he could have done in about four weeks. I believe Dan Galusha told me it would take four weeks, on five day work weeks. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any questions, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-No. Actually, one of the questions I had that I didn’t ask before, as I was going over the minutes. We talked about the infiltrator, and I don’t know if you guys can answer this, but we had talked about a grease bin issue, that you have a lot of grease bins that would be emptied regularly. What would happen if there was a spill and it went into the infiltrator system? MR. PATEL-That’s a good question. The system that we use now is there’s no more grease bins. There’s a company called Restaurant Technologies that has self-contained systems where all grease is evacuated into them, and a truck pulls up with a, it’s a special system where there’s no chance of grease spills. Just big 30 gallon drums that come, they’re self-contained. Obviously they’re food service safe and everything else, but the truck pulls up to the back of the building where there’s an inlet or outlet, there’s two of them to evacuate all greases right into the back of a truck, so there’s never any transportation of grease that would actually be into the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other concerns from the Board that they want to discuss? MRS. STEFFAN-From going through the minutes, I don’t find where we determined which one of the pictures, the color schemes were selected. We skirted around it, but we’ve never picked one, according to the minutes. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we had submitted the choices, and said we would defer to the will of the Board, and Neral said he felt that the third one was the most subtle and attractive, but certainly to get an approval and avoid another six months in court, we would take whichever one you like. MRS. STEFFAN-And the other thing is, I went through the minutes. The pole mounted sign is actually shorter than we’ve actually gone through and determined that 20 feet is an ideal sign height, and yours is at 15. MR. PATEL-Yes, we had reduced it to a monument sign because there were some concerns about visibility. MRS. STEFFAN-And there’s prohibition of the left hand turn, which was a big issue. The performance bond issue was addressed. Chris Round actually had some explanation for the Board, which I thought was very good reasoning and logic, and throughout the whole 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) process, one of the things that I found kind of noteworthy, going through the minutes, was how little public comment there was. I mean, there was some, but it was very little, compared to (lost word). MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, considering that this is an unusual forum, I guess what we hope to accomplish is come up with some conditions, and then what would happen? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you’re right, it is. We’re at a situation where the Judge has ordered the Town issue the permit and to allow the construction to commence. MR. SEGULJIC-But also the Board has decided to appeal that decision. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. That’s right. The applicant said last week that they would take into consideration any conditions that we may request, and I guess we really haven’t officially done that yet. So I guess really where we’re at is that we would make those requests and that they would consider them. I mean, some things they said no to obviously this evening. Some things they said, well, we already agreed to that. So I guess it would be up to us to kind of come up with a list, and then offer it to them to say, sure, we can accept those or not. I guess a resolution might be in order. MR. SEGULJIC-But since we’ve decided to appeal it, really everything’s on the table. MR. NOORDSY-If you were able to agree to conditions, let’s say you came up with your list and there was agreement with you and the applicant, then the appeal process could be halted, if that came to pass, and you’d have an approval with those agreed upon conditions contained in it, but meanwhile the appeal process will go along unless that happens. MR. SEGULJIC-But since we’ve agreed to appeal it, that means, from our perspective, everything’s on the table. Correct? MR. NOORDSY-I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, since we’ve decided to appeal the decision, it’s as if the decision’s not there for us. MR. NOORDSY-You’re probably getting into where we should be discussing this in Executive Session. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. NOORDSY-I would take that as legal advice that I would prefer to be giving in Executive Session. MR. LAPPER-I understand that. I guess if I could for just a second. My read of the decision is that the Site Plan meets the Town requirements and that the Board can’t, under the guise of denying Site Plan review, deny a permitted use in this area because it meets the Town requirements, and my expectation is that if we go to appeal, we’ll get the same or a stronger decision from the Appellate Division, but that’s obviously something that would take a number of months to get to that point. I think that there’s a benefit to the community to get matters like this settled rather than to litigate, not just in terms of money on both sides, but just in terms of people trying to work things out. So we’re here in a matter of compromise to try and see if there’s a list of, short of moving the site to another location, or building a smaller building, you know, any other conditions that protect the Planning Board’s interest in making sure the property is properly constructed, we would be here to agree to, and it’s our hope that, you know, notwithstanding that this has been litigious, that we could work it out, and either we can or can’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Your question, was that leading to a statement or a comment that you wanted to make, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Or clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, with regard’s to Mark’s comment, could we go into Executive Session just to get that clarified? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. NOORDSY-I would just make sure, before we do that, we’ve got all the proposed, any ideas that you all have out on the table, just so that we’ve heard the applicant’s response to that. I think you may have already done that. MR. FORD-At some point, Mr. Lapper just gave his interpretation of the Judge’s decision, and I happen to have a different interpretation, which I also would like to voice, but we can do that after Executive Session, before it, or whatever. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess I should make a motion to go into Executive Session. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NOORDSY-We’ve gone through at least, I had a list of items, as far as proposed conditions for you. The first two I think we’ve agreed upon, just for the record, to list them as part of the conditions, proposed conditions, would be a right in, right out, the construction traffic, and Number Three, for the color scheme. Then the additional items that we came up with. There is a provision in the plans for the design of the retaining wall to be submitted to the Town Engineer for approval, and in request that that be done, and that the wetlands flagged and the protection measures in place before the actual construction’s done. MR. LAPPER-That’s acceptable. MR. NOORDSY-And then the last item is with regard to alternative stormwater plan, which involves different (lost words). MR. SEGULJIC-If I can clarify that. As we know, one of our concerns is the height of the retaining wall. What we’d like you to do is re-visit the stormwater, look at things like impervious pavement. Maybe using the entire the parking lot beneath it for storage capacity, things of that nature. MR. LAPPER-Explain. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s products out there, all impervious pavement, that the entire parking area would be allowed to drain down below. I’m not a stormwater design person, but you could then use a riprap as storage capacity. MR. LAPPER-The issue is that it has to be pre-treated before it can be released, and there’s qualitative requirements about sediment. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I’m asking you just to look at that. MR. LAPPER-We’ll look at anything if it’s possible. MR. SEGULJIC-And maybe by that, being able to reduce the size of the retaining wall. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the goal, is to reduce the size of the retaining wall, which would also reduce the amount of fill needed to (lost words). MR. LAPPER-I don’t recall, in terms of the height of the structures, whether there’s a possibility of bringing everything down a foot. Maybe there is. We’ll certainly look at it. MR. NOORDSY-Well, why don’t you do that, and your office and ours would work on a proposed set of conditions that this could go in front of, you know, as a document, it could go in front of the Planning Board at their next meeting. MR. LAPPER-Which would be when? th MR. HUNSINGER-Our next meeting’s July, July 17. MR. LAPPER-I’m out of town that week. Would there be a possibility to move it quicker, just in terms of the four conditions? MR. NOORSDY-As long as you call your meeting properly. MR. HUNSINGER-The week before that? MR. LAPPER-Certainly our goal is to get this settled rather than to continue to litigate it, and we can come up with anything that would reduce the height of the retaining wall, we’d certainly try. MR. HUNSINGER-I suppose, this room’s always available. Right, John, usually, except for Monday nights? JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Well, yes. Most often, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I suppose we could always use this room if we needed to, but maybe th we could look at the week of July 9 for a meeting date. Staff, does that give us enough time? MRS. BRUNO-Will your engineer have enough time to run all those calc’s? MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes, it’s not a public hearing. th MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Okay. We’ll look at something the week of July 9. MR. LAPPER-I think we’ll know in a couple of days whether there’s something that’ll reduce the retaining wall, but anyway, we appreciate you coming up with a list of conditions, and we’ll try to satisfy. MR. TRAVER-Well, we appreciate your listening. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we appreciate the opportunity to discuss it. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. PATEL-Thanks. (NOTE: THE MEETING RE: NORTHEAST DINING WAS HELD IN THE SUPERVISOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM, TOWN HALL, AT 6:00 P.M., BEFORE THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 6/26/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call the meeting to order, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. thndthth The first item is approval of minutes for March 20, 22, and 27, as well as April 17, thth 24, and 26. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20, 2007 March 22, 2007 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) March 27, 2007 April 17, 2007 April 24, 2007 April 26, 2007 NDTH MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 22, AND 27, AS WELL AS THTHTH APRIL 17, 24, AND 26, 2007, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED THOMAS BRENNAN AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 751 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 22.70 ACRE PARCEL INTO 16 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 TO 2.33 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SKETCH: 10/17/06 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 LOT SIZE 22.70 TAX MAP NO. 315.0-1-12.1, 12.2 SECTION A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is a request from Thomas Brennan for Subdivision No. 13-2006. It was tabled to this evening. The public hearing was left th open. The applicant has asked that we table it to the July 17 meeting. There is a resolution provided by Staff for your consideration. Would anyone like to move it? ON APRIL 26, 2007 SUBDIVISION 13-2006 THOMAS BRENNAN WAS TABLED TO JUNE 26, 2007. INFORMATION REQUESTED WAS NOT SUBMITTED BY THE DEADLINE DATE INDICATED IN THE RESOLUTION [5/15/07]. A REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE BY BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION ON THE JULY 17 MEETING. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2006 THOMAS BRENNAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. That would be postponed to the July 17 meeting. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1992 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM & DALE SMITH; JOHN & PATRICIA LOGAN OWNER(S) SAME AS ABOVE ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 463 & 476 WEST MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE FW 3-92, AV 124-92, AV 43-03, AV 43-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 2.70, 2.03 TAX MAP NO. 301.17-1-1, 2 SECTION A-183 WILLIAM SMITH, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-If you’d like to come forward to the table, please. Could you tell us briefly what you’re looking to do. MR. SMITH-My name is William Smith. Okay. What I want to do is I just want to change the property line. When the Logan’s bought the house, they asked me if we could include that driveway. We no longer use that driveway because it’s just not, it’s not feasible for us because the garage that goes down there just isn’t big enough, and we 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) don’t use that part of the driveway. Where the gravel driveway is is what we use now, and they just asked if we would deed that piece of property where, because they do use that driveway, and they’re the only ones that do use that driveway. They just asked me I would deed that over to them when they bought the house, and I told them that as long as I could get an approval, that I would do that for them. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-It seems straightforward, unless you have anything hidden. MR. SMITH-No. MR. FORD-Any negatives you can see to that? MR. SMITH-I don’t see anything wrong. MR. TRAVER-Are there any plans to construct any additional driveways on either of the properties? MR. SMITH-No. My intention is to put another garage on the end of the house. That’s what I intend to do, which would mean where the gravel driveway is, that would go up to that. That’s why we don’t use that other driveway. MR. TRAVER-I see. Thank you. MR. SMITH-Okay. MR. FORD-So you would wind up with how driveways? MR. SMITH-It would be just the one driveway, and it splits off and it goes down to their back, and it would come over to our, where the gravel driveway is. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any further questions or comments? There’s no public hearing required for a modification. George, is there any particular reason why this is an Unlisted Action? MR. HILTON-No, I believe that it probably doesn’t fall under the Type I or Type II list. That’s my guess. Not having the SEQRA list in front of me, I can’t point to a Type II action or any other action, but that’s what I think happened. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There’s no form provided. It would be a Short Form, right? MR. HILTON-It would be a Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-1992, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WILLIAM & DALE SMITH; JOHN & PATRICIA LOGAN, 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 06/26/07) 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 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to move the resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1992 WILLIAM & DALE SMITH; JOHN & PATRICIA LOGAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment. Modifications to y approved subdivisions require Planning Board review. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/26/07; 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 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 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 Subdivision, 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 subdivision 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 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NOT APPLICABLE. 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1992 WILLIAM & DALE SMITH; JOHN & PATRICIA LOGAN, 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 Negative. Paragraph Nine does not apply. Paragraph Ten does not apply. No conditions. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. SMITH-Okay. Thanks very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you very much. MR. FORD-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 31-2007 SEQR TYPE II JEFF HOWARD AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING PO LOCATION 625 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 900 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING. OFFICE USES IN THE PO ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-99, AV 37-07, SP 12-99, SP 32-91 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/13/07 LOT SIZE 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.7-1-9, 10 SECTION 179-4-020 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF HOWARD, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. I’ll just bring up a couple of points. As indicated, his proposal is a 900 square foot second floor addition. I’ve indicated the waivers that the applicant is seeking. As far as granting a waiver from the stormwater management plan, as I’ve mentioned, some determination of the adequacy of the existing infrastructure should be, I guess that should be discussed as part of this application. On a side note, we do have Vision Engineering comments which we received, which I handed out to the Board this evening. That also goes into some detail about stormwater management. In terms of lighting, the applicant has proposed wall mounted lighting fixtures which are not completely downcast cut off fixtures, and oddly enough, there are some cut sheets for some other fixtures included in this application which the applicant doesn’t propose to use, which are compliant, and our suggestion would be using those fixtures instead of the ones proposed, and that’s all I really have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-Good evening. Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Jeff Howard from Adirondack Insurance. Okay. Very briefly what we’re trying to do is take a chain saw, cut off the roof of this structure, and put a second floor in between. So all we’re really doing is putting a second floor directly on the existing footprint. We’re not proposing any site modification at all. The existing parking suffices for the square footage. The existing septic system suffices for the number of people to be employed. To address Staff comments, the lighting plan or lighting issue, we did submit a Laconia fixture. What I failed to do, the reason we used the one we did is we can get a lower wattage, an 80 watt high pressure sodium luminare in that. The other one that Staff referred to has a minimum of 150 watt luminare. However, what I failed to do is that the one that we’ve shown to be used does come with a cut off visor, okay, so we would use the cut off visor 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) with that, okay, that has the same effect. It allows us to have a little smaller, a little lower wattage and actually a little better distribution for the light we do use. So that’s the lighting. The stormwater issue that both Staff and Vision Engineering brought up, evidently Dan Ryan has looked or maybe driven on to the site, I’m not sure that he got out and looked. The issue is the two drywells that serve the parking area, and it turns out that the drainage is enough of a non-issue that one of the drywells still had the fabric under the lid. So what Dan is looking at is that. Okay. We pulled the lid. We could see what’s underneath there looks fairly black. We pulled the lid and you can see the holes in the fabric. You lift the fabric off, and that’s what you have. So it functions. It was even functioning with the fabric and the accumulated leaf and debris on top, and what’s under there is perfectly good. So I think Jeff can also speak to the drainage because he’s been in the building for seven years and hasn’t had any problems. The other issue that Dan Ryan brought up was the distance between the creek and the building, and I went and looked at that again tonight with the survey map in hand. It does follow with the survey. The survey does appear to be accurate. There’s a photograph. It shows that the nearest point from building to creek is 35 feet, and that’s what we have the variance for. There’s a picture of that area where it’s closest to the creek, and it does, you know, I didn’t take a tape measure out, but it’s definitely 35 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. NACE-No. The only other thing Vision Engineering had was future septic replacement. If you’d like we can show a replacement area. However, there’s a new sewer out in front, and I assume that if any of those properties around there ever had a problem, they would probably ask to be served as an outside user to the sewer district and tie in to the municipal sewer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. SIPP-That was my question. You’re obviously doubling the size. So therefore the existing septic is not. MR. NACE-No, the existing septic is adequate. Even though we’re doubling the size of the facility, there are not going to be more employees. It’s mostly file space and elbow room that’s required at this point. MR. SIPP-That’s my next question is the sign would not change, in the sense of listing the different people being occupying the building? MR. HOWARD-No, everything would remain the same. It’s only going to be my office. MR. SIPP-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Although I understand that you don’t have any additional employee, because it’s increasing in square footage, has the parking calculation been looked at, updated? MR. NACE-It’s based on the square footage. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Did anyone have questions or comments of the Board on this application? Is there any written comments, George? MR. HILTON-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable in moving forward? This one is a Type II action. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. FORD-Yes, I am. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to offer a resolution? Are we satisfied with the applicant’s comments to the engineering questions? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I guess my only comment is the lighting. In our package, we have the. MR. NACE-Okay. In your package you have a Laconia cut sheet, and we’ve specified, we’ve circled the Laconia Model TWR1C. It’s a 70 watt high pressure sodium. Okay. If you look in the picture in the middle of the page, it shows a cut off visor. It’s shown on the 2C fixture, but it’s also available at the 1C. Okay. So we would simply specify that the TWR1C have a full cut off visor supplied with it. MR. SEGULJIC-So that one there? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we should specify it in your motion. MRS. STEFFAN-I actually have a condition on that, just on, identified what they would do, so I added that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-And we’re okay with the waivers, for stormwater, grading, lighting and landscaping? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2007 JEFF HOWARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 900 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing office building. Office uses in the PO zone require Planning Board review and approval. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/26/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply 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 if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOT APPLICABLE. 6. WHEREAS, 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 7. 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 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) 8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NOT APPLICABLE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2007 JEFF HOWARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following notes and conditions: 1. Paragraph Four complies. 2. Paragraph Five is a Type II SEQRA. 3. Paragraph Eight does not apply. 4. Paragraph Nine does not apply, 5. The application is approved with the following conditions: a. That the applicant will add a cut off visor to the new lighting to decrease wattage and increase distribution, b. and the Planning Board grants waivers for stormwater management, grading, lighting, and landscaping. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HOWARD-Thank you. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOSEPH & CLEMENTINA SOPRANO AGENT(S) JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 54 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHIN 100 FEET OF A NYS DEC REGULATED WETLAND. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF A NYS DEC REGULATED WETLAND REQUIRES A TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 39-07; BP 07-084 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/13/07 LOT SIZE 3.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-49 SECTION 179-6-100 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. These are actually two applications, two related applications. One is a Freshwater Wetlands Permit, the other is a Site Plan Review, for hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline. I guess a couple of comments here, as far as the Freshwater Wetlands application. Number One, has the applicant received a New York State DEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit for this proposed action? As I’ve mentioned, in considering the criteria contained in the Town Code for granting a Freshwater Wetlands Permit, it’s Staff’s opinion that the Board should consider the stormwater management plan, and again, the adequacy of stormwater management on this site, to prevent any runoff or any direct flow into the wetland, and again, as with the Site Plan Review, a similar comment, our main comment would be, looking at stormwater and ensuring the adequacy of the system to handle the stormwater on site, and I guess one final comment on the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, it would be Staff’s opinion that any conditions of the New York State DEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit be included in the Town permit as well, and if the Board so chooses, they could just include a condition in any approval saying that any conditions of the State permit would be added to this, and that’s all I have at this time. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers, representing the applicant and owner. Tina Soprano is here representing the family, and Dan Valente is here as the builder. From our application, you can see we’re proposing an addition to the single family residence on the north side of the residence, primarily as a garage and new family room. One clarification that relates to the engineer’s comments, we are removing one bedroom from the existing house, and the new bedroom and the addition will equate to no net change in bedrooms. So there’s no expansion in use. As part of our application, we are providing stormwater management to isolate and protect the wetland pond and the wetland swale down gradient of the pond. That is, in discussion with Town Staff as well as with the DEC, and to answer George’s question, the application has been made to the DEC, as a formality. We’ve discussed it with them orally several times, and they’re in favor of our application the way it currently stands. The application has been made in writing and now we’re awaiting a response. Another engineering comment was that our plan show not for construction, and they suggest removing them from the drawing prior to signature by the Planning Board. We would suggest that we leave it on until we submit the conditions of approval to the Board. We’ve had problems in the past with plans being utilized before they’re ready. So we’d like to leave it on until we issue the conditions to the Board. Other than that, I’ll take questions from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SIPP-This will remain a four bedroom house? MR. JARRETT-Yes, no change in bedrooms, that’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-One of the things we need to look at, is there no reasonable alternative for the proposed action? I mean, looking at the plan, why not go to the east of the house, I guess? MR. JARRETT-The east of the house would be in the front, where the leach field is. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I got my directions wrong. It’s to the west of the house. MR. JARRETT-And west of the house, we discussed this with the Zoning Board at length, and, you know, our argument is that it doesn’t match the interior layout and flow of the house, and Dan can speak to that. It also means much more driving surface, much more hard surface on the north side of the house to get around to that side, and we feel it’s counterproductive. The ZBA agreed with us and granted a variance for this structure. MR. SEGULJIC-So does the house have a garage now? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s not a garage. I can see what you’re saying, but looking at it from the wetlands perspective, I mean, you’ve got to subtract the wetlands. MR. JARRETT-Well, our argument with that is that right now there’s really no effective stormwater management at all, and we’re providing a new barrier to the wetland to protect it. So we think it’s going to be a win/win situation for the owners and for the environment. MR. FORD-You’re suggesting that it’s an improvement over the present conditions? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. FORD-Relative to the wetland? MR. JARRETT-Yes, we are. MR. SEGULJIC-And why is that? MR. JARRETT-Well, we have a new swale, as you can see between the driveway and the existing wetland pond which will divert stormwater to the east, behind that new berm that we’re building, to isolate the wetland from the lawn area. If you look at the bottom of our Drawing C-1, it shows a stormwater berm, which is a very low silty sand berm with a 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) native plantings that’ll trap stormwater, let it infiltrate before it goes to the wetland. We think that’s a far superior situation than direct runoff into the wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-Why are you concerned about the runoff into the wetland? MR. JARRETT-I think direct runoff into a wetland is to be avoided if you can do it. If you can infiltrate it, it’s better. Especially from a lawn area. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that’s why I’m wondering, why are you concerned about runoff from the lawn area. MR. JARRETT-I don’t think I would be from my lawn, but, and I’m not sure about the Sopranos, but a lot of people apply pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers to the lawn areas. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if we stopped doing that, it would be much better, then. MR. JARRETT-Yes, okay. What happens in 15 years when somebody else owns the house and they don’t understand the conditions. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just questioning, you said it would be much better. I’m just saying you’ve created a condition, and now you have to do something to improve it. MR. JARRETT-Well, the existing structure and the existing driveway are already within the 100 feet of the wetland, and what we’re doing is, even though our driveway is going to be closer to the wetland than it is right now, we’re isolating the wetland from that driveway where it was not isolated before. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else, questions or comments? MR. SEGULJIC-I can just say myself, I guess overall I’m just uncomfortable with it mainly because it says, our regulations say that there’s, if there’s no reasonable alternative to the proposed regulatory activity on the site, which is on a freshwater wetland or adjacent. I think there’s reasonable alternatives. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m okay with the berm. I think it’ll have a dryer lawn. MR. JARRETT-Yes, I think it’s a net improvement. MR. SEGULJIC-Doesn’t the wetland need runoff to survive, though? MR. JARRETT-Most of its runoff is from up gradient further to the west. It will get runoff from out site as well as it seeps through that berm. We did not make that an impervious berm. We just slowed it down, tried to encourage infiltration, but it can seep through if we have ponding on the lawn. MR. HUNSINGER-When you talked about native plants, what type of plants would you be proposing? MR. JARRETT-If you look at the left side of our drawing, there’s a list of suggested species. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Okay. I had it folded over. Where do you get native plants like that? Can you get them at nurseries? MR. JARRETT-Several of us on the Planning Board and myself were at a conference yesterday that told of local nurseries that will supply these. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Those are pretty good choices, and you’ve got a wide variety of soil conditions from wet to dry. A lot of these herbaceous plants will grow in ground cover also. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. JARRETT-I think Mr. Valente would like to comment on that. DAN VALENTE 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. VALENTE-Yes. I just wanted to comment on the design and where that came about. Mrs. Soprano had a designer come out and look over the home, look over the site, and decide which was the most practical area in which to add this facility to. The reason why the garage is really to the north side of the house is to add what they need for space and then put the garage to the western part of the house, which set the garage literally probably close to 60 feet away from the kitchen area. So, just practicality wise, flow, unloading your car, groceries, getting in and flow of the house, you don’t want to go through a living room, through a, you know, a potential entry and then into your kitchen. So part of it has to do with design and flow, and that’s why the design of this ended up towards the north end of the house. Also compounding what Tom said the additional driveway lengthening, which really wouldn’t bring us any further away from the pond issue dramatically, we’d still have an issue with that, but I just wanted to instill some of the design came from direct from the designer, and so maybe that’ll shed some light on why it’s there. It’s also flow and functionality of the house, to service the home properly. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that had questions or comments on this project? I will open the public hearing. Are there any written comments, George? MR. HILTON-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENTS MR. HUNSINGER-I’m always confused when we do these, where we have both the Site Plan as well as the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, if we have to open and close two public hearings, officially? MR. HILTON-I believe so, and also two SEQRAs because it’s not coordinated. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HOMSY-But I believe they’re Short Forms. MR. HUNSINGER-So the current public hearing is for the Freshwater Wetlands Permit only, and I will close that public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And if we’re ready to move forward on SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-I would say yes. The site is going to impact the wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What is that impact? The level of impact, Small to Moderate? MR. SEGULJIC-They’re putting controls in place. So I’d have to say it’s Moderate at least. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Small to Moderate, and mitigated by the proposed controls? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that fair? Okay. MRS. BRUNO-I agree with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOSEPH & CLEMENTINA SOPRANO, and 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-George, you made a comment earlier about any condition of the New York State permitting would be added to, is it the Site Plan? MR. HILTON-Well, in the case of the Freshwater Wetlands, it would be for the Freshwater Wetlands Permit application, the State permit. The only State permit that’s required is a Freshwater Wetlands Permit. So with the Town’s permit, perhaps a condition could be any conditions of the State permit be included in the Town’s permit, something along those lines. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2007 JOSEPH & CLEMENTINA SOPRANO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. WHEREAS, a freshwater wetlands application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction associated with a single family home within 100 feet of a NYS DEC regulated wetland. Construction within 100 feet of a NYS DEC wetland requires a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit from the Planning Board. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/26/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply 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 Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Freshwater Wetlands permit, 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 7. 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 8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NOT APPLICABLE MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2007 JOSEPH & CLEMENTINA SOPRANO, 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 Eight does not apply. Paragraph Nine does not apply, and it is approved with the following condition: That any condition of the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Permit would be added to any Town of Queensbury permitting. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 34-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOSEPH & CLEMENTINA SOPRANO AGENT(S) JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 54 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2,050 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS WITHIN 50 FEET OF A WETLAND SHORELINE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 39-07; BP 07-084, FWW 1-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/13/07 LOT SIZE 3.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-49 SECTION 179-6-060 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. STEFFAN-We need to do SEQRA on the Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-And there is a public hearing on the Site Plan. Is there anyone here that had questions or comments to the Board on the Site Plan for Joseph & Clementina Soprano? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board before we move forward with SEQRA? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Same comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, same comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Same comments as the Freshwater Wetlands. Small to Moderate. It’s mitigated by the proposed stormwater plan. MR. FORD-Mitigated. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 34-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOSEPH & CLEMENTINA SOPRANO, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2007 JOSEPH & CLEMENTINA SOPRANO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 2,050 sq. ft. addition to an existing single family residence. A portion of the proposed construction is within 50 feet of a wetland shoreline. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/26/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply 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 Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan application, 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 7. 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 8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NOT APPLICABLE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2007 JOSEPH & CLEMENTINA SOPRANO, 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 Eight and Nine do not apply. No conditions. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with your project. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. TINA SOPRANO MRS. SOPRANO-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2007 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL CRAYFORD AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 188 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO A DUPLEX. DUPLEX USES IN THE SR-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 16-04, BP 05-544 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/13/07 LOT SIZE 3.08 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-22.122 SECTION 179-4-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. This application is a proposal to convert an existing building into an additional residential dwelling resulting in two residential dwellings on a 3.08 acres property. The Site Plan contains a density calculation that shows allowable residential density for these two units, and my main comment, Staff’s main comment, is that the plan shows four new parking spaces at the front of the property, right directly adjacent to Chestnut Ridge, and I guess our suggestion, Staff’s suggestion, would be that these 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) spaces be moved into the interior of the parcel a bit, so that maneuvering and vehicles won’t be backing in and pulling in and such, directly onto Chestnut Ridge Road, and that’s all I actually have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Michael Crayford. To Staff comments, we agree wholeheartedly. I just handed George a plan that changes the driveway, locates it farther into the property, and provides two turnouts for backing, so you can pull in, back in to the turnouts, and then pull back out onto the road without backing out. I’ll have him pass a copy along, but we have no problem with that comment whatsoever. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Other than that, pretty much what the Staff already said. This is an existing large building that’s there. It was the former barn, and Mr. Crayford’s been working on it for about a year, a year and a half, I believe, converting it into a residence, and he wants to be able to convert that into two residential buildings, because of the size of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-He wants to convert it into a what? MR. STEVES-A duplex. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. STEVES-Two residences. MR. HUNSINGER-What is the square footage of the building? MR. STEVES-I believe the building itself is, the footprint’s over 4,000, I believe. 4358 on the footprint. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, part of what he’s doing, it looks like he’s adding a second floor. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So doesn’t that also increase the square footage of the building? MR. STEVES-Square footage. I’m talking just the actual footprint of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-That’s what they call for in your Site Development Data is your actual footprint of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. That’s why I was asking the question, though. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Septic system? MR. STEVES-There was a septic system that was installed in the back of the property, just depicted where it was installed. It’s a 1250 gallon septic tank. It’s a new system. I believe that was all reviewed by Dave Hatin in the Building and Codes Department. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s going to be adequate to handle two families? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. FORD-Two families, 1250? MR. STEVES-Yes. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Six kids each, plus two adults? MR. STEVES-It’s sized for the number of bedrooms, and septic systems are completely by the number of bedrooms in the structure. MR. HUNSINGER-So how many bedrooms did they calculate? MR. STEVES-I believe it’s a four or five bedroom, I believe. MR. FORD-Current zoning for this parcel is? MR. STEVES-This is an SR-1A zone, Suburban Residential One Acre. MR. SEGULJIC-So, duplexes are not allowed, then. MR. STEVES-Single family they’re not allowed, SR they are allowed. MR. SEGULJIC-SR they are allowed. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HILTON-And that’s why this application is here. That type of use, a duplex use, requires Site Plan Review in this zone. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-That’s where I was going with the zoning. Thank you. MR. STEVES-And Mr. Crayford just walked in, too. If you have any questions for the owner and builder. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MRS. BRUNO-George, do we have any picture, it looks like you don’t have your computer up. Does the Town have any pictures on that? MR. HILTON-Well, we have the most recent aerial from 2004, which shows the building pretty much in the outline that you see on the map. Unfortunately, I did bring the computer. There’s no cords to get it hooked up, and given that we were in the other meeting, I haven’t had a chance to run back. MRS. BRUNO-That’s okay. I’ve got the quick snapshots. Thanks. MR. STEVES-This is one of the lots from the Higgs & Crayford subdivision of ’97. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Will there be continued respect to maintaining the historic, you know, look of the barn and keeping the continuity? MICHAEL CRAYFORD MR. CRAYFORD-That’s my purpose of restoring the barn. I’m Michael Crayford. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just interested to see if there’s any public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MR. FORD-The use of the silo? MR. CRAYFORD-There’s no plan for use of the silo at this point. It’s just, they have to create the architectural originality, I guess. I do plan on putting a roof on it, because that blew off in some storm about five years ago, but it was destroyed, but I do plan to replace the roof on it which is a shallow roof. MR. SIPP-And the wood stay silo, wood? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. CRAYFORD-No, it’s a ceramic tile silo. MR. SIPP-Is there, have the rungs been removed so that nobody can climb? MR. CRAYFORD-Yes, it’s been sealed off. MR. SIPP-If you had a child in the area they’d be able to climb up and fall off. MR. CRAYFORD-No, it’s been sealed off. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. If there is anyone that would like to ask questions or make comments on this application. Anyone from the public? Okay. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Further comments, discussion from the Board? George, did you pass around the parking plan that he just handed? If you could just hand it down, please. MRS. STEFFAN-It is a rural road, and people do travel pretty quick on that road. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes, regardless of the posted speed limit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-That was a good suggestion, and an oversight on my part. I didn’t pick up on it when the map went out, but I have no problem with the Staff comment on that at all. They’re right on the money on that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the will of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m fine with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It’s a Type II action. So there’s no SEQRA. MRS. BRUNO-May I just ask what your intention is for the front yard? I have to apologize. I wasn’t able to view the site visit this month. So if there is something, I don’t know it, just because we’ve got the picture from the winter. Could you describe what the front yard area is, or what you plan on having it look like once the parking is in? MR. CRAYFORD-I’m planning to provide a retaining wall out of the boulders, like the rest of Chestnut Ridge, to create the same effect, and there’d be a circular driveway that will go in and out. So there’s two ways to get in and get out of the property, and then it’ll be landscaped. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. CRAYFORD-In keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. They’re all watching me very closely. MRS. BRUNO-I don’t quite understand where this circular driveway is. MR. CRAYFORD-There’d actually be more parking than the four lots. MR. STEVES-For drop off in the front of the building, basically, and then you can pull into the parking lot, if you want me to depict what he’s talking about on the plan. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-George, this is a Type II, but they did submit a Short Form. Do we need to do SEQRA? MR. HILTON-No. No further action. I think they probably just submitted it just to be safe. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2007 MICHAEL CRAYFORD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes conversion of a single family dwelling to a duplex. Duplex uses in the SR-1A zone require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/26/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply 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 if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, 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 7. 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 8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NOT APPLICABLE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2007 MICHAEL CRAYFORD, 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 is not necessary. This is a Type II SEQRA. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not apply. It is approved with the following condition: That parking be located farther inside the property in order to allow for vehicular access and movement on the site, and not within the Town’s right of way. On the drawing, such as Mr. Steves’ indicated, that they will indicate this turnaround. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, good luck. MR. CRAYFORD-Thank you. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2006 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LCC AGENT(S) JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING PO LOCATION BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 26.15 ACRE PARCEL INTO 17 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 20,000 SQ. FT. TO 85,402 SQ. FT. NOT INCLUDING RESIDUAL WETLAND LOT #17. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 10-02; 4/17/07 SKETCH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 26.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-28 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL BORGOS & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. I’ll just bring up a few points here. This application is for a 17 lot Professional Office building on Bay Road adjacent to Baybridge Drive. Part of the plan includes re-aligning and extended Baybridge Drive to Bay Road to line up opposite the Willowbrook Office complex on the east side of Bay Road. Number One, as far as municipal services, I’ve mentioned that sewer, this property is not in the sewer district at this time, and I’ve asked the question, has the applicant started the process of submitting a Map Plan and Report for the required district extension. Secondly, I think this is somewhat of a minor comment, but I did include it. One of the sheets in the subdivision plat in the package shows residual lands. However, the other plans do not show these residual lands as being part of the subdivision, and I guess my only comment would be that any future or Final Stage subdivision should show all the property within this subdivision. There are other improvements, other than the realignment and connection of Baybridge Drive to Bay Road, such as landscaping, a multi-use path, street lighting and our suggestion is that all of these improvements be installed prior to the acceptance of the extension of Baybridge Drive right of way by the Town Highway Department. I’ve mentioned Bay Road design guidelines. This property is within the Bay Road design area. For the most part, what you’ll see are residential style buildings set back from the street as called for in the guidelines. The proposed development plan that you see, which shows shared parking and shared access drive, also conforms with the Bay Road design guidelines. I’ve mentioned the landscaping that is proposed as of this time, the 39 street trees. Lighting I’ve also touched on. Decorative fixtures are proposed. These fixtures are, however, cut off. There are internal elements that will direct the light downward. As far as traffic and transportation, the applicant has submitted a traffic report, traffic summary, prepared by Creighton Manning. The summary, I guess, states that a traffic signal will be warranted at the Willowbrook/Baybridge intersection in the future, but that based on traffic volumes expected from this proposal, a traffic light would not be warranted based on those traffic volumes from this proposal alone. It’s our understanding that, Staff’s understanding, that a copy of this summary has been provided to Warren County DPW for their comment. I made a comment as far as sidewalks. The plan has been updated to include a multi-use path, as discussed at Sketch Plan, and consideration should also be given to including a sidewalk along Bay Road for pedestrian use along this corridor. As far as stormwater management, I’ve touched on how this property is in the Halfway Brook watershed. Stormwater is pretty important here, and I guess that the Board should, as I’ve mentioned, should review the plan to make sure that no new negative impacts will result on surrounding properties, the properties downstream. I’ve also mentioned that this site contains New York State DEC wetlands, and that a DEC Freshwater Wetland Permit will be required at some point in the future, and I’ve asked the question, has the applicant received a State Freshwater Wetlands Permit for this proposed development? And I’ve just made the comment that a Town Freshwater Wetlands Permit as well will be required for any development within the subdivision in the future that’s within 100 feet of the New York State DEC wetlands. That’s basically a summary, and all I have at this time, if you have any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, George. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. For the record, my name is Mike Borgos. I’m here on behalf of Legacy Land Holdings as the applicant. I’m joined by engineer Tom Jarrett and Dan Valente who is the principal of Legacy Land Holdings. The Board will recall that we’ve been before you I think in November and April with the two different Sketch Plans. So I understand that everybody should be familiar with it, but just as a brief re-cap, I think George has summarized it well. There is a total of 17 lots being created. George raised the issue of the residual lands to the south of the majority of the subdivision here with the buildings that are proposed to be built in the future. Now that’s the residual land that will be maintained by Legacy Land Holdings. It’s landlocked. It’s largely wetlands. So we did not include it as part of this, and no building is being proposed on it. We had talked about, I think Mrs. Steffan brought up the multi-use path, the walking path, at the earliest 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) Sketch Plan review back in November. It’s my recollection that this path was discussed and developed with the concept of bringing any of the pedestrian traffic from the apartments on Walker Lane or from the Baybridge Development down through this development and subdivision to Bay Road where there’s an existing bike path to convey those people to Stewarts or any other places they want to walk to along the Bay Road corridor. In my cover letter that I sent to you, I raised the question of the aesthetics of this bike, multi-use path. The standard for a multi-use path, I believe, is 10 feet, and that’s what you see on the Warren County bike path as a width. We heard concerns about the surfacing of this bike path or multi-use path and its width in this location. A 10 foot width would create an appearance of a full driving lane, and if it’s a hard surface macadam pavement, we think that’s not going to be very aesthetically pleasing. It’ll look like an additional stretch of road as it runs along the reconfigured Baybridge Drive extension. So we’re looking for some input from the Board as to what you would like to see for that multi-use path, but we think that it’s an open question. If we want this to be a place that people would enjoy walking or biking on, perhaps a hard paved surface may not be ideal, because that’s already present on the roadways in abundance. Maybe we want to do something more like what’s in Hovey Pond Park or along the Feeder Canal path with some type of a crushed stone of a fine enough grade that will pack and support foot traffic, not be too squishy under foot, but also support some bicycle traffic. One of our concerns with the hard surface is the additional stormwater runoff that would be created. I think we made mention in the cover letter that that’s akin to another whole building on this subdivision. So it adds up, even though it’s a small width. It’s the linear width that gets added over a great distance. So, those are some of our concerns with that. With regards to some of the Staff comments that George raises, I think we can go through them, item by item. If the Board wants to stop me during this, feel free. I know you’re all relatively familiar with it, so I don’t need to go through a great overview, but please let me know if there are questions on any individual aspect. With regards to the submission of a map plan for the sewer district extension, that’s been undertaken already. That’s underway. I already addressed the residual lot. I think there was a note somewhere, I think it was in Dan Ryan’s comments, the engineer’s comments, there was a question about lighting on the bike path. He didn’t see any, but indeed on the plats that we’ve submitted, there is a cut sheet I think that shows three of those decorative fixtures along the path. So that’s already been addressed. If somebody has more concerns about that, we’d be happy to talk about those. MR. JARRETT-On Drawing C-6. MR. BORGOS-The lighting plan for the multi-use path is on C-6 in the plan package that you have. One of the other notable aspects of this, I think as we’ve discussed, in prior appearances, but it’s worth noting again, is that the frontage of the buildings along Walker Lane will have a visual front façade on Walker Lane and may indeed have a double front, depending on what those individual owners wish to do when they come to develop that and they come before you again for Site Plan, but the idea is that we’re designing this in accordance with the Bay Road corridor design guidelines, and that’s what it suggests. There won’t be any access from Walker Lane. All the access will be through this extended Baybridge Drive. We think that’ll have some important safety aspects, because as people are looking for a doctor or dentist or some other professional’s office building, they’ll be able to identify the Fairfield Park as their entrance, and then if they need to drive slowly to locate the particular office they’re going to, they’ll at least be off Bay Road and the 45 mile an hour zone that’s out there, and it should be a little bit safer for those drivers and other vehicles using that highway. I think I’d like to let Tom Jarrett go through some of the engineering changes and developments that have been submitted here, and if you have any questions, please feel free. Tom’s pointing out that, and I’m not quite sure what Staff comments are intending to raise the issue. I’m confused on this, George. You’ve raised the issue of the requirement of variances for those proposed lots that border on Walker Lane but don’t have direct access. I’m guessing that you might be meaning that they don’t have direct access on a municipal highway. MR. HILTON-Correct. MR. BORGOS-But this would be like a shared driveway situation, in my mind. MR. HILTON-Right, which I think is I think is preferable, and I understand the rationale behind it, but just technically based on our Code, if those lots, for instance, that have frontage on Walker Lane but have their vehicular access onto the new extended Baybridge Drive, because those lots will not have direct access from the highway that they directly abut, they would require an Area Variance in the future. I’m just pointing that out. I’m not saying that they’re necessary at this point, and again, I think that that 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) design is preferable, but because the physical access won’t be from their lot onto, on a public right of way, it would require an Area Variance. MR. BORGOS-Well, the individual owners of those lots, remember, we have this design flexibility built in with these separate lots of small size. We may have property owners who wish to buy more than one lot. Now depending on those configurations, these drawings, the individual Site Plans will be very different perhaps. What we’ve presented here is the maximum build out, but because of that, each of those owners will receive an easement to access from the public highway, so they’ll have legal access, and I’m not so sure that I understand the need for a variance still, but I don’t, and they also do have frontage on Walker Lane. I see, I think the Planning Board has the authority to approve the plan with the shared driveway approach concept with the shared parking, without the need for a variance, but I’d be happy to talk to you about that further as the time comes up. MR. HILTON-Sure, I mean, we can go into that. MR. BORGOS-Tom can talk about the engineering a little bit more. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say. That would be kind of a shame if they had to go get an Area Variance for the design that we sort of directed them towards. MR. HILTON-Yes, and again that’s my understanding. I spoke to the Zoning Administrator about this, and I agree. I think this design is a nice design and preferable to having multiple driveways onto Walker Lane, but unfortunately, at this time, given the current Code, it’s my understanding that if a lot on Walker Lane chose to have its access on the other street, it would unfortunately require an Area Variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Unfortunately, I don’t agree, but we’ll argue that at another forum. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-And we’ve been to the Zoning Board, and that’s always an adventure. So we’ll leave it at that. No, I was referring to the fact that they sent us back here, blah, blah, blah. So, anyway. The engineering comments that we received today at five o’clock, we’ve kind of tried to go through as quickly as we could. Number One, he’s just acknowledging the stormwater SWPPP requirements, which we have provided to the Town. Number Two is the construction sequencing, and I don’t take issue with Number Two. Number Three, apparently he missed the lighting we showed on the multi-use paths, and that’s on our plans. Number Four, he is suggesting a notation that the electric utilities are underground and we have a note to that effect on the drawings. I think it needs clarification with regards to gas, and we will do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Number Five is one that I think needs to be emphasized. Our traffic study indicates that our build out will not require a signal. It is build out from other developments that could require a signal in the future, not now, but could require in the future. So, that’s what, we could come back to that comment. Number Six, we did show, in a note that the cover over water lines is five and a half feet minimum. Unfortunately there’s a little confusion. We showed five feet in another place, and we’ll clarify that, and Number Seven, we’re not sure what he means by a stormwater channel swale along the north side of Baybridge Drive. We have provided a closed drainage system on Baybridge Drive that drains into our stormwater ponds, and we’re not sure what that means. We’ll have to work that out with the Town Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-I think we’re ready to open it up to Board questions. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a general question. So this is a subdivision. So when each of the lots goes to get developed, they’d come back before us again. MR. HUNSINGER-George is nodding his head yes. MR. HILTON-Absolutely, for Site Plan. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. JARRETT-That is our anticipation. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have your stormwater. So at this point you’re just proposing to capture stormwater on the road I assume? MR. JARRETT-Actually we’ve put together a complete design for the entire subdivision that complies with State requirements as well as Town requirements. Essentially, that boils down to major stormwater ponds in the area just outside the existing DEC wetlands to the southern part of the site. We have a closed drainage system on that road that’ll drain through pre-treatment swales on either end and into our ponds, and then the building and the pathways in the parking lots will drain to new soils along the perimeter which, again, offer pre-treatment, before it empties into our new ponds. So we’re essentially collecting all the stormwater along the perimeter of the property, draining it into new ponds just outside the DEC wetlands. The ponds themselves are sized for100 year storms, and storms in excess of 100 years would flow into the existing DEC wetlands, through our ponds. MR. SEGULJIC-When you say closed along the road. You mean a pipe then? MR. JARRETT-Yes, a piping system along the road. MR. SEGULJIC-And then everything else would be directed into swales which would drain around to either edge of the property and all end up on the southern end of the property? MR. JARRETT-All end up on the southern end of the property, and that’s the current drainage pattern right now to the southern side of the property. Everything essentially drains south and west on this property, and we’re maintaining that drainage pattern. The reason there’s a closed drainage system on the road is that’s the Town standard. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Now with regards to the landscaping, if those parking lots are along the right of way, don’t we also have the landscaping requirement where parking lots and drive abut landscape strips along street right of ways, you have to maintain the? MR. JARRETT-There will be additional landscaping that you will see in Site Plan Review, for the lot, if that’s your question. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m talking about along Bay Road, because as I interpret it, you have to maintain a three foot high buffer along the entire length of the parking lot along Bay Road. MR. JARRETT-Here, essentially here. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Yes, we do acknowledge that, and you would see that landscaping. If we need that parking. You’ll notice in our submission we’ve shown parking all the way out to the edge of the buildings, which we hope not to build. We’re going to build to the west first, and only move to the east as we need it, and then we would provide landscaping to buffer that. MR. SEGULJIC-So as, when each site comes in for subdivision, there’ll be more landscaping with that? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then with regards to the traffic study, were you alluding to the F on the 2012 build out at the intersection of Willowbrook Drive on the westbound? That’s where the problems are going to be, I assume? MR. JARRETT-Okay. You’re diving into details now, and I haven’t looked at it in a while, but essentially yes. It sounds right. It sounds correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Because you have an F Level of Service. So we’re predicting a failure, I guess. MR. BORGOS-That’s for the Willowbrook side, coming west. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. JARRETT-In the future, at full build out on the west side of the road, on the east side of the road. MR. SEGULJIC-Because at your intersection, what you’re saying is you’re at the Baybridge intersection. MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And looking at the traffic study, the worst you get to is a C, if I’m understanding this correctly. MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. JARRETT-It sounds correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And what does a Level C mean? MR. JARRETT-It’s an acceptable level of traffic. It’s certainly not a failure. A is the superior, and that’s the best. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess if we’re forecasting a failure of an F in the future, I mean, where does that leave us? Because you’re saying it’s going to be from the development across the street, when that’s fully built out. Is that what this is telling us? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. BORGOS-Well, I think we need to step back a moment and remember where we’re coming from. Right now we have an existing intersection on Bay Road with Walker Lane that’s not aligned with the Willowbrook intersection with Bay Road on the east side. So all the west bound traffic coming out of Willowbrook is what Creighton-Manning Engineers have determined to cause a failure at that point. They’re saying the traffic to be generated from this professional park is not expected to generate an F type situation at Bay Road. It’s the Willowbrook traffic that’s going to do that. The alignment of Baybridge with this will alleviate some of the problem with congestion at the Walker Lane intersection and will encourage people to use this other one as well. They’re saying that down the road, if Willowbrook gets fully built out, as it’s starting to be developed and has some different changes as that’s being developed, they’re anticipating that there will be a problem there, and they’re suggesting that the Town and the County monitor the situation for the eventual placement of a light in the future. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no light there now. MR. BORGOS-Right, but I think what Ken Wirstead says in his conclusions paragraph on his seventh page of that letter, or of that study report, he points out that, referring to the signal, it is not warranted based on the Fairfield traffic generated volumes, given that a majority of the volumes are right turns, which do not demand the same need for a traffic signal. So really what we’re saying to you is that we’re not causing any problem with this subdivision. It’s just that, in this location, other things are happening in the Town, other developments are adding to it, and this is a recognition of that fact, and at some point if it needs to be addressed, it should be addressed with all parties taking a look at this. Not only this one, but the others that are neighboring it and bordering it. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s most unusual we get a traffic study that highlights an issue. I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen it. MR. BORGOS-They’re very forward looking. MR. HUNSINGER-So, at the end of the day, who would be making that decision that the signal’s warranted? It’s the County, right? MR. BORGOS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Since it’s a County road. MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. JARRETT-Well, we have a letter from the County. We transmitted this report to the County and they responded to us that they agree with the report. They accept the report, and unfortunately, do you have a copy of that letter? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. HILTON-I don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, apparently not, because that’s kind of new information, based on Staff comments. MR. JARRETT-We don’t have it with us tonight either, unfortunately. The County has deferred to the Town as to when this light gets put in in the future, and who pays for it. That’s basically their conclusion. They accept the fact that we don’t generate enough traffic to warrant a light. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So do they say in that letter who would pay for it, if one is eventually needed? MR. JARRETT-No. They conveniently left that to the Town. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. That’s a letter from the County to the Town? MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s actually written to me, and we provided a copy to George, but apparently it’s not gotten there yet. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’ve got a copy of that for us? MR. JARRETT-Yes. You’ll get it tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any other questions, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what I have for now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? MR. SIPP-Does the test pit data show any place on there? MR. JARRETT-It should, yes, I’ll look that up. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember we asked for it. MR. JARRETT-It’s on SP-1, the very end of the package. That’s the actual data. The locations are shown on C-4. So C-4 and SP-1. MR. HUNSINGER-While they’re looking that up, are there any other questions or comments from other members? MR. FORD-While we’re looking forward, I would like to re-visit an issue of the anticipated flow from north to south you’re referring to, the runoff, yes? What do you anticipate will be the steps that would be taken to arrest that flow, or to help contain it? MR. JARRETT-If you look at Drawing C-4 in your package, you’ll notice the wet swales along the east and west perimeters, actually the north perimeter as well, and in that, on that plan, there is a note that says six inch high earthen berms at 40 foot on center will be provided, with a detail on Drawing D-2, the left side of D-2, and what these essentially are are check dams which reduce the velocity of stormwater in those swales, and then promote infiltration in the swales, so that it really controls the runoff greatly. It slows the runoff into our ponds. MR. FORD-Thank you. That’s what I wanted to hear. I appreciate it. MR. SIPP-Now, who’s responsible for the sewer here? MR. JARRETT-There will be an association formed for owners within that subdivision, and they’ll be responsible the sewer line and the stormwater system. MR. SIPP-And that will be underneath the Baybridge Drive? MR. JARRETT-Part of it. It actually goes underneath some of the private driveways. It connects to a manhole at the corner of Walker and Bay. So it really goes across lots to some degree. MR. SIPP-Will that have to be pumped? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. JARRETT-It’s all a pump system, yes. Those are individual grinder pumps for each building. That’s a pressure sewer system into the Walker Lane manhole. MR. SIPP-It’s a good thing you’ve got a sewer there. You’d never get a septic system to work in there. MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. SIPP-Which you found out in Baybridge, I guess. MR. JARRETT-That was located up on the western part of the site, up on high ground. So it was not down in the lowlands. They did have problems with it, but it was not due to the siting. MR. SIPP-It did fail after a while. DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-We could get into that another day, Mr. Sipp. MR. SIPP-So each individual site will be responsible for their own hook up. MR. JARRETT-Their own pump, that’s correct. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-What about the walking path material? Do folks have any suggestions? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the applicant’s comment, you know, was that it, the proposal was for 10 foot wide pavement. That wouldn’t be my preference. So I would definitely agree with you on that. MR. JARRETT-Would not be your preference? MR. HUNSINGER-It would not be, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the crushed stone that he mentioned would be permeable. MR. HUNSINGER-I think, yes, a permeable surface that’s narrower than that, it would certainly be acceptable. I mean, I don’t know what the magic width I, but to me 10 feet seemed pretty wide. MRS. STEFFAN-George, do you have any recollection, we approved a walking path off of Haviland Road. It was a Schermerhorn development and I believe that it’s now an Amedore Homes development and it has a retail space next to it, and it has a walking path around the perimeter of the property. MR. HILTON-I recall the application. I don’t recall the materials. MR. JARRETT-So you would be amenable to something less than 10 feet and amenable to something less than asphalt? MR. SEGULJIC-It’s a walking path. MR. SIPP-You saw that permeable material yesterday. MR. JARRETT-We did. MR. SIPP-And nobody would come forth with a per square foot price on it. MR. JARRETT-Actually I heard a pretty high number. MR. SIPP-Well, I was just wondering, for a walking path, would you need any more than two inches? MR. JARRETT-Not really, no. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. SIPP-But the cost would be prohibitive? MR. JARRETT-We’re not sure. We’re investigating alternative materials, and we would consider that, but it has to be cost effective. MR. SIPP-And they also mentioned a porous concrete. I’ve yet to see that one. MR. JARRETT-I don’t think I would support that for this particular application. I’d rather see either the crushed stone or we would consider this other material if it’s, it’s a resilient recycled tire material, looks like an aggregate. It’s got, it’s porous. It has stormwater retention value, and it passes water, it’s a permeable material. It may be pricy, but if it’s within reason, we would certainly consider it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is everyone in agreement? MRS. STEFFAN-I can be flexible, because I think originally in the discussions I talked about a sidewalk. Of course in my mind sidewalks are concrete, and it’s a sidewalk, obviously not 10 feet wide, but what’s the purpose, you know, it’s to allow walking traffic, and so as long as the purpose is met. MR. JARRETT-And we have a bike path along Bay. So a connector to that makes sense to make it a more flexible use type. MRS. STEFFAN-Because folks will be walking on Bay. I mean, there’s enough development happening now so that there will be a lot more walking traffic, I think, between the complexes and down to the deli and Stewarts. So we have to have something. MR. FORD-My preference would be something other than crushed stone, but you’re exploring several possibilities. MR. JARRETT-We’ll come back at Final and let you know what we think makes some sense and we can firm it up then. Would you, do we want to throw out a width or do you want to hear a proposal later at Final? MR. FORD-Something smaller than 10. MRS. STEFFAN-Ten seems quite wide to me. MR. JARRETT-We’ll come back with a proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-The sign that’s to be erected out on the Baybridge road, what would that include, just the name of a? MR. BORGOS-Well, I’m glad you brought that up. That was next on our list. We have a proposed drawing that was created by K.D. Wheeler Signs. What we’re thinking of doing is putting up a sign to alert all potential patrons of all of the different offices within the park, to its location. As I was describing earlier, we think it’s a nice safety feature to bring the traffic off Bay Road into the park. If you can imagine if there were individual frontages right on Bay Road, you’d have people driving slowly trying to identify which building it would be. Since that’s not part of the design guidelines and the focus is to get the traffic off Bay where they can proceed slowly identify things, we think identifying the Fairfield Professional Park, and I’ll hold it up for the audience here, is important to see, you know, this is the destination. We think that having individual names of the businesses below, the professional offices would be helpful, so as people enter the Baybridge Drive extension, they can verify that they’re indeed at the right location, but the large lettering will certainly direct them that they’re at the Fairfield Professional Park. MR. SIPP-So the sign would actually face Bay Road? MR. BORGOS-I think it would be visible from the north and the south. MR. FORD-It would be perpendicular to it. MR. SIPP-Perpendicular to it? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SIPP-I just wonder if they slow down to read each individual little sign going down the list, they’re going to be rear-ended by somebody. MR. FORD-Not once we get that traffic light in there. MR. VALENTE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, that was the most interesting thing to me in the traffic study was the average speed driving down Bay Road of 51 miles an hour. MR. VALENTE-Quite excessive. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry I didn’t mean to interrupt. MR. VALENTE-In having discussion with Holly Wheeler of K.D. Wheeler Signs, apparently she has some conflicting rules or regulations as to what is allowable, and that’s partly why I brought this to the forefront here is whether you want a sign to dictate, you know, this is Fairfield Professional Park, is that something the Board would like to see? I personally would like to have, at a minimum, just Fairfield Professional Park out there, to at least let the patrons know that this is the park that you’re looking for, enter here, and then from there you can find the place you are looking for, to get them off of Bay Road. I don’t think, necessarily, the names underneath are going to be very helpful to us out on Bay Road because they’re not going to be legible, but her concern was what is allowable in the current rules and regulations, as far as the Bay Road corridor designs, versus office complexes, because they’re all individual lots. So I think there’s a little issue there we would like to at least kind of clarify. MR. SIPP-If I read this right, there’s a possibility of 16 different office buildings? MR. VALENTE-Correct. MR. SIPP-So that would be eight per side if you listed them that way. I think you’re getting into the fine print area now. I would rather see a large sign that said the professional park and when you get in there have them directed from, now each individual office building will have their own sign then. MR. BORGOS-That’s right, and then, you know, there might be a possibility for doing some type of a placard sign at each driveway as they come in where they have shared parking to identify these separate buildings enter here, you know, that type of thing. That’s probably will be working best, because you have to really design this from the motorist standpoint. I think as you point out very correctly, 16 individual names under there wouldn’t do much for somebody driving by at 53 miles an hour. MR. FORD-And it wouldn’t be eight to a side. That wouldn’t be fair to the people who have got to turn around to the other side to read it. MR. VALENTE-Sure. MR. JARRETT-And then somebody would have to change each placard as the business changes. MR. FORD-Yes, 16 to a side. MR. VALENTE-I just don’t know, and I don’t know if George can shed some light on this. Is it allowable to do what we’re talking about doing, without having another variance? MR. HILTON-Well, without, you know, exhaustively researching the Code, I think that it’s very feasible and within Code to have a monument sign that identifies the park, and then when you get in have individual signs. Each lot’s going to be entitled to an sign anyway, once you get in off the corridor. I guess my first thought is that, you know, there are going to be certain controls, such as, you know, not having back lit signs, having wooden signs that have light downcast on them and things like that to control, you know, if you’re worried about having 16 individual signs out there, but I guess in theory, yes, it seems to me to be within Code to have one monument sign and then individual signage for each lot. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. SIPP-So you’ve got a sign, these dimensions would give you ten and a half feet high by approximately a little bit more than eight, nine feet or more. MR. VALENTE-That’s all subject to change. We could shorten the columns. We’re trying, we did submit an elevation of a potential style of building, kind of thinking in the arts and crafts or the craftsman style buildings. So going with these tapered columns I want to stay with that kind of look throughout the entire subdivision. The cultured stone and the tapered columns are characteristics of that craftsman style. MR. SIPP-I think once you, if you remove the individual nameplates and make the, you could lower the sign, actually. MR. VALENTE-Correct. MR. SIPP-Ten feet is not that high. MR. VALENTE-Yes, and we may want to bring up some landscaping around the base, so we maybe don’t have quite so much column or pillar showing in the stone pillar. So, you know, I know Tom submitted a photo of Meadowbrook Plaza, a Plaza I renovated, similar type of idea, again, a nice sign with some nice landscaping underneath it, lit. I think that’s a very pleasant result from what we did there. MR. FORD-Yes. Agreed. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? If you could just state your name for the record, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JANET RANK MS. RANK-My name is Janet Rank, and I live in the Baybridge condos. My concern is the traffic. It’s going to be a very serious problem, because you have the Adirondack Community College kids from 11 to at least 1, and then like 3 to 4. You just about can get out of Walker Lane. You just don’t try to get out of there by lunchtime because the traffic is bad. So you’ve got that traffic, our traffic, the cross street, and now you’re going to have this new situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Did you have any written comments, George? MR. HILTON-No, none. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-My name’s Bob Sears. I’m a realtor involved in the project, and the only thing I wanted to bring up is the setback issue relative to getting an Area Variance, and there was a question about that. There was a recent subdivision that was passed by you people where the cardiologists are going to be going, on Bay Road, where they have the cul de sac coming in and then a leader road going behind the lots so that. Recently there was a subdivision approved by the Planning Board that allowed for a five lot subdivision on Bay Road where the cardiologists are going in, and there was Lots One through three had access to the leader road where the cul de sac was, and there were no curb cuts on Bay Road, and that did not require an Area Variance to get that approved. That’s the only thing I had to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEARS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? If there’s no one else, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. HUNSINGER-And ask the applicant to come back. Did you have any additional comments about traffic that you wanted to make for the record, since it was raised as a concern? MR. BORGOS-Well, as the applicant, we believe that what we’re suggesting, as I mentioned before, is improving the present situation. We agree that Walker Lane is presently very difficult to get out during those hours. The College contributes to it greatly, and obviously that’s a County responsibility, so to speak, and we think Schermerhorn’s development across the street at Willowbrook, again, somebody else’s responsibility. What we’re suggesting is a first initial step to improving the situation with having another outlet, and we don’t think that, as this project develops, it remains to be seen exactly how much of a need there will be, which is why the County and the Town really have to work together to evaluate it, and possibly install a signal here in the future, but if we don’t do this realignment now, it’s not going to be a good solution later on. For example, a traffic signal by itself at Walker Lane would be an inferior solution to this aligned intersection with Willowbrook and Baybridge. So we think this is a step in the right direction. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-How does the Board feel about the Staff comment about a sidewalk on Bay Road? Consideration should be given to also including a sidewalk along Bay Road for pedestrian along the corridor? MR. SIPP-Would there be a connection of the sidewalk to anything? MRS. STEFFAN-Probably not. MR. SIPP-Does the bus, Glens Falls Transit, come up that road and stop at particular places? MR. BORGOS-I’m not sure if the bus does in that location, but they certainly could change it in the future. What we designed with this path, this sidewalk, is to take all of the intended uses on the west side of the road and provide a means to stay off the road and by traveling through this path. So we think that solves the demand, and then anybody who would be traveling from north or south would be presumably on that bike path that’s already in existence, and putting a sidewalk there wouldn’t make much sense because they’d have to leave the bike path, go on the sidewalk, just for the duration of this property, and then they’d be right back on the bike path. MRS. STEFFAN-The bike path’s on that side of the road? I thought the bike path was on the other side of the road. MR. BORGOS-I was surprised by it myself, but, yes, it’s actually on both sides. MR. VALENTE-I think the biggest problem with Bay Road is there’s no clear designation of that bike path, and I think safety is an issue as far as that goes, as far as a County responsibility. I don’t want to throw the County under the bus here, but I think there should be some kind of divider between the actual driving lane and the bike path. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and there’s been a lot of discussions and a lot of different proposals put forward because the road is so wide from, you know, your property up to Haviland. Yes, the College red light is where it narrows down. MRS. STEFFAN-George, did you have a comment? MR. HILTON-Yes. I just wanted to kind of qualify my comment. When you read the Bay Road design guidelines, it talks about sidewalks, and I think my comment was relative to that, that if we have a vision of the corridor as an office corridor with sidewalks along Bay Road, consideration should be given to including a sidewalk. I know the applicant has, as previous discussions with the Board, included a multi-use path to get people to the bike path, and that’s great, but again, relative to the overall vision, if we’re looking at eventually having sidewalks up and down an office corridor, consideration should be given to including a sidewalk. MRS. STEFFAN-And there is a lot next to this lot that is now for sale. It’s a residential lot, but there’s a residential lot and property, it’s the next one down that’s for sale. MR. JARRETT-South? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MRS. STEFFAN-South of this, the same side of the road. MR. SEGULJIC-It makes sense to me to have sidewalks there. Once again, it’s part of the vision. It makes sense, as well as possibly a bus stop. So I guess we’d have to check with Glens Falls Transit and see if they’d be willing to put a bus stop there. It doesn’t make sense now, but down the road, say for example you have all the medical office buildings there. MR. BORGOS-Well, I think for certain, across the street you have a lot of those medical arts buildings, and occupied by the Glens Falls Hospital Rehabilitation Center, I think is over there, a number of other doctors. Maybe Glens Falls Transit could tell us which side of the road they would put this stop on. My guess it would be on the east side because if they’re taking people from the City up to these locations, that would be the drop off point. I don’t know if they’d put them on opposite sides, right across the street from each other, or if they would stagger it and place it up, because there are more medical professional offices to the north of this project. As I look at it, again with the sidewalk, I think it would be a sidewalk to nowhere, because to the north, those properties are unlikely to be re-developed in the next 30 or 50 years. It’s just not foreseeable that those are going to be turned over into a new project where a sidewalk could be required. To the south, I think that neighboring lot, certainly the (lost word) lot that Legacy Land Holdings will have, is very wet, especially as it nears the road, and my understanding is that the next lot that you mention is for sale is also for wet and would be very difficult to develop. I think even the practicality, is it possible of putting a sidewalk on those other lots? I think it would be very, very difficult to actually construct one without a great deal of fill, if I recall how close the wetlands come to Bay Road at that point. So I think it would be an anomaly along Bay Road to see a sidewalk here, and without great pressing need to convey people from north to south, or vice versa, it doesn’t make any sense. Certainly the guideline says the Board needs to give it consideration, which I think the Board has done very well in promoting this idea of the multi-use path through this development, and I think the other concerns were addressed by what’s there presently. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if I can clarify that, under the Bay Road corridor it says sidewalk, sidewalks shall. As I read it, it doesn’t give us an option, and we have to start thinking this way. If we keep this thinking, we’re never going to get out of the automobile. We’ve got to start somewhere, and it says shall. So I think you have to. MR. SIPP-Now north of this property there is an eye doctor and a couple of surgeons, office buildings north of there. I don’t know how you get people or get the County to do it, but if we required it, we had an office building in here earlier tonight we could have required them to put a sidewalk in. It wouldn’t have gone anywhere, but it would have been a beginning. As Tom said, you’ve got to start someplace. If we look to the green society where we’re going to give up the automobile, or even use buses, where it makes a round trip between Downtown and the College and turns around and comes back down. We may be taking some cars off the road by people going to these doctor’s offices that way. MR. BORGOS-Well, if the Board is intent on having a sidewalk because the interpretation is that’s mandated, I don’t read the design corridor guidelines regular enough to see what you’re reading there, so I’d have to review that, but if it is indeed mandatory, I don’t think it is, but if it is indeed mandatory, then we would like to take that multi-use path and just provide the sidewalk around the front because the whole purpose and the direction we went in back in November with the multi-use path was instead or in lieu of a sidewalk along Bay Road, and I thought we had moved away from the sidewalk on Bay Road with the substitution of this multi-use path. It doesn’t make sense to have both. That would be a lot of extra hard surfacing on the site. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I disagree with you, because we agreed that we wouldn’t want a hard surface. You could have packed cinders, for example, on the multi-use (lost word) path. We’ve got to get out of this thinking. MRS. BRUNO-I have to say, I’m usually a proponent for the sidewalks, and I know that sometimes they seem like they’re going nowhere, and I wish, as a Board, and I wasn’t on it at the time, but I wish perhaps on the other side of the road we had looked at that more thoroughly, because I agree with you, Mr. Valente, that that road just seems very dangerous. You have runners and people speeding and that type of thing. The only reason why I might reconsider the sidewalk in this, or not having a sidewalk in this instance, is my concern for the wetland. We seem to have a recurring theme, pretty 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) frequently, and we’re pretty conscientious about taking care of our wetlands, and, I don’t know, I just foresee you get into backfilling that area, and then you’ve got your retaining walls and we’re right back to other issues that we’ve had in Town. So that’s just kind of my take on it. MR. FORD-I think that corridor needs to really be examined and come up with some sort of a more definitive plan, because as of right now it basically is shared pavement, whether you’re biking, walking, driving your car, riding in the bus, it’s just a continuation and expansion of that, of the paved area. I think we need to examine some way of differentiating, other than just throwing a line or putting a bike on it. MR. SIPP-Then the problem comes of maintenance, further maintenance. MR. FORD-I understand the problem, Don, but I also understand that this is something that needs to be addressed. MR. SIPP-I’m not knocking it. I think it’s the way to go, but somebody’s got to maintain it, and I know from Route 9 maintenance is kind of hit and miss. Like a week after the snow storm it gets plowed, the sidewalk. MR. FORD-That’s a whole other issue to be addressed, but I don’t think that’s a reason not to have sidewalks. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we defer the sidewalk discussion until the Final? MR. SEGULJIC-We can, but I’ll just point out once again the Bay Road corridor says sidewalks shall be five feet wide and ADA compliant. I see no interpretation. MR. BORGOS-Well, I’ll certainly take a look at that first thing and we’ll discuss it and we can bring it back for Final at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? They submitted a Long Form? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they did. George, do we have to do the SEQRA at the Preliminary? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what I thought. Whenever you’re ready. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, we’re doing SEQRA now? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-As opposed to Final? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you do it at Preliminary. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, can’t we do it as one of the last things? MR. HUNSINGER-No. You can’t approve Preliminary site plan without going through SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s a letter out there from the County. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if you’re saying you’re not ready to do SEQRA yet, that’s one thing, but you do SEQRA before, we have to do SEQRA before we can take any action, and approving a Preliminary subdivision is taking an action. MRS. STEFFAN-Otherwise we’d have to table it. MR. SEGULJIC-And after our last experience. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I understand. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Especially when there’s a piece of information out there. I just think we have to be cautious here. MR. HUNSINGER-How does the rest of the Board feel? Are you comfortable moving forward with SEQRA, or do you want to table this? MR. TRAVER-Well, is there, what about the potential impacts of any adjustments in what we approve tonight and Final? Is there any additional review, or are we approving both Preliminary and Final without seeing Final yet, in terms of SEQRA? MRS. BRUNO-We can’t really review SEQRA if we don’t know if they’re putting the sidewalk in yet or not, because that’s going to impact the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-It could impact the wetland, yes. Okay. MR. BORGOS-If I may, I think that what you’re reviewing tonight would be what’s been presented before you. So what you have in front of you is what you’d be reviewing. If a sidewalk is determined to be necessary, that would be something to be addressed during Final, and obviously that could change that outcome. MR. HUNSINGER-We could readdress SEQRA at that point in time. MR. BORGOS-And I think the letter from the County that Mr. Jarrett has received and has represented to you what it says, is not an essential element, and if it’s any different than Mr. Jarrett’s represented to you, then obviously that would be a change in circumstance that would warrant a change in your findings. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, to me it seems like all we’ve got is a few loose ends to tighten up. I have no problem (lost word) but on the other hand after our last experience, I’ve gotten a little gun shy now. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, speaking personally, I think the other lesson from the last experience was we should have reconsidered SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but can’t we table this and do Preliminary and Final at the next meeting? And do the SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-We can do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Because we have a traffic report that is an F and I don’t see that very often. MR. JARRETT-Either that, or if we were to, well, I guess that probably makes sense. The only other option would be to have a positive declaration and the issues would be addressed in the (lost word). MR. HILTON-Just if I may, as far as timing. If the Board intends to look at Preliminary and Final at a future meeting, if that meeting were to be in July, we’ve passed the deadline for submission for July. So any final application is already passed due, so to speak. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we’d be looking at August. MR. HUNSINGER-We’d be looking at August. MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the schedule look like? MR. HUNSINGER-July looks like a normal month. There would be no back log. I mean, we could certainly do that, if that’s the will of the Board. MR. JARRETT-The letter you’ll have tomorrow, and we can probably get something regarding a sidewalk submitted within, you know, a few days or a week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any problem with that. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. HILTON-I mean, if you need more information, by all means, before you do your SEQRA, I think it’s been mentioned by the Board tonight, by all means, you have the opportunity and the right to table it. MR. JARRETT-Either way you do it, I’d prefer to be on a July agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. thth MRS. STEFFAN-The July meetings are the 17 and the 24. thth MR. HUNSINGER-If we get submissions by the 6 of July, can we do this at the 24 meeting? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a week from Friday. MR. HUNSINGER-Or would we need materials, yes, that’s a week from Friday, with a holiday in there. MR. HILTON-Well, it’ll be my skin, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that I think it’ll work. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So if we add another item, will that bump someone off? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. I’ll have to look. We can do it as one item. We can do Preliminary and Final as one item on the agenda. MR. HILTON-Well, you can have them both on the same agenda. They’d be separate items. MR. HUNSINGER-They would be separate items? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-The only thing is that if the Board gets into Preliminary, gets into SEQRA and sees issues, there’s the potential that the Final may not be acted on that, night, but that’s certainly up to you guys. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We run that risk anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So the things we’d want to address are the Staff comments and Vision Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-The path. I think that needs to be included. I mean, I think the applicant knows what issues we have. MRS. STEFFAN-Provide options for a walking path surface. MR. HUNSINGER-There you go. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2006 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: thth Tabled to the July 24 meeting, with a submission deadline of Friday, July 6. This application is being tabled so that the applicant can address Staff comments, address the Vision Engineering letter of 6/26/07, and provide the Planning Board options for walking path surface. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. SEGULJIC-The parking lot buffer, we had discussed that before, and that’s going to be taken care of under site plan? MRS. STEFFAN-Site Plan Review. MR. JARRETT-For the individual lots. MR. SEGULJIC-For the individual lots. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 36-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HENRI LANGEVIN AGENT(S) B P S R; MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RC-15 LOCATION SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,210 SQ. FT. INDOOR SKATING TRAINING RINK. RECREATION CENTERS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 15-2007; SP; SB; PZ WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/13/07 LOT SIZE 1.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-3.12 SECTION 179-4-020 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. I believe this almost the exact same application that the Board approved as part of Site Plan 55-2004 in September 2004. It’s for a roughly 8,000 square foot indoor skating facility. As I mentioned, the applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan and report. The layout, as I’ve mentioned, is primarily the same as the previous application. I guess Planning Staff’s one comment is that the lighting plan shows wall mounted fixtures that are not down cast fixtures, and I think I’ve referenced some other fixtures, previous applications that are compliant, and that perhaps some compliant fixtures should be used at this location as well. Vision Engineering, we have a comment letter from June 22, 2007 that I believe I handed to the Board this evening, which talks about their comments, and that’s really all I have at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, and I’m here with the owner and applicant, Henri Langevin. As George said, this was a previously approved project that the building permit wasn’t acted upon, and so the approval lapsed and the site plan’s essentially as it was approved previously. We had to do some modifications now with the new DEC stormwater regulations. So we had to revise the stormwater drainage slightly to meet the DEC requirements. The proposal is for an 8120 square foot one story practice skating facility. It’s not a full rink. It’s a partial rink. I believe it’s like half size, and it’s used just for training, and skate drills, that type of thing, and I think that’s, you know, that’s pretty much it, unless the Board has any other questions. I think, I have some, one of the Staff comments on the lighting, and also Dan Ryan had some comments on the lighting, you know, the lighting plan that’s submitted is consistent with the Town requirement. Dan mentioned something about the light spill on the properties. The only property where we have a light close to it is on the west side, and that’s the Niagara Mohawk power corridor, but part of the way I addressed Dan’s comment, and our response, we just received those yesterday, and we responded to all of his comments, but what we suggested we would do on that light is we’d put a house shield on the back of that, which would eliminate any spill back on that property and also would eliminate any potential of seeing that light from Sherman Avenue. The lighting on the property is only going to be operated when there’s activities going on. If there’s training or anything in the facility, then the lights will be on. As soon as the facility is closed at the end of the evening, the lights will be off. So they won’t be on all the time. I wasn’t clear with what George said about the lights. I brought some catalogue cuts. The lights in the parking lot are a 16 foot high cut off style light, and the lights that are 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) mounted on the building are a wall pack, but it’s a cut off style wall pack, and maybe I didn’t understand or maybe I wasn’t clear, but I’d like to just submit this, and certainly out intent was that they would be cut off type lights. So we would adjust that if need be, and the other thing was the Vision Engineering comments. I could quickly go through those. We received a letter, eight comments, and they were fairly minor. Item Number One is he wanted us to label one of the setback dimensions on the plan that was added. Item Number Two, he wanted some additional dimensions relative to the septic system, as far as setbacks from the building and items like that. Those were added to the plan. He wanted us to show a 50% septic system reserve area. That was also added. He had a comment about the construction sequencing, and we listed the construction sequencing on the erosion control plan. We did not make a reference as to when in the sequence the stone infiltration trench would go in. We added that. There was some confusion on the notes relative to the modified soil system and the septic system. The requirement currently is that the modified soil has to be a five minute per rate on the system, and because this was a couple of years old, it had the notes from the older time when it was like three to five minutes. So we revised that so it was current. They wanted some additional dimensions showing the baffles and the septic system. We did that. He had a comment on the site lighting, which we just talked about, and then he had a couple of comments on the stormwater report, and that was revised and submitted. So the revised drawings and revised stormwater report was done. We submitted it yesterday to the Town. So a copy would go to Dan Ryan for his signoff. MR. HILTON-I just want to address the lighting. The information that Mr. Miller just provided me shows a different wall pack than what was shown, slightly different, but a different wall pack than what was shown in the application, and the information that was submitted this evening is a cut off fixture that complies with Code and I’m comfortable with that fixture. MR. MILLER-Okay. I think the other one that was submitted must not have been the right one, because I checked on the lighting plan. The lighting plan is a TWAC. So that’s what was in the lighting plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for Board questions or comments. MRS. BRUNO-Do we have a public comment this evening, a public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. FORD-Just an observation that I’m sure you’ll concur with, that the requirements are virtually a living, breathing, aren’t they, and they change. So when you get your first approval, that generally is the time to go for it. MR. MILLER-That’s absolutely right. It doesn’t get any easier the longer you wait. MR. SIPP-Now, the ice surface is 100 by 80, is that what I’m reading? HENRI LANGEVIN MR. LANGEVIN-The ice surface will be 90 by 50. What happens is we have to have a buffer around the rink. Originally when we presented it they said that they wanted like a five foot buffer around the rink for fire purposes or something, so we could clear the rink out if there was a fire, which is virtually impossible. So the ice surface itself is going to be 90 by 50. MR. SIPP-Ninety by fifty. MR. LANGEVIN-The room that the surface is in is 100 by, I think it’s 100 by 60, and then to the left we have office, well, we’re going to have office space. MR. SIPP-The ice is made by natural means then? MR. LANGEVIN-Actually, not necessarily. I’m investigating natural ice or synthetic surface ice. MR. SIPP-Synthetic. MR. SEGULJIC-Synthetic surface ice, what is that? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. LANGEVIN-Do you have a cutting board at home that’s made out of plastic? That’s what it looks like. Depending on which surface I would use, it has a 10 to 20 year warranty on it, and you can flip it over and you don’t have the utility cost of trying to keep the building. MR. FORD-Don’t need a zamboni. MR. LANGEVIN-Don’t have a zamboni, no zamboni costs. MR. SIPP-If you went to natural ice, where would you dump the water in the summertime? Or would you run this year round as an ice? MR. LANGEVIN-It’s a year round. MR. SIPP-Year round. Now who’s going to train here, high school? MR. LANGEVIN-Actually it would be kids from three years old. My son started playing at three, and you could have eighty year old people. I mean, I know people in their seventies that took up skating as a, for exercise. MRS. BRUNO-So there will be public times, public open times? MR. LANGEVIN-I mean, that would one of the, we have to generate revenues. So that would be one of the things we would consider is having public skating. The thing is you have to realize, you know, he said it’s half the size of a rink. It’s not, a regular rink is 85 by 200. My surface is 50 by 90. So it’s probably around a 35%. So there’s not a lot of people I could put in there in public skating. So we probably would have like younger groups. Like one of the popular things, even in the summertime, was mom and tots or during the school season mothers that are home with three year olds. MRS. BRUNO-I thought you were going to say birthday parties. MR. LANGEVIN-Like birthday parties is a possibility. You can’t have a lot of kids. We wouldn’t have a lot of kids. MRS. BRUNO-I know one thing I’d like to ask you to reconsider or revisit with your architect, since you are facing the road, I’m just concerned about this much metal. Obviously it’s a metal building, but you’ve highlighted it with some of the brick, which does go along with the dome behind you. I would like it if you could just revisit with the architect upgrading your façade somewhat. I understand that you have quite a bit of landscaping in the front, and I was reviewing that just to see how tall it would be, just to diminish some of that metallic look. MR. LANGEVIN-Yes. We softened it a lot the last time, when we went through this the first time. MR. MILLER-I think also the intent is it’s going to be an earth tone. It’s 21 feet to the peak. So it’s not a massive building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was surprised at how low the peak was, to be honest with you. I expected it to be much taller. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I have no problem. MRS. BRUNO-The public. MR. FORD-Good to go. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing. I assume you’re here to make comments. We’ll formally open the public hearing. If you could just identify your name for the record, please. GREG LUCKENBAUGH MR. LUCKENBAUGH-Sure. My name’s Greg Luckenbaugh. I live in Hidden Hills, and I didn’t say anything when the Dome came through the first time. I wanted to hold off and see how it went. My only concern is I just see the building of traffic in that area, and basically you’re funneling a lot of traffic right through our development because people 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) come off Exit 19 and they come right down through, and then more and more people are going through our area to get to the Dome and now to the rink, and, you know, the other problem is trying to get out of that area on days when I assume both the Dome and the rink could both be being used simultaneously. You’ve got a lot of traffic there. So if you’re coming out of our development onto Sherman Avenue, you’re trying to take a left, it’s very difficult to take a left there. There’s a little knoll there and there’s a lot of traffic and it’s tough to get out of there, and by the same token if you’re trying to take a left down on the other end, down by Veterans, down below the Morse complex, down on the other end there, you get tons of traffic there, and it’s very difficult to get out of either one of those areas, and I just foresee a lot of development in that area, and I just see more and more traffic building there, and at some point, you know, I can foresee an accident or something like that, and at some point I think traffic lights or something needs to be visited, and like I said, obviously I have my own selfish motives here, but there’s just tons of traffic coming through our development all the time, and I know there are kids going to practice there, because I teach in Lake George and there are kids, and they wave and beep their horn to me, and there they are. It’s like, okay, there they are, and they’re just going through our neighborhood all the time. So that’s, I just wanted to throw those concerns out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. LUCKENBAUGH-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, George? MR. HILTON-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Since there’s no one else in the public left in the room, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MILLER-As far as the traffic, the Dome is a pretty big facility and it does generate a lot of traffic. I was asking Henri, when he has like a power skating class or something in there, it’s probably like 12 people. So this is not a big generator. This is not a full sized rink. There’s going to be games and things. So it’s going to be smaller groups. The Dome, we recognize, has had a big impact, especially when they have special events and things, and by comparison this is very minor. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I know that one of the issues with the Dome, and I think it might be one of the reasons why it’s generated more traffic than was anticipated, is because for lack of a better term, they’ve modified their business plan. They’re not getting as many tournaments as they had expected, but instead they’re holding festivals, you know, like weekend festivals, and I think that brings more traffic than, you know, a weekend tournament where people would be coming off Exit 19 and not going through the neighborhoods, but using Veterans Road and coming up that way. So I guess it kind of begs the question of this Site Plan, you know, what exactly you see as being the primary users of your facility. Is it more team sports? MR. MILLER-I think it’s going to appeal more to, you know, local players or local teams that come here and train and, you know, for special training and things. I mean, there may be some draw from outside the area, but a fairly small facility like this is probably going to draw mostly from the Queensbury/Glens Falls area. I don’t think it’s going to have as big a draw as the Dome does. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, I know, for example, the Queensbury Hockey team, they use the, I forgot the name of it, in Lake George, that’s their home ice, the Forum. MR. MILLER-Yes, but see, that’s the full rink. What Henri would offer would be certain kinds of classes and training that, you know, would be in addition to their normal training. MR. HUNSINGER-So I as an individual would sign up to go there and take a class or something? MR. MILLER-Yes, for the most part. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. LANGEVIN-The most we would ever do is three on three because it’s 35% the size of Lake George Forum. So you would have three on three with mostly little kids, smaller kids, and there would be six players to each side. So you’d have six players, I mean, and then they would play three against three, and then, you know, rotate the regular shifts like they normally do. MR. HUNSINGER-So how many people would you expect to be there at one time? MR. LANGEVIN-At one time? Well, let’s say you have a three on three game going on. So maybe you’d have six on each side. So that’s 12. So on the ice you’d have 12, and maybe for a few minutes a day those 12 would be leaving and maybe another 12 would be coming in, if I was lucky. Hopefully another 12 coming in to take the next hour. So you never, you know, we have all these parking spaces which we’ll probably rarely use ever half that many, but that was, because of the Code at the time, the last time we came in, they weren’t sure how many parking spaces were needed, so we have all this parking, but rarely, and that’s what we told them the last time, you know, I would be fortunate to have 12 and then another 12 coming in and then an hour later that 12 leaving and another 12 coming in. I mean, that would be, you know, good luck on my part. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Well, I mean, as you can probably appreciate, we do have to consider what is the maximum impact that could happen. So we just take that into consideration. MR. LANGEVIN-Right, and that would be the maximum. Normally I’d have groups of less than that, five to six. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Hockey Hut down in Clifton Park, but they bring in groups of anywhere from five to ten kids and they train them and then off they go and then they maybe bring in another five to ten kids, but it really wouldn’t be comfortable to have much more than that on the surface, and there’s nothing else at the site. I’m not going to have a restaurant or a snack bar. So it’s not an end destination. It’s, people go there and train and then, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from members of the Board? MR. MILLER-There was one other item. There was a request for a waiver on the islands in the parking lot that was submitted with a cover letter, and I’d just like to bring that up. Henri was concerned, we have a fairly small lot. There is a requirement to have those islands in there, and he would like the Board to consider waiving that. We don’t have a green space issue. Mostly for maintenance, snow removal concern. MR. HUNSINGER-I was a little confused by that, because on the plan itself you do show islands. MR. MILLER-Yes, well, when I talked, I had the pre-application conference with Craig Brown. I talked to him about it. He told me if I took the islands off the plan, he couldn’t put me on the agenda because I wouldn’t meet the Code. So we showed the islands and came here asking for the waivers. What we would do, if those islands were removed, they would become painted islands, in lieu of the raised islands. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-And you’re thinking primarily for upkeep, snow removal? MR. HUNSINGER-You can see why I’m confused, because I saw them on the plan, and I said, well, I’m not sure why you’re asking for the waiver when they’re shown. George, you had a comment? MR. HILTON-I had another comment. I guess I’ll comment on this, maybe. The only, off the top of my head, issue I would see is purely an aesthetic one. Perhaps there’s a way to take that landscaping and put it somewhere else on the site, but beyond that, I don’t see any like major health, safety issues. I just wanted to get back to the lighting and just suggest that perhaps a condition be included that the site plan be updated to reference the cut off fixture that was presented this evening. MR. MILLER-Well, I think if you look on the legend in the lighting plan, it has the TWAC on there. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MILLER-I think it was just a submittal that we submitted. Copied the wrong page. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-And I just wanted to cover all the bases. MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think I was part of the Board when we had the first, you were referencing an earlier meeting regarding this building, and that was the whole complex. Was that included in the (lost word)? MR. MILLER-No. This actually came in before the sports dome project. Henri bought this 1.2 acre parcel from Doug Miller, and the timing we thought was going to be Henri was going to come in first and have to build part of the access road to do this, but then it got delayed and in the meantime Doug Miller went ahead with his project and constructed the access road. MRS. BRUNO-Okay, and they calculated with you this many parking spaces? Is that why you were saying? MR. MILLER-No, this was a separate project. The reason we have the 41 parking spaces is sometimes we get an unusual use like this, there’s not a use identified in the Code Book that applies to it specifically, and there’s a use in there, I believe, for one parking space for 200 square feet for indoor recreation, which is sort of a general term, and that’s what we were told we had to comply with. MRS. BRUNO-So that’s what you’ve got exactly. I was just going to put out there that perhaps if we cut back the parking by just a little bit, maybe it would make your radiuses work a little bit better in terms of snow removal. I think the aesthetic part is important, you know, I mean, just when you think of the overall number of trees between the two parcels that were removed, and also it’s just the look that I think we’re trying to create across the Town, that we have that internal greenery. MR. SEGULJIC-Forty-one spots is excessive, I assume. MR. LANGEVIN-If I’m going to have 12 kids at a time. A lot of times one parent will bring two or three kids. MR. SEGULJIC-So worst case would be 24 cars, if they turned over. MR. LANGEVIN-If every one brought one child, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And how many coaches would you have? MR. LANGEVIN-You only have one for each team, and sometimes, actually when we do a three on three, the type of games I would do, you’d have just one guy, you’d have me, and what you’d do is you’d let the kids, it’s more freewheeling than a full, regular game. See, basically I would be the one or somebody would be there on my behalf, you know, overseeing the kids and telling them what to do and doing it, but let’s say you have two kids, I mean, two coaches, but you normally would have one. MR. SEGULJIC-If we allow them to reduce the parking, have they got to get a variance then? How does that work? MR. HILTON-You can’t go below what’s required by Code. MR. HUNSINGER-We can’t go below the minimum required. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-You can’t go below the minimum. MR. HILTON-Yes, I mean, if there is, and there is, I believe. MR. MILLER-Well, what we could do, and we’ve done on other projects, is not put it all in, and then put it in if we need it, and maybe that would apply here. I mean, we could easily eliminate say the spaces on the west side. MR. SEGULJIC-Save you some asphalt. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Save the world some asphalt, and what we can do is we can show it on the plan and just dash it in like we have in the past, and say that we would still comply with the indoor recreation requirement, and if it was needed to do it, we could always add that, but we could eliminate that row of parking, as part of the approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Which spaces would be the? MR. MILLER-Well, I’m thinking the easiest one would be the westerly ones along here. MR. HUNSINGER-Southern. MR. LANGEVIN-That would be west. That’s towards West Mountain. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You have two north narrows. MR. MILLER-I do? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, up here. Well, I’m just looking at the SP-1. MR. MILLER-That other one there is just for the location plan. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t think that made sense. MR. MILLER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Take the middle ones out and make one big island. MR. MILLER-I think you’re going the wrong way now. MRS. STEFFAN-How many parking spaces is there? Is it 10 or 11? MR. MILLER-In that row? MRS. STEFFAN-It says right here 11. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MILLER-There’s 11. So that would limit it down to 30. MR. HUNSINGER-We do need the SEQRA also. MR. SEGULJIC-We’d have to be really crazy to say get rid of 15 spaces. Then they could square up the parking lot. Just for the future. Because I mean, based on your description, you don’t need 25, 26 spaces. You’ll be like K-Mart. MR. MILLER-Well, that’s what we were told was the requirement. MR. LANGEVIN-That’s what they wanted, and it didn’t seem like they wanted to budge. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think you need, don’t you need to get around that island? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, right to there, actually. MR. MILLER-One thing that’s important with this is we need to have some sort of circulation around, because this is one of the kind of facilities where we’d have a lot of children’s programs. A lot of parents will come and they’ll just drop them off and go somewhere else. So we wanted to have that lot to be able to drop off. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I was just trying to help you out. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LANGEVIN-He’s right. There’s a lot of times the mother or the father will drop the child off and then go grocery shopping and then come back. MR. MILLER-It’s good babysitting. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MR. LANGEVIN-Well, they kill two birds with one stone. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve got to do the Short Form. Is everyone comfortable with SEQRA? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. RESOLUTION NO. 36-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HENRI LANGEVIN, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Are we going to let them eliminate the landscaping on the islands? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) MRS. STEFFAN-We didn’t answer the question on eliminating the islands. We’ve eliminated some parking spaces that need to be built. Do we want to? MR. SEGULJIC-I think we need to keep the islands. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes I do, too. I think it’s a good trade off. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Does the reduction in the number of parking spaces impact on the number of islands or size of islands required? MR. MILLER-Yes, it would. The only thing is, is what we’re doing is we’re showing it as a set aside. So typically if you design with some spaces not being paved, everything else has to meet it as if it was, including the green space. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MILLER-So the answer’s kind of yes and no. MR. HUNSINGER-But the money we’re saving you on asphalt you can use to plant the trees. MRS. STEFFAN-Now there’s a place for the snow to go, pave the parking lot, not that I’m a plowing expert. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not as easy as that, but. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the conditions we have are lighting, Vision Engineering signoff, waiver on, and the spaces. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2007 HENRI LANGEVIN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of an 8,210 sq. ft. indoor skating training rink. Recreation Centers require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/26/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply 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 Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan application, 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 7. 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 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/26/07) 8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NOT APPLICABLE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2007 HENRI LANGEVIN, 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 Eight and Nine do not apply. It is approved with the following conditions: The applicant change the light fixtures to cut off light fixtures that meet the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code. Number Two, to obtain a Vision Engineering signoff, and Number Three, that the eleven spaces on the west side of the plan can be built at a future time. th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. MILLER-I’m not clear where we stand with the islands, though. MR. TRAVER-They’re still there. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re still there. MRS. STEFFAN-That was the trade off, the parking spaces for the islands. MR. LANGEVIN-Thank you. MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any further business to be brought before the Board? If there is none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 26, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 55