Loading...
2007-09-18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 INDEX Subdivision No. 1-2007 Cerrone Builders 1. Tax Map No. 315.5-1-1, 315-1-1, 315-1-4 Site Plan No. 7-2007 Jolley Associates c/o Sean Crumb 2. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-98 Site Plan 35-2000 Bay Ridge Fire Co. 17. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 278.20-1-10 Site Plan No. 4-2007 David & Marylou Dutra 23. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-33 Freshwater Wetlands Permit Robert Reid 29. No. 2-2007 Tax Map No. 297.6-1-6.1 Site Plan No. 17-2004 Adirondack Sports Complex 41. MODIFICATION & Tax Map No. 309.5-1-3.11 RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No. 8-2007 Sherwood Acres Construction Corp. 61. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 289.11-1-59.1, 30 Site Plan No. 46-2007 J & D Marina 66. DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY Tax Map No.240.5-1-31.2 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 09/18/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN THOMAS SEGULJIC TANYA BRUNO STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT GRETCHEN STEFFAN SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY th MR. HUNSINGER-The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from July 17, thth July 11, and July 24. I know, Mr. Ford, you had a correction. MR. FORD-Yes. On Page 8 of the minutes of 7/11/07, I’d like to make a correction. It should read a vote in the affirmative, then, accepts those conditions and in essence approves the project for initiation, and then my next quote, and a vote in the negative is a vote to perfect the appeal, as opposed to the, I guess I need to articulate more carefully. APPROVALOF MINUTES July 11, 2007: Page 8, Thomas Ford’s quote MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CORRECTIONS QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007, JULY 17, & JULY 24, 2007, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE BUILDERS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Their project was tabled to this evening. They didn’t submit required information, and I’m looking for a motion to table this until, it would be the November th meeting. Let me give you a date. The first meeting in November is November 20. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: To the November 20, 2007 Planning Board meeting for lack of submission of materials. th Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan th MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing on that will remain open until the 20 of November. 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 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, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, could you summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-The Staff Notes were minimal and limited to a description of the revised information provided and where to find it in the submittal. There some more substantive comments by the Consulting Engineer for the Town, however. MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, good evening. MR. BAKER-I should note, I guess I had one substantive, actually two substantive comments, really. Their cover letter indicated that they were proposing two street trees along Aviation Road. The plan submitted only showed one, and they also stated in their cover letter that a monument sign would be provided but no details or design of such was submitted. MR. GILLESPIE-That I have here for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else, Stu? MR. BAKER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The floor is yours. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. GILLESPIE-Good evening. Jim Gillespie from Bohler Engineering. I believe that’s true. We have addressed the bulk of the comments. We got some clarification from the Town Fire Marshal as far as the 12 foot access drive. What we have here is acceptable and to Code. The two street trees, we had added, again, we have very limited green space along Aviation Road. We had one here. We’ve added one here. I guess we were kind of counting that as part of the Aviation Road street frontage. We could certainly move that down a little bit and keep it in line with this, as long as we don’t interfere with sight distance, but that was the intent was to add that one kind of in a nice, we had a nice island here. It seemed to fit there pretty nice. Again, the lighting plan has been revised to an acceptable level. The parking calc had been revised as requested, and Vision Engineering comments have all been addressed. He had a couple of additional comments. I spoke with him yesterday, went over our explanation and a response, and he was very much satisfied with that, as long as we put that in writing, and forward it to the Town. We’ll have all outstanding engineering comments addressed, and then as far as the Planning Board comments, I believe we have submitted some colored renderings, or have some available, and details of the sign, and then additionally we had submitted some accident history data which Wendy Cimino from Creighton Manning is here to discuss, and that’s basically it for the Site Plan changes. SEAN CRUMB MR. CRUMB-Sean Crumb with Jolley Associates. I have just passed out the rendering of the monument sign. Mr. Sipp had requested a monument rendering for that, and I hope you find that to your liking, as well as revised elevations of the building, because we had discussed in the past that you didn’t like the illuminated green fascia around the door. So I went ahead and revised those so that you had those formally. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. BAKER-Do you have a copy of the monument sign design and the revised profile for the Staff as well? MR. CRUMB-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Is this any different than the, I mean I have two copies that are both st dated August 1. Are they the same? MR. CRUMB-They should be. I wasn’t sure if I updated you to those. MR. BAKER-Thank you. MR. CRUMB-If you have another drawing it would be very similar, other than we’ve replaced the green door fascia with brick. So, it’s likely, it’s obviously very similar. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks the same, yes. Anything else to add? MR. CRUMB-Well, I think that the issue of the Aviation Road right in/right out, we’d like to discuss further. There had been discussion at the last meeting that you wanted to see an exit only onto Aviation, and we really feel strongly that we should be allowed to at least retain the right in with the right out. I took some time this afternoon and drove around the Town of Queensbury in looking at other sites, and noticed that there’s many, I won’t say many, but there’s several sites around Town that have very similar characteristics as far as the entrance and exits near an intersection, and our one issue that we have with that is that you’re forcing all the traffic, if you remove that right in, forcing all the traffic onto Burke Road, and then forcing them to make an unnecessary movement to the left into the site, where I noticed, particularly over on Aviation Road this afternoon, at the Hess location, it has similar characteristics to ours. There’s a side road access as well as a full access off of Aviation. Now with a full access off of Aviation, you drive directly into their pumps. There is absolutely limited setback, just barely enough room for two cars to pass without having someone coming in and making a move and having to swing wide to turn. If there’s someone at the pump, you’ve got a problem, if they want to turn to the right, where, the other issue with that, I noticed this afternoon, and I gather that it would be more of an issue in the morning, is with traffic exiting off of that side road, it backs up to the point of the entrance on the side road. So theoretically you could have a stacking effect of cars that are exiting Burke Road, whether they’re turning right, turning left, and if there happens to be an overabundance of traffic and there’s a long wait, you wind up, if anybody’s turning onto Burke, and then they’re having to wait to turn left into the site, you may have a chance of a stacking effect back out onto Aviation Road as well, where I think that if we can alleviate some of that traffic, to have a right turn motion into the site, if you note the plan, we have 47 feet from the line here of basically the edge of the green space to the forward pump. That’s 47 feet directly along this line, where people can maneuver in and make their way. The bulk of the traffic, we feel, is going to be a right to left movement, with traffic able to enter here as well as here, and whether they come into the pumps or they circle around to the store, or come in and utilize the drive thru or come right around and out, there’s adequate movement space to allow, that was one concern was the traffic turning onto the site and conflicting with traffic here. I don’t foresee that problem, particularly looking at other sites around Town, and as far as traffic coming down Aviation Road and signaling their intent to turn in, we have an existing situation now where they’re doing that, and I don’t believe that the accidents have been anything significant, and I’ll let Wendy comment on that. WENDY CIMINO MS. CIMINO-Good evening. Wendy Cimino, Creighton Manning Engineering. Basically th I was just going to go over, I had submitted a letter dated August 24 that summarizes the accidents, and again goes over some of the same issues that Sean was just talking about regarding the right turn entrance, and basically the accident analysis, we looked specifically at the Burke Drive intersection, the segment itself on Aviation Road between the two study, our intersections, and then the Exit 19 southbound ramps, and, you know, basically there wasn’t a lot of accidents. There were only four in a three year period at the Burke Drive intersection, which equates to almost one a year. That’s a reportable accident that was recorded, which, you know, is low for an intersection. The segment itself had five accidents, and the Exit 19 intersection had six, and most of them were really do to, they were rear end, on Aviation Road, like in front of the site they were more rear end accidents due to slowed or stopped vehicles right on Aviation Road. I did not find any accidents that had, you know, a north or southbound vehicle. They were eastbound vehicles that seemed to just, you know, the slowing, which we did acknowledge there is queuing there. We had said that, and it’s just people bumping into 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) someone else’s bumper. So we’re not finding any accident history due to that access as it is now, which is a full access, and again, one of the statements that was brought up last time I think was that it wasn’t felt that that right turn movement would be used, that people would tend to use Burke Drive, and if you look at the existing volumes in our study, where we actually counted that, those movements, that right turn movement is actually, you know, used in the morning peak, when there’s more cars entering, which makes sense, there’s more cars coming from east bound direction, people probably heading to the Northway that stop in at the facility before they head on to work. There’s actually 13 cars that take the right in right off of Aviation, versus four that take a left in off of Burke. So it’s showing that that actual movement is actually utilized, and the history shows there’s not an accident problem due to that, and again, like I said last time, it’s a free flow movement, having a right turn movement into a site, the internal flowing is better having two points, and, you know, again, just in general, I know everybody here drives and goes through a gas station, and there’s probably very few gas stations that you probably go to that has limited access in and out of, and they all tend to, the marketing of most gas station/convenience markets are at cross roads, at intersections, and, you know, many times they are actually full access on both sides, both roads, including a main access, and I know it’s in this Town and in other towns, and, you know, one of the things we’re actually acknowledging is that with the left turn lane in to Burke Drive, right on Aviation, that it actually would help if we didn’t have the left movement in and the left movement out. So we feel like we’re cleaning that situation up and creating a better access, but we really don’t want to give up more than we’re already willing to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. GILLESPIE-One other comment, and I think you’ll find it in your notes, was a letter from the Department of Transportation, that they were approving of that curb cut design. So I’m just hopeful that the thoughts from our traffic engineer, as well as Department of Transportation, will help weigh your decision on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for comments and questions from the Board. MR. TRAVER-I had two questions. First regarding the sign. It says eight foot six by twelve. Is that the, for example, the eight foot six, is that the height with the foundation? MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. The other question I had is regarding the accident report. In the th first bulleted area on your letter of the 24, you speak about four accidents at the intersection during the last three years of available data. Can you tell us what data that would be out there that was unavailable to you from this report? MS. CIMINO-What I mean by that, by available, is the New York State DOT compiles all the data from DMV and the local agencies, the State, the County, Sheriff’s, everybody, they compile that information, and the available data is not necessarily 2007 data. It’s usually lagging, but if you look, the data’s from 2001 to 2003. So what I meant by available is time period not lacking information. It’s actually lacking, you know, a closer time period to what it is, because it just takes them so much time to compile. MR. FORD-So it’s a number of years old. MS. CIMINO-It is, but that’s the latest information that compiles all the sources, you know, any Sheriff’s, State police, local. MR. FORD-But you didn’t single out Sheriff’s report, the fire company responses, or sheriff’s and troopers combined. MS. CIMINO-Right. It’s not, it’s not separated, the information we get from the State compiles the information from all the agencies. MR. FORD-I understand that, but I asked you, did you secure any additional information from those sources? MS. CIMINO-No, because that is all supposed to be in the compiled data from, years ago, we used to have to contact all the different agencies separately and do that ourselves, and New York State DOT now actually compiles, because now if you have a, even on a local road, not even anywhere near a State highway, New York State DOT actually has data from all those sources. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. FORD-The last time I requested that, they were eight years behind in submitting that to the computers. They now have upgraded that to how many years? MS. CIMINO-Yes. The latest data that’s computerized, because don’t forget they’re doing it for every intersection, you know, in the whole State. So it takes some time to keep up, is January of 2001 through December of 2003, and I guess regardless of, you know, this roadway and this gas station, the Burke Drive, those have all been there for years. So the purpose of looking at accident data is to compile any data on like prevalent accident types, which, you know, the roadway system is the same. So those issues that would be from a driveway or from a curve in the road or something non- standard would be shown, you know, if it was a condition of the roadway, it would be shown in history, you know, it wouldn’t have to happen in 2007. It would be there from previous years as well. MR. FORD-Well, except perhaps in the last four years there’s been an increase in volume, and therefore the potential for an increase in accidents. Wouldn’t you say that volume would have some impact on frequency of accidents? MS. CIMINO-It could potentially, but if you look at the number of accidents and if we look at the growth rate that’s out there, there’s not a substantial amount of growth. It’s, you know, a couple of percent per year. So if you look at the change in the volume and the fact that there’s like an average of one or two accidents per year, I’m not seeing that, you know, this year versus last would have a substantial change in the data. MR. FORD-Would it not be the desire of the company to increase the volume of flow, as we look at Dunkin Donuts, Subways, use of Speed Pass, access to this number of pumps and so forth? Don’t you anticipate, isn’t that your desire to increase the volume of traffic in that area? MS. CIMINO-I think our analysis shows that the site as newly developed would actually attract more traffic, and we account for that in our analysis. MR. TRAVER-So, just to clarify, what you’re representing to us is that your information that you’re describing as available data would include all reported incidents that would involve all of the agencies that Tom spoke about. MS. CIMINO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Except that it’s the last reported period, which is the 2001 through 2003 period that you’re talking about? MS. CIMINO-Right, which basically means that’s the farthest that the State has with compiled data for that segment of road for all those, you know, for a three year full period. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the only thing that might not be represented would be something unreported. For example, if someone has a minor property damage accident and they say well, let’s not, you know, report it or whatever, obviously that’s not going to be in the information, but all of the other statistical information regarding accidents regarding accidents, to the best of your knowledge, would be included in there. MS. CIMINO-Correct. I mean, there is a listing under reported accidents that are called non-reportable, which basically means nobody’s injured and there’s less than $1,000 worth of damage, which basically means that you’ve called the police and there’s that formal report, just for the record, but it’s considered non-reportable because it’s minor enough that it’s really not, you know, that’s the definition, I guess, less than $1,000 worth of damage, and no, you know, like a lot of these, you know, the fender benders, the rear end bumper when they’re traveling slow and stops traffic. You’re not really going to have damage but people call for protection for themselves, to have it on the record. MR. TRAVER-Now, regarding the information, I’m projecting these figures forward. Granted we don’t have the actual information, but are there estimates about the traffic trends in that area that might be available, so that we could say, for example, if there are X number of 1,000 vehicles traveling through that intersection, that resulted in this statistical information and this number of accidents, would it be possible to then project forward and say, if in fact there’s been a three percent increase, ten percent increase, whatever, that that would bring these numbers in line with, we could at least estimate what more recent figures would be, even though they’re not officially reported. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MS. CIMINO-I mean, it’s hard to say. There are some statistics that we use, but more of those statistics are used, per se, like say we’re removing a left turn movements in and out of a site, like what would be the benefit of that, like what would be the reduction in accidents, more so than what’s the increase in accidents. MR. TRAVER-But that’s exactly the type of thing that we’re considering here, because we’re debating whether we want to have the right in/right out. So that kind of information is relevant, even if it’s not precise, perhaps, since 2003, it would be very useful, particularly if the information would trend significantly upward, that we have that information. MS. CIMINO-Right, and I think what we’re showing is that there aren’t any trends that are really, what we call prevalent accident types that are due to like say an intersection, you know, adding, like we can’t say that adding volume to an intersection, that right now we’re showing has no accident history, you know, how are we going to increase something that we’re saying doesn’t really exist? Right now we’re saying that there’s some fender benders. There’s some rear end accidents for vehicles slowed in front of the site, and it’s relatively low. So when we look at that type of information that you’re talking about, it’s more when there’s an issue, like what are we going to do, because obviously the volume’s increasing. I mean, this methodology is what we would use for a State highway project as well. I mean, this is the accepted practice and, you know, what we would do, and again, in the opposite we could say that right now we’re taking an intersection and we’re removing movements from it on a main road, and we feel that’s actually providing a better situation, and we’re already showing that we don’t feel there’s an accident problem. MR. TRAVER-I understand, and I understand that that’s your area of expertise. However, I’m looking at this and I’m seeing, for example, that the, a number of these incidents are things like driver inattention and somebody getting rear ended or whatever. Now, just from my own personal experience, driving on the Northway, I know that generally those things seem to increase, and I don’t have any statistics to back that up, but it’s my observation, or my assertion that these things do increase with the traffic volume. So if we have X number of incidents with a 2001 to 2003 volume, if there has been, and I don’t know that there has been, but if there is a significant increase in volume in this area, you’re going to have, it seems to me, logically, to assume that there are going to be more rear-ending accidents, more driver inattention, just logically because you have more exposure, more vehicles. Does that not follow? MS. CIMINO-Yes, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think that, our analysis shows that we’re not impacting the traffic conditions substantially, that a lot of the traffic, there is already an existing gas station at this facility. Yes, we’re increasing, we’re making a better facility, we’re providing more to the people, so, yes, we’re acknowledging there’s going to be more traffic, but the analysis we show, as far as the traffic impact, is that there’s little increase in the actual vehicle delay, and a lot of the traffic that comes to and from gas stations similar to this are people that are already there, and those general increases are included in our traffic analysis as well. So I understand what you’re saying, but, you know, and I’m not saying that if you add more cars there might be a few m ore accidents, but what I’m saying is that relative to this project, and what we’re seeing, there’s not an accident issue. There’s not a lot of accidents, and, you know, an accident is an accident. So if it’s not related to, you know, a roadway condition and geometry, sight distance or something like that. MR. TRAVER-So you’re saying then if there’s twice as much traffic, there might be twice as many fender benders, but this project isn’t contributing to it, it’s just driver inattention as recorded in the report? MS. CIMINO-Yes, but we’re saying the design of this intersection, the intersection, which is the right in/right out, is not, that intersection is not, based on the historical data, that intersection is not showing the concerns, some of the concerns that the Board has about that right in movement, and even right now as a full access with left in and left out, if we saw accident data that showed six, seven, eight, nine, ten accidents with a right angle accident from a left turning movement and a through movement, then, you know, we’re not even seeing that and we’re already saying we want to take that movement out because we feel that it would be better for the site, but those are situations where we would say, look, we’re seeing that there’s something here that this intersection might be contributing to this, and we’re actually saying we want to remove that left turn and we’re not even seeing that there’s an issue there. So I guess if we see that there’s a problem, we would actually address it, but here we’re not seeing that trend, and the volumes on Aviation Road have been, the historical data we use say either one or two percent that 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) the volume is generally increasing was the same that that’s a pretty generic, like a pretty general happens kind of pretty much on most roadways in the Capital District, and the Adirondacks. Most studies we do, we look at the historical data and it’s pretty common to have an increase in general background traffic from one to two percent. So that same growth in traffic occurred from 2001 to 2002 and 2002 to ’03. So there was growth that was considered in this analysis as well. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. MR. CRUMB-But if I may interject something about that. The store, as it exists, currently pumps about a million, two million, three gallons of gasoline currently with four fueling positions, per year, and due to the location on Aviation Road and its proximity to the Northway, I don’t anticipate that that’s going to now become a destination for someone that would normally say utilize the Dunkin Donuts over on Route 9 or the USA Gas over on Route 9. We anticipate that the increased volume within the store will be pass by traffic, and/or transient traffic off of the Northway That’s currently utilizing this site. Certainly when you come off of the Northway we have signage on the Northway advertising our services, as well as the other competitors in the area. So I don’t foresee that to increase someone’s thought that they’re going to now, that it’s now going to be a destination for someone to leave the mall and go, you know, I’m going to go over to this place. I anticipate that it’s going to be pass by traffic and/or transients that would otherwise normally trade with us. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. FORD-I appreciate your diligence in getting this traffic analysis and this report. I must share with you my concern that it is data that is four to five years old, and there was no effort made to secure data from those sources that I mentioned earlier, and they keep pretty accurate records prior to filing with DOT. MR. CRUMB-Wendy’s report stated that it was, on average, it was a single accident per year around the site, and just using rough numbers, if the traffic were to increase 50%, on average, how much would the percentage be that those accidents would increase? I’m not sure that the number is so great. I think that we’re still very, very minimal. MR. FORD-I don’t mean to argue semantics, but we’re addressing two separate issues. Mine is that the data supplied was not secured in a timely fashion from those responsible for collecting information and responding to accidents within the last one, two, three, four years. MR. CRUMB-Would you prefer that we went back and discussed with the local sheriff’s, the local police department, the local fire department, their thoughts and their numbers on responses to that particular intersection. MR. FORD-Personally, yes, but that’s a Board decision, and I thought that it was going to be, there would be current data provided for us, and I find that this is not particularly timely. MS. CIMINO-Just so you know, part of the reason why. MR. FORD-I know the reason why, DOT is that many years behind in computerizing. MS. CIMINO-No, it’s not that. I’m talking about the process of going to all those different agencies is actually very time consuming because we do do it, we have a lot of accident requests, and if you look if you look at all the other studies, and it was actually, the mechanism to do it and have DOT actually take over the system was actually a decision made because, to have more accurate data because it’s all compiled into one place, and to actually, because a lot of the entities don’t have. MR. FORD-I fully understand. That doesn’t address my concern, though. MS. CIMINO-Right, but a lot of the agencies don’t have the files that actually have everything in the order that they can actually hand it to you and therefore this actually provides better data, and the purpose of it is to find trends, and the trends are pretty consistent. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. FORD-Better is relative, but I know the data are there. I’ve secured them personally from each of those sources, and they’re more relevant and more current. So that’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I have a comment on the landscaping. That deals with the landscaping on the left side of the site. You have all the nice landscaping coming down from the south towards the north, but you didn’t put landscaping continuing down along. MR. CRUMB-Yes. It’s just insufficient state to put trees in there. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if I’m correct, isn’t that area off to the left open space anyway? MR. CRUMB-But it’s off our property. MR. SEGULJIC-But if you were to kick it out, that curb out a couple of feet, wouldn’t you have enough room for landscaping? MR. CRUMB-Kick this curb? MR. SEGULJIC-Out. MR. FORD-To the west. MR. SEGULJIC-Because one of the things is, you know, personally, I don’t want to, you know, when you’re getting on the highway and getting off the highway you look right there and you see a huge gas station. I’d rather see that screened out, and the other thing is, and I need some direction from Staff, because one of the things it says in the Code is that a landscape strip shall be provided adjacent to all public and private streets, and I’m not sure, the entrance way would be considered a private street, I would assume. The question is, is that, what’s the story with that right of way? I guess, does the requirement under 179-8-040B(1) apply to this section? Because it says you have to have landscaping along all private and public streets. MR. BAKER-Yes, it would. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the Code says you should have trees continue along down there, as I understand it. MR. CRUMB-This is not considered a frontage, correct? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess that’s what we’re discussing. MR. GILLESPIE-We had a meeting with Staff to clarify that this is not a (lost word). MR. CRUMB-We had discussed in the last meeting regarding the screening along there, and I personally came away with a feeling that that was adequate both from the County level, we had sat down with the County and discussed it with them, as well as it had been brought up several times here. We’ve done our best to provide some additional screening from what’s there now. We would like to have some visibility. I agree with you. We’re not having any illumination on the fascia of the canopy. We have low light levels, and we don’t have your typical gas station type look. We had hoped to have some visibility from the surrounding area. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you’d still have some visibility between the trees, but it’s not screened right there. MR. CRUMB-Well, if we come directly up to Aviation Road we won’t. MR. SEGULJIC-But you’ll still be able to see a space between the trees, and also once you have a sign on the Northway indicating the presence of a Mobil station off this exit. MR. CRUMB-It’s there, but we would still like to see some visibility. MR. SEGULJIC-And most people that drive by there are your typical commuters, so they’ll be very aware of a station being there. MR. CRUMB-The day to day, yes. The transients possibly no. I personally came away from our last meeting that we were pretty well set with the comfort level of the screening 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) of the site. I don’t recall too many arguments about it, other than the additional street trees that you had requested along Aviation Road and quite honestly we’d addressed that and were willing to add those provided visibility allows for that. MR. HUNSINGER-What are other members thoughts on screening on the screening on that side? MR. SIPP-Those were some of my thoughts, too, that a low growing hedge, evergreen hedge through there would not take up that much space, and yet give you the screen. So if you put in something like rhododendron or. MR. CRUMB-I think that something like that is certainly adequate. My argument, again, against taller trees is visibility. I think, you know, we like to add landscaping wherever it’s appropriate and the right setting and the right size of plantings. MR. SIPP-Yes, but I think you can put in a low growing evergreen in that space that wouldn’t take up any road space to speak of, and yet give you, somebody in a car coming up off of the Northway could not see just an open space. They’d see your building and they’d see your sign. MR. CRUMB-I would be agreeable to something of that nature. It’s the, you know, the taller street trees or a row of 10 foot arborvitae I would be concerned about. I think that something maybe waist high, or two to three feet would be adequate, and we could likely work with the landscape architect to put something in there. MR. FORD-Again, the width of that green strip down through there is approximately what? MR. GILLESPIE-Three or four feet. MR. FORD-In width. So that’s certainly ample to put what Don is talking about. MR. CRUMB-I think the proper planting in that position would be fine. I’m not averse to that. MR. SIPP-All right. The sign, is it lighted? MR. CRUMB-Yes, it is. MR. SIPP-And the lights are in the base of the? MR. CRUMB-Currently the way that is, it is internally illuminated. MR. SIPP-Internally. The rendering gives it as a gray stone. I thought we decided on the brown brick? MR. CRUMB-It would be brown brick. Unfortunately just my sign builder didn’t quite get that right, but we would certainly make that brick to match the building. MR. SIPP-Demolition. If you were going ahead with the demolition, what’s your time span? MR. CRUMB-At this point in time, with the projects that we have underway now, I would say probably springtime. We do have some time constraints, so to speak, with Mobil, where we are required by the purchase of that property that we have to replace all the underground lines and we’re really at their mercy as far as the timing with that, and obviously with the degree of this project, all of that was to be disturbed anyway. So we’re trying to coordinate that as best we can. So my timeframe right now is likely Spring, to get that underway, somewhere around 100 days, I would think. MR. SIPP-Do you have to replace the tanks? MR. CRUMB-No. The tanks are up to, I’m not sure the date of them, but they’re fairly current. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. CRUMB-I would say, I want to say within five years, and they do, have passed all the inspections and so forth, and still meet Code. So basically they’ll just be uncovered 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) and then all the new underground lines to the dispensers will be replaced and the electrical and so forth. MR. SIPP-So you would be almost up and running by next summer? MR. CRUMB-I would hope so. MR. SIPP-That’s all I’ve got. MR. SEGULJIC-Any comments from Staff with regards to the landscaping, as far as the requirement, would it be subject to that requirement? MR. BAKER-As far as the landscaping requirement? No. I agree with your interpretation of the Code. MR. SEGULJIC-So what we’re saying is that, actually have to have a 10 foot wide strip, if I’m reading that correctly. MR. GILLESPIE-That’s along a front yard. This is a rear yard setback. MR. BAKER-Well, it says a landscape strip shall be provided adjacent to all public and private streets. The landscape strip shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide (lost word) with the street right of way. MR. SEGULJIC-But it says one shade tree shall be provided every 250 square feet. MR. BAKER-That’s 250 linear feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Linear feet, sorry. So that’s less than 250 linear feet, then. So it would apply, but it looks like their design (lost words). MR. BAKER-I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the last part. MR. SEGULJIC-If it’s 250 linear feet, it looks like their design meets it, then, because that space there is in the order of 80 feet, or something like that. MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. CRUMB-You’re satisfied with the landscaping? MR. SEGULJIC-Other than what Mr. Sipp had brought up, some type of low evergreen or rhododendron. MR. CRUMB-I have no argument with that. I think the thing for us to do is to discuss with the landscape architect what would be the appropriate planting for there, and, you know, include that. I’m not sure what the appropriate planting is, you know, with that three feet, three feet I think that that can easily be taken care of. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Get something rugged because a snowplow. MR. CRUMB-Well, I anticipate a majority of the snow is going to go right to the rear. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? MRS. BRUNO-I have just two quick ones. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MRS. BRUNO-Typically do your companies hire out the landscaping upkeep? MR. CRUMB-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay, and just a curiosity question. In looking through all of your data, or actually just from your own experience in working, I’m sure that you’ve looked at traffic patterns near schools before. I happened to drive through that area one day when the 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) kids were just getting out, and right before that intersection, traveling east, so it would be, you know, across from Burke Road, there were two crossing guards, one on each side, but there was no crosswalk. Is that something that you’ve seen as a common practice or is Queensbury just trying to gap stop, stop gap something? MS. CIMINO-You mean not having a crosswalk with the? MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I thought that was odd. MS. CIMINO-Yes. It might be because it’s a main road and they don’t want to encourage people to cross there if there’s not a crossing guard there. So that might be the reason. I mean, I don’t think the, my opinion is, I mean, I guess, we did count that, you know, as part of our study we observed that. We counted how many students walked and everything, and regardless of if there’s a crosswalk or not, my guess would be that it would be because of, you know, if there’s not protection there, they really don’t want to put a crosswalk and encourage people to cross it if there’s no protection across that main roadway especially. MRS. BRUNO-Right. Just a point of interest. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Tom? MR. FORD-Just a point, because we’ve met before, and I compliment you on the research that you do, and looking at other sites in our community, but I do want to make the point that this Board reserves the right to constantly be improving sites and improving appearance in our Town, and I hope you appreciate that, and you do due diligence as you go around and check, but some of the things that we have approved, if they were before us tonight, rest assured there would be modifications that we had not required that would be required, and that’s a part of our growth pattern and what I hope we continue to do is within our Code continue to raise the bar. MR. CRUMB-And I do appreciate your comments and your looking out for your community and trying to make it a better place, and my last comment on this, and I think that we are also trying to make that particular site a better place, and in view of what’s currently there, particularly for the traffic access at this point of conversation. I really feel strongly that the right in is an additional improvement to that site, because it does alleviate that left turn in, takes it entirely out of play. We do show an island in there, so that it’s clear that it’s not a left turn in, and as well as I feel strongly, again, about the left turn off of Burke Road and the stacking effect that it potentially could create if you have vehicles stacked out to the point of Aviation Road and maybe somebody’s rear end sticking there where they could have passed through the intersection and smoothly and easily pulled into the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening that was th left open from July 24. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? If you could identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, 7 Wincrest Drive, Queensbury. I don’t know if it’s been shared with you, but we’ve been working on an Aviation Road traffic corridor study. Has that been shared with you? MR. HUNSINGER-We knew there was a study, but the results have not been shared, no. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, the whole length of Aviation Road from Exit 19 to West Mountain Road was the scope of the study, and all the intersections involved with that corridor. One of the first corridors that we looked at is this Manor Drive/Mobil, and then you had the on and off ramps from the Northway, Interstate 87, and you have the ingress and egress from the School, all in the same approximate area, and it was a problematic intersection, and it was identified as problematic. So, usually that intersection, and we’ve had several meetings, initiates our discussion, merely because it’s the first problematic intersection from Exit 19 on the Aviation Road corridor. The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council, in conjunction with the Town, in conjunction with the School, has been working on this study. All right. Like I said, and, Stu, I think you’ve been at some of the meetings. This intersection was identified as somewhat problematic. I didn’t say a disaster, somewhat problematic. They looked at re-routing Burke Drive. They’re looking 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) at a right hand only out of Burke Drive, because there is a higher than usual accident rate here, but nothing tremendously serious. Most of the accidents tend to be, you know, fender benders. There was some relief expressed on behalf of some of the traffic experts at these meetings that the Planning Board was considering closing the Aviation Road curb cut to the proposed Mobil application, and that traffic would be directed to Burke Drive. Now, was that written I concrete? No. That was almost a sigh of relief thinking that might make things better because of the Mobil Station’s proximity to the on and off ramp of the Northway and its proximity across from the ingress and egress of a school and it’s approximate location from Burke Drive. It’s not a well laid out plan. Historically it’s just kind of happened. It’s less than ideal. So, you know, I’m not saying one thing in favor or against the application. I basically was wondering if that information was shared with you, and if not, it should have been. Because, you know, it’s a traffic study that’s coming from a neutral party, and as you know, we can make traffic studies whatever we want to make them, as one famous attorney said, locally famous. All right. In any event, I just thought you should be aware. Aaron Frankenfeld of the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council can help you with that, and I’m sure Stu could give you some of that information, too, if you need it and want it. MRS. BRUNO-Will that be formally written up and given out? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Right now it’s at the stage where we are ready to go from conceptual to drawing up a draft that would be presented to the public on what we want to do with the corridor, and many things are being proposed, okay, and not much is being proposed for this particular intersection, although it’s been identified as somewhat problematic. So I don’t want to make a big issue out of this. MR. HUNSINGER-So if this applicant eliminates left hand turns in and out of his site, that improves that intersection. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what my thinking is. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. STROUGH-I mean, it’s not as good as eliminating the curb cut, but, and I’m just a layman like you are. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. STROUGH-To me, it sounds like an improvement. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-But, you know, I just thought you should know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. I don’t know if you had any thoughts or comments based on the discussion? MS. CIMINO-Yes. Basically, in my project process, I did talk with Aaron Frankenfeld. I did talk with the School. We talked to Warren County. I mean, I have pictures in here that are out of the Aviation Road Corridor Study. The one piece of information that was available at that time was the closing of the School driveway that’s right across the street from Burke Road, kitty corner, that that was what identified that, you know, the information was that there was no widening proposed. There was nothing to be mentioned about Burke Drive itself. So, you know, it was something that we definitely accounted for, we looked into and used the available information. If I could just bring up one other point about the accidents. I did go back through my information that I have from the State, and they do actually give later information. The thing is they don’t guarantee that it’s 100%. So if I look, I do have data from January of ’04 through March of ’07. So it’s like a year and three months of data, and it does show there’s like five accidents on that stretch of road, where I recorded four. They’re all of similar types, rear ends. I think there’s one that does show a northbound vehicle that potentially could be from, you know, a driveway. MR. TRAVER-Those are projections, right? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MS. CIMINO-No. This is actual data that is from the DOT, the same format of the data that I recorded. The difference is it says that it could be incomplete, meaning that it might not, everything could have been recorded. MR. FORD-They probably are a partial data. MS. CIMINO-Potentially, but I don’t think, I mean, based on the history here, and like saying that there’s five versus four for the next, and it’s a year and three months worth of data. I wouldn’t foresee that there would be like a whole bunch of additional accidents that all of a sudden are happening in this area. I don’t think that that’s going to happen, but the reason why I didn’t use that later data was because I wanted to be sure that I was looking at a complete set, but there is some data that’s showing pretty much similar types of accidents and, you know, four versus five, I wouldn’t think that, if there was additional, they might be a very minimal amount. MR. FORD-Not to prolong this, but John brought up an interesting point that I would like to have the applicant address, and that is the potential for making the curb cut to this facility exclusively on Burke Drive. MR. CRUMB-My only answer to that, at this point, is I’d rather not see that. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that causes way more problems than it solve, personally. MR. GILLESPIE-I agree. I think you’re forcing all of that traffic onto Burke, and then again you’re forcing a left turn movement, whereas you have an existing condition that does work now, however, it may malfunction somewhat, but now with the proposed changes, we’re clearly identifying the traffic pattern in and out of that Aviation Road curb cut. It’s strictly right in and strictly right out. There’s no forced movements, haphazardly, across traffic anymore. It is right in, right out, and we certainly would be, you know, willing to add signage to that effect within that island, and even, you know, go so far as to extend that island somewhat into the property. However, I don’t think that it would solve any Aviation Road traffic issues, but it would clearly identify it to be right in and right out. MR. FORD-You’ve had a month or so to address the question that I posed last time, and that is for the west bound traffic on Aviation, seeing an east bound car with a right directional signal on, have you given anymore thought to that, as to how to interpret that? MR. GILLESPIE-Well, I have, and I think it happens every day, whether it be at our location traveling up Route 9 and someone has their right turn signal on from Lake George all the way through Queensbury that they didn’t know was on, as well as we’re dealing with an existing intersection that I think that we all agree is commuter traffic past the site that are fairly aware of the situation going on there, and have yielded the right of way, and as well, I think that that’s an issue beyond anybody’s control to some extent. I can’t, you can’t control whether an individual has no idea that their turn signal’s on for the last half a mile. MR. FORD-That’s not what I’m addressing. You understand that. MR. GILLESPIE-I do. MR. FORD-All right. MR. GILLESPIE-But I think that I hope you understand my point as well. MR. FORD-Everybody that has a right directional signal on doesn’t mean that they have had it on for the last eight miles. MR. GILLESPIE-No, you’re right, but are aware, that are coming out of Burke Drive, of the positioning of the access to the station as it currently sits, that that instance is happening now, and as Wendy stated, we’re not seeing a tremendous increase in accidents at the location. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I, for one, am uncomfortable. I’m not a traffic engineer, but we’ve just become aware of this other information out there, and it’s been portrayed to us as if they would like to see all access along Burke Drive. I think, personally, I need to see some 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) information. I mean, ideally, if we could get Adirondack/Glens Falls transit commission to come in and give us, shall we say some testimony in regards to that. They should, they’re a neutral party with all of this. We’re spending a lot of money to do this study. We should see what they have to say about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Other members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-I think, my own feeling, after reading the traffic study and talking with the applicant tonight, I think the elimination of the left out of their property is going to solve a lot of issues. I can see their argument for not having the only access be the left in off of Burke. I think that an argument could certainly be made that the traffic pattern would be changed by eliminating that whole curb cut, but I think all we’re doing is we’re moving the problem and concentrating it into a slightly other area, and I think that’s just going to open up another whole series of issues. So I think, my feeling is, that the traffic flow, as the applicant has addressed it, is as good as I think can reasonably be expected and maintain this site operating. MRS. BRUNO-I tend to agree. I’ve been thinking through some of the other sites that are in Town. First of all, the way that you have this site laid out is considerably different than how it’s currently laid out, by having the pumps in the front, and if I were to utilize the site currently, it makes more sense just to drive in off the road, because both things are to the right and to the left. I think of the Hess station that you mentioned, and also Cumberland Farms up on Route 9, where you’re along a main artery and next to a side road with entrances on both those areas, and I know, from personal use, that I’ve run into the problem that you mentioned about at Hess, and I’ll only pull onto that side road if I need to go into the building, rather than the front and use the gas, and the same for Cumberland Farms which has a much wider driving lane. If I’m using the gas, I’ll go in right off the road. If I’m going to the building, I’ll go what would, in this site, be to Burke Road and then in. So I guess what I’m saying is, is whereas your data for the current site, current traffic patterns, may be primarily off the main road, I could see that it might end up being a little more split anyway, where some were going off the main road, some were going off Burke. I’d be concerned, and again, I’m a layperson in terms of traffic, but I would be concerned with only having the Burke turn in and out, because of the potential for the over-stacking and queuing in that road. I could just see people trying to come out and go in and having to wait, and then you’ve got those, you know, especially going into Burke lane, if they’re stopped, then that area that I was speaking of before where the kids are crossing with no crosswalk, but there are people crossing, it just, to me, worries me a bit more than having right in, right out. MR. SIPP-There is no sign there now, right only? MR. CRUMB-That’s correct. There’s no signage there at all. It’s come as you are. MR. HUNSINGER-Not only is there no signage, but there’s a very widen curb cut that, you know, multiple ways to pull in and out. MR. CRUMB-Take your best shot and hope you get in. MR. SIPP-A sign would. MR. CRUMB-We have a similar site with a right in, right out on Shelburne Road in South Burlington, Vermont, and what we’ve done is within this area we’ve placed signage in both directions indicating entrance only as well as right turn only, and we could certainly add striping if that’s a necessity, and even go to the extent of extending this island somewhat into the property if need be to, you know, really designate someone exiting. MR. SIPP-Because somebody’s going to try it. MR. CRUMB-Well, and I think if this is built correctly, with a wide enough sweep here, you’re going to alleviate both that problem, as well as including signage. MRS. BRUNO-Wendy, I saw you going through your notes. Did you have actual letter or something from the Transportation, Glens Falls, or was that just data, a note that you had written down? MS. CIMINO-It was based, I just have a phone conversation, details of a phone conversation, and again, when I was doing my analysis, it was back in April, and I obtained, you know, the latest information available, which seemed like the study at that time was focusing more on the issues with the School and the driveways and eliminating 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) the curb cuts and focusing on, you know, the School access part of that Aviation Road corridor more so than, you know, there didn’t seem to be any issues that were brought up regarding our site specifically, and when I spoke with them specifically talked about what we were looking at in our site and was just told there wasn’t widening proposed at this point for the corridor, and nothing, like I said was talked about closing at that point. MRS. BRUNO-I was just thinking in terms of what Mr. Ford was saying, that, in terms of having, I’m sorry, I forget the gentleman’s name. MS. CIMINO-Aaron Frankenfeld. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. Aaron’s, if he had sent in an actual letter to you that maybe could be turned in, and then that would help alleviate some of Mr. Ford’s concerns. MS. CIMINO-Yes, no, there wasn’t, I mean, typically we talk to all the agencies. We talk to the Town. We talk to the County. We talk to the State. We speak with all involved agencies to obtain as much information as we can about anything going on on the corridor or other projects or what, you know, potentials, but it’s something we could request if you needed it, but it’s nothing that we typically get as part of our. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’ve been at this for an hour. What’s the feeling of the Board? One member wants to wait. How do other people feel? Are we ready to move forward, or do we want more information? MR. SEGULJIC-Personally I think what we need is some type of comments from the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council with regards to their review of the project with regards to access along Aviation Road, specifically. That seems to be the only hang up left. Everything else seems to be pretty much ironed out, and I don’t know if we can get them to come in here and give us a comment, but I think that at least we can get a letter from them with some type of their views on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? MR. FORD-You’ve heard me before with regard to another corridor where we are awaiting an engineer’s report and I believe that, I tend to wait until we have those reports in hand, or at least a synopsis or some kind of documentation. If the study is being done and is near completion, then why not secure that latest and best information and apply it to this site? I don’t see any reason for hastening a response. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t think we’re hastening. We’ve been at this for six months on this project. MR. SEGULJIC-But we just found this information out tonight also. MR. FORD-Yes, but we didn’t know that this was going on for six months. MRS. BRUNO-I was looking at it like Mr. Hunsinger was, that, you know, you’ve been in front of us and you’ve been doing quite a thorough job with it, but on the other hand, you just mentioned earlier that you won’t be working on the project until next Spring or so, which would give us perhaps a little bit more time to learn more information about this study, because it is a key area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Who would like to put forward a tabling resolution, then? MR. SEGULJIC-The issues I have are the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council study, the monument sign have brown brick at the base. MR. CRUMB-We can revise that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The east side of the site have, can we say shrubbery or something, evergreen shrubs. MR. CRUMB-Well, if you don’t mind, can we leave that open for discussion on what the appropriate planting is there? I’m not adverse to plantings. I just don’t want to be held to putting an evergreen there when it’s not the appropriate plant to put there. Can we take a look at the options? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, absolutely. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we get another crab tree along there, another two crab trees in that area? That big opening area. That would be one tree every forty feet. MR. CRUMB-Somewhere in here? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. CRUMB-Well, what if I were to reposition into this area? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just looking to break up that big, big void there. MR. CRUMB-Well, I think that the low plantings will accommodate that. Can we take a look at that? MR. SEGULJIC-You can take a look at that. Let’s say review vegetation along east side. MR. BAKER-That’s at the northeast corner, correct? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the east side, along strip from crabapple tree to driveway. There’s a crabapple tree at the northern end, and then the drive through at the southern end of it. MR. FORD-Proposed vegetation for that area. MR. SEGULJIC-Proposed vegetation, and the other thing is, if you look at the regulations, they require a 10 foot buffer strip, as I interpret it. So I think what we should do is grant a waiver from the 10 foot requirement along the east side. Is that something we want to do now, or is that something we do at final? MR. CRUMB-May I just point out one thing that Wendy’s just pointed out to me in Chapter 3 of her traffic study? Part A, Paragraph Two, and I’ll just read the first bit. As part of the Aviation Road Corridor Study proposed by the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council and the Queensbury Union Free School District Master Plan, the first Queensbury Middle School entrance will be removed. She did review with these folks. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m mistaken. We should have been aware of it, but I guess that still doesn’t address other access issues, and we’re asking you to specifically ask that question of them. One thing I’ve learned in life is it’s how you ask the question. MS. CIMINO-What we’re pointing out is that we did talk to them, and I addressed specifically what they said. If they had said, at the time, that they wanted different access, we would certainly do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you finish the resolution? MR. SEGULJIC-Those are the ones that I had. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess the question is, should we grant the waiver at this time, or on final? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we really should do it in the final resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CRUMB-Would you just, excuse me, just clarify your last statement, the waiver. I missed that. MR. SEGULJIC-To grant the 10 foot buffer along the east side. MR. CRUMB-That’s what I thought it was. I just wanted to verify that. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. 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 Donald Sipp: 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) To the November 20, 2007 Planning Board meeting, for the following information: 1.Comments from Adirondack/Glens Falls Transit commission regarding access along Aviation Road. 2.Use of brown brick at the base of the monument sign. 3.Review of vegetated strip along east side of site from crab apple tree to drive through. th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a couple of months. MRS. BRUNO-I have to apologize, too. I can’t apologize for the rest of the Board, but for myself, that I guess I hadn’t done all of my homework. It’s a little embarrassing, but thank you for your patience. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2000 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED BAY RIDGE FIRE CO. AGENT(S) CHARLES T. MELLON, SR. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR- 3A LOCATION 1080 BAY ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. REVISIONS TO TE APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN ARE PROPOSED. ANY MODIFICIATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 41-00, SP 35-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.33 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-10 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9- 020 CHARLES MELLON, SR. & GARY WEST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Yes. The original Planning Board Site Plan approval for this project includes landscape to be installed on the north and south lawn areas of the property, including additional trees. The applicant is basically requesting an amended Site Plan approval to allow the landscaping as installed, and shown on the revised plan submitted for review. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MELLON-Chuck Mellon, representing the Bay Ridge Fire Company, and I’m the President of the Department. MR. WEST-Gary West. Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company Vice President. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just summarize why you’re here. MR. MELLON-We’d just like to get the approval for an existing Site Plan. It’s been left open by the Building Department due to a planning issue around the building is basically why we’re here. So, we’ve talked to Stu about that and tried to get everything together for you, so you know what we’re asking for. Basically it’s a cost factor is what it is. So we could never finish all the plantings. We did the necessary plantings around the building that we felt was necessary, and due to financial constraints, there was other pressing things which I did write you a communication or a letter. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have the letter that you wrote, right. MR. MELLON-So that’s basically it right there, and we’ve left it as is. It seems like it’s a lot better now, you know, with all the extra plantings there, and that’s basically why we’re here, but our monies went elsewhere when we were building the building, and we had a 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) lot of things come up. We just couldn’t finish it, and it just kind of got put on the back burner, and we just don’t have the financial finances to do it right now. We’d just like to close it, you know, if it’s approved by the Planning Board, and I’m sure you’ve probably taken a look at our building, you know, around the building and what we have now, and also there was a map for the, well, there’s 121 additional plantings, I believe, that were left out because we just couldn’t do them. So, that’s basically it right there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Could you clarify for me, this figure we have here. This is existing conditions now? MR. MELLON-Yes, it is. MR. SEGULJIC-What were the proposed plantings? MR. MELLON-We had like an additional 120 plantings that were scheduled, and I thought you had that. MR. BAKER-I actually have the original landscaping plans that were approved in 2000. MR. MELLON-Yes, Stu’s got it. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you give us a brief synopsis? MR. BAKER-The primary difference is on the southern parking area, along the southern parking area, both directly on the south side and adjacent to Bay Road, there were 48 creeping juniper proposed, and there were additional street trees proposed along Bay Road. That was the primary difference. MR. MELLON-Right. MR. BAKER-And I’ll bring this up to the Board to review and pass down. MR. TRAVER-Do you have an estimate as to what the budget shortfall would be in order to complete all this? MR. MELLON-Just under $18,000. MR. TRAVER-So $18,000 would enable all of these plantings to be concluded. MR. MELLON-Additional, right. MR. TRAVER-Additional, over what you’re budgeting. MR. MELLON-I mean, if it was done now. Right. MR. SIPP-No. I drove up there the other day. On the south side, right up next to the building, you have some boxwood or some hedge plantings as of now. MR. MELLON-Right along the building, you said? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MELLON-Yes. Everything that you see, box, right along the sidewalk, yes, everything is there. MR. SIPP-When money is tight, maybe a bed of annuals, which are not expensive, would also look very good. It looks good as it is. I’m sorry that you can’t get the plantings along Bay Road. This would take some good sized trees and some specialized trees. MR. FORD-Some trees would be nice there. MR. SIPP-You’ve got to be careful of the salt coming off that road, and will eat up some trees, particularly maples. A hard maple will not stand salt. So if you ever do get to the point of putting any in, don’t go with the maples. Look for trees that will tolerate the salt. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. WEST-If I could make a statement here. Because on the south side of the building there was supposed to be some plantings on a hill, and we noticed that we didn’t do that, and because we didn’t do that, that was the hold up, supposedly the hill, but the grass does fine with that, and keep it mowed and everything that way, and also we’ve noticed that the way we have to plow the snow in front of the building, for access to the truck bays and what have you, they would have been right in our way. So that would have been a problem, like you were saying. MR. SIPP-It looked, you know, the building itself and the landscaping that you do have looks good. It’s a little bare around the parking lot. MR. WEST-Yes, we realize that but that, you know, somebody dig up a clump of birch trees in the back yard and donate them to you or something. It’s not disaster. MR. SEGULJIC-No. It looks good, but one thing I would like to see is at least the trees along Bay Road . Is that something you can do? MR. MELLON-Is that on the north side, is that what you’re saying? MR. SEGULJIC-It would be the west side. MR. FORD-The west side. MRS. BRUNO-It looks like it would be about six. So, yes, you could put sugar maples, like Mr. Sipp had said, but maybe we could do. MR. TRAVER-I thought he said to avoid the sugar maples. MRS. BRUNO-Right. That’s what I’m saying. MR. FORD-Avoid the sugar maple and put them back far enough. MRS. BRUNO-It looks like you have the birch clump there. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that something you think you can do? MR. MELLON-Well, yes, we could do it if we had to. It’s just for maintenance, and I think as Mr. Sipp said, and I have trees over where I am, the road salt and it’s a film, and anything near the road it really catches it, and it’s just one more maintenance item for us. That’s all. We could do it, but I’d just as soon not have to if we didn’t have to right now. We haven’t had any complaints. We’ve all had compliments on it. We’ve never had a complaint on the building, but maybe some time in the future, yes, we could do that, but, you know, so I’m thinking. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. It’s not something that has to be done right away. We could give you a period of time to do it, but it, you know, I don’t know if I was (lost word) with the Planning Board with this particular plan, but, you know, it was an approved plan by the Planning Board, and I can hear it now. If we require it, you know what’s going to happen. MR. BAKER-The original plan was approved in June of 2000. MR. MELLON-Seven years ago. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-The former use of this site was a County DPW stop. They had salt things there and piles of sand. This was a dramatic improvement. MR. WEST-Two big old barns there, an old office, three big sand piles and plus an asphalt chunk of road pile and plus two hanging, thanks for their sanders. So it’s definitely an improvement over what was there, is all I can tell you. Maybe some time we could get some trees there. Just time for us right now and we’re running 450 calls a year, and we’re just busy. MR. FORD-What kind of a timeline would you be looking at, if you could put in, let’s say a half a dozen trees along that Bay Road, but not close enough so that the salt is going to impact them, some place in that lawn area back away from the road. MR. WEST-Probably a couple of months or something maybe. I don’t know. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. MELLON-I don’t know when the best time to plant trees are. I don’t know. MRS. BRUNO-Funny that you’re here this evening. I was going to say, have you ever looked at talking to the local landscaping company? MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only reason George is here is I ran into him on my way here voting. GEORGE RYAN MR. RYAN- I think these guys should be commended for what they did to the firehouse there, and one thing about these trees, trees are small when you plant them. They’re going to grow. When you come down Bay Road, you notice them. You notice that building, and you know it’s a firehouse. You know to be careful. They’re running out in an emergency. They’re coming in, they’re coming out. So the trees in there, it might be a good idea for today and tomorrow, but what are you going to do in 20 years when you’ve got this big tree blocking the view of the firehouse? I mean, what should happen with this firehouse, this is really Town property. We should tap into the recreation department and put a swing set there. Somebody could be going down the Town with beautiful recreation, put some trees in, sand box, something, and let the public use it. There’s plenty of parking. Tonight the place is being utilized for voting. I mean, the trees by the road there, I mean, I just don’t think it’s a very good idea. I mean, but that’s my opinion. I mean, if they were back somewhat, or somewhere on the top of the road, but, you know, it’s a firehouse. Fire trucks, you know. Someday I’d like to see a flashing light out there, just for the safety of the guys on a foggy night, a rainy night. So you have to take that into consideration, but as far as the trees, I go over and help these guys out with the plants and whatever, and I’m a little embarrassed today because I didn’t get the flower box built, and the voters are up there. MR. HUNSINGER-But what’s the best time of year to plant trees? MR. RYAN-Whenever you have the money. MR. SEGULJIC-How long is it going to take you to get the money? MR. RYAN-That’s another deal. These guys, the Town Board’s been banging their heads together. That’s another thing. MR. FORD-What kind of a tree, if they were going to plant five or six trees, what kind of trees would you recommend and how far off Bay Road? MR. RYAN-Well, just like the fellow was saying, the maples are dying. I mean, if you just look around in the woods, the maples are dying. The leaves fall off. They’re going to need some kind of tree that’ll, Bradford Pear or something like that hopefully that would make it, but, again, you know, probably looking at $900 a tree, for something like a three inch caliper, or maybe we can go to soil and water and plant some real little ones there and we’ll watch them growing. Then you won’t have to worry about them growing for 50 years. MR. WEST-That’s actually one of the reasons we did the planting primarily around the building, is because it would be low key to the type of fire trucks entering and leaving the building. It’s just what George is saying, line of sight. Trees can be planted. I mean, we can do it. If you think that’s what is needed to be done, we’ll do it. We’ll make it work. It’ll take us a while, but give us time. As I say, we’re just here to close our planning permit, which we didn’t know what open. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m trying to figure out what kind of a tree. MR. SIPP-We’ve got a list of high tolerance trees. The problem is that’s the only list I’ve got, and you’ve got to be careful, because on this list are such things as popal, and you don’t want popal, but if you take from the top, paper birch works as well as anything, and you can find a lot of these in the woods, and if they’re seven feet high, they’re going to be 20 feet high in 20 years, and they’re not that thick. They’re not like a maple tree that’s going to branch out and cover your. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. WEST-Yes, because see that’s going downhill, that way. So they’ve got to have a tree that’s up in the air. MR. SIPP-I mean, I can give this to Stu, and he can make you a copy, and stop in some time tomorrow and pick up, there’s high, low, and medium tolerance, and leading the low tolerance is red maple, sugar maple, and you’ve got to stay away from them, because they will not take salt. MR. SEGULJIC-Should we specify a tree, or can we say pick a high tolerance salt? They already have, on their plan they already have the birch clumps. Plant probably five birch clumps along Bay Road. I don’t want to say equally spaced, I’ll give you some latitude, but. MR. FORD-Where’s the Bradford Pear, tolerance wise? MR. SIPP-That’s one you don’t usually. MR. MELLON-Well, if that’s what you want to do, this was a negotiation with the Town. We are going for zero increase in our budget also, but we have a couple of issues pending before we even get to trees. I’ll tell you right now. So just take our word for it that we’ll have to, maybe by next Spring we’ll get them in. MR. SEGULJIC-You can blame us for our request and increase funding for you. What do you say we’ll give you, we’ll give them one year. How does that sound? MR. MELLON-But I just want to get it closed, so, for the Building Department. We’ll find something. MR. HUNSINGER-What did you want to specify, birch? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what they have there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Or oaks. MR. MELLON-Or something resilient to salt. MR. SIPP-As I say, I’ll give this to Stu. He’ll make a copy of it, or ten copies, and you can stew over it through the winter. MR. FORD-We want them to get them back far enough so that salt won’t be an issue. MR. SIPP-On a hard surface it’s going to run, though, because that slope, the water is going to run off to the north. You’ve got to be careful where you. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Sipp, did you just say something about white ash? MR. SIPP-Yes. White ash will tolerate salt. MRS. BRUNO-Because in my notes I’ve got that it prefers valleys and upland slopes, which I’m thinking that’s basically kind of opened it up into a valley type slope area. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll make a motion and get this thing going. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess we’re going to modify their Site Plan. Is that what we’re going to do? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s a Site Plan modification. There is a Staff resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re asking us to approve the plan as is. So we’ll approve this plan with the following condition, that five, I think it’s going to be white spruce, be planted along the Bay Road. MR. HUNSINGER-White spruce? I thought you said white ash? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m sorry. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MRS. BRUNO-Yes, this one’s white spruce. MR. MELLON-These are all sugar maples here. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, these were all sugar maples. That was the only white spruce. There were six. MR. MELLON-Could we get a recommendation from our resident landscaper? If he feels it might be a little something different than this, as long as we get something there? MR. HUNSINGER-Just say white spruce or another high tolerance tree. MR. BAKER-Well, do you want an evergreen or a deciduous? MRS. BRUNO-I would mix them. I would say put some white spruce, put some deciduous, maybe the ash and call it a day. You’ve already got a white spruce there. MR. SEGULJIC-What did you say again? MRS. BRUNO-I said you’ve already got a white spruce there. Make some more of them white spruce, and put some in of the ash, since those are high tolerance, and then you don’t have like all of one kind. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Why don’t we just say white spruce or other tolerant species. MR. MELLON-High tolerance. MR. SEGULJIC-High tolerance species. MR. FORD-Give them some latitude. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 35-2000 BAY RIDGE FIRE CO., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant is seeking a modification to a previously approved site plan. Revisions to the approved landscaping plan are proposed. Any modification to a previously approved site plan requires review and approval by the Planning Board. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. 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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 5. 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 6 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 7. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection 8. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 35-2000 BAY RIDGE FIRE CO., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) With the following condition: That white spruce or other salt tolerant trees be planted along Bay Road in the locations as indicated on the original plan, plant six trees within one year. th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MELLON-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED DAVID & MARYLOU DUTRA OWNER(S) ETHEL, DAVID & MARYLOU DUTRA ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 28 NACY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RECONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AT THE LAKE EDGE ALONG WITH FILL ACTIVITY WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.18 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-33 SECTION 179-6-060(D)(2) DAVID DUTRA, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Yes. The Planning Board may wish to consider requiring the following information from the applicant prior to approval, an engineered design of the proposed work, plans to show the location of the referenced second earthen terrace, detailed landscaping information for the earthen terrace, including proposed species and number of plants to be installed and material installation and maintenance specifications for the proposed silt fence. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. DUTRA-Yes, David Dutra. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you tell us a little bit about your project? MR. DUTRA-I would just like to rebuild a retaining wall that I have down by the lake. I’ve only got 25 foot of lake frontage, and just build it up, 14, 15 inches there, level it off, put a little fill behind it, and make a little terraced area there to be level with my neighbor’s property, to make it kind of blend in, and that’s basically what I’m after is just repair that wall down there because I had an erosion problem and I’m trying to terrace it back there a little bit so I can alleviate the problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. DUTRA-That’s all I want to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. BRUNO-I know I saw it somewhere. How high are you planning on bringing the new retaining wall up? MR. DUTRA-It’s an existing wall. It’s all fallen down. I just want to build it back up. It’s only 15, 16 inches. MRS. BRUNO-So you’re not building it any higher than it is now? MR. DUTRA-No. Well, it’s going to be level with my neighbor’s which is probably about 10 inches more than what I have there now. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Your drawing shows 20. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. DUTRA-Well, that was not counting the existing wall. I mean, that was right from water level. MRS. BRUNO-The top of. I see. Gotcha. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any help from an engineer or anyone else, any other professional? MR. DUTRA-I had a fella come down, do all the, take all the level elevations for me and he’s the one that put it on the survey map, the elevations. MR. SIPP-I was out there yesterday and also last Saturday. I took a picture which I think you’ve seen. It doesn’t show the slope as well as you, when you’re standing up at the top, next to the house, and look down, you’ve got about a 30 foot drop off or a 30 foot difference in elevation, and it’s going to take some terracing work to cut down on the erosion possibilities considerably. Right now there’s some, he’s got some plastic in there which is holding back erosion for now, but if he terraces this right and puts in some wall type structures on the terraces, I think it can be done, but he’s going to have to have some plantings at the edge of the lake, in order to suck up the extra moisture coming down off this hill, and also the nutrients, and I spoke to him yesterday about putting in 10, 15 foot wide buffering area from the back of the retaining wall on the lake, up towards the first terrace, and I think he’s agreeable to that. MR. DUTRA-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, overall, we just need to see, you know, engineered plans. If you’re going to be putting in this terrace, what’s it going to be, what’s the vegetation going to consist of, and also we’d like to see a vegetative strip there Mr. Sipp had mentioned, as well as, you know, you say you have silt fences, but we need to have some details on, you know, we need to protect the lake, is the bottom line. MR. DUTRA-I have three rows of silt fence there now trying to hold everything back. MR. SEGULJIC-So, we just need, shall we say, engineered plans from a stormwater management perspective during construction, as well as, you know, what’s the landscaping going to look like? What’s the terracing, what kind of grading are we going to have, and then, I think you can understand what I’m getting at. MR. DUTRA-All right. Can I just repair my stone wall down by the lake that’s fallen over? I mean, I was just trying to make it look a little bit better, eye wise, from the lake, for anybody passing through on a boat or my neighbors next to me. It’s been an eyesore for quite a few years, and I just would like to repair the wall to try and hold anything back that might come down. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Looking at the photograph, why is there, it looks as if there’s a lot of bare area here. Why is that? MR. DUTRA-It’s just because when I had my tanks put in, we brought fill in next to the house and it washed down the bank. MRS. BRUNO-When were the tanks put in? MR. DUTRA-Last year. Last fall. MRS. BRUNO-Did you seed after they were put in? MR. DUTRA-We put hay in. It was in November they put the tanks in, and we put hay bales and whatever else we could put there. I’m not there year round. I was in Florida when they did it, and I had people come over to put more silt fence in. We had silt fence in place already, but had them come over to put more in, more hay bales to hold the bank. MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn’t look like hay bales are going to hold the bank. I mean, something significant has to be done. MR. DUTRA-Well, once I get the 50 foot off the lake, I will probably have another big retaining wall put in up closer to the house. I’m just trying to do something down by the lake now to hold back what might come down, and the wall that’s kind of collapsed down there, that all it was was rock. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Have you, so this whole area has been seeded already? MR. DUTRA-It’s just natural growth, whatever happens to grow there. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, now as far as the retaining wall design, is that something you did, or has that been engineered? MR. DUTRA-All it is is just a bunch of rock that’s down there, and I just, cobblestone. I just want to build it up a little bit, so stuff doesn’t run over the top of it. That’s been there for a long time. It’s just deteriorated over the years, and I just would like to build it back up and raise it up a little bit higher than what it is. MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds also, once again, you’d like to terrace your lawn. MR. DUTRA-I would like to put a little fill down there to kind of level off with my next door neighbor, but if that’s going to be a major problem, I just would like to hold anything back that might go down near the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what I’d like to see is an engineered plan that will do that for you. Because apparently what has been done to date hasn’t held it back, and by fixing the retaining wall on the lake, that’s not, that’s, you know, too late. All the, everything’s just going to run on either side of that wall, I would assume. You’re going to have all this silt getting into Glen Lake, which already has significant problems. So, what I’d like to see is, you really should, and I’d turn to Mr. Sipp for this, but you really should get, and I believe it’s rye grass down. Because that’s one thing that will help stabilize soil now, and that can grow relatively quickly. Number Two, get an, shall we call it an engineered plan, because what you have there isn’t working. You have to terrace that apparently, and you’re going to have plantings in there. So you should identify what plantings you’re going to use, and then a stormwater construction plan, which would include the silt fences, but more than just laying them out, there’s certain ways you have to set your silt fences. If you go to the DEC website and they have a stormwater control manual in there, and it’ll show you how to properly set your silt fences. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MRS. BRUNO-I agree. See, we’re frequently facing difficult challenges where we need to weigh the ability for homeowners to be able to do these projects, and sometimes we understand that it gets frustrating, because what seems like perhaps a simple project, in the larger frame of things actually is not quite as simple as it may appear. We’ve been reviewing many, many applications for both Glen Lake and Lake George and the recurring issues with this stormwater management, and retaining walls, and it tends to be a point of frustration, and we understand that, but we’re trying to look out for the environmental impacts that continue to happen around here. MR. DUTRA-Well, the original silt fence that was first installed was installed per the Code Enforcement from the Town of Queensbury. They told me where to put the fence. That’s where I put it, and when I started having problems, I added some, or had somebody add some extra to try to break it up as it went down over the bank. MRS. BRUNO-Did they suggest at that time that you put the grass seeding down to hold it until your final designs were completed? MR. DUTRA-Well, they wanted me to do something with it, but it started washing. I mean, we had hay and chaff and hay bales. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. You mentioned you did that in February. MR. DUTRA-That was in November. MRS. BRUNO-In November. MR. DUTRA-That the work was done for the tanks. So, we had a pretty good storm there, it kind of washed stuff down the bank. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, just looking at this picture, your silt fences, those are not properly installed silt fences. You’re supposed to put the silt fence into the soil, for example. Number Two, it looks like some of the silt fence is knocked over. You’re supposed to inspect your silt fences like every day to make sure they’re in good condition. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. DUTRA-Yes, like I say, I live in Florida. MR. SEGULJIC-I understand, it’s not common knowledge. So, what we need to do is make sure we protect the lake. That’s what we’re trying to do. MR. DUTRA-That’s what I’m trying to do. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re not trying to run you through the wringer. So, any thoughts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I mean, I sort of, you know, I empathize with the homeowner, but I also think that, you know, this is more than just something you can do on a weekend kind of project. I think you need, which is why I asked the question in the beginning if you had any help, you know, from an engineer or an architect or someone to help design what it is you want to do there, because obviously it’s past your ability to control it, and it needs, you know, more than just a cursory look. So I think I tend to agree with what has been suggested. MRS. BRUNO-Well put. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m always the first one to defend the applicants and say, you know, you shouldn’t require an engineer to come before the Planning Board, but I think in this case, you know, I think we need some kind of a professional. I wish we could engage the Town Engineer to give him some help. MR. BAKER-No, the Town Engineer can’t work for private citizens. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, certainly the Town Engineer can review anything that you can submit to make sure that it’s okay, but the burden really is on you to find the solution and make the proposal for what to do. MR. SIPP-You see, just replacing the sea wall there, the lakefront, is not, what you’re going to have to do is replace it with something behind it to prevent wash, behind the wall. Then you can build it up without fear of it losing its effectiveness, and this should be engineered by somebody. I’m sorry to say, but that’s the way, and then the terracing should be engineered, too, so you know that when you reach a certain point, that’s the terrace, and what kind of retaining wall you’re going to have to have to hold that, and what plantings you need. Right now you need some type of rye grass or quick growing annual rye grass that would be up in two days. It’s going to be 80 degrees at the end of this week, and the end of next week, and you’ll get a start, and that’ll hold the soil. You need a few more hay bales behind some of this plastic, too, to hold, through the winter, especially if you get a lot of snow and there’s going to be a lot of runoff, and that hill, being as steep as it is, it’s going to run right off there very quickly. MR. DUTRA-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Should I make a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have a public hearing. We do have a public hearing. Did you want to make a comment, George? If you could give up the table, please. If you could state your name for the record, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE RYAN MR. RYAN-My name is George Ryan. I live on 955 State Route 149. I’d like to just tell this gentleman that being that he lives in Warren County, that the Warren County Soil and Water would come over to his house and help him propose a plan for free. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Good point. MR. RYAN-And that’s just great advice and they’re there. This is the perfect example of why they’re in business, and they’d love to do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you, and that would certainly be acceptable to us. They’re certainly an expert. Okay. Did you have a tabling resolution, Mr. Seguljic? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 DAVID & MARYLOU DUTRA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: To the November 20, 2007 Planning Board meeting, requesting the following information: 1.Ground cover, such as rye grass, shall be planted within disturbed area to stabilize soils within two weeks. 2.Silt fences will be maintained on site in proper conditions to prevent sedimentation and erosion. 3.To provide landscaping, terracing plan that identifies terracing details as well as plantings. 4.Provide stormwater management plans for periods of construction. 5.Provide engineered details of the sea wall. th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-Are we going to give him a date? th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the first meeting in November is the 20. Is that too late? MR. DUTRA-It will be for me, because in October I’m going to be heading back for Florida. MR. HUNSINGER-How quickly do you think you can get some new information in? MR. DUTRA-I don’t know any contacts up around here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DUTRA-For people to call or to help me engineering wise or anything like that. So, I mean. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, certainly the County Soil and Water people could help you. MR. DUTRA-I will. MR. HUNSINGER-I just don’t know how easily and how readily available they are. MR. DUTRA-I will call them directly tomorrow and see if I can make contact with them. st MR. HUNSINGER-If you can get the revised information to us by the 1 of October, we rd could hear your project on the 23 of October. Is that okay, Stu? MR. DUTRA-I would have to have my son come down, because I’m going to be going rdth about the 3 or 4 of October, I’m going to be heading back for Florida again. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, you can certainly send someone to represent you, and if that’s the issue, then I’d rather wait until a November meeting, then. My concern is getting some of the work done before the. MRS. BRUNO-If Soil and Water ends up sending him to another contractor, you know, this is the time when it’s difficult to get anyone retained in order to do the work. You said you had someone that did the elevations for you? Was that a licensed engineer? MR. DUTRA-No. He wasn’t a licensed engineer. He was knowledgeable in this field. He’s kind of a jack of all trades more or less, but he has equipment. MRS. BRUNO-Right. I was just going to say, start with him, too. I mean, you can start with Soil and Water, obviously, but also contact him as well, because they could take those, that little sketch and start working off of that. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The first meeting in November is the 20. th MR. SEGULJIC-Have him come back November 20, because I don’t think he’s going to be able to get everything ready and in good shape for October. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think he needs an engineer’s stamp. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, I guess, we’ve got to make sure things are done right. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree, but I think if the County Soil and Water puts together his plan and doesn’t have an engineer’s stamp, that we should accept that. I mean, we could have it reviewed by our engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-What about the sea wall, though? MR. SIPP-They can do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they can do that. MR. SIPP-They can do that. MR. SEGULJIC-I didn’t think of it in that light. Can we? MR. FULLER-You can amend it. MR. SEGULJIC-We can amend the motion and re-vote. MR. FULLER-You can just make a motion to amend that resolution. The motion to table is not a final approval. So you could certainly take the step, a motion to amend that prior resolution to provide that plans specification by Warren County Soil and Water would be accepted in lieu of engineered stamped plans. MR. TRAVER-Would they at least need to be reviewed by the Town Engineer? MR. FULLER-You can provide that. MR. BAKER-You can require that. MOTION TO AMEND TABLING MOTION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 44-2007 DAVID & MARYLOU DUTRA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: That the plans can be developed by Warren County Soil Conservation and reviewed by the Town Engineer, and that would be satisfactory to the Planning Board. th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Bruno ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we can’t make everyone happy. MRS. BRUNO-You’re looking at me in shock. I can clarify that. Just because I’m concerned about the precedent, because we have been very tough on many applicants, and like I said, I can completely, I’ve been in front of the Boards myself, and I can completely understand that it is overwhelming, and it’s getting that Queensbury is tougher and tougher. I do sympathize with you, but I’m just concerned about being consistent among applicants. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Point well taken. Did you have any questions, sir? Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I just want to make sure it’s done right the first time, and you don’t have anymore sedimentation runoff. MR. HUNSINGER-And Staff is also there to help you, if you have questions. MR. DUTRA-Great. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT REID OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION LOT 48, SECT. 4 ROLLING RIDGE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND GRADE/FILL REAR YARD INTO WETLAND BUFFER AERA. FILLING AND GRADING ACTIVITY WITHIN A WETLAND BUFFER REQUIRE A WETLAND PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NONE WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A DEC WETLAND GF-19 LOT SIZE 8.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.6-1-6.1 SECTION 94-5 MICHAEL HILL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff comments, please. MR. BAKER-Yes. The Planning Board may wish to consider requiring the following information from the applicant prior to approval. One, details of the proposed French drain system, none are provided on the plans submitted to the Town, but the location is shown on the plans submitted for New York State DEC approval. Clarifications and detail on the proposed location and design of the retaining walls, locations differ between the approved DEC plans and those submitted for Town approval, and landscaping details for the wetland buffer area. There are also comments from the Town’s Consulting Engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HILL-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours, if you could identify yourself for the record. MR. HILL-Yes. I’m Michael Hill with the law firm of Miller, Mannix, Schachner and Hafner. We represent Robert Reid, the property owner and the applicant. With me is my colleague Leah Eberhart, from Miller, Mannix. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Could you summarize your project for us? MR. HILL-I’d be happy to. Thank you. As I said, Mr. Reid is the owner and the applicant. He owns Lot Number 48 on Lyndon Road. It’s adjacent to a DEC wetland. The lot is vacant and unimproved. It’s a residential lot. Mr. Reid has a contract to sell the property to Matthew and Kristy Hummel, who are also here. They’re sitting directly behind us. They proposed to build a single family residence on the lot, and in conjunction with the single family residence, they are proposing to do some work that would be within the buffer next to the wetland. They are proposing a French drain, some grading and filling, and a retaining wall that is just on the periphery. It’s just inside, slightly inside of the wetland buffer area. There would be absolutely no activity or involvement in the wetland area itself. There’s nothing proposed in the wetland itself. There are no buildings proposed for the buffer area, only some negligible improvements in the buffer area being the small incursion of some retaining wall. So very little impervious surface being proposed for the buffer area, and the amount of buffer area involved is very small, less than two tenths of an acre, approximately 0.18 of an acre of buffer area that would have any activity in it at all. So, the amount of buffer area involved here is very, very negligible. We should point out that DEC has issued a wetland, a Freshwater Wetland permit already for the project. There should be a copy of that permit in your application materials. So DEC has reviewed it and they have approved it. There’s been a slight modification to the retaining walls which makes them less intrusive than they were under the map submitted to DEC. So if anything the project has been, has a lesser impact in the buffer area. We have a new survey map to present to you, along with a copy of a completed SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form to present to you, and with your permission, we can distribute copies of those items. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. HILL-We’re certainly happy to take any questions that the Board might have and do our best to answer those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILL-But I think in terms of our presentation, I think that’s it. I don’t know whether Staff has a map that, we have, additionally, a copy of an excerpt from the new map, and it’s highlighted, that may help you to understand what’s going on on the site, and we’ll be happy to distribute those also. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-The change in the retaining wall since the DEC approval, do you plan on resubmitting to DEC? MR. HILL-Well, as I mentioned, the change makes it less intrusive. So we certainly don’t think DEC would have any issue with it. We don’t have any problem with resubmitting it to them. We would probably call them first to see if, under the circumstances, they feel it’s necessary to resubmit. We certainly don’t have problem with submitting it for their review. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Has the house been designed yet? I know that was something in the, I thought I saw that was in the Staff Notes, but has the house been designed yet? MR. HILL-I think the footprint has been identified but with your permission I would direct that question to Mr. and Mrs. Hummel and I’m sure they’d be happy to speak to that. MATTHEW HUMMEL MR. HUMMEL-No, we don’t have any specific designs for that house. The actual survey that is being handed out shows a more accurate footprint of the house, as far as specifics. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. th MR. HUNSINGER-Did you receive a copy of the December 12 letter from Vision Engineering? th MR. HILL-We do have a copy. We just got it today. The September 12 letter from Vision Engineering? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILL-Yes, we do. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments to address any of their comments? MR. HILL-I noticed in their Comment Number Two, disturbance into a wetland buffer, I believe that, as I read it, that comment made it seem that we would be 80 feet into the wetland buffer, and that’s not the case. We will be at least, the proposed activity is at least 50 feet away from the wetland. The buffer is 100 feet, and so the activity would take place no more than 50 feet into the buffer area. So I just wanted to offer that clarification with respect to Number Two. With respect to Item Four, Item Four is addressed to the septic system, which of course is associated with the residence. The septic system is completely outside the buffer area. So it’s not, it doesn’t concern the buffer area at all, and on the new plan that has just been submitted to you, it shows the revised location for the septic system, and I believe, although our surveyor, Mr. Nacy, hasn’t reviewed it, I believe that it may be outside of that area where the slopes exceed 10%. So it is in area where the slopes are lesser in any event. Some of the other items that Vision covers in their letter, well, let me go to Number Nine, if you will, the field delineation by DEC. DEC was out. They did do a site visit, and they did flag the wetlands, so that has been done, and then of course Item Number 12, any Town approval be conditioned on approval of DEC. DEC has approved the project, albeit there’s been a modification, but it’s a modification of the retaining walls to make them 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) less intrusive. So we don’t anticipate that that will cause any change with the DEC permit. So DEC has approved it. With regard to some of the other items, they really seem to be directed to the residence itself, rather than to the activity in the wetland buffer. So under the circumstances, but for the activity in the wetland buffer, this would be just a straightforward residential construction project that would just require a building permit. So we would hope that the Board would recognize that the proposed activity in the buffer area is extremely minimal and hopefully no additional voluminous submissions would be required. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-So correct me if I’m wrong, but the house, all your proposed development is outside the 100 foot buffer, other than the terraced back yard? MR. HUMMEL-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So my question is, why do you need a terraced back yard? ROBERT REID MR. REID-I originally had designed this because there’s a slope, and there’s some fill that you need just to appropriately build, and for safety around the house and yard, and then Matt, when he offered to buy this, went over and met with the surveyor and did some of the zone changes with the surveyor, and that’s what you see in front of you, because he’s the one planning to build there. So originally I had had some of these plans drawn up, and ended up getting a home elsewhere. So I haven’t needed to follow through with building. MR. SEGULJIC-But why not put the yard off the driveway side? You have that whole area off from where the test pit is, and not effect the wetland area of the buffer at all. MR. REID-Well, I think in order to build with the property, because I think it goes from 330 feet to 325 to 320 to 315, whatever that is, it’s enough that you wouldn’t, you’d need some fill in order to build the home (lost word) inside of a hill, inside of a flat hill, if I’m answering it right, Matt. Correct? MR. HUMMEL-Yes. I was advised by, my name’s Matt Hummel. I was advised by some excavating consultants that I would need some area behind the house to actually grade, you know, for runoff and such, the fact that the house was shown on the edge of the 100 foot buffer. I was advised it would not be practical as far as sloping away from the house and all the site work that needed to be done. There was going to be some area in the buffer that was going to be impacted, you know, upon construction of the house. So, that’s why we proposed to do some work in the buffer. MR. SIPP-Now is the rear, what would be the north side, the rear of the house, there’s a basement above grade. MR. HUMMEL-The basement actually we’d prefer to have a walkout basement, so you’re actually walking, you know, out of the back of the house onto a somewhat level area, and then it will slope down. MR. SIPP-Now what is the grade of the basement? Is this 326.5, is that what I read in the corner there? Is that the grade, the elevation of the basement floor? This is on the sheet that was just passed out. MRS. BRUNO-I’m reading that as the first floor. MR. SIPP-The first floor. It’s on this sheet that was just passed out, in the front corner, front left corner, there’s a, looks like 326.5 to me. MR. HUMMEL-Yes. Actually Chuck Nacy actually designated that area as the height of the, the fill area around the house that actually slopes away from the house. So the stormwater runoff will slope down away from the house. MR. SIPP-So that is the first floor elevation? MR. HUMMEL-That’s the first floor. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SIPP-So in other words, seven feet down from that is the basement elevation, floor of the basement? MR. HUMMEL-He just installed that mark there basically for a reference for the septic. So that we would show it being just a little bit higher. So that the water would, you know, go away from the house, the front of the house. As far as the actual depth of the basement, it’s probably going to be about nine feet. MRS. BRUNO-So you’re saying that that 326.5 is the grade height? MR. HUMMEL-The grade height. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So that would actually be probably six to ten inches below the top of the foundation wall. So probably if you’re saying you’re going to have a nine foot basement, it’s probably eight feet below that. MR. HUMMEL-Right. MR. SIPP-Now the contour from there, it goes to, on the French drain goes to 310. MR. HUMMEL-That’s correct. Around the French drain, yes, it shows it being 310. MR. SIPP-315, 310. Okay. Where is the well on this new drawing, then? Where is the well? MR. HUMMEL-It actually shows the well. I don’t know if you see the five foot diameter oak tree. Go across heading to your left, about an inch and a quarter, and then come toward the road. MR. SIPP-Okay. I see it now. All right. MR. HILL-It would be located just off the side of the small eight and a half by eleven colored version that you received. Unfortunately it didn’t show up on that copy. It does show up on the larger, full size survey map that you have. MR. HUMMEL-Right in front of where it says one, on the left hand side of the colored picture it says 120, 120 feet, and then 80.22, it’s right above that, on the left hand side of the colored picture. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. HUMMEL-Proposed well. MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m understanding this correctly, your house is probably 50, 60 feet from the road, or maybe even greater, but the setback requirement is, minimum front yard is 30 feet. So the house isn’t as close as it could be to reduce the impacts. Is that accurate? MR. HUMMEL-Yes. It is accurate. Actually, the house was moved back a little bit due to the absorption field, because the original survey map that was submitted showed the septic field on the right side of the house, but that actually had to be moved because of the well, of the neighbor’s well. So the septic system has to go in front of the house. MR. HILL-So we moved it in order to fit the septic system and the house both, and to have it be 100 feet away from any water. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying the septic system is in front of the house? Okay. You’re not making it easy. MR. HUMMEL-We’re trying to. We put hours and hours and hours into this. We really tried hard. MRS. BRUNO-What if the proposed well, looking at the original plan, what if the proposed well and the septic were flipped, so that your well was closer to your neighbor’s well, and the septic system was to the left of your house, so that you could bring your house closer to the front setback line? MR. HUMMEL-It could be an option. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MRS. BRUNO-But that would impact, I think like what Mr. Seguljic was saying. It would impact the wetland less if you brought the house more forward. I have a problem with filling in wetland with lawn. MR. HUMMEL-That’s actually in the buffer. I mean, it’s that wetland. MRS. BRUNO-Right, well, it’s the buffer. MR. HUMMEL-It’s not wetland. It’s actually filling in, because of the drop, like 20 or 30 feet drop over the course of all the way in, and it’s dirt and not just wetland, buffer. I’m trying to be careful. We’re not doing anything in the actual wetland area at all. MR. REID-There is a well also on the other neighbor’s, it shows that well, too, we have to maintain 100 feet from that also, and there’s a five foot diameter oak tree we’re trying to maintain. The oak tree’s been there about 200 years, the oak tree has been. MRS. BRUNO-You mean Lot 45? MR. REID-Yes. Their septic is close to my property line, if I’m right. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. There is it. I see it. MR. SEGULJIC-Clarify me once again the reason why you have to do this filling is for stormwater control, is that what you’re saying, or is it to gain lawn? MR. REID-I personally, I mean, not the one building, but the reason I did it, it drops off too much. There’s just too much of a drop off to build without doing that, without doing some fill. MR. SEGULJIC-Because in some ways if we took the house and put it 90 degrees to what it is, and you could work your lawn off to the, along Lyndon Road, you know, instead of having the development being east/west, have it be north/south, because these wetlands have been mapped. We need to protect the wetlands. We need to do everything we can to protect them. So I think if you did your development on an east/west line, you could reduce your impact, if I stated that correctly, if you did it 90 degrees to what you’re proposing. I just want to make sure we look at every possibility. MR. REID-I guess I would think that that’s what the buffer is for is to protect the wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and we don’t want to go into the wetland, into the buffer. MR. REID-But the permit from DEC was to go 50 feet into the buffer. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and Queensbury is a little different. I always get confused, but it’s 100 feet, I believe, all the time now for wetlands. Correct? MR. REID-Yes. It’s 100 feet for local Code? It was 100 feet for DEC, too, but they gave us a permit to go 50 feet into that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. REID-They approved it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. REID-And they’re the ones that originally walked the property with me, and the only reason I did that in the beginning was because I subdivided, I was going to subdivide it at one point. So about three years ago I contacted them, and then they walked the property. I think it was three years ago. MR. SEGULJIC-But for me to be comfortable with it, I want to make sure that we review all the options. MR. REID-No, I know. I understand. MR. SEGULJIC-To minimize, because, you know, we’re already having flooding problems in the Town, and a lot of it is tied to the wetland’s ability to absorb and discharge, act as a shock absorber, and that’s why we need this 100 foot buffer, to allow these wetlands to breath. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. REID-Even though it’s only two tenths of an area, even though it’s just two tenths of an acre? MR. SEGULJIC-It’s wetlands. MR. REID-Okay, but I mean, the actual proposed area where they’re doing fill, which has to be done due to the drop of the property. The actual fill is only two tenths of an area of doing any landscaping or filling at all. Out of eight and a half acres there’s only two and a half, two tenths. MR. SEGULJIC-And I can understand that, but once again, what I’m getting at is I just want to make sure we look at all the options and make sure we’re doing what’s best for the wetlands. MR. REID-Right. I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from Board members? Where does that leave us? MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing I can think of is to table this and ask the applicant to review all options and come back to us, and outline various options. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and there are outstanding engineering comments as well. MR. SEGULJIC-And that also. MR. HUNSINGER-And there were also Staff comments. MR. REID-Don’t most of them that are left have to do with the building itself and not the proposed area of landscaping? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, one of the Staff comments is details of the proposed French drain system, and that’s within the buffer. I think you are correct that many of the engineering comments are related more to the house and s before us because they were proposing to construct a hard surface within 50 feet of a Critical Environmental Area, and when you come before the Board, then it enables us to look at the whole Site Plan and ask questions on the whole Site Plan, and certainly stormwater management is something that we would want to have clarified. Certainly some of the issues like landscaping details or something we’d want to have clarified. MR. REID-I mean, this is why we’re here to (lost words). We’re not trying to be at all disrespectful. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. REID-I did meet with Craig Brown several times about this, and then he told me exactly what was needed, and then went and met with the surveyor two or three times. Matt met with him two or three times. We spent many, many, many hours revising this, trying to meet everything you guys wanted, or at least I thought we were meeting everything you wanted. So, I don’t know, whatever guidance we need from you what to do. I guess we were hoping that this would be, I want to tread lightly. I was hoping we could get this through because we’ve been working on it for a long time and been here many times. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just for one point, you presented new information tonight. MR. REID-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That our engineer hasn’t reviewed. So, I mean, even if we were to consider that issue alone, that would necessitate a tabling. MR. REID-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-But I can appreciate where you are, and you want to understand what is it that you need to do so that we can feel comfortable with the plan. MR. REID-Right. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-And I think we would be remiss if we don’t give you that direction. MR. REID-Yes, well, we definitely need that so we can work with you and do whatever you need. MR. HUNSINGER-So, along those lines, do we have any suggestions? MRS. BRUNO-Well, I think he might be able to look at the flip flop situation that I was saying, if I’m looking at this correctly. I agree with you, don’t touch the tree. We’ve got to watch out for the roots there, but you’re definitely further off from the other neighbor’s well on 45 to perhaps put your leach field over in that direction. MR. REID-Just switch the septic with where the well is, and vice versa? MRS. BRUNO-Basically, yes. You’d probably end up with one of the corners of your leach field over there. Stu, if I remember correctly, the leach field doesn’t need to be the same setback from the front as the house is, right? I mean, the leach field can encroach upon the front setback? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MRS. BRUNO-That’s what I thought. Okay, and that might help get you away from the oak tree, depending on how you ran that pipe. MR. REID-The elevation was a concern with, you know, coming out of the house and then actually having to pitch down towards the absorption field. I’m not sure how far over from the oak tree you’re talking about. MRS. BRUNO-You’re right about that. You’ve got a 325, 315. MR. REID-See, this is one flat area, where the septic is now is flat and safe. MRS. BRUNO-Right. You’re existing is at a 320. You’re going to go up six feet for the house. That might be able to be minimized, and then actually the leach field I’m kind of thinking might be able to go right around in the 320. The best suggestion is just to ask for your guys to look at it again, just push them for a little more creativity. I think you might find something. MR. REID-You’d like to see the absorption field to the left of the house? MRS. BRUNO-I’d like it to be explored, the idea. You’ve got more room between that and the other well on 45 than it looks like you would on the Vero’s lot. MR. HUMMEL-If we moved it, would it be too close to the Lot 45? Would it be too close to the well? MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think so. That’s what I’m saying. I think it’s further. I didn’t bring my ruler tonight. So I’m doing the typical length of the pen, you know, and I can’t engineer for you or anything. I’m just looking at it quickly and just thinking, ask your guys for some suggestions. MR. REID-Would that be to alleviate this permit for the buffer? Is that why you’re suggesting that? MRS. BRUNO-It would decrease it, maybe. MR. HILL-By relocating the septic system in the way you propose, are you also suggesting that the house should move forward on the lot? MRS. BRUNO-Exactly. MR. HILL-Okay. MR. TRAVER-That’s what we’re trying to achieve, and we’re assuming that that would mean having to move that field. MR. REID-The field off in order to pull the house forward on the lot? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, we would feel better if the house were further from the wetland. That’s the bottom line. So if you can accomplish that by moving that absorption field. MR. REID-Put it off to the side, as has been discussed. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You show a percolation test site up in the, or I should say down maybe in the southwest corner, and then on the map you mention that the perc test should be conducted in the filled and compacted soil prior to the installation of the absorption field. Did you provide the perc test data to the engineer, Town Engineer? I didn’t see the perc test data anywhere. MR. HUMMEL-The perc test is actually written on one of these surveys, I believe it’s on both of those surveys, on the bottom. MR. HUNSINGER-Does it show the actual? Okay. I’m sorry. MR. HUMMEL-Right to the left of the DEC Freshwater Wetland boundary. MR. REID-Just to pursue the discussion that you were having a little bit earlier about the possible reconfiguration, I think we understand what you’re asking and we can go back to our engineer and see if the absorption field, the leach field can be moved like that. I guess Mr. Seguljic had made an alternative suggestion earlier, and I just wonder, as we explore options, does that option, would that be something that would? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Anything to reduce your impact on the buffer is what I’m looking for. I just want to make sure, when it comes time to vote on this, that we’ve looked at everything to reduce the impact. MR. REID-Okay. So if we have our consultants review that, and if the absorption field can be moved off to the side, and the house pulled forward, then that would be something? MR. SEGULJIC-You’re making progress. MRS. BRUNO-Absolutely. MR. REID-I guess I want to make sure I understand how many possible alternatives we might be required to look at? If that would be helpful to the Board, I think we can ask about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. MR. REID-Then there was the alternative suggestion about rotating everything 90 degrees. I mean, can we come back to you with a proposal to move the house forward, is that going to be satisfactory? MR. TRAVER-That’s really the bottom line. The bottom line that we’re looking for is to reduce that impact, and the most immediate and obvious way to do that is to try to move that house a little bit. Now we’re not saying that the absorption field has to be in one area or another. We were playing with that, because obviously that’s an issue in this particular site, but certainly feel free to explore that, but the thing that would make this more appealing to us would be to have that house moved more to the south, so that it’s further from that wetland interface. MRS. BRUNO-The way I understood it, I think you were saying if you were to rotate the house, that would really give you two side yards in lieu of a front and back yard, so that you didn’t have to fill for the back yard. That was your thinking? Okay. I just wanted to clarify. That’s what I thought you meant. MR. REID-So we wouldn’t even really need to be having this discussion at all or even be here if it weren’t for the fill that goes into that buffer area? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. REID-I mean, in walking the property, it seems like the fill is necessary. I think for anybody to build a house, I’m not an engineer, I really think it’s necessary, to some degree or another. I’ve been wanting to build there for eight years, and I bought a home in Lake George last year, so I didn’t end up doing it, but I think it’s necessary to some 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) degree. I certainly want to do whatever I can to keep it safe. It’s been in my family’s name for 50 years. I walked back there as a kid, you know, so we want to keep it safe and beautiful, but I think we have to fill to some degree and do it, a little bit. MR. SEGULJIC-And we can appreciate that. We just want you to do whatever you can to minimize that, because we’re having issues in the Town with flooding, and a lot of it looks like it goes back to improper development around wetlands. MR. REID-Right. MR. HILL-So are we prepared, then, to go back to Chuck and to present a revised plan? Is that what we want to do? MR. REID-I don’t know. It depends on how revised it is, because if we’re talking about not even going in the buffer, then I don’t know if there’s anything else to talk about. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you can find a way to not be in the buffer, then you’ll get a building permit. MR. REID-I don’t think we’ll be able to. I think it’s too steep, it’s too much of a drop off. There needs to be some fill in order to have the house or a yard or anything there. MR. HILL-But we can see about a possible alternative configuration that would perhaps move the house forward. MR. REID-Even 10 or 20 feet, whatever. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILL-So we’ll work on that, and if we could, please go back to the Staff Notes and Vision Engineer’s letter, and if you can give us some further guidance on what among those things you consider the key things that need to be addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-He’s looking for direction on the Staff Notes and the engineering comments for what needs to be addressed. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think it starts right with the first bulletin. You have a copy of those, obviously, right? They’re looking for details on the proposed drain system. I think with the change in, or whatever change you’re going to be proposing, DEC is going to need to look at that, because it’s not the same design, obviously, and some more landscaping detail. MR. REID-Can I go back to the house piece for a minute? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. REID-When you talking about moving the house, would 10 feet make a difference? What is it we’re looking at, so we don’t? I’ve been back to the surveyor so many times, and it actually costs a lot of money, too. I want to get it right before I make more changes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, let me put it to you this way. The zoning requires a 30 foot setback, front yard setback, so I’d like to see you put it back 30 feet, if you can. MR. HILL-That would be so the house is 30 feet, and it meets the setback, and that would be as close as it could be to the road. So that would be the goal. MR. TRAVER-You will then be coming to us with the distance as far as you can make it from the wetland. MR. HILL-So that will be our goal in speaking with our engineer to try to accomplish that, get it as close to the setback as we possibly can. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think once you do that, most of the comments from the engineer kind of fall in line. A lot of them, you know, he talks about the proposed building dimensions and setbacks should be specified as part of the permit. We mentioned. MR. TRAVER-And there may be different comments with a different plan. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So, you know, I think the main thing to take away is to look at the Staff Notes at this point to just give whatever final plan you come up with to give more sort of operational tale on this drainage system you’re proposing, which will likely still be needed in some fashion. MR. REID-One of my concerns about wanting to protect, I mean, the septic being in front of the house, I think it’s one flat area that’s really good for it, and I’m worried moving it to the left, I can’t do it to the right because it’s too close to the well, but that’s a downhill slope. Even where the proposed well is, if we switch them, I believe that’s a downhill slope versus a flat area in front of the house for the leach field and absorption field. I think it would be better for the wetland, I would think, rather than moving it, I would think. I would think that would be a concern. I don’t know. I’m not, does that make sense? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HILL-We’ll have to have our engineer take a look at it. We simply don’t know. It may necessitate some additional filling outside of the buffer area in order to accomplish the change. MR. TRAVER-Right. I mean, clearly the area where the construction is going to take place is going to need to be modified to some degree, but anything that you can do to reduce that modification and move that modification further from the wetland is going to make us happy. MR. HILL-As long as additional filling outside of the buffer area to accommodate a move of the septic system, as long as that’s not an objectionable thing. MR. TRAVER-If it makes sense from the engineering standpoint. MR. HILL-Okay. Very good. So we’ll look at that. We understand the Staff’s comments. We can get cross sections of the proposed French drain and so on so you have more detail on that. As far as the engineer’s letter is concerned, one thing that’s noted, Item Number Four, Board of Health approval with regard to the proposed raise bed or fill system, likely it’s still going to require significant fill for the system. With that, would your approval be conditioned upon approval by the Board of Health? We assume you’re not going to require us to get that approval before you issue your wetlands approval. Would that be correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because if you can’t get the Board of Health approval, then you can’t build the house. MR. HILL-Right. Okay. MRS. BRUNO-But this also, this is in reference to your original plan which. MR. TRAVER-Much of this, I mean, he’s going to be reevaluating a new design. So many of these issues will be eliminated or will be different at least. MR. HILL-They very well could be. MR. TRAVER-This is all in the context of this plan. MR. HILL-Correct. MR. REID-And I’m not trying to be negative here. I still think that even with moving the house, we’re going to need to have some fill in the buffer zone. I still think that we’re going to, it’s such a slope down, I’ve walked it so many times. I just don’t think it’s going to be, maybe not as much, and we can move it a little bit more further away from. MRS. BRUNO-That’s what we’re looking for. MR. REID-Okay. Good. I just didn’t want to say we didn’t have any room to move at all with it. MR. TRAVER-Right. No, we understand the situation. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. REID-Okay, because that’s why DEC walked back there with, we even talked about that with (lost word) when we were there. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? We will leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, before we go, again, not to belabor it, and I don’t mean to belabor it unnecessarily, but with regards to the engineer’s letter, one thing that he’s looking for is additional erosion and sediment control measures, a maintenance plan, he’s talking about a deep test hole, a stormwater management plan and report, so on. Does the Board need to have all these things before the Board will be able to act on this? Those, I think, seem to be in the nature of general comments, but again, they relate to items that are outside of the buffer area. Just so that we can know what you want and try to provide the necessary information when we present the revised drawing. MR. TRAVER-We need to feel that, our Town Engineer needs to be comfortable with what it is that you’re trying to do. So the reason that these questions are being asked is that he’s evidently feeling that, and again, we’re talking about this proposal. He’s expressing some concern that some of the impacts of this proposed project are perhaps unclear or difficult for him to evaluate from the engineering standpoint. So we’re not evaluating it from an engineering standpoint. That’s why we have the Town Engineer. So, you know, he needs to get whatever information his office is going to need in order to feel comfortable, and you could certainly contact him to clarify any of those issues, if you have any questions, so that when it gets to us, he’s basically saying I’m happy with this from the engineering standpoint. MR. REID-So we need to work with him on an interim basis with regard to the proposed reorientation, the re-design of the site, and then from that we can glean what concerns he has, if any, and figure out what additional information if any needs to be presented. MR. HUNSINGER-And he may just be looking for standard stormwater management practices that maybe you were intending to use all along anyway and just hasn’t been conveyed to him. MR. REID-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It might be just that simple. MR. REID-And do we have his name? Do we know? MR. HILL-Yes, we do. We’ve got that information. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and your information should all go through Staff. MR. REID-Sure. MRS. BRUNO-He won’t be able to design that with you. He reviews what has been designed. Perhaps your surveyor can suggest someone he’s accustomed to working with. My guess is is that the surveyor doesn’t have the proper stormwater. The State changed all their stormwater regs and everything. So they’re out there, those guys. MR. REID-And the comments from the second and third paragraph, the site development notes, those aren’t enough for what they’re looking for? He must have seen them, right? Like the second paragraph down, during the site clearing, grading and construction phase, care should be taken to prevent movement, all that, and the next paragraph below that all kind of address those concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, apparently he must have been looking for more information than that. MR. REID-That’s what I was wondering, if he saw those. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, I guess as far as the tabling motion goes, are we going to ask them to address the engineering and Staff comments? Because they could be coming back with something different. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think, and then I think the only other thing we’re asking, really, is to consider reorienting the site plan to minimize the impact on the buffer. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s all we’re really asking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think so. MR. SEGULJIC-Because the engineering and Staff comments could change. All right. MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 2-2007 ROBERT REID, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: To the October 23, 2007 Planning Board meeting, with a submission deadline of October th 5. With the following condition: That the applicant review various site layouts to reduce potential impact upon the wetland buffer area. th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have a date? th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’ve been tabling them until November 20. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. REID-You can’t do next week at all? Don’t you have one more meeting next week? MR. HUNSINGER-The agenda is full. MR. SEGULJIC-For you to do a good job, it’s going to take a little longer. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s not enough time to get the engineering to the engineer and get comments back. MR. REID-Okay. So a month from now, right? th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The submission deadline is the 15. MR. FULLER-Mr. Chairman, one quick point. Did you open the public hearing yet? MR. HUNSINGER-I did. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. REID-October. We’d much prefer October. Is that a possibility we can do October? rd MR. HUNSINGER-I’d be okay with that. October 23. MRS. BRUNO-The submittal’s already passed. rdth MR. HUNSINGER-October 23. Submission deadline of October 5. So, if you don’t th get it in by October 5, then you’re back in the. MR. REID-Soup. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, for November. MR. REID-That and the wetlands, and you’ve got our new copies? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. REID-Thank you. MR. HILL-Thanks. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2004 MODIFICATION AND RECOMMENDATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ADIRONDACK SPORTS COMPLEX AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) M & C VENTURES, LLC ZONING RC-15 LOCATION 326 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND IS SEEKING A PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION BASED ON PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR FUTURE TRANSIENT MERCHANT EVENTS SO THAT INDIVIDUAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION IS NOT NEEDED FOR EACH FUTURE EVENT. CROSS REFERENCE SP 53-04, AV 65-04, SB 6-04, AV 7-04, PZ 2-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 19.42 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-3.11 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 JOHN SVARE & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Yes. The applicant is requesting two actions from the Planning Board. The first is approval of modifications to the original Site Plan approval as outlined in the August 15, 2007 letter from Tom Nace, and my only comment was that changes in the Site Plan are outlined in that letter and shown on two of the sheets submitted with this application. The second action requested from the Planning Board is recommendations to the Town Board on conditions for a blanket Transient Merchant approval. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Board recommend some parameters that would define the site conditions and performance limits to be met at all future Transient Merchant activities at this site. Future event proposals would, that meet these parameters would still require Town Board approval but would no longer be individually referred to the Planning Board for recommendation. The applicant is suggesting that the parameters used for the 2007 boat show become the basis for all future Transient Merchant event approvals. This would include the use of Morris Field, Tech Meadows, and the West Glens Falls Fire Station properties for parking and event shuttle services. The applicant has not provided any information that shows the owners of these properties would be willing to allow their use for all such future events. In fact, future development may preclude the use of these properties for event parking. No details are provided about the number of spaced that would be used at the WGF Fire Dept. facility, nor is this parking area noted in the shuttle service plans. The Fire Marshal’s Office has also submitted comments for your consideration expressing concerns about traffic flow bottlenecks and maximum occupancy issues. There are comments from the Town’s Consulting Engineer as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before I turn the floor over to the applicant, I do have a comment to make. As many people know, I work for the State of New York. I’m actually an employee of the Housing Trust Fund Corporation, and we actually funded part of this project, and back when I was appointed to the Planning Board, I received a ruling from the State Ethics Commission saying that in event a project that we fund comes before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review that I would be advised to recuse myself. So, I’m going to do that, but in so doing, leave only four members here. So, if there’s any vote taken this evening, it would have to be unanimous. So I would offer to the applicant if you want to withdraw your application for this evening, you would certainly be free to do that, but if you want to move forward, we’ll certainly move forward and I’ll turn the floor over to Mr. Seguljic, and I apologize. I didn’t know Mr. Ford was not going to feel well and leave early. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, assuming they were to withdraw this plan, when could we could hear them again? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we could hear you as soon again as next week, or even Thursday evening. I don’t know if everyone will be here Thursday evening. MR. FULLER-Yes. I guess one suggestion I would have is since you’re already on for a public hearing, might be to allow them to present their application, and if something 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) comes up that may need a vote, you can discuss that, tabling it or on to next week at that time, just to kind of perpetuate and move it a little bit forward. That’s certainly an option is to bring it back next week, and just continue the public hearing until next week, that’s an option, since it’s already been noticed, we should at least get to that step of opening the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sure. MR. SVARE-Following up on Mr. Fuller’s comments, we’d like to be heard tonight, Mr. Chairman, but have the opportunity to be back here, if there’s any votes taken, as soon as possible. So it’s my understanding that the next available meeting would be next Tuesday, Tuesday night? MR. HUNSINGER-You’d have to be at the end of the agenda. MR. SVARE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will turn the floor over to Mr. Seguljic. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So just a clarification. We’re going to proceed, tonight, with comments, a presentation from the applicant? MR. FULLER-That’s a good point. I guess you could proceed as normal, and, you know, get to the point of polling the Board. If you get to a point where something needs to be tabled for additional information, that would be a different scenario, versus if you got to a point tonight, if you get to a point where a final vote might be taken, then I think that’s the concern that the applicant would have was, you know, if it’s a three to one vote, we’re in the same dilemma we were in a couple of minutes ago, and at that point, if you were going through the polling and it didn’t look like we were going to get a majority, either way, for a vote, then I think the prudent course would be to table it for next week, but certainly if there’s a, if you get to a point where you need additional information or something like that, and it looks like everybody’s in agreement on that information, I think then you would be comfortable taking action. I don’t want to speak for the applicant, but I suppose that’s probably an acceptable scenario. MR. SVARE-Yes, that’s agreeable. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Let’s move on. MR. SVARE-By way of introduction, my name is John Svare. I’m an attorney with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes in Glens Falls. On my right is Doug Miller, General Manager of Adirondack Sports Complex, and on my left is Tom Nace from Nace Engineering. Here this evening is Roger Feeney, Executive Director of the Eastern New York Marine Trades Association and Howard Fischer, who are all here in support of the applicant. We’re here to support the Site Plan application, and Mr. Nace will be speaking about that. I will speak briefly about the blanket Transient Merchant plan, and Mr. Miller will add his comments as well. Members of the Board, by way of background, we’re here because the current Transient Merchant license requirements are broke. They don’t work. They hinder business in Queensbury. They jeopardize business, and they place an unnecessary burden on businesses. If you look at Section 160-8 of the Town Code, in order to qualify for a license, you have to apply to the Town 60 days before the event commences. The Town then reviews the application. The Town Board reviews the application and then has the ability, at its discretion to revert the matter back to the Planning Board for a review, and that’s at the Town Board’s discretion. This system created unnecessary roadblocks and jeopardizes business, and so we’re here tonight to suggest a new approach, and members of the Board, I really cannot summarize this as eloquently as Councilman Sanford did on June 18, 2007 at a Town Board meeting. Mr. Sanford notes, on the other hand, this is a Transient Merchant deal, and we need to have a process in place where we don’t put these people through an agonizing process in order to get it. We actually spend quite a bit of money to encourage tourism and sales tax generation, and I want to be receptive to pro business in this particular case, and I certainly would feel the same anxiety that this lady is feeling because of all the preparatory work she has done and only to find out that she might not get the license, and that’s, again, June 18, 2007, Councilman Sanford. I would echo his comments. This process places severe roadblocks up. Mr. Feeney is here, as Executive Director of the Eastern New York Marine Trades Association, the sponsor of the boat show. He would be able to speak about that. So we’re here to suggest a new process, and what was suggested, in consultation with Craig Brown, was let’s create a template, if you will. Let’s create a plan that can be adopted as the standard, that Adirondack Sports Complex 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) can use. This plan would still go through the Town Board, would still be subject to the Town Board’s scrutiny. The only difference is that it would not revert back to the Planning Board. This would be a much more streamlined approach. It would be more efficient. It would be better for the Town of Queensbury, particularly with respect to sales tax generation. At this point, I’d turn the microphone over to Mr. Miller, so that he can shed some light on the plan’s particulars, and in addition we would have some comments on the engineering report as well. The comments by Mr. Brown don’t really seem to reflect that this plan still goes to Town Board. The Town Board still scrutinizes each and every application, and we’re going to have to get approvals and input from all of the stakeholders, and so respectfully, we would request that this plan move forward swiftly, that we approve it this evening, and, Mr. Miller, if you want to speak further about it, at this point, I think that would be appropriate. DOUG MILLER MR. MILLER-Thank you. A little more history, or a little history that I can shed onto this subject may be helpful. The first boat show we did was the first three months that we were open. It was in March of 2006. Prior to that event, we met with Craig Brown to find out what we needed to do, whether the Transient Merchant process needed to be implemented for that event, and coming out of that discussion was the determination that let’s run this, quote unquote, as a trial balloon, see how it goes, see what sort of sales happen, and then make a determination for future years. After the first event, first boat show, he came back and felt that we needed a Transient Merchant license for the following year. Had no issue with that at all. We met with the folks, Roger Feeney and the Board for the Eastern Marine Trades Association, made them aware of that. I recall I the mid 80’s when the Transient Merchant Law was put into place. It was geared around, I’ll use for example tractor trailer loads of furniture coming up from North Carolina and being sold off the back of a tractor trailer, residents having complaints about the product after the people are long gone and having no way to track them. That plus some of the street vendors and those sorts of things, trying to regulate and control those. With that as my premise for the Transient Merchant license, I never had any inkling, nor did the Eastern Marine Trades Association, that the process was going to be as long and drawn out as it was. The 60 days, the Transient Merchant, the Code requires that you submit 60 days prior to the event. Well, submitting 60 days prior to the event might get you your permit, the week of the event, which in fact was the case for the boat show this year. When we got the package and did everything that we had to do to put that together, you’ve got a copy of the one for the Eastern Marine Trades Association for the boat show for this year. It’s a fairly lengthy document. I wouldn’t want to have a pre-existing site that I’d have to go and get engineering for all my setbacks, all my percentage of permeable, percentage impermeable, all of that stuff. To calculate that, that’s what you’re doing for a building permit. That’s not what you’re doing for an event like this, and so they’ve taken, the Town has taken the building permit application and modified it slightly to use it for this. So that’s created a very difficult process for us, a long process, not to mention the fact that these folks are bringing in significant amounts of revenue into the Town, and on top of it, they’ve got to pay a $1500 fee in order to have an event. It just seems crazy. We got to the point where, once we got through the pre- submission process, we had a couple of meetings with Mr. Brown. He needed additional information before we could submit. We met another time. He wanted some additional information, again. We then submitted at like three o’clock the last day it could be submitted, to get it to the Town Board, and now we were inside the 60 day window. The Town Board, and the Code says that the Town Board may choose, it doesn’t say they have to. It says they may choose to pass this on to the Planning Board for review. Because we had done one boat show, and we were at the second one, and the parameters were going to be the same, they chose to approve it at the Town Board level. At the same time, we had another event that was coming up two weeks later that we piggybacked onto that. We still had the same application. There was a whole other application, I could have given you that one. What you’ve got there is one of two that were submitted that night, the Adirondack Living Show, which was also held at the Adirondack Sports Complex. When we came out of that meeting, at the end of January, excuse me, I may be incorrect on the date, but it was right around the end of January, early February, part of the discussion with the Town Board that night was to get together with the Community, the then Community Development Director, Ms. Alter, to start constructing some sort of a vehicle or template or model that could be used, so that we wouldn’t have to go through this process repeatedly year after year after year, vet after vet after vet. I had two or three meetings with her. Karen Angleson, who is also in the audience, had a meeting with her for her show, for the quilt show, and we talked about, again, the Transient Merchant license, and what we’d need to do to get this through. Since that time, Ms. Alter is no longer employed by the Town. We had an event in August, the Arts & Crafts show. The promoter for that show started the process, met 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) with Craig Brown in March to get the process rolling, a good five months, 150 days, prior to the event, and we still couldn’t get, she couldn’t get to the point where she could get everything he wanted where he would bless it and pass it on to the Town Board, until we were within the 60 day window. So we were back at the same problem we had with the previous two events. We were inside the timeframe. She couldn’t commit to her vendors, roughly 120 vendors that were going to be at the Dome, that there was going to be a show, and so it makes it very difficult for her to run her part of the business when she can’t know whether she’s going to get an approval or not. We had another application that we put in front of the Town Board. The Town Board approved in it, but in that resolution they said they will not address any others until we get through some Site Plan modification issues that need to be resolved, and we’re going to talk about that tonight, and we’d work on developing or at least start developing this template with the Planning Board. So in a rather lengthy process, that’s where we’re at today. One thing I’d like to clarify, there is a little bit of misunderstanding, or the way it was phrased, that we’re not asking for this template for all shows. We’re asking for a template. Shows that fit within this template would have this blanket approval. The next to last paragraph in my letter to the Board says events that are within this framework would only require a letter from the event promoter describing the proposed event, completion of the Transient Merchant General Information signature pages, letters of approval from each of the off site parking locations that would be utilized. If it’s outside this framework, we’ve got to go through the whole process, and we would submit to the Town Board. The Town Board would then determine if they want to send it on to the Planning Board, and so it would be the process as normal. What the Town Board has asked us to do is to try and, again, come up with a framework, a template, and events that meet this template we would then have the Planning Board’s blessing to allow the Town Board to then make their final determination. It would still trigger all the inspections from the Fire Marshal. One of the Fire Marshal’s comments, how are these going to happen. I called Mr. Palmer today, spoke to him. I was very taken aback by his comments in here, because he comes and visits our facility. The Dome has an inspection schedule that is different from the rest of the facility. So he comes at least four times a year to do his inspections, and he comes over for each of the events. So he’s there probably more than he is at most other facilities in the Town. He’s there at least 12 times in the last 12 months, and every time he’s come in we’ve talked about any outstanding issues, any concerns he has. He says, no, you’ve done a great job addressing them all, the parking, and when I saw his comments in here about the parking, I asked him, I said, Mike, where did they come from, could you please tell me when those occurred, what issues they were? And he said I can’t recall when they were, and I said, were they in the winter, did we have snow on the ground, was it in the Spring, was it in the summer? He said, I just don’t know. I said, do you have any notes on it? He doesn’t. So it leads me to believe that this goes back to the Lacrosse National Championships that we had last summer, when those folks set up a checkpoint at Sherman Avenue, as vehicles came in, and it did cause a bit of a backup. We moved that down. We didn’t allow them to continue to do that up there, or those folks to continue to do that up there, and in any of our other events, we don’t allow them to check people in or do a vehicle check as they enter the facility because of the potential for backup on Sherman Avenue. In fact, the other comment that he makes, or one of the other comments that he makes, is regarding that, or stating that people, once they get by that checkpoint, it is, quote unquote, free reign to the parking lot. Well, that is completely inaccurate. We have, in all of our contracts, and this is the contract that was signed more than a couple of months ago for the boat show for this year. We require, the Eastern Marine Trades Association will coordinate and handle all parking operations through the Adirondack Sports Complex. If requested and mutually agreed to, the Adirondack Sports Complex will secure off site parking venue within one mile of the ADKFC facility, namely the Morris Field Sports Complex and/or the West Glens Falls Fire Station, and/or a portion of the Glens Falls Tech Meadows Industrial Park on Veterans Road. Any costs incurred with maintaining or securing such additional parking will be paid for by Eastern Marine Trades Association. A, Subparagraph A, Minimum staffing requirements for each specific parking location are as follows: Parking at the Adirondack Sports Complex, five parking lot attendants, at the Morris Field parking lot, one parking lot attendant. At the parking at the Tech Meadows and Fire Station parking lots, two attendants. One attendant could float between the two locations if the volumes are low enough. We have the in there for them. So we do, and also, should a shuttle service be desired, well, that’s not really important here. Three, Eastern Marine Trades Association understands parking for events is prohibited in any residential areas in the vicinity of the facility, i.e. the Hidden Hills development. We have never had any problems with parking at the Hidden Hills development with the exception of the Lacrosse tournament, and there were about a dozen vehicles, out of state plates from Maryland, and that was the main reason. They had some people up at the top to try to control that. I’ll show you, because we have this Site Plan here, it’s not free reign in the parking lot. This is the area where Mr. Palmer was saying we had people along 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) Sherman Avenue. The Lacrosse tournament did do that. We don’t allow it anymore. We now funnel vehicles in. The first checkpoint is here. If the lots are full, people are instructed to go around and use the off site parking. In order to control that, we also require somebody to be back here, because if you tell them to go around here, and they get back to here, and you don’t have somebody there, they can go in and try and find some place to park, and that creates issues. So we require somebody there. We require a person back here. We also require somebody over in this area, so that we’re controlling this fire lane around the Dome. There’s also comments in Vision’s statements about our Site Plan modification. Mr. Palmer doesn’t mention it because he knows this happens. We cone this off and we cone this off. This parking back here is only, and it’s spelled out on here, and I think Vision may have missed it, only for employee parking. This is not for the public. All right. The public can use these sites here. These locations here, or they can use the off site parking. So, we have identified four attendants needed here. We require a fifth one so that, because these people aren’t going to be here all day. They need breaks. So we have a floater that’s relieving them. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry. The Fire Marshal doesn’t have any problem with the employees parking along the fire lane? MR. MILLER-As long as we keep the 20 foot, we are required to keep a 20 foot fire lane. We are 20 foot of pavement. This is off pavement parking here. All right. The 20 foot fire lane is maintained. That’s a good question. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. All right. I’m sorry. MR. MILLER-I think that that addresses the points that were made regarding the Transient Merchant piece, and I think probably the next, unless you have questions you want to entertain now, I’ll turn it over to Tom, and Tom can address the. MR. SEGULJIC-Any Board members have any questions at this time about the Transient Merchant? MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think so. I can tell you my initial reaction, and that is that I feel almost like we need to do a mini workshop with the Town Board in order to put something like this together, since it is something that they have a big part of, and like you said, you met with Ms. Alter three times, and it just seems like it’s a bigger thing than what we can address in one evening’s session. So that it’s done properly, because it sure does sound like you have very valid reasons for needing that. I can’t imagine going through what you just described, is basically a building permit for these vendors. MR. MILLER-We’ve done that four times now, and we’ve got another show that’s potentially happening in December, and some of the shows that we get in, or some of the events that we may get in, we’re not, we’re a sports facility. These events happen, we’re doing four, right now, a year. We want to go to maybe six. That was in our business plan. It was discussed when we went through all the Site Plan approvals three and four years ago. That’s not a main thrust of our business, but it’s a significant piece of our business. All the engines have to be working or we’re going to be in trouble, and the delays that have occurred, in terms of getting it through the process, have been lengthy, and sometimes we may not be able to get an event secured so that we can apply for the Transient Merchant permit, or they can apply for the Transient Merchant permit until you’re so close to the deadline that now they can’t commit to all their vendors or whatever else they’re going to have in their. So this would help us tremendously. MR. SVARE-I guess I would just add that we submitted, the applicant submitted this application at the request of the Town Board, and at the direction of the Town Board essentially. So I guess it’s our feeling that we’ve already been through that workshop process. MRS. BRUNO-I understand. MR. SIPP-Now this would only apply to your complex? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Now, the Balloon Festival next week, have transient people coming in, setting up during the motorcycle event in June. MR. TRAVER-Americade. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SIPP-They have, now, we’re setting ourselves up for one blanket, and yet we have many, many other events taking place. Are they going to have to have separate requirements for each one? MR. MILLER-I guess I would just say that this is an opportunity to maybe take a hard look at this process and maybe come up with some recommendations for everyone, and if they want to present a template, if you will, if they want to present a plan, then maybe they can go through the same, similar process here, but I guess it’s our feeling that this really places an undue burden on the Town, and particularly when we’re trying to encourage tourism, encourage business in Queensbury. To go to the Planning Board, after you’ve already been to the Town Board, and after it’s been 60 days, and it just seems like an unnecessary burden. MR. SIPP-I think you’d get some people argue about the motorcycles, whether we’re encouraging them or not. MR. MILLER-That’s one opinion. MR. SIPP-But what I’m saying is that you’re going to have to make a different template for each event? Is that what you’re asking? MR. NACE-Well, I think one of the considerations here is that this event takes place at a fixed facility, where those facilities are available for this type of an event, for something like the boat show, okay. A lot of the other Transient Merchant stuff that I think you deal with may take place at one venue this year and a different venue next year. So I think that, in a way, this is a little bit different. So I think that, in a way, this is a little bit different. MR. MILLER-Yes, that was part of our discussion with the Town Board, is the fact that all the event activities happen within the existing buildings. We’re not putting up any temporary tents. We’re not putting up any temporary buildings for it. It’s all pre-existing structures, and a lot of the application asks for information about proposed changes to the site for the event. We’re not changing anything on the site. MR. SIPP-Yes. We get applications for a shoe sale up on the Million Dollar Half Mile with a tent, each year. MR. MILLER-And that’s, from the Town Board’s comments, they’re putting up a temporary structure outside, or putting up a temporary structure to have this event or this sale in. We’re doing everything within the existing building. We’re not doing any sales outside. We have nothing going on outside the facility. MR. SIPP-All right. Now my second comment is, are you going to get a blanket okay from the City of Glens Falls to use that parking area and for the West Glens Falls Fire Department? MR. MILLER-What we put in the application was that each event, if you so grant us the approval, or blanket approval, what we’re required to do is still fill out the Transient Merchant application. We won’t need all the Site Plan information or site information, but we would need the vendor’s information, so they know who the vendors are. We would need the signature pages, and we would also need the letters of support for any ancillary parking facilities that we would use. If we can’t get those letters of support, we can’t have the event that would need that spot. Tech Meadows may, at some point, not be available to us because they ended up building something there. MR. SIPP-Right. If the City of Glens Falls decides to charge for their parking, would this be part of the? MR. MILLER-We do, we pay them. They charge us $200 to use that site for the weekend. MR. SIPP-How about the Fire Department? MR. MILLER-The Fire Department we make a donation to. MR. SIPP-Now, I just, I don’t know as we can do one size fits all. That’s my concern here. Is there liability insurance needed for this kind of event? MR. MILLER-Yes. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SIPP-Is there limit set on this liability? Is there a certain policy which is in effect on all events, or is it just taken out for one particular event? MR. MILLER-We have, our insurance covers anybody that comes into the Dome for any activity, whether it’s a sporting event or the boat show, we’re covered for anybody coming in for any reason. We require, then, each event promoter to provide us with Certificate of Insurance listing us as an additional insured. The Tech Meadows, the City of Glens Falls, requires us the same Certificate of Insurance. MR. SIPP-What happens if this shuttle bus is in an accident? Can the Town be sued? MR. MILLER-I don’t want to say no. I’ll let the attorney answer that. MR. SVARE-I think Mr. Fuller would. MR. FULLER-I would give you the response I give whenever I get that question. It’s the one word, can. Yes. Just as much as the bus driving down the road right now. MR. SEGULJIC-Always a possibility. MR. FULLER-Absolutely, and that could happen whether it’s a Lacrosse tournament, a baseball tournament, soccer, boats, you name it. MR. SIPP-Having been in school bus administration of running school buses, I know that they’re liable for any accident that happens, no matter where it may be and who’s responsible and whatever may happen. So is there a provision going to be made for this? Is the Town going to have to make a provision in their insurance? MR. MILLER-Does the Town now, for other events that occur in the Town? MR. FULLER-No. You’re treading into an issue not related to, I think, the Site Plan or the Merchant issues that we’re. I think if you want me to throw it out there, answering for the Town’s insurance company, they’d love to see Certificates for anything that happens, because it gives them another pocket of opportunity, rightfully so, in the event of a potential loss, but it is somewhat difficult for a municipality when it’s not using municipally owned property, aside from roads. Everybody that drives on the road would be subject to that requirement at that point, but it is different. You’d be hard pressed to include another insurance requirement. MR. SEGULJIC-In your letter you state, events that fall within the framework. I didn’t see anything that defined framework. MR. MILLER-What we mentioned in, or what I mentioned in, the framework is paragraph, the fourth paragraph that starts I have included the blanket application request and a copy of the application for the boat show that was held this past March. I propose using the parameters of the approved boat show as the framework by which other events would be judged. Simply stated, all activities occur within the Dome, in the support building at the Adirondack Sports Complex and all parking would be confined to the parking areas around the Dome, the Morris Field parking lot, the West Glens Falls Tech Meadows parking lot, and the West Glens Falls Fire Station. Each of these are further defined in the boat show application. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what you’re defining as the template? MR. MILLER-Yes. If we can contain all our parking in those three sites, and we keep all the activities in the Dome, we’re not erecting any tents, any temporary structures of any sort. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Not having a lot of experience at looking at these things, it would seem to me the biggest issue is the parking of people and the transportation of them. What other issues arise? MR. MILLER-I had a vendor tear a net in the Dome. MR. FULLER-I rarely weigh in on an application when you’re deliberating, but one thing that strikes me as a legal question, along the questions of where you were heading, is how do you police off site parking? Do you not allow people to walk on? If somebody 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) parked in the neighborhood, in the area, do you not allow them to walk into the parking facility? MR. MILLER-From like the residential neighborhoods like Hidden Hills? MR. FULLER-Yes. How do you police that? MR. MILLER-I’ll drive up there personally myself, multiple times during the day. We send out, and actually I’m glad you’re asking the question. This may help. We had an incident last year with the Lacrosse Tournament. We got more press for the promoter of the event, going up there, talking to the police, talking to the neighbors, without us knowing it, and that’s been something we’ve added to the contract. Any, and I’m paraphrasing now, any communications with police or media relating to the operations of the Adirondack Sports Complex or events at there need to be referred to the management of the Adirondack Sports Complex immediately. We didn’t find out until about three hours later. I called the Post Star to try and find out what happened, and I called Sheriff’s Cleveland’s office to find out what was going on, and unfortunately we already had some negative press. The girl, who was a young girl, she was the promoter for the Lacrosse tournament, standing on the golf cart, talking to the neighbors and that was not her area to be doing that. We now, as a result of that, I send a letter out to about 40 residents, right in the immediate entrance area of Hidden Hills, stating that we’ve got this event coming. If they have any concerns, any questions, to call either myself or Julie Clark, who is basically my right hand person at the facility. I give them the number to the Dome, and I also give them my personal cell numbers, and I’ve gone around and knocked on some doors to say have you had any concerns, anything since that Lacrosse tournament, and there have been none. There were some letters that came in to the Town Board, after the Lacrosse tournament. Since then, since we have made the changes we’ve made to how we handle things going on outside, there have been none. I’ve asked that every time we’ve been in front of the Town Board, and the Building Department, have you had any concerns, any letters, any calls regarding our operations, and there have been none. So that’s over a year. MR. TRAVER-If you’re requiring your vendors to have the parking attendants, why not just give the people who are parking a ticket or something of some kind that they would have to show at the door that they were properly parked? But I really wanted to ask another question. Right now we have to go through this, you have to go through or your vendors have to go through whole process for each event, and you’re looking for a blanket approval for all events going into the future. Have you thought about proposing something in between, in between never and every single time? Like maybe we could review this on an annual basis or, the situation does change, and by, granted, you know, conceptually the idea seems sensible, and I can certainly appreciate your wanting to streamline the process, but from our point of view, the environ, even though you’re holding this in in this fixed facility, there are contextual issues that this Board has to consider that do change over time. Even though your needs may not, and your vendor’s desire to hold an event like a boat show every year, time after time after time. So, it would seem to me that, though the idea of trying to streamline the process is sensible, something between every single application requiring review and on the other extreme a blanket application is probably called for. MR. MILLER-For the record, I want to make sure we’re clear on two things. We’ve been requested by the Town Board to do this. This isn’t our genesis, and the second thing, it’s not for all events. It’s only for events that would fall within whatever time, or whatever template or framework we can come to agreement on. If it’s outside of that, if we’re going to be erecting tents temporarily outside, we would need to then, you know, go through the whole process. That said, I have no problem, if we can come to an agreement of saying annually we will, I will come before this Board to discuss, or if any issues come up you could request that we come before the Board to discuss some issues that may have come out of an event. I have no problem with that. MR. TRAVER-It’s likely to happen, let’s face it, that whatever blanket application we were to come up with, that no solution is going to be perfect, and therefore it does need to have, right now we have the ultimate fluidity with having every single event having a complete application process, and I’m sure you can understand the original reasons for that. So if we’re trying to compromise, which does seem like, at least in theory, a sensible idea, we’ve got to have, we’ve got to leave some room in there for us to take what we’ve learned and maybe make changes in this blanket proposal, and I just put that out there for you to consider. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-With regard to the Fire Marshal comments, have you met with him again? MR. MILLER-I talked to him today, and I asked, we had a pleasant conversation, and I asked him specifically, I said, Mike, I was really surprised by the comments. I mean, you and I have had numerous conversations about this, because you’re probably one of the most, one of the people I have to keep most happy because you inspect the facility more regularly than anybody else, and I said, you talk about, let’s go through them, if we can, point by point, because they weren’t read into the record. The plans indicate shuttle service in remote parking areas which in itself indicates that the facility is not equipped to handle the numbers of vehicles expected for such an event. No, it’s clear. We do not have the capacity to handle all the parking that would be associated with events like the boat show or the Adirondack Living Show. We weren’t sure if we did for the fine arts show. It turned out the fine arts show, we did not use Morris Field and we did not use the Fire Station. We used the Tech Meadows site. We didn’t need it. She didn’t have enough people visiting the show to even utilize that. She chartered two buses and it was not necessary at all. So clearly we do not have that capability, but neither do events at the Civic Center. The Civic Center does not have its own integral parking facility to handle all the people that come in to the Civic Center. The basketball tournament. They’re using shuttles. A lot of that came from our process that we used last year. I’ve met with Doug Kenyon, he said how did you do that? Well, this is what we did, and now they’re incorporating it into the State Basketball Championships. So these are creative ways to solve the parking problems, and the good thing that we’re doing, we don’t have people parking, with the rare exception, in residential areas. We’re confining the parking to a very small number of places, which I think is a benefit to the citizens. MRS. BRUNO-So what you’re saying is the formula that the Fire Marshal uses to come up with his maximum capacity of people within is different enough from our formula for determining number of parking spaces because of the size of the building. It’s enough of a difference that even if you had two or four people in cars and you’re parking outside of those planned parking spaces, you still have enough room within the building to have those people come into the building. MR. MILLER-I see what you’re saying, yes, and I’ll talk briefly about that, but then we’ll talk a little more in detail about it in one of his later comments. We can handle, with the modifications, we can handle around 224 vehicles on site. Correct me if I’m wrong. Is that the right number, Tom? MR. NACE-Two hundred and twenty. MR. MILLER-Two hundred and twenty. Two hundred and twenty vehicles on site. Currently we’re about 164. Our occupancy limit, when you take all the areas in the facility, can be as much as 901 people, and you put people on shuttle buses. The buses will sometimes come and go with 20 and 30 people on them. So you’ve got another potentially 60, 80 people in transit, all right. So we’ve got people constantly coming and going. The boat show, for example, and Roger can speak more clearly to the numbers than I can. It was roughly 3500 people visited the facility for the boat show over the course of three and a half days, which was roughly 30 hours. So we’re just over 100 an hour, if you do a net average. Now, yes, there’s peaks and valleys in that. The Fire Marshal’s occupancy numbers, and I brought some information that I can share with you folks, and I’ve got copies for you, he does the occupancy number for the rooms in the Adirondack Sports Complex, and this is what he gave me. I made a copy of each of them. There’s 136 people that we can have in the dining room. The multi function room can have 190 people in it. The back function room can have 324 people in it, and that goes from, and they’re reduced from standing to chairs only to tables and chairs. So there’s three different sets of numbers for each of the rooms. When we put all that together, I could have anywhere from a minimum of 471 to a maximum of 901, at any given time. MR. SEGULJIC-How do you ensure there’s not more than 901 people in there? MR. MILLER-Every one of the events is required to do ticket sales. We don’t count everybody that goes in and everybody that goes out to keep, to know exactly what the number is in there at any given time, but when you look at the total ticket sales or the total vendors, excuse me, customers coming in, and you blend that over 36 hours or 30 hours, you get pretty close. We don’t have nobody in there for half of the time and everybody coming in. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-This is unusual for us to look at something like this. I’m going to turn to Counsel. Is that an issue we should be looking at? MR. FULLER-I’m writing down various things that we need to look at. I can understand, and I’m hearing the discussion with great interest. I’m glad I’m here tonight, because this may necessitate us taking a look at the Statute that we have now to see what we need to do to allow for a scenario like this, and that, reading this and hearing the numbers that I just said, I think it’s something we have to take a look at. I don’t know, you know, we have to look at what the threshold limit is and how they manage that, and I think that’s a question for the Fire Marshal, but certainly I wouldn’t advise putting the Planning Board or the Town Board in a position of approving something that allows in excess of the State Code. You talk about liability questions, there’s one. MR. MILLER-Well, my conversations with the Fire Marshal, he says it’s out of his jurisdiction to enforce that number. It will be our burden if something should happen, is the way he explained it to me. Now, for the Dome, just to go on a little bit on the Dome, when we first, the multi function room, the back function room and the dining room are occupancy numbers that are controlled or determined by the Fire Marshal. The Dome, we went to the State Codes, the State Code Review Board, and our initial proposal, without getting into long detail on this, our initial proposal was to put smoke detectors and return air streams of the air handlers for the Dome. We didn’t request a number, which may have been a mistake on our part. We were trying to come up with a number, and we were turned down on the smoke detectors and the return air stream. They wanted beam detectors. Beam detectors don’t work in the Dome. We then compromised and settled on smoke and heat detectors on every one of the emergency exit doors. They then came back after meeting and said, how about an occupancy load of 90 people, in a 98,000 square foot facility, 98,000 square feet in the Dome alone. I said, that’s, we might as well not even go any further because I can’t operate the business that way. So then they met, talked again, and they came back in and said 250. We were at the point where we needed, we’d been trying to get in front of that Board for almost three months and we were getting close to being ready to be open, well, we should have been. We had some construction delays after that that set us back about three months, and we took the number. My representatives that were there, my architect that was representing me had never been in front of this Board before, that Board before, and in hindsight, we never should have accepted that number. Since then, I have approached six other facilities throughout the State who have all got occupancy numbers of anywhere from 485 up to over 1,000. So we’re going to be going back before that Board. What my attorney wanted me to do was wait, because we knew that the Latham Dome that came down this winter, the golf dome, was going for a larger facility and going before this same review board, and he wanted to wait and see how their, how they came out of that. They came out with smoke detectors in the return air stream, four fewer emergency exits than we have, and an occupancy number of, I think, 498. So, we’re going back before that Board to get the Dome’s numbers increased, but we needed to have the information from this current proceeding or that proceeding before we could formalize our case. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How is bus parking handled? MR. MILLER-For events? MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I assume a lot of people will come in on a bus, like teams will come in on a bus. MR. MILLER-Teams will come in on a bus, and they’ll take, we’ve got head to head parking. They’ll take two, I can put buses in here, stacked in here, and they don’t impede this lane, because we have this parking, the end of this parking for events is set eight feet off the building. The other option we have is they’ll take these two parking spaces and fill them. MR. SEGULJIC-So it hasn’t been a problem? MR. MILLER-No, we don’t have that many buses at any given time. The most I’ve had is about six buses at any point. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. SIPP-What about a sporting event in which one game is over and another one is about to start where parents are leaving and more parents are coming in? Is there a possible bottleneck problem there? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. MILLER-Let’s go through the rest of Mike’s comments. Additionally, the flow does not work as indicated at the plans. At sporting events, parents bring their children directly to the facility which causes bottlenecks on the property, preventing emergency services access and traffic on Sherman Avenue is backed up in an easterly direction past Northway Lane. Number Two, during trade shows, vendors also must get into and out of the property to deliver and pick up displays. The same bottleneck conditions indicated above are present. That, I asked Mike, I said, Mike, where did you get that from? Because he’s never been there, we don’t have that many vendors coming in. I’ve got more people coming in for sporting events at that turnover as you were mentioning, than I do for vendors. So, I just don’t, I’m just going to leave it at that. I’m absolutely flabbergasted by him. He had no other response. So what we did, and I think most of his comments are relating to the Lacrosse tournament and perhaps not the 2006/2007 winter, but the half winter we had 2005/2006, March, the January, February, March timeframe. At that point, we have four indoor soccer fields, or four quarter fields, and we were changing all four fields at the same time. So all four fields would start at five o’clock. Their games would end at six o’clock. The next people were coming in. That did create a bottleneck. What we did this year, we staggered. The back two fields start at five. The front two fields start at 5:30. So every half hour we’re changing half of the facility, and that has completely eliminated any bottlenecking, and that’s gone on this whole year. I just, I don’t think Mike has visited the facility during those times within the past year. He visits during the day, during his normal work hours. Our activities all start at five and go until 11 o’clock, 12 o’clock at night. MR. SEGULJIC-So it sounds like a lot of these comments just need clarification. MR. MILLER-I think so. MR. SEGULJIC-And then we can get a letter from him or something stating that. MR. MILLER-Number Three, I’d just like to read through the rest of them. Although steps that have been taken to control traffic flow and parking on the site, the number of people utilized cannot keep the fire lanes open or prevent parking in the designated fire lanes. I took great exception with that statement and I talked to him about that that day and he said, I know you’ve worked on that, and I said, Mike, when have you seen these problems, and he cannot tell me the dates and times. So that just leaves me very suspect on the comments. MR. SIPP-Have you thought about a Sheriff’s patrol, such as the Balloon Festival does to direct traffic? MR. MILLER-The thing is we don’t have traffic problems on Sherman Avenue anymore. They haven’t existed, but we could. I do let the Sheriff know ahead of all of our events. MR. SIPP-Well, you have people coming from Glens Falls making a left turn, there is traffic going down Sherman Avenue towards the City. MR. MILLER-Correct. MR. SIPP-Or coming out of your complex, may cause a bottleneck there. MR. MILLER-We did see it for the Lacrosse tournament, and we did see it occasionally with our turnovers on the hour last year, but not, since we’ve changed that, we’ve smoothed that out entirely. MR. SIPP-I don’t mean to (lost words) you, but I’m looking at all the things that could possibly happen, and we make one size fits all, I think we’ve got to be aware of all the possibilities that could happen. MR. MILLER-And I like Mr. Traver’s comment. If something comes up, I’ll be glad to come back and we will revisit it. The biggest impediment to flow is the one way in, one way out. I don’t know of any other way to do traffic. The persons put in place to control traffic, stop traffic at the beginning of the access road, and again, we’ve talked about that, so I’m not going to belabor that point anymore. Once traffic clears the checkpoint, it’s pretty much free reign to park in the most convenient areas, which includes the fire lanes and other areas required for traffic flow. We’ve talked about that. It appears the single 24 foot wide road in bound and out bound is not practical. That comes from engineering review. That’s not my bailiwick. If a blanket application is approved for Transient Merchant/Transient Market event, how will the required inspections and 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) verifications of maximum occupancy be triggered? The inspections are going to be triggered the same way they always have been because we still have to fill out the application. It still has to go, be submitted for Town Board approvals. So that’s where all that triggers from. The facility has an imposed maximum occupancy limit of 250 people. The facility doesn’t, the Dome does. How will a blanket approval will be affected and the traffic flow if successful application is granted by the review board to increase the occupant load. The occupant load is higher than that. As I mentioned before, it’s up to 901. The scenario of the appeal to the review board has been discussed by Mr. Miller, and that’s going back to the State which we talk about before the Dome. What plans, or what happens to this plan if the Morris complex is not available. We’ve talked about that, or the Tech Meadows. If they’re not available, that changes what we can do for events. We would have to provide a letter of support from any of the off site parking facilities that we would use for each event. I don’t think a blanket letter, actually a blanket letter saying, yes, okay, they can use that, is not in your best interest or the Town’s best interest because the conditions at that site may change and they’ve already given us a blanket letter. I think event by event is the best way to go. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Should we keep this application going on the Transient Merchant, get a public hearing for that, and then talk about the Site Plan issues? MR. BAKER-Well, you’ve got a public hearing, the public hearing, I believe, is on both. So it’s really at your discretion how you want to approach it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Is there anyone here who wants to comment? MR. FULLER-I would do them all at once. MR. SEGULJIC-Do them all at once? MR. NACE-I promise to be real quick. The Site Plan modifications have been proposed for two reasons. One, to address some of the minor changes that Doug has made during construction and had been called out in Bruce Frank’s review of the facility, and other changes are to try to add a little more parking on the facility site where it’s practical. Real quick, the changes include new lane of parking. Right now it’s gravel, which Doug used some gravel that come out of where he had to make a parking lot repair and placed that outbound of the existing parking to provide additional parking spaces. It’s anticipated that even though it’s gravel now, it eventually could be paved, and our stormwater’s been predicated on that being paved. We’ve added five parking spaces, the south side of the air lock. We’ve added eight parking spaces, intended for employee parking, at the south end, still maintaining a 20 foot fire lane, and we’ve added 18 off pavement, on grass, parking spaces, again, still maintaining a 20 foot fire lane, along the west side of the facility. It’s intended that these would be for event personnel. As Doug said, during events, parking personnel are stationed here and here to prevent this road from being accessed by the general public. We’ve also proposed some off pavement, on grass, parking here in this corner below the southern Lacrosse field for the Transient Merchant people during special events and also some trailer storage area back here on the grass. If you’ll recall, in our original approved Site Plan, we had said that overflow parking for the facility would be handled on the grass. So these are two places where we’re proposing a little more formally to use that overflow parking, and again, it would just be for events. This would occur, as Doug said, I think you were talking about maybe six events a year, in that range. So it’s not parking that would be used every day. The engineer brought up, one of his comments is this will get packed down and will be impervious. When it’s used that infrequently, it really doesn’t. The sands out there are fairly course sands, and I don’t anticipate those receiving enough use to really get packed and be impervious. One of the other changes that Doug made, if you’ll remember the original Site Plan was a two phased approach, and we were anticipating that the second phase might be a tennis dome in here. In the interim, I don’t know if that’s ever going to occur, but at least in the interim for the present time, this had been leveled off and it was anticipated in the original Site Plan that this would be leveled off and grassed. Doug has gone ahead and constructed a softball field, softball/baseball field in that space. Other changes are fairly minor. The building changed, the layout of the building changed slightly, and some doors were relocated and therefore some lights, the exterior lights that had been over those doors were relocated. I think that’s pretty much it. The engineer’s comments we just got at the end of last week, and I haven’t had time to make a formal response to all of them, but I’m confident that they either are already taken care of or can easily be addressed with him. MR. SEGULJIC-So the, clarification, each of these improvements has been completed already? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. NACE-No, not all of them have been completed. This parking along the outside here has been partially completed, if you’ve been to the site, I think from here maybe up to about here, Doug’s placed gravel in there and is using it for parking. The lights on the building have been changed. The baseball field has been constructed. Some of the other changes, I guess you are occasionally using this area for overflow parking up here, right? Up south of the Lacrosse field, right? MR. MILLER-We’ve only used it for the boat show and the dog show. MR. NACE-Okay. These spots have been striped. These have not been striped yet for parking. These are not being used for parking. There’s some employee parking behind the building here, and a couple of extra spaces in here that have not been done. So it’s a mixture, some of it has, some of it hasn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-And the buffer area has not been impacted, according to this. MR. NACE-No, it hasn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any comments from the Board on this? It looks pretty straightforward I think. MR. NACE-The one change I did leave out, or didn’t mention. The landscaping. After looking at the facility, having been completed or substantially completed, we have revised the landscaping plan, for two reasons. One, to minimize the amount of leaves generated that have to be taken care of on the fields, and, Two, to eliminate some of the additional buffer planting that we had had along the perimeter, where, now that we see the existing tree cover doesn’t appear to be necessary. So, I think there was some buffering up here that was proposed for planting, and some additional buffering back here. I think there was a little along the southern end here, that once you look at the site. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re saying you’ve eliminated some of the proposed landscaping? MR. NACE-We’ve eliminated some of the proposed landscaping from the approved plan. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t have the approved plan here. MR. NACE-No, you don’t. I’ve got a copy of it here, I think. I thought I had it. I apologize, I don’t. I picked up what I thought was a complete set of drawings, and I do not have it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Does anyone have comments on this? If not, we’ll open up the public hearing, to the public. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, let’s do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Would anyone from the public like to comment on either the Transient Merchant application or the Site Plan? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KAREN ANGLESON MS. ANGLESON-My name is Karen Angleson, I Greenwood Lane. I was Chairman, this past June, of a quilt show for a local quilt club that has been in existence since the 70’s. We’ve had a bi-annual quilt show. Every two years we’ve had it at ACC, and we had outgrown it, and I called Dan Stec to see if he had any ideas of where we might be able to hold it, and he didn’t. Started asking around and went and talked with Doug, after talking to the Civic Center and the Forum up in Lake George and Saratoga Civic Center, and some of the schools. The schools couldn’t accommodate us because we were in June. His place was absolutely perfect, and I don’t know if any of you have been to a quilt show, but we had over 250 quilts our own members had and we display them, and then we have some vendors come in and they sell quilt related items. We have teachers do some classes. We have displays of national quilts. We had a quilt made to commemorate the 9/11. We had a quilt made from a group in Saratoga that has traveled to Africa which absolutely different. Our basis is we are a nonprofit group. So we felt a little differently, after talking to Ms. Alter about the transient vendor code, but we accommodated, we did everything. Doug was very easy to work with. His contract was very easy to follow. Our vendors were very good about all the insurance forms. We had, 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) I mean, we didn’t have any problem with parking. We had volunteers of our own organization that were the parking attendants. We did not have to have a bus service. We had arranged for the White Cab company to provide us with vans to transport people, but we didn’t have that much of a crowd. We had just less than 1,000 people over a two day period. So we didn’t, as he was trying to describe, you’d have people come in and out and probably didn’t have more than 200 there at a time when we were selling our tickets. One of the things that concerns me with the transient vendor law is that we have teachers come and, I mean, we have nationally known teachers, and some of the vendors, they start filling out their contracts two and three years ahead. If you don’t get them signed at least two years before a show, at the very, very least a year before a show, you won’t get them. That makes it very difficult for that type of thing. Our goal in life, as a Quilt Guild, is to be educational to the community and to do community service, and that’s what we did, and I just would like to give great support to the Dome. It’s an excellent place to have that kind of a function, as it is the boat show and the dog show. It’s a great big, huge room where you can put a lot of things in. You can display it in different configurations to fit your own needs, and it worked very well. When we went to ACC, we were very crowded in the gym. Nobody said anything about fire. Nobody said anything about any of the things that you’ve been asking him questions about tonight, but there’s not much place in Town for a venue like this, and it is all inside. That’s the other thing with the transient vendor. There’s nothing outside, as far as a vendor is concerned, and these shows that he’s having, for like ourselves being the quilt show, is this is different than the sports issue. It’s not the same. It’s all inside. I don’t know if there’s any questions you’d like to ask me, but we were very pleased with it. It brought a lot of people in from out of the area. We did a survey at the, the people could sign. Most people came from within a 40 mile radius, but there were a good number of people that came within 100 to 150 mile radius, and we were hoping to be able to, in two years, have the show there again, advertise some more with word of mouth, and possibly even entice some more people to the area, because now we have the venue to have a large show. We didn’t have that before. I know several of the vendors stayed in the Town of Queensbury. If we have to move it some place else, such as Saratoga or Lake George, you know, they won’t be here. Wings Falls is the name of the Guild, and it takes in anybody from Albany to Plattsburgh. Most of the people are in the Glens Falls/Saratoga area. So we would like to stay local, and basically I would be very much in favor of you doing whatever you can to make the transient vendor code, rule, whatever it is be much more accessible to people. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else? ROGER FEENEY MR. FEENEY-Hi. I’m Roger Feeney with the Eastern New York Marine Trades Association, and we’re the ones that worked with Doug with the boat show that prompted some of the questions or some of the polices that he’s instituting as things we tell you about would happen in each show. One thing, you’ve got the question on the insurance, and to elaborate on that, also one thing Doug has his own insurance. He did require our organization to supply him with the policies with the two million dollar limits, and we require every vendor that’s in there, even our dealers and so forth, to provide their own insurance certificate naming the Town and him as additionally insured. So those things are out there from everybody that’s there. The parking that always seems to be the concern. Off site parking is not an usual thing here in Queensbury, between the Balloon Festivals and Americades and everything else that goes on when they have the Downtown street fest in Glens Falls, I think they even instituted some shuttles for other things to get people Downtown this year, but, you know, we use those three fields or, you know, if something has to change, we have to find other locations. We can’t go ahead and have that many people without those places available, and we would get the letters of consent. We do hire people to do the parking lot control. We’re talking to the fire company, too, in West Glens Falls, if they’d like to have some of their people monitor their own parking lots and the other one we would pay them just like we would pay somebody else and it would be a donation, essentially, to them for their time. There is a prescribed shuttle route they follow, and we make sure they’re off the pavement and everything when they’re stopping on the roads to pick people up. They don’t just plug up the roads when they’re stopping to board and unload, and there’s a lot of local dealers and so forth that are involved. Five of the boat dealers are right here in Queensbury. There’s probably about 12 of them that are in the Warren County area. So there are a lot of local businesses that are depending on this to be their primary way to help keep their 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) businesses alive, and the lead time, as she just said, is again a big thing for us, mostly in the advertising area, that we begin spending our promotion dollars in places that are committed in December, January and February, all that starts flowing to get the word out to people to come here. Last year about I guess 2600 people visited, even despite the snowstorms. Our customers have come as far as from Montreal to Pennsylvania to Lower Hudson Valley to Connecticut and Massachusetts. So there is the impact on overnight stay. A lot of them were shut out last year because of the snowstorm we had, prevented them from that overnight trip with the Saturday snow, but it does have the same, similar impact with sales tax dollars because there are some big ticket items that are sold at the boat show, but, you know, the parking thing is something that we’re very concerned about. We knew, you know, the Town’s concern, and we instituted all these kind of extra measures to make sure we had enough vans to shuttle people and enough place to put them, so that they wouldn’t be in Hidden Hills or standing in the cold, because we were in March. So I was kind of cold out there. We can’t keep them around. So, again, that was just, time is really an issue to us, and if we’re down to 60 days, we’re almost too late. We need to know something where we could get, you know, I was hoping I was going to turn this application in, before I knew all this process was going on, I was going to go to Craig and get my application in September and get started, and then I found out, you know, that this process is going on with Doug, but, you know, time is of the essence for us because we have a long lead time with our efforts, too. So we’d appreciate any consideration you folks can give us to figure out a good, effective way to work with this, and it is a program for really just the Dome, you know, that facility they brought up, you know, they said they couldn’t understand why the Board, when we were at that meeting, said, gee, you know, this is a fixed facility. It’s got a Site Plan. We know what it is. There’s not a bunch of unknown things. Why can’t we have something that all of these things are spelled out, how you’re going to do business. Now we just need to know who you are and what you’re going to do and what hours you’re going to operate and so forth. So that’s what they kind of directed us to try to help figure out. I hope we can. I’m willing to help in any way we can. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. There’s no question that the Transient Merchant Law is broke. It was broke from the day it was written. It wasn’t written to cover the kind of work that’s before you tonight, the kind of activity that’s before you tonight. It was written to discourage the kind of activity someone mentioned earlier, that the truckload of mattresses that comes to Town sold on the street corner. Most of the products that did come through, you’d need asbestos gloves to handle. That’s what it was written to discourage, not what you’re hearing tonight. Here it says the applicant proposes modifications to a previously approved Site Plan and is seeking a Planning Board recommendation. Why can’t we separate those two tonight? Let’s get on with their Site Plan approval, get that done, they’re on their way, and then we can do what Mrs. Bruno suggested is a mini workshop with the Town Board. Something’s got to be done about the Transient Merchant Law. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else? Okay. The question is where do we go from here? We have one more comment. Sorry. THERESA MILLER MRS. MILLER-I’m Theresa Miller. I’m Doug’s wife. I didn’t come prepared to say anything, but in listening to what you’re saying, I have some of my own thoughts, and I appreciate everything you’ve helped us with. You did approve us, you know, you helped with us to build the Dome, and in listening to all these traffic issues, and I’m just wondering if anything was ever done. What about all the things, the Balloon Festival? I’ve waited in line for hours to get in and out or to just get to Hannaford if it was the Balloon Festival going on, and I certainly don’t want to see any problems with that. That’s a great thing for our area, but these things are just coming to my mind. Queensbury School, you know, the day of the prom, it takes me half an hour to get out of church, basketball games, big football games, the traffic is always bottlenecked up. I mean, I don’t know if anybody’s ever, you know, questioned that or how they get, you know, that kind of thing. I mean, I know it’s a public place, but, you know, I’m hearing all these questions about the parking. We are trying very hard to accommodate everybody 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) around us, our neighbors. We planted shrubs for the neighbors across the way, so that, you know, the wouldn’t see any light or hear any noise or that kind of thing. I mean, we offered. I don’t think that ever came through the Town or anything. Our lights are very low. I’m just, you know, some things are going through my mind, and I’m thinking, you know, what about the people that live across from Queensbury School with the lights and the traffic and all the games, and you wouldn’t want to stop that. I mean, we are here for the community, but Doug and I were both teachers. We just, our daughter played ball, and, you know, every time we played a lot of teams we would lose and Doug, you know, we rented gyms and we did a lot of things, and we went into this Dome and Doug said, wouldn’t this be great for our community, and here we are. So we would like to work with you in any way we can, but like I said, you know, part of our livelihood are these shows, and we feel that’s another great asset for the community. We’ve been told that over and over. This is so great. I wish this was here when, you know, I was growing up, and maybe these are things that need to be addressed, obviously, at the workshop, but they’re just some thoughts, you know, I’m hoping that we can come to an agreement so that we can continue to, you know, be an asset to the community, but, you know, like I said, I hope you also consider that we’re not the only venue in Town that might stop traffic twice a year, you know, if there is any slow up in traffic, which I don’t believe, like I said, that I’ve ever had to wait, and I’ve been in and out. I’ve gone to the grocery store in the middle of these things. I’ve never had to wait in line for some of the times I’ve waited for some other events. So I just hope you keep that in mind. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I think I’ll leave the public hearing open. Where do we want to go from here? MR. TRAVER-I have another question for the applicant. You mentioned, when you spoke about the occupancy issue, that you’d reached out to some other Dome operators in the area to see how they address that. Have you spoken with them about the transient vendor issues in their own community and how that’s handled? MR. MILLER-On a couple of occasions, yes, but most, no, and that’s a good question. I know I have talked to a facility in Buffalo, Tonawanda. They don’t have a Transient Merchant license. They can do whatever they want. I’ve talked to some out of State, which may not be as applicable, and they’re pretty much free to do what they want. The City of Glens Falls, I’ve just, because we do quite a bit with the Tech Meadows park, I’ve asked them what their Transient Merchant application is. It’s a two page application. They actually gave it to me. It’s a two page application. It goes to the Chief of Police. He signs off on it. If he’s okay, it goes to the Mayor. It’s a done deal in seven days. MR. TRAVER-But it might be information that might be helpful to us going into our workshop, just to see how, in addition to your sort of boilerplate application that you’ve done for the boat show that you’ve given us, to see from several other similar sized towns, you know, similar venues or whatever, how they’ve addressed this issue. We might be able to glean some useful information from that. MR. MILLER-The workshop that Mrs. Bruno referred to, is that Town Board, Planning Board and the applicant? MRS. BRUNO-I’m not really sure how it would take place. I understand that the Town Board had suggested that you come before us, and I understand that you’ve already done a lot of work yourselves and probably feel like you’ve been through many workshops, perhaps even put some of them on yourself. It’s just, this is such a complex and relatively different, you know, compared to what we usually deal with, that I would feel very uncomfortable making any decisions. I don’t know how it would happen. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess the Town Board is looking for a recommendation from us. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. FULLER-That’s right. The Town Board has the authority and the ability, even aside from the laws that you have, to flat out refer something to you. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. FULLER-They can ask you for a recommendation on planning matters like this, and it is a difficult animal to wrestle with. MRS. BRUNO-But if we’re uncomfortable with giving them a recommendation without actually hearing some of what they’ve had to say, I mean, it feels almost like we’re running a little blind. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think our recommendation is that we have a workshop. I mean, that’s what I’m hearing, that, you know, let’s pool our resources and, you know, the applicant I think has done an excellent job of giving us some information, historically, about how this has been handled in the Town, and we have kind of a boilerplate thing here we can do. We have a process that exists, and they’ve certainly made some arguments for how that could be streamlined. So why don’t we, now that the Planning Board has some of that in perspective, why don’t we combine our resources with the Town Board and try to begin developing at least a strategic plan, if you will, for how to look at the legal issues and all the ramifications of this and come up with something. MR. FULLER-Not a bad idea. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess a question. Can we, the two issues presented before us are different. Can we split it? MR. FULLER-That was going to be my comment to you, the comment I just made to Stu, is that, to give Mr. Salvador credit, the comment was to bifurcate, and there’s a segmentation issue lurking out there, because you have to do, this is almost an action, the Site Plan part of it, the modification, and the recommendation part is not an approval decision that you’re making. So it’s not entirely a SEQRA issue, but even it were, it’s probably a scenario right here where you could actually justify segmenting a review, if both aspects of it were subject to SEQRA. Now the Town Board, on the future Transient Merchant part of it, is just asking you for a recommendation. That’s not an approval by you. It’s not a final decision. It’s not subject to SEQRA. The Site Plan part of it certainly is. So, from that standpoint, I’m very comfortable with that, if that’s the Planning Board wanted to take. MR. SEGULJIC-So we can make separate motions? So, for example, with the Site Plan, which I don’t really see any issues with, I would like to see the original approved plan for landscaping, to see where the differences are. MRS. BRUNO-I would also like to see their formal answers to Vision Engineering be read by. MR. SEGULJIC-So we can do a separate motion for that, and then it’s own separate track. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then. MR. FULLER-Keep the other part moving in its own direction as well. That would be fine. MR. MILLER-Can we keep them moving concurrently but separately? MR. SEGULJIC-I think so. So we can give a recommendation in that we recommend we have a workshop with the Town Board, and they can do whatever they want with that. Right? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s our recommendation, because they kind of left us hanging here. So is that what we want to do? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FULLER-That would be fine. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. TRAVER-I mean, perhaps if you were coming in thinking that we would come up with something tonight, it may be a disappointment, but I think, on the positive side, if we do this in a constructive way with all the information that you’ve provided, plus, perhaps, other similar sites can provide and the, in context of what the current laws are and how we might change, we’re going to end up with something that’s going to be better, I think. Perhaps less frequently needing revisions. MR. SVARE-I guess the only thing I would add is if we could add some commentary as to what this workshop would consist of, if there can be some sort of recommendation here from this Board to give guidance as to exactly, you know, what we’re looking for here, because frankly, just following up on Mrs. Bruno’s comments, I mean, we really feel like we’ve been through this process, we’ve done the leg work. We’ve come up with a plan here. MRS. BRUNO-I’m not suggesting that you need to do that. I’m suggesting that’s the Town Board and us that need to put our heads together so that we’re informing each other of our knowledge. MR. FULLER-I think, again, this is definitely an interesting scenario that’s playing out here, because I think, from the Town’s perspective, we need to find a way to make this work under the Code we have now, and if it can’t, then we need to change it, and that comment, too, was very well pointed. I’ve been pouring through this here as we’ve sat here to try to find a way for that to happen, and I think that’s probably what the Town Board is looking for is how do we come up with a way for a facility like this to have something like this, you know, some sort of parameter to exist in, which stills allow the protection that the Town is looking for, and I agree with the comment that, you know, it was the couches off the back of the truck or the mattress that sought to be protected, and to get those merchants that are coming in and out of town to have some trackability, for lack of a better term, of those people, and within that net, a facility like this gets caught. So, again, maybe we do need to explore this law and find a way to permit somebody to apply for just the scenario that they’re asking for, and the parameters that they’re discussing may need to be in here. I think that, as we sit here and go through this, I’m looking at different things that might be criteria for just a section in this Transient Merchant law to allow for this. MR. TRAVER-It could be a double, like a two tiered system or something. MR. FULLER-Right, because it isn’t going to apply to every facility. Certainly it is a unique situation. Those discussions of the Balloon Festival and things, that’s a different thing because that’s a Transient Merchant that comes and goes every year, and puts things up and takes them down. So this is different. It’s a fixed facility. MRS. BRUNO-And we have to consider, too, as we go through this process, that there very well may be other facilities that come in front of us asking for a template that fits theirs. So I think that it is just really important that we start from the beginning. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Can we set aside one issue, then, that would be the Site Plan? MRS. BRUNO-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Does anybody want to make a motion with regards to the Site Plan? As I see it, there’s two issues. There’s a copy of the existing landscaping plan and addressing engineering comments. A question to Staff now. How anxious are you to get the Site Plan approval? MR. SVARE-We can get that to you within a week. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we put them on in October? MR. BAKER-Yes, we certainly can. That would likely mean bumping an applicant that submitted in September off until November. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know what the schedule is, so I’m turning to you. I don’t know what the queue is right now, so I’m turning to you for that. MR. BAKER-I’m not sure of the length of the queue right now, but, yes, you could. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. MILLER-When Tom went to make the submission, he asked for a pre-submission conference, and he (lost words) most of those issues probably would have been addressed at the pre-submission conference, and, Two, the Town Board, with their last resolution, has tied our hands from doing any other events until the Site Plan modification is resolved. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MILLER-So I need to get that resolved as quick as possible. MR. SEGULJIC-So can we put them on in October, then? MR. BAKER-Yes, certainly, similar to what you did for the Reid application. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I don’t see any really big issues with this. It shouldn’t take long. So what’s the date in October? What’s the date in October we can table them to? thrd MR. BAKER-The Planning Board meetings will be on the 16 and the 23. rd MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to say the 23, with submission of materials by. th MR. BAKER-Would be you said by October 5. th MR. SEGULJIC-By October 5. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 17-2004 ADIRONDACK SPORTS COMPLEX, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to the October 23, 2007 Planning Board meeting with submission of the following materials by October 5, 2007: 1.A copy of the approved landscaping plan. 2.Address the engineering comments, and signoff by the Town Engineer. th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now on to the more complex issue. So I guess what we want to do is just make a recommendation to the Town Board, is ultimately what we want to do. MR. BAKER-A recommendation to the Town Board. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, we could obviously ask the applicant for more information before we make that recommendation. MR. FULLER-Do you have any thoughts at this point as far as how you would foresee handling something like this? I’m wondering, do we have comments to get back to the Town Board, right now, ideas, concerns, thoughts you may have, versus a flat out? MR. SIPP-Yes. I think in a case like in the case of Glens Falls, they could get a yearly permit, or they could apply for a yearly permit, not for every occasion, but one that would carry over for a year. MR. SEGULJIC-But I don’t think they can do that because they don’t know when the events are going to be, and I think part of the structure is going to be, if they don’t have proper parking, (lost words). MR. TRAVER-I think we have to have an initial meeting, an initial workshop to decide and define what issues we need to address, and then break them out into how we’re going to tackle each one and maybe set up a series of meetings to go through the list. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Hopefully not a series. Is there any information that we can see now that we should get, that we should request? Let’s start with that. One thing I see is the Fire Marshal has a list of comments here. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that these all can be addressed. We should make sure that the Fire Marshal is properly addressed. MR. FULLER-And on that note, too, we may need to look into that Codes issue. MR. SEGULJIC-Then the Code was another thing I had. MR. FULLER-Occupancy. That may be something that needs to be addressed. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, we’re moving in uncharted territory. MR. TRAVER-And that’s what I think we need to do first is meet with the Town Board and chart that territory and say here’s the boundaries, and then what, within that, do we need specifically do we need to do, and what do we need to do first, second, third? MR. SEGULJIC-One of the things, just request further direction from the Town Board, saying what specifically do you want us to look at. MR. FULLER-Or that workshop may accomplish that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, hopefully we’ll both walk away with some homework. They’ll walk away with some things they’re going to address, and we’ll decide on some issues and then go from there. MR. SEGULJIC-Now the applicant had a question about would they be advised of such a workshop? MR. FULLER-It would be a public meeting, yes, absolutely. Quorums on both Boards. MR. SEGULJIC-So our recommendation to the Town Board is that we have a meeting, a workshop to discuss it. MRS. BRUNO-Sounds good. MR. FULLER-Yes. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 17- 2004 ADIRONDACK SPORTS COMPLEX, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: That a meeting be held to discuss this project. th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger MR. SIPP-You’re going to get filibustered by the Town Board. MR. SEGULJIC-The Town Board just asked us for our recommendation. MR. BAKER-And certainly I’ll bring the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Town Board’s attention and then it’ll be up to the Town Board to decide if and when they’d like to have that joint workshop. MR. SEGULJIC-They might decide they don’t want it and they’re just going to go on their own. I mean, it’s kind of a different issue for us. What exactly do they want from us? To me, everything looks like you’re on the right track. MR. MILLER-Would I be notified? 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. BAKER-I would make sure you’re notified, the Community Development Department or the Town Supervisor’s office. Either way, we’ll make sure you’re notified. MR. MILLER-I appreciate that. MRS. BRUNO-And we do appreciate that you’re this close. I’m so thankful I don’t have to drive down towards Albany in the snowstorms anymore. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION CORP. AGENT(S) LITTLE & O’CONNOR HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A, WR-3A LOCATION HALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 12.74 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.01 TO 3.17 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 41-07; SKETCH PLAN WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 12.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-59.1, 30 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Yes. While the proposed density for the subdivision does exceed the Zoning Code requirements, the applicants have received the necessary relief from the Zoning Board in the approval of their application Area Variance No. 41-2007. Section A183-24J of the Subdivision Regs requires that “driveway grades between the pavement and setback line shall not exceed 10%” The proposed driveway location for Lot D may required revised grading to comply with this standard, and then I note that the Board should also look at the engineer’s comments regarding stormwater management, erosion control, and expansion replacement areas for the on site septic systems. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me is Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, who is the project engineer, and in the audience is Raymond Lordy who is associated with the applicant. Basically, I think we can answer each of the questions. Tom had some discussions with Town Engineer. We’re here for Preliminary approval, and why don’t we just go right through the comments. You can begin with the Staff comments about whether or not the grade of the driveway exceeds the 10%. MR. HUTCHINS-Tom Hutchins Hutchins Engineering. The grade on that one drive is at 10%. The grade on the drive at Lot C is also at 10%. We’ve kept them there, particularly Lot C is a somewhat challenging drive, and you will recall, I believe back in our discussion at Sketch Plan in February or March we talked about potentially accessing that lot from Reardon Road and we discussed that with the ZBA. That turned out that wasn’t a very popular approach, and it was actually a condition of our variance approval that we don’t approach Lot C from the Reardon Road side. So, the driveway of that one lot is quite long and it is graded at 10%. So there’ll be a little bit of a trick, but it’s only 10%. Regarding engineering comments, there’s a number of them. I can address all of them. I have addressed most of them, and I don’t believe any of them will impact the layout that we’re showing, and if you have any specific questions, I’ll gladly go through them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-The locations have not changed significantly from Sketch Plan at all. We did show you grading of the roads, clearing limits and, the question of the access at Lot C, where at one point we were talking about through here, it would be technically easier, but we’ve abandoned that approach. With that, I’m all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Do you feel that you have addressed, or will address, all of Dan’s concerns? MR. HUTCHINS-I feel that I can address all of Dan’s concerns, yes. The first one is clarify my mottling methodology. All of these, I’m saying, in my notes, yes, I can address them. Reserve areas for septic systems, I have room for reserve areas to show on the 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) drawing. He questioned the setback distance of the piers wasn’t 100 feet. It’s actually 101 feet. One thing I would discuss is he also questioned the separation between Lot C well and a residence on the northerly adjoining parcel. I did walk that today, and there are not issues there with setbacks, and I will have to obviously show it on the final map. In fact, there is another well that was constructed on the northwesterly adjoining parcel that is likely under construction, which would also be a conflict (lost words). So I’m very comfortable with that. His fifth comment, it appears the Driveway for Lot A slopes away from the proposed infiltration trench. Yes, he got me there. I have to re-grade that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Just one question. One question. That deals with the stormwater permits. How do they do that, if like no lot in and of itself exceeds the one acre, but the total does, prior to subdivision? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s (lost word) size of the project, but it’s a residential project. So it’s up to, over one acre residential I have to comply with DEC, the erosion and sediment control measures. Okay, but I still have Queensbury’s subdivision stormwater requirements, which say all my structures have to be built to a 50 year and I can’t (lost words). So the mottle that I presented is based on a 50 year event. MR. SEGULJIC-So would the DEC permit apply, then. MR. HUTCHINS-The DEC permit applies. I have to file a NOI, but I don’t have to do post constructive measures or mottle various storms for channel protection and all that, because it’s residential construction, total disturbed area less than five acres, but I have to do erosion and sediment control and still file the NOI. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Until the project’s over. MR. SEGULJIC-I think I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. There’s no one left in the public to comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Are people ready to move forward? MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing we would have is the engineering comments to address. MR. O'CONNOR-What we’re looking for is Preliminary approval, and we would ask you to give us Preliminary approval subject to us satisfying those comments as part of the final submission. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We also have to do SEQRA, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We’re ready to go forward with this? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. SIPP-No. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. SIPP-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate. MR. SEGULJIC-So what I hear is yes, small to moderate? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Mitigated by the stormwater management proposal submitted. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-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. MR. SIPP-No. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-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. 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. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-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. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION CORP., 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 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So now we’re going to make a motion for Preliminary approval? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And as far as the engineering comments, could they address them under Preliminary? MR. HUNSINGER-We could consider them at Final. MR. SEGULJIC-Consider them at Final. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2007 SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION CORP., 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 12.74 +/- acre parcel into 4 residential lots ranging in size from 3.01 to 3.17 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18/07; 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) 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 Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 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 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 11. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2007 SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION CORP., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five, Negative. th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn’t like, we submitted a letter asking that the erosion, dock gets tabled while we get it sorted out, but if you go up there you’re going to see that the property has been hydro-seeded, as I’ve indicated, these people want to cooperate, but we need to get some definition because I think you’re potentially going down the wrong path. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 46-2007 DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY SEQR TYPE NOT APPLICABLE J & D MARINA OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 2585 ST. RT. 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A BOAT STORAGE BUSINESS ON PROPERTY LOCATED OFF OF ROUTE 9L AND NEAR WARNER BAY. THIS ITEM IS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD AS A DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY. ANY FUTURE APPLICATION REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING BOARD IN ORDER TO ALLOW A MARINA. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 5- 06 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA LAKE GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 13.48 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-31.2 SECTION N/A MR. HUNSINGER-This was a discussion item only. The applicant has asked if we can consider this at our next meeting. I guess I’d leave that up to the discretion of the Board. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. SIPP-Yes. I went up and looked at that site. The only thing I question is, it’s got to be a Special Use Permit because it’s not zoned for a business, and that I don’t know whether the neighbors are going to be very happy about that, but there needs to be modification and some way to block off the view from the road, 9L, with what they’re doing on one side. MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re asking for the next meeting, like next Tuesday? MR. HUNSINGER-Next week, yes. MRS. BRUNO-How many do we have? I forget. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a full agenda. MR. BAKER-Let me take a look. MRS. BRUNO-Is that the night we’re hearing Schermerhorn, too? MR. BAKER-I can’t seem to pull up next week’s agenda right now, but. Here it comes. Okay. You’ve got Whalen, Rosen. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Rosen, you said that won’t be in, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BAKER-Kelly, Hudson Headwaters, C.R. Bard. You’ve got the Schermerhorn application, at Gurney Lane and West Mountain, which is going to potentially take quite a bit of time, and Emmens. So that’s seven, there’s seven on the agenda already. MR. SEGULJIC-With Rosen taken out? MR. BAKER-No. Six with Rosen taken out. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t we just get it over with. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I say let’s just do it. I don’t think it should take long. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you could inform that applicant that we’ll do it. MR. BAKER-That we can do it? Okay. Great. I will make sure they know. MR. HUNSINGER-And just reminder to the Board of the meeting on Thursday night at seven. That’s here. MR. TRAVER-That’s just one item, though, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just one item. Irish Bay. MR. SEGULJIC-And is that with Fort Ann? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s with the Fort Ann Planning Board. Because they pulled it from the Zoning Board, right? Didn’t they change their Site Plan so they don’t need the variances? MR. FULLER-No, they got approval from the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-They got approval. Okay. So it’ll just be us and the Fort Ann Planning Board. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-I’ll be here for Fort Ann. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. BAKER-Now does our Planning Board have legal representation on this? MR. FULLER-We are having the darndest time finding someone that will take this. So we’re still working on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So you are going to be here for the Fort Ann Planning Board? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The purpose of the meeting is to talk about the joint concerns and the review of the project visa vie SEQRA status and Lead Agency status. Who’s the Lead Agent, though? MR. FULLER-It’s a Type II, it’s the APA. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. FULLER-But both Boards, both Towns always have the ability to send comments. I said the same thing to the ZBA. I don’t know that they did send anything to the APA, but certainly both Planning Boards have the ability to send comments, and they will listen. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that a good thing or a bad thing having the APA take Lead Agency? MR. FULLER-It’s not that they take Lead Agency. It’s that it’s Type II. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So they automatically? MR. FULLER-It’s just Type II. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that a good thing or a bad thing? What’s their usual mo? MR. FULLER-The reason that it’s Type II is that when the regulations were drafted, it was felt that the APA’s review process is the equivalent of a SEQRA review. That’s why it’s Type II. It’s a Class B Regional Project in Queensbury. It’s a Class A Regional Project in Fort Ann. So those are Type II projects, that’s why. MR. SEGULJIC-And if we comment to the APA, we have to do it as a Board, I assume? MR. FULLER-Yes. Just pass a resolution with your comments and concerns from the environmental perspective, and also, I’ve said it from the beginning, just because there’s no SEQRA review required, doesn’t mean the environmental issues are off the table. You can still request, if it’s a visual issue, if it’s a stormwater issue, if it’s a, whatever, your Subdivision Regs still give you the ability to get all of the information you would have gotten, hypothetically, if an EIS was required. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-So as we’ve said when we have the SEQRA workshop, you always have that ability, even if something’s Type II, with the Site Plan or the Subdivision that you’re reviewing, your criteria is still good enough to get all that information that you might want anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-Can we comment on things going on in Fort Ann, or is it just Queensbury? MR. FULLER-No, you’ll have an exchange back and forth. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s the purpose of the meeting. MR. FULLER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re looking at the whole project. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/07) MR. FULLER-Certainly it’s an exchange of ideas. If you guys see something and say, hey, Fort Ann, maybe you guys should think about this, and I know they’ve got some ideas of things that they’d like to see, that the applicant’s generally agreed to already, but that they want to see part of what benefits the project in Fort Ann be done in Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? If not, a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2007, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 69