Loading...
2007-11-01(Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 48-2007 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P. 1. Tax Map No. 288-1-63, 64 DISCUSSION Stormwater Regulations 24. 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 11/1/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER TANYA BRUNO GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON TOWN ATTORNEY-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I thank the public for their indulgence while we waited for people to get in and get settled. I’d like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting. This is a Special Meeting for consideration of Site Plan No. 48-2007. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES; JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES ZONING PO LOCATION SE CORNER OF GURNEY LANE & WEST MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 85,340 +/- SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING. OFFICE USES IN PO ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PZ 6-03, SP 72-05, AV 2-06, AV 59-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/12/07 CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA RUSH POND CEA LOT SIZE 0.90 & 16.12 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288-1-63, 64 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MR. HUNSINGER-A couple of the members of the public did comment that they were made aware of a request by the applicant to table the application. So I guess I would allow the applicant at this time to talk about that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. As a matter of procedural efficiency, we sent a letter today requesting that the Board consider tabling for this reason. Today and yesterday we received comment letters and had comment discussions with the three agencies that are reviewing the traffic data, the State DOT, the County DPW, and the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, and they’ve all been speaking among themselves, and they each requested that the traffic studies that have been done so far be expanded to include different intersections south of the project site. For that reason, we have to do more data collection, which will occur over the next two weeks, and then we have to provide additional traffic study information to these agencies. So we know for that reason that the public hearing is going to have to stay open, because we’re going to have to submit more information, and we just figured that with this being the issue that the public is interested in, and we knew that there would be a lot of people here tonight, that it might not be necessary to have this happen twice and to go through the public comments twice. So, for that reason, my letter just stated that our application is not yet complete because of this additional request for data, and perhaps it would be best to hold off on the public hearing until we submit the next phase of the application, but certainly that’s a procedural issue for the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and that’s what we were just talking about amongst ourselves, informally. I did have a conversation with Staff and Counsel, this afternoon, and they basically said it’s up to the Board, however we want to proceed. So I guess I would just open that up for the Board’s consideration, as to, if we want open the public hearing and take public comment, or if we just want to table the application. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the public came out, so I think we have to listen to the public and just take public comment and table it to the next available slot, whenever that might be. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) Because we went out of our way to schedule this Special Meeting, and at the last minute they request a tabling. MR. LAPPER-Last minute, true, because it just came up yesterday and today. We certainly would have, if we’d known, we would have done it earlier. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Sipp, do you have an opinion? MR. SIPP-I agree with Tom. I think the public made an effort to come out, and they should be heard. MR. HUNSINGER-This end? MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly think that we can table it to a future date, but because the public is here, I think that they should be given the opportunity to comment. Obviously the traffic, there are going to be amendments to the traffic plan, but if the public has other issues that they would like to comment on, they could certainly frame them. They’re here and the meeting was advertised. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Members of the public, can I just see a show of hands how many people came expecting to make comments to the Board this evening? Okay. Jon, if you could start passing that around. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-What I would ask you to do is, we’re going to pass around a sign-in sheet. If it’s your intention to address the Board this evening, I would ask that you legibly put your name on the list, and when we get to the public comment portion of the meeting, I will call people up as they sign up on the list, and, time permitting, if there are additional people that did not sign up, we will consider those as well. Does the Board have any questions of the applicant at this time? MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, do you want to limit the public comment tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’ll talk about that before we open the public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-I’ll listen. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I would like to know what intersections some of the agencies were interested in having further traffic documentation on. MR. LAPPER-Well, Aviation and West Mountain Road, Aviation and Mountain View Lane, and in front of the Schools. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-And actually documentation is available to us and they gave us the individual to contact with the phone number, and again, I just want to say, our intentions, fully, are to be here tonight. It’s not to table this, but I just received information this morning and yesterday, and I said it before at the public comment that I know the traffic is probably the most important part of this project. I’m not saying that other parts aren’t important, but that’s why their request was to talk about, I’m happy to talk about anything tonight. The only thing I can’t address is the traffic. I’m not a professional at it, and all three agencies are all talking with one another, with Creighton- Manning, and they know what they have to do, and we can definitely get that back to you shortly. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I had, I wasn’t able to make the balloon tests that were done, because it was during the week. Was there any comments from the Board on the visual impact? MR. LAPPER-Tom, you should talk about that. Tom did the test. MR. FORD-I wasn’t able to make it either, and I don’t have any evidence of the occurrence. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. NACE-Okay. We did invite the Planning Department and the Planning Board. We flew balloons at all four corners. MR. FORD-Could we have the record indicate when that invitation was issued, please. MR. NACE-I don’t have my calendar right with me. It was a couple of days before, I think maybe two or three days before we flew the balloons. MR. FORD-Perhaps a day or two. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe it was the same day. MR. NACE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it was at least one day before. MR. NACE-No. MR. FORD-I got the invitation the day before. I had a commitment. That’s why I couldn’t make it. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, we had gotten that to the Planning Department I think two days before we flew the balloons. Okay, and I’m not sure, there may have been even a weekend in there, but I don’t have my October calendar with me, or I could tell you exact dates. Okay. We flew balloons at all four corners of the building. We flew the balloons at a height of 45 feet to be a little bit higher and obviously a little bit more visible than the peak of the building would be. All four balloons were below the existing tree canopy around the balloons. So you could see them if you looked directly out from underneath them. From anywhere else on the site or off the site, none of the balloons were visible. The balloons, as I say, were flown at 45 feet. Most of the tree canopy in there is around 60 to 70 feet. So the actual balloons were not visible. We looked for them from all the way up Gurney Lane. I drove all the way up to the top on Gurney Lane, and came back. On the Northway, I stopped a couple of places on the Northway where you break over the hill on the northbound lane. They were not visible, and I went down West Mountain Road and came back several times, and the balloons were not visible from West Mountain Road until you got right in front of the site and were looking in. MR. FORD-Were photographs taken from those different locations? MR. NACE-Yes, they were, and I will, at the next meeting I’ll be glad to provide those for you. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could, please. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. FORD-Thank you, and what time did this occur? Because we had at least two Planning Board members who were able to attend, but it occurred apparently at a time other than that specified. MR. NACE-I think it was right after lunch, but I’d have to go look back on the calendar to tell you. The balloons were left up for two days before they were taken down, but the only, there’s a hill in here on West Mountain Road, and it blocked the visibility of the balloons or of this upper portion of the site, until you get past that. So the only real view shed where you could see into the site, and obviously, once the trees on the site are cleared, you know, you would have clear view into the building, other than the proposed landscaping, would be right here in the front on West Mountain Road. I stopped and took pictures from beside the County Highway building on Gurney Lane, and there’s a good tree canopy in here that blocks that. I also looked from the off ramp, coming up that off ramp on the southbound lane of I-87, right up to the top of the hill where turn onto Gurney Lane, and again, they were not visible from anywhere there. So, the only real view shed that I could determine would be right in front, unless you go climbing up on the mountain somewhere where you can look down in, but there really aren’t any roads up there or view ports to be able to see. MRS. STEFFAN-So the existing, the no cut zone, where the existing trees will stay, are still going to be tall enough so that the building will not be seen from the Northway entrance? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. NACE-Yes, and I tried to depict that on this visual analyses sections. Because of the length and the scale, it’s a little hard to see. This is drawn on a one to one scale. Section A was looking from, on West Mountain Road, looking from approximately up in here on West Mountain Road, looking in through the site, and you can see there there’s this existing hill in here before you get to the infiltration basin, and by the way, some of the public, the last time, was asking for information, a section through the site, which showed the amount of fill and the amount of earthwork that was being done, and this section clearly does show that, was one of the reasons I drew it through that section, or through that area, and that shows that from West Mountain Road your view is totally blocked by the hillside, that will have remaining vegetation on it in here, and again, I said before, you will have a view port once you get in, or directly opposite the building on West Mountain Road, but not from the hill on south. The second section I’ve drawn here is Section B, which in essence looks from about in front of the Highway building on Gurney Lane, and looks across West Mountain road and there you will see there will be, admittedly not as wide a buffer as here, but there will be a treed buffer that has a canopy high enough that will block your open view of the building. The third section here is from, it’s on a smaller scale yet. Because it’s longer, it’s looking from all the way down at the crest of the hill on the Northway, looking at the site, and from that you can see this is the Northway down here. Looking in at the site, you can see that the tree canopy on this is high enough also to block the view of the building roof or any portion of the building, and the last section is looking from the stop sign on the exit ramp, southbound exit ramp, looking at the site, and that has a tree buffer, sufficient buffer, which is through here. There’s a sufficient buffer there left to provide sheltering. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the benefit of the public, since there are people that want to make public comment, could you briefly walk us through the changes since we were here the last time? MR. NACE-That would be Jim’s job. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Hopefully this will save some time later. MR. MILLER-Sure. Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. MILLER-We have a lot of new people here tonight. To sort of orient people to the plan, the road across the top is West Mountain Road. The site is 17.8 acres. To the west is West Mountain Road. Gurney Lane is up here to the north, and the Northway is to the east. This row of trees you see here, there’s a row of trees that borders the southbound access ramp to the Northway from Gurney Lane. At the direction of the Planning Board last month, we went back and revised the site design. The major change, right now there’ll be, it’s proposed, as an 85,000 square foot two story office building. This was revised from a one story building which is shown in that brown outline there, and with that, what we did was basically pull the building at 197 feet on the south, and run it at about 190 feet from the north. So the building area, the impervious roof area, was reduced approximately an acre. The rest of the site concept stayed the same. There’ll be a main entrance that’ll come in off of West Mountain Road. It’ll be a divided boulevard entrance that’ll come in to the main entrance to the building. There’ll be circulation around the building, for fire protection and access to the building. All the service area, trash compactor, generator, garage, those types of things, are located to the rear of the building, and what we’ve done with this parking concept, the parking lot is for, I believe, 517 cars. The parking lot is broken up around the site to reduce the impact of any one large area, and there’s multiple entrances into the building to accommodate that parking requirement. The area you see in green around the outside is a buffer area. That will remain. These are trees that will not be cleared. In the first scheme, the one story building, that buffer area was six acres. That buffer area has been increased to seven and a half acres. So we picked up an additional one and a half acres of trees and buffer area, and one of the directives that the Board gave us was to try to, as you recall, the CEA line runs through the property in this area, that white line. The Board asked that we accomplish a couple of things. One, reduce the amount of impervious area within that CEA line, and to increase our buffer areas around the perimeter of the site. The building, by pulling the building back under 97 feet, the new building footprint now is completely out of that CEA line. This other line that you see here was the clearing limits 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) and the paving limits, and the first scheme, as opposed to what we have now. So an acre of pervious area was removed from that CEA line. There was two acres in that area. That’s been reduced down to an acre. In addition, the buffer areas have been increased. The only area that did not get increased is because we had to re-organize some parking. We had a little additional clearing right in this corner to accommodate this parking, but the buffer was increased on the most visible sides, which I believe is the intersection at Gurney Lane/West Mountain Road, and the access to the Northway. These buffer areas were increased along the Northway about 30 feet in this area, 65 feet in here, and it varies obviously because of the parking configuration of West Mountain Road, with the deepest area being 60 feet, but if you remember on the original plan, we had areas there where that was being completely cleared and there was actually a retaining wall in there. So the buffer areas have been substantially increased. The parking areas, they meet the Town’s requirements for the percentage of islands. Ten percent of the parking lot has to be in islands, and I believe we’re at like 13 and a half percent. The other requirement is that one tree needs to be planted within the parking lot for every 15 cars, which would require 36, and we are showing 64 trees within the islands. That doesn’t count the trees around the perimeter or around the building. The grading of the site remains the same. If you remember, this portion of the site is where the existing abandoned borrow pit area is, and the site pitches slightly towards that and then into that basin. The site’s graded so that the cuts and fills will balance. We want to fill this portion of that borrow pit area and use it as part of the development. So the fill from the upper, will be cut from the upper portion of the site to fill that portion of the basin, and this results in the parking area basically will be dropped below the level of the surrounding tree buffers from a point about here all the way around to this area, and that varies from two to three feet in some areas. Up in the corner where it’s most visible, that parking area will be suppressed about five feet below the surrounding tree area. As Tom was talking about, the trees buffer this site pretty substantially around there, and by depressing that parking area, you know, now we’ve got the earth form around the parking to provide permanent screening against those cars. The stormwater drainage remain the same. The roof drainage will be directed to infiltrators, in the parking area. Since the roof was cut in half, the amount of infiltrators was reduced by half. One of the Staff comments was asking us why we did not reduce the basin. Well, we still have just as many cars. So the runoff from the parking lot is directed into the existing, that existing borrow area is going to be re-graded to provide a stormwater basin, and that’ll meet all DEC’s current requirements under the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. There’ll be a two staged basin. The first stage is a treatment stage. The next is for detention. All stormwater will be contained and infiltrated in that basin, with a series of drywells within that basin. The other element was the site lighting. The site lighting concept remained the same. If you remember the areas in the parking lots will be 20 foot high high pressure sodium lights. Along the boulevard and around the walkways and the building, there’ll be a lower, 14 foot high decorative light. There’ll be a double headed light to accent the main entrance coming in and 14 foot high walkway lights around the building, and the building canopies would be lighted. One of the Staff comments talked about the drawings didn’t show the light spill out to zero, and I apologize for that. We were trying to make a submission date, and our lighting consultant didn’t get that to us. We have that information now. As a matter of fact, there’s a very light line that shows on our plan. The light spill basically is about at the tree line. The only place that shows light spill across the property, as the Staff indicated, is at the entrance, and we did that intentionally. If people are looking for this entrance or a car’s pulling out at night, we feel it’s important that that intersection is lighted for safety reasons, and the other thing is there will be municipal sewer and water service for this building. So that’s pretty much an overview and a highlight of the changes we made last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Any general questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-That stormwater management basin, do you have to bring in fill to put in the base of that? MR. MILLER-No. MR. LAPPER-Not from off site. It’s being re-graded from the other side of the site. MR. MILLER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-With a perc rate of, I think it’s like 30 seconds, it’s very fast. MR. MILLER-Yes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MRS. STEFFAN-And that stormwater management basin being in a CEA, I guess I’m not really understanding how that’s okay. I know that, you know, there are DEC regulations that you’re following, but it just doesn’t seem to add up to me. MR. NACE-The stormwater empties directly in to the pre-treatment area, the sediment basin, which is outside of this, just outside of the CEA. As far as treatment, mostly what we’re looking for is settling out of the fine material and a lot of the pollutants are attached to the fine material. So that will settle out in that settling basin before going on to the infiltration basin. MR. FORD-But there still remains an invasion of the CEA by about an acre? Is that correct? MR. NACE-Yes, but if you look at the site, or if you’re familiar with the site, a lot of that is formed right around the existing old sand pit that’s in there. It’s already primarily dug out in that area, but this right in here, from here around to here. MR. FORD-How about that southern parking lot area? MR. NACE-Here? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. NACE-That’s within the CEA. MR. FORD-Right below it, about where your thumb is there. MR. NACE-Here? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. NACE-That is in the CEA. That’s correct. MR. FORD-Okay. That’s what I thought. MR. NACE-The CEA line is right about here, okay, but we have pulled the building, and we’ve lessened the amount of hard surface within the CEA. We’ve cut it in half by going to a two story building. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment on why you’re locating the basin where you are? MR. NACE-Primarily because it’s a good area. It’s already excavated. We don’t have to do a lot of earthwork. We don’t have to clear a lot of trees to make it. It’s already cleared. So it lends itself very naturally to what we’re trying to do. MR. HUNSINGER-I asked the question because it is within the CEA, and, you know, the logical question is why would you put the stormwater basin within the CEA? MR. NACE-Well, the CEA, I mean, we still have, when the stormwater filters into the ground here, it still has a long ways to go, through sandy material, to the point where it could get to any groundwater or any surface waters. So it still has a great way to go to filter itself. MR. SEGULJIC-How deep is it to groundwater? MR. NACE-We dug in there 20 feet and we saw no signs of it. If I had to guess, given the material that’s in there, I would say you’d have to go down fairly close to the level of the stream which comes through here, which is about 40 to 50 feet below the level of the bottom of the basin. MR. SIPP-Is that an intermittent stream or is that a year round? MR. NACE-I don’t know the answer to that, off hand. MR. TRAVER-It shows on the map as year round, on the topographic map. MR. SIPP-It says year round. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anyone else that wanted to sign up to register to speak? Okay. Thank you. Any other general questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, from my perspective, I’ve just like to hear what the public has to say and save all our comments, the next time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. FORD-May I just ask one question before you leave. Can I get clarification on the number of planned parking spaces? I’ve heard a number of different. MR. MILLER-Five thirty-seven, I was told. MR. LAPPER-That is the correct number. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I’m going to go ahead and open the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for the Board to solicit comment from the general public on the proposed project. Comments should be limited to the project being considered by the Board. Anyone wishing to comment is required to state their name for the record. We do tape our meetings, and a literal record of the proceedings is prepared and made part of the public record. It is approved later by the Board and is available on the Town’s website for review. I would ask that you speak clearly and speak into the microphone so that everyone in the room can hear you and so that the comments can be properly transcribed. I would also ask that you direct your comments to the Planning Board. Any discussions between speakers and/or the applicant and/or other members of the audience should not be allowed. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask them of the Board, and we will direct the applicant to respond at a future time. I would ask, since there are so many people that wish to speak, I would ask, if you can, to limit your comments to three minutes. This would give everyone a chance to be heard, and then finally, there is a lengthy record of public comments on file. I have well over a page of notes myself. To the extent possible, I would ask that you try to limit your comments to any new information that you may present to the Board. Although I think it’s an obvious comment about public decorum, I would trust that the speakers will present their remarks in a courteous manner, and not make personal comments about the applicant, public officials, or the Town residents. Finally, I will call up speakers in the order provided on the sheets. If time allows, we will open the floor to additional comments or repeated comments. It is not the intent to limit the flow of discussion, but to provide everyone with an opportunity to speak. The first person who signed up is Betty Monahan, and, Dennis Franklin, you are next. Good evening. Hi. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Hi. Betty Monahan, Sunnyside Road. My first is actually a question. How does a commercial office building qualify to be in a Professional Office zone? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s part of the Use Table in the Town Code. It is an allowed use in the Town Code. MRS. MONAHAN-Because, you know, when I look up the word “professional” and I look up the reason for the Professional Office zone, it does not follow. Yes, an office building that encompasses professions, and that’s where I have looked, and I question that. Because, having many years, the benefit of working through these Codes with Paul Dusek when he was on Staff as an attorney for this Town, Paul taught me to look in many, many different areas, and not in one area, and so that is really a question I have, because actually the Professional Office zone was supposed to be a zone that diminished the impact on residences that a commercial zone would have, and when I look at this, this is one of the greatest impacts on a residential zone. It’s about like having a big box store or something come next door to you, practically, except it’s not as long hours. The second thing is I’m concerned about the traffic and the safety. Many, many years ago, it was back in the time of Fran Walter’s administration, part of that land was zoned one of the commercial uses, and what wanted to go in there was a commercial truck stop, and the Town Board felt so strongly about this, we had our Town Counsel go in front of the Planning Board saying this is a safety issue. You have the 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) health complex across the way. You have Gurney Lane there where the kids are riding their bikes. Buses are going to Gurney Lane, and I think you still have those same impacts today that you have to consider very, very carefully. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Dennis Franklin, and then next is Kathleen Franklin. DENNIS FRANKLIN MR. FRANKLIN-Dennis Franklin, West Mountain Road. I’d like to comment on some of these drawings here. I had an opportunity to look at this particular drawing where we sectioned, and unfortunately, the sections that were chosen, were they directed to give us certain ones by Staff, or did they just decide to do them themselves? Can someone answer that? MR. HUNSINGER-We did not ask them for any specific, we did ask them for a visual impact, though. MR. FRANKLIN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s what they’ve provided. MR. FRANKLIN-Well, I think it’s like anything, you know, if you’re selling a car you don’t necessarily show it rolled over on the roof. You show a happy family in it. So I don’t know why Staff isn’t directed to give the applicant direction. Why are they deciding what they should show us? For example, I sectioned it through here, and through here, and it’s a lot different than what’s shown here, which is nothing but more trees. I would also not that these trees that say existing trees, don’t exist. There are no trees that look like that there, and the mix of evergreen to deciduous is not even accurate. The real mix is about 15% evergreen, and I think anybody that lives around here knows in a mature forest an evergreen would not have limbs all the way to the bottom, so that while you might say you could not see a balloon above the canopy, you can certainly see it through the trees, particularly seven months a year when there are no leaves. The other thing about, in sectioning through here, I note that this entrance is at least a three and a half or four percent grade, with no real level area to get on or off West Mountain Road. That’s quite steep. In fact, when I overlaid it over the existing grade, I don’t know if everybody’s been by there, but it’s quite steep. Well, that’s just about what the new proposed entrance would be. I mean, I’m not for the project, but I certainly wouldn’t want to see it designed this way. You get ice, snow, people trying to get in and out of there. This whole thing would need to be flattened out. When I looked at the proposed landscaping, and I see that this is a two to two and a half inch tree, and yet by scale it’s shown as a 20 foot diameter tree, I think that’s a little misleading too, if you’re talking about visual impact, or if you’re talking about a seven foot tree. A seven foot tree is not ten foot in diameter, and yet we say there’s a scale to this drawing, but it doesn’t seem to be all of it drawn to scale. So I say that we, Number One, show existing trees the way they actually are, both species, type and visibility under the canopy, that we direct the applicant to provide us with sections through here and through here. Further that this is just a glorified mine. We keep talking about restoring an existing pit, but all we’re doing with these pits is digging to get fill. All this infiltration could be done underneath this pavement. We don’t need to open this up. I don’t count this as green space. This is, to me, just like another dumpster pit. This is part of the utilities of the building. We keep talking about treatment of material in here. There’s no active treatment there. There’s no liner. What goes into this is a sediment pit. What goes in the ground there is going to come out down in the stream. We keep hearing that it’s going to be contained on the site. It should be filtered. If this project was done, all of this parking lot should be curbed. It should all go into catch basins. It should all be filtered, then recharged, particularly right next to the Critical Environmental Area, and I still wonder how we’re going to get rid of the snow. If you took this area and put a foot of snow in it, I think I said before it’s about 8400 cubic yards. We certainly can’t push it on top of the landscaping without damaging it. This is all shown as existing trees. So it can’t go there. We’re planting new trees here. Are we trucking it off the site and putting up with that noise and additional traffic, or are we somehow thinking we’re going to dump a mountain of snow in here? Anyway, thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You’re welcome. Kathleen Franklin, and then next after that, I can’t read if it’s June or Jane Talley, and I apologize, up front, if I mispronounce anyone’s names. Good evening. KATHLEEN FRANKLIN 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MRS. FRANKLIN-Hi. Kathleen Franklin, adjoining neighbor, West Mountain Road. I just wanted to ask what a Professional Office zone is really supposed to be. I’m still very confused about that, because this looks like a corporate office to me. When I go down Bay Road and I look on the right hand side, I can see for miles and miles and miles. Yes, there’s some planted trees, but there are a lot of these large, big boxes with gables. That’s what it looks like, a big box with gables, and I look on the other side of the road, and there are small professional office buildings with parking lots accommodating maybe 20, 25 cars with ledges in front, with mature trees, some of which might have been planted 25 years ago and some of which might have been left there at the time, and I don’t see how this site is anywhere, I think that’s how this site should be used. I don’t think it should be used as a big box store. That stream is a year round stream. I know that for a fact, because I look at that stream every day, and there’s a big hill that goes up from that stream that has lots and lots of woods, very mature oaks. It’s quite a beautiful area, and it does shelter from the road. When I look at the plans, it looks as though a good portion of that towards West Mountain Road is going to be cut open in a way, so that we’re, not only us, the adjoining neighbor, but anybody driving down that road is going to be able to see those beautiful basins we’re hearing about. I think this is, I think we’re being sold a bill of goods, and I don’t mean to be rude, but that’s what I think is going on here. The same thing about the screening. If you go, drive down the thru way and look at The Great Escape hotel and the screening that was promised, I think you’ll find that you can see pretty much the whole back side of that place. It’s too big to be screened by the trees. I don’t know, also, whether the proposed building is white, but it looks white in the proposal to me, and if you want to see the difference between what a white building looks like behind a tree and what a green building looks like behind a tree, all you have to do is go look on Bay Road. One of the new corporate buildings going up is green. It’s considerably less impact just because of the color change. I don’t think this is appropriate for this site at all. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. June Talley? And then next would be John O’Carroll. Good evening. JUNE TALLEY MS. TALLEY-Good evening. My name is June Talley. I live on Pinewood Avenue. Three days a week or more I go to ACC, as a student. As I drive over Mt. View Lane, West Mountain Road, and I see that gravel pit, and I think of what’s going on in there, I just wonder how I’ll manage to get to school through the traffic. It is, at nine o’clock, coming off the south entrance, off Gurney Lane heading south, the cars sometimes back up there now. There’s such a short distance between there and Route 9 that I don’t know where the cars will go, and just going by there, and even when you get to the Municipal Center, there’s traffic there coming from Route 9 going south. I do hope that they will take into consideration that there’s traffic there now, and what’s it going to be like with all of these people working in this big building? Please consider this when you’re considering the traffic situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. TALLEY-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-John O’Carroll? And then after that is Karen O’Carroll. Good evening. JOHN O’CARROLL MR. O’CARROLL-Good evening. John O’Carroll in Lehland Drive, Lehland Estates. This is the first time for me in here. I see a lot of people that look like they’ve been in this area for many years. My family’s been here for two or three years. I grew up in Clifton Park, way back when when it was Elnora, and it was a beautiful town, and my mother still lives there. I love to go home because I see my mother, but I hate to go to Clifton Park now days because I see what they’ve done to it. I look at the murals in here, and they’re gorgeous, and this is why I moved north. We have a beautiful area there. I have two Labrador Retrievers. I live in Lehland, I walk that area all the time. There’s mature trees everywhere. It’s everything I’ve always wanted. When I look at this project, I mean, there’s so many issues with it I don’t know where to start, quite frankly. The traffic is a major issue. I read the notes from, the minutes of the last meeting. An F is an F. A D is a D. You’ve got one traffic light there. It would have solved everything, we should have put a traffic light there a year ago. I also understand that this is a politically charged project, because we’ve got an employer in the area with almost 500 employees. I spoke with Mr. Fosbrook, from Warren County. We’ve had meetings with Warren County, with 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) the Travelers. We’ve had meetings with the Empire State zone people, down at Albany. We’ve got the Travelers people threatening to pull out if we don’t give them this property. They’ve proposed two other buildings, which are, from what they tell us, not suitable. I would question whether that’s truly the case. The one thing, Mr. Fosbrook was a real gentleman. He took my call. He answered all my questions, and I have a lot of respect for him, but I also asked that he negotiate a little bit harder on our behalf, and the reason being is that if you look at shutting down a large business in this area, with over 500 employees, and just run the basic numbers, 500 employees at an average of $50,000 a head, just the re-lo expenses on even 20% of that is almost three to five million dollars, and the severance packages for an additional 500 people would be close to another five to six million. So I really would question whether these people really want to leave or whether they’re just holding our hand to the fire, and on the one hand I know it’s your job to look at this in its own stead, and I think it clearly doesn’t fit the area. It clearly isn’t right for the folks that are living in the area. Mr. Schermerhorn has a gorgeous house on Lake George he gets to look out on that every day. I really don’t want to look out on this every day, and I would thank you very much for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Karen O’Carroll? And then the next speaker would be June Macintosh. Good evening. KAREN O’CARROLL MRS. O’CARROLL-Hi. My name is Karen O’Carroll. I’m in Lehland Drive in Lehland Estates as well, and a couple of questions. These traffic studies that we’re talking about, when were they first initiated? Was it this Fall? Was it in the summertime? Does anyone have an idea? MRS. STEFFAN-There was an August date and an October date on traffic data that was provided. MRS. O’CARROLL-The end of August? And I guess my question is because, as we all know, everyone that lives there, June and July and August are horrendous. We do everything, if we live there, to avoid that area. So the traffic study impacts that are being done now, I’m not sure that they are relevant for year round use, quite honestly. nd MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, the data collection dates here are August 2, which was a thth Thursday, and the other date was gathered on October 11 and 17, which is a Thursday and a Wednesday of this year. MRS. O’CARROLL-So not on a Friday when we would see heavy traffic. Okay. The other question I had was, I know that Mr. Schermerhorn had proposed townhouse units, and that was turned down, and at that time, professional office zoning was put into place. Was it the Board’s intent that he would do something like what’s on the west side of Bay Road and not what’s on the opposite side? MRS. STEFFAN-Actually the professional office zoning was done before this project was brought up, and just to be fair, Mr. Schermerhorn actually withdrew the application for the townhouses based on public comment. If you go back in the minutes, I think that that’s reflected. So I just wanted to tell you that. MRS. O’CARROLL-No, I appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-And then just to further elaborate on that, the Town Board then later changed the allowed uses within a Professional Office zone that prohibits residential units within 1,000 feet from the road frontage. So that essentially has eliminated, ruled out the majority of the site to be used for any kind of residential use. MRS. O’CARROLL-Okay. All right. Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Thank you. Jane Macintosh, and then after that is Richard Linke. Good evening. JANE MAC INTOSH MS. MAC INTOSH-Good evening. I’m Jane Macintosh. I reside at 214 Gurney Lane. I also own the former Gurney Lane schoolhouse at Number 68, and I’m here to comment on the Environmental Assessment Form that was submitted for this project. I have no quarrel with most of the assessments the applicant has made, but strongly feel he is mistaken on three points. One is the question of the variance that he’s applying for. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) He’s applying for a variance to parking, when I feel he should be applying for a variance to allowable use. I agree with Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Franklin and Mr. O’Carroll, that this proposed project does not match the description of professional office, certainly as I read it. The project that’s being proposed, I would really call it a commercial site, a data processing factory. No way would I call it a professional office. The second point that I take exception with is the traffic impacts, but I’ll wait to comment on that after the new data is in. The third point that I want to comment on has to do with the number of items in the Environmental Assessment Form that talk about the use of the property, and the value of the property. Item Thirteen asks if the site is presently used by the community. The applicant claims no, and I would point out that, right or wrong, this site is used for winter recreation by area residents. It’s a rare undeveloped open space. The property has value, is valued by people in the area for snowshoeing and sledding. Now again, that may be for right or wrong, and it may be a minor consideration, but I would argue that there’s a more significant use enjoyed by hundreds of people in the neighborhood and beyond. The use I refer to is a visual or symbolic one in which a large patch of untouched woods represents the area’s natural character. Few landforms are as restful and evocative as woodlands like these. I, for one, use the site property every single day as a reminder of why I live and pay taxes in Queensbury. Item 14 asks if the present site includes scenic views important to the community to which the applicant answers no. Here I would actually agree. It doesn’t include scenic views. This property is the scenic view, which both contributes to and defines our rural aesthetic resources. This property will most certainly affect the unique and unusual landform which is the woodland on upper West Mountain Road, and I would hope the Planning Board notes this in Part II of the Full Environmental Assessment Form that your agency fills out. While the West Mountain Road site does not boast a 100 year old forest as referenced in Item Five, the existing woodland does qualify as other locally important vegetation, because of its ten to fifteen acre size, it’s visibility, it’s rarity in the Town of Queensbury, and it’s relationship to the character of the neighborhood. As a former curator at the Adirondack Museum in Blue Mountain Lake, and an adjunct professor of Adirondack history at St. Lawrence University, I spent 11 years developing exhibits which focused on the human history of the Adirondack region, and taught the many ways in which forests have been used and valued over centuries. I am not a tree hugger by any means, but I do take the subject of forested land seriously, and I cannot stress enough the degree to which the project parcel in its wooded condition adds value to the community and should not be developed in the manner proposed by Mr. Schermerhorn. This is not a question of endangered species or unique or obscure points of science. This is a question of our Town’s rural heritage and the quality of life we find living in this area, a quality of life provided both visually and symbolically by woodlands. I would have no problem with the use of this site for a limited, low density number of small professional offices, buffered in such a way as to preserve the woodland character. I strenuously maintain that the proposed project is not compatible with its surroundings, and damages existing quality of life conditions. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Before I introduce the next speaker, would Staff or Counsel like to comment? We’ve heard several comments now, on, either a variance request for the allowed use or what uses are allowed, and, you know, just so the public understands that that’s really not under the purview of this Board, but it’s under the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and also the Zoning Administrator. Would you like to elaborate on that? MR. FULLER-Sure. A couple of the initial comments were referring to dictionary definitions and things like that. In the zoning sense, you get to dictionary definitions of words if they’re not otherwise described in your Zoning Ordinance already. The initial determination of whether or not a use is permitted or not is the Zoning Administrator referring to the Zoning Code, and I believe he’s done that, and I had his determination, the professional occupation, the professional office includes the definition for the professional occupation, which is included, but not limited to, and I can read the whole thing, engaged in professional services including but not limited to all members of the fields of medicine, law, architecture, engineering, surveying, accounting, insurance, planning or financial planning, and the professional office is defined as an office used to conduct a professional occupation. So they relate to one another, and the professional occupation, the professional office, is an allowed use only after site plan review, in the PO zoning district. So you’re correct. The determination is for the Zoning Administrator, not the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MONAHAN-Chris, may I comment on that just a minute, please. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. You’ll need to come to the mic, though, please. MRS. MONAHAN-And I have the definitions here, and as I said, under Paul Dusek, I was taught to do some ramifications. MRS. STEFFAN-Mrs. Monahan, just re-introduce yourself, so that when they transcribe the minutes, it’ll be correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan. Insurance, yes, and may I remind everyone that insurance brokers are licensed by the State of New York. They’re not talking about clerical people. All these people listed here are people who have had very much advanced training in their field, or are licensed or have had to take State boards. We’re not talking about data collectors or clerks, and if somebody’s read that into that, to me, that’s a misreading. It’s not the intent, and you have to look at the intent, and you look at the intent by looking at the other uses there, and as I said, having worked in the insurance business, I know that there are aspects of the insurance business that are licensed, and you take tests for, including ethical tests. So I still question that, and also when I look at the purpose, and I do have our Ordinances, of what a professional office zone is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. MR. FULLER-Just one clarification for the Board. Staff did note as well. There are two permitted uses in the Professional Office building, the other being just an office, and the office as well is defined in the zoning law as a building that has been planned, developed, and operated as a facility to accommodate one or more separate offices as its primary use, and where other uses such as restaurants, taverns or health clubs, are secondary or accessory. So the Zoning Administrator has determined, on both fronts, both as a professional office and as an office, both of which are two separate permitted uses in the Zoning Code, that they are both permitted in that district. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FULLER-But again, even were the Planning Board to disagree with that determination, it wouldn’t be the purview of the Planning Board to overrule that determination, that’s the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Mr. Linke? And after Mr. Linke is Roman Jarosh, and I hope I pronounced your name right. Good evening. RICHARD LINKE MR. LINKE-Hello. My name is Richard Linke. I live on Gurney Lane, and I disagree firmly with the planning and this description of the zoning. In your own Zoning Ordinance, it says, in regard to PO regulations, our local law declares the compatibility with residential use, it should protect residential zones for intense commercial uses. That’s what we’re getting here. A professional office should be cited and built to minimize any negative impacts on the adjoining land. That is your own language, and this does not fit. It does not provide convenient services to local residents. This is your language. That should be part of the plan, and that should be a reason alone to reject this. Now, I’m going to try to be as fast as I can here. I think that the project application was flawed, severely, when he said, the applicant said there were no alternatives. I would ask the Board to have Mr. Schermerhorn get up, read his original application to you with the yeses and the noes that he had checked off as far as environmental concerns, traffic concerns. I won’t call it a lie. I’ll just say it’s filled with untruths, and I would like to have him talk to you and explain how many flaws, fatal flaws, are in his application. I think that the traffic report, that the community should insist that this be done in the summertime and insist there is no way that he can estimate. I understand also that the State is going to be doing some major traffic studies. I think it would be without proper planning and the appropriate infrastructure, meaning the bridges, the roads, it would be irresponsible of Queensbury to encourage or allow any new high volume commercial traffic, which this is, on this west side of the Northway, and I suggest that this is a liability situation. How can you responsibly allow this kind of traffic load? All right. We have the Saratoga Associates who did some kind of planning with the Planning Board, $120,000 worth of taxpayer money spent with a lot of flowery language, and this proposal runs counter to almost every paragraph in that study. I suggest you look over it again. We have three scenic road that Queensbury Town in their loveliness 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) has designated as scenic roads, West Mountain Road, Gurney Lane Road, and the Northway as it runs through the Town. Three scenic roads. The language says we’re going to promote and celebrate these. You’re not promoting and celebrating when you put a development this size right at the juncture and ruin three of Queensbury’s scenic roads in one blow, and I would like to request that the Board ask the Planning Department about what the County and the State are planning to do with the circular roundabouts that are probably going to be coming in on either side of the Northway. I bet that’s in the plans. I sure hope somebody is paying attention to that, and, if you’ll look at a map, a circular road there on that west side of the highway is going to be right in his parking lot which means he could move his parking lot and put it down by Rush Pond. I think that the Zoning Board, the Planning Boards are all here to protect the community, to protect the residents. You’re not here to help somebody make a lot of money at the expense of everyone in the community. I’m a little upset because I had a pretty powerful video that I was going to show tonight. I will show it again later at a future time, and lastly, I would like to pass around a plastic bag of 537 popsicle sticks. I suggest you fondle this and look at it and maybe the Board would like to see it, too. Five hundred and thirty seven cars is a massive, massive amount of traffic. Please, take a look at this and I think you’ll agree this is totally, totally not planned for. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Roman Jarosh, and the next speaker is Herb Levin. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I just wanted to let it be known that Mr. Linke has submitted a letter as well, which contains many of the points that he just mentioned. This letter is on file and will be provided to the Board as well. th MR. HUNSINGER-And is that the letter dated October 20 that was in our packets? ndthnd MR. HILTON-22. It’s dated the 20, received the 22, yes. If it’s already been in your packets, I just wanted to make reference that we do have it on file. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. ROMAN JAROSH MR. JAROSH-Good evening. I’m Roman Jarosh, and I live on Crownwood Lane in Queensbury, and I don’t think we should find fault with Mr. Schermerhorn. I think we should find fault with ourselves for allowing all these different projects to exist in Queensbury that lack all these, you know, there is no aesthetic sensibility. What’s the Town going to look like in 20 years? How many of us are going to be around in 20 years? How many of us are going to be in Florida and don’t care anymore about this? And we need to stop looking at land and property as an economy. We need to look at it as community, not trying to get every last piece of money out of a piece of property. Like I said, we really need to look at ourselves and see who’s at fault, and prevent, you know, projects that are not aesthetically sensible or make sense whatsoever, and, you know, if a person’s legacy, usually it’s said look at what you leave behind, and judge me by what I’ve left behind. If we see that that what we’re creating are barracks is in the middle of deserts of blacktop, boy, that says something about all of us, that we’ve allowed this to happen. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Levin, and then next would be Paul Derby. Good evening. HERB LEVIN MR. LEVIN-Good evening. My name is Herb Levin. I have been a resident of Queensbury for 23 years, and hopefully the plan is at least to double that number. I don’t have any prepared speech. I’d like to reply about some of the things that I’ve heard tonight. So we’ve heard, we live in an age of acronyms. I heard the acronym CEA. CEA, CEA, CEA. We’re missing the real meaning of that, Critical Environmental Area. This project is in the Critical Environmental Area. Now a small portion of the parking lot is in it, but let’s face it, the entire project abuts the Critical Environmental Area. The catch basins, the initial one apparently is outside of it, but it abuts it. The drainage is into it. As I heard tonight, the sedimentation rate is quite fast. All that drainage is going to go very, very quickly into the Critical Environmental Area. Now that’s the aquifer and watershed for Rush Pond, which leads into Glen Lake. I understand Glen Lake is a hot political item because in today’s paper one of the candidates reiterated his support for Glen Lake and Lake Sunnyside. I also understand that one of the important points of the Queensbury Lane Use Plan is to protect our watersheds, to protect our aquifers, to protect our Critical Environmental Areas. This project is detrimental to that, and one 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) other point. It was brought out about the snow. We’re forgetting that in the wintertime a large parking lot such as this is going to have to have some sort of deicing, chemicals put on it. Where are those chemical going to go? Currently we use some sort of salt, some sort of other chemical, sodium. There’s a new chemical out there that’s the consistency of molasses, and I understand that part of the make up is molasses. That’s all going to go into the Critical Environmental Area. I think the Town of Queensbury would let its own citizens down. I understand the importance of keeping jobs in the area, but even more important is we have to keep Queensbury a healthy environment for our citizens. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Derby, and then the next is Maureen Ross. PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Hi. Good evening. I’m Paul Derby, 86 Ash Drive. I’m also President of Glen Lake Protective Association, and I do have a prepared statement which is right about five minutes. So I’ll read quickly. At the October 15, 2007 meeting of Glen Lake Protective Association (GLPA), members approved by unanimous vote to have me represent their interests as Glen Lake residents on this proposed project. The GLPA currently has 321 voluntary members representing more than 2/3rds of the households at Glen Lake. The Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan, which I’m holding here, which the Town should have because it was produced actually from the Community Development office, was adopted by resolution of the Town Board of Queensbury, Dec. 15, 1997. It directs: ……the Town Planning Board, Zoning Board and the Department of Community Development, when making decisions on projects located within the [Glen Lake] Watershed, to use the guidelines set forth in the Plan as a tool and guide to controlling point and nonpoint source pollution within the Watershed (page 33). Chapter 4 of the Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan lists the recommendations and goals. The Section 1 (pages 26-28) goal is to “Protect and improve the water quality of Glen Lake and its tributaries.” The goal under Section 5: New Development (pages 30-32) is to “Ensure that future development within the greater Glen Lake Watershed is appropriate and sustainable.” It is the opinion of the GLPA that the proposed development, which would be built entirely within the Glen Lake watershed, would not improve the water quality of Glen Lake and its tributaries, in this case the Rush Pond and Meadow Run tributaries, and is neither appropriate nor sustainable. Therefore, the proposed project should not be allowed for three reasons: (1) the size and scope of the project is too large for the environmentally sensitive watershed for which it is proposed, (2) the proposed stormwater management system is inadequate and inappropriate within the watershed, and (3) a significant portion of the proposed development would be within the Critical Environmental Area of Rush Pond. According to the applicant’s map SP-4, which I just want to show, because when I was looking through the maps, I had a hard time finding that Critical Environmental Area line, so I kind of drew it out here so you could see, and I drew it out in blue, that about ¼ of the proposed development site is to be located with the Critical Environmental of Rush Pond, which is specifically identified in the Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan as a major inlet tributary to Glen Lake. Additionally an even greater concern is that the principal stormwater retention basin and virtually all of storm water is to be diverted into this Critical Environmental Area, which I’ve drawn here in orange, and it all flows to there. The Town of Queensbury defines CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA), and I think it’s important that we do so, as: An area designated by the Town of Queensbury pursuant to the New York State Environmental Conservation Law having exceptional or unique environmental characteristics. Projects undertaken in a CEA may be subject to a more detailed environmental review as determined by reviewing entity in order to evaluate the project’s potential negative impacts on the designated area. The reviewing entity will consider the impact of such actions on the specific environmental characteristics contained in the designation of the CEA. The membership of the GLPA asks that this Board deny the proposed project. If not, we request that this Board require a full Environmental Impact Statement to adequately determine all of the potential negative environmental factors and impacts upon Glen Lake and its watershed. Further, if no such full EIS required of the applicant, we ask that this Board give its reasoning to the GLPA and the public in writing. In conclusion, Glen Lake is a very important natural, cultural and economic resource for the Town of Queensbury. At this time, the ecology of the lake is being severely threatened by large areas of infestation by Eurasian Watermilfoil – an invasive, non-indigenous aquatic plant – and is being stressed by nutrient loading from stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution. We are doing all we can as an organization of volunteers to mitigate these negative factors including commissioning yearly water quality studies, working with Warren County Soil and Water and the Town of Queensbury on an updated Watershed Management Plan, and moving forward with a large project in 2008 to control the Eurasian Milfoil infestation. Managing lakes has 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) become very, very expensive. It is bad enough that this summer the Town allowed the Great Escape to continue to not hook up the east side of the Park to the sewer line. As a result, all of the septic systems and waste water is being allowed to leach into our watershed. Now you are considering another very large development, for which the potential negative environmental impacts have not been adequately determined or examined. The lake and the community cannot afford this. Therefore, we ask that you please do everything in your power to protect our shared environment. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Maureen Ross, and then next is Samuel Butto. MAUREEN ROSS MS. ROSS-Hi. I’m Maureen Ross, and I live on West Mountain Road. The dip that Mr. Franklin referred to is right below our houses, and every snowstorm it’s so dangerous. There’s at least minimum five accidents, and I’m sure everybody that lives on Lehland, coming and going from work, has experienced the traffic back up because of the storms. Now with all this other traffic coming through, they can’t control it now. Another thing I would like to ask the Planning Board if they would please consider what this project on that corner will do to the resale of our homes in the future or any home that is for sale right now. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. After Mr. Butto is Gail Butto. Good evening. SAM BUTTO MR. BUTTO-Good evening. I’m Sam Butto. I live on Gurney Lane. I have a petition that I’d like to read into the record then hand to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You can read it into the record, but I’ll ask that you hand it to Staff, so it’ll be an official part of the record. MR. BUTTO-I’d be pleased to do that. The undersigned object to the proposed Schermerhorn office complex on Gurney Lane West Mountain Road intersection. We are residents in and around this area and feel that the addition of 537 or more vehicles coming to and going from this office structure during the work week would gridlock an area with already congested traffic flow. In addition, the project would destroy the area’s rural character by placing a box store structure at the site. This, along with our concern that runoff could severely affect environmentally sensitive areas cause us to urge both the Town Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny this project. And I ask the people that have signed this who are here tonight to stand. MR. HUNSINGER-No, you can pass it to the Board and we can count the number. MR. BUTTO-Well, I’d like them to stand to acknowledge that they’ve signed this petition. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BUTTO-I have more comment. There were three areas that I discussed. The one was the traffic that is of great concern to us all. Five hundred and thirty-seven cars aren’t just going to be coming one time. They’re going to be going from, I guess Mr. Schermerhorn indicated there might be some, how do I say, flex times, so that during the course of a day they would be coming in early to late hours of the morning, and then leaving in the afternoon or evening. However, they’ll be coming to and going from those places in the morning. They’ll be going to lunch, because there’s no convenient spot for lunch, and they will be then coming back from lunch and going out again during the evening hours. This is going to mean a continuous, just about continuous flow there. One traffic light is not going to resolve the issues that are there. It’s ridiculous to even think that. The second issue is the box like structure that’s going to be going up there. We’ve said it to Mr. Schermerhorn before. He’s asked us to work with him. We’ve indicated that structures like what you see on the west side of Bay Road would be acceptable to us all, yet we still continue to see these huge projects, these one knockout punch projects that he’s proposing to us. The third thing is the environmental area, which you’ve all heard over and over again, we have critical environmental issues. We want studies that are going to satisfy the people that this is going to work here. I don’t believe it will. I’m no rocket scientist, but I do know that sediments and salts and so forth with leach through that soil and they will impact on Glen Lake. There’s no question about it. The final thing I’d like to mention is the notion that I’ve heard from Town Board members and a Supervisor that if we don’t, if you don’t approve this project, that there’s 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) going to be a layoff of 500 people. That is nonsense. I agree with the gentleman behind me that there is no way that a company is going to layoff 500 people, relocate and try and regroup and train and employee 500 more staff elsewhere. There is just absolutely no way that’s going to happen. I guess that’s all I have to say. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. After Gail Butto is Louis Buck. GAIL BUTTO MRS. BUTTO-Good evening. I’m Gail Butto. I live at 75 Gurney Lane. In addition to the legitimate concerns presented to the Board tonight regarding this proposed project, my paramount concern pertains to the obvious dangerous it would impose on the stakeholders due to the traffic safety needs it would disrupt. I would urge the Board to request an emergency services assessment of the consequences and compromises that we would surely face if a traffic burden of this colossal magnitude is inflicted on this area. The proposed site of the project borders the intersection of no fewer than two County facility driveways, three rural roads, two Interstate ramps, a County vehicle depot, and a major conduit to Vermont. The already choked bottleneck is exacerbated by a double bridge overpass spanning the Northway. These bridges are only two lanes wide with a mere 30 inch shoulder on either side, bordered by concrete abutments and guardrails. They are devoid of sidewalks or bike lanes or turning lanes. Should emergency vehicles need to cross this area to address a fire, medical emergency or police matter during one of the peak gridlock hours, their paths may be hopelessly blocked. I have personally witnessed this frightening impediment a number of times by the northbound exit, when all lanes were full and the Northway ramp was cramped with stationary cars. The ambulances and fire trucks were forced to agonizing thread their paths through a parking lot of cars which could only spare them inches of clearance. This I witnessed in an area where cars conceivably could have jumped curbing to accommodate the emergency vehicles, the area by the Montcalm. That is not an option on the dangerously narrow Northway overpasses. I voice my grave concerns for the stakeholders. The residents of Old West Mountain Road, West Mountain Road, Goggins Road, Gurney Lane, the West Mount Health Facility, the employees of the Warren County Municipal Center and its annexes on Gurney Lane, the families who are using the Gurney Lane recreational areas, the employees of the project Mr. Schermerhorn proposes on this site, and the soles occupying all those vehicles trapped in this predictable traffic quagmire. I appeal to your experience to use this opportunity to prevent a foreseeable series of disasters by ensuring that a comprehensive emergency services assessment by highway safety professionals, law enforcement and emergency services providers be undertaken, as it must play an integral role in the decision whether this project fits the zoning requirement of a professional office and thereby fits the needs intended for the use of this site with its already restricted flow. The addition of a traffic light, as proposed by Mr. Schermerhorn, is a simplistic solution that would prove to be as effective as placing a band aid on a ruptured artery. I implore you, please take this opportunity to make a serious analysis that would prevent the development of a new, hazardous location. Deny this project to protect those would be imperiled. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. After Mr. Buck is Constance Langford. Good evening. LOUIS BUCK MR. BUCK-Good evening. My name is Lou Buck. My family and I live on Gurney Lane, and have done so for the past 25 years. I also serve as the President of the Association of West Mountain Corridor Residents for Responsible Land Use. As the name implies, among other things, this Association advocates the responsible development of land within the Town, the adherence to the Town Zoning regulations, and encourages the Town’s adoption of the 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In January and February of last year, many of the residents of the West Mountain corridor, including Mountain View Lane, West Mountain Road, Lehland Estates, Old West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane, signed a petition in which they voiced their opposition to the townhouse project then proposed for the northern end of West Mountain Road near the intersection with Gurney Lane. The opposition stemmed from a variety of concerns. One concern regarded the impact such a large scale development would have on the increasing traffic congestion at the already taxed I-87, Route 149 and Route 9 interchange. Another concern involved the potentially irreparable damage the townhouse project would have created to the environmentally sensitive area of Rush Pond and ultimately Gurney Lane. The third concern was the adverse effect such a project would have on the aesthetic and rural nature of the only remaining Queensbury exit off the Adirondack Northway with a relatively rural character. The protection of this area of Queensbury is addressed in detail in the 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. These same concerns not only exist 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) but are magnified with the current proposal to erect a structure with 85,000 square feet of commercial office space, along with parking to accommodate 537 cars. We are concerned for a variety of reasons. The project involves the development of commercial office space, not the professional office space for which this area of Queensbury had been rezoned. When this area of Queensbury was rezoned professional space, the underlying intention was to foster the development of a cluster of small professional offices, certainly not the construction of a large commercial office building. The stark difference between commercial and professional office space is quite apparent when one considers the commercial development which has occurred recently on the east side of Bay Road, versus the professional office space which is nestled unobtrusively on the west side of Bay Road. This contrast is particularly dramatic in the evening when the parking lots on the east side of Bay Road are flooded in light. We are also concerned about the adverse impact this size project will undoubtedly have on the environmentally sensitive Rush Pond/Glen Lake area, a significant issue addressed in the 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We are very concerned, as well, about traffic. Not just at the already congested Exit 20, but ultimately the impact on traffic from Exit 19 to Exit 21, as motorists begin to use other roads along the West Mountain corridor in an attempt to avoid what promises to be nightmarish congestion around Exit 20. The reality is this. As the congestion caused by traffic to and from Vermont on Route 149, coupled by the traffic on Route 9 caused by the close proximity of several popular destination spots to one another worsens, the traffic has dramatically increased on Glen Lake Road, West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane, as local residents traveling north and south attempt to circumvent the congestion around Exit 20. These roads are ill suited to accommodate any increase in the volume of traffic. Last year when the developer withdrew his townhouse proposal in the face of stiff opposition, the Town’s Planning Board suggested that he return to the Planning Board with a project which consisted of attractively designed clustered, professional office space. The Planning Board made a point of clearly stating that a project of this nature and scale was something upon which they would look favorably and which they felt the areas residents would support. The commercial office building being proposed for this section of West Mountain Road is a far cry from the cluster of professional offices. When this area of Queensbury was rezoned Professional Office, it certainly was not intended to spur the development of a monolithic commercial office building with 85,000 square feet of commercial space, surrounding by parking lot designed to accommodate over 500 vehicles. It is our intention to militate against any development in this part of the West Mountain corridor which does not adhere to the clear purpose for which this part of the Town was rezoned and which does not conform to the guidelines established and outlined in Queensbury’s 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Constance Langford, and then next would be Mr. Salvador. Good evening. CONSTANCE LANGFORD MRS. LANGFORD-Hi. I’m Connie Langford. I’m in Lehland Estates. I have not been a resident there for a long time. We came from Assembly Point, Lake George very early in this year, and we did that partly because of the huge homes that were being allowed, the huge amount of square footage that was allowed by the Town of Queensbury to be built on these tiny little parcels, and there, of course, you’re in a Critical Environmental Area as well, being on the shore of Lake George. However, that’s my problem, but that’s my reason. I have two really significant problems here. One is that I think there is an impasse on the actual meaning of what was meant for that site, and I implore the Zoning and the Planning Department to look at that, and as Betty Monahan said, you know, your answers are in more than just one place, and it’s kind of suspect when you only look at one place to get your answer. That bothers me. Now the other thing is I have a question, and was a full scale Environmental Impact Statement done, or just the first stage? MR. HUNSINGER-What was submitted is commonly referred to as a Long Form of an Environmental Assessment report. MRS. LANGFORD-This was the most comprehensive one that could possibly be done? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. LANGFORD-And I honestly say, to all of you, that if you had required that we probably wouldn’t be sitting here today now discussing this kind of a project in this particular situation and I would like to request that you do the full Long Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. After Mr. Salvador is John Fisher. Good evening. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At your last meeting on this hearing, it was not clear that the Travelers Insurance Company was a likely tenant in this building. The applicant was asked directly, but it was determined to be an indistinct tenant. Since that time, in the local press, we hear Town officials being quoted as saying that the likely tenant is Travelers Insurance. With that, I directed a letter to Mr. Brown, because I feel that if it is indeed a firm that functions pretty much the way we understand Travelers Insurance does function, that that sort of use would not be an allowable use in a Professional Office zone, and I directed a letter to Mr. Brown in early October pointing this out, and asking if, whether or not he had made a determination in this regard. It took a month for us, with an exchange of letters, and you have repeated it here tonight that the Zoning Administrator has made a determination that an office building in a Professional Office zone is an allowable use. You’ve also mentioned the fact that that is not the purview of the Planning Board. However, any aggrieved party in this Town has 60 days within which to bring an appeal before the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding this determination that the Zoning Administrator has made, and I submit that his determination was probably made in the last week. So 60 days remains. I’m sure it won’t be difficult to find an aggrieved party in this Town who’d be willing to bring such an appeal before the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, if, in fact, the Zoning Administrator’s determination that an office building is an allowable use in a Professional Office zone sort of begs the question, why do we have the zone? Why do we have a Professional Office zone? What’s the distinction between an office building and a professional office building, and according to the Zoning Administrator, there is no distinction. That has to be sorted out. As Mrs. Monahan said, it’s not the spirit and intent of our regulations to allow this sort of development to go on in a Professional Office zone, and you’ve heard shades of this argument from many, many people tonight. I’d like to remind everyone that at the present time we do not have the definition of an office building in our Code. Office building is not defined in our Code. However, before this Code was brought on, it was defined in the old Zoning Ordinance we have. This defined an office building, and it also defined a professional office building, but we didn’t have a Professional Office zone in this Code, and both of these were allowed in commercial zones, light industrial zones, and the height of these office buildings was 50 feet in a Recreation Commercial zone, 40 feet in a Highway Commercial zone, 50 feet in a Light Industrial zone. We didn’t want that in this Town. We didn’t want that in this Town, and that’s why when this Code was brought out, office building fell of the radar. Office building is not defined in this Code, and the allowable use you refer to is simply office, not office building, in the Table of Uses. So I believe the Zoning Administrator is incorrect in this regard, in this interpretation, and that will surely be brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals in the form of an appeal of his determination. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Fisher, and then next is Tanya Bruno. Mr. Fisher? Apparently he left. My apologies. Mrs. Bruno, and after her is Wendy Pognowski. Good evening. TANYA BRUNO MRS. BRUNO-Good evening. Tanya Bruno. I’m a resident of 119 Gurney Lane, and my husband is standing in the back. I want to first mention to Mr. Jarosh. I believe he made the statement that Queensbury lacks an aesthetic continuity. I have to say I agree with him. I joined the Planning Board for this reason, and we need to start somewhere for this aesthetic continuity. That having been said, as everyone knows, I’ve recused myself from many meetings because I am a member of the Planning Board, but I do live right near the site. One, I do have a copy of the fax requesting the tabling motion for today. I happened to be in the Building Department at the same time that it came in. I don’t know how many people are aware that this request was also made to the ZBA for this September 26, 2007 meeting, which Mr. Schermerhorn did not appear for because he had decided to rework the original plan into this current proposal which would require the same variance. Two, I arrived to witness the visual impact statement, visual impact experiment with the balloons. Although Mr. Schermerhorn drove past myself and my fellow Board member while we were waiting for the process to begin, we never saw any activity. We waited by the most obvious spot to be seen by the project’s engineers and owners, yet we were never informed of a more specific place. We thus assumed that it had been cancelled for that time, and it sounds like, from what you’ve said this evening, no one had received word of it, another re-scheduling. So it must have happened at that 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) time. There’s been a rumor that the County might be interested in a building on this site. I just want to clarify that the County clearly denies this. That was something that was brought up last year a little bit, and Mr. Fosbrook, with the Economic Development Corporation in Warren County, a couple of people have mentioned his name this evening, stated in a meeting that he had come to previously, that the proposed tenant of the building looked into moving into the CNA building in Glens Falls, amongst others, and that opportunity was not there. I have done research on this, and Warren County is planning on using the CNA building as swing space during the County’s construction of their new municipal center annex. The economic gain or maintenance of the economic benefit by keeping this tenant in Town is, although extremely important to Queensbury, is not an even trade for what would be lost by build out of this site. I ask the tenant to please reconsider the other local options. I’m a short walk away from the site, and I’m a great cook, but by no means does this neighborhood provide the same amenities for the employees as another site in a commercial area. Mr. Schermerhorn was told, in January of 2006, that an Adirondack style, as clarified by the then Chairman Bob Vollaro, building, residential in feel, office building like the west side of Bay Road, would be most appropriate. Mr. Schermerhorn, at the end of the meeting, stated “I’m very sensitive to public input and sometimes it’s unfortunate that the few individuals take, I don’t know, cheap shots at someone like myself. They don’t even know me, when here I said I’m here to work with people”, and the part of that quote I’d really like to stress is I’m here to work with people, and back to the design and aesthetic continuity of Queensbury. What do we want to leave for our children and the Town. I know he has, so please continue to work with us. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Ms. Pognowski, and then after her is John Strough. Good evening. WENDY POGNOWSKI MRS. POGNOWSKI-Good evening. My name is Wendy Pognowski, and I live at 88 Old West Mountain Road. My family and I moved there just over two years ago. We have three small children, our youngest being three. We absolutely love where we live, not only for the aesthetic beauty that we’ve also lovingly tried to restore on our property. It’s convenient location, and my biggest concern is probably the traffic impact. I realize we’re not here to discuss that tonight. However, I still wanted to bring that up. There’s joggers, bikers that run by our place all the time. We plan to raise our family there for the next, you know, until our youngest is grown, and it saddens me to think that this would negatively impact our quality of life. So I would ask Mr. Schermerhorn to seriously consider the impact that a project of this magnitude would have on families in the area. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. After Mr. Strough is Kathleen Sonnabend. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Town of Queensbury. One resident, not being comfortable with coming up here, asked me to convey their point of view, which I think was a valid, legitimate point of view, that this area, along with other areas surrounding it, serves as an unsegmented, contiguous pathway for animals to be able to use Rush Pond, and it’s a to and from access area, and that he has seen deer, bear, and even moose use this as a pathway. So, with that being said, and I’ve worked with Richard Schermerhorn and his team, fine group of people, and Richard’s always been willing to accommodate, but sometimes things just aren’t going to fit, and this might be one of those things that just doesn’t fit. When we zoned this Professional Office, we did speak to what was Professional Office. We spoke of Evergreen Estates. We spoke of what would be appropriate for this area, given its environmental sensitivity, and what’s being proposed didn’t fit into that scheme. On PORC, some of you were with me on the PORC Committee, we never got to a final conclusion and discussion of the Professional Office proposal and what it should be like for this area, but the words low impact are words that kept coming up and of course were included in what I thought would be appropriate, given that a landowner has a right to develop it to a certain extent, but also within the realm of the community’s scheme of things. What’s being proposed doesn’t meet the definition of Professional Office. Now it’s been brought up. So I’m not going to belabor it, but I read Professional Occupation, a definition in our zoning book, I read Professional Office, I read the intent of Professional Office, okay, as Mr. Buck had pointed out. The intent was Professional Office is a transitional zone, to be compatible with residential areas. What’s being proposed is commercial. It’s not Professional Office. Okay. So I’m not going to belabor that point. Now I do have a handout that I’m going to give you, because I’m not going to be able to completely go over everything that is of concern to 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) me, within the allotted amount of time I have, but we want Travelers, and you know we can’t look at it as Travelers, okay. We have to look at it as a commercial office, and we have to look at it in the worst case scenario, and we have to look at it maximum impacts. We can’t look at it as Travelers. Now Travelers may argue this and that and the other thing, but we have to look at it as an 85,000 square foot, 537 parking lot building. It’s a commercial building. It’s not Professional Office. Now, this kind of building, where you have 500 employees, say, you and I have been working on community planning together for a long time. Now, something like this you’d want next to a six lane arterial that is capable of serving great volumes of traffic, you would want something like this to be in a community of amenities such as cafes, restaurants, post offices, mailboxes, where 500 employees would be serviced, and not only that, where the cafes and restaurants would be serviced. In other words, it would be a symbiotic community, a community that works together. Now that’s what you want. Okay. That’s good planning. I don’t think Travelers Insurance is going to be happy here. Everyone knows that July and August they’re going to be blocked from going on to 149. They’re going to be blocked on going to Route 9. They’re going to be blocked on trying to make the northbound exit on the Northway, and so what are they going to do? They’re going to impact the secondary routes. Their behaviors are going to change, and that hasn’t been addressed. In other words, they’re going to start using Mountain View Lane. They’re going to use Gurney Lane. They’re going to use West Mountain Road. They’re going to use Aviation Road. They’re going to use Exit 20, or Exit 21. They’re going to use Exit 18 and 19. They’re not going to use Exit 20. Not during July and August, and not only that, there’s no amenities. T here’s no walkable amenities. The people are going to have to drive out for lunch, or bring it, but there’s nothing servicing one another, no symbiotic relationship here. It’s just not what we wanted. What we wanted was a clustering of professional offices, like dentists, physical therapists, that service the community, that have a traffic behavior completely different than this. This traffic behavior goes in bursts. You’ve got an AM burst. You’re going to have a noon burst, and you’re going to have a PM burst. Professional Offices don’t have bursts like that. They have continuous in and out traffic that goes all day long, no bursts. This is not what we envisioned when we said this would be a good place, a compatible place for a residential, rural area, when we said it should be Professional Office. We did not mean commercial office. Now, I have more, but I’ve more than used up my time, and I’ve shared my thoughts on a document that I’m going to share with you. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. KATHLEEN SONNABEND MS. SONNABEND-Hi. Kathy Sonnabend, Cedar Court in Queensbury. Well, I’m going to be the only person to say anything positive about this tonight. So I may need an escort out of here. We’ve got a problem in Queensbury which is a plus minus kind of situation. We’re one of the few areas in the State that actually has some decent economic activity going on, and when that happens, you’ve got good and bad that comes with it. People want to live here. They want to work here. They want to build here, and property owners want to develop their property. So, you know, we have to decide as a community what the right balance is, and I think you have to step back and take a look at the overall picture. Obviously the environmental concerns and traffic concerns are very real, and they have to be addressed properly, but that area already has traffic issues. Something has to be done, bridge widened, different ramps, whatever it is, they’re going to have to do some work there anyway. The Municipal Center is already there. They’re expanding. This is an area right next to the Northway. This is valuable property for offices. When the nanotech center really gets going down south, there’s going to be more demand for offices up here near the Northway, and while, yes, we’d all love to have the Professional Offices like we have on the west side of Bay Road, I can’t recall one of those being built in the last several years. Whenever we’ve had professional offices built, they’ve been more like the east side of Bay Road. So unless we’re going to suddenly change the pattern that we’ve been having, we need to think about the best place for these big office buildings, and to have one near the Northway is certainly going to alleviate traffic concerns going through Town, because getting in and off the Northway for these people to get to their homes is going to be easier. Not all of them live right in Queensbury. So I’d really like to see the Planning Board give this a chance, assuming that the environmental concerns and the traffic issues can be worked out. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. No one else had signed up to comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like an opportunity to comment? Yes, sir. I would just ask, again, if you would please state your name for the record. NELSON MILLER 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. MILLER-My name’s Nelson Miller. I live on 175 Gurney Lane. Many of my neighbors have already spoken. I don’t have any prepared remarks. I’ll be brief. I think when you consider this as the perhaps the last speaker points out, when there’s a conflict, there’s winners and there’s losers. I think if this project goes through as it’s currently envisioned by the applicant, there will be many losers, that will include everyone who lives on Gurney Lane or any of the developments off Gurney Lane, anyone who lives on West Mountain Road, Old West Mountain Road, anyone who lives around Glen Lake, any of the multitude of developments off West Mountain Road will all experience a degradation in their quality of life. Anyone who travels the Northway, particularly northbound, currently appreciates the view of the forested mountains and hills as they crest the hill prior to The Great Escape and Rush Pond, will now, instead of seeing woods, see this horrendous, huge office building and its associated parking lot. So, I think the comments tonight clearly represent to you that there will be many, many losers if this project goes through. The winners, Mr. Schermerhorn, perhaps, and possibly some of the employees and the families of Travelers. I think that that’s highly debatable, as one of my neighbors pointed out. I think it’s rather unlikely that they will move out of the area if they can’t build on this particular site. There’s certainly other sites in the area that would be better, and if they’re determined to stay in this area, I think that they will be able to stay in this area. Certainly this isn’t the last building site available to them, and it has many, many negative features associated with this development project. So whether they would be losers if this project is approved, I think, is debatable. So that leaves Mr. Schermerhorn and his outfit and, you know, somehow I think that he will not have to sell any of his jets if this project is not approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to comment? Yes, sir. Good evening. GEORGE LANGFORD MR. LANGFORD-George Langford of Lehland Drive. I fully agree with almost all of the comments that have been stated here tonight, but there’s something that I don’t get. Why are we catering to Travelers Insurance? I certainly think that we need economic development, and we need to have jobs in the area, but Travelers used to be at the CNA building. Then they moved to the Montgomery Ward building. They got, requesting economic development help in each case, and now we’re going to impact greatly the whole area, and make a mockery of Professional Office zoning requirement to cater to the Travelers Insurance. It looks to me like the tail is wagging the dog here. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. JACK BENEDETTI MR. BENEDETTI-Hi. I’m Jack Benedetti. I live on Bonner Drive. Just right down the road from this proposed site. Just that I take the Northway south every day to go to work, and I go past this site every day. On weekends I’ll often go take a ride up to Lake George. I go by this site on weekends, and I just, with an office building there, that Route 9 to 149 is going to be ridiculous in the summertime, especially around five o’clock. People have mentioned the alternative routes, are people going to take between Exit 21 and 19, they’re going to fill up those other side roads. The runoff, there’s been so many arguments. There’s only been one person that’s been for it, and they’re visioning way off into the future. I just want to mention I don’t like this proposed office building, and I think it’ll be detrimental to the community. That’s all. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. JOE PEZZULO MR. PEZZULO-Hi. Joe Pezzulo. I live at 16 Bonner Drive, Queensbury, and I just want to point out that tonight we’ve heard from many people. The one pro speaker mentioned there’s already a traffic problem there. Well, duh. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? DENNIS FRANKLIN MR. FRANKLIN-Can I come up a second time? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, if you make it brief. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. FRANKLIN-I will. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FRANKLIN-There doesn’t have to be winners or losers here, not that I particularly want to see this project here, but if there were proper treatment of the storm drainage, if it were filtered, it wouldn’t impact Glen Lake. If the Town widened the end of West Mountain Road to four lanes and continued another lane on Gurney Lane, and doubled a lane getting on to the Northway, raised the off ramp, and changed it to two lanes, widened the bridge, we stop going for cheap construction with wood trusses and we lowered it down, put a nice mansard roof down, cut the height in half, but the one common factor of all this is it’s all costing money. So what we’re all being asked to do is absorb all the pain, to save other people money. The County is overdue in fixing the roads and the State around this area, and they’re asking for one traffic light. It’s ridiculous. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. If you make it brief. RICHARD LINKE MR. LINKE-Richard Linke living on Gurney Lane. The concept of build out I think is what we’re fearing an awful lot. For example, if this gets to be commercial, let’s say I own the land across the street, or my partner Jane, the old school house, that would be a great hotdog stand for all of those people that have no place to walk. How could the Town deny any of the neighboring or adjacent parcels from saying, I want a variance to go commercial, because across the street from me, I have one of the top, the biggest commercial operations in the Town. How could you deny, how could you deny? How are you going to keep this from growing. We don’t want it to start. For 30 years, the Planning Boards have said, we don’t want it to go towards the west side of the highway. There’s 30 years of Planning Boards, not just you folks. Long before Schermerhorn came along. Let’s not get it going on the other side. Now the thing about trees, this balloon business, with winter season and whatever, with leaves being off the trees, I don’t believe it for a minute. I don’t believe that the Zoning Department is enforcing what they’re supposed to be enforcing. For example, The Great Escape. All along the Northway there, that was supposed to in the plans and the pretty pictures, it was supposed to be pretty trees, and it’s not. So apparently there’s no enforcement, and I don’t believe for a minute that they’re not going to cut down every tree that gets in the way, and you’re going to be seeing the building, and as someone else said, you’re going to be seeing it underneath, and the applicant has, in the newspaper, declared that he would never do anything to harm Queensbury, and I’m saying, live up to your word, because you’ve got an awful lot of people who think you’re going to harm our neighborhood, so please back off. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m going to conclude the public comment period for this evening. We will, however, leave the public hearing open for the future meeting. Does the applicant have any comments based on any of the public comments that were made this evening? MR. LAPPER-We would like to make a submittal to the Board to respond to the comments that we feel need to be addressed. We mentioned at the beginning that there’s a bunch more work we have to do on traffic, and we want to address the stormwater plan, some of the issues that were raised as well. So what I would request is that we table this, that we set a date for a re-submittal, and that because of the interest of the immediate neighbors, I think it’s appropriate to schedule another public meeting just because it would take too much time on a regular agenda. So, that would be our request. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? I did have a question myself. We did receive a, for lack of a better term, a signoff letter from the Town Engineer. I’m sure he will be looking at the new information that’s submitted, but one of the documents that I would like him to take a look at is this November 1 letter from the Glen Lake Protective Association, if he could address that specifically, and I think that really gets at a lot of the stormwater management issues and concerns, particularly with respect to the Glen Lake Watershed. Anything else from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think if they address all the issues brought up by the public. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I concluded the public comment period, I’m sorry. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MRS. STEFFAN-For this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-For this evening. The engineering just says that the engineering issues that have been raised and reviewed, they are satisfied with the information and responses provided by the applicant, but I’m summarizing a multiple page letter. There’s actually several multiple page letters that were submitted by the Town’s Engineer. With any project of this magnitude, the Town has a consulting engineer that reviews the plans and documents that are submitted by the applicant and comments are submitted to the Planning Board for consideration. Those comments are passed on to the applicant to address, and then the applicant, you know, needs to address those comments in future submissions, and the most recent letter from the Town’s Engineer said that they were satisfied with the answers provided by the applicant. We generally call it a signoff letter for lack of a better term. We need to discuss meeting dates in December. Because our regular meeting date is Christmas Eve, and I can’t imagine anyone wants to come to a Planning Board meeting on Christmas Eve, or, I’m sorry, Christmas night not Christmas Eve. Do we know the availability of the room for other dates in early December? MR. HILTON-Off hand we don’t, I don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So I think the only safe way to table this to a specific date th would be to table it to December 18, which is a regularly scheduled meeting anyway. MR. HILTON-That’s the only safe way, unless you, I guess, chose a date and if we had to change it, obviously we’d have to re-warn the public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. What does December look like for a schedule, first of all? th MR. HILTON-Well, we’re not there yet. The deadline is November 15. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s too early. MR. HILTON-So we don’t know what the December agenda, we don’t have all the applications in yet. MR. HUNSINGER-We only know of the applications that have been pushed over or tabled, and I think at this point there’s only four. MR. HILTON-Right, but, again, the deadline for the December submission is November th 15. th MR. HUNSINGER-November 15. MR. HILTON-We’re not there yet. So we don’t know what we’re going to get. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t we schedule this sometime in January, then? MR. FORD-Do we want to entertain a Special Meeting in early January or our first January meeting? Either of those could be considered. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s going to have to be a Special Meeting. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think in view of the ongoing public comment, it probably calls for a Special Meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I wouldn’t be so inclined to want to table it for essentially two months. I don’t think that’s fair to the public. I mean, there’s 100 people in attendance here this evening. MR. LAPPER-We would request some time earlier in December, if that’s possible. MR. FULLER-The sixth is that first Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-When could you have materials submitted? th MR. LAPPER-We’re thinking Friday the 16. That’s when Creighton-Manning said that they can get us the traffic revisions. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. HUNSINGER-And if we can’t meet that evening, do we want to pick an alternate th meeting date, the 13 maybe? MR. FULLER-You can table it tonight and you’re fine with leaving it open if you table it from the meeting tonight. If you get, if we get out of the meeting and you find out that that night’s not good, then you’ll have to go through the re-notice. th MR. LAPPER-So we’ll say the 6 for now? MR. HUNSINGER-That would be my inclination. th MR. FORD-December 6. th MR. HUNSINGER-December 6, which is a Thursday evening. Would anyone like to make that motion? MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the submission date? thth MR. HUNSINGER-November 16, Friday, November 16. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, LP., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to December 6, 2007 with a submission date of November 16, 2007. st Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan ABSTAINED: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the benefit of the public, the public hearing was left open. th We will take additional public comment on the evening of December 6. The meeting will commence at 7 o’clock. If there is a change, there will be a separate public notice issued to the Post Star. I’m sure there’ll be a story in the paper as well. Did you have anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not for tonight. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did you want to bring up that resolution? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I have copies right for everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. We did have other business. Okay. The only other item that I was aware of for consideration this evening was an item that Mr. Seguljic brought up regarding a recommendation to amend Chapter 147 of the Stormwater Management Code, and I’ll just let you summarize the discussion here. MR. SEGULJIC-What I have done is, with regards to 147, which is the Stormwater regulations for projects within the Lake George basin, which actually has a lot of requirements for development within the basin to control stormwater runoff. One of the things at one of the meetings several weeks ago was that one of the applicants pointed out that it was their interpretation that septic systems, installation of sanitary systems were not included within the calculations for determination of the applicability of 147. I just think it’s important that we close that loophole and request that when a project comes before us, you include sanitary system within the calculation. So when you install a septic system and you disturb that soil, that total disturbance gets included within the total calculation for disturbed areas to determine if 147 is applicable. That’s what I am attempting to do with this resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-And we also had a privileged memo from Counsel dated September th 17. It was not about that specific issue, but about the stormwater calculations. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s what I’m attempting to do. So that’s what I’m attempting to achieve through this resolution. Does anyone have any questions for clarification? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. FORD-The only one I want to clarify is that, as we make reference to, otherwise jurisdictional, under this chapter, the area of disturbance from such exempt activity shall be included, and H above makes six references to exemptions. MR. FULLER-That’s right. MR. FORD-And I want to make sure that we’re clear that any of those exemptions would be included in this review. MR. FULLER-Yes. Tom and I had discussed this, and I did look this over before he sent it to you, and there was definitely some confusion. I can’t remember the application. It was over on the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-And the discussion was should those, the exempt activities, in and of themselves, are exempt. No question. If somebody’s just putting in a septic, that doesn’t get kicked into the Major Stormwater just because you’re putting in a septic, but the question was, well, if you’re doing a lot of things, if you’re adding on to a house, moving a house, moving the garage, putting a driveway in, the applicant’s standpoint was, position was that disturbances related to things that are on that exempt list don’t get included in the square footage calculation, hypothetically. You could have 10,000 square feet of disturbance related to other projects that are jurisdictional have a septic system that’s 5,000 square feet, the total would be 15,000 square feet, triggering, if I’m wrong, correct me on the number, but you can have that, the total of those two, 15,000 square feet, trigger a major, but individually they do not, and there was a good argument that the applicant made that, as it currently stands, those exempt activities don’t get included in that calculation, even though they may be related to an activity that does get included the calculation. You see that difference? Tom, you can correct me, I think that’s the loophole you wanted to close. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FULLER-And I think that’s what we did here is that those exemptions, and Tom did a fine job with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I thought he did a good job, too. MR. FULLER-The exemptions, in and of themselves, still remain exemptions, right. Nobody’s arguing about that, but, when you have other development on the site which is otherwise jurisdictional, we are going to take into account those disturbances and add up the total. So that you don’t have three or four things that are on the exempt list that could add up to 10 or 15,000 square feet, yet your main part of your project be only 10,000 square feet. It seems to not really. MR. SEGULJIC-And I’d like to clarify, also, that one of the exemptions that’s listed, and this is one of my fears, one of the exemptions that’s listed states, “Activities of individuals engaging in home gardening by growing flowers, vegetables and other plants primarily for use by that person and his or her family.” I can see someone arguing that by installing a lawn, it’s for his use by that person and its vegetation, and all of a sudden cutting down all those trees and disturbing all that soil to put in that lawn, they could argue is exempt, is not subject to this regulation. MR. FULLER-Yes, and we’re not changing that part of the definition, but I see what you’re saying there, but I think from a practical standpoint, from even just the plain reading of the statute, I think that would be a huge stretch to defeat the statute. You can’t interpret a statute to the extent that it defeats the statute. Do you know what I’m saying. To put it another way, if somebody wanted to stretch that, I would take that fight. I can’t guarantee you anything, but there is a degree of reasonableness to say, listen, you know, it’s a garden, we’re talking about a garden. You planting your lawn is clearly not intended to be included in this. Now the other side of it is, if you’ve got 20,000 square feet of pumpkins and cucumbers and corn growing, that’s exempt, and it doesn’t change. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is, I find that quite interesting, because when I worked in Vermont, they were doing stormwater management studies on Lake Champlain and the single biggest source of point pollution in Lake Champlain was agricultural uses. So I find it interesting that we will exempt gardening. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. FULLER-And I can tell you, a town that we work for on the very north end of the lake is right now considering its own stormwater regulations within the Lake George basin, and that was a big part of the discussion, gardens and the potential that they, unregulated, could have more impact than possibly even somebody wanting to put in a lawn. Because a lawn does slow a little bit of water down. A garden will not. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess it’s important to note that that exemption says as long as it’s for home use. I mean, you can’t have a commercial operation. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone have any other questions? MR. FORD-Clarification on Number One, emergency repairs to any stormwater control measure, some emergency repairs might be relatively minor. How do we interpret that? MR. HUNSINGER-We have sort of addressed some in recent Site Plan Reviews where their stormwater management controls either broke or weren’t working properly or weren’t installed properly, and we said correct that immediately, before we even consider your application further, and I think that’s really what it’s alluding to. Basically what it’s saying is, keep your stormwater control devices in top operating condition, and if they fail, fix it immediately. To me, that’s what that’s saying, but. MR. FULLER-So you don’t get an applicant coming in saying, I can’t fix it yet, because this is a Major Stormwater project an you have to review it first. MR. FORD-Right. That’s where I was going with the question. Are we going to get into a Catch-22 with it. MR. FULLER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll defer to Staff, but since this is in written form, do we need to read the whole thing into the record, in the form of a motion, or can Mr. Seguljic simply say I move the motion that’s presented? MR. FULLER-If the Planning Board is comfortable with the language as presented, I would make a motion to approve this. We can get the entire electronic version. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s already been distributed. MR. FULLER-I’m fine with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Why don’t you just read it in, then Maria can type it up. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying I should e-mail a copy to Staff? MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, if you read it in, then Maria’s got it, and then it’s automated at that point, and you can just pick it up and move it somewhere. MR. SEGULJIC-So I’ll e-mail it to Craig. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, if you read it into the record, and Maria transposes the notes, then she can just pick it out of the document and send it. MR. FULLER-Read on. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD TO AMEND CHAPTER 147 OF THE TOWN CODE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE LAKE GEORGE BASIN, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, the Lake George Park Commission stated in their August 18, 2004 Stormwater Rural Review, Lake George is a natural resource of unparalleled beauty, and inestimable value, in its undeveloped condition, the land basin, soil, and natural vegetation absorbed and buffer precipitation and the contaminants and atmospheric 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) deposition. When land is developed for human purposes, some or all of the land’s buffering and absorption properties are lost forever. If not properly managed, contaminants and sediments are released and carried away by runoff events. Further, sedimentation is a major aspect of improper stormwater management, which may overlay rock and gravel substrates and thereby create habitat which is excellent for Eurasian water milfoil and other adverse environmental impacts, WHEREAS, local stormwater regulatory programs for the Lake George basin were approved by the Town of Queensbury under Chapter 147, WHEREAS, Chapter 147-6, Applicability, states this Chapter shall apply to all buildings, constructions, land clearing and subdivision of land located both within the Lake George Park and the Town of Queensbury, both for private and public, except development which is expressly exempt in accordance with Chapter 147-7H of this Chapter. Chapter 147-7.H(6) in particular exempts land disturbances associated with construction of an approved wastewater treatment system. Within recent applications there has been some question as to whether or not the disturbances associated with exemptions should be included in projects that are otherwise jurisdictional under the stormwater regulations, and that the Planning Board believes that while the exemptions, in and of themselves, are exempt, disturbances from exemptions that are also related to projects that are otherwise jurisdictional should be included in the disturbance calculations. THEREFORE, The Queensbury Planning Board recommends that the Queensbury Town Board draft a resolution amending Chapter 147-7 so that clearing and land disturbances associated with the construction of an approved wastewater treatment system be included within the land clearing calculations to determine if Chapter 147 is applicable to the site. As such, we recommend that the following be added to 147.H: Chapter 147-7.H(7) – provided that the area of disturbance associated with any of the foregoing exemptions related to or arising from any other activity which is otherwise jurisdictional under this Chapter, the area of disturbance from such exempt activity shall be included in the overall disturbance calculation when determining if a project is subject to Chapter 147, when the project is otherwise jurisdictional, as well as the determination of a Major or Minor Project as provided in Section 147-8 of this Chapter. st Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know how Staff will find this. The written comment on the third Whereas, the sentence reads, and the printed copy, within recent applications, and Mr. Seguljic read within most applications. It’s really not critical. I think recent’s a better term rather than most. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m fine with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-We’ve probably changed this three times reading it again. The one thing I wanted to add, Tom, in reading it one more time, is the second to last sentence at the bottom, where it says subject to Chapter 147, I think we should add the clause, when the project is otherwise jurisdictional, because as I read it again, somebody that wants to challenge a project could come in here and say, as I read that, if I had three exempt activities, and if I add them together, I may no longer be exempt. That’s not the intention. They’re still exempt, but if the project is otherwise jurisdictional, you add those in. So after 147, I’ll add, when the project is otherwise jurisdictional. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have two amendments to your motion. Do you still make the motion, Mr. Seguljic? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And do we still have a second? MR. SIPP-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Sipp. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to thank Tom for doing this. It was great work. MR. SEGULJIC-Now should I e-mail a copy to Craig and to you? MR. FULLER-Send it to me like as soon as possible. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll just send it to you. I can send it to you first thing tomorrow. MR. FULLER-That would be great. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you’ll take care of? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I will not make any changes to it. All right. You’re going to make the changes to it. MR. FULLER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I apologize for not making a comment when the public was here. I got thrown off a little by how the meeting began, but I just want to thank everyone for carrying on in my absence the last couple of meetings. Any further business? MR. SIPP-Yes. I’d like to bring up, Steve brought up a happening at Stewarts on Quaker and Dix Avenue, where electronic signs are being placed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I haven’t had a chance to check the minutes. We were talking about that before the meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-And I checked the minutes, and the only comment that, and I thought I had a discussion about signage on this particular project, and the only comment that I made was, as long as it’s not a reader board, I’m okay with that, but I thought, I specifically remember seeing a picture of a standard Stewarts sign, and I thought I heard Mr. Lewis say, yes, we’re going to put the plastic numbers up, and I thought I recalled that, but I went back in the minutes and I could not find it, but it is obnoxious. I called Bruce Frank. He talked with Craig Brown, and he said that according to our resolution, there was nothing to prohibit them from applying for that sign and having it approved. MR. SIPP-Because the Sign Ordinance doesn’t approve it, it doesn’t prohibit it. MRS. STEFFAN-And I’m feeling like we should contact, because I know I’m upset about it, and I think we should contact Mr. Lewis at Stewarts to say, this does not support the intent of what we discussed. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I think we should call him. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it’s a real disconnect in our Site Plan Review, because we go into such detail on everything else, where to put specific plants, you know, specific species, you know, and the whisky barrels and everything else, and then we turn around and they put up some gaudy sign that we never approved or never had any review of. MR. SIPP-How far is this from the traffic signals? MRS. STEFFAN-If you are at the. MR. SIPP-On the point there? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, absolutely. Right at the end of the point. MR. SIPP-All right. It does say here, signs using red, yellow, or green lights shall not be placed within 100 feet of a traffic control signal. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MRS. BRUNO-There you go. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Beautiful. MRS. BRUNO-Good research, Mr. Sipp. MR. SIPP-140-5 D. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would ask Counsel, what would be an appropriate action of this Board? MR. FULLER-The suggestion of voluntary compliance to approach Stewarts I think would probably be a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-And who would do that, who would we direct to do that? MR. FULLER-Certainly Staff or somebody could reach out to Stewarts and see if they’d be willing to make the change there, and if they don’t, that certainly is a determination possibly that could back up that change. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-All of us who saw it reacted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-In the meantime, it sounds as though we might want to consider another of Tom’s resolutions to the Town Board, so that such events come before in the future. MR. SIPP-You see, there’s two that are in operation now within the Town, and we have no, the one up on Aviation you might get it within 100 feet of a traffic signal. The one down on Quaker. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, I wonder, the Rite Aid went for a Sign Variance. Does anyone know what sign was approved there? MR. SIPP-I was at that meeting, and what they wanted was an additional wall sign to go on the building, and they also wanted a monument sign off of the property on whoever owns the piece of property next to them, on Lafayette. So that, I said that we never were told that they were going to put a sign off property. MRS. STEFFAN-We discussed signage on that project extensively. MR. SIPP-Yes, I went back and looked at the record. I went back through the minutes, but we never approved a sign off of the property, monument or otherwise. They also wanted another freestanding sign on Lafayette, and I said we never approved that, and they were turned down by the Zoning Board. MRS. BRUNO-Good. So the ZBA did turn them down. MRS. STEFFAN-Good. So you went to the meeting. Thank you, Don. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you, Don. MR. SIPP-That was months ago. Now, he was going to come back, after he talked to the higher ups, I guess. MRS. STEFFAN-Should we review the Sign Ordinance and perhaps make a recommendation? MR. SIPP-Well, I think what’s got to happen is somewhere along the line, much like this 147, we’re going to have to sit down and say, what’s the maximum height we’re going to allow, because here it’s 25 feet. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, yes, but we had a general guideline that we were using, so that when we approved some of the recent developments on the strip on Lake George, the gas stations, we said that we wanted a 20 foot sign height. MR. FORD-Maximum. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Because we revisited several of the projects that had been approved over the last few years, and we identified that 20 feet was an appropriate height. We liked that. It was reasonable. MR. SIPP-There is a Sign Ordinance in Saratoga which allows no sign, whatever it may be, over 12 feet high. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. SIPP-And that’s on, if you go to the website, New York State, Department of State, memorial publications. MR. FULLER-The James Coon Technical Series. The Coon Technical Series, that’s what you’re talking about. MR. SIPP-Coon, yes, that’s right. There is a site there. I never downloaded it because it’s about 70 or 80 pages, but it gives you basis of a whole new Sign Ordinance. MR. FULLER-George made a good point, too, that the determination of whether or not that sign complies with that is ultimately up to the Zoning Administrator. It’s going to be his decision on that. MR. SIPP-As I say, we’ve got one up there on Aviation that’s been there for two years, and that one down on Quaker and the CVS drugstore has been there a couple of years ago. MR. FORD-We keep referring to them as we don’t want anymore of those. MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly. MR. FORD-We cite that as an example. MRS. STEFFAN-And we never had any Site Plan on that CVS sign. MRS. BRUNO-Didn’t we have a discussion with him on the Aviation Road Stewarts, not that it would be pertinent to this, but just in terms of him recognizing what our intent is as a Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I went through the minutes, and I thought we had a long discussion on it, and I couldn’t find it. MR. FULLER-I can remember what it was. The one you joked about was the other application that was related to the one that’s on Aviation. Same company, similar company came in, and you said no more LED’s. I remember that. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, at Exit 18. MR. FORD-We’ve made that reference on more than one occasion. MRS. STEFFAN-And the red is thoroughly obnoxious. I mean, it hurts your eyes when you look at it, and it’s all wrong for the Town. MR. SIPP-That one on Aviation might be within 100 feet of that traffic signal up there. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be great if that were true. MR. TRAVER-Why was that not submitted by the applicant at Site Plan? I mean, that was clearly part of the design, and that implies some deception on their part, in my opinion. MRS. BRUNO-They had a drawing. MR. TRAVER-That was my recollection, too. MRS. BRUNO-They was a drawing? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that they held up, here’s what our sign is. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) MR. HUNSINGER-So how do we want to approach this? Do we just want to direct Staff and can that message get delivered, George? Should we pass a resolution directing Staff to contact Stewarts? MR. HILTON-Personally I think that I would do is bring it to the Zoning Administrator’s attention, the comment about the within 100 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILTON-Because ultimately I think he’s going to have to determine whether that section applies or not. I mean, I guess you could pass a resolution that if found applicable that we contact Stewarts and discuss it, either way. MR. FORD-There was another thought, though. We call for voluntary compliance. MR. HILTON-Yes, you could do that, too. MR. FORD-And then if we have to pull out the 357 we will. MR. HILTON-Right, that might be the better way. MR. TRAVER-That’s the short term, and then in the long term we need to address the overall issue somehow. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think so, too. MR. TRAVER-It seems to me that something like that should be part of the Site Plan or at the very least part of Site Plan Review or come before this Board. MR. SIPP-When you were doing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as it got to the end, I don’t think either one of you were there that night, I proposed that, along with the 12 foot high sign, that there be no electronic signs in the Town of Queensbury, except for time and temperature, which would get the banks off the hook. MR. HUNSINGER-I would endorse that. MR. TRAVER-Well, that might work in the short term, but as technology advances, there may be other kinds of signs that we don’t like, and I mean, I think the ultimate answer is to have something that makes any of this type of issue be reviewed by this Board, because this LED sign is going to be replaced by some other kind of sign. I mean, that’s going to be another loophole, eventually. So, the fundamental answer is, we should be looking at all these things as part of the Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-And I know, obviously the reader board came up with me several times, and I think I’m the champion of that one, but I think there’s general consensus on the Board that that’s not the kind of thing that we want in the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t think anyone likes it. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: st Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE th MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you everybody. The next meeting is the 20. Saturday the thth 17, site visits. The first meeting is November 20. On motion meeting was adjourned. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/1/07) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 32