Loading...
2007-07-24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 22-2007 Jolley Associates 1. Tax Map No. 288.16-1-3 Site Plan No. 7-2007 Jolley Assoc. c/o Sean Crumb 7. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-98 Site Plan No. 30-2002 Adirondack Girl Scout Council, Inc. 24. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.16-1-10 Subdivision No. 2-2007 Robert & Courtney Smith 36. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 279.19-1-4.1, 4.2 Site Plan No. 37-2007 Cover 3., Inc. 44. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-56 Site Plan No. 38-2007 Christine Lecce 51. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-68, 86 Subdivision No. 9-200 7 Ron Ball 51. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 296.10-1-31.1 Subdivision No. 1-2007 Cerrone Builders, K. Kennah, Wm. Joslyn 55. PRELIMINARY STAGE C. Bishop Tax Map No. 315.5-1-1, 315-1-1, 315-1-4 Subdivision No. 15-2006 Legacy Land Holdings, LLC 66. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.15-1-28 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 07/24/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC TANYA BRUNO STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT GRETCHEN STEFFAN GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MARK NOORDSY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 22-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1412 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING GAS STATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,250 SQ. FT. GAS STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE, NEW GAS ISLAND AND CANOPY, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. GAS STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE BP 05-923 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE 1.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-3 SECTION 179- 4-020, 179-8-050, 179-6-020 TOM NACE & SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-This is an item that was tabled from last Tuesday. George, I don’t know if you want to summarize Staff Notes. MR. HILTON-I guess I really don’t have too much to add. This was tabled at the last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. HILTON-And I guess we have a full Board this evening and it is before you again for a discussion and potential action. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. CRUMB-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-We have received a communication from our attorney, and I’ll just kind of summarize what they have opined, and that is that they felt that by not having a majority take action, that we did not take any action. So, you know, what they’ve said is that until there’s a majority, you know, we really haven’t done anything with the application. So I think that, you know, enables us to take action on the application this evening. I don’t know if you had any new information that you wanted to add for the record, since we were here just last Tuesday? MR. NACE-No, not really. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering. MR. CRUMB-Sean Crumb, Jolly Associates. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any questions or comments from the Board? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-I assume what we have to do is put forth another motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Unless, if I recall correctly, were there any conditions? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there were several conditions, and one of the things that Staff did provide is a copy of the resolution that was offered, that wasn’t acted upon. MRS. BRUNO-And did we leave the public comment open? MR. HUNSINGER-No. We closed the public comment, and we did approve SEQRA. MRS. BRUNO-And how do we handle the documentation that was handed in this evening? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s an interesting thought. MR. HILTON-I guess I should make reference to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILTON-We were, we, Staff, were handed a note, just prior to the meeting, from someone concerned with this application, offering his public comment. I’ve handed it out. It hasn’t been read into the record. The public comment period is closed. I mean, we can certainly just put that in the file, but I don’t know. I guess it’s really up to you whether you choose to re-open the public hearing and accept this or. MR. HUNSINGER-Has everyone, I mean, everyone on the Board got a copy. Has everyone on the Board had a chance to read it? MRS. BRUNO-I have. MR. FORD-Is it possible to have it as part of the record, too? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was where I was going to go. I was going to say, since we’ve all read it and since, I mean, we can’t ignore it now that we’ve read it, because we obviously already took into consideration the information. So I would be comfortable in just making sure that it was part of the record, having known that all members of the Board have read it, without us having to read it into the record itself, unless there’s an objection to that. MR. FORD-You don’t wish to re-open the public hearing? MRS. BRUNO-That was my question. If we re-open, like Mr. Ford said, the public hearing, can we do that even without the public being notified? MR. SEGULJIC-This issue was discussed at last meeting, with regards to the difference between the consideration of, I’m betwixt on it, because I would like to see less parking which you’re doing, but I can understand there’s some semantics here as to what it is exactly. MR. CRUMB-May I review a copy of that? MR. SEGULJIC-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-My understanding is that the information in this handout I believe is based on incorrect information, because they changed the nature of their application, their use. MRS. BRUNO-In the meeting minutes, Mr. Nace explained that regardless of how the calculation was completed, the number of spaces came out to be equal. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-And short of getting out my calculator, I’m not going to question that. You’ve got it right there? MR. NACE-I’m happy to pass it around if anybody wants to look at it, but what I did is calculated it both with the Dunkin Donuts considered as a restaurant use, and the rest of 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) the store as a convenience store, and then also as the whole thing as a convenience store, and they’re equal. MR. NOORDSY-George and I are in an interesting position, since neither of us were here last time. I would be concerned about adding this letter to your record after you closed the public hearing, unless you actually re-opened and went through the whole notice procedure. I think I suggested to George that you note it as received, but not added to the record, unless you actually went through the formality of opening a public hearing, and there’s really no basis for that unless you have startling new facts. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-And the Zoning Administrator reviewed the parking and determined it was going to be convenience store. MR. NACE-Correct. That is correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And it’s my understanding, and we discussed it last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think, after looking at the Definitions, I convinced myself that it could be considered a convenience store. MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, if you slide over to the next item, on Exit 19, there we’re doing just the opposite, and I don’t think we can abide by two different sets of rules here. MRS. BRUNO-Continuity is certainly of utmost importance on our part. MR. CRUMB-Well, and if I may, I think we addressed that, the reasoning there between the difference between the two projects where we had removed the sandwich shop for Route 9 and requested the addition of 1,000 square feet to the convenience store for the Aviation Road project, particularly to the fact that we didn’t feel we had enough space to accommodate all the needs there. So that was the request for the removal, or the reason that we did remove the sandwich shop from Route 9, and again, I think that, you know, we reflected on the fact last week that the Dunkin Donuts worked into the convenience store side. Now I would agree with you, if we’re reviewing the Exit 19 or Aviation Road project that, you know, the sandwich shop adds to that parking calculation, and we’ve added numerous parking spaces to accommodate to accommodate that, but, you know, looking back, we have removed the sandwich shop. Therefore I think that we’ve removed the need for the added parking. MR. SIPP-I can’t agree with that. We’re playing by two different sets of rules here, and that’s what annoys me is the fact that in one we’re excusing it. There’s a convenience store in both of them. There’s a Dunkin Donuts in both of them, and just because one doesn’t have a sandwich shop doesn’t change the fact that there is a restaurant called Dunkin Donuts there, and therefore they should be, the parking regulations should remain the same for each site. MR. CRUMB-May I ask that the definition of Convenience Store be re-read. MR. HUNSINGER-And this is in Section 179-2-010, Convenience Store, a retail establishment offering for sale prepackaged food products, household items, newspapers and magazines, sandwiches and other prepared foods generally for off site consumption, but which may offer limited seating without wait service. MR. CRUMB-And our Dunkin Donuts does not offer wait service, and I would also state that we’re requesting a drive thru, so that a good bulk of that business will be through the drive thru lane, however, there will be some walk-in traffic. I think that there’s a clear definition between a sit down restaurant and a Dunkin Donuts drive thru within a convenience store. MR. SIPP-And do we eliminate the Dunkin Donuts from Exit 19? Do we have the same rules for that? MR. CRUMB-Well, I think that we’ve addressed that with the sandwich shop and the added seats. MR. SIPP-All right. Now, I’ve never been in a Dunkin Donuts that didn’t have seating. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. CRUMB-Well, I agree that some of them do have that, and as Mr. Hunsinger stated, that there is some seating and co-branding. Am I correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-I think the other thing is that, you know, we’ve looked at it as using the Dunkin Donuts as a restaurant as well, for restaurant seating, and both calculations, because of the areas in this particular store being used for each, you take the lease area for Dunkin Donuts, you get the same number of parking spaces required whether it’s a restaurant or whether it’s a convenience store. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my question, Mr. Sipp, was which application is it that you have the problems with the parking calculation? I understand what you’re saying in we’re not being consistent, but, you know, right now we’re looking at the Exit 20, Site Plan No. 22-2007, and if the problem you have is with the other Site Plan, then we can address it when you look at the other Site Plan, on the next agenda item. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Board? MRS. BRUNO-I’m just curious. In terms of the Dunkin Donuts being, as you see in this evening’s letter, there’s going to be one right up the street from you and then you’ve got one there, how does the franchise handle that, in terms of selling their stores? MR. CRUMB-Well, my understanding with that, and I’ve had several discussions with the franchisee who basically has rights to the area. I have a written and signed lease with Dunkin Donuts. My understanding is that MT Associates does not, and I have brought that question up with my Dunkin Donuts representative a number of times, and he has assured me there is no agreement in place with them. If you give me a few minutes, or a minute or so, I could probably provide you with a copy of our lease with Dunkin Donuts. So, that said, I can’t speak for the assumptions of MT Associates of what they hope to have, but I think that there’s been, there’s certainly some discussion going on, and I’m hearing regularly from my Dunkin Donuts representative regarding how this is progressing and I think that his position is if we are not successful he’ll likely move down the street, but at this point, in our mind as well as my Dunkin representative’s mind, we have the position in the marketplace, being first off the Interstate, and they would much rather be there than they would be down the street. However, a second position for them would be to go down the street. So, that said, if you’d like a copy of the lease, I can certainly provide that. MRS. BRUNO-I’m not concerned about it. I was just, like I said, more curious because I know that it could impact either your business or their business or vice versa. I’ve seen that with hotel chains that are too close between Queensbury and Lake George. MR. CRUMB-Right, and I agree in certain instances. However, knowing the Burke brothers, I don’t think that they’re going to put them quite that close together. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. CRUMB-Sure. MR. FORD-Having not been able to be here at the last meeting, but I also read the minutes. Is there any desire, on the part of those who were here, to re-open SEQRA? MR. SEGULJIC-Based on what? MR. FORD-Just the discussion that I read from the minutes of the last meeting. I thought there was concern voiced by one or more members, relative to certain issues. They may have been addressed or mitigated or taken care of. If so, I have no problem. I just wanted to make sure that the opportunity was provided. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would caution that, and my understanding, and I’ll lean on Counsel for their comment, but my understanding is we wouldn’t really be able to re- open SEQRA unless there was new information that we didn’t have last week. Is that fair? MR. NOORDSY-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. NOORDSY-And actually, I just want to make sure I know where you’re at procedurally. You adopted a Nag Dec at last meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-We did, yes. MR. NOORDSY-You’d have to have new evidence with regard to the EAF, EAF sort of information in order to re-open that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Good point. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution, if there’s no other questions or comments? MR. SIPP-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. One more comment. Is this the sign that’s proposed for the site? MR. CRUMB-Yes, it is. I can give you an updated version of that. I believe I gave the rest of the Board members an updated version of that last meeting with clearer dimensions. This is the sign that’s proposed. It’s very similar. MR. SIPP-And would you consider a monument type sign? MR. CRUMB-At this point I would say no, due to the fact of what was approved up the street earlier this year. MR. SIPP-This is still 20 feet high? MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. I believe that that’s within the sign regulation. That was what this Board had requested of us to not exceed. MR. SIPP-Well, I would be looking for something that was at least five feet shorter. MR. CRUMB-If that was a condition, we could certainly accommodate you. Again, I based the sign off of what was approved earlier down the street, with a 20 foot maximum. MR. SIPP-I didn’t vote for that one either. MR. CRUMB-Okay. MR. SIPP-This forest of 20 foot signs is just overwhelming this community, and if and when the time comes that this Sign Ordinance is re-done, I will definitely move that we have more monument type signs and much shorter freestanding signs. I think if this is the wave of the future, then I think that there is a lot of good information that can be gathered on using monument type signs, such as these. MR. CRUMB-I’m familiar with those, and I understand your concern, and I spent a lot of time reviewing what this Board had approved and spent time listening to comments of the Board, and I based a lot of my information off of that. So I do understand your concern. MR. SEGULJIC-So what I hear you saying, you would be willing to go to 15 feet, and how about the monument? MR. CRUMB-I don’t think I could come up with a 15 foot monument. My concern here is what was approved, you know, three months earlier down the street. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s a different application. MR. CRUMB-You’re correct, it is, but again, I base my information on what the recommendation of this Board was earlier, to not exceed the 20 feet, because I had provided sign information earlier. If it’s a deal breaker for you, you know, certainly we would compromise with you, but at this point, I would say that, you know, again, I’d go back to the information that I gathered from this Board, and that was what I based my information off of, and I did do some research in the Town records. I reviewed the plan that was approved. I sat through meetings and signs were brought up, and, again, that’s what I based it off of. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MRS. BRUNO-Well, if we’re talking, this evening, about having continuity, and I’m a little embarrassed to say that I haven’t looked up the previous application of your competition up the street. I guess I’d defer to you from the research that you’ve done, do you recall what the height of their sign? MR. CRUMB-Is 20 feet. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-I’d like to see the condition of, if it has to be a freestanding sign, that it be at 15 feet. MRS. BRUNO-I would think that might be a little easier to swallow, just because you’re one of the, like you said, the first building. So you’ll be much more noticeable, rather than being mixed in. MR. CRUMB-I agree. MRS. BRUNO-You’re in a difficult situation this evening. MR. CRUMB-Yes, I am. MRS. BRUNO-It’s been a lot, I know. MR. CRUMB-Yes, and again, if that’s the compromise that you’re willing to work with, I think that we can accommodate you, again, referring back to if it’s a deal breaker, certainly, but my preference would be to have the 20 foot, but to have the 20 foot, but I can live with the 15, if that’s what the Board so chooses. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, are we ready to make a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I think, more or less, we can make the motion we made last time, with one of the conditions being a 15 foot sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2007 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic 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 removal of existing gas station and construction of a new 4,250 sq. ft. gas station and convenience store, new gas island and canopy, along with associated site work. Gas stations and Convenience Store require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 5/24/07 & 7/24/07; 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 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) 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; and 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2007 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Eight does not apply. This application is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the topographical and adjacent building notations should be depicted on the final documents. 2.That the applicant will eliminate the green front door fascia. 3.That the applicant notes that the design of the building will include the brick façade as presented to the Board, 4.And that the main ID sign’s height be limited to 15 feet, and the drawing provided by the applicant. th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: MR. FORD-And do you want to designate the type of sign, monument? MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, they provided a drawing. All you’re doing is reducing the height. MR. SEGULJIC-Reducing the height. MR. FORD-As long as that’s understood. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Drawing as provided by applicant. MR. CRUMB-That’s fine. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Bruno ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Okay. Motion carried. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOC. c/o SEAN CRUMB AGENT(S) BOHLER ENG./J. GILLESPIE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC INTENSIVE LOCATION 474 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION & SNACK SHOP FOR PROPOSED 4,250 SQ. FT. JOLLEY C-STORE & GAS STATION, SANDWICH SHOP & DUNKIN DONUTS WITH A DRIVE THRU. CONVENIENT STORE, GASOLINE STATION AND FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ESTABLISHMENTS ARE ALL USES THAT REQUIRE 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 2.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-98 SECTION 179-4-020 JIM GILLESPIE, SEAN CRUMB & WENDY CIMINO, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. Similar application, different location. Just a couple of comments on the site plan. There’s a drive aisle on the plan, located to the west of the building, and conversations with the Fire Marshal, this drive is required to be 20 feet wide. The site plan should be revised to show this. As I’ve indicated, a number of shade trees were proposed on the south and western side of the site. Consideration should be given to placing some of these along the street frontage, Aviation Road. With other commercial projects, and not only just commercial projects, but other gas stations the Board has approved recently throughout the Town, there have been, you know, the landscaping plans have included shade trees along the main street frontage, and that’s our recommendation as far as the planting plan goes. The lighting plan shows light levels under the gas canopy that appear quite high. Even though the plan indicates a 10 foot candle average for underneath the gas island. I’m not sure if that’s some kind of error on one listing or another but it just, in looking at the light levels under that canopy, it does appear quite high. As I’ve mentioned, the parking requirements for this site, I’ve given the calculation that’s required to take into consideration not only the restaurant uses but the convenience store uses, and the recalculation should be submitted or a calculation should be submitted showing that the site meets the parking requirements. My comment regarding the sidewalks, I wasn’t sure, in looking at the plan, that the applicant intended to upgrade the sidewalk that’s in front of the existing site or leave it as it is. Either way, I think it should be, at a minimum, kept as is, to provide connection to the existing crosswalks and other sidewalks in the area. In regards to vehicular access, the applicant is currently showing a right in/right out on Aviation Road. Staff has some concerns in regard to the proximity of this to Burke Drive, which is a full service access to the site. It’s likely that, with the stacking and such on Aviation Road, this right in may not receive much use, and for that reason, and, again, the proximity to Burke Drive, our suggestion would be to make that a right out only, and that’s actually all I have for this application at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CRUMB-Good evening. MR. GILLESPIE-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. CRUMB-Sean Crumb with Jolly Associates. MR. GILLESPIE-Jim Gillespie from Buhler. MS. CIMINO-Wendy Camino, Creighton-Manning. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. GILLEPSIE-I’d just like to go over some of the changes we’ve made since last meeting, and then address some of the comments that were just brought up. Just to recap, regarding the access, originally we had proposed a full access driveway, as exists today, and because of the comments received by Staff and Planning, we’ve limited this to a right in/right out to eliminate a left turn in here, in the event that stacking were to occur. We’d really prefer not to revise this to a right out only, just because this right in, if there were stacking on Burke Drive, the right in, if this movement, if this entrance were not here, a right in off of Burke could be restricted by stacking on here. So this is just an additional entrance that really isn’t going to create any harm, and Wendy Cimino from Creighton-Manning will go into a little more detail on that, but that’s basically the short of why we’d like to keep that. We also provided additional landscaping throughout the site. One of the comments was to further buffer both property lines along the east and west, which we’ve done a significant increase in evergreens along the 87 ramp, some street trees along Burke Drive, and just pretty much beefed everything up throughout the site. There was a Staff comment to add some additional trees along Aviation Road. One of our concerns there is we don’t own this property. We have very limited frontage along Aviation Road. DOT will allow some low plantings in there, but anything that might 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) impair sight distance is probably not going to be allowed by them. So that was the reasoning why these were all low shrubs. We do have one shade tree, or ornamental tree here, and like I said, we’ve increased quite a bit throughout the site. The lighting is actually not in error. There are four lights proposed, and under each light, you may see light levels that are a little higher, but the average foot candle, under the canopy, is 10 foot candles, and it falls within the Code and it falls within the Uniformity Ratio. Again, Jolley has another application before you, which you’ve accepted the lighting level. So we can certainly take another look at that, possibly reduce the wattage. These are now 250 watt, but we’ll have to propose probably some additional fixtures,. But we could certainly look at 175 watt and bring those hot spots a little closer to less of an illumination. We have no problem making it match the other application. As far as the drive aisle, we prepared a turning movement of a fire truck. I’m not sure if that’s a Town Code. I’m not sure what the concern is with that drive aisle, but there is definitely sufficient room to get a fire truck around here. Twelve feet is, it’s a one way drive. It’s as wide as any drive, any travel lane on a road, so, you know, our intent here was to minimize impervious area and maximize green space. So we’d really prefer to keep that at 12 feet, if possible. Perhaps we can provide this turning movement to the Fire Marshal for his review, and unless it’s a strict Town Code that we really need to look at, we’d prefer to keep it at 12 feet. It’ll allow a little more room for delivery area and it’s really sufficient room for that movement. Again, I mentioned the landscaping, the lighting. With regards to the parking calc, we had revised that based on earlier Staff comments. We can certainly, the suggested calc is less, would require less parking than what the calc we had used on this last submission. So we can certainly revise that to that calc. What I would ask the Board to allow us to land bank some of this parking. We feel that we have sufficient parking here, and we’re also showing a lot of room for future parking, if the need be. So if we can show that we have future parking to meet that calc, we would ask the Board to accept that. Pedestrian walks, there are existing pedestrian walks along here that are in good shape. This is depressed curb. There’s a crosswalk here. There’s a crosswalk here. Our modifications to this sidewalk are limited to where we are, you know, obviously doing work and extending the curb along Burke Drive. So we’re going to add a ramp here. We’re going to have crosswalks through here, a strip of concrete, and just maintain that existing pedestrian along Aviation Road frontage, and again, the right in/right out. This was reviewed by DOT and accepted by them, and if Wendy would like to talk a little bit more about that, the floor is yours. MS. CIMINO-Just a few things to, again, go over the right in/right out. One of the reasons why we limited the access is because of the conflicting movements with the left turns in at Burke and in at the site, which are closely spaced. A right turn in movement does not really conflict with any other movement on the roadway. It’s almost, it’s a free flow movement. So therefore having Burke Drive close really isn’t conflicting or harming that movement. The good thing about maintaining the right in is it reduces the turning movements. If that right in is taken away, then a vehicle, coming from this direction going into the site, now has to make two turn movements when they would have only had to make a free flow right turn in, and one of the movements is a left turn movement, which is, you know, one of the more movements that has conflicting traffic. So if we can maintain that right in, that, you know, makes that movement easier for those vehicles. So we would therefore recommend that that stay, and we did do access management by eliminating full access, having those two close together. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment on the ability to make a left hand turn into the site from Aviation Road? Because there is a designated left hand turn there, and there’s nothing across the street. So, I was a little surprised that you gave up the left hand turn into the site so easily. I was just wondering if you could just talk us through that. MS. CIMINO-Yes, I mean, just from an access management standpoint, and Aviation Road, it is a busy road, and we did observe that when the signal at the ramps is red on this approach, it does back up. It doesn’t just back up past this driveway. It backs up here, but it is a relatively quick signal cycling. So the cars aren’t backed up, you know, for an extended period of time. So kind of going back to the last comment, when, you know, they were saying that this driveway wouldn’t be utilized because of the cars backing up, it would be actually, it backs up kind of both. So once it goes, you know, there’s no reason to go in here versus here, but just having these two and cars stacking here to go to Burke, it just, it makes it cleaner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. CIMINO-I mean, it’s just, from an engineering standpoint, it’s a cleaner move. It makes the site cleaner, and now this left turn lane can now be solely used to get into Burke and still get relatively easy access into the site. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. CIMINO-Any other questions? MR. FORD-Yes. From a driver’s standpoint, not an engineering standpoint, I tend to disagree with you about that right only turning in. You’ve got two potential right onlys, and a left only. You’ve got one at Burke, and then how many feet is it before you get the right in only? MS. CIMINO-I don’t know what the scale is on this, 20. So maybe 50 feet, 60 feet. I mean, I personally, from a driver’s standpoint, if I was here, and could just slip into a site, versus going in here and then having to potentially, you know, deal with people that are, you know, are here waiting to come out of Burke Drive. I don’t know, maybe it’s because I’m an engineer, but I avoid lefts. If I could just make a quick right into a site, I would pass this drive and take a right into the site before I took this turn and waited, and I’ve done that at gas stations where there is a little side street and I will pass the side street and use the main right in, and we’re not saying that you can’t make that a. MR. FORD-It’s going to be congested. It’s going to be pretty congested there, potentially, at any given time, with the lot of traffic, and I just see minimizing the turns as being better than adding to the confusion of drivers, some of whom will be their first time on site, and others it’ll be a regular occurrence to be turning in there. MS. CIMINO-Right, but considering that the site is currently used as the same use, and it’s a full access here. We are actually making it simpler and cleaner and, you know, the movements that we. MR. FORD-You don’t think you’re going to be increasing traffic in there with that expanded facility? MS. CIMINO-There will be increased traffic, but you’re talking about patterns of traffic, and keeping that right turn really doesn’t, there’s no conflicting movements on Aviation Road with that movement. There’s nothing conflicting. It’s just like you’re going through and you take a right. You don’t have to yield to any other traffic. You have the right of way to make that movement. So maintaining that right in gives vehicles the option of choosing not to make a right turn and then having to yield to Burke Drive traffic to take a left into the site, and by maintaining both, you have an option. So as a driver, you can still do this movement, and this full access here is necessary because we’ve eliminated the movement in here. MR. FORD-If you’re westbound as a driver on Aviation Road, however, you, in rapid succession, have the potential for encountering two right hand movements, and I believe that that is, will be prone to accidents. I think it’s more dangerous than if it were a single right hand turn in order to accommodate that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I’m concerned, also, with the plan as currently laid out, that you’re also going to have a great deal of traffic congestion on the site, in that northwest corner, particularly if you consider vehicles with something in tow, during high volume traffic. If you have those two entrances basically almost facing each other, not only are you going to have the traffic back up on Aviation and Burke, but you’re also going to have, you know, quite a potential problem with moving traffic, I can see in effect a kind of traffic jam developing in that northwest corner of the property with the proximity of those two entrances. MS. CIMINO-You’re saying like right in here? MR. TRAVER-Between the two. If you have, for example, suppose you have a complex vehicle, a vehicle pulling a boat or a trailer or something like that, let’s say coming in to the left hand turn off of Burke, and at the same time you have, you know, cars waiting to come in behind that. Then you have cars lined up pulling in off the Aviation entrance. You’re going to end up, with the spaces involved there, you could end up in a situation where you have two drivers that are basically waiting for each other to kind of move out of the way, and meanwhile other traffic is blocking up in two columns. MS. CIMINO-Right. I mean, I don’t see that this is that much different than any other, you know, gas station designs where, I mean, when you come on site, if you’re coming in here, and you’re going to get gas, you’re probably, you know, you move around the site and you’re not traveling at high speeds, and especially if you’re here, you’re stopped 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) almost because you have to almost stop, or stop to take a left hand turn. So, I mean, I can’t see the visibility of that much congestion at one time on the site that you’re not going to be able to maneuver properly. I mean, there is a lot of space here. There’s a real lot of room, if you compare it to a 12 foot aisle way. If you look at all the space here, there’s plenty of space and visibility for people to come in and, you know, look at where they want to go and yield and. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it would make sense, to me, to eliminate the right only in and have everyone come down Burke. MS. CIMINO-I don’t know if you have anything to add. I mean, from a traffic engineering standpoint, like I said, it’s, there’s no conflicting movements. MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand, but we’re looking at the whole picture wise. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s a bit more complex than a pure study of the flow of traffic. It also has to do with the consequence of the location and the proximity to the Northway ramp and the traffic signals that are proximity, again, to that site. All of those factors also play. I understand what you’re saying about the traffic studies and so on, but it’s a bit more complex. MR. CRUMB-My thought on this movement is if we have traffic turning in, turning right into Burke Drive in anticipation of turning left into the site, if we have a back up, a stacking effect on Burke could potentially provide a stacking effect out on Aviation Road, whereas if they have the ability to continue on and follow into the right in only, they can safely pass into the site without having the stacking effect. So there’s two options there. MR. TRAVER-I understand your explanation. My concern, and let me give you another scenario. Suppose that the reason for the stacking on Burke is because there are a couple of drivers that are turning, that you have a driver with say a complex vehicle that’s turning left off Burke. You have another complex vehicle turning right on the Aviation Road entrance, and for a time, you know, and I’m sure it’s a common experience that many of us here can share, you can be in a situation where you’re hesitating and you’re waiting for the other person to sort of decide where they’re going to go and where they’re going to take their equipment, and as a result, I can foresee a situation where you can have stacking not only on Burke, but on Aviation as well, where now, instead of having one lane, with a problem with traffic flow, now you have two lanes. MR. CRUMB-I agree that that potential is there, but I also looked at the fact that you now have two options, and now, if you remove that right in, you’ve removed an option. MR. FORD-Help me interpret turn signals. I’m heading westbound on Aviation Road, and there are, there’s a driver or several drivers in a row, and at least that first one has his right signal on as he is approaching from the west heading east on Aviation. Help me, as that westbound driver, interpret that right hand signal. MR. CRUMB-I see your point. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Was any study made of the stacking of school buses at the light at the Northway entrance? MR. CRUMB-I’ll let Wendy comment on that. MS. CIMINO-In our traffic study, we actually looked at an additional peak period, from two in the afternoon to four in the afternoon, which did encompass the School traffic. I would have to look to find the specific numbers, but pretty much during all the peaks the Aviation Road traffic had similar characteristics, that it does back up at that signal when it does turn red. It does back up in front of the site, you know, and again, regarding the whole operation with that full access, I mean, we were there for almost a full day, you know, watching the operation of the existing, and saw that people let people go, and they gave courtesy gaps, and, you know, there was enough gaps in the traffic and, you know, the site operated without any issue. MR. SIPP-Well, I think Queensbury still makes three runs. So there’s three different times during the afternoon that there could be a back up at that Northway entrance light. If there’s somebody proceeding westward, wanting to make a left turn into your facility, and not being able to do it, and that would stack up traffic behind him. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MS. CIMINO-Well, there’s a left turn lane there. So there is stacking for that. You’re talking about a left into the site. There’s a designated lane. So when a person pulls into that lane, they’re not going to block Aviation Road. MR. SIPP-Yes, but there’s maybe more than one. In the time that those buses, which operate fairly slowly along Aviation Road. MS. CIMINO-Right, but like I said, we were there. We specifically, which it’s not typical for us to do a gas station study at two o’clock in the afternoon, and again, you have to understand that at two o’clock in the afternoon and three o’clock in the afternoon when the School is operating, the gas station is not peaking. Like that’s not necessarily a peak time for gas station traffic. So, yes it’s peak for the Schools, but it’s not necessarily peak for the gas station. So, yes, it’s peak for the Schools, but it’s not necessarily peak for the gas station. So, you know, we did look at all three peaks, and all three of our analyses showed, you know, that the Levels of Service at the intersections at the site, at the site driveways, with all the movements that we’re recommending, you know, operates adequately. We specifically looked at the queues. There’s a section in our report that specifically talks about the queuing on Aviation Road, you know, how the left turn works, how the right in works, you know, and again, when we were out there observing, the access on Aviation Road is a full access, and people were taking a left out of there, you know, and we’re not even asking for that anymore. We’re saying that, you know, I could, our analysis could show something different, but we’re saying we don’t want that movement. We want to clean it up and only do the right in/right out, and the other thing, we have submitted the report to the State, and they will comment on that, and, you know, from their perspective whether that is adequate, and knowing that, you know, and again, it was years ago, but it was approved with those two roadways with that spacing as two full access roadways. MR. CRUMB-And my understanding is the curb cut for the School is to be closed off. MS. CIMINO-Right. That’s the other thing I thought of that. I’m glad you reminded me. There is an access for the Middle School kind of kitty corner across the street which we did include that in our study because it is so close to Burke Drive, and there was a study that was done for the School, and one of the things that’s going to be done is that access is going to be closed, and all that traffic will be relocated to the signal down the street, and that was included in our study. We took all that traffic. We analyzed it as. MR. SIPP-I think that’s been done already. MS. CIMINO-I don’t know. A couple of months ago they had told me that it was high on their priority list but couldn’t give me a date. So if it’s been done since this time, then they were right, it was high priority. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you clarify something for me? Looking at your report, maybe I’m not understanding something. When you talk about the Aviation/Burke Drive intersection, you’re giving that a Level of Service of D, on the. MS. CIMINO-That’s the Burke Drive. MR. SEGULJIC-The northbound Burke Drive approach is currently operating at a Level of Service of D. MS. CIMINO-Correct, and that is maintained, if you look, it’s maintained through. MR. SEGULJIC-But wouldn’t, if people go across that intersection to get into the station and take that right only, you’re exacerbating the problem. Whereas if they cut off and go down Burke, they’re lessening that issue, because there’s going to be fewer cars going across the intersection. MS. CIMINO-Yes. I think the difference is minor, and this analysis shows us with the cars going straight. So if that is considered worst case, I guess, I mean, either way it operates adequately. So Level of Service D is an acceptable Level of Service, and if you look at. MR. SEGULJIC-But doesn’t Level D mean it’s going to fail some time in the near future? MS. CIMINO-Well, an unsignalized intersection in a corridor like this, it’s common for it to operate at a Level of Service D, or even an E, actually, during peak hours, and, you 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) know, New York State DOT is, you know, aware of that, because you can’t signalize every driveway on a Route 9 or an Aviation Road or, you know, that’s the way it is on those type of roadways, and it’s more, it’s not necessarily a function of how many cars are on the site. It’s more just the waiting that you’re going to have to wait to get out onto a busy roadway. So during a peak period, a D is an acceptable Level of Service, but, yes, it’s not a B. There’s a little bit more delay, which is expected during those time periods. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but if people were to turn down Burke Drive, it would help alleviate that a little bit, because then they wouldn’t be going across the intersection to cut in. MS. CIMINO-Yes, and again, could it make that, Burke Drive left, a little bit easier? Potentially, but I don’t think you’re talking about a magnitude that’s really, you’re really going to see, you’re not going to make Burke Drive a B, I mean, because right now it’s not. So you’re not going to get somewhere. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’re just trying to make it a little better. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, in all these discussions about, you know, turnings and, you know, access off Aviation Road, the gas station that’s most applicable to compare it to is the Hess station, which is just on the other side of Exit 19, of the Northway, and that has full access onto Aviation Road, plus full access onto the side road, and that’s a much smaller site, much tougher to negotiate. MS. CIMINO-Right. MR. FORD-And dangerous. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t go there, but I’m just saying, and the other thing, and I’m kind of surprised the applicant hasn’t talked about this yet, but, you know, there’s been consumer preference studies done on gas stations and convenience stores in particular, and, you know, you only stop, I mean, you know, 90% of the people will only stop at a convenience store if it’s on the right. If it’s on the left, you know, you’re not going to go there and fight traffic, especially when you have choices. MS. CIMINO-That’s why the right in is really good because it serves the people on the right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and, you know, I don’t think I’m showing a bias here to say I use this gas station a lot, and I make the left hand turn off Aviation Road. I don’t go onto Burke, and I travel that at 7:00 7:15 in the morning when the School traffic is at the absolute peak. In fact for years I would drop my son off at the high school and fight the traffic to get back onto Aviation Road. Until they had the crossing guard there you couldn’t even get back onto Aviation Road, and I would still buy gas there, and it was never a problem coming in and out of that gas station. It was a problem going back and forth in front of the School. I mean, it’s anecdotal information, but, you know, I mean. MR. CRUMB-I agree with your comment about right in/right out. We have several locations in Northern Vermont where, if you had a good arm, you could throw a rock from one of our stations to the other, due to the fact that the consumer will not turn left in and then left back out because of the traffic congestion. So it’s basically designated north and south, and it’s, the bulk of the business is off of that directional traffic, and it does not generally turn left. However, you’re going to see some, but again, I think the morning traffic coming out of the residential area of that area is generally headed east towards the Northway and towards Queensbury, correct me if I’m wrong. I’m sure you have a good bit of traffic heading into the School, but a lot of that morning trade coming in to utilize the Dunkin Donuts in that morning traffic is right in and going to be right back out. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s more residential development on the west side of your site than on the east side of the site. MR. CRUMB-Yes, and that’s where my comment regarding the morning traffic heading towards the Northway and heading towards the business area of Queensbury and wherever it is they may be traveling, tends to be right in and right back out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then in the afternoon the traffic is backed up traveling west. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. CRUMB-Exactly, and the trends in that business, in our business, tend to be in the later part of the day, you know, 3:30, 4:00 o’clock and later to maybe 6:00 or 6:30 because of the travel habits of folks leaving work and heading home, and the type of business that’s there is not looking to draw off that evening trade, the Dunkin Donuts I refer to. Certainly a Subway sandwich shop is going to have some traffic in the evening, but I think the bulk of that business is going to come at the noontime hour, whereas most folks aren’t looking for a Subway sandwich to have for dinner. Certainly there’s some there, but the bulk of that business is going to be in the morning, right in/right out. MRS. BRUNO-If I may comment, using the same, if one were to use the same argument, in terms of taking, most likely taking just the right hand turn, rather than crossing over through the left hand turn as Mr. Hunsinger suggested. If our residents were traveling to the Northway in the morning, wanted their cup of coffee, meaning to take the right hand turn, it wouldn’t, to me, be that much more of an ordeal to take that right hand and then that left hand turn to get in off of Burke. My concern is, what about the people that are turning right hand off of Aviation, if there is a stacking there, like you suggested there might be one there and there might be one off of Burke. That doubles the potential for the people coming out on Burke being backed up, in their progression to the eastern side, whether it’s the highway or into Town. Furthermore, because of the proximity to the Schools, you’d have an additional road cut, and also sidewalk cut on the Aviation Road, which, with the number of children walking through the area, I would think that you would want to be able to have that consistent sidewalk and just keep the road cuts, maybe further towards the back where the children aren’t progressing down the sidewalks. MR. CRUMB-I know that there was a pedestrian count done as well, and I’ll let Wendy comment on that. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MS. CIMINO-Right. I’d have to flip to find the numbers, but there wasn’t a substantial amount of pedestrians, considering that there is a school right there. There is crossing guards across Aviation Road in the morning. I know that doesn’t, that’s not in front of the site, but. MR. CRUMB-The crosswalk is further west. MS. CIMINO-Yes. I think there was a handful of children that actually used it, less than 20 during the peaks that actually used that. I’d have to look at the numbers, but I think that’s high. I think it’s like 10 or something. Yes. I think it was, I think half of them were. So I don’t think pedestrian conflicts is a reason to take, because actually if you look at what we’re doing, compared to what’s there now, providing the right in/right out, there’s a median area which actually means that you cross one lane at a time, and you’re not crossing two lanes. So, I mean, wherever it is, I think we’re talking about 50 feet, and if, you know, so then you say, well, now there’s another car that they have to deal with that’s going to go down Burke Drive, and now they’re going to be 50 feet away here, so, I mean, if that pedestrian’s there crossing Burke and the site, if that same car that you’re referencing, they’re going to either be in one spot or the other. I don’t think that having that right in is going to. MR. SEGULJIC-But keep something in mind. We want to encourage people to walk. MS. CIMINO-But that design isn’t an unsafe design. It’s a standard design. It would be, you know, New York State DOT standards, and, you know, compliant with ADA and compliant with, I mean, it has to be compliant. It’s not like this would be a sidewalk that would not be normal to this type of area. MR. FORD-Could you refresh our memory, please, and, from your traffic impact study, how did the recent history of accidents in that immediate vicinity impact your study? How was that? MS. CIMINO-We did not, we actually did not conduct an accident study at this intersection. MR. FORD-Really. I would think that that would be fairly common in making a presentation of this volume, that you would want to know the frequency and severity of accidents in that immediate vicinity. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MS. CIMINO-Yes. Typically, if there’s a known issue or a known area that there is, you know, severe accidents or recurring accidents, it is something that we look at, and it depends on the site, again. MR. FORD-Does it have to be common knowledge, or how does one acquire that knowledge? MS. CIMINO-No, but it typically is something that would be brought up, and we would certainly do it. It’s something that we certainly can do. If you’re, I mean, are you saying that you believe there’s an accident problem out there? Typically we look at, you know, when we do our studies, contact the Town. We contact New York State DOT. We call the County, and during all those conversations, a lot of times that’s where we would get information that, this area is dangerous, it seems like this, and that would be something that we would look at. MR. FORD-But you didn’t ask, specifically, for the accident count for that immediate vicinity. MS. CIMINO-Correct. MR. GILLESPIE-I’d just like to add that DOT has reviewed and conceptually approved this, pending further action by this Board, but typically DOT would certainly be aware if there was some kind of accident history here, before they gave any kind of conceptual approval to the entrance. MS. CIMINO-Right. It’s New York State DOT is who we would get accident data from. They maintain accident data, now, from, you know, local roads and highways. MR. FORD-I understand they do, but you did not. MS. CIMINO-Correct. MR. FORD-You did not acquire that. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board on traffic? MR. SEGULJIC-I think we should move on to the next. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I may. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. HILTON-Just really quickly, on the 20 foot drive aisle width in the interior of the site, it’s my understanding that that’s a, like a Fire Code, State Fire Code. There’s no movement, wiggle room on that, I guess, if you will, but perhaps one suggestion is that if the Board feels they are in a position to approve this plan, that it be approved subject to a final signoff by the Fire Marshal. That way there, he can look at it, and he can tell the applicant directly whether it has to be 20 feet or not. MR. CRUMB-If I may add a comment to that. The drive aisle at the project you just approved earlier is 14 feet wide, and I think we have some room on that if it’s really a definitive issue for everybody. I think that we could certainly propose a climbable curb, and cut back a little of the green space and add maybe a concrete area there that would allow for a fire truck to access that, if it’s so required. I think there was a comment by the Fire Marshal regarding a climbable curb for the triangle here for the right in/right out, and I think we could accommodate something similar to that along in this area if need be. We’d like to see that this delivery area remain as wide as possible because you take into account a Pepsi truck or a side delivery truck. We’d like to have them have adequate space, where, you know, if need be, we could certainly incorporate a climbable curb and cut this green space back somewhat and put some concrete down through there, so that a truck could access that safely, but again, I’m referring back to the delivery area and the need to have that 18 feet. MR. HILTON-And I guess my only comment would be, I don’t know the Fire Code in detail. I suppose there could be situations where some drive aisles could be less of a width than others. Again, I think the solution is to get a final signoff from the Fire Marshal. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. CRUMB-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, typically we get a letter or comment from the Fire Marshal. Okay. Did you have anything else that you wanted to present this evening? MR. CRUMB-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’ll open it up for general questions or comments from the Board. MR. SIPP-Back to the sign. MR. CRUMB-Would you like a revised version? MR. SIPP-I would like to see this be a monument type sign. MR. CRUMB-We’ll take that into consideration. MR. SIPP-I think you don’t have much competition. MR. CRUMB-I tend to disagree on that, just due to the fact of the traffic on the east side, with the Hess, the Sunoco and the Getty being situated there. MR. SIPP-Yes, but if they turn left coming off of the Northway, both exits, they’re going to be in your territory. MR. CRUMB-Yes. However, they wouldn’t have the opportunity to notice my sign, if it was an eight foot, six foot monument. MR. SIPP-Well, now the people that drive there every day would notice it. MR. CRUMB-I’m aware of that. However, there’s transient traffic headed north and south on the Northway that may or may not choose to, however, there are Mobil signs at the off ramp. MR. SIPP-Right. MR. CRUMB-I would compromise with you and scale it back to the 15 foot, like we used. MR. SIPP-No, I would like to see a monument type sign in this position. MR. CRUMB-Well, I guess that’s your prerogative to put that in as a condition. I would certainly like to see it as we’ve proposed it and would be willing to compromise with that with you. MR. SIPP-Compromise on the? MR. CRUMB-On the height. MR. SIPP-On the monument? MR. CRUMB-On the height. MR. SIPP-On the monument? MR. CRUMB-I guess if it’s a deal breaker, we’ll go that route, but, you know, again, I guess that I would leave that for you to make that as a condition of your approval. MR. SIPP-I would make that as a condition of approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-The lighting. I think everything looks pretty good, other than under the canopy. So you’d say the average is 10, even though, so these are hot spots we’re seeing? MR. GILLESPIE-It is an average of 10 within the canopy footprint. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the lights under the canopy are flush mounted? MR. GILLESPIE-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re not going to be extending full out? MR. GILLESPIE-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the landscaping. So, you’re not proposing any trees along Aviation Road? MR. GILLESPIE-One here, which is, see, our problem is, if you look at the property line, we have very limited room. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, when we eliminate that cut in there, we’ll have more space. MR. GILLESPIE-Not really. We still need to accommodate the right out, though. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have one shade tree, then, over in the? MR. GILLESPIE-We have one here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CRUMB-And numerous everywhere else throughout the site. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess as a question for Staff. In looking at the Code, it does talk about, I assume this is considered a parking lot. It talks about the one tree every 250 square feet. So, it sounds like along Aviation Road, they’re saying they’re not going to meet that. MR. CRUMB-Can we count the existing trees in the back? MR. HILTON-I think what’s, it appears to me anyway, and I don’t want to speak for the applicant, but it appears to me that, based on the shade trees that are shown on the site plan, that they would meet the requirement, but that they’re all just put into the rear and the west and the eastern portions of the site, and I guess our comment is, and perhaps spreading that out a bit and bringing some to this Aviation Road streetscape, as the Board has approved with other projects, but I think technically, the numbers are there. It’s just where they’re located. MR. SEGULJIC-So right now you have one in the front. MR. CRUMB-But, I mean, there’s one opportunity here. There’s sufficient room here. I mean, we could definitely squeeze one in there, but here we’re, you know, I know DOT is going to have an issue if we try to put a tree in there. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, do what you can. MR. CRUMB-I think things could be modified in this area, but again, the one concern we have had, and we have taken this under consideration, Jim and I sat down and talked about it this evening prior to the meeting, is concerned certainly with visibility. We don’t want to interfere with any visibility in or out. Again, we’re willing to work with you on that, but safety is an issue for everybody concerned. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, I think to the bigger issue, parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. SEGULJIC-What it’s considered. So you’re proposing, if I understand this correctly, 63 spaces. Is that correct? 67. MR. GILLESPIE-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s because you’re considering it as a convenience store and a fast food restaurant. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, we’re going to modify that calc per Staff recommendations. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and it’s going to go to what, then? MR. GILLESPIE-It’s going to go to, right now we’re proposing to build 29. We show the calc per the Staff recommendations will require 37, and that’s based on, according to our floor plan, there is 3,870 square feet of convenience store, per, you know, 150, or one space per 150 equals 26. There’s 22 seats, four per seat, or one per four seats equals six, and then approximately 10 employees, so one per two employees equals five. So 37 would be required. We are proposing 29, but have really unlimited room for additional parking, but in the immediate area, let’s see, 29, we’ve got, let’s see, there’s 19 spaces, just in the immediate green space, that could easily accommodate future parking with not too much effort. Obviously there’d be some relocation of trees. A couple of them could actually remain in an island. The dumpster would have to be relocated, but it really wouldn’t interfere with any of the stormwater management or septic area, but our point really is that we feel because there’s, it’s a shared, we’re shared use with different peak times, potentially, and a lot of overlap in customers. Certainly the gas customers are the same customers as the Dunkin Donuts customers, and the same customers as, if you follow me, and I know your Code has a Planning Board can make a determination that there could be up to 30% reduction in the required parking. We’re asking that you take a look at that, and allow us to just show some land banked parking. MR. FORD-A question as to how did you arrive at two employees per car? MR. GILLESPIE-It’s one space per every two employees, is in your Staff Notes, actually, and it’s in the Code. It’s in the restaurant portion of it. So what we’re doing is using a portion of it for convenience store, and then a portion for the restaurant calc. So the restaurant portion of it is going to be based on seats and employees, and the convenience store portion of it will be based on one space per 150 square feet of gross floor area. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. GILLESPIE-And I think that’s consistent with the previous application. I think we’re maintaining some consistency now. Right? MR. HILTON-Well, I guess I can’t, I mean, the previous application is pretty new to me, but as far as this goes, I mean, if you have that back area opened up, and it’s accessible, and you can accommodate the parking spaces in that green space, the Code allows you to do that. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. MR. FORD-As future potential for development? MR. HILTON-Well, they’re showing that they have the open space, if you will, the ability to park cars on that. They can maintain it or leave it as green space, and count it towards parking spaces on site. I’ll point you toward the Section of the Code, 179-4-040 B(6), basically says the Planning Board shall have the authority to require or permit fewer than the required parking spaces for any use provided, provided that an amount of open space equal to that amount of space, that would have been used for the required number of parking spaces, is left available for parking, in the event that it is needed at some time in the future. MR. FORD-Yes. I read that in your application as well, the desire to hold that and develop it thusly if needed. Right? MR. CRUMB-I just have one question in the parking calculation, is the spots around the pumps, the 12 spaces around the pumps allowed to be added to that calculation? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. CRUMB-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Personally I say less parking is always better, less blacktop. MR. CRUMB-Well, I was wondering if that was what you were referring to, because you had referred to it at the last application, and I wasn’t sure if you were looking to reduce that. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Less parking is better, less blacktop. MR. CRUMB-And I agree with that. I think there’s a fine line with this, of where you cut that out. There’s certainly room to remove, but is it going to be detrimental on the other side. MR. SEGULJIC-You do have the space, if you do need it, in the future. MR. CRUMB-Yes, we do. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, I guess, if they do need it, they would have to come back for Site Plan approval? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was going to be the question that I had. We have taken this approach quite often, just not recently, and what would trigger them, and I guess I’m asking Staff or Counsel to help us out here, what would trigger them to actually develop those 41 future spaces? Would that be something that would require an enforcement action, or would it be up to the Zoning Administrator or Code Enforcement Officer, or would it just be at the discretion of the applicant? MR. HILTON-You mean that area that’s green space? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NOORDSY-It depends on how you phrase your condition. MR. HILTON-Yes. I think the safest way would be to place a condition on any approval that says that if they plan to upgrade that or pave it that it come back for Site Plan Review. I mean, I would think you would want to look at it for stormwater, lighting, access, certain things like that. So that’s one way, I guess, to handle it, but to answer your question, I don’t think there’s anything, other than that, that would require them to, you know, either come before this Board or to develop, I mean, you know, they could leave it as is. I would just hope that if they ever wanted to further develop that, that it would come back before the Board for review. I don’t know if that answers your question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s a good point, because they would need to light the parking, and so they would have to resubmit a lighting plan that showed additional lighting and stormwater, yes. MR. FORD-How many pumps will there be, please? MR. CRUMB-Six pumps. MR. FORD-That’s what I counted, but I wanted to make sure there wasn’t a car behind the car. MR. SIPP-What’s the plan for snow removal? Is it going to be removed from the site? MR. CRUMB-Well, I would, at this point, I would say that we would look to push that to the rear, and if that’s not adequate, we would remove it from the site. MR. SIPP-Because that’s going to clog up, possibly in a heavy snow year, your available parking spaces, isn’t it? MR. CRUMB-No. We would look to push that into the grassy area in the rear. MR. SIPP-There won’t be much grass left (lost word). MR. CRUMB-We would look to remove it into this area. In the summertime we’re planning on placing picnic tables and so forth out there. So in the winter it would certainly be an adequate spot for snow, or if it’s so deemed necessary, we would remove it entirely from the site. MR. SIPP-Where will the snow melt drain through? MR. CRUMB-I’ll leave that one for Jim. I think the runoff would be into the stormwater retention pond. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. GILLESPIE-Yes. There’s excellent percs out here. Obviously, when thing’s thawed out, there’s a good amount of green space back here. Most of it would end up draining into the, a lot of it would end up draining into this infiltration basin. Obviously, some would runoff into the woods, but as things thawed out, the soils are really excellent for infiltration. MR. SIPP-I don’t have it up here, but what’s the elevation of that green space in relation to the stormwater infiltration? That’s across the road. You’re talking about that draining across the road on the surface? MR. GILLESPIE-Everything pitches to the back here. MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just clarify, that is back here. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a break line on the Site Plan. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. GILLESPIE-Yes. Everything pitches to the woods back here. So, I mean, we would just maintain, it would maintain existing drainage patterns. Even if it were to melt here, it’s going to end up back here. So if it’s piled here and melts here, it’s going to maintain the same pattern. Some will infiltrate, you know. MR. SIPP-I see now. MR. GILLESPIE-Most of it will infiltrate. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess clarification. This is the proposed color for the canopy, the tan or cream color? MR. HUNSINGER-Cream color. MR. CRUMB-It is, due to the fact that the existing canopy is white, and you did not want to have any coloring on the canopy. We felt that, aesthetically, it would blend better with the building trim color, and that was the reasoning. Certainly, if you required it white, that would be fine with us, but we felt that it just blended better. MR. SEGULJIC-I was just curious, because you said it’s going to be a brand new Mobil. You’re not going to have the? MR. CRUMB-It is, but in reviewing and listening to the Board earlier, you had specifically requested no signage or blue banding on the canopy. MRS. BRUNO-Could you just review where we left it off with the façade, since there has been some confusion between 19 and 20? MR. CRUMB-The original, our first meeting, we had proposed a split block masonry, such as in the photos that I gave you last week, and due to the surrounding areas with the churches, the school, and so forth, the specific request was made that we look at brick, which we’ve done so, and so accordingly, we decided that we would propose the other building in brick, so that we had consistency with our branding. So I hope you like it. We worked hard on that, and if you want samples of the brick again, I do have those. MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think that’s necessary because I’ve seen them. The other Board members may. MR. CRUMB-Okay. I’ll get those. MRS. BRUNO-I’m also curious about, you and I had spoken last week, on Exit 20, about the green area around the front doors, and I don’t recall where we left that for Exit 19 back in our previous meeting. MR. CRUMB-Well, we really didn’t, the question was there whether the Board felt we needed to have it, and my comment was we felt that it was part of our brand. However, 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) you’ve deemed to make that a condition that it not be on Exit 20. So I would have to say, in keeping consistency with those buildings, I don’t have a problem with removing that. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. I would prefer that, especially because you have the church next door. I just think it’s a more subtle look, which definitely going into the residential area and having the church and the schools there. I think it will just be classier. MR. CRUMB-And I agree, due to the consistency of the two buildings. I think that it would be appropriate for us to remove that. However, we just haven’t had the opportunity. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. CRUMB-To this point. MRS. BRUNO-Well, that was why I asked, because we’ve been all over the board in the past two weeks. MR. CRUMB-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-And I just wanted to make sure that we all understood. MR. CRUMB-That’s not a problem. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Just a comment. It’s always nice, and sometimes even refreshing, to see an applicant re-appear before us, having listened and implemented suggestions and observations, thank you. MRS. BRUNO-I have one other question, and it’s really more for Staff. I knew I should have brought my Code books this evening. In terms of the 20 foot driveway for the Fire Marshal, I’m trying to remember if that is specifically only for the side yards, or if that’s the full access all the way around the building? MR. HILTON-Well, in terms of the 20 foot requirement, as it was communicated to me, it was a Fire Marshal concern. In looking at the Code, I can only see where drive aisles are specified, the width is specified when accessing a parking space, where it’s required to be 24 feet wide. In this case, it’s not directly accessing any parking spaces. So I don’t think that it needs to be 24 feet wide. Again, it was a Fire Marshal concern, where it was directly communicated to me that 20 feet was required. So I’m not sure if you’re going to find anything in the Code that speaks, in the Zoning Code anyway, that speaks to this specific, you know, this area and this comment. I think, again, that’s more of a, something that’s in the Fire Code, and that’s how it was communicated to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and for the time being I will leave it open. I think there’s at least a couple of outstanding items. So I think we’re probably heading towards a tabling resolution this evening. Is there any update on engineering th comments, George, or is the latest the letter from July 17? th MR. HILTON-July 17 is the most recent letter, I believe, that we have. th MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that the engineer mentioned in his July 17 letter is a site test that was scheduled for, it says next week. Is that this week or next week? MR. GILLESPIE-Well, it was supposed to be this week, but it’s going to be pushed until next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GILLESPIE-But it has to do with, there’s two tests required, one for the septic system and one for the infiltration basin. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GILLESPIE-So those have to, and just, in reference to these engineering comments, a lot of them are just additional details, construction details. We wanted to get through this meeting, just before we really button it up as tight as it needs to be, but we have no problem with addressing any of these. They’re all, we don’t see anything that’s not addressable here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the will of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Did we have public comment? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There wasn’t any. I left it open, though. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I think we have to table this. MR. HUNSINGER-What specific items do we need the applicant to address, other than the engineering comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think they have to revise the parking calculations on the sheets. Because right now you have 69 or whatever it is. Right? MR. CRUMB-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Review the trees along Aviation. These are the ones I have. Review utilizing a monument sign. MR. CRUMB-If I may on that, a little input on your part. Certainly there’s a base needed for a monument sign, and I would look to you for some input as far as the overall height of that. I understand your concern about the signage. I really do. However, I feel the need that we need to have some representation there, and I would ask you what your feeling of as a base height would be. How we would incorporate that is onto a brick base, and certainly I could build a, you know, just go wild with whatever, and build that 10, 12 feet high. I’m looking to you for your comments on how you feel like height should be. MR. SIPP-I figure you would have a low planter of say two feet in height with two posts, be they brick or matching brick or treated wood. MR. CRUMB-Would a solid brick that matched the building of several, maybe two or three feet high? MR. SIPP-That the planter and the post would be, and the height of the sign itself would be somewhere in the eight to ten foot high range. MR. CRUMB-Okay. I’ll take that into consideration and utilize your comments. MR. SIPP-You’ve got a lot to put on there, because the State requires that you display the price. MR. CRUMB-Yes. MR. SIPP-That takes up a lot of room. MR. CRUMB-I’ll do the best I can with what I have to work with and hopefully you’ll be satisfied with what I come back with. MR. FORD-How about the Burke turn? MR. SEGULJIC-Elimination of the right in only. Those are the items I heard from the Board. MR. FORD-And I also would like to get a report on the accidents in that area, in that vicinity. MR. HUNSINGER-I think there’s probably just two sources, State Police and Sheriff’s Department. Right, Motor Vehicles? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. FORD-Probably State Police. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if there’s property damage you have to file a report with Motor Vehicles. MR. FORD-But some of the State agencies are as much as eight years behind in reporting and inputting into the computer, responses to accidents by the local emergency squads and fire companies, as well as State Police and Sheriff’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you writing this down, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Is there anything else? So we’re going to, I assume you want to table this application? All you have to do is make a motion to table with the following, request the following additional information. Correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, before you go ahead with it, we need to pick a date to table it to. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. rd MR. HUNSINGER-If they get materials by August 3. That’s only, that’s next Friday. MR. HILTON-I don’t know. I guess my suggestion would be perhaps to maybe say next th available meeting, and if the applicant gets it in by the 15 deadline, we could push for September. If the Board so desires to put them on an August, we have two meetings. I would say that the third could work for getting materials in. MR. HUNSINGER-When’s your meeting scheduled with the engineer? Or isn’t it yet? MR. CRUMB-It’s not yet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CRUMB-I would ask what the dates are for August. stth MR. HUNSINGER-The meeting dates are the 21 and the 28. th MR. CRUMB-I think, is the third the deadline for the cut off for the 28? th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the deadline was July 15, which has already come and gone. MR. CRUMB-Okay. I would say, I’m not sure we’re going to have adequate time to put together this accident study information. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s okay to table it until September? MR. CRUMB-I think it would probably be better if we did that. thth MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we can pick the 18 or the 25. We might as well pick the thth 18, and they’ll have to meet normal submission deadline, which would be August 15 for submission of materials. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 JOLLEY ASSOC. c/o SEAN CRUMB, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: To September 18, 2007, with submission of materials by August 15, 2007. We are looking for the following information and/or revisions: 1.Revised parking calculations, 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) 2.Review additional trees along Aviation Road, 3.Review utilizing a monument sign, 4.Submission of accident report information, 5.Review of the elimination of the right turn only into the site from Aviation Road, 6.And addressing of the Vision Engineering comments. th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good luck. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE II ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, INC. AGENT(S) BARLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 412 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 745 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING NATURE LODGE. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF SP 30-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/11/07 LOT SIZE 13.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10 SECTION 179-4-030, 179-4-070 STEPHANIE BITTER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. The proposal is for a 745 square foot addition to existing Nature Lodge at the Girl Scouts. As mentioned in Staff Notes, the project is included in Phase III of the Master Plan, previously reviewed by the Board. The new entrance to the Lodge will be on the southwest side. However, the entrance isn’t indicated on the Site Plan. Staff has included a copy of Code Enforcement’s Staff report, and it’s our knowledge that the items listed in this inspection report have yet to be addressed. However, the Planning Board, in April 2007, in an April 2007 modification, included an agreement to allow until 2008 for the wetlands work to be completed, and as far as SEQRA, the Board should re-visit their previous SEQRA, and conduct a consistency review, either affirming the previous Negative Declaration, and perhaps if the Board feels that this is consistent with the previous SEQRA, stating as such, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stephanie Bitter, for the record, together with Tom Hutchins. As was indicated in Staff Notes, we’re proposing a 754 square foot addition to the Nature Lodge. For those of you who were present on the 2005 Board, this is quite consistent to the Winter Lodge modification that was made at that time. The Nature Lodge’s design provides little ventilation for the campers who not only play in there but sleep in there. The screened in porch is going to allow not only the campers to be able to sleep more comfortably there, because they’ll be able to open the windows and doors with the screened in area surrounding it, together with the idea that unfortunately when it rains, they have to provide indoor play. So the screened in area will obviously accommodate them when they’re prohibited from having outdoor play during those rainy days. They’re all proposing a modification to the bathroom, specifically for the purpose to make it more comfortable for the campers that will be using it. To clarify some of the questions raised by Staff in Staff Notes, the entrance of the porch will be directly in front of the existing entrance to the Nature Lodge, just for some clarification. As for Bruce Frank’s memo, I’m sure the Board is very familiar with his memo from the April review. th Many of these deficiencies were incorporated in the April 24 approval. Those that will still need to be modified, it is the Girl Scouts’ intent to incorporate those items, together with the Nature Lodge, which will be done in the Fall. Essentially the problem was was 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) thst that the approval was on April 24. The camp opened around June 1. So they were provided little time for construction to occur during that time period. I also brought in some pictures of the existing Nature Lodge, just to give you some clarification as to the area that we will be providing the addition to. I apologize it’s black and white, but it should give you a better visual. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. MS. BITTER-These are incorporated in the Zoning Board’s approval, or submission, but unfortunately I didn’t incorporate in the Planning Board’s, but just to give you more of an idea, on the second picture it shows a plastic area which kind of outlines where the addition’s going to be incorporated. This area is essentially where the Girl Scout activities are currently held, and I’ll pass it to Tom, now, to give more of an explanation, but that’s really our reason for the waiver for the landscaping and the grading and the lighting because it’s really not something that’s going to be incorporated with the modification. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins. As Steph indicated, the proposed building expansion is 754 square feet. The actual expansion area will be essentially porch. It will be a wide open, screened in, covered over, unenclosed space. The existing Lodge itself, the roof will be removed and a new single span truss roof will be placed over the entire area, very much, in fact, that’s exactly what was done with the Winter Lodge in ’05. There is no running water in the Nature Lodge now. We will be bringing water and a bath to provide water and facilities for campers. Beyond that, it’s essentially unfinished. MR. FORD-That will be tied in with? MR. HUTCHINS-That will be Queensbury Town water to Queensbury Sewer. As far as lighting, we propose no exterior lighting. Grading, we propose no real grading changes. This, the building is right next to this splash pad, and you’ll recall, and the grading isn’t going to change at all. The building will be constructed. They will excavate what little soil there is there, which is one to two feet, and construct directly on rock. It’s a very simple building. It’s been in their program for some time now, and drainage, I did show eaves trench around three sides with an overflow down to another shallow area that we have, right adjacent to the splash pad, the splash pad mechanical building that is, that has more capacity than is used. So we have plenty of stormwater capacity. MS. BITTER-I know this was discussed at the April meeting, but this was part of their master plan to incorporate this addition on the Nature Lodge. MRS. BRUNO-I just feel a need to ask Staff about the status of the Town Engineer’s report, since that was brought up in the previous Girl Scout submission. MR. HILTON-Are you referring to the overall? MRS. BRUNO-Meadowbrook area. MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess my understanding, I know my understanding is that it’s, I don’t know, it’s still in the process of review, I guess is the best way to put it, of some stage or the other. I have not been involved in any of the review or the discussions with that project, but my understanding is it’s still an active project, if you will. MRS. BRUNO-I just wanted to ensure that there were no, that there was no information that we should have reviewed prior to the meeting this evening, just because we had discussed it in the other meetings, and I know that we had weighed whether we wanted to move forward with any of these projects, you know, what was more fair. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. FORD-By review, do you mean, well, explain it please, what you mean by review. MR. HILTON-Yes, I guess I. MR. HUNSINGER-The report’s still being prepared. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. HILTON-Well, I’m not sure if that’s, honestly, I haven’t been part of the whole process, so I can’t say for sure. MR. FORD-Okay. I didn’t mean to put you on the spot, but, you know, we’ve been holding off on approvals and projects and so forth awaiting that report, and I know it’s going to go to the Town Board first. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. FORD-And by review, I didn’t know if it had already gone to them and was being reviewed by the Town Board. MR. HILTON-I guess I should say that it’s my understanding that nothing’s been officially adopted or approved. Where it is in the process, I can’t say for sure. MR. FORD-Do we have a public comment session? MR. HUNSINGER-I do not think so. Yes, we do. MR. FORD-We do? MR. HUNSINGER-We do. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I’ll wait until the public has had input. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here this evening? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here this evening that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. I will open the public hearing. If I could ask commenters to state their name for the record, because we do take minutes of the meeting, and address your comments or questions to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-Jim Piper. I live at 206 Meadowbrook Road, which is across the street from the Girl Scout camp. I’ve lived there since 1956. My parents house was right next door. So I grew up in the neighborhood, and I just wanted to say that both my wife and I, as property owners, have always had the highest regard for the Girl Scouts, and as far as this project, we would recommend that the Board approve it. I heard a question that was raised by Mr. Ford as far as, does this have any impact with the stormwater runoff that they’re doing for Meadowbrook Road corridor. This is a building modification, the way I understand it. They’re changing the roof line and they’re putting on a screened in porch. I really don’t see where this is going to create, you know, a vast amount of stormwater runoff, or have any impact at all on the Halfway Brook, but I do appreciate the Board’s concern that they’re looking at that. So I would recommend that the Board act favorably on this. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-It seems to be a very simple project, but where I get confused is I thought they were supposed to finish, you know, address the site inspection beforehand. Is that the understanding? MR. HUTCHINS-You mean the list that Bruce had written up? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. It seems like there’s some new things in here also. MS. BITTER-No, this was the same list. MR. HUTCHNS-No, that’s the same list. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s from March. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s the same list, and a number of those items were not necessarily deficiencies. They were deviations from an originally approved plan that were back before this Board at our meeting in April. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-And I thought we cleaned up some of those deviations. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry? MR. SEGULJIC-I thought we cleaned up some of those deviations. MR. HUNSINGER-We did. MR. HUTCHINS-We did. We approved, for example, the outdoor lighting that was installed at the main facility was not exactly per the original site plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-That was cleaned up with that meeting. The work that does remain to be done is the parking area at the main Lodge facility, and that was a timing issue. They intend to do that at the same time as the wetlands mitigation, and that was allowed until 2008. Now the plan right now is to do all of that work this Fall, to do everything, have them in there at one point and get it done. MR. SEGULJIC-Can you just clarify. When you say the parking area. MRS. BRUNO-That’s right in our resolution, Tom. MR. TRAVER-And that time was granted to accommodate your summer schedule, right? MS. BITTER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-That time was granted to accommodate their summer schedule, and there are limits within our wetlands permit, as to when they can do the mitigation. MRS. BRUNO-It creates an interesting situation, though. Because I’m not sure that they can move on work when something is outstanding, but how does that play in when we’ve actually said that it’s outstanding for a year? Do they negate each other, or can we still, could we approve this this evening? MR. NOORDSY-You’ve already granted them the extension with regard to the items in this report? MRS. BRUNO-Yes, right. MS. BITTER-Only ones with regards to the wetlands. MR. NOORDSY-I’m not quite sure I follow. Are the other items all set now? MS. BITTER-The other items will be completed all at the same time. The wetlands were the one that there was a deadline, it was like 2008 because of the timeframe in which to install it. MRS. BRUNO-I think, didn’t we agree that it was okay that you would do the grading in the parking lot and such, because that’s related to the wetland, in the Fall? You said that? MS. BITTER-Right. MRS. BRUNO-So I think that became official as well, besides the June 1, 2008 deadline on the mitigation area. Did I just confuse things? MR. NOORDSY-Are the items in that Site Plan Inspection Report from a previous approval? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. BITTER-That’s, I think, where there’s confusion, because this was the whole point of th the April 24 meeting. MRS. BRUNO-Right. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MS. BITTER-And that’s where I think, because I honestly had spoken to Bruce Frank today, and I asked him if there was something new and different, and he said no. He th didn’t have any insight that, all of a sudden, we’ve failed to do something since April 24. th MR. FORD-So everything that he has put in that March 16 letter, if there’s deficiencies or anything else, any other observations, they are still accurate? th MS. BITTER-I guess I don’t, I’m saying that our approval that was provided on April 24 resolved this. I’m not aware that Bruce Frank has gone to the site since that, but he’s under the impression that we’re working towards a, from that approval, which was the th point of his memo of March 17. MRS. BRUNO-We either in our acceptance at the last meeting, either cleared up the point, or gave you the extension. MS. BITTER-Right. MRS. BRUNO-My concern or question is that these things have not been completed, yet we have given them the extension. What does that do for our most current project? Can we act on that and have it be? MR. NOORDSY-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. NOORDSY-If you have given them an extension on these other items, which is part of a different project, I’m sorry, is that correct? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s actually the same Site Plan. MRS. BRUNO-Right, it’s part of a master plan. MR. NOORDSY-But if you have adopted a resolution to give them additional time with regard to these items, that would not prevent you from going ahead with regard to this application. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-The size of the structure again, please, refresh my memory. MS. BITTER-754 square feet is the addition. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s the addition. The building itself is 36 by 42, total. That’s the existing building and new building, the new roof which will cover everything. MR. FORD-Okay, but there will be an expansion of the current roof or replacement, so you will cover the entire structure. Okay. So that does increase runoff. Does it not? MR. HUTCHINS-That increases, sure. It increases impervious area, sure, it increases runoff from the impervious area, yes. MR. FORD-In an area that is already of great concern both to the Girl Scouts and to the Town. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, if, I mean, if you want to term the whole neighborhood as an area of great concern, I mean. MR. FORD-Well, don’t you? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I mean, the road’s a concern. I mean, drainage on Meadowbrook Road is a concern, okay, but I could counter that runoff up here, the top of the ridge across here, what’s generated over here doesn’t make it down to the road. MR. SIPP-Where does it go? MR. HUTCHINS-In general. It runs westerly and works its way into the ground, and into, I mean, in the quantities we’re talking about. Yes, if there were a river there, it would make it to the road, but it runs westerly and winds down towards Halfway Brook. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. FORD-Which is one of our concerns, isn’t it? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, it’s one of your concerns. MR. FORD-One of our concerns. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It’s one of everybody’s concerns. MR. SEGULJIC-But don’t you have, you have, you’ve propose eaves trenches, haven’t you? MR. HUTCHINS-And I have eaves trench, yes, I have eaves trench here with an overflow to a shallow retention/infiltration area, and I’ve sized that based on the additional impervious area, and actually the excess capacity that we have down here. So what’s required is 150 cubic feet, and what is actually provided, based on the excess capacity we have, is 450 cubic feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. As I read the plan it says 96 cubic feet. MR. HUTCHINS-There’s 96 feet of infiltration trench. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And there’s an overflow pipe that runs down to this other shallow area. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not seeing the overflow pipe. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Southeastern corner of the building, see where it says existing stairs to be removed? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Right above that, how it’s clouded out. There’s a, the overflow pipe’s shown a little lighter than I guess it should be. The line, there’s a leader coming off the proposed four inch ATPE outlet pipe. MR. SEGULJIC-And then it goes through existing stormwater retention basin? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-Has it been determined that that basin is of sufficient quantity to accommodate the current runoff? I recall from some of the reports that there was, it exceeded the maximum, some retention area that was over accommodated with water. MR. HILTON-I’m sorry, you’re asking about current existing stormwater on the site? MR. FORD-Yes. Number 11 in Bruce’s report. MR. HUNSINGER-That was at the main Lodge. MS. BITTER-Right, that’s been modified. MR. SEGULJIC-So that was a lot area? MS. BITTER-Number 11? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-The settlement basin appears to be smaller than approved. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, he’s talking about over at the main building. MS. BITTER-Right, the parking. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. HUTCHINS-No, this one, this area, I’ve been down there a number of times, and it’s never been overwhelmed. I shouldn’t say never. I have never seen it in that condition and I’m quite confident that it’s of adequate capacity. MR. FORD-I’m concerned, in this area, before receiving the report from the Town’s Engineer, and having these other site modifications that we’ve given approval to an extension to, based on the history of this particular area, I’m concerned about increasing impervious area in that area that we’re so concerned about. MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand what you’re saying, but I think you’re talking about a pretty small area, 754 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, it’s basically a, I mean, it’s not even a small house. MR. TRAVER-And I think, too, the area of primary concern is it not to the north? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is. I’m not sure the study area even came down this far. Do you know? MR. TRAVER-So, not to say that this property wouldn’t be part of the study that’s underway. However, I think the reason for the study was really directed at an area that is off this site. MR. FORD-Very possibly. However, it’s my belief that it’s upstream that causes the downstream problems. MR. HUTCHINS-True. MR. FORD-So a building here, increasing impervious surface area here, will definitely, or has the potential for impacting downstream along Halfway Brook, and when we have, I thought we would have the report by now. So it must be just days, or no more than weeks away to have our engineer’s recommendations. I think it’s premature to be accepting additional impervious area upstream to, along Halfway Brook. MR. HUNSINGER-How close is the proposed building to Halfway Brook? MR. HUTCHINS-Approximately 150 feet. I’m hearing more than that, back there. MR. HUNSINGER-I would have thought more than that, too. MR. HUTCHINS-And I didn’t bring a scale with me, 200 feet, from where, before it crosses the bridge. MR. FORD-I hear, I appreciate what Jim said, and I take his comments very seriously. I also recall others in the immediate neighborhood who have talked about flooding and water in their basements and all kinds of issues there that do not bode well for that immediate community. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, again, we have taken measures to handle the increased runoff that you indicate is caused by our impervious area. I mean, we have taken measures to mitigate that. Now, whether or not you agree with those or like those, that’s, but we’ve done. We haven’t just put down the new impervious area and done nothing. MR. FORD-Right. Whether it will be sufficient remains to be seen. MRS. BRUNO-I have another question, to throw something else at you. Do you know if the contractor that the Girl Scouts plan to use is the same contractor or contractors as did the main building? MS. BITTER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-My concern, you know, we’re taught to not be predisposed before we make any comments, and usually that’s in reference to giving a negative vote, you know, I don’t like this project. I’m not going to go forward with it. I think people’s tendency, in volunteer groups like this, I’ve slept in one of the buildings, you know, none of us want to be negative to the Girl Scouts because they are a great group. Having said that, I know in one of the previous meetings, a comment was made, I don’t recall by whom, that perhaps because much of the services by the subcontractors was volunteered, that that caused some of the difficulties in scheduling and sequencing the building and rehab of 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) the original building. My concern is, there’ve been so many instances of doing the work and then coming back in front of us, rather than doing it the other way around, which is really the way that we need to do it. I just really want to know that this building is going to be built as you’ve engineered it, you know, you’ve given your time to do all of that work, that down the road we’re not going to find out that the contractor thought it was dry enough up there, so he disregarded Mr. Hutchins’ work, or, you know, any scenario like that that could be. MS. BITTER-I understand, due to the sequence of events that have got us to this point, your reasonings for noting that, but first I think that, I don’t believe any of the work is volunteered. I’m just looking back to the Board, but second and foremost, I think due to the events that have occurred over the last two years, the Girl Scouts are going to make sure that the work is done according to the plan. This has been a very long and tedious, difficult procedure, which unfortunately is not in any way caused by anybody in particular. It was an unfortunate misunderstanding, but they’re going to make sure that it’s done according to the plan. MRS. BRUNO-Good. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I say we move it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a draft resolution and a comment from Staff regarding SEQRA. This project was part of the Master Plan that was previously approved by the Board, and it was also part of a Site Plan from 2002 that was approved by the Board. Are there any specific issues that the Board is concerned with with SEQRA, other than the stormwater and the stormwater mitigation that’s been proposed? MR. FORD-It needs to be other than those issues? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, because we’ve already talked about that. So that’s, you know, I felt we already discussed it. Do people feel that the stormwater concerns are significant enough to re-do SEQRA? MR. FORD-I believe the potential is there. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. SIPP-I think in tabling this we would allow time for the Town Engineer to investigate the problem and report back. I agree with Tanya in the fact that in the past things have not gone very well, and it falls on us to approve another project, and does that fail or does that get done in a manner that is not consistent with what we approved? Or if you take that risk of deficiencies, things are done that were never approved. So, we are a little hesitant about approving something without getting expert advise on it, and I think that’s what this Board is concerned about is, is this stormwater management going to work? MR. HUTCHINS-Is your concern the stormwater relative to this specific project, or are you concerned about getting the information from Dan on the whole, the corridor study? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Both are really issue. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, because I mean, this is a relatively simple situation, and I’d be happy to work it out with Dan, as a condition. He called me last week with it. He asked me two questions, and he said, okay, it looks like I’m okay with it. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I guess that’s a good point. I mean, I see a couple of things we could do, either, A, wait for Dan’s report, which we don’t know it’s going to come. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s right. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-And, B, maybe we could have Staff get in touch with Dan and saying, because I’m doing some quick calculations, one inch of water, one inch rain would be like 600 gallons you’d generate, because I can’t believe it’s going to have much of an impact. MR. HUTCHINS-The criteria is one and a half gallons per square foot. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I was just looking at one inch of rain, you’re probably looking at 600 gallons. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Which is, I don’t think, that much. If we have the applicant or Staff get in touch with Dan and sit down and they look at it and Dan says this is going to have minimal impact, would that satisfy you? Because I’ve got to believe it is. Would that alleviate your concerns? MR. FORD-I think, once again, we’re not accepting our responsibility as a Planning Board, when we have this report that we’re to study and hopefully follow, without it. MS. BITTER-I think at the last approval, I, unfortunately, wasn’t present. I don’t think Tom was, but Jon Lapper had identified that as a condition, that this report, when it does come out, if there’s something that Dan feels the Girl Scouts should do to mitigate that situation or assist, you know, they obviously would be willing to work with that report, since there’s no timeline as to when that report’s going to be issued, but I believe that may have been discussed at the last meeting. Unfortunately, I wasn’t there, and I did just discuss it with the Board, and they do understand. MR. FORD-When do we anticipate construction would commence and be completed? MS. BITTER-In the Fall. MR. HUTCHINS-After the camp season, in the Fall. MR. TRAVER-Would it be possible to approve on a condition that any aspect of the project that was incomplete, if, in the interim, Dan’s report suggests a modification to the plan, then we would consider it. If they get everything done before his review is complete, then. MR. HUTCHINS-My understanding is his review is up the road. Right? MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, primarily. MR. TRAVER-Well, it really, there are some hot spots, but it’s going to encompass the whole corridor, which includes the downstream. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s actually a tributary to Halfway Brook, not really Halfway Brook itself. MR. TRAVER-Well, but he’s looking at it in context. I’m sure he’s going to be looking at, which does incorporate this area. There’s no question about that. MR. FORD-How would the Meadowbrook Road, as an area, and all of the impact from building to building expansion to, and we know more and more of that is going to be occurring. It’s on the books. MR. SEGULJIC-Did Mr. Ryan review this project? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, he did. We have a letter. MR. SEGULJIC-He did? th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, July 17. He said that they would be increasing impervious surface and subsequently runoff, it would be considered a minor project, and that a waiver from 183 may need to be considered. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. FORD-See, my dilemma is a personal one, because we all vote personally, and I have the, I’ve run the risk of voting, if I were to vote in opposition, it’s in opposition to something that I feel could negatively impact a very sensitive area, but, on the other hand, I risk the possibility that there will be those who might misinterpret that vote as being somewhat in opposition to the Girl Scouts and the wonderful work that they do, and I’ve been a supporter of them all my life, have been asked to put on workshops for them and so for. So that’s one of the tough calls that one makes in this position. MS. BITTER-And that’s why we offer the condition, you know, just to kind of balance it out, that obviously, you know, we are willing to work with that report when it obviously does come out, which is beyond our control. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you, Mr. Ford. That was much more eloquently put than how I was trying to put it, but I agree with you. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess a clarification needs to be made. This is not in the Lake George Park. MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then he says a waiver from Section 183 Stormwater Requirements may be needed, may be considered by the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure why he said that. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Because he’s going back to the Lake George Park, which we’re not in. MR. HILTON-Yes. I can’t speak to his comments. I guess I could simply state that this or any other project in this area would need to comply with the Stormwater Regulations in our Zoning Code, which point to the Stormwater Regulations in 183. So perhaps the Board should have some comfort that this application complies with that Section. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and the other thing is we had the complete Master Plan that had the complete stormwater mitigation report that he did not have, and, I mean, I’m assuming he hasn’t reviewed that, because I don’t think he would have made the comment that he made if he had. MR. HILTON-I can’t say for sure. MS. BITTER-He should have had it originally back in, he should have had it in January when that was originally submitted, the master plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, that’s right, because we did approve the other Site Plan in April, and he was Town Engineer then. MS. BITTER-Right. He was still on board at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I appreciate the concerns of the Board. I just think we’re really making more of this than it necessitates. I mean, you have 750 square foot impervious being added with infiltration trenches and a stormwater detention pond being added. I just don’t see the big issue. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we poll the Board and see who wants to table this? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Who would be interested in moving forward? MR. SEGULJIC-As far as tabling goes, I would say that, you know, the project be given back to Mr. Ryan with specific instructions to look at as to potential impacts upon Halfway Brook. MR. TRAVER-We could make that a condition of approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NOORDSY-I was going to suggest that, as a condition of approval. MR. FORD-I like that, Tom. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Just ask for a final signoff that the proposal won’t have any impact on Halfway Brook. MR. FORD-Because we don’t know what the report is, and he’s got to have a better idea of it now than we do. MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just jump ahead, then, is everyone comfortable with us making a motion to approve this with the condition that we obtain Mr. Ryan’s signoff specifically. MR. HUTCHINS-With respect to all engineering items, if you want to say it that way. I have no problem with that. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Why don’t we do that, then. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I will close the public hearing, then. MR. SEGULJIC-Then, when we look at the motion, I need some help with this, Mr. Chairman. Number Eight and Number Nine don’t apply. MR. HUNSINGER-Number Eight wouldn’t apply. MR. SEGULJIC-Number Nine wouldn’t apply. MR. HUNSINGER-Number Nine does apply. MR. SEGULJIC-Number Nine does apply. MR. HUNSINGER-Because they are proposing to connect to the Town, to the sanitary sewer. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s why I asked. Number Four, it complies, and Number Five. MR. HUNSINGER-Five is, well, it does say if the application is a modification that, you know, we did consider SEQRA, and the proposed modification does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts. MRS. BRUNO-The only thing that I’m uncomfortable with, in terms of that, is just that I do not have the SEQRA documentation in terms of, you know, if someone had stated that there was something that they didn’t like and whether or not a minimum or major alteration was done in order to give the Neg Dec. I don’t know if that’s something that we, in the future, could ask from Staff, or if that’s something that I should have looked up, perhaps, on my own. It’s just really hard to put your stamp of approval on something, or acceptance, if you haven’t seen it. MR. HUNSINGER-There is a copy of the resolution in our package. It was treated as an Unlisted Action, and no special considerations are mentioned. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-That doesn’t particular address your concern, but I mean, that’s normally all we would have anyway. MRS. BRUNO-Well, you might have the vote as you go through the SEQRA, and I guess that would be in the meeting minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be in the minutes, yes. MRS. BRUNO-All right. I doubt that there’s been any major change since that, at that point. So I don’t want to belabor the point. I have one quick question, though. Mr. Ryan did mention something about, because of the bedrock, he has the concern about the freezing of the pipe. How do you propose to get that down to four feet? MR. HUTCHINS-We’re going to excavate as deep as we can and find, there is a little bit of a channel there and a rock, and then we’re going to mound it. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Just like they did over here to the main lodge. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MRS. BRUNO-Have you at all started using any of the design changes for, say if you were to take something from the shallow heated foundation design, in other words, using like a rigid over that, in order to go along with the mounding? MR. HUTCHINS-Sometimes. MRS. BRUNO-Sometimes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-It sounds good. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you all set, Tom? MR. FORD-Could I throw just an option out, Chris? We’ve got a couple of ways of going, vote it up or down, with that condition, as was suggested before. Another option is to table until one of the August meetings. They’re not going to start construction prior to that time anyway, and by that time, at least it gives us the opportunity to possibly have that report in hand, and then we do the interpretation of the report, rather than force it onto the engineer to make that determination. We have a couple of options. MR. TRAVER-But we don’t really need the report. We need his sign off. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-We don’t need the report, and then our interpretive engineering report to approve this. We need the engineer to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MR. FORD-Two options. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic 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 754 sq. ft. addition to the existing Nature Lodge. Modifications to approved site plans require review and approval by the Planning Board; and 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; and NOT APPLICABLE 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 by the Planning Board; 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 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Two does not apply. Number Four complies. Number Five, the proposed modification does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary. Number Eight does not apply. With the following condition: 1.That the plan modification be submitted to the Town Engineer for review in light of its potential impacts upon Meadowbrook’s stormwater capacity. The engineer should review in the context of the ongoing study and provide a signoff indicating it will not have an adverse impact on Halfway Brook. th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2007 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT & COURTNEY SMITH AGENT(S) BORGOS & DELSIGNORE, P.C. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A, SR-1A LOCATION 129 SUNNYSIDE ROAD EAST APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 12.72 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 9.46 AND 3.26 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 9.73 ACRES, 3.0 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.19-1-4.1, 4.2 SECTION A-183 MARK DEL SIGNORE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. Just a couple of the items that have been pointed out. The Long EAF submitted indicates three acres of wetlands on the property. I guess how was the size of this determined, and the plat should be revised to show any wetland boundaries. Density calculation has not been provided. As far as missing information, existing and proposed contours at two foot intervals are not shown. The applicant does indicate a waiver is being requested from this requirement. Areas of slope in excess of 25% are not indicated. A clearing plan has not been provided. No test pit or perc test information has been provided for the new lot to be created. The signatures of both owners is required. I’ve noted the waiver from the two foot contours, and the lot dimensions proposed by the applicant are consistent with the Area Variance granted by the ZBA. That’s a quick summary of the application, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-May I ask Staff and the Chairman, how are we getting applications such as this brought all the way to these evenings when there’s so much missing in the application? Because we can’t get any new information this evening. We’ve already passed that ourselves, because we wouldn’t have time to review it properly. MR. HILTON-Well, I can only say that the application went through the current review and was presented to this Board. As I indicated, a waiver has been requested from the two foot contours. I understand, you know, as the notes indicate, that there are items missing. Beyond that, I can only say that it went through the current procedures and is before you, and although maybe not complete, was. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MRS. BRUNO-Deemed complete enough for us to review. MR. HILTON-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-That’s what you’re signifying, it is complete enough for review, with all those things missing? MR. HILTON-Well, I understand. Yes, I understand your concern. MR. FORD-I’ve got a concern, a question in the checklist that is being employed. MR. HILTON-I understand your comment, I’m sure. I’m at a disadvantage, having not reviewed this, but I can only gather that it was complete enough for review, and presented to you as such. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. DEL SIGNORE-I’m Mark DelSignore, and maybe I can answer some of those questions. I got involved in this later on in the sequence of events that have gotten us to here tonight. Some of those items were raised, my understanding is, upon Sketch Plan review, that a lot of these items could be dealt with, or be waived, given the fact that this particular application is one that is sort of here based on the minutia of the Town Code. This was a project which was administratively approved for subdivision as a three acre lot in a 9.76, I think, acre lot, might be 9.73, with the provision that there be a shared driveway for the two lots. Subsequently, when a contract vendee came into the picture, they were expecting to use the lot or thinking that they would use the lot, for seasonal use. Didn’t want to get involved in negotiations in terms of dealing with the maintenance of a shared driveway, and asked that a separate driveway be established. Given the distance on an arterial road, and the required road frontage requirements, we were advised by Staff that, or not we, the applicant, Mr. Smith, who is with me, who didn’t sign, but I’m sure he’d be more than happy to sign, all the applications if you’d like him to. At that time, he was advised that they would need to get subdivision approval, or excuse me, a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and then come here for subdivision approval, because there was a variance as part of the project. It was a simple enough project to be approved as a three acre lot and a 9.73 acre lot, from an administrative standpoint, and I believe that, upon Sketch Plan, that the discussion was had for the waiver of the density, the contours and the wetlands with the thought that it would mitigate the expense to the resident and to the applicant of the project. The present, you know, they went to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They received the variance for the two separate driveways. As a requirement of that, the Zoning Board requested that the lot line be shifted slightly, approximately 50 feet on the road side. It was just tweaked to the side. There are already two existing lots there from the administrative subdivision approval. That mylar was already filed. We’re effectively a lot line adjustment here, with the added caveat that they were granted the second driveway. There’s two separate tax map parcels now. The project no different now, really, than when it was approved from an administrative standpoint, and I think that perhaps Staff, by letting it get here with what was submitted, is sort of thinking that it’s a simple enough project that those items are probably, if you deem them necessary, obviously we have to go forward and pay for either an engineer or perhaps Matt Steves who did the survey, and helped us out with the environmental applications, we can go forward with that, but hopefully the Board would deem fit to see that we’re literally dealing with a twisting of a lot line by 50 feet, with no other change from the administratively approved subdivision. BOB SMITH MR. SMITH-Hello. I’m Bob Smith, the owner of the property. I’m also the resident at 129 Sunnyside East, and one of the co-owners that did not sign your applications, and I will sign them, I promise. I just wanted to add that, in addition to the very long process we’ve gone through for the nearly two years now to get this subdivision, that was, as Mark said, actually administratively approved almost two years ago. One of the conditions that we met with the Zoning Board was that, of the 1200 feet of road frontage that we currently have on our property, you know, and we had requested to add a driveway. We had agreed to not subdivide any more of the property, which is going to leave 10 acres, approximately, nine and a half acres, of woods, basically, is our house and about nine acres of woods, and will remain there as such. As far as the, you know, the other items, 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) you know, as part of the application process, that are currently missing, I mean, we’re not the builders, you know, and these things will be reviewed at the time. I can tell you that, with any familiarity with the property, that three acres is a good stretch away from anything that could be deemed wetlands. The wetlands area is all in the 10 acre part that we’ve already agreed to not ever subdivide. So those are some of the other maybe considerations here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I think you did an adequate job of answering the question. I couldn’t have said it better myself, basically in that you can always request waivers, so that we always get into this chicken and egg issue of what is deemed a complete application, because you have the right to bring it before the Board and request waivers which obviously you’ve done. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any problem with all of them, other than the wetlands, and I believe last time, what we had asked for is to take the GIS map and give us a map with the wetlands drawn on it. MR. DEL SIGNORE-I wasn’t here last time. MR. HUNSINGER-It would have been at Sketch Plan. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Yes. We’ve never actually appeared before this Board before. We’ve met with the Planning Department in the past. I’ve, personally, never appeared before the Board before. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, then I’m thinking of another application. MR. HUNSINGER-No. Someone was here at Sketch Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and we said just take the GIS and draw it on there. MR. DEL SIGNORE-It could have been Frank Jelley. He was involved before. MR. SMITH-The buyers and I together. There was an agent involved before this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So the site was before us. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. SMITH-In February or March on Sketch, and it went to the Zoning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-From my perspective, we could just move this and say draw the wetlands on the GIS, just so that people are aware of that. MRS. BRUNO-That was my impression, actually. I understood the other waivers, but I had read the minutes and was trying to remember the meeting myself, that in lieu of actually hiring, or paying for DEC or someone like to come in and flag the wetlands, we were willing to allow just the GIS. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Be included on the map. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, just overlay it. MR. FORD-Superimposed. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you, superimposed over the map, because we definitely understand, you know, that property owners don’t necessarily have. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Is that doable? That’s no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, George? MR. HILTON-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we need to do SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-We would, and it’s a Long Form, because it’s a subdivision. Are we ready to move forward on SEQRA? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. FORD- No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC--Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-I propose to make a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT & COURTNEY SMITH, 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 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MRS. BRUNO-Quick question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Did we need the engineer’s signoff on this? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think the engineer reviews two lot subdivisions. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think there’s anything. MRS. BRUNO-I just wanted to double check, because I noticed that there wasn’t anything in here. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, with regards to the motion now, Number Five is Negative. Number four complies, but we have to grant waivers, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So which waivers do we have to grant? We have to grant. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m looking for the list. MR. TRAVER-Two foot contours. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, two foot contours. Slopes. MR. TRAVER-There’s already a variance on the lot width. MRS. BRUNO-Do we need the test pit? MR. SEGULJIC-Clearing plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-No further subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m looking for the application. MRS. BRUNO-Test pit and perc test information for the new lawn. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, I mean, contours, well, landscaping plan, clearing plan, grading and erosion plan. That’s it. MR. SEGULJIC-Stormwater? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, stormwater. MR. FORD-Grading. MR. HUNSINGER-And grading. MR. SEGULJIC-So the waivers are going to be from contours, clearing, landscaping, stormwater and grading. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Nothing about the test pits? Or is that, am I thinking for a multiple subdivision? MR. HUNSINGER-Test pit data isn’t specifically required on the Preliminary plat. MR. SEGULJIC-Don’t we need that to, I guess, doesn’t the Town Engineer have to review test pit data? MRS. BRUNO-That’s what I thought, Tom. That’s why I had asked the earlier questions. MR. SEGULJIC-So we put a condition in that (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-We can make that a condition, yes. MR. FORD-Or waived. MR. SEGULJIC-No, the test pit data? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-No, that they have to obtain adequate test pit data. Because now the Town Engineer has to review it, so it’s checked. MRS. BRUNO-So we know it’s a buildable lot before we make it. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Would that be part of the building permit process as well? I mean, if this was just an individual lot. So they’re not going to get a building permit if they can’t. This process, I think, was kind of thwarted at the beginning. We’re just trying to put a band aid on it at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes, and then of course the other, the final condition is that there be no further subdivision, and that be labeled on the plot. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So, let’s just give it a shot here. MR. HUNSINGER-Remember, we’re going to do Preliminary first, and then final. So Preliminary there’s no conditions. Final has the conditions. MR. SEGULJIC-So just motion to approve Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2007 ROBERT & COURTNEY SMITH, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Now you can do Final and do all the conditions. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2007 ROBERT & COURTNEY SMITH, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 12.72 acre parcel into two lots of 9.46 and 3.26 acres. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board review and approval. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/24/07; 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 with the following waivers. Contours, Clearing, Landscaping, Stormwater, and Grading; 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 NOT APPLICABLE 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and NOT APPLICABLE 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2007 ROBERT & COURTNEY SMITH, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following notes: Number Four complies with the following waivers. Waivers be provided for contours, clearing, landscaping, stormwater, grading. Number Five, Negative Declaration. Number Nine does not apply. Number Ten does not apply. That the motion have the following conditions: 1.That no further subdivision of Lot One, the 9.46 acre lot, be noted on the plat. 2.Test pit data should be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer for Lot Number Two. 3.And the wetlands be mapped on Lots One and Two, utilizing Town GIS data. th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SMITH-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 37-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED COVER 3, INC. AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 714 GLEN 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) STREET THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RESTAURANT USE BY INSTALLING A SECOND DRIVE THRU LANE FOR FOOD SERVICE. RESTAURANT USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 13-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/11/07 LOT SIZE 0.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-56 SECTION 179-4-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. This is a proposal to use a second drive thru lane at the existing Wendy’s on Glen Street, Route 9. As part of the plan, the applicant proposes to eliminate some parking spaces in the area with the second drive lane and add some landscaping, and as I’ve mentioned, our main concern is vehicular access and vehicle stacking. Even with the removal of some of the parking spaces, it appears that there may well be some conflicts with cars entering the site or trying to get out of the parking spaces that are adjacent to this drive island. It may well be that you have times where there are two rows of stacked cars in the area of that drive entrance, which would prevent, or make it more difficult for cars to enter the site and cars to exit those parking spaces as well. In addition, one concern we have is that the 14 foot distance between the edge of the pavement of the second drive thru, and the proposed planting. There doesn’t appear to be enough to allow vehicles to get around that drive thru and exit the site, which would further complicate the issue of stacking and access and vehicles entering and exiting the site, etc. That’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing the applicant, Cover 3. This is an existing Wendy’s restaurant, as our Staff has already stated, on Route 9, Upper Glen Street. I just passed through to the Board members and Staff, from the comments that we did obtain from the Staff and from the Town Engineer, we had no problems with any of those comments, and as you can see on the attached sketch, what we did is on that, so I can explain a little bit, we narrowed down the proposed green area that we were creating that does not exist there now. So you know we’re removing some parking spaces, and we agree with them wholeheartedly, that moving that to 20 feet at the narrowest and 24 basically parallel to the car that would be parked at the second drive thru speaker would allow plenty of room for vehicular access around there, so that you wouldn’t have to worry about people that were trying to go around the drive thru from the parking spaces there on the south side, or somebody that just wanted to drive all the way around the site, wouldn’t be stopped or be impeded by anybody at the drive thru. The purpose of the second drive thru is it’s an order speaker, not a second drive thru window. Same drive thru window. The capacity of the store, it’s there for, they can’t move the people through fast enough. That’s the reason for this. The number of people that they anticipate, and they’ve had these studies Wendy’s Corporations have done across the country, where they put in these windows. These windows will go to a call center in a different State. I think one call center is in Connecticut and I believe the other one’s in Phoenix, Arizona, and it’s all computerized. The store has more than enough capabilities of producing the food in a timely manner, but they can’t get the orders fast enough. So they actually have shown that at peak hours it improves the flow, instead of having one car and having 19 stacked up behind it, you can handle two orders at once, and then they just alternate through, because only one takes an order. The second one takes an order. While one’s taking the order and filling it and driving through, then the other speaker comes on, and you go on to the call center and they take your order, and it comes up on to a computer screen. So it actually will help with the traffic, the studies have shown. Also, one of the concerns that the owner of the site has is when you exit the site currently, if anybody’s ever been there, and you get people that come out through the drive thru, and they pull back out onto Route 9, and they don’t quite pull to the far left or the far right, they stay in the center, then you get the person behind them, if they want to take a left and turn south onto Route 9, you stack up again, because there’s no way for anybody to get around that vehicle. So we propose to widen the entrance. DOT has no problem because of the fact it does not effect the sidewalk or the curb cut on Route 9. It’s basically, all the removal is on the subject property, if you could look at where they’re proposing to remove that island. MR. FORD-It doesn’t impact the curb cut at all? MR. STEVES-No. The curb cut width was based upon the throat entrance at the radiuses of the curb. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MRS. BRUNO-That exit’s always made me nervous anyway, coming out of the drive thru. It’s so easy, if you didn’t think to look in your right hand mirror to see if someone was buzzing through, you know, there’s such a potential for an accident right there. MR. STEVES-And then the increase, as the Town Engineer has stated, you know, any increase in non-permeable, or permeable area is an improvement. So even reducing that proposed landscape area on the southeast corner there is still more than what exists now, and we have also no objection to the two comments that he had as far as denoting that anything in that landscape area will be saw cut down to, you know, and seeded and soiled so there wouldn’t be any non-permeable surface left underneath it. In order words, just don’t throw a landscape timber and topsoil on top of the asphalt, or curbing in. It’s completely up to the discretion of this Board whether they want it curbed or not. My client has no objection to curbing it if it’s required. The only curbing that currently exists on the property is basically around the building itself, and the perimeter of the site is non curbed. If you wanted curbing around that island, he has no problem with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-And that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Calls really go to Phoenix, Arizona? MR. STEVES-There’s two call centers. Like I said, I believe there’s one in Connecticut and one in Arizona. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. STEVES-I believe this one they will all go primarily to Connecticut, but it’s all computerized. MRS. BRUNO-And they can keep it straight which one orders? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STEVES-There was actually somebody that was willing to appear. He’s actually out at the call center in Connecticut, managing operations there, I can’t remember his name, for Wendy’s Corp., and they said what it does is, your peak hours in any of these fast food restaurants, you really don’t change the number of people that come through. You just get them through faster. Because what has happened in the whole industry, not just Wendy’s, 15 years ago, according to Wendy’s data, is about 35% of the people were drive thru traffic, and 65% was eat in traffic, and now it’s just the opposite. MRS. BRUNO-Why did they not use that second speaker stand originally? They just weren’t sure what kind of business they were going to get? MR. STEVES-Actually, I think they started to put it in and realized they got a notice from the Town that they needed Site Plan review for any changes. So it was never implemented. MR. SIPP-Do you see any impact from the new drugstore building next door to you? If they’re making left turns off of Route 9 and you’re making left turns, is there a stacking problem that you can see? MR. STEVES-No. That, you know, primarily when you come out of there, if anybody’s ever been there, you take a left turn, you know, the problem we see is that you’re stacking people up that need to go north, and now you have the ability to not stack those people up. I would say that 85% of the people turn right out of there. MR. SIPP-It’s a mess at noontime. MR. STEVES-And we look at this as an improvement. I mean, you’re going to be able to get around that car now and go north on Route 9. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, does the lower Route 9 Corridor Design Standards apply? I believe they do. Wouldn’t they apply to this? MR. STEVES-That wasn’t brought up at the pre-submission at all. I think that did not apply at the last Site Plan when they were putting the new roof on the atrium. MR. HILTON-Well, this site is in that Design Corridor. It’s quite possible that the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Forgot? MR. HILTON-Well, no, at a previous time decided not to apply them. Those requirements could be applied at the Board’s will. Site Plan does bring the site into review, to all aspects of our Code. So, you’re correct that it is within the Route 9 Design Corridor. MR. SEGULJIC-Now I’m feverishly trying to figure out what exactly it says. MR. STEVES-I think they decided last time there wasn’t a significant change, with the change in the roofline to ask for anymore than what was being submitted. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s too small for me to read. Because as I understand, it refers us to Figure 10, and it shows trees along Route 9, but I can’t decipher what it’s saying. Plus also wouldn’t a regular? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The Route 9 Corridor does talk about trees, but it doesn’t provide any specific trees. MR. STEVES-It was noted in the previous application, too, that it was within that corridor, but they took no action on any improvements. If you did want a tree or two in that front green area, that’s where their atrium is at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no trees there now, correct? MR. STEVES-Shrubs, just a few shrubs around there. Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think I’d like to see some trees along there. We have a chance, now, to put some trees out there. MRS. BRUNO-What’s the approximate distance between the edge of the concrete walk and the sidewalk? MR. STEVES-Part of that property, about eight to ten from behind the sidewalk is the right of way for DOT. MRS. BRUNO-And from there on? MR. STEVES-About 22, 23 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Can you give us two shade trees in that area in front of the atrium? MR. STEVES-Yes. The applicant, I’m sure, would have no objection to putting a couple of trees there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-To balance out your nice landscaping in the back with out front. MR. STEVES-I mean, he’s willing to cut out and put in the, take out the asphalt and put in some shrubs in the back. I’ll just let him know that the requirement is for a couple of shade trees. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that had comments on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENTS 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or concerns from the Board? Since this is a, it’s a full Site Plan. An Unlisted Action. Short Form. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“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. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1 through C5?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-I will make a motion to propose a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 37-2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: COVER 3, INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. SEGULJIC-So, as a condition, we’ll state, two shade trees to be installed between the sidewalk and atrium. Will that work? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-How about between the two sidewalks, one on State right of way and one in front of the building. MR. SEGULJIC-Between the two sidewalks. MR. STEVES-I don’t want him to think that you’re going to fit it between the atrium and the concrete sidewalk on our site. That’s all. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Say between the two sidewalks? Okay. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. STEVES-And the changes the drive thru width reducing the new landscaped area as provided to you. MR. SEGULJIC-Isn’t that all part of the application, though? MR. STEVES-Just to make sure that you understand. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s all part of the application. So we don’t have to say anything about that then. MR. STEVES-I’ll make those changes on the full set of plans that come in to the Town, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The only question is whether we want that to have a concrete curb. The engineer recommended it. MR. STEVES-Right. MRS. BRUNO-I would think that that would actually help to sustain the landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Like I said, he has no objection to it. We’re just stating that he has no problem letting you know that that would be the only area on the exterior that would have it, but he has no problem putting it in. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So two shade trees between the sidewalk. Concrete. MR. HUNSINGER-That the new landscaped island have a concrete curb at the perimeter. MR. STEVES-We’ll stipulate a six inch high concrete curb. MR. HUNSINGER-Six inch high? Okay. Any other conditions? MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2007 COVER 3, INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: The applicant proposes to expand an existing restaurant use by installing a second drive thru lane for food service. Restaurant uses in the HC-Int zone require review and approval from the Planning Board; and 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 7/24/07 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, 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 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) 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; and 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2007 COVER 3, INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by the Staff, with the following notes. Number Four complies. Number Five, Negative. Number Eight does not apply, and in addition, the following conditions: 1.Two shade trees will be installed between the two sidewalks. 2.A six inch high concrete curb will be installed around the new landscaped area. th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2007 SEQR TYPE II CHRISTINE LECCE AGENT(S) LOUIE LECCE, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 208 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES REPAIR OF DOCK AND RECONSTRUCTION OF 912 SQ. FT. COVERED BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECKS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/11/07 LOT SIZE 0.34 ACES, 0.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-68, 86 SECTION A-183 MR. HILTON-This is not required, because this application did not receive its Area Variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, so is that off the agenda? MR. HILTON-Off the agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do I need to do anything with respect to the public hearing or anything else? MR. HILTON-I don’t know if anyone’s here to speak to it, but ultimately the application is defunct at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-And if there’s any new proposal for this site there will be a public hearing at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we can throw out the package. All right. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2007 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW RON BALL AGENT(S) WILLIAM NEALON OWNER(S) RONALD & LINDA BALL ZONING SFR-1A; RR-5A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.59 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 1, 3.3 & 3.7 ACRES IN SIZE. SUBDIVISION OF LAND TO CREATE 3 LOTS. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 5-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 8.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10-1-31.1 SECTION A-183 BILL NEALON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RON BALL, PRESENT 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. NEALON-Good evening. I’m Bill Nealon. I’m an attorney here in Glens Falls, and I’m here with Ron Ball, the applicant. This is a preliminary sketch plan review. I’ve handed up to the Board, from the Warren County GIS site’s mapping and other information including a photometric view of the site in question. The property is just north of the intersection of Bonner Drive and West Mountain Road, and would be on the westerly side of West Mountain Road. The existing parcel is over nine acres, and there’s one structure on that parcel at this time, which is a one story frame house at the southernmost extreme parcel. The proposal is to subdivide off that one story existing structure, and thereafter to create two additional lots who are well removed from the traffic flow of West Mountain Road. We have undertaken to show you on the subdivision map as proposed and prepared by Van Dusen and Steves, the driveways and residence, proposed residence locations. We’re confident that the engineering studies which we have not done at this point obviously because this is at the Sketch Plan Stage will allow driveway access to each of the proposed sites, which will comply within the 10% grade limitations. We’ve also undertaken to provide that the existing curb intersections will be well within the requirements of that which is necessary on West Mountain Road. The separation of highway. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you’re required to have double the average lot width. MR. NEALON-Right. The frontage on the lot that is currently improved by the single family dwelling would be approximately 190 feet. Lot Two would be 325 feet along West Mountain Road, and Lot Three also approximately 325 feet. There is an existing driveway for the single family residence which is at the southernmost extreme edge of the existing lot. At this point in time, there are no test pit studies that have been done. Those would go along with the engineering later on. I believe the plan has been signed by both parties, both Mr. and Mrs. Ball today. The grading and stormwater would be done at a subsequent time when we come back for review. So Mr. Ball is here and is more than ready to answer any questions you might have beyond that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. NEALON-It’s worth pointing out that the adjacent parcel to the north is Town water tower parcel. It’s shown on the photometric study that I’ve handed up to the Board. We did give some consideration to view sheds, and I talked to George this afternoon. The parcel is heavily wooded at this time, and the cutting would basically be just at the location of the proposed dwelling and to provide access. There is an existing buffer for the premises in Lehland Estates, which would be on the other side of West Mountain Road, that is forested, and that, too, is evident in the photograph that you have before you. MRS. BRUNO-Could you explain what you meant by the approved one lot, the one with the house, how that was approved? MR. NEALON-I’m sorry. I misspoke. It is not an approved. That’s what’s there right now. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. NEALON-It’s been there for years. MRS. BRUNO-I know that it was recently sold. You’re the new owner? MR. BALL-It hasn’t been sold because I’ve got to subdivide the property, because I want to keep the property and build another new house. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. BALL-Someone’s living in it, up there. Waiting for me to subdivide it. MRS. BRUNO-I guess I made the assumption, when the sign went down, and I saw the new cars, that it had been, but that makes sense. Thank you. MR. BALL-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-What is the maximum slope for a driveway? Is it 15% or 10%? MR. HUNSINGER-Ten percent. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-And you don’t exceed that anywhere on here? MR. NEALON-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Then these cross hatched areas, what do they represent? MR. NEALON-The fall line, so to speak, on those cross hatched areas would exceed 10%, but that is not. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re angling across. MR. NEALON-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of things I’d like. I mean, why can’t we have a common driveway? MR. NEALON-Well, I would call the Board’s attention to the last application that was done here. We do a lot of real estate work in our office. Common driveways are a nightmare in terms of getting concurrence amongst owners that may or may not have convergent attitudes towards maintenance. MR. SEGULJIC-But I mean, you could just share the driveway for a limited amount of space, and then you’d branch off it, and just have one entryway. MR. NEALON-The same thing applies. It’s possible, if everyone is thinking along the same lines, but it’s really just a matter of time before someone gets obstreperous about who’s going to do the plowing or who’s going to do this, or whether there’s some washout that has occurred at some point and who’s going to be responsible for it, and we’re simply trying to head off that issue before it arises. As I’ve indicated, we believe that the separations between the driveways are more than adequate. There are good sight lines in this portion of West Mountain Road, and, with all due respect to the Board, I don’t believe that would be a problem. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess how does the rest of the Board feel about a shared driveway, a shared access, not shared driveway. MR. SIPP-I would agree with you, Tom, but I’m afraid that it leads to neighbor fighting neighbor over who does what. I’m not a big fan of shared driveways. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing would be, and I can see how you have houses up on the higher levels. My comment would be, I mean, that’s great. I guess you’re doing that for the view, I would assume. MR. BALL-No. There’s not really a view. You can see Vermont a little bit, but right now there’s a lot of beautiful trees up there, and I don’t believe that, my intentions are, I live long enough, and I get the property divided, I’m going to build a house up there, and I will not strip that property. It will be kind of secluded from Lehland Estates. They come in and out of there, they won’t see the house, and it won’t be seen from the Northway. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that’s where I’m going. I don’t care what you do up there. It’s just I don’t want to see it. You can see me, but I don’t want to see you. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, typically on a plan like this we require a clearing plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I’d also want to see some, you know, because typically what they’ll do now is they’ll clear an acre around it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-We want to see the angles worked out, so we’re filtered. MR. NEALON-When we come back for Preliminary, you will have a clearing plan. We’re, quite frankly, not at that point. MR. SIPP-Can you tell me what these lines are that you have drawn in here, crossing this entrance road? Heavier black lines joining the contours together. MR. SEGULJIC-I think they’re the proposed contours of the driveway. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. NEALON-Yes. MR. FORD-They’re on one, but not the other. MR. HUNSINGER-You don’t have that one? MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. NEALON-The last map that was prepared, so we’re all on the same page. MR. FORD-Well, you’ve got two S-1’s, but it’s on one but not the other. MR. NEALON-That is not the most recent map. MRS. BRUNO-The current driveway that you’ve started, that, I think it was in Staff Notes, too, it definitely is over a 10% rise. Are you planning on cutting that back? MR. BALL-The current driveway? MRS. BRUNO-Not the current, no, I’m sorry. I noticed that when you went in to start logging perhaps, on. MR. BALL-There was an existing driveway there that’s a barn across the street. These people that own it, that I bought the house from, the Lemans, they kept the tractor and the barn, and the grandson would take the tractor out of the barn and he made a road up in there, and originally, one of the sons of the Lemans, possibly 20 years ago, was going to build a house up in there. He actually put a well in there, and he had the driveway there. That driveway has always been there. The reason why there was digging done there is because he had a curb stop put in, when the Town came with water there on West Mountain Road. He put the curb stop in. When I realized it, that curb stop was on my property, it set in a bank, and so I wanted to use that curb stop, if I ever got approval, so I dug around it, so the Town could lower it, so it was right on the shoulder of the road. They widened the road so many times that they pretty near covered up the curb stop. So I had to dig around it in order to get at it, but one of the reasons why I did the digging was, apparently when Niagara Mohawk existed, they were going to put power poles all the way down through there, and it was all marked, and right where the power pole, they had plans for a power pole, was a curb stop. So, I heard that they were going to do this in June of this year or May, and so I went in there and dug that out before they put the pole in there because it could never be dug back out again. Even the Water Department couldn’t dig it out. So that’s why you saw that digging there, but also, there’s always been a problem of seeing north coming off there. Now this is existing driveway. It’s been there. This is to the right of the existing house, where the digging is. This driveway has always been there, but, when I come down it, and you try to look up the West Mountain Road, they, because they continue to widen West Mountain Road. What they did is they left the sharp bank there. So I wanted to cut that bank back some to see up the road, which I can get approval from the County to do that. So the vision up the road would be better, not just for me, but people traveling on West Mountain Road would be better for. So that was my plans, and that’s as far as I’ve gone on it until I can get a separation on the property. MRS. BRUNO-And then I’m assuming, just because of the site plan, the updated site plans, with your additional contour lines crossing those driveways, that you intend to bring that in much more slightly? MR. BALL-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-Clarification on these. This does not have the seal on it, but they are both S- 1’s, and both dated June 1, 2006. MR. NEALON-The one bearing Mr. Steves’ seal should have been submitted to the Board and bears the date of June 15, 2007. It was indicated to me that that was forwarded to the Board. MR. FORD-Anybody else have that? MRS. BRUNO-No. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, June 15, yes, the update. MR. NEALON-Do you have that one, Mr. Ford? MR. HUNSINGER-This one. MR. FORD-Without this one it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. Because this was updated. MR. NEALON-Yes. We met with Mr. Brown and Staff had requested two foot contours be endorsed. Actually, we’ve got one foot contours that are endorsed on the map, and then that was done at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other comments from the Board? MR. NEALON-We would ask that the Sketch Plan be approved and we be permitted to move on to the next stage. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the questions that I did have is on Lot Three, on your proposed Lot Three, it does depict a stone wall. MR. NEALON-That’s existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Typically we ask that those be maintained. However, since it’s in the woods, it’s probably not visible at all, is it? MR. BALL-Not from the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BALL-Again, nobody really knows why they put the wall up there, but it’s really in an awkward spot, but. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure at one point there was a field there, and that’s why the stones are there. MR. BALL-Yes. No, I build stone walls, so I definitely would fix it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So I guess the stones that you take out to put in the driveway you maybe extend the wall or something. MR. BALL-Well, there’s already a break in the wall. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there? MR. BALL-It’s there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BALL-Actually there’s several breaks in the wall. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure that you won’t need a variance for the driveways. MR. NEALON-We will. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Thank you. MR. NEALON-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CERRONE BUILDERS, K. KENNAH, WM. JOSLYN, C. BISHOP AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A, RC - 3A, WR-3A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN & CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 227 + ACRE PARCEL INTO 26 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 ACRES TO 47.13 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 222.2 ACRES, 3.44 ACRES, 1.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.5-1-1, 315-1-1, 315-1-4 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. I’ll be brief here. As far as stormwater, the applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan with this subdivision, and the narrative speaks to requiring, I guess, or potentially having stormwater management for each of the lots in the subdivision, and I guess there are a couple of ways to look at that. You could require Site Plan Review for each of the homes, or a condition of any approval that requires the Town’s Engineer to approve each individual stormwater plan at the time of building permit. Vehicular access is shown from two cul de sacs. As I’ve pointed out, ideally one continuous loop road would be provided. However, if the Board is comfortable with the proposed access, the Board should determine if there is adequate sight distance for the proposed road, southern access road. From a planning perspective, a cluster subdivision is probably preferred here, that would protect the slopes, minimize unnecessary cuts and fills, preserve open space, minimize any, you know, view shed impacts, visual impacts and stormwater impacts. A cluster subdivision would allow the same number of lots, would have the environmental benefits I mentioned. However, if the Board is comfortable with the proposed layout, a couple of things that you could do. The applicant could create a single parcel with the upland areas, create that as open space and possibly offer that to an organization such as the Queensbury Land Conservancy. Without a separate protective parcel, I guess Staff’s suggestion would be to take a good look at where the proposed house sites are and restrict clearing and development beyond those areas that are shown on the subdivision, in order to protect those upland slopes, and minimize visual impacts and stormwater impacts. I think those are probably the bigger issues here, visual and stormwater impacts, and just a note. Lot 16 of the subdivision it appears will require an Area Variance for vehicular access, unless a driveway is shared with an adjacent lot. We have comments from Vision Engineering attached to the Staff comments, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicants. With me at the table is Al Cerrone, and immediately behind me is Bill Joslyn and Cindy Bishop, two of the other applicants. Kathy Kennah is the fourth applicant, and she’s not here, but she is an applicant. Also with me at the table is Tom Nace who is the engineer for the project. We were here before for a Sketch Plan approval. I think we have listened to your comments that you made at time of Sketch Plan approval and incorporated them into what you have before you. I looked at the Staff comments, and it seemed like a lot of it, and I think naturally and probably that we expected, was comments or concerns as to how we were going to protect the mountainside, and our answer to that is very simple. If you take a look at the maps that you have, we probably are very willing to draw a no cut, no build line, right parallel to the back line of the property that is on the south side, right straight across. It would go from this corner here, Lot Number Four is a jut in the corner there, an iron rod set, and we go right across, we hit the peak of these two lots, Lot Seven and Nineteen, and go right through the Lot Numbers, 20, 21, 22, directly across to the boundary line. We’ve done it on this map here in yellow, just to give you an idea that there would be no building above that area, which takes in most of the sloping on this site. Tom has shown, on the individual lots, clearing limits, which we would also abide by on the individual lots in the areas where we are going to build, but we’re cognizant of the fact that this hillside probably has a great deal of visibility as you come up Corinth Road, and probably would give you a lot of concern as to how we’re going to protect it. I’m not sure yet the vehicle, whether the Land Conservancy or the Town would be willing to take it, or whether we would just leave it in the lots and make it a no cut zone with the right of enforcement by the Town, put a restrictive covenant on it, however you would like to do it. We talked, the other day, about it for a while after we saw the Staff Notes. Talked about it yesterday, I guess, after we saw the Staff Notes. We see there’s some problems with trying to maybe give it to the Land Conservancy because there isn’t a good access to it, and I would think the Land Conservancy would want to have some type of access to it. We haven’t figured that out. If you had, you know, an area that we could give a right of way to some nature, and a small parking area or something like that, it might make a park or something of that nature, but it really isn’t conducive to do that. You’re going to be right in the backyard of somebody’s lot if you do that. There’s no adjoining property that we saw that we could tag onto, and put together something, but I 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) think that answers a great deal of the concerns that Staff raised throughout their notes as to what’s going to happen to the view shed of West Mountain, and what impact is this project going to have on that, and our proposal is that it will have very little impact, if any at all, and we can assure you of that. We’ll be glad to listen to what your suggestions are, and try to, you know, follow through on those. The rest of the comments, I think that makes even a better plan than trying to figure out a cluster plan. It is, in essence, kind of a cluster, except that there’s no public open space, if you will, but there will be public view shed. We thought we had gone through the cluster discussions back when we did our Sketch Plan, and some of the other comments of Staff, there are physical reasons why you can’t have a loop road that goes from one entrance to the other, and we went through that all at the concept plan, and I think those would be my comments. I guess one other comment which I thought, Staff suggested that we pay particular attention to the stormwater on each lot, and we would not have an objection to accepting their suggestion that, as a condition of your approval, you require that the Town consulting engineer review and approve each individual stormwater plan at the time of the building permit, and make it just an additional approval that needs to be done at that time. Tom says that, and I won’t answer for him, but he said that it’s not that complicated to set up even a set of protocol for individual lots, and we can do that as well. I think that’s my comments, and I think the rest of the comments, for the most part, well, the other comment was, and you’ve had a lot of discussion tonight about shared driveways. We came in to this recognizing that we will require a shared driveway for Lot 15 and 16, and we’re willing to do that, and I think that avoids the issue of whether or not a variance is required. Tom, do you want to tell them about everything else? MR. NACE-Sure. Okay. The only other Staff comment that Mike did not get into is the sight distance. The sight distances are shown, I think, on Drawings Three and Four, at each entrance. They fit within the requirements. However, we are in the process of getting a road entry permit from Warren County. So they will also review and approve the plans. So, hopefully before we’re back here before you again we will have that permit in hand. Staff comment, or Engineering comments I just got Friday. I’ve gone through them, looked at the plans, made sure that there are reasonable answers to all of them. I have not responded in writing yet or made the necessary changes to the plans, but I can tell you that I am confident we can easily answer all of the questions. If there’s any particular ones or issues that you would like me to respond to tonight, I’ll be glad to discuss with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-A question about access. You mentioned before, Mike, about to the upland area. What about this Warren County DPW on the south side? That property there? MR. NACE-I think that’s a fairly narrow sliver. I’m not sure what it is, though. MRS. BRUNO-Isn’t there a salt shed on it? MR. NACE-No. The salt shed is down. MR. O'CONNOR-The salt shed is down by the curve. MR. NACE-I’m not sure what that piece of land is. I think it shows up on the. Is there a piece of County land, Bob, between you and Joslyn’s, between yours and Joslyn’s? We’ll look into it, but that may be mislabeled. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-It may be mislabeled on here. My impression was that the McDonald’s parcel was the only parcel that joined this, on Corinth Road. That was a 90 acre parcel that was part of. MR. FORD-Okay. So it’s mislabeled Warren County DPW? MR. NACE-That’s our guess at this point. We’ll find out, but even if it were County land, if you look at the contours over there, it’s very steep coming up off Corinth Road. By the looks of it, it’s very steep. MR. SIPP-Is there any access from the north? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. NACE-From the north, no, that’s West Mountain. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s West Mountain lands. MR. SIPP-Could there be access? If the Conservancy could work out something with. MR. NACE-Well, we can certainly contact the Conservancy. From previous dealings with them, we haven’t asked them specifically on this parcel, but previous dealings they’ve looked to try to put parcels together so they have contiguous corridors for recreational use, or for passive recreation use. This is kind of an off to itself, and all fairly steep. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s kind of steep for any real usage. We could do a conservation easement to a party that you tell us to do it to, and it would serve more as a purpose of having a third party to enforce the no build, no disturbance type restriction that we put on the property. MR. SIPP-Would that include no hunting? MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not, it’s within, you can’t discharge a gun within 500 feet. I don’t know what’s there, truthfully, whether or not you, I think that’s the En Con rule. MR. TRAVER-It would have to be posted. MR. O'CONNOR-The minimum is 500 feet, and there are other circumstances that maybe extend that. So I don’t know if you could actually hunt that or not. AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-When you say an access for hunting, there’s really no access to that property unless they go through somebody’s property, somebody’s house. MR. SIPP-But if there was property posted, that would eliminate that. MR. CERRONE-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a right of way further up Corinth Road, probably half a mile up Corinth Road, goes across a piece that Parks and Rec owns. That’s part of the green way belt that came with the lands that Niagara Mohawk gave with Hudson Pointe and with, what’s the one across the river, the park that’s across the river, Moreau State Park. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Moreau State Park green lands actually has a piece on this side that goes all the way up to Corinth. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess you’re going to go check with. MR. NACE-We’ll check with the Land Conservancy. MR. SEGULJIC-The Queensbury Land Conservancy. MR. NACE-I don’t hold out any great hopes, but we’ll certainly check. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, if I recall correctly, and we’d love to have the two roads connect, but there’s a ravine? MR. NACE-There’s a ravine. There’s wetlands. I walked the site with Mike Travis and Tom, his second in command there. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think it’s great that you’re going to have the clearing limits and no build above a certain line. The one thing I would ask is beyond clearing limits, you know, I’d like to see filtered views. Like I said before, you know, what I don’t want to see is like an acre, an acre cleared. MR. NACE-Where we’re building is far enough down, it’s way down almost to the bottom, if you’ve walked the land. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I just wanted to be convinced of that. Like I said before, you can see me, but I don’t want to see you. MR. O'CONNOR-You can see the clearing limits on here. They’re not rectangular boxes. They basically are what would be necessary for a house, a driveway, a septic system, probably the fourth or fifth page in, I think they are. Yes. MR. NACE-But, Tom, all of these lots, if you’ve walked the property at all, are up sort of on a little bit of a plateau, and because of the slope it does not get steep until you head further west than the development on these lots, they really would not be visible from anywhere, as far as clearing. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what you’re proposing as clearing limits? MR. NACE-On these plans, yes, and obviously it depends. Somebody may decide to set their house a little differently than I’ve shown it. I mean, these are proposed, but you’ve got to realize that I can’t sit here and dictate where somebody builds his house. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the lots that I had a question on was Lot 23, and I guess specifically the way that Lot 22 and 23 were designed, so that 23 requires, you know, that sharp angle, and if that could be angled off so that you don’t need as long a driveway. MR. NACE-Actually, I was assuming, well, okay. If the corner of Lot 22 could be cut off, you mean? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, you certainly have enough acreage so that you can angle that a little. MR. NACE-Sure. It wouldn’t make a lot of difference. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, when you get onto the larger scale on Sheet S-5. MR. NACE-That’s what we’re looking at. MR. HUNSINGER-You need a larger clearance to get around the corner to get up to the house. MR. NACE-You’re saying if we took the property line from between Lot 22 and Lot 23, starting at the fire hydrant, and just brought that back on an angle. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Then you eliminate, you know, 50% of your driveway and quite a bit of clearing requirement. MR. NACE-Sure. I don’t see a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-I also had another comment on Lot Two. Lot One has road frontage, it looks like 158 feet, but Lot Two only has 77. Maybe the road frontage on Lot Two could be made bigger. MR. NACE-What I was trying to do, and it will show, one of the things I need to do for response to engineering comments, it showed driveways on these lower two lots on both ends of the subdivision because of road cut, and one of the reasons I moved that property line so far up was to be able to get up at a better place where I can get angled back in and get a longer driveway back in to Lot One, to bring the grade down. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. So that’s one of the reasons. Also that’s the reason that you’ll see on Lot Two that the house is set so far back, is to have enough driveway length, but I might be able to, Al’s got a good suggestion. I might be able to move the line between Lot Two and Three to make Two wider. I’ll take a look at that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. George? MR. HILTON-Just a couple of comments, based on what I’m hearing. As far as the upland areas and protecting those, you know, at a very minimum it sounds like the applicant has agreed to have no cut, no build occur up on the top there. From an enforcement standpoint, that’s kind of difficult at times. That’s why I think still, if there’s 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) some way to create that as a separate parcel, either by adjusting lot lines to hook it somehow to the road, where it’s its own individual parcel that’s possibly owned by the QLC or some other organization, where no one could go in there and clear it, I think that’s preferable, and in terms of clearing limits, I think my comment, I still would reiterate my comment about the clearing limits and house sites, that you may want to pay strict attention to that and perhaps approving those and any deviation from those would have to come back before this Board, in order to, you know, not get a situation where someone comes in and wants to build their house in a different location, they’d put it farther up the hill and then it’s visible, where it wasn’t present that way on this plan. So it’s just something to consider. MR. HUNSINGER-And we have had issues with that in the past, as you know. MR. NACE-I think if we make that line, that demarcation line between the upland preserved area and the lower building area, we make that fairly distinct, and make it down the hill as far as practical, I think that removes the possibility of somebody moving their house so far up the hill it’s going to be visible. Because if you look at the topography on all these, we’ve kept all the houses down on the shelf before it really starts to get steep. MR. O'CONNOR-We might be able to pick an elevation and say that no house to be placed on the lot beyond this elevation unless they come back to the Planning Board. I don’t know if all the lots have that much uniformity that they can say that. The other comment I’d make, George, to your comment about the separate ownership of that, and honestly I think sometimes you find that if the individual lot owners own an extension into this no cut zone, it’s better policed. It doesn’t become a neighborhood party place. It doesn’t become a place that somebody doesn’t own, and you see that if you live near the Crandall Park woods and stuff like that or even Potter Road woods. MR. NACE-Yes, or if you live near the watershed property. I used to border it, and it’s amazing how much junk my neighbors used to put back on the watershed property. MR. O'CONNOR-So it goes both ways. MR. SIPP-BOCES classes used to bury the material that was dumped out there, couches, refrigerators, beer bottles. MR. HILTON-I guess I understand that concern, but, you know, in all reality, no matter where you are, no cut zones and things like that are really difficult to enforce. Perhaps the answer is, you know, getting into deed restrictions and perhaps signage on the lots that clearly say you’re not to clear beyond a certain point. I don’t know. MR. O'CONNOR-Probably monuments would be more effective than signage. Signage comes down. Monuments go in the ground and are better. If you give land, now, to the Conservancies, they typically also want a cash donation so that they can enforce your desires when you give it to them. They do annual check ups on property, and take a look and see if somebody is encroaching that shouldn’t be encroaching and things of that nature. I don’t know, though, that, you know, we could do a conservation easement maybe, not do ownership, to do a conservation easement to one of these groups, and if they were coming on for purposes of inspection, you know, we’d find a place where they’d walk through one of the lots. It’s not going to be for public access. I would have problems with trying to figure out an access way for public access, because then you’ve got parking problems. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-But if you’ve got just somebody that’s coming on the property for inspection purposes and it’s a one day event, once a year, twice a year, that’s not a big deal. That wouldn’t overly restrict the property. So we’ve just got to find the right vehicle to do that. We’re open to doing it. We have no intention of further forestry or further harvesting of timber, and I don’t know what the figure is. It’s kind of impressive, I think if you look at, how many acres is it, Tom? It’s about, we’ve got 222 acres, and well over 102. MR. NACE-Yes, probably 140, 150. MR. FORD-222.2. MR. O'CONNOR-And you’ve got about 140 that’s going to be in the no build zone. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-It would be good to have that number. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s in the SEQRA form. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I saw it earlier. MR. NOORDSY-Mike, I don’t know if the Town would be interested, but I suppose the Town could receive the conservation easement. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve tried that, and so far nobody’s ever stepped up. Now, maybe, I haven’t tried it in a couple of years. So maybe something, I know the Town has an Open Space Committee now. They have a Land Conservancy that they didn’t have before. We’ll find out. Leon Steves, I think, is Chairman of the Conservancy group. I don’t know if anybody else knows who else to contact, but if you can tell me, from your side of it. MR. NOORDSY-Yes. I know what you mean with regard to the Conservancy looking for additional funds for monitoring and what have you. We could look into that, as to what interest there might be with the Town accepting that, and still get your benefits on your side. MR. O'CONNOR-I think I want to be sure of the Board that somebody’s not going to do something to that property that you think would not be appropriate, and we think, honestly, it’s going to add to the value of our property, too. I mean, you have this forever wild behind it. It’s got to be a nice amenity to offer to people that come in to these subdivisions. I built the house on the corner of Kiley and Centennial, or bought a house on Kiley and Centennial in 1975. There’s now 15 houses on the other side of me. I’m very happy I don’t live there anymore. MR. FORD-They wanted to get close to you, and then you moved. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think they wanted to get close to me, Tom. Anything that, any other comments that we should be addressing as we go forward? I know you need a signoff from the engineering for Preliminary. You couldn’t do it conditional for that signoff? We think there’s nothing there that we can’t satisfy, and I’m hopeful that when we complete that modification that we do and re-submit it to the engineer, we will also be submitting Final application to you, so that we can do maybe Preliminary and Final at the same time, because this is pretty well, almost 100% engineering now. MRS. BRUNO-You have to get the Area Variance for Lot 15 passed through prior to our Final. MR. HUNSINGER-No. They want to do a shared driveway. MR. NACE-In fact, if you look, I think, at S-4, one of the drawings shows, or notes that they’re to have shared driveways. I just need to make that more prominent and maybe move it to the subdivision plat. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry I overlooked that. I didn’t see that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, here it is. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s no specific depth of the common driveway, is there? I’m not aware of one. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. I mean, it’s a common curb cut. I mean, you can do a “Y”, or even a “V”. We did have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. We have at least one person. If you could state your name for the record, because we do tape the meeting minutes, and if you could address your comments or questions to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE BARBONE 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. BARBONE-My name is Mike Barbone. I’m property owner of 43 West Mountain Road, adjacent to the development. My main concern is the water issue on that land, and what are you guys going to do about the water that runs across from the corner of the property of West Mountain Ski Center to the little, the pond that sits in the center of their property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BARBONE-It’s a huge issue, and I don’t know if anybody’s addressed it. I’d hate to sell that lot, the furthest one over, to somebody, and realize that they’re swimming in their basement. It’s going to happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you further clarify? When you say it’s an issue? MR. BARBONE-Well, there’s a stream that runs down the property line, and it crosses way across their property line. MR. FORD-Could you take the mic and go to the map, please, and show us. MR. BARBONE-Sure. The water stream runs from, comes down the property line, and runs adjacent to the property, and runs to the river. It dumps into this little pond here, and there’s a significant amount of water here. If some year we get a lot of snow, what are you going to do with the runoff off of this mountain? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BARBONE-That’s all I’ve got to say. I don’t mind the development. That’s a good thing for us, but what I worry about is, when you sell this lot, and the person builds his house here, what are you going to tell him when he’s got a full basement of water? MR. FORD-What happens to the water now? MR. BARBONE-It runs. It covers 22, 21. So you’ve got 20, 40, 60 acres of land at the bottom of that. I’ll bet you it covers, it’s a big issue, and it’s a concern to the builder, not to the builder, but the homeowners that are going to buy those lots. MR. FORD-By covering? MR. TRAVER-You’re talking about seasonally in the Spring during the snow melt? MR. BARBONE-Snow melt. What do you do when you have 25 feet of snow and you get a February thaw, what happens? MR. FORD-Well, please describe what happens now? MR. BARBONE-What happens now is, it’s in the court records that the water that runs down, down this stream and across the adjacent property is a significant amount of water. I don’t know exactly how much, but it’s significant. MR. FORD-Does it cause flooding? Erosion, or what happens? MR. BARBONE-It floods a significant amount of property there, and it needs to be addressed. It probably could be fixed, but it needs to be addressed. Somebody needs to look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. BARBONE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone else want to address the Board? I will leave the public hearing open. Did the applicant want to comment on the concerns expressed by the neighbor? MR. NACE-Well, I’ve walked the property. I obviously haven’t been there in the middle of February when the snow melts, but I have not seen any sign of a stream that comes down, or, in fact, I’m trying to think if there’s any way that water could get from that area over to the existing stream, and I don’t recollect any channels or any stream bed that cuts across there. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. FORD-If you’ve spent a lot of time on there, I would think you’d see erosion and signs of runoff and so forth. MR. NACE-I have not, and we did test pits all over there. Obviously, after listening to this, I’m going to go back and look again, but I don’t recollect seeing anything in there of that sort, if it comes on to this property. Maybe it’s over on the adjacent property. I don’t know. I’ll have to look and see. MR. FORD-There’s someone else from the public who would like to speak. MICHELLE HILL MS. HILL-Michelle Hill. I just had a question. I’m also a resident of West Mountain Road, and I guess my main concern is just what’s this going to do for the road congestion at the end of Corinth Road and West Mountain Road. There’s several accidents there throughout the years, and I was just trying to see how many entrances and what is that going to do, you know, if any traffic studies or anything like that has been addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. HILL-And that’s my major, the road is used tremendously by bikers and joggers, and so that’s my main concern, and we’ve, I think it was brought up at another meeting how we wanted to put a bike trail on that road, and to continue down Corinth Road and West Mountain Road. So I’m more concerned with the traffic impact on the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-That I’d answer directly, there’s one road entrance there. There’s a road entrance here. There’d be a common driveway here, and they would be the only entrances. MS. HILL-Okay, and this would be my major, there’s several accidents that occur there. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s nothing in the vicinity of that. Then you’re talking ten houses here and full build out you’re talking 16 on full build, 14 off this road and two off the common driveway. So you’re talking 14 houses, two off a common driveway, and 10 off this other roadway, all with decent distances and clearances from this intersection that you’re speaking of, the West Mountain, Corinth Road. MS. HILL-Right. I just didn’t know, further down the line, I’d hate to have to see a traffic light there or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else that had comments? MR. O'CONNOR-What side of the road was the bike path on? Is there a proposed bike path along Corinth Road or West Mountain Road? MR. HUNSINGER-Not that I’m aware of. MR. HILTON-As far as I know, there’s been talk over the years of widening West Mountain, but I couldn’t tell you which side it’s proposed for. MR. SIPP-Maybe you can’t answer this, but what do you envision as the size of the houses and population, age and the number of school children? MR. CERRONE-That’s a good question. Size of home I’d say about 2,000 square foot minimum. MR. SIPP-So that would be a three bedroom? MR. CERRONE-Three to four bedrooms, yes. MR. SIPP-So there’s a possibility of quite a few school children. MR. CERRONE-But you know something, it’s funny, because there’s been a lot of calls these days for executive ranches, where, you know, the people are downsizing but they want to get to a ranch, but it’s hard to tell, until the time comes, but we’re getting a lot of calls for these so called executive ranches, though, where they have no kids. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. FORD-A master suite on the first level. MR. CERRONE-That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further comments from the Board? NANCY WALKER MS. WALKER-Hi. I’m Nancy Walker. I own Pumpkin Hill Farm. It is adjacent to the development, and inevitably it is going to happen, and I think, I hope, it will be done correctly, but there is a water issue. The reason being is the runoff from West Mountain was illegally re-routed by the owner of the mountain, and some Springs it washes out our garden. I mean, that’s way down at the corner of West Mountain Road and Corinth Road. In fact, we had to bury a big culvert under the garden in the back, because it totally washed out our garden one year. There’s like a lake back there. There was a lawsuit against the Mountain. I don’t know if it was fixed or what, but there definitely is a water issue. MRS. BRUNO-Do you remember the approximate year that that? MS. WALKER-I have no idea. They illegally re-routed the runoff from the Mountain so that it went onto our properties. Maybe it has been taken care of, I don’t know, but our garden was totally washed out one year. MR. FORD-Approximately how long ago was that? When did that occur? MS. WALKER-How many years ago, do you know? MR. FORD-Well, has it occurred in the last five years? The last 10 years? MS. WALKER-Behind Mike’s house there is a water issue, as he just told you. MR. FORD-Okay, but how about the issue with your garden? MS. WALKER-We have a big culvert now under our garden so that the water goes through it. I think it can be done beautifully, but I do think that you need to consider water issues. There’s springs. There’s a reservoir. There’s a ravine. I think it can be done well, but I think that those things should be kept, you should keep an eye on those things. So that it doesn’t change the. MR. FORD-Plan for that eventuality. MS. WALKER-Right. MR. FORD-Possibility. MR. O’CONNOR-We have taken in, well, I’ll wait until you. MS. WALKER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Mike, if you look on the Town map, in this area, it shows a pond up on the hill with a stream running into it and running out of it. Now, I don’t know how, it’s hard to picture where the stream outlet is in relation to your. MR. O'CONNOR-If you go way back in history when they built the dam, whatever the dam was called, this was a reservoir that was on this property that fed water over there, and then fed water to a small development that was right at the bend of the river. AUDIENCE MEMBER- (Lost words) they built the dam there, and about 1950, they didn’t want it anymore and they deeded it back to Joslyn family. MR. O'CONNOR-I think they took the dam out of the pond, and they then deeded back their rights to maintain that dam and the easements that went with it to draw water from 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) the site. So I don’t know if that mapping is what’s showing that or not. There is no pond on the property right now. MR. SIPP-No, I don’t think the pond is on the property, because the stream. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. HILTON-If I could just speak, as far as the Town map, the information, the stream information on there is from the USGS and from DEC. I believe it’s an intermittent stream that does flow over a portion of this property. I think that’s what that stream on this map is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Intermittent. MR. O'CONNOR-And we do show that on the map. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess we’re moving towards a tabling motion here. What’s the timetable for the applicant? If we table this until September, is that? MR. O'CONNOR-What filing date would you give us? th MR. HUNSINGER-August 15. MR. O'CONNOR-Is that okay? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We can put it on the first meeting in September, which is September th 18. We did leave the public hearing open. So we will take any additional public comments at that time also. What are we looking for, in terms of? We’d be looking for of course signoff from the engineers, demarcation of a no cut build zone on the plot MR. FORD-Access to the uplands. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the whole conservation easement upland issue. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask a question about that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-If we don’t find a body that’s willing to be a participant or take over some type of ownership, whether it’s a conservation easement or outright ownership, what’s your feeling about deed restrictions enforceable by the Town as well as the individual lot owners? MR. SEGULJIC-I would think that would be another option. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and I can work with George and see what. MR. SIPP-What about taxes? They would be responsible. MR. O’CONNOR-They’d have to pay the taxes. Lot owners have to pay the taxes, which would probably make the Town happier than taking them off the Town rolls, as long as you get the same benefit. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just thought about this. Any consideration of an HOA for this development and having that entity manage that piece that upland piece? MR. O'CONNOR-You mean an HOA? MR. HILTON-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think the HOA is any more effective than the lot owners, to be honest with you, and then you also have the problem of how many lots would you include in the HOA? You’ve got the lower lots, which are probably better than half, that don’t have direct access to that mountain property. An HOA right now, without maintenance, without anything except their governance body and their insurance policy, their tax return and everything else, is costing probably seven, eight thousand dollars, and you’d be spreading it among maybe reasonably ten lots. That’s a lot of money to add to 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) somebody, as opposed to simply saying, here’s a restrictive covenant enforceable by you, your neighbors and the Town, and here’s the monuments on the property that says don’t cut beyond this line. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess it’s just one of the things to look at. MR. O’CONNOR-I have real problems with HOA’s. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember your comments from Board meetings, too. MR. O'CONNOR-And I’m the attorney for about five or six of them. They aren’t good experiences, and maybe you’ve owned property that have had HOA’s, and they aren’t necessarily the best body to govern something. MR. FORD-I’m the President of one. MR. HUNSINGER-We also talked about some minor lot line adjustments, you know, so look at those, and then of course the whole issue with stormwater runoff that the neighbors brought up. MR. NACE-I’ll definitely look into that, and find out what’s going on. MR. HUNSINGER-So those would be the issues for tabling. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as the lot line adjustments, do we have to define them? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I don’t think so. MR. O'CONNOR-So we’re going to cut the corner on Lot 22, and we’re going to try and move the line between Lots Two and Three to give Lot Two a little bit more frontage. MR. SEGULJIC-What was the date again? th MR. HUNSINGER-September 18. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE BUILDERS, K. KENNAH, W. JOSLYN, C. BISHOP, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th To the September 18 meeting. With the following conditions: 1.That information be provided for the demarcation of no cut zones on the plats. 2.A review of conservation or other conservation options be provided. 3.Engineering signoff be obtained. 4.Lot line adjustments as discussed during the meeting be addressed. 5.And a review of stormwater issues be provided. th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. 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 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) 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, summarize Staff Notes, please, when you are ready. MR. HILTON-Really quickly. This has returned since being tabled by the Planning Board. A couple of things have happened. The applicant has submitted revised plans showing the multi-use path stemming along a portion of the Bay Road frontage. The applicant has proposed a stone dust surface for the path instead of blacktop or concrete sidewalks. I guess it’s up to the Board to determine if this is appropriate for the Bay Road frontage. In addition, the applicant has submitted a separate Area Variance application seeking relief from the access requirements for some of the proposed lots. Specifically the lots that will have direct frontage on Walker Lane are proposed to have physical access from a point other than Walker Lane. So that requires an Area Variance. So the applicant has submitted that Area Variance, which is scheduled to be reviewed at a later date. Our comment, Staff’s comment is that the outcome of the review of the Area Variance could potentially impact the design of the subdivision, and SEQRA review as well. I guess our recommendation is that the Planning Board should consider tabling this item prior to conducting SEQRA review and acting on this once the Area Variance application has been acted on. Ideally what would happen in a case like that is we would come back in August and the first meeting the Zoning Board would have a crack at the Area Variance and the second Planning Board you’d be looking at potentially Preliminary and Final on one meeting. So that’s our recommendation and that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, George. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. For the record, Michael Borgos for the applicant, here with Dan Valente from Legacy, and Tom Jarrett as the engineer from Jarrett-Martin. I think George’s review is accurate. I’m not going to bend too much to it and tell you about what we’ve submitted. I think you have all that in your packets. What I do want to talk about, though, is a little bit about the multi-use path. We’ve presented something that we think addresses the concerns raised. We looked at it, and I think in the cover letter that I sent in, I mentioned that when Jarrett-Martin looked at the possibility of doing the multi-use path on the south side of Baybridge Drive Extension, he found that it couldn’t go very far because of the proximity to the wetlands. So we proposed keeping the multi-use path as we had previously submitted and extending it over to Walker Lane, so you can actually have a loop for Walker, we want to make the loop or provide several different points of access to all those people, both within this professional park and in the surrounding neighboring residences and to the north certainly it brings people south along Bay Road and off the road where is that shoulder bike path on both the east and west sides. I’d also like to comment on George’s recommendation from Staff regarding SEQRA. We’d really like to get through SEQRA tonight, and if there is some change that comes about because of a decision at the Zoning Board, we’d think it would be very reasonable to re-open SEQRA with that new evidence of a change, of course we’d have to be re-submitting something to you, but we’d like to knock that off tonight at least, if we could. So that’s my thought on that issue. Does the Board have any questions for us? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. FORD-Has it been determined what that common area walkway, bikeway, what’s that going to be made up of? MR. BORGOS-Our suggestion is that we’re going to make it out of a stone dust, similar to what’s over at the Hovey Pond Park, if you’ve been on that path around the pond. It gives some stormwater retention to it, and it’s more aesthetically pleasing than a macadam or a concrete, and we’d have that, I think we said eight feet in width. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as doing SEQRA tonight, I hate to rain on your parade, but I’m a bit nervous about that. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, before we address that one, how about other questions or comments on the design or plan? 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. FORD-Did we get a yes or a no on the sidewalk along that corridor? How is that going to be addressed? MR. BORGOS-We’re proposing the multi-use path in lieu of a sidewalk, because we think it’s a better fit for this particular application, and the lands in this area, because we could not do a continuous sidewalk all the way along the frontage on Bay Road. It just doesn’t make any sense to do that, but we think it makes good sense to have the multi- use path along there, in conjunction with the other multi-use path that we had previously proposed. So we think that’s better for this site development, and it’s a step in the right direction towards having sidewalks all up along Bay Road, but right now, as we’ve looked up and down, there presently really are virtually none, and we don’t see any of the properties surrounding it being developed in such a way that sidewalks would be installed in the foreseeable future. So we think this is a good way to allow people to stay off Bay Road, where it’s feasible on this property, and to have that walking alternative, and also the added benefit of having the multi-use path through the property, back towards Baybridge and connecting to Walker at the point distant from Bay Road. MR. JARRETT-I think we talked about that last time. MR. BORGOS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-But I couldn’t remember if we made it definitive or not. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we gave it back to the applicant to come back with suggestions which they have. In terms of timing and scheduling, this hasn’t gone before the Zoning Board at all. Is it scheduled for their August meeting, do you know? MR. HILTON-We haven’t had our final agenda meeting, but it is scheduled. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-I would just step back a bit on the multi-use path. I think from Staff’s standpoint, in looking at it, I think it would be a nice amenity to the site, certainly. Picture you’re working there and your lunch break you go out and you’ve got the path. I guess the only thing, in the present state is, for the Board to decide whether the stone dust is appropriate for the Bay Road frontage or not. I personally don’t have an issue because it’s going to be part of the development farther off. A sidewalk is required. This is obviously something in lieu of, as the applicant indicated, and I think it could work, but that’s just a question for you, is the stone dust appropriate out on Bay Road? Like I said, I think it would be a nice amenity and could work for the property, but it’s something for you to decide. MR. HUNSINGER-Personally, I liked it. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think that’s fine. It’s easier on the feet. MR. SIPP-Who would this be maintained by? MR. HUNSINGER-About the only difference is you probably wouldn’t be able to rollerblade on it. MR. JARRETT-Not as easily, you’re right. MR. HUNSINGER-But you could certainly ride a bike on it or walk on it or jog, or push a stroller on it. MRS. BRUNO-Does the Board remember the product that was brought before us maybe two meetings ago? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, the recycled rubber tires? MRS. BRUNO-The recycled rubber. MR. JARRETT-We actually discussed that last meeting. MRS. BRUNO-Did we? Okay. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Did you look at that? MR. JARRETT-We looked at it, and I don’t think it’s cost effective. I don’t think it works in this particular situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-It’s got applications, but I’m not sure it’s here. MR. BORGOS-I think I heard Mr. Sipp ask who’s going to maintain this. There’ll be an association created for several maintenance items, and we would envision them maintaining it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-This stone dust, can that be cleared of snow? MR. JARRETT-It can, but you want to be careful how you plow it. You can’t be very aggressive. It’s like Hovey Pond, you’ve got to be careful what you do with that. It can be cleared. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. HILTON-But to further answer your question, yes the variance is scheduled for August, and ideally we would have, the Area Variance would be the first week. Regardless of what you would be seeking with SEQRA, at the very least a Final subdivision application would be on the second Planning Board meeting for August. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-With potentially the Preliminary, depending on how you act this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-So we would need to complete SEQRA in order to do Preliminary. Oftentimes we also give a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Certainly that would be appropriate in this case as well. MR. JARRETT-We would welcome that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BORGOS-A mandate would be even better, if we could do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, while we’re considering here, I will open the public hearing, and, seeing how there’s no one left in the public to hear the application, Mr. Sears is with the applicant. I will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? MR. BORGOS-Mr. Chairman, if I may just add, part of the urgency for us to request a SEQRA tonight is that we have DEC permits and things like that in the works that we can’t get until we have SEQRA accomplished. So those are some things that we have from a logistical timeframe standpoint that we’d really like to advance, and the Zoning Administrator made this determination just in July. So it’s kind of thrown us off our timetable quite a bit, and we think we can accomplish SEQRA, and then we really believe that the Zoning Board will grant these variances. You never know for sure, ever, but we feel strongly that it’s a good application, and we think you can go through SEQRA, and if there is a change, then we can re-open it. MR. FORD-If we do SEQRA, then the ZBA takes that into consideration as they address any of their issues. It puts pressure on them. MR. BORGOS-Sure. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we heard one member comment. What kind of an action could the Zoning Board take that would cause us to reconsider SEQRA? MR. BORGOS-It would be an action we would take. If they denied our application, we would have to submit something else. MR. JARRETT-If we revised the property, as a result of that, then we would have to re- open SEQRA. MR. BORGOS-And then we’re changing the application. MR. HUNSINGER-You’d have a different plan. MR. BORGOS-That’s right. MR. HILTON-I think I’m thinking primarily of vehicular access. If the, let’s say the Zoning Board doesn’t approve the variance, then those lots on Walker Lane have to have their own access on Walker Lane, and you’re opening up all those curb cuts and you’re considering potential traffic impacts, etc., that you may have looked at differently at the time of SEQRA that maybe you should have waited, but then again there’s the option I guess we could re-visit SEQRA if you have new information. I guess that’s always an option. MR. BORGOS-We have a whole new application that would be on a different submission timeframe, we’d be off until September or October, and, you know, at that point we would understand, obviously, that there would be some built in delays with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, I guess my feeling is, and please correct me if I’m wrong. If we were to consider SEQRA this evening, it would be based on the plan that they have submitted. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. JARRETT-I’d go on record right now, if the plan changes, we’d have to re-open it. MR. HUNSINGER-So if the plan changes, we would certainly have every, we’d have to re-open SEQRA. MR. NOORDSY-Yes. Have the applicant consent to re-opening if the plan changes. What’s your SEQRA status with the ZBA? MR. HUNSINGER-I was wondering that as well. MR. JARRETT-We haven’t been to the ZBA, well, we were there, but we withdrew the application. It’s a different application. MRS. BRUNO-They could potentially, if we didn’t do anything with it tonight, they could potentially pick it up and do a SEQRA review at their meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we could do a SEQRA review and do Preliminary approval, conditioned upon ZBA approval. Does that tie the ZBA’s hands too much? MR. NOORDSY-I don’t think it ties their hands. I mean, they’re looking at a different issue. You’re looking at site plan review and they’re looking at a variance from area requirements. MR. HILTON-I can certainly say that it’s not a coordinated review. MR. NOORDSY-Your DEC permits, it’s uncoordinated. We don’t have to have a coordinated SEQRA review. MR. JARRETT-Correct. It would be uncoordinated, and interestingly, they told Dan that they were ready to issue the permit, and they won’t do it until we have a SEQRA determination here. MR. NOORDSY-Have they done theirs? MR. JARRETT-I’m presuming they feel they’ve complied with whatever requirements they. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. NOORDSY-But they want to see the Planning Board. DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-I don’t know if you want the history on it. MR. JARRETT-Go ahead. MR. VALENTE-Part of the history of that permit is we actually, we had a permit in place at one time, when I initially came in, somewhere around four years ago with this subdivision. We had a permit from DEC in place. That permit expired. We were just trying to, we had to re-apply just to reinstate it more or less. It’s more a formality than anything else. MR. FORD-Could you reinforce for us please what you’re going before the ZBA next month for? MR. JARRETT-The lots along Walker Lane actually require physical access on Walker Lane, according to the Zoning Ordinance. So we are not proposing physical access onto Walker Lane. We’re proposing access through Baybridge Drive via these common parking lots and common driveways. So technically we need to seek a variance to not put in driveways on Walker Lane, which seems a little ludicrous, but that’s the way the Ordinance reads, especially when the Planning Board specifically asked that we not put in driveways on Walker Lane. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s almost like we created the need for the variance. MR. JARRETT-I started to argue until the language was shown to me, and then I had to shut up, but it just seemed a little crazy. MR. SEGULJIC-So we have to do SEQRA and then do Preliminary and then they have to go to the Zoning Board to get the approval, and then they come back to us. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s one way to do it, yes. Okay. MRS. BRUNO-This is a much better design, though, because it does end up really incorporating, even though those are the front property lines and the rear property, and everything, it really, just by commonsense, is putting the. MR. JARRETT-We think it works very well. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. It’s putting the parking. MR. JARRETT-The building fronts on Walker, but none of the impact on Walker. MRS. BRUNO-And you’ve got your parking lots behind the buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s a much better design. MR. JARRETT-We certainly hope the ZBA agrees. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So what’s the will of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-So the applicant has agreed that if there are any changes, we re-open SEQRA? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Then let’s just move ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Long Form. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. FORD-Maybe. MR. HUNSINGER-It may. MRS. BRUNO-It will be mitigated. MR. HUNSINGER-Mitigated through the stormwater management plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So small to moderate? MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate. MR. SEGULJIC-Everyone agree with that? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The same thing. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re saying small to moderate. Mitigated. MR. HUNSINGER-Mitigated through the stormwater management plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. FORD- No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-Maybe. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Small to moderate, potential large impact, can impact be mitigated by project change? MR. FORD-Well, one of the discussions at our last meeting was the potential for adding a traffic light in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-But that wasn’t because of this project. MR. FORD-Well, it’s a compounding project, right, adding to it, contributing to it? MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the impact, small to moderate? MR. FORD-Addressable. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-Which can be mitigated by a traffic signal in the future. MR. SEGULJIC-So small to moderate with the potential for a traffic signal. Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC--Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-I therefore propose to make a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION NO. 15-2006, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, 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 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion for Preliminary approval? MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t have to put any conditions on it, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it would have to be conditioned, would it be conditioned upon ZBA approval? MR. HILTON-Well, I guess based on the previous comments from Counsel, yes. I mean, you could do that, and it wouldn’t tie their hands. So I think you also discussed a recommendation, potential recommendation to the ZBA as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we should consider the recommendation first. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Too bad we don’t have the language from when we originally suggested it. That was prior to the meeting minutes that I have with me. Because they’ve been here, this is the third time, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we do Preliminary with the condition from the ZBA? MR. HILTON-A Preliminary vote with a condition that says recommendation to the ZBA, that kind of thing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILTON-I don’t know. I guess you could, and I’d defer to Counsel, but it might be cleaner if you had two separate resolutions, one specifically addressing the recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. BORGOS-Because it’s a Preliminary approval, I don’t think it really needs all those conditions, but certainly we don’t object to those. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the only condition would be ZBA. MR. BORGOS-It just seems like the scope of the review is limited right now, to what you have before you. MR. JARRETT-But we don’t object to a condition, if you feel more comfortable. MR. HUNSINGER-We were just discussing a Preliminary approval and if it should include ZBA approval in the Preliminary. We certainly can’t go to Final approval without the ZBA. MR. NOORDSY-You still have to go to Final anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-So we can just do a Preliminary with no conditions, and then make a recommendation to the ZBA. We’ll just do a Preliminary with no conditions. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) MR. FORD-Or we could wait until the ZBA has met and then we could do a, we’ve got to meet again on it anyway. We could do Preliminary and Final the same night, another option. MR. NOORDSY-You could certainly also indicate, you could adopt a resolution to indicate to the ZBA that the no driveways onto Walker was at your request . MR. HUNSINGER-It was, yes. Do you want to do that first? MR. SEGULJIC-The first thing would be to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board to grant the request. Okay. MOTION REGARDING LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD THAT THEY GRANT THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE SEEKING RELIEF FROM ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSAL ALONG WALKER LANE, DRIVEWAYS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: This recommendation is made in response to the Planning Board’s request that the project have no direct access to Walker Lane. th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, Preliminary. Now Preliminary we just make a motion for approval of Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Because we don’t have any conditions at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-What’s the advantage of doing that, as opposed to waiting until the ZBA? It just seems like, having served on the ZBA, I know how sensitive you can get on one of these Boards if they feel that their hands have been tied or if they’ve been forced to make a certain decision. We’ve already made a recommendation, and what’s the advantage of going to Preliminary tonight, as opposed to the next time we meet, doing both Preliminary and Final in the same night? MR. BORGOS-If I may, I think it’s just a milestone. Quite often one of the first questions that we have to answer is what stage are you at with the Planning Board, and it would be, I think, very advantageous for us to progress this application along if we can say we have Preliminary approval. Now we’re here before the Zoning Board for this variance. We’d like to go back, with that variance, and get a Final, but without this variance, we have to go re-design. MR. SEGULJIC-Plus we put them in this box. MR. BORGOS-And we’re kind of caught in between here, and this gets us over that hurdle, and otherwise we’re still straddling it. MR. JARRETT-I might agree with your argument, except, if you’ll recall, the ZBA rejected one of our other layouts and forced us back to this one. So they really kind of owe us something. We’ll see. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2006 LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/24/07) NOES: Mr. Ford ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Thanks for your patience. Good luck. Any other business before the Board? If not, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 24, 2007, Introduced by Donald Sipp who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 77