Loading...
2008.07.15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 15, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 13-2008 Lake George Campsites 1. Tax Map No. 295.12-1-6 Site Plan No. 20-2008 Laforte Construction Co. 2. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-33 Site Plan No. 5-2001 Stewarts Shops 3. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.13-2-25 Site Plan No. 61-2007 VMJR Companies 11. Freshwater Wetlands Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25 Permit No. 1-2008 Site Plan No. 7-2008 K Twin Holdings 33. Freshwater Wetlands Tax Map No. 296.20-1-9, 10 Permit No. 4-2008 Site Plan No. 10-2008 Randy Gross 40. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-33 Subdivision No. 6-1984 Jane & Edward Gardner, III 50. MODIFICATION Sect. 5 Donald & Peggy Merrihew Bedford Close Tax Map No. 308.18-1-38, 50 Subdivision No. 1-2008 R. Case Prime 51. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 290.10-1-5 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 15, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury, Tuesday, July 15, 2008. The first item on the agenda is review and approval of minutes from May 2008. Would anyone like to make the motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MAY THTH 20 AND 29 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN 13-2008: LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES – FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION SITE PLAN 20-2008: LAFORTE CONSTRUCTION – FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is a couple of administrative items. SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 SEQR TYPE I LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1053 ST. RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CAMPSITE OPERATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR APPROXIMATELY 340 CAMPSITES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES INCLUDING A NEW FIELD HOUSE, RESTROOMS, POOL AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS NECESSARY FOR ALL USES REQUIRING A USE VARIANCE. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/12/08 LOT SIZE 38.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-6 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 MR. HUNSINGER-The first one is Site Plan No. 13-2008 for Lake George Campsites. They were scheduled to be before the Board this evening, and didn’t submit the requested information by the deadline. Has it come in since? MR. OBORNE-Yes, it came in a couple of days ago. MR. HUNSINGER-A couple of days ago. So if we table them until August we’re okay? MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that it was in before we went ahead and tabled it to next month. MR. OBORNE-It was in before the deadline date, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to. thth MRS. STEFFAN-Is the 26 better or the 19? Does it matter? th MR. OBORNE-I really don’t think it matters, to be honest with you. I would think the 26 might be better, because it’s such a large project. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: thth To the August 26 meeting. The application deadline for that was the 15, and they have submitted their materials. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2008 SEQR TYPE II LAFORTE CONSTRUCTION CO. AGENT(S) PARAGON CIVIL ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 2609 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2077 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME, IN A CEA, WITH A DISTURBED AREA OF 14,690 +/- SQ. FT. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR PROJECT. MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECTS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE BP 06-566 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/14/08 APA/DEC/CEA L G CEA, APA LOT SIZE 1.44 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-33 SECTION 147-12 MR. HUNSINGER-The next one is Site Plan No. 20-2008 for Laforte Construction, and we did receive correspondence just a couple of minutes ago, an e-mail from the applicant to Craig Brown. Did they submit the information? MR. OBORNE-They have not. MR. HUNSINGER-They still have not. MR. OBORNE-Right. They still need to complete stormwater and the like. They’re not totally complete at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, it’s just my opinion, but if that has not been reviewed by the Town Engineer, I don’t know how much discussion we can really have with the applicant without that information. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So it would be my inclination to table them until August as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. In the note to us, it says that they were tabled until tonight. MR. OBORNE-Yes, they were. Well, they asked for that tabling consideration tonight, previously. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Right. So I guess we’ll table them until the August meeting? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So they do have their information in to you? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. OBORNE-Today was the deadline, and they did not get their information in, and that’s the deadline for August. What they want to do is they want to go ahead and try to nd get on the 22 meeting. They have their information in. However, it has not been vetted at this point. So it’s ready for an August meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, can we do it the first meeting in August? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sounds good to me. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2008 LA FORTE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th To the first Planning Board meeting, August 19. The application deadline was today. They did submit their materials. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And I would just like the record to show that the public hearings on both projects, Site Plan No. 13-2008 as well as 20-2008, the public hearings were left open, and they will be re-opened on the evening’s specified. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 221 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO THE GAS ISLAND CANOPY TO CONSTRUCT AN INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BLUE STRIPE TO BRAND GAS AS “MOBIL”. ALSO APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE FREESTANDING PRICE SIGN FROM MANUAL TO DIGITAL. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE PZ 2-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.7 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-25 SECTION 179-9-020 CHRIS CANUGIARI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-The applicant was before the Board on May 29, 2008 for the above modification. This modification was tabled until June 24, 2008 in order for the applicant to submit the photometric information, cut sheets for the illuminated band and canopy lighting. The applicant failed to submit the requested information by June 6, 2008 deadline set by this Board, and as a such has submitted updated plans for the July 22, 2008 meeting. The applicant has submitted plans that include photometric and canopy band information. According to the plans, only one canopy sign will be present. This sign is considered a wall sign and as such two wall signs are allowed due to the corner lot configuration per Chapter 140. If the applicant proposes a second canopy sign in the future, additional review would be required. The free standing pylon sign with the proposed digital gas price is also subject to review. The addition of this type of device will not increase the 50 square foot sign that currently exists. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. th MR. CANUGIARI-Sorry we had to wait this long to meet again. I know on the 30 when we got your request for the lighting detail under the canopy we immediately knew we needed more time, and so thanks for allowing that to happen, and so obviously by now you guys have gotten the canopy lighting detail so you can see the photometrics, with regard to the Mobil branding, I mean the actual strip that would be the internally illuminated strip, (lost words) about 225 lumens. So that’s a pretty negligible amount. So that really would not have any impact on the photometrics. MRS. STEFFAN-Could you introduce yourself for the record, please. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. CANUGIARI-Sure. I’m sorry. My name is Chris Canugiari, and I work in the Real Estate Department for Stewarts. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. CANUGIARI-Sorry. That’s because I was here the last time. MRS. STEFFAN-We tape the meetings, and so when somebody transcribes them, that’s an important detail. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else you wanted to add before we open it for questions? MR. CANUGIARI-No, that’s okay, actually. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Just a comment. I don’t have any problem with the Mobil section, but I don’t like the digitals. I still don’t like the digital sign. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I was going to bring that up. I’m not really sure, I know that there’s discussion during our last get together, and I’m still not thrilled with the digital sign either. MR. TRAVER-Well, one of my concerns, I think, too, is, not only the precedent, but, you know, when we approve a, quote unquote digital sign, you know, that’s another whole technology that may be changed from time to time or other, you know, what happens when this particular display needs to be replaced or upgraded? I’m just concerned that it’s taking us down a path that we may not have complete control over. MR. SCHONEWOLF-A question of Staff. We already have digital signs in the Town, right? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are they different colors or are they always the same? The ones I’ve seen are red. MR. OBORNE-I believe they’re all red. That is correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is this a red? MR. OBORNE-Yes, and we are flexible on that, too. I mean, we could do an amber, if you wish. MR. SEGULJIC-If I recall, you proposed an amber. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that is what. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, and I just wanted to let you know we are flexible on the color. So either one. MR. TRAVER-Amber in color. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I think you’re going to see digital signs every place. It’s the digital world, but some of them are garish, and they’re distracting. I noticed a couple yesterday that were so brightly red that they distract you when you’re driving. On the other hand, if you can’t find the price of gas, you’re distracted too, because you’re looking for the lowest, but I think something halfway in between would be acceptable to me, at least. MR. CANUGIARI-I know, that’s why we tried to restrict the size of it, too. So it doesn’t look so garish, like that Sunoco on Exit 19. I mean, that’s huge, and so that’s why we limited it to one foot, in terms of height. MRS. STEFFAN-What color is the sign that you have, the digital sign on the corner of Dix Avenue? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. CANUGIARI-Our Quaker Road site? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. CANUGIARI-That is a red one? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s red. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The one up at Exit 19 is terrible. MR. TRAVER-And we did not review or approve that sign. MRS. STEFFAN-No, we did not. That came after the approval, our Site Plan approval. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it a Citgo or a Sunoco at Exit 19? MR. CANUGIARI-It’s a Sunoco. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s this one. MR. HUNSINGER-No, no. I’m talking about the brand of gas at Exit 19. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s the Citgo station. It’s the same one at Exit 18. They also own the one at 19. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree that those red signs are distracting, but this one, because as I recall it was going to be amber, and I checked on the plan and it does say it’s going to be amber. MR. CANUGIARI-It is amber, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-If it’s amber, I don’t think I have any issues with it. MR. SIPP-Well, my issue is that once you saw it, you’re going to have digital signs not only for gas, you’re going to have them for everything else, and I don’t want to see that in any color, because once they start blinking and flashing sale signs and things like that, I think we’ve opened Pandora’s Box. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we can say no flashing. MRS. STEFFAN-Certainly the reader boards, from our point of view, are out. MR. SIPP-I mean, time and temperature, which is an easy sign to read quickly and so forth, the price of gas, are we going to have three different signs there? MR. KREBS-There’s one here, only one. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, just for the (lost word). MR. SIPP-Could we have three different ones, though? MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, you’re right about the precedent. I mean, we’re trying to keep it in a very tasteful fashion. So, I mean, we wouldn’t be interested in that, but, I mean, I understand your concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think Mr. Sipp also points out an interesting analogy. I think we’re used to time and temperature signs that have the amber color. Those don’t seem to be very bright. The biggest problem that I have with the red ones is they’re just so much brighter than the historic time and temperature ones, and there isn’t any data here to explain the brightness or the intensity of the actual lights themselves. So, how would this compare to, say, you know, a time and temperature light on Glens Falls National Bank for example? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. CANUGIARI-That’s a good question, and if you’d like, I can get more information on the actual bulbs that are used. I mean, I haven’t been told that the strength of the bulb is any different for red versus amber, but I can get those details. That’s something I can get for you. No problem. MRS. STEFFAN-I actually believe the technologies on the old time and temperatures are different than this LED technology. That’s a different lighting. That’s one of the reasons why the red LED lights are so bright, because it’s a different kind of lighting technology, and it is very piercing to your eye. MR. CANUGIARI-And for us on that particular site, it’s like 190 feet from the actual sign of the doorway. So I mean, that’s a decent distance. Especially in the wintertime, you’ve got snow banks. So, I mean, those are kind of the other reasons why that would be a lot easier. Also with gas price changes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but we don’t allow digital signs, traveling signs that move, do we? MRS. STEFFAN-No, reader boards, no. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’re not allowed. MR. CANUGIARI-No blinking, no moving. MR. HUNSINGER-There is one in Town, but we never allowed it. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-It never came before this Board. MRS. STEFFAN-They got a variance, and now I look at the Zoning Board, CVS, right down here on the corner of Quaker and Bay. So that you could know what the sale is on soda and toilet paper and things like that. It’s really important. The sign on the corner of Quaker and Dix, that has more than one price on it, doesn’t it? MR. CANUGIARI-No, I thought there’s only one on there. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s only one? MR. TRAVER-I think it’s basically the same as this application. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought there were more than one set of numbers on that, but I could be mistaken. MR. CANUGIARI-I know the coloring’s a little different, too. It’s a rose color all the way through, but I only remember seeing just the Unleaded price on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-On the canopy strip, on the canopy, you tell us it’s 800 lumens, I believe, at the bottom of the strip? MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. The numbers that we got from Mobil were the down lights they were talking about were like the 800, and then they said the strip was 225. I can give you the exact wording if you want. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s 800 at the bottom of the strip. Does that mean because it’s going to be, yes, here you go. Does that mean the white part’s going to be 800 and the middle part’s going to be 225? MR. CANUGIARI-What I was even thinking is that, in terms of the other lights that were coming out of the canopy, is that, I was thinking that the 800 were applying to those, and actually just the 225 was coming out, the strip itself, because I know there’s coverage underneath because it sticks out there, protrudes about six inches, and I know they use a covering below that, to block off, so you can’t see the light. MR. SEGULJIC-Because the last time you were here, one of my concerns is I just don’t know how bright that strip’s going to be. Is it going to be very bright? But we had asked that the photometrics from that strip be included in the overall photometrics. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Are they included? MR. CANUGIARI-That’s for the existing site, and I was just told it was really just a fraction of a foot candle to have any change, that it wasn’t anything that was substantial. MR. SEGULJIC-So Sheet Two represents what it’s going to be like in the future, with the lighting and the strip around the canopy. MR. CANUGIARI-That would actually be the existing lighting detail. MR. SEGULJIC-So we don’t know. th MR. CANUGIARI-Because that was what, on the 30, that we thought you had requested, was just the existing lighting detail, and then I was told there really wasn’t going to be any change. It was just so negligible. I have some pictures, too, actually, that Mobil had sent us, if you guys want me to pass these around. That would help. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you have one for everybody? MR. CANUGIARI-Actually I don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t you start down at that end, then. MR. CANUGIARI-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And then just a comment. I’m kind of surprised you’re using T-12’s and not like T-5’s. T-12’s are old technology. MR. CANUGIARI-True, and actually we’ve even started to look into LED lighting for those, to replace all the metal halide lights. MR. HUNSINGER-So are these pictures all the same store? MR. CANUGIARI-That particular Mobil, I’m not sure where that’s from, actually. Yes. Our gas marketing manager, who was with me last time, Chad Keesoe, had actually contacted Mobil and they had gotten that from somebody. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I think the downcast lights are much brighter than we would ever approve. So it’s kind of the same. MR. CANUGIARI-True. Like I said, I know that strip really doesn’t add anything foot candle wise. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, I think the concern, even though we haven’t really articulated it yet, but, you know, the concern with the, is the proposal to look like this? MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, the two foot strip. MR. HUNSINGER-The blue sticks out, and then there’d be a light kind of behind it? MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, internally illuminated. MR. HUNSINGER-That needs to be in balance with the overhead lights in the canopy, and if the strip lights are brighter, it’s going to be out of balance, and it’s going to cause glare problems and your eye won’t be able to adjust, and it’s going to, you know, it’s just not going to work. Because I think, you know, the issue is, and I don’t know if your lighting designer thought about that, you know, the brightness of the white light coming off the façade needs to match the intensity of the lights that are underneath. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, and how this was done, this was sort of just Mobil’s standard rollout. I mean, this is, so that’s kind of where we were at with it. That’s how you get authorized through them for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Because my guess is that they probably need to be reduced to match the canopy lighting that’s already there, but unfortunately I don’t know that unless I saw it up. I’m not a lighting designer. So I don’t know, you know, the wattage or, you know, the 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) halides. It’s not going to have much meaning to me, or anyone else on the Board for that matter. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. I can get you more if you want. MR. SEGULJIC-Just so I understand. So the way it’s going to be is that there’s this blue band and then there’s a strip on the bottom. So what you’re saying on the plans is the strip at the bottom will be 800 lumens where the light is, and where the blue band, it’s going to be 225 lumens. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. That’s my understanding. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. My only problem is I don’t have a, I know things in foot candles. MR. CANUGIARI-That’s how I know them, too, yes, and that’s. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have a feel for lumens, unless someone else here can enlighten me. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, there was another site plan that I had seen where we had used, and it’s actually (lost words) that we’re constructing now, where I was talking to Chad about this, and it had like 90,000 lumens with that equaling 15 foot candles. So we were sort of using that ratio today when we were talking about it. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. CANUGIARI-Which would come down to like, you know, if it’s 200, 225 would like .03 basically of a foot candle, if you were to use that ratio that we used on a similar sign. MR. SEGULJIC-When I look at it, the lighting looks good to me. I’m just concerned about the canopy. I don’t know what the canopy is going to do to the existing lighting. I have no feel for that, and maybe, I don’t know if we were clear enough, but that’s what I was looking for, is what’s the canopy lighting going to be, I should have been clear, in foot candles? MR. CANUGIARI-In foot candles. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And then what’s that impact going to be on the lighting there? Because we don’t want it to be a real over lit area. Is that making sense? And then the digital signs a whole other issue. MR. HUNSINGER-So I’m sensing that we’re going to want to see some new information. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I know it’s a pretty simple project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know, I feel the same way , but, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess we just weren’t clear last time. MR. CANUGIARI-That’s my fault in my misunderstanding, then. MR. KREBS-This drawing says West Glens Falls. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, that’s what we call the shop. Yes, that’s just the shop name for that. That’s a 374 West Glens Falls. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what they call it. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, that’s what we call it. MR. KREBS-Okay. It’s on Glen and Quaker, though, right? MR. HUNSINGER-No, this is the one on Corinth. MR. KREBS-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Exit 18. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. CANUGIARI-Corinth and Big Bay. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, should we give them, I mean, it seems to me that the Board is split on this digital issue. Should we give them clear direction as to. MR. CANUGIARI-Like a threshold. Is that what you’re thinking? MR. SEGULJIC-On the digital issue, the digital signage? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I think it’s similar to the canopy light. I think we need to have an understanding for how, what the brightness of it would be. MR. CANUGIARI-And you want that measured in? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, not so much the brightness, well, the brightness of the bulbs, but how bright is it going to be? What are the foot candles we’re going to be looking at? I can look at things in foot candles. Twenty is bright to me. Two is nice. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, no, I know what you mean. In a sign like that, I don’t know how much of a foot candle there is, but, yes, I can do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any way to get information on the digital signs at Exit 19, for comparison. MRS. STEFFAN-Of that foot candles on that particular sign? MR. OBORNE-On the foot candles? I don’t think that’s in their purview. I would think that the applicant would have to supply that. MR. HUNSINGER-As far as what the requirements are for the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, they certainly know what the intensity is of their lights on the corner of Dix and Quaker. MRS. STEFFAN-What I was asking for is to compare it to what we don’t like at Exit 19, you know, that Citgo red digital sign is pretty obnoxious to the eye, and so we need to compare what’s there, what we don’t like, and so that’s why I’m wondering if we can get the data, so that we can compare with Stewarts against what we know is not acceptable to us. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I could probably dig that file out and see what they have, if any, to be honest with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we might not have anything. MR. SEGULJIC-Isn’t the Stewarts on Dix by the K-Mart, but they have a digital sign there, too, don’t they? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So if he can give us the. MR. HUNSINGER-He can certainly give us that data. MR. SEGULJIC-So if he gives us the, what the lighting wattage and whatever foot candle information MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. I’ll find out. MR. SEGULJIC-At least then we have a comparison that they can give us. The other one (lost words). MR. KREBS-And we can go look at it. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and we can go it. MR. HUNSINGER-We can go look at it. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MRS. STEFFAN-I was going to ask for a digital lighting comparison of the three colors that are available, a digital lighting foot candle comparison of red to amber to white. Those are the three colors that are available in that LED lighting, and so if you could compare those three for that particular sign then we could see the differences between the colors, and if we could compare that to another benchmark item, which would be the Exit 19 sign that we know is not acceptable to us, then we would have data to compare and make a decision on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess my only concern is that Exit 19 sign we might not have information on. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, Staff can try to get that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they can try. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-And the other issue is the GRJH at Exit 18 that wants a Site Plan modification, that’s the same company that owns the gas station, the sign that we’re looking for. So they’ll be in the Community Development Department submitting an application. So I think that they might be able to provide us with the information to be really cooperative. MR. OBORNE-That remains to be seen, ma’am, but I will go ahead and look at the file tomorrow and see what I can glean out of it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We don’t even remember approving that sign. Did we? MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t, no. Okay. When are we tabling this to? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they’ve missed the deadline for August, unless we want to extend the deadline. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the deadline’s today for August. MR. CANUGIARI-I know for the Mobil we’re only approved through October. Just to throw that out there, but that is the initial approval we had for the branding, and I’d have to talk to Chad, our gas marketing manager, about that, in terms if we had to renew, if it was extended longer, but obviously. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re looking for the applicant to provide illumination of the canopy in foot candles compared to the current site lighting. Does that make sense, or do I need to word that differently? MR. TRAVER-Yes, we’re looking for data so we can contrast and compare existing with proposed. MRS. STEFFAN-And so is it going to be September? MR. SEGULJIC-And if may say also, what is the, they’ve only given us the canopy lighting in lumens. So we’d like to see that in foot candles? MR. KREBS-Yes. I think that’s what she said is that she wanted the foot candles. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I missed that. MRS. STEFFAN-The other detail, I know you just passed around the pictures. Are the lights in the canopy recessed? MR. CANUGIARI-In the canopy themselves at West Glens Falls? I think they’re all recessed lights, but I’d have to verify that. MRS. STEFFAN-And will they remain recessed? MR. CANUGIARI-Yes, they would stay the same. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. CANUGIARI-Yes. I know that. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s no proposed changes in the existing canopy lights. MR. CANUGIARI-No. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just the band that would be illuminated. MR. CANUGIARI-You’re right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Actually the white part of the band comes down to. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: thth Tabled to September 16 with an application deadline of August 15, so that the applicant can provide the illumination of the canopy, in foot candles, compared to the current site lighting, specifically the impact on the existing lighting to the proposed lighting. So that the applicant can also provide a digital lighting foot candle comparison for their gas price signage, and the colors we would like them to compare is red, amber, and white. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. CANUGIARI-Okay. Yes, thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Before I announce the next project, if there’s anyone here for Jane and Edward Gardner and Don and Peggy Merrihew, for that project, the applicant has withdrawn that application, and we will obviously address that when we come to it on the agenda, but if you’re here, that has been withdrawn. SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2008 SEQR TYPE I VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISES MGMT. ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION RT. 254 NW INTERSECTION AT QUAKER RIDGE BLVD. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 150,200 +/- SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND UTILITIES. RETAIL USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: FILLING WETLANDS TO PROVIDE PARKING AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES. FILLING WITHIN THE 100 FOOT WETLANDS ADJACENT AREA REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE UV 27-93, AV 34-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 4/9/08 APA/CEA/DEC/ACOE NWI WETLAND/ACOE LOT SIZE 37.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25 SECTION 179-4-020 MARK PETROSKI & BOB SWEENEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, gentlemen. Keith, if you want to, Stu, I’m sorry, summarize Staff Notes please. MR. BAKER-Yes. I’ll briefly summarize some of the outstanding Staff comments at this point. On Sheet X-2.1, the applicant is showing the area to the, for wetlands mitigation, the area for wetlands to be created, and yet in the narrative materials they’ve provided, in 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) Attachment One there’s a note to file about discussion between their project engineer, Mr. Petroski, and the Army Corps of Engineers where the meeting notes state that essentially other mitigation options are still being considered, such as off site mitigation or land banking. So there’s a question, at least in my mind, as to what is the mitigation going to be? The materials presented show mitigation being done on this project site. The narrative provided states that there may be other mitigation options to consider. On Sheets C-01, clearing limits, the clearing channels are, again, shown back on the plans. However, thinning activities such as what may be proposed in the clearing could be considered regulated activity under our local wetland regulations, and would need to be considered as such with appropriate details, level of detail provided. Again, I noted that no trees over 18 inch or greater caliper are shown on the plans, nor to my knowledge have they been identified by flagging on site. The applicant did provide a note on the plans stating that all trees within 18 inch caliper or greater will remain outside the areas of proposed grading, but again, those aren’t identified. Sheet C-1, we do have the reverse curve radii for the truck entrance movements. However, the attachment four that the applicant provided does show that the truck movements will still go into oncoming lanes, and I question whether that can be corrected through some additional design adjustments. The applicant did provide a note in the narrative stating that they would expect traffic would stop and essentially stay out of the way of the trucks, but I think a design solution would be a better alternative. Wetland buffers, buffer lines need to be shown on the Site Plan sheet still. If the wetlands mitigation is to be on site wetlands creation, complete design details for those are needed for this Board’s review, and I would say before you can complete SEQRA as well, because there could be significant environmental concerns to review with that wetlands creation. The details provided on Sheet O-3 also included a new approximate area of bedrock to be removed, which raises the question of where will that bedrock go. If it’s to be moved off site, how much traffic will be generated by that particular activity, and is that reflected in the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted? I also note that in one of the three dimensional bedrock mappings provided by the applicant, it is based on 32 on site borings, and yet Sheet C-03 only shows five of those locations. Sheet C-4 again, planting details regarding wetlands mitigation, if, again, on site wetlands mitigation will be done. Sheet C-5, we still don’t have any lighting details for proposed signage at the corner of Quaker Ridge Boulevard and Quaker Road, and those are really the outstanding Planning Staff issues. Okay. Thanks, Stu. Good evening, gentlemen. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. PETROSKI-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mark Petroski. I’m a project manager with Bergmann Associates. I guess I’ll get it started, but with me this evening is Vic Macri, the applicant, and Bob Sweeney. So I guess what I thought I would do was kind of follow Stu’s lead and go through the comments because at one point in time, we have the simulation, which we’ve adjusted, as you’ve asked for, and if we just follow along in the comments, I can address these, because as you all know, we have responded to the last couple of rounds of comments from VISION Engineering and the Town Staff with our June submittal, and so these are the only outstanding comments that remain, and so we could just basically explain to you where they stand. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-I think I’ve got some answers for you. This first comment on Sheet X- 2.1, it talks about the impact on existing wetlands of the site, we have on our drawing, X- 2.1, showed an area for mitigation, and that is what we’ve presented to the Corps of Engineers in our meeting, and at this point, we’re prepared to implement whatever the Corps actually finally directs us to do, okay. We’ve made the proposal. I’ve brought with me, this is a copy of the Corps application. I have to provide the Town a copy, but in essence this is what we’ll be reviewing with the Corps of Engineers to come to the final details, but we’re going to take their lead in implementation of mitigation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-How long will that take, do you know? MR. PETROSKI-The Corps has instructed us it should take about 120 days is the maximum time limit for their actual issuance of a permit. MRS. STEFFAN-And when was it filed? MR. PETROSKI-Well, it’s not filed yet. It’s right here. Ready to go. I had hoped to have it submitted last week, but within the next day or two it should be on their desk. On the clearing limits, we can jump, right now, into the simulation, if you would like to get a 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) better handle on what we’re trying to show with that. I have to set it up. Okay. This is going to be difficult. Well, we’ll give it a try. What I’m going to do is just go down to the road level, and walk you through the different scenarios that we’ve been talking about. This first view is where we started from with all the existing vegetation on the site. It’s all the leaves on the trees, and if you drive along the road, this is the kind of, at eyeball height for a car. That’s kind of what you’d be seeing. This next one is if there’s no leaves on the trees, and this next view is with the leaves back on the trees again, but the swath cut through. There’s one. There’s a second one, and then there’s a third one, and then this is what it would be if the leaves were off the trees, and there’s the swath there, the second one, and then the first one again, and then we attempted to show a thinning option, which I’m not honestly completely satisfied with, because I think we took out more trees in the simulation than we would do in the field, but this gives you an idea of what happens if you just try to take out trees. You have a more random view, and then it’s going back again, and then if there’s no leaves on the trees, I don’t think we have that one. So, I’m just going to go up in the sky for a second, and then show you the aerial view of what that looks like. So this is all the trees, and this is with the leaves off the trees. That’s where you’ve got your cut throughs, that’s the leaves off again, and this is your random trees, but it looks thinner than it is because some of the trees are darker colors, and you can start to pick up on them there, so there’s some of the light green and some of the darker green. So it doesn’t look like there’s as many trees left as there does when you come down to ground level, but that’s the kind of idea we had talked about at the last meeting as an option to thinning, as opposed to cutting swaths through, and again, that’s the kind of view you’d have from the road. The next part of the Town Staff comments has to do with the size of the trees, and again, we’ve put the note on the plans saying we’ll save every tree, 18 inches or larger, on the site, and that’s not in an area to be cleared. So any of the land that’s to be left undisturbed, if there’s 18 inch trees in there we’ll leave them. So in that front area where we talked about thinning, if there’s 18 inch trees in there, we leave them, anything 18 inches and larger, and anything else on the site within the limits of the pavement and building, obviously, we’re going to cut down. I think the grading plan shows you why. There’s an extensive amount of grading that’s required to get the pad and things in there. The next comment here about the New York State DOT agreement for the sidewalk, actually it’ll be the County Department of Public Works, because they actually have jurisdiction on the section of Route 254, Quaker Road, and we, we’re at the point we feel that they’ve accepted our report and our traffic addendum, and I think at this point we just need to now get into the details of designing the actual, doing the actual construction plans. So I think that’s where we’re at, and this is one of those items I think we’ll be able to address with them as part of that effort. The next comment here was about the truck entrance movements. I’d just like to point out for the Board’s consideration, this was Tab Four in the bound document that says response to April 29, 2008 Staff comments. There’s two figures there. There’s one showing trucks coming in and one showing trucks going out. I haven’t had a chance to discuss this with Staff. So I’ll just give you my first impression here is I don’t see an issue with the truck crossing into the opposite lane, in either case, whether you’re coming in or you’re coming out. You obviously have to cross a lane when you’re going across the traffic to get to the loading dock. I don’t think there’s any possible way to avoid having to cross the other lane to get over there. So, other than that, I think we’ve been able to contain the truck within the right side of the road when they’re making their maneuver. Now you can see, we do show a tight squeeze against the curb, but to that I would say that we’re providing a 60 foot radius at this driveway, and normally we don’t provide more than a 50 foot radius for trucks. The only reason why I went to 60 foot is because of the reverse “S” that we have to go through. Sixty foot, if you see it actually drawn, or in the field, it’s a very big radius. The width of the throat of this driveway is 40 feet. Typical commercial driveways are more like around 35 feet. So I think we’ve got more than ample room here, and all we’re arguing about is the representation of a computer simulation, and I can tell you that these trucks can make these turns at a 35 foot radius or a 30 foot radius, but we provide more room, and the more room we provide, it doesn’t really matter. At the end of the day, one of these guys is going to bump a curb, but I really believe there’s ample room here for trucks coming in and out without any unnecessary conflicts, and that’s. This comment, this next comment about the fencing details, the comment is related to this seasonal display area in the parking lot. There is a detail. It is on Drawing D-1. I checked before I, these are the drawings that were submitted. It’s on Drawing D-1 in the very middle of the page, and all it is is basically cinderblocks that have the holes in them with like two by six wooden rails that go between them, and that’s all it is. It’s very temporary. It goes up and then when they’re done at the end of the season it goes down. So it’s not a permanent fence. It’s not chain link or, you know, board on board or anything like that. It’s a cinderblock with wood rail fence. This comment about the wetland buffer line. We came in to talk to Staff about that particular item, and I thought we agreed that we could represent it on the Sheet X-2.1, and that’s the drawing that shows the side by side comparison of wetland 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) impacts, before and after, and so the buffer line is there, and on that drawing, the Site Plan as shown is exactly as it’s shown on C-1, and on C-1.1. So I think the information is there to be able to show you where the buffer line is relative to the wetland area, and it’s a very difficult line to draw because the wetlands are very irregular, but I think we represented a very honest representation of what that buffer line is. The plans say that, the plans show you that there is a parking lot in the buffer area, okay, and the green space that’s left in the buffer area ranges in width from, I think it’s from 10 to 80 feet or some. On Drawing C-1.1, in the table, we have, under zoning requirements we list the very last one as wetland buffer, and it says required is 100 feet, and we say proposed, it varies from nine feet to 141 feet, and what that’s saying is that, as you go along the perimeter of the wetlands, we retain green space of that varying width. There’s some spots where it is nine feet wide, but other spots where it goes as much as 141. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you just refresh my memory, what map are you looking at? MR. PETROSKI-Drawing C-1.1, which is Site Plan Two of Two. That’s the table. I’m sorry, seven. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-I mean, to see where the buffer is in relation to the parking lot you’d have to go to Drawing X-2.1. Moving on to comments. Again, the comment about the wetlands mitigation but as we said earlier, whatever resulting design that we are directed to do by the Corps of Engineers is what we would implement on the project. The next comment on the bedrock, we need the fill on site. We have no intentions of trucking the fill off the site. So whatever rock is blasted will be used on the property, and the three- dimensional map of the bedrock, Staff is absolutely correct. There are more borings. It took 32 borings on site to be able to generate that map which is all computer simulation using all the data that we have. We provided five representative borings to be able to demonstrate the actual field data of the depth to rock. I didn’t think you would want to see all of them, but I thought it was fair to at least give you some representative information as was requested. MR. HUNSINGER-How do the remaining 32 borings compare to the five that were provided? Are they all very similar? I mean, based on the location. I mean, are the five representative of the balance of the thirty-two? MR. PETROSKI-Well, this is Attachment Six in that same booklet as before. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’re looking at that, yes. MR. PETROSKI-Is a color diagram, and the second figure actually shows you all the data points. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-All those vertical lines, and we take the rock depth from every single one of those points, and then we just create a surface, and so that’s how this image was created. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-So all these points represent where we hit rock, and that’s how we get the different tones. From the red and orange color, that’s where the lowest elevation of rock is. Up to the yellow in the upper corner is the highest elevation of rock. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-So the rock elevation in the highest area we’re working is around 333, I think, and our building pad is at 330. So we have some rock in the corner to take out. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve got to be honest. That was the first time that I’ve seen a drawing depicted that way. I wasn’t really sure what I was supposed to be looking at until you just explained it. So that was helpful. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s a difference of like 20 feet in bedrock across the site? MR. PETROSKI-Correct, but there’s also, the surface itself also varies with the bedrock. The closer you get to Quaker Road, the deeper the rock gets. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. SIPP-Do you have any calculation on how much you’ll have to remove? Is there, just roughly. MR. PETROSKI-I think we represented a number in the EAF. I want to say 1,000 cubic yards is the most. MR. SIPP-It’s at 334 and your finished elevation is 333, and finished floor is 333, I believe. MR. PETROSKI-So we have to take out a small surface area to get down to elevation for the floor, and then we’ve got some trenching work to do to get in our foundations, but we won’t have to go very deep because we can set the foundations on the rock and we won’t have to worry about frost heave. So it’s just enough to get the footings in, and then of course when we put in utilities in the back, we’ve got a storm drain in the back. We’ll have to blast along the trench for the storm sewer. So it’s more refined depending on where utilities are or foundations are going. The next comment, again, is about the wetlands. I’ve addressed that already. The next comment, on Sheet C-5 there was a comment about the store sign. We don’t yet have a store sign to present to the Board, but we are representing the location at this point. I think the thought process is now that any sign out there would be internally illuminated. There would be no floodlights either up or down. So that’s the direction that we’re going in. The VISION Engineering comments, it’s Number Two. I’ve gone through their comments and there’s answers for all of them, and I think it’s just a matter of talking to Dan Ryan. The information is there, in his reports. I just have to point him in the right direction. So, I’m comfortable that everything answer’s his questions. It’s just a matter of just walking him through it. On the revised lighting plan, we did, as you know, provide two optional plans. Option A was based on Town Code, strictly based on Town Code, which is a 20 foot pole height, and all the lighting parameters that we’re required to satisfy in the different areas, and then the Option B is the one that we would prefer, which is a 28 foot pole height which is eight feet higher than the Code asks for, and the number of light poles is reduced by, I think it was about nine. I forget my numbers, but there was about a 20%, 15%, 20% reduction in the number of light poles, and we were able to come pretty close. I thought we hit exactly the Town’s requirements, regardless of the fact that we went to lower light poles, but there’s an interpretation of the four to one illumination ratio, which I wasn’t clear on. For the entire site, which I thought that’s the way the Code read, was we provide a four to one illumination ratio, but when you look at each individual component, around the building, we’re at 4.08 to one and then 4.76 to one. On this particular building, there is a number of doors, because of the size of it, because we need exit paths for fire evacuation purposes, to meet Code. So you have a number of exterior doors, and we put a light on every single door, but the catalogue cut shows you it’s a rectangular light that has downward facing casting of the light. So the light’s there, but it’s only for security and safety purposes. In front of the store, the lighting is a little bit higher because we’re putting in some pedestrian scale bollard lights, and I think with that additional illumination, and in addition to the light standards in the parking lot, the lighting ratio is a little bit higher, but overall, if, after having seen the simulation and you realize that we’re back from the road, behind the wetlands area with as many trees as we’re allowed to keep, and it’s just an area that starts to become a little bit isolated, and we’d like to keep the lighting, at least around the building, as bright as we’re showing it, and it’s not that far off from what the Town has asked for in their Code. MRS. STEFFAN-And you said the poles are eight feet taller? MR. PETROSKI-Eight feet, right. Right, 28 versus 20. On Question Number Four, we’ve already shown you the simulation, and then five, six, seven and eight have all been satisfied. So, with that, I think the Board’s aware that we went to County Planning on th July 9 and received back a favorable approval of our plan. They had a couple of comments that they’ve asked the Planning Board to consider. I think it’s consistent with what we’re doing here, but we’re at a point where we’d like to see if we can move to the next step with our application and look at the SEQRA forms, and to see if the Town’s ready to move forward on the SEQRA determination. Bob, did you have anything to add at this point? BOB SWEENEY MR. SWEENEY-I think the only comment that we have on that is the one that, excuse me, Bob Sweeney speaking. I think the only comment we had on that was the one that Stu made about the inner relationship between the Corps mitigation approval and what we have on the plans. What we have on the plans is a clear delineation of where the 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) wetland boundaries are. As Mark just walked you through, there’s also information on where the buffer area is, as well as the building and parking lot impacts on that. We have also in your information a proposed mitigation that has been submitted to the Corps. Obviously their process takes longer than your process. We won’t know exactly what the final configuration of the mitigation will be until the Corps issues a permit, and if it’s the position of the Board and Staff that applicants before this Board have to go away until the Corps is done with their permit, then we will have to do that, but that’s somewhat impractical, and it gets us in kind of a chicken and the egg situation, and it’s not something that we see in other municipal permitting processes. We’ve given you sufficient information for you to reach a SEQRA determination on that, and your referral to the agency with jurisdiction over the final form of the mitigation plan is not in violation of SEQRA or anything that you’re not supposed to do. I think you have sufficient information to determine the environmental impact on the wetlands, and as you know, we’ve worked very hard to reduce the size of the project, reduce the impact, and certainly we would be very happy, obviously, when we file the application, deliver it to you, give you all of the information that the Corps has as it goes along, but as far as your obligations under SEQRA, I think you have more than enough information to make that determination, and I believe that was the only comment that was made with respect to the SEQRA issue. So our position would be that for purposes of determining significant environmental impacts, you have that information. You don’t have the Corps permit. You don’t have the final determination of the mitigation requirements, but you can defer to the Corps to issue that. It’s not unlike DOT. You’re not going to see a highway work permit until well after you’re done with your process and that will determine the final mitigation design, but that’s not something this Board has to have in order to make its SEQRA determination at this stage. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-On one of the drawings that, this is obviously a retail development, but it also has a section for restaurant and it has a section for services. What other things will be in the building? What kind of a restaurant? Like a McDonalds, or fast food? MR. PETROSKI-It would be some kind of fast food. MRS. STEFFAN-Because it’s like 45,000. MR. KREBS-20,000. MRS. STEFFAN-20,000, and then the personal services, 42,250 square feet. It’s pretty big. Yes, it’s got food, 42,250 square feet, restaurant, 2,104 square feet, personal services 9,783 square feet. MR. PETROSKI-Food is like groceries. MR. KREBS-As opposed to the restaurant. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-Yes, it was labeled together, but the personal services is the $9,000, and you have a customer area. You have restrooms. Those are the kind of the things that are in the front. The vestibules. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Bank, maybe, hair salon, something like that, maybe. MR. PETROSKI-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I wasn’t making a correlation of food. I saw restaurant and went food. I didn’t think grocery store. These are very big plans. One of the conditions that I would like to see on the plan, I didn’t look for it, but I’m assuming it’s not there. One of the conditions, and I don’t know what this is, obviously we’ve talked about what it might be, but no trailers may be parked or stored in the front of the building. I mean, you’ve got those clearing paths. There’s a local retailer who likes to park tractor trailers out front with their name on the front, and we certainly don’t want that. So that needs to be a notation on your plat. VIC MACRI MR. MACRI-They wouldn’t be able to see them from the road anyway. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you have to have some good vision. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess it depends on how big the lettering is on the side of the truck. MRS. STEFFAN-And the other thing that I have an issue with is the building design. I am not a fan of the current building design. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you walk us kind of through the design a little bit, you know, what the thought process was, how you arrived at the design proposed? MR. PETROSKI-Well, the general theme of the building is, in terms of colors, is earth tones. There’s a variety of earth tones, and the colors themselves are used to break up the shape of the building. You don’t want something that’s just a big blank wall. So you can use color, obviously, to create different smaller spaces, which brings the scale of the building down. There’s an arched theme across the front of the building which encapsulates two entrances, and it’s meant to be an inviting shape, and a way finding directional design element to bring people to the front doors. There’s very little glass, except at the doors themselves. So you’re not going to have interior lighting cast out into the parking lot, okay. There are some glass elements there, but the majority, the only really lighted areas are in the two main entrance areas. That’s the only place where you’re going to see light coming back out from the building itself. The building has physical changes to the façade, the front façade, and remember, the back of this building is against a hillside, and it’s pretty difficult to see it. The east elevation is facing, is also facing a hillside, but it’s up in the far corner, and there’s no chance of visibility on that side, really, from. MRS. STEFFAN-The front is all you’re really going to see. MR. PETROSKI-It’s the front and the left side. So, with the front of this store, you have a lot of, I’d say in plan view horizontal changes along the front building line, which, again, breaks up the space and the smaller elements. Right at the entrances, and if you look at the isometric view in the upper right corner, there is, it’s kind of a pergola effect. You have a shaded area which is not a complete awning. So it’s not solid, rain can fall through it, but it gives the opportunity for shade, for anybody standing in front of the store and waiting for a ride, you know, if somebody’s waiting to get picked up in their car, but by that kind of an element, as well as all of those little white posts you see, those are all lighted bollards. So the idea is, in that pedestrian area, you’re starting to focus on, how do people feel, where they’re going to be gathering the most, and trying to add some pedestrian scale elements. So with the lighted bollards, it helps with way finding. The pergola offers some shade from the sun, and then you start to see more architectural elements that are smaller scale, like what we call a water table. There’s about a three foot high band of masonry along the base of the building in several locations. That’s more pedestrian scale. You also see the same effect going up the columns to, again, provide some sense of scale and make the pedestrian feel like they’re welcome in that area. There’s also a, in the very middle of the front elevation, you can see there’s a large tree. That tree is surrounded by a planter box with some outdoor seating benches, so that if people want to sit there and, again, wait for a ride or for whatever purpose, there is a place for them to get off their feet. There’ll be a series of benches, and as far as the material selection, you’re using a lot of efface at the higher elevations, but we do incorporate some brick and some other masonry, split face masonry products, like with the water table I was describing, to break up the elevation. So, we like it. We’re very excited about it. MRS. STEFFAN-It looks like an airport, it looks like the entrance to Albany Airport, you know, where you pull up and you drop people off. That’s what it looks like to me, and I know that there’ll be signs, branding signs, or a sign on the front, but it just doesn’t sing to me. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. I seem to be a lone voice right now. MR. HUNSINGER-No. I’ll chime in a little bit. I really like the colors. I like the color selection is really good. I like the way that you used different colors to try to break up the building. I’m not so sure I like the design here, though. I don’t know. I’m not sure how I would describe the. MR. SIPP-What would be, would the sign be, identifying sign would be on the big brown patch in the middle? What color would that be? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. PETROSKI-The only signage we would probably consider for a building like this is just over the entrances, and there’s actually three entrances. There’s the two that are inside of that curve shape, and then one to the far right, and then one identifying sign for whoever this tenant is. There’ll be other ancillary signs. Like there’ll be some small directional signs, like if there’s an exit or an entrance. Those will, we expect those will pop up only for directional purposes, to make sure somebody doesn’t go in the wrong direction, but those are on the building itself. So that’s the primary focus of signage. MR. SIPP-What color? MR. PETROSKI-Generally white. MR. HUNSINGER-So the actual identifying brand name would be white, the sign? MR. PETROSKI-The one primary color that we could do for all signage is white. There might be one element that might be a different color, but we’d like to be able to review that, you know, when the time comes that we have a confirmed occupant here. MR. SIPP-I think this is hard to imagine in three-dimension, the way it’s laid out here. Now, if you have one piece on one page and another piece on another page, this way, we’re not getting a three-dimensional type of view. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I’m also not sure how the building will age. Obviously it has a lot of elements, but I’m looking at this and thinking, what will it look like 10 years from now or 15 years from now? Will the style stand the test of time? I guess that’s the best way I could ask the question. MR. PETROSKI-Things do change. The likes of the tenant change. The likes of the community change. They don’t gain anything by clashing with what customers want to see, and right now this is a color selection that generally people like. They like earth tones. They like the tans and browns. They don’t like, you know, greens and yellows and grays and blues. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and the contrast across the way that’s orange and turquoise and whatever other color they’ve added to the Super K. I mean, it’s fairly hideous. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that’s the portion of it that I didn’t like is the silver, the silver metal, and I don’t know if they’re metal or not. They look metal to me, the awnings and the overhangs. Maybe that would be more appealing if it was a different color. MR. MACRI-Your concern is the canopies, whether or not they’re going to be a gray color or? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, that’s really the one piece that I. MR. MACRI-I mean, that’s something we can address. I mean, it can be any kanar type coating. Wouldn’t you think, Mark? That’s fairly simple. I would think on most roofing materials, and you see the roof from there, they tend to be a reflective material for energy purposes, energy saving purposes. So I would suspect that even the mass roof may be a reflective color, too, even though it’s shown dark there. That may change slightly. So as you’re flying over in an airplane, you may see more of a white roof than you would a black. MR. HUNSINGER-So, for example, the rear elevation where you see the gray color at the top, is that the roof material, is that the actual roof material? MR. PETROSKI-In the second one from the bottom? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-No, that’s actually a parapet line. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-So when you’re looking at the front of the store, the top roofline is higher than the roof, which basically is designed to hide the HVC equipment that’s up on the top. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. MACRI-So that’s the back side of the parapet which would probably be wrapped with some sort of roofing material. MR. PETROSKI-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I asked. MR. MACRI-So if it’s white, it would be white. If it’s black, it would be black. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s not really necessarily the actual color that would be shown. MR. MACRI-No, not from the backside. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because you’ll use some sort of a membrane roofing on this, right? MR. MACRI-We don’t know what the details are. Since it’s a precast panel, they may be able to flash into it and keep that lower, or they may have to flash all the way up. MR. HUNSINGER-What do other people think about the colors and the design? MR. SIPP-I don’t mind the colors at all. In fact, if anything maybe just a little green here and there. I think that would match the surroundings. MR. KREBS-I think that the colors are nice. They fit very much with the environment in the area, and, you know, you’re not going to see it. It’s not like it’s going to be 20 feet from the road, you know, so even the design factor, you’re not going to see it every time you drive by. If it’s functional, I think that, you know, the colors are good. I don’t see any problem with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments on the building design? MR. SEGULJIC-Not my strong suit to comment on that. MRS. STEFFAN-We probably should put a condition, though, in the approval that the colors, these colors will be maintained, so that if somewhere down the road the operation changed, that even with stone products on the outside of buildings, they can be painted colors, like what happened with K-Mart, and that’s definitely not what we want. MR. MACRI-But if these colors go out of vogue, will we be allowed to change to something that everybody else likes? MRS. STEFFAN-Come back. We went through a green phase on the Planning Board where everything was red, green roofs. MR. MACRI-Now you’re tired of looking at them. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, a procedural question. So a Freshwater permit. We’ve got the site review for SEQRA. So how does that lay out? We do SEQRA, then the Freshwater, then the Site Plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, typically, well, I mean, we have to do SEQRA first, and then typically we have done the Freshwater Wetlands Permit next, and then the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-And then Site Plan. Okay. Because I guess overall I’m fine with everything that’s here. It’s just some details here and there. Like, for example, it makes sense, to me, to have a bus stop there. It should have a bike rack. I think the Code requires a bike rack, and then this thing about the 18 inch caliper trees, maybe I misunderstood you, but I think what you said more or less, well, the areas (lost words) they’re obviously going to take out the 18 inch trees. So (lost words) looking for 18 inch trees. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, and I guess you’re selective, your channel views. I mean, that’s fine. I’m good with that because you’re leaving a lot of trees there, but I guess I’d just like to see more information on trying to preserve 18 inch trees, and I don’t even know where any are on site right now. MR. KREBS-I think what they said was that they were going to, except for the paved parking area, anyplace else on the property that there’s an 18 inch tree you’re going to leave it. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Is that what you said? Okay. I misunderstood you. MR. PETROSKI-Yes. MR. SIPP-There aren’t that many to begin with. MR. PETROSKI-There’s some in the back, in the area that we’re not touching, the very back section, and I think there’s an occasional one in the front. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I think there’s an occasional one out front, but I don’t think there’s that many. MR. PETROSKI-It’s not a very old forested area. Most of the forested area in front is probably 30, 40 years old. So you’re not going to get anything. MR. SIPP-Forty years is about the longest stretch you had since that was farmed in there. MRS. STEFFAN-Stu, you had some input? MR. BAKER-Yes. Just a comment. The note that the applicant has on Sheet C-1.1 states that all trees with an 18 inch or greater caliper are to remain within areas outside of the limits of proposed grading. If there’s grading to be done for wetlands mitigation, for example, 18 inch trees in there may be lost. I’m wondering if that note needs to be amended. MR. HUNSINGER-Clarified, yes. The question that I had on, since we’re talking about the clearing plan, in either scenario you’ve provided two. One where you have strips, for lack of a better word, to show the building from the street, and the other you showed some selective cutting. How would that be maintained? I think that’s the, you know, part of the piece that we need to come to grips with. Is the concept, if you were to, you know, clear the swaths, that those would be mowed and maintained as grass area? MR. PETROSKI-I think we can come up with some acceptable language as to how the Board, you know, feels comfortable about that. The intent here is to take down the large trees, and what you’re going to have happen, after the trees come down, is the understory is going to start coming up. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. PETROSKI-There’s no intention to go back in and brush hog it, but just from time to time go back through and knock the trees back down again. So if we can come up with some acceptable language, that happens once every, you know, three years or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I just wasn’t sure what the intent was. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, that sounds better. MR. PETROSKI-Because it’s a Federal wetland, we can’t go in there and change the grade. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That’s part of why I was asking the question. MR. PETROSKI-We can’t create ruts. We can’t fill anything. All you can do is actually cut the trees down and basically let them lay, so they’ll rot into the wetlands and become part of the environment. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from Board members? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, from my perspective, everything’s just getting down to the nitty gritty of the Site Plan. Like the light poles. How does the Board feel about that? MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have comments, Tom, on the lighting plan? Or are you just raising the question? MR. SEGULJIC-Just raising the question. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I think the lighting plan looks good. The question is about the light poles, whether we should have less or more. MRS. STEFFAN-It isn’t very far off, as far as the Uniformity Ratio, it’s not far off. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments that you made last time you were here, one of your thought processes for having the taller lighting poles was to save energy. Because you’d need fewer lights. Did you do those calculations at all to, you know, what the savings would be? MR. PETROSKI-I don’t have an analysis here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-But we’ve provided some information on the difference between, I mean, all things being equal, fewer lights is less energy. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. PETROSKI-So, from that standpoint, the design we have would use less energy than, the 28 foot would use less energy than the 20 footers, but Staff commented on whether or not we could go with a different type of light, and we looked at that, and because of the light output from the different types of lights, we’d prefer going with our proposal. There’s a question of whether it should be metal halide or high pressure sodium. MR. HUNSINGER-I had even tabbed that section as well. Section Seven. I guess I wasn’t really sure what you were saying in that memorandum. The color rendering, I didn’t understand the reference, the color rendering index. MR. PETROSKI-It’s to be able to distinguish color in the parking lot. You’ll get a different effect whether you have a metal halide versus a high pressure sodium. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So your preference is the metal halide? MR. PETROSKI-Before I answer that question, I’m trying to remember. I always get them mixed up. MR. HUNSINGER-So you understand why I was confused too. MR. PETROSKI-These are the high pressure sodium, is what we’re proposing. Now if I remember correctly, you had commented on metal halide being more energy efficient, and I think that’s correct. I think somebody here commented last time. MR. BAKER-I don’t know that I had. Perhaps the engineer did. MR. PETROSKI-And they are slightly more energy efficient, but we’re trying to say that we don’t get that much of an energy savings by switching the lights, and we prefer the high pressure sodium because of the general cast of the light and the colors that we get in the parking lot. So we prefer to go with the high pressure sodium. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-And at the end of the day, like I said, all things being equal, fewer lights means less energy, but the energy difference between these two isn’t significant. So we still think in the long run we’re more green, if you will. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing that was tabled until this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. We do have at least one commenter. The purpose of the public hearing is for the public to provide information to the Board and to provide comments to the Board. I would ask that anyone wishing to comment make sure that they address the Board. If you have any specific questions, ask them of the Board, and if we need to ask for clarification from the applicant, we will. We will limit comments from any individual member to five minutes. So, having said that, sir, if you’d like to come up and be first, and just make sure you identify yourself for the record. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN CAFFRY MR. CAFFRY-I’ll be brief for a change. John Caffry for the Big Cedar Swamp Coalition. My comments tonight are really just procedural, because there’s not a lot of new information on the wetlands issues. I would agree with Mr. Sweeney that this Board doesn’t have to wait for the Army Corps to issue its permit before you can take action, but what I would suggest is that you ought to obtain and review the wetlands mitigation plan and have your Staff review it before you take any actions. That’s a key piece of information. It’s relevant under SEQRA, under Site Plan Review, and under your Town wetlands ordinance, and nobody’s seen it yet. They’ve said they’re going to have it filed apparently this week. I’d like the opportunity to review it and comment on behalf of the groups I’m working with. So I think that really ought to be done before this Board goes anywhere. As I’ve said before, this applicant’s, I think, made tremendous strides and we’re not trying to hold them up unnecessarily, but that is an important document, and ought to be part of the application before you take any action, and the public ought be able to comment on it, and we know they’re going to be back. It’s not like waiting for that’s really going to hold them up because they’ve said they’re going to deal with the engineering comments and other issues. So, that’s all I had to say. We’d ask you to hold the public hearing open until we have a chance to comment on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. CAFFRY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No other takers? I will keep the public hearing open, but we will stop taking public comment this evening. Where are we at? What’s the feeling of the Board? There was, of course, a Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-We have to make a decision on the lights, before we go forward. Option Two or Option One. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there something specific you were looking for, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the issue with regards to the wetlands. The only thing I see is Impact on Water. Will the proposed action effect any water body designated as protected? That would be a wetland, correct? So the answer would be, I’m just thinking out loud here, the answer would be yes, and then we’d say small to moderate with mitigation, but we don’t what the mitigation plan’s going to be yet. MR. KREBS-That body of water. I don’t think that a wetland is considered a body of water. MR. SEGULJIC-It says construction of the designated Freshwater or Title wetland. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So this is a freshwater wetland. So we’re going to say, just playing this out, we’re going to say small to moderate with mitigation. We don’t know what that mitigation is yet. So we have to, I think we’re going to have to see the mitigation plan. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know how everybody else feels about that, but that’s the one issue I can see, and I’m just one voice here. MRS. STEFFAN-I think that’s the right way to go. It’s a federally protected wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What other outstanding issues? It’s really just a few clarification items, more than anything. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I mean, once again, just a bus stop, are they going to have a bus stop. Bike racks, things like that. MR. KREBS-Well, they do have a bus stop. MR. SEGULJIC-They do? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. KREBS-Yes, they have a place indicated on the drawings. MR. SEGULJIC-I apparently missed that. MR. KREBS-I made a little yellow mark on it. That’s why I remember. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the only real big issue I see is the wetlands mitigation plan, then. MRS. STEFFAN-What about the building design? MR. HUNSINGER-Where do we want to go with the building design? The sense I got is everyone but you and I liked it. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay with it, but it’s not my bailiwick. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess I’m concerned with, you know, it is, I guess what I would call a bit busy, in terms of the design, but I’m not sure. It seems like almost any alternative might not be as good as what they have, but my artistic talent is about drawing a stick figure, and that’s about it. MR. SEGULJIC-And the other thing is it’s not going to be a very visible building, other than if you were in the parking lot there. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. TRAVER-We hope. Yes. The colors certainly help. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I do like the colors. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Sign details. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-With regards to the visual and the buffer between the building and the road, are we to give a preference in terms of whether we do a lane or thinning or whatever? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think they’re giving us two options for us to make the determination. MR. TRAVER-I kind of like the thinning, rather than lanes, myself, just it seems more natural. MR. SEGULJIC-I can agree with that, but my problem with the thinning is, define thinning. With the lane, it’s clearly defined. MR. TRAVER-Couldn’t we do it by caliper? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don’t think they’re so much concerned with caliper. I think they’re more concerned with, you know. MR. KREBS-Eventually being able to see through some part. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, the girth of the taller tree, I guess. I mean, when you say thinning, how are you going to define that? How are you ever going to control that? MR. TRAVER-I agree it’s an issue. I’d say the fewer the better. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the applicant have comments on the thinning concept? MR. PETROSKI-Mark Petroski. I just want to, the bus stop is there, yes. We submitted information on that, so that’s covered. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I apologize. MR. PETROSKI-As far as the thinning versus the clear zones, to be frank with the Board, probably the Army Corps of Engineers is going to weigh in on this also, and we presented both of those options to them, and I think they had actually favored the 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) thinning over the clear zones, but, you know, the Board member here makes a very good point of how do you clearly be able to maintain it so that there’s no confusion down the road? And obviously if you have the clear zones, you know. So I would like to walk this through with the Corps and let them weigh in on it, and, you know, continue to consider which way you’d like to do it. We can go either way, and I’m sure we can find some language on how to maintain it that would be acceptable and periodic checks back with the Town, you know, Town Staff, for Code Enforcement or whatever’s necessary. So, I just want to ask the question for follow up. Is there a specific proposal that you have for thinning or is it right now you just kind of have the concept and? MR. SWEENEY-If I can suggest this, and I haven’t talked to my engineer about it yet, but obviously anything over 18 inches stays. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. SWEENEY-And as a Site Plan approval condition, our people would go out and mark the trees either to stay or be removed. If Staff doesn’t mind, somebody could take a walk out there and agree or disagree with that, but before Site Plan approval, and as a condition, the identified trees would be left or removed, and Staff would acknowledge that they’ve reviewed them and find that acceptable, but we would be able to identify those and make sure that there’s a definition to selected clearing, and we can work out language for a Site Plan condition. MR. HUNSINGER-We have had projects, I don’t remember if you would have been at any of those meetings or not, it was at least three or four years ago, where we had a specific thinning plan from an applicant, and they had a forester come in and they had this full report. I see some heads nodding. Do you remember at all, what project that may have been? MR. BAKER-It sounds familiar. I think it may have been prior to when I returned. MR. SEGULJIC-The one above Glens Falls Country Club, up on the ridge. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s right. MR. SEGULJIC-I forget who it was, though. MRS. STEFFAN-It was next to Dr. Kelly’s house. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s right, but they did have a fairly specific proposal that they put forward. So, I mean, it might be worth taking a look at that. MR. SWEENEY-We’d be happy to. The problem is trying to survey every tree and do it that way, and we’d rather mark and get an acknowledgment that that kind of thinning is acceptable. If Staff’s got that plan on file, we’ll try and use that as a guide. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. SWEENEY-And come up with some language that works as a condition and defines thinning. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What else? MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing is the light height. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We need to make a decision on the lighting. We don’t have to this evening, but you will. MR. SEGULJIC-Within your package here, are you proposing, these are the light poles here, these type here? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So the fewer the light poles, the higher the light, but the less overall energy? MR. PETROSKI-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-By how much, again, small, large, significant? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. PETROSKI-Energy savings? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-Well, there’s, I think there’s about 15% fewer light poles. So you’re talking about a 15% energy savings. MR. TRAVER-Some of that’s offset by the higher wattage required, right, by the fewer? MR. PETROSKI-I don’t think we’d change the wattage. MR. TRAVER-Just the height? I thought there was a difference in the? So literally it’s just fewer because they’re higher and therefore they cast. I guess maybe I was thinking of the two different types of fixtures, the 400 versus the 250. MR. PETROSKI-I think what we’re doing is we’re taking advantage of overlapping lights. By going up higher, they’re going to cast further and they’re cone, and you’re going to have more overlap from the adjacent poles. So that’s why you’re getting your build up of light. So instead of having more isolated cones of light, we could have more uniform wash from having fewer poles. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in this particular situation, it’s a little unusual in the Town, because some of the lower lighting standards that we have are to protect overflow, but you’re so far back from the road. If your lighting is not significant, I don’t think you’ll see it. I mean, if it’s higher, you’ll see it better from the road than if the poles are at 20 feet. MR. KREBS-Well, particularly if you’re going to keep all trees that are 18 inches in caliper. They’re going to be 70 feet high, all right. So you’re not going to see it anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-My stand is that, in this particular case, it’s not going to be as visible from the road, and in these days of concerns about energy, it makes sense to have less lights, and we’re not talking that much higher. We’re talking 28 feet, as opposed to 20? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So you add everything together, it makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not like they’re 40 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. It’s not like they’re 40 feet, and when you look at the overall thing, I’m fine with the higher lighting poles, it makes sense. MR. KREBS-And the light’s all coming down anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. So it all makes sense to go to fewer light poles. MR. KREBS-Is that kind of the consensus? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s my consensus, that’s my thought. MR. HUNSINGER-It seems to be. MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s Option B, 28 foot poles, high pressure sodium fixtures. MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question of Staff. One of the conditions of the County’s approval is that it be a compliant lighting plan. Would that require a super majority of the Board then? MR. BAKER-To override the County Planning Board recommendation. I’m not sure. Mike, do you have an opinion on that one? MR. MACRI-Could I speak to, that comment that the Planning Board made was specifically, they didn’t know how to word that particular item because they knew that you had a lighting plan requirement, and it was specific, but also that the Board itself was allowed to override those specifics. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. MACRI-So I think they used the word compliant to say that if the Board allowed the change, that it would be compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MACRI-That was my understanding at the meeting. MR. TRAVER-That makes sense. MR. BAKER-The County Planning Board actually didn’t use the word compliant in their recommendation. There. It reads approved with conditions. The Planning Board recommends approval with the condition that the applicant receive an Army Corps permit for approval and meet the Town guidelines for lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s even vaguer than that. MR. MACRI-Well we were kicking around words of art at the time. So meeting the guidelines would mean whatever. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the guidelines specifically call for 20 foot poles, but then give the Planning Board the discretion and authority to approve something different. MR. PETROSKI-Well, on Page Three of Staff comments there’s the actual quote right from the Town Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-Which says that the Planning Board may vary these standards, making them more or less restrictive. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make sure we don’t have a problem there. MR. MACRI-Well, they understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you ready with the resolution, Gretchen? Is there anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to make sure we have. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we still have engineering comments, too. There’s a few items left. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ve got Staff Notes, VISION Engineering, lighting plan Option B, that’s the plan that we’d like them to go with. We want sign detail, submitting a more detailed clearing plan. The applicant will submit the wetland mitigation plan to the Army Corps, and a condition on the plans no tractor trailers would be parked or stored in the front of the building or parking lot, and, Tom, you had the bus. MR. HUNSINGER-Which was okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the bike. MR. HUNSINGER-The bike rack. Did we want the Town Engineer to review the Army Corps permit application? I mean, the plan still is to replace .2 acres with 1.55, right? MR. PETROSKI-Yes, that’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-And again, that’s because of the prior disturbance. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Understood. MR. PETROSKI-This permit is, I think, for your view, is only the .2 acres of disturbance that this project causes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. BAKER-Just for the Board’s information, the Town does not have a copy of what they’ve submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. He said it hadn’t been submitted yet. They said earlier it hadn’t been submitted yet. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, Gretchen, a clarification. With regards to the clearing, you said, I believe, a clearing plan, and I believe we had said selective cutting. When you say clearing, are you talking, because they gave us two options, either the, what I refer to as the clearing, the channels. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the clarification is only needed on the selective cutting. MR. SEGULJIC-It should be on for selective cutting. MR. STEFFAN-But that won’t be able to be done until the Army Corps provides their feedback, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think your feedback will be quick from the Army Corps? Do you have any sense for that at all? MR. MACRI-In dealing with them for the past 15 years? No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s my feeling, too, but I didn’t want to sound pessimistic. MR. PETROSKI-Well, in our meeting they assured us that they are under the request from management to process their permits within 120 days. That is what they are being told to wrap these things up in. MR. HUNSINGER-To me that sounds like a long time. MR. MACRI-Well, the main issue with the Corps of Engineers has been certain Supreme Court cases, which basically bog them down completely, and that they’re finally clearing that pipeline, but because of those cases and because now they have involvement in some of those cases, with the Federal Department of Environmental Conservation, that they treat various things differently. We elected to go under the old rules, which should move things along. There’s no other involved parties besides the Corps of Engineers. They also have new guidelines, and those new guidelines specifically state there’s a preference of order of mitigation. That’s why we have to give them so many mitigation plans. One of them is, the Number One is to land bank, use a land bank for mitigation purposes, not to create wetlands that don’t really do anything, but we don’t know whether or not that’s an election that they would accept, and there isn’t really any close wetland banks available, and that’s something that we’re working with the County to try to develop, and whether or not that’ll be the accepted alternative, I wouldn’t know. The second way of mitigation is to provide a fee, which is no additional wetlands. You just, you commit a certain amount of money to a pot that develops and maintains wetlands, sort of like a conservancy pot, and then the third one is on site mitigation. So that’s where we are with the Corps of Engineers. MR. HUNSINGER-I just remember being at a meeting one time with a representative from the Army Corps, and I think it was a five acre mitigation plan, and the Staff member at the time said, and to me, I didn’t think that seemed like a lot, you know, five acres, and the Staff member said, well, you have to understand, that would be the largest mitigation plan that we’ve ever reviewed in the Northeast, and I just, it just kind of blew my mind, because when you go down, there’s some areas down in Delaware where, you know, just mile after mile after mile of the highway you drive on you see these big signs where they’re trying to restore wetlands and it’s, you know, hundreds and thousands of acres of land that they’re restoring wetlands in, you know. So to hear someone say, you know, five acres is a big project for the Northeast region. MR. MACRI-Well, Mark will tell you, he deals with western New York, and they treat the wetlands completely differently. MR. PETROSKI-It’s regionally sensitive, I guess, is the way to put it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, apparently. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Are we looking in September? MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like it. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m assuming it couldn’t be done sooner than that. If everything doesn’t come back by September, we could table it to the next month, but. MR. PETROSKI-Well, we can get our application for the Corps submitted and to you at the same time, and there’s this question about what’s going to happen ultimately, but we can answer all the questions that Staff has been asking us to answer. So if we have a mitigation on plan, we’ll grade it, and we’ll show the planting, and we’ll show pretty much what the Corps expects to see for on site construction of wetlands, okay, and obviously the other two options. If it was a, you know, fee or land banking, it has nothing to do with construction, relative to this Board, necessarily. MR. MACRI-(Lost words) that the on site mitigation for the Corps could be within the 120 acres we contiguously own, not specifically on the site, and that is something that we discussed briefly with them. There’s a finger out on the property beyond the power lines that they’d like to fill in, maybe, as a possibility. So it’s not specifically this site that may get the mitigation if they decide to go that route. In fact, I would think it wouldn’t because they were concerned about disturbing anything that we didn’t have to disturb. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I guess my feeling is, and Staff or Counsel can chime in, too. I mean, in order for us to move forward with Site Plan Review, we need to have something on paper that you’re presenting to the Army Corps, so that we can move forward. If the Army Corps then says, well, you know, we like your proposal, but we want you to change it, then I think you’d have to come back here for Site Plan modification. Is that a fair approach? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if it’s going to take them 120 days, I don’t think it’s fair for us to hold you up for 120 days until you have that permit in hand, but I think we need to know what you’re proposing. We can comment on it. Maybe we’d modify it slightly before we approve it, but, you know, that would give us enough information to move forward. If the Army Corps says, well, you know. MR. MACRI-Could we make it a condition of the building permit, though, or whatever, is that we get the, you get to comment to the Corps and whatever. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MACRI-To stop the approval at this point, because, I mean, the Corps’ going to accept the comments, whatever they are. Whether you had the plan in your hands or not, it’s not going to make a difference. You’re not going to tell us to revise the plan because we’ve already been through it with the Corps and things that they would want to see. So the plan’s the plan, whether or not it exists on your desk today or is on your desk next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We understand the Corps has the final say, but if they change what we approve, then you’ll have to come back to us for a modification. MR. MACRI-Right, but we’re talking about delaying tonight until you get the plan on your desk, and I’m saying is that really necessary? I mean, I’ll defer to you guys. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it looked like you had it here. MR. MACRI-Yes, we have it here. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, can you submit it tomorrow? I mean, it’s only a day over the deadline. MR. PETROSKI-Well, there’s some details that have to be added to finish it up, but I guess the question is, when’s the latest that we can get it to you so that we could be on for next month’s calendar? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We really don’t like to set special deadlines, because then it’s hard for Staff to track it, and the deadline was today. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. MACRI-Well, if we gave you what we had today, and then modified it after that? We do have a package with us. I can certainly make copies in a hurry. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need copies for everyone on the Board? MR. MACRI-I can do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, do you want to see the whole application? MR. SEGULJIC-No, I don’t want to see the whole application. I guess, from my perspective, when I get to SEQRA and I get to that wetlands question, I have to have something to make me comfortable to answer that question. That’s my only issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s how I feel, too, and I think we certainly want the Town Engineer to take a look at it before we move anything. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess from my perspective, you have the mitigation plan prepared, other than some details, correct? MR. MACRI-Correct? MR. SEGULJIC-Are they minor details or bigger details? MR. PETROSKI-Well, it’s finishing up the two items of the grading and the plant selection in the wetland area. The application in and of itself consists of a number of a number of components. It consists of the archeological work that was done, which aren’t even submitted to this Board. It’s the drainage report, it’s the stormwater pollution prevention plan. All these things you’ve seen already. It’s going to have, the Corps asked us to submit all the alternatives for the site, which every single alternative that we’ve submitted to this Board are the alternatives, and they want to see every one of those, how we went from 7.7 acres of disturbance down to .2 acres of disturbance, and they want to see the off site alternatives, and the off site alternatives are two or three other pieces of property that we looked at as optional sites before this site was selected for this particular application. So, the only other part is, what is the mitigation, and we’re going to submit three alternatives to the Board, or to the Corps, one is the on site mitigation, in the area shown on the plans. The second one is an option that puts the wetlands on Vic’s other property, and the third one is talking about, as an option, a buffer area, a buffer area to the Big Swamp, okay. We are going to push for the on site mitigation, because construction of wetlands on Vic’s other property has permitting issues related to this Board, but we’re trying not to aggravate our neighbor who is here speaking this evening, and trying to stay away from that area because of its sensitivities. So we don’t want to go over there. We would hope the Corps doesn’t make us go over there, but that’s a discussion topic, and as far as doing something with a buffer, before we get into that kind of an option, it’s going to involve a sizeable amount of land, and we would rather do that as a comprehensive solution to any kind of future development plans that should occur on that remaining property. We don’t know what that is yet. So if we’re going to go in that direction in the future, we’d like to deal with it whenever a plan of development is available for the Corps to review. So it all comes down to, we are submitting the on site wetland mitigation as proposed, as the primary mitigation for the two tenths of an acre disturbance that we’re causing for this project, and then adding the extra 1.35 acres to make up for the one acre of disturbance that occurred back in 1986. So, that is our direction, and that’s what we’re pushing for and the arguments that we’re putting in front of the Corps of Engineers. So, I have this, like I said, I’ve got this packet. I would just need to touch up the grading plan and give you all the wetland planting selection for that mitigation area, and that’s all that’s left to add. MR. HUNSINGER-Some of the other items, though, are going to require some time, perhaps, to put together, like the clearing, more detail on the clearing plan, the selective clearing plan. MR. SWEENEY-We would agree. I think the distinction we’re making here is between your consideration of SEQRA, which, as you indicated earlier, the element you need to see there is the proposed mitigation. There are a number of Site Plan elements on that, but we understand that that’s going to take a little more time to get in the record. On the clearing issue, I think the best, short of surveying all the trees, which would take a very 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) long time, and be very expensive, I think our proposal is a Site Plan approval condition that we mark, as I said, either the trees to be saved or removed. Let Staff advise the Board as to whether that’s too much or too little, and we’ll define what the selective clearing is by that process, but I don’t think we’re prepared to survey all the trees and create a plan for submission in advance, showing the trees to be removed and retained. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t think that’s what we’re asking. MR. SWEENEY-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think it’s kind of in between the two things that you just suggested. MR. SWEENEY-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ve changed the language from a clearing plan, based on input, to a detailed selective cutting plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, we’re just looking for more detail than what you’ve given us so far, you know, based on some of the other clearing plans that we’ve approved before. We had talked about having you look at a plan that was approved a few years ago, and Staff would give you that, you know, a copy of that. I don’t know if that’s the right direction or not, but it’s more detail than what we have in front of us now, and I’m not sure how comfortable I feel as a Board member of giving Staff the responsibility, basically making them an expert in forestry. MR. SWEENEY-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And giving them the final say on, you know, a Site Plan element. In fact, I would think our attorney would advise us not to do that. So I’m kind of looking for something maybe in between what the two options that you just laid out, yes. MR. SWEENEY-For purposes of Site Plan, we’re going to have to come up with something more detailed, but the distinction between your consideration of SEQRA, which the one element that we have outstanding is the mitigation plan, and that, that may take a little longer while we hire a forester, find a way to give you more information. I’m sure we can’t do that tomorrow or in the next couple of days, but if we could come back to your August meeting for the SEQRA part of this, having submitted sufficiently in advance the mitigation plan, we would like to do that. MRS. STEFFAN-There isn’t any reason why we can’t do it all at once. MR. SIPP-Chris, could I suggest this? In the sense that, if we’re going to have two different plans here, one with a view alley up through and one with a selective cutting, is that what I’m understanding? MR. PETROSKI-Well, I think we’re settling more towards the selective thinning, as opposed to cutting. MR. SIPP-Thinning. Now all they need do is go through and mark the base of the tree with a spray gun in orange or green or white or whatever color they want, and that’s all. There’s no need to get too technical in the amount of feet that you’re taking out in one section and not in another, and so forth. So I think it can be done quickly by a competent forester. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I guess I was just thinking you look at, you know, documents and say, gee, we like this idea, we think this might work on our site, and, you know, just pull elements from that text to say this is what we’d like to do. MR. MACRI-Yes, the only other thing, we’ve got to remember that this vegetation is in the wetland. So there are certain things we want to take out of there because they’re just dead. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-When we get to that selective cutting, the only thing I’m really looking for is can it stand the test of time? Because in a few years you might have to go out and thin more trees. Instead of having to come back here, the plan should be able to withstand that. I think it’s great you’ve marked your trees, but my problem would be, that’s great 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) today. It might last for five years, but, down the road, you’re going to want a couple of more trees, and the way the Code is you’re going to probably have to come back here again. I don’t think you want to do that. So we’ve got to come up with some language that we can avoid that situation. MR. PETROSKI-Trees are going to grow. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So you’re going to have to come back here. So if we say these trees are fine, you’re going to have to come back here in five years. MR. PETROSKI-Well, we can’t put a rubber band on them and stop them from growing. So, I mean, if we have to come back on a periodic basis, I don’t think we have a problem with that. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Then maybe we can do it that way. MR. SIPP-Once you do any thinning, either way, you’re going to get more growth, because you’re allowing more sunlight, less competition and so forth. So no matter which way you do it you’re going to have to come back and say we’ve got to cut X number of more trees again. MR. PETROSKI-See, the thing to remember, too, is this isn’t some kind of mature forest here. This is a lot of scrubby, you know, trees that have grown up, just as a succession type environment, that the farmland was abandoned and what was, you know, once seed was blown into the area, it started growing. So, we don’t have a stand of hardwoods here. We don’t have a stand of pine trees. This is a lot of low quality vegetation, and I think the key is to save anything that’s good, solid hardwoods, and maybe that’s the trick is to go in there and identify, wrap a ribbon around all those trees that we want to save at all costs, and then keep them in place, and realize that in between we’re going to be cutting out some of the scrappy trees that are just weed trees for the most part. MR. SIPP-There’s a lot of Popul in there that should come out and there’s a lot of red maple that should stay. MR. PETROSKI-I mean, if that’s the, I would rather actually go out there and mark some trees and have some of the Board members come out there, have Staff come out there and look it and say, yes, that’s the way we want to have it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s great. My only concern is, down the road you might have to come back, but if you’re okay with that, that’s fine, and then to the wetlands issue, and I’m not interested in seeing the whole application. It’s just the mitigation. MRS. STEFFAN-But the engineer is going to see that. We don’t need to see that. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I mean, just to do SEQRA, I think for our purposes we’d have to at least look at the mitigation plan, because we have to answer that question, and I wouldn’t be comfortable with saying small to moderate, not even with the plans. So I’d be okay if they, speaking for myself, if they gave us the mitigation plan. They could be on in August so we could at least get that over, so we can get over SEQRA and keep this thing moving. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s no reason we couldn’t do everything at once. MR. HUNSINGER-Come back one more time. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I mean, that’s a question for the applicant. I get the sense they’re anxious to get this over with. MRS. STEFFAN-No one has made any comments tonight about traffic. Is that okay with everybody? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m satisfied. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I just wanted to bring it up. MR. MACRI-Is it feasible to just run through the SEQRA list and see if there’s any other issues so that we don’t have to come back again? Knowing that the one mitigation item. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and when I went through it, that’s the only one that I saw. That was my issue. MR. MACRI-I just want to make sure everybody’s got a consensus here. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any other environmental concerns. MR. SEGULJIC-So really it comes down to the selective cutting and mitigation plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there were some issues in VISION Engineer’s comments regarding the stormwater pollution prevention plan. MR. PETROSKI-The boldfaced ones at the end? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, under new comments. I mean, those will need to be addressed. MR. PETROSKI-Right, and I explained earlier, the, like for example, he was asking me if we analyzed the ponds based on whether they were already full of water or if they were completely dry. Well those ponds are designed to have a certain amount of standing water at all times, and we did analyze the storms, starting from that water surface and then going up. So we just need to explain it to him and show in that report where that is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The other one was a calculation. Where you used 95 he said you should have used 98. MR. PETROSKI-Right, and it’s in there, and we can make the change, but I know from my own experience it’s going to make almost no impact to the water surface elevations of the pond, probably a thousandth of a foot, but that’s okay. We’ll correct that for his own edification, and the other one was about drainage paths. The arrows are hard to read. So we’ll have to draw them darker, and the free board in the pond, he wants a foot. One pond has 1.3 foot, the other pond has .9 feet. So we just have to adjust the grade to get it the extra tenth of a foot. So there’s a very minor. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, I didn’t think they were major, but I’m just saying, they’ll need to be addressed before we can complete SEQRA. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess the issue is either we get the mitigation plan and we go through SEQRA in August. MRS. STEFFAN-But then we’re messing with the deadline of the August agenda already. We do this all the time, and then things fall between the cracks and then everybody gets unhappy, and there’s finger pointing, and so I’m just trying to be realistic here. MR. SEGULJIC-Just hoping to try and help out the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I know. They would have to come back in September anyway, but if all these things are satisfied, I don’t see why we can’t do SEQRA, the Freshwater Wetlands permit, and then the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-And do it all in September. MRS. STEFFAN-All at the same time. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it makes sense. MRS. STEFFAN-Because there aren’t that many issues. There’s two meetings in thrd September, the 16 and the 23. Are either one of those better? th MR. PETROSKI-The 16. th MRS. STEFFAN-The 16. Okay. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2008 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: th This is going to be tabled to the September 16 Planning Board meeting, with a th submission deadline of August 15. This application is tabled so that the applicant can: 1. Satisfy Staff Notes, 2. Satisfy VISION Engineering comments, 3. So that the applicant can submit the wetland mitigation plan to the Army Corps of Engineers and also a copy of which will be provided to the Town for engineering review and comment. 4. That the applicant will submit a detailed selective cutting/thinning plan, 5. So that the applicant will be able to provide signage detail, 6. So that the applicant will eliminate Option A of the lighting plan and adopt Option B, as presented with high pressure sodium fixtures and 28 foot poles, 7. And also that the applicant will add a condition on the plans that no tractor trailers will be parked or stored in the front of the building or the parking lot, 8. That the applicant will add a bike rack to the plan. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. MACRI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED K TWIN HOLDINGS AGENT(S) RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) K TWIN THREE, LLC ZONING HC-INT LOCATION WEST SIDE MEADOWBROOK RD., NORTH OF QUAKER RD. INTERSECTION SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,886 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: APPLICANT PROPOSES DISTURBANCE, FILLING AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF A DEC DESIGNATED WETLAND. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF ANY REGULATED WETLAND REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. PLANNING BOARD MAY COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/12/08 APA/CEA/DEC DEC; GF-19 LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES; 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-9, 10 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020, 94-5 RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, are you summarizing Staff Notes? MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-I’m going to summarize the project description. The applicant has submitted a more ambitious plan and was asked to address stormwater and retaining wall issues, concerns by the Planning Board. The applicant has submitted plans that has decreased the square footage of the building and eliminated the previously submitted retaining wall. Further, the applicant has eliminated approximately 1560 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) square feet of hard surfacing nearest the wetland and has re-vamped the stormwater controls to include a stormwater management facility to mitigate runoff. The comments, Mr. Chairman, are basically Site Plan Review comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Whenever you’re ready. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, architect for the project, and with me is Dan Kruger from K Twin Holdings. At the request of the Board, from our last meeting, we did a total revision to both the building layout and the site layout for the building. We did a significant reduction in the square footage of the single story building, which had a net deduct of pavement areas for parking and walkways, as well. In doing the reduction to the building and the impervious areas on the site, we were able to increase the front yard setback to 30 feet. I believe we had 25 last time. We were able to completely eliminate the retaining wall on the back side of the property, the west side of the property toward the Midas Muffler shop, and in doing that, it enabled us to increase our setbacks from our building construction and our paved area to the wetlands. We were able to do a significant increase in those. Basically, the project as proposed is much better suited to the site, and with the infrastructure, now, that we have in place, for our stormwater management, we’re able to control runoff from stormwater that’s being created by the impervious area and the building itself, and basically storing it on site. We did receive the comments from the Planning Department and VISION Engineering, and we were able to respond to those, and we did a re-submission today to the Planning Department addressing those comments, and I’ll briefly go through those, if I can find my comments. In looking at the comments from Staff, they basically were asking about some of the stabilization of the cleared areas at the rear of the property. This would be adjacent to the wetlands. We’re basically re-grading those areas into a contour, I believe it’s either one on three or one on five for a pitch in those areas. I think most of them are close to a one and five slope. Those areas basically would receive topsoil and seed, and they would be accomplished immediately after the contours are established in those areas. So we would not be leaving the slopes exposed for deterioration and erosion. We did additional test pits which I did talk about last time, and all of that information is currently indicated on Drawing SP-3. The test pits did indicate depth to bedrock. The bedrock out on the, what would be the east side of the property toward Meadowbrook. Our first test pit we had about eight inches of coverage for topsoil in that area, and as we came back on the building, by the time we hit the front edge of where our building is proposed at this time, we’re down to roughly two and a half feet. Bedrock falls off very quickly from that point, and our test pit that we did actually in the middle of the building we did not hit bedrock. We basically hit large boulders on the site, which can be removed by backhoe and large equipment. We did additional test pits on the west side of the property. We had some concerns, and I know VISION Engineering had some concerns in reference to our location for our water line coming into the building and how we would protect that. Because of the high rock outcroppings on the east side of the property toward Meadowbrook, what we found is, as you go along the property to the north on Meadowbrook, heading toward the Town property to the north side, again, bedrock falls off very quickly. We did a test pit in what would be the northeast corner of the property adjacent to an area that we felt we could basically get the water line and the sewer line through, and what we found is that we basically had in excess of five feet in that area. We didn’t hit bedrock at five feet. We hit boulders again, which can be moved. So our concerns, or the VISION Engineer’s concerns, in reference to protection of the water line, we really don’t need to do frost protection because we can get adequate depth. The manhole that is currently, or the water connection and the sewer connection are both located in the, what would be the upper northeast corner along Meadowbrook Road. We have not determined what the invert in and out would be for the sewer manhole that exists in that area, but we would be doing that as part of the final approval process for the Site Plan Review. In looking at the basic stormwater management plan as developed, Staff had a question as to whether the gutters were being provided for the building, and if they were, whether that water was controlled as part of the stormwater system. Drawing SP-3 does indicate that the gutters are being collected and it is being put into the stormwater management system. The swales on the south side, they had questions in reference to protection of those during construction. It would be our intent, during construction, that those swales be sodded to basically slow down and mitigate the runoff that would occur in that area during the construction process. We had considered doing hay bales in those areas, but we’re not too keen on doing that. We feel that that creates more problems than it will address. So we would prefer, and it would be our option, and reasonable option, to use sodding in those areas. Basically the silt fence right now is currently indicated as going up part of what would be the north property line. It runs currently along the west area before you hit the wetland area, and it stops on our south property line. What we would be proposing is that we would run the silt fence up the south property line, a ways, probably about halfway up, 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) until we hit existing Contour Number 106. The site, as we indicated before, has minimal area for snow storage. We realize that, K Twin Holdings, one of the other companies that is associated with K Twin is ARMA, which is a site maintenance company, and they would be doing the maintenance work for the site, and they realize, and as I said before, we realize that we would need to remove snow from the site, and they would be removing it to an approved area in the Town of Queensbury. In reference to the landscaping in the front of the building, as I indicated before, the test hole that was dug about, I’m going to say about 15 feet off of the property line on Meadowbrook Road indicated eight inches of topsoil, which is not sufficient for planting in that area. As we go toward the south, toward Quaker Road, we know that it starts to fall off, and as we go to the north it starts to fall off and as we go to the north it starts to fall off considerably. So, you know, we’re looking at the two large sugar maples, one on either corner. It does, I believe, meet the criteria for the lineal footage that we have on Meadowbrook for that size and that type of tree. We’re not sure that we can place any other maples along that area in front of the building. We just don’t think that there’s adequate depth to be able to support the root structure. During construction, if we find that it can be done, we would certainly be in tune to doing that, but we hate to guarantee, at this point, that we would do it and not be able to, and based upon what we’re seeing right now from test holes, we don’t believe that it is possible. In reference to the VISION Engineering comments, basically most of his comments were in reference to the stormwater management plan. We did not feel that any of the comments were major in nature. Most of them are in reference to inverts in and out, which we had talked about for the sewer manhole along the Meadowbrook side of the property where we would be connecting, and it would be our intent to do that as part of the final approval process for the Site Plan Review. As I stated before, the water main, we do not feel at this point that we need the frost protection for that because we can provide adequate depth from the northeast corner of the property into the building where we’re locating it. As stated in our previous response back in, I believe it was May, the maintenance plan for the stormwater management system would be added to the plan as part of the final Site Plan Review process. We did do the additional deep test pits and they are indicated on SP-3. He had some questions in reference to the computations and the use of infiltration. The system as proposed is not an infiltrating system, and that was fairly well clarified in the report that Paragon Engineering, our consultant, had put together. Basically it is a storage type system. Paragon, in going through the response to the comments, basically did a re-computation on those, and basically is able to store the maximum peak for a 100 year storm. So we feel that we have adequate capacity. There is no question or doubt that we would have to move in bedrock to install the system. We feel that we have adequate depth in that area for that. A stormwater manhole detail will be added to the drawings, again, something I think that’s minor in nature. The erosion and sediment control details and specifications, again, they will be added to the plan, as part of the final approval, and basically the design intent is allowing the runoff to pass through the stone, and this is the collection area that we’re looking at, which would be to the north side of our furthest parking area going towards the Town of Queensbury property. Our layout plan on SP-1 shows a planting bed in that area. The planting bed would actually be behind the infiltration trench that would be located along that north edge of that parking lot area where the parking occurs. That would collect prior to going to the planting bed and the basic planting bed itself is deep enough for the infiltration to occur and be collected and stored in our on site system. He also went through the calculations for the pre and post development times, the time of concentration, and basically we are using something that’s very conservative at this point, and basically, as I said before, the system is designed not to include infiltration, and we’ve adjusted all of the infiltration times and quantities basically to design around a 100 year storm event, and were able to control that on site. So we do not feel that we would certainly have a problem with a 50 year storm event, because the numbers would be less than we are currently having shown in the storm drainage report as detailed at this time. So that’s our response that we provided today to the Town, in reference to the project and the comments from both the Planning Department and VISION Engineering. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from Board members? MRS. STEFFAN-I have a question about the Zoning Board request for a recommendation from the Planning Board. This resolution was adopted in February. This Site Plan has undergone major transformation in this five month period, and so I’m not sure how relevant our recommendation is to the Zoning Board. There’s no longer a retaining wall. The stormwater filtration, all these things are different based on the new plans. MR. OBORNE-I believe the recommendation was specifically for the retaining wall. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. JONES-Well, there was a series of variances. There was front yard variance, retaining wall, separation to the wetlands. MR. OBORNE-Right. Yes, that we know. Right. I mean, the wetlands and the front setbacks overlap each other. MR. JONES-That’s correct. MR. OBORNE-So that’s an issue in itself. This is almost like a whole new Site Plan, to be honest with you. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Well, that’s what I’m thinking, because, you know, the resolution that’s here, which is great to have, you know, it asks for five things. That they want a recommendation on the cumulative impact of stormwater, regarding the permeability impact, regarding the accuracy of the filtration system, will the retaining wall as proposed, does it have any adverse impact, and then regarding any other recommendations for health, safety and welfare of the community. All those things are remarkably different since February. MR. OBORNE-Well, as the plan has evolved, those recommendations, you have to take them one by one and mold them as best you can to the Zoning Board’s. I mean, obviously the retaining wall’s gone. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m assuming that the Zoning Board would also get an updated plan when they went to review this. MR. JONES-Yes. We did a full submission of Site Plan, Variance, wetlands permit, the whole thing. MRS. STEFFAN-When will you be on their agenda, do you know? MR. JONES-Next Wednesday. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JONES-Hopefully. MR. HUNSINGER-So I take it they’re still looking for a recommendation from us? MR. JONES-Yes. We tried to make your recommendation that much easier by revising the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, just for clarification, what were your issues again? The retaining wall, that’s been taken care of. MR. OBORNE-That’s gone. MR. SEGULJIC-What were the other issues they asked for? Stormwater. MR. TRAVER-Cumulative impact, permeability impact, filtration system. Other recommendations regarding health, safety and welfare of the community. Looking at the comments from the engineer, in regards to stormwater, I mean, they all look like they’re all workable. MR. JONES-Yes, they are. Most of them are re-computations using slightly different numbers which have minimal impact on infiltration quantities, or not infiltration, but storage quantities, excuse me. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to, in theory, give a recommendation, then go back to the Zoning Board to get the various variances, then they come back for Site Plan. Okay. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I would just say I think the plan’s come a long ways from what we first saw. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-In looking at what the Zoning Board asked us to look at, I’m okay with each of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess, you know, there’s a note here from Dan Ryan, the Planning Board should consider Section 179-6-100 C, Number 3 e Number 2 when reviewing the wetland permit. I mean, this is a 10 year storm event. This is designed for a 10 year storm event. It doesn’t satisfy the Code requirement, and the plan has come a long way. MR. JONES-Yes, it does satisfy the requirement. MRS. STEFFAN-The 50 year requirement? MR. JONES-I believe, yes. It’s designed around a 10 year, and it has a 100 year storm event shown where the discharge actually gets reduced because of the infiltration that we had included before, and it will also reduce the capacities for the 50 year storm as well. We have addressed those concerns in reference to that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. MR. JONES-Yes, and the comments that we returned today respond to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a follow up question? MRS. STEFFAN-No. I’m reading Dan Ryan’s comments again. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing and we will leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-So it sounds like, for this evening, we’re looking at recommendation to the Zoning Board on five items, the cumulative impact of stormwater, the permeability impact, the accuracy of the filtration system. The retaining wall is now gone, and then any other recommendations. I think, based on the information presented, there’s. MR. TRAVER-It’s a very effective plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything, either in, I mean, you just walked us through it, but is there anything in either the Staff comments or the engineering comments that you didn’t address in your submission today? MR. JONES-I think the only thing was trying to plant trees on the Meadowbrook side of the property. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s been an issue from Day One. MR. JONES-Yes. It’s just very difficult. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I did see the two sugar maples, and, you know, the various arborvitaes on both sides of the driveway. MR. JONES-Yes. We’ve done plantings around the parking areas to screen them from adjacent properties and Meadowbrook. MR. TRAVER-Maybe you could try to encourage some lichen to grown on the rocks or something. That’s about all you can do. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other comments from Board members on the landscaping plan? Do you generally think it’s adequate? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s more of a Site Plan issue. None at this point, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. SEGULJIC-It looks good for now. MR. JONES-And we realize we need to come back through for Site Plan, final Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-My thinking, and I guess maybe I should clarify. My thinking is, since you already submitted new information on the deadline, that, unless there’s something else that we can come up with, that you haven’t already addressed, that we would be okay to table this until next month, again, since you already met the deadline by submitting new information today. MR. JONES-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I’m asking the questions, to see if there’s anything else we want to flesh out or have additional concerns with. MR. JONES-Anything that you want us to address. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, we’d really like to see some plantings along Meadowbrook, but I don’t think we can do it. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, if I may, I do want clarification on Sheet SP-3, concerning the test holes for the stormwater management facility, because you do note that you have them on there, but they are not in the region of where you propose to install this. I was just hoping you can clarify that. MR. JONES-Okay. The Test Pit letter B, which we did in the middle of the building. We encountered no rock, and we basically ended our test pit at 52 inches below grade, which would be roughly elevation of 100. Our elevation of our parking lot, where the infiltration is occurring, is 105 to 104. So we’re already at 100, roughly, to the bottom at that point. We know, as we go to the north, that rock is dropping considerably. The property is also dropping that way as well. MR. OBORNE-Okay. So you’re surmising that the petrology is going in that direction. MR. JONES-Right, as you go to the west on the property, and as you go from the center to the north and the center to the south, rock drops off. Basically the outcropping is along that area that we’ve delineated on Meadowbrook, and it falls off dramatically as you go away from that. MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, that does satisfy. I’d hate to have you hit a ledge or something along those lines. Because, you know, limestone is notorious for being undulating. One more, if I may. As far as the snow storage, my issue is that there is nothing notated on the plan itself, and that’s what I was looking for. MR. JONES-I think, as part of the Site Plan, we can certainly do that, as part of the final plan. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. JONES-We know that there’s some limited areas where we can store on site. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. JONES-We do have a lot of planting around the parking lot, and we don’t want to push it toward the wetlands on the back side. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. JONES-So our storage areas are going to be limited to the front area, in that general area, and I think that’s basically, on either side of the entrance drive it’s going to be pretty much limited to where we’re going to store snow. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. JONES-We realize that, in a major event, it’s going to have to be taken off site. The fortunate thing is that the parking areas are not that large. MR. OBORNE-That is true, and your stormwater basin is no longer there also, which does increase it. I imagine you can get a few more inches of snow fall on there. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. JONES-Right. MR. OBORNE-But definitely something in the final plans, and we’ll be talking about that later on. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And that’s the two main issues I had. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-So will you be submitting a revised snow removal plan? Because what we can do is extend the deadline. Because you’ve submitted all your materials. If we would like that to be part of the application. MR. JONES-I can do that if you would like us to. MRS. STEFFAN-I think we should. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it sounds like there’s just a notation needed on the final plat, yes. th MRS. STEFFAN-And we can do that by, okay, because today’s the 15. That’s 10 days from now, and we need to make a resolution for the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-Does the Zoning Board receive the comments from VISION Engineering? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so, no. It didn’t go out with their packets. MRS. STEFFAN-They don’t normally get them. MR. JONES-They’re Site Plan issues. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’re Site Plan issues. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think basically we feel that the concerns raised by the Zoning Board can be addressed during Site Plan Review. We can say that. We don’t have final determination yet. We’re just trying to figure out how to word a resolution to the Zoning Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PER THEIR REQUEST DATED 2/27/08 FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2008 K TWIN HOLDNGS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW SECTION 277 PARAGRAPH SIX RESOLUTION PB 7-08R, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS REQUESTED A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD [RESOLUTION ATTACHED]: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION IN RESPONSE TO THE ZBA REQUEST: MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PER THEIR REQUEST DATED 2/27/08 FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2008 K TWIN HOLDNGS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW SECTION 277 PARAGRAPH SIX RESOLUTION PB 7-08R, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Since the Zoning Board of Appeals asked for this information, the applicant has provided a revised Site Plan which addresses the concerns of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We recommend that the Zoning Board review the new submission. The Planning Board 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) believes the concerns raised by the ZBA can be adequately addressed during Site Plan Review. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 4- 2008 K TWIN HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th This will be tabled to the August 26 Planning Board meeting and we’re going to extend th their submission deadline until July 25. The applicant has already submitted most of their materials, but what we would like them to do is to provide a snow removal plan th notation on their plan, and they have until the 25 of July to do that. That the applicant place the notations on the final four copies that will be submitted with the mylar, an eight and a half by eleven of the area that the applicant is going to deal with, submitted with an attachment indicating their statement. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-So you’ll be on next month’s agenda. We’ve just given you 10 days to put that plan together. MR. HUNSINGER-Question? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I would recommend that, instead of having 15 new copies annotated along those lines, I mean, for conservation purposes, at the very least, that, with that knowledge, that he’s got to come back with that, that it is placed on the final four copies that you’re going to have to submit for the mylar. MR. JONES-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Just give us what the notation will read. MR. JONES-Okay. What I can do is I can do like an eight and a half by eleven of that area that we’re going to deal with. MR. OBORNE-That would be fabulous. MR. JONES-Submit that with an attachment. MR. HUNSINGER-Beautiful. MR. JONES-If that would suffice. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So the motion is amended. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. JONES-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RANDY GROSS AGENT(S) HARLAND MC GEE OWNER(S) RANDY & DEBBIE GROSS ZONING HC-INT.; SR- 1A LOCATION 487 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 10,000 SQ. FT. CHURCH AND ASSOCIATED 7,600 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION CLASSES AND A 2,560 SQ. FT. POLE 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) BARN/MAINTENANCE BUILDING. ADDITIONALLY THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUS APPROVAL RELATIVE TO THE TEMPORARY TENTS PROPOSED FOR THE SITE. HOUSES OF WORSHIP REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 19-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/12/08 LOT SIZE 15.10 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1- 33 SECTION 179-4-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-The requested action tonight is that the applicant seeks Site Plan Review for a 10,000 square foot church along with a 7600 square foot religious education building, and a 2560 square foot pole barn for maintenance. The applicant also seeks a modification to a previously approved use permit for continued tent services for the dates thth of July 20 through 27 of this year, 2008. I’m just going to run through Staff comments real quick. The applicant proposes construction of a church with religious education classrooms along with a pole barn for maintenance purposes. The site is situated on 15.29 acres with a soil map unit of OaB-Oakville loamy fine sandy soil, 3-8 percent slope. These soils are very well drained with depth to bedrock exceeding five feet. This is a generalized observation and conditions of soil and depth to bedrock vary from site to site. The applicant will need to provide details such as materials to be used, color, lighting, etc. for the proposed pole barn to be constructed to the west side of the property. The rest are Site Plan Review comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor, and with me is Pastor Randy Gross of the New Beginnings Church, and also Wayne Claremont who is the consulting engineer for the project. We’ve looked at the Staff comments and the engineering comments, and we really don’t have any strong objection to them. We think that most of the comments are minor, and we think that we can satisfy them. We, in fact, have made some amendments to the plan, or additions to the plan, which are minor in nature. They aren’t before you, but we can run through those, just so that you have an idea of exactly what we’re talking about, and I guess I would begin with the Staff comments, and maybe the first comment I would make is, it says requested action. The applicant also seeks a modification to a previously approved Special Use Permit for thth continued tent services for the dates of July 20 to 27. When I asked Pastor Randy what that was, he indicated that, on either a site visit or a conference here, somebody from Staff indicated that they thought your approval of use of a tent on premises or tents on premises was for services on Wednesdays and Sundays, and I didn’t recall that, and luckily Wayne had a copy of the resolution with him, and basically I don’t see that. So I don’t know if that amendment is really necessary. My understanding was that you approved the use of the tents for church services during this summer through October st 31, and what they run into is sometimes funeral services or some other type thing that’s not necessarily on Wednesday and Sunday, which is their main days. So my understanding was that you approved the use of the tents for the church services, whatever they might be. The language that you used was that the temporary installation of two tents for a period from May through October 31, 2008, construction of handicap bathroom facility using existing house septic system, the use of existing driveway and electricity from existing house, as depicted on NBCCC-2 Site Plan and conditioned upon the applicant submitting a map showing just what had been approved. That was the first resolution. That’s what was passed. There’s a second resolution after that that said to specify that it’s through the end of October 2008. I don’t know, apparently we got into st some discussion. I don’t know why October 31 isn’t the end of 2008, or isn’t the end of it, but that was the second resolution. That was passed. So, my first response is, I’m not sure that you need to go back and amend that resolution, unless you think that your intent was different than to allow the services for use of the tents on a temporary basis, whatever they might be needed for. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m glad you raised that because I was kind of confused when I read Pastor Gross’s letter saying how Staff had authorized additional, and I didn’t remember there being, our approval being conditioned to just Wednesdays and weekends. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The Pastor has been trying to be cooperative and responsive to Staff and any comments Staff’s made. He made that response without asking me about it, and maybe without going back and looking at the record. He said that, I talked to him briefly, that they thought we needed the change, I was going to make the change, and I’m saying to myself, I don’t think the Board requires that, but that’s the whole, that’s the reason he wrote the letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I understand, now that you made those comments. Yes. I guess it’s worth a two minute discussion from the Board. Was that members’ intent? MR. TRAVER-Yes. I don’t think it was our intent that the tent be taken down in between services. I do remember our, some discussion about the fact that it was a tent, and therefore probably there would be some seasonality to when it could be effectively used, and I can remember some discussion among the Board members about the fact that it would, you know, once we get into the Fall, the temperatures and so on would be such that it wouldn’t be perhaps all that practical to continue using a tent for these services, and I think that’s how we came up with the date, but I don’t remember any discussion about the scheduling of using the tent, because, again, I think our concern was, you know, when is it going up and when is it coming down. It’s not a permanent structure. MR. OBORNE-The issue was, I believe, Wednesdays and Sundays for that duration, and what has happened is that Pastor Randy, and correct me if I’m wrong, because, I mean, what you’re doing is fantastic, I mean, don’t get me wrong, that you had church revivals going on at one point, and those were extended periods of time. That was the issue. Craig had an issue with, I believe that and had written you a letter stating that those were fine. The ones that you wanted to have, but now you wanted to continue. thth You wanted to have one more between the 20 and the 27 of July. RANDY GROSS PASTOR RANDY-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Right, and that’s the only indication it’s not that big of a deal, but it’s something that needs to be on the record. MR. O'CONNOR-My comment was I sat during the meeting, and I don’t recall anything of discussion about specific dates. I remember the discussion that this would only be for the season. It would come down at the end of the season. I didn’t mean to say that somebody had said that we have to take the tent down between services. They’ve said the tents can stay up, but that we should only be using them on Wednesdays and Sundays, that doesn’t work. So the question is, if you thought differently, if your intent was differently, let us know, or we’ll just proceed as we. MR. TRAVER-I can recall some discussion about parking, but again, I don’t remember that specifically being an issue in terms of the schedule. I just remember it coming up as a concern about where the, you know, would there be adequate parking and that kind of thing, but, no, I don’t remember discussing a review of the schedule of events or whatever. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we said end of the season. You asked us, I think somebody asked us, to define it, and that’s where the end of October came up, and I remember somebody made the comment that you weren’t going to be heating them and so forth. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s still fine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that’s why we came up with the end of October. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We have no problem with that. The question is, if we have a funeral service, or if they have a revival or something else other than a Wednesday and Thursday, we want to know that it’s all right that somebody’s not going to get excited about us utilizing the premises. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we can clarify that this evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We can take care of that. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. O'CONNOR-All right. I’ll go through the comments, then. The bottom of Page One of the comment letter says pool and deck removal should add filled to notation concerning pool and we’ve done that, or we will do that on the final map that says we had that the pool and deck would be removed. We didn’t say that the pool would be filled, but we will add filled to the pool. At the top of Page Two, it talks about no location of signs evident on this page. We’ve located the signs. We thought we had details, and you go from map to map, but we can locate the signs. The next comment is no stop signs, handicap signs, loading zone signs or right of way signs. There are no loading zone signs, and there are no right of way signs. The handicap signs, we will locate them on the map. We’ve done that. Has a traffic study been performed? No, and entrance detail may be needed to be devised and noted on the plan. This is a highway that is under the supervision of DOT. We will need a curb cut from DOT. We have been on site with them. We have shown them what we propose to do, and we have an application prepared to submit to DOT. Actually, it’s the Washington County office of DOT, even though the property is in Warren County that will take jurisdiction of this, and they will issue the permit. Apparently they take control up to Quaker Road or it sounds like they take control up to Quaker Road. Dix Avenue is a local arterial road, and as such exiting the site will be a major event when the services are over. Are there any considerations given to traffic control? We have added a stop sign at the entrance way. We think that that’ll be adequate. We have, in the plan, 60 parking spots. Per the rules that you have one parking spot for every five seats. We have an additional 20%. I guess we go up to 72 parking spots. That’s the total number of vehicles that we would think would be exiting all at one time, if everybody left immediately at the same time. That’s not a great impact, we would offer it’s not a great impact on that section of the highway. You’re going to have some of the traffic that’s going to be going west. Some of the traffic’s going to be going east, and even before it gets to any of the major intersections, after it goes east and west, there are different routes that traffic will take, going in different directions. There are side streets that some of that traffic will take, some heading to the lower end of Warren Street, and some going to the higher end of Quaker Road. We don’t predict that this will be a great influence on traffic. The main period, most periods that we have, will be during the periods that there is less traffic on the highway, Sunday mornings. It’s not like we will be putting people out at five o’clock on Monday through Friday, which I think is a peak time of travel, typically along that highway. You’ve done and received a number of traffic studies for other projects for, I think, Dunkin Donuts and a couple of those other storefronts that were built along that highway. You have probably a better idea of the traffic than we do, but we don’t think that, even if they all went out and went in one direction it’s going to be a big deal. Okay. C-6, No entrance landscaping evident. We have two trees, which I’m told were on the earlier plans. Is that right, Wayne? On the re-submitted plans that are before the Board. Not the ones we’ve done. That’s what we had proposed. The church is set back quite a ways from the highway. We anticipate that there’ll be a grassed lawn back to it, and that’ll be the landscaping. No sign landscaping evident, and what we have submitted, or have ready to submit, today, we will landscape, put shrubbery around the sign that was by the entrance way. No road landscaping evident. I’ve talked about that. No Education Center landscaping evident. Again, if you take a look at the plan, C-6, basically the main entrance to that Education Center will be from the existing church that is built, the Phase I. Those exits that are shown on that church are more for an emergency point of view. Again, this is going to be a facility that’s going to be surrounded by a great deal of lawn, and that’s really the landscaping on the back part of that Education Center that we have shown, and that’s part of Phase II, and I’m a little confused, and I don’t know, but Pastor Randy tells me that in his conversations with Staff, as we probably won’t be building the Education Center immediately, we may have to come back because of the expiration of your approval process, but we have no plans to do that immediately. Page C-8, No Handicap Parking Detail present. The parking is going to be on gravel surfaces. WAYNE CLAREMONT MR. CLAREMONT-We can’t really mark it, but it will be signed, properly signed, and then I’m also proposing to add curbs. Where the handicap parking is, there’s really no curb stops because there’s a concrete walkway that acts as a curb, but I’m proposing to put curb stops, blue colored, to help identify the handicap parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Then there’d be a freestanding sign. MR. CLAREMONT-Plus signage. Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Down, C-10, Parking Lot Design Guide not legible. That was, I think when it got printed it was fuzzy. It’s been re-printed, and you can now read it. I don’t know if we need to read it to you. Do you want to read it? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. CLAREMONT-Do you want this read? I mean, Is it necessary to read this? Basically there’s four columns, and along the top of each column it’s, okay, if you take the first column down, it’s minimum horizontal illuminants measured on parking surface without shadowing from any object. The second box is uniformity ratio, maximum to minimum, and the third box is minimum vertical illuminants for facial recognition measured at the point of lowest horizontal illuminants. MR. O'CONNOR-The second comment, no detail for outside building lighting. There is a detail for the lighting, mounted on the exterior of the building. It’s on C-10, and it’s all shielded, downcast lighting. The next comment is on A-1 or A-2. Applicant should note the total height measured from the natural grade and not fill grade, if any, and a note has been added to Sheet A-1 that indicates that. I guess this zone has a limitation of 40 feet from natural grade. We recognize that. Both zones have the same thing. There is a, we will comply with that, except for a very small portion, less than a foot, as it’s designed. MR. CLAREMONT-Even that may comply, because the actual building is below the original grade. So you’re talking about measuring from original grade, where, you know, we’re just, we’re right there. The little pointed top of the cupola, there’s a little, it may go an inch or two above the 40 feet, but the grade has actually been lowered. So in essence it’s probably six inches lower than the 40 feet, if you measured from original grade. Am I making sense? MR. HUNSINGER-Would the Zoning Administrator make that final determination? MR. OBORNE-The height of buildings, you don’t have to worry. Cupolas are exempt from that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. MR. O'CONNOR-That took care of, that’s our response to Staff comments. The th engineering comments, I read Mr. Ryan’s letter of July 11, and I was amazed. I mean, everything appears to be completed. MR. HUNSINGER-Except for 15 and 27. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. As to 15, there are two items that were not complete. You’re correct. We had added a design feature to the septic tank which will make it non buoyant, and we can submit that to Mr. Ryan for his approval, and why don’t you say. MR. CLAREMONT-The septic tank, we’ve provided the calculations, and we’ll have to add ballis to the tank, approximately 8,000 pounds to make it non buoyant. So the tank will have what they call an extended base, which allows a place to add weight onto the tank on the perimeter of the tank, outside the tank. So that’s the plan, and that’s noted on the drawings, on this new set that you don’t have yet. MR. O'CONNOR-And as to Number 27, we believe that we’ll probably be pumping that tank once every three years, and we can access it by going across our lawned area. If we can’t access it by going across our lawned area, we probably can get permission to go up the Niagara Mohawk right of way, which adjoins it and access it to that, or get within a distance of where one of these honey trucks can do the necessary pumping. It should not be a problem. I don’t know if you need that specified on the plans or not, but basically we don’t think that there’s a problem with that. So, we think that we’ve answered all the Staff comments and the two engineering comments. I don’t know if this Board has other questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? What kind of shrubbery would you be putting around the sign? MR. CLAREMONT-The shrubbery around the sign will be juniper shrubs, and daylilies. MR. HUNSINGER-No other questions or comments? MR. SEGULJIC-No comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there’s no questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing, and if there are no takers, we will close the public hearing. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate impact. We’ve got any construction on slopes of 15% or greater; construction on land where depth to the water table is less than 3 feet; construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles; construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface; construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage; excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material; construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill; construction in a designated floodway or other impacts. It appears to me that the only issue, construction that will continue for more than a year or involve more than one phase, and that’s a small to moderate impact. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Right. It’s mitigated by Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RANDY GROSS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Two conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-Satisfy VISION Engineering comments, Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and, well, Staff Notes. You already addressed all the Staff Notes on the modified plan. Yes. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MRS. STEFFAN-They modified their plan. MR. O'CONNOR-I actually have a summary that Wayne prepared for me with a written comment, where we’re adding things to each sheet, if you want to make that part of your record, that the final sheets will have these comments on them. MR. CLAREMONT-I’ve printed 15 copies if you want them handed out tonight. MR. OBORNE-That would be fine for the file itself. My recommendation to the Board would be to state that Staff and VISION Engineering notes are taken care of. Yes, they’re satisfied, and that this be a blanket coverage. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and then to add sign landscaping detail to include juniper and daylily. Anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all I had. Run with it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now it says that there’s two resolutions. Is that because of the date on the Special Use Permit? MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we should clarify the Special Use Permit, too. MR. OBORNE-I would say that should probably be a condition if you are to approve this, and a clarification of my understanding that it’s Wednesdays and Sundays, through those dates. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d like not to have that restriction. MR. OBORNE-I’d have to query the Board on that. This is in response to Pastor Randy’s note to Craig Brown. th MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not talking about his letter of June 11 that we have? MR. OBORNE-I believe it is. PASTOR RANDY-Yes, which is in response to the Staff making a site visit and inquiring about our usage, and then communicated back to Staff that I was using the tent beyond Sundays and Wednesdays. The first week I wrote a letter to Craig asking for, to use it extra days, and so he wrote and said that I could use it, you know, Sunday to Thursday, and then the meetings we were having took off so terrifically that we extended them where we had two more services the next week, beyond the Sunday and Wednesday, and then the next week we had three more services beyond the Sunday and Wednesday, and so it was raised to me to refrain from that by Staff, and so that’s why, that’s what generated that letter, because I wanted to clearly communicate, not cause a cause for hindering approvals, but, you know, I certainly cite Michael O’Connor that, according to the resolution, you know, that we would be on good ground, at our discretion, to use, you know, be able to hold services to carry out what we do, and so that’s my comment. MR. KREBS-Keith, where does the Wednesday and Sunday come up? MR. OBORNE-It’s in the meeting minutes, in the original application, when they first came to the Board. I do recall that. It might not have been worded in the resolution itself, because it was our understanding that that is when you hold services. PASTOR RANDY-Yes. Like a church would like put on a building, services are scheduled for Sunday and Wednesday, and that’s what I was referring to. I didn’t want to imply that we’d be limited to that because generally that’s not, if there’s something special you want to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. When you do have the evening services, during the week, what time do they end? PASTOR RANDY-Well, during that period, they were running longer than normal. Dismissing as last as nine p.m. Normally we’re out of there by eight. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course it’s going to start getting dark earlier now, too. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Then again if they’re using it for special events, you know, funerals happen when they happen. Weddings can be Friday nights. They can be weekends, Saturdays, Sundays. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can’t speak for the whole Board, but I don’t think it was my understanding that we were limiting the use to only Wednesdays and Sundays. We were just limiting the use until the end of October. MR. KREBS-That’s right. That was my understanding. MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe what we should do is pass maybe a clarifying resolution, or modifying the resolution? MR. OBORNE-That would work. That would work, if you could go ahead and flesh out the language a little bit, you know, to make it more concise to include not just Wednesdays and Sundays, and I’m aware that Dave Hatin has, his issues have been satisfied. So, as far as the continuation, if you go ahead and make that in the resolution, and I’ll bring it to his attention, and if there are any problems, like there were the first time, I’m more than, I can guarantee you that Mr. Gross will be contacted, more likely probably not, to be honest with you. It’s just, I think the language needs to clearly state. MR. O'CONNOR-I think he question is, did you intend to pass the resolution like you did, without conditioning the days? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that’s what we just all affirmed, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And that’s a clarification. I think we talked about what the principal uses would be, but we didn’t necessarily anticipate that that would limit us to just those days. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Let’s do a second resolution, or maybe somebody else can construct the second resolution. We’ll just make a separate. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll work on that for a second. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’m going to make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2008 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A site plan application & freshwater wetlands application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 10,000 sq. ft. church and an associated 7,600 sq. ft. building for religious education classes and a 2,560 sq. ft. pole barn/maintenance building. Additionally the applicant desires to modify a previous approval relative to the temporary tents proposed for the site. Houses of Worship require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. 2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 4/15, 6/17, 7/15/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; OR if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8)NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)NOT APPLICABLE The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2008 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph 4 complies. Paragraph 5, negative declaration. Paragraph 8 does not apply. Paragraph 9 does not apply. This is approved with the following conditions. 1.That the applicant will satisfy Staff Note comments and also VISION Engineering comments, 2.That the applicant will add a signed landscaping detail to the plans to include Junipers and Day lilies. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess, just in further consideration, I would like to make a motion to clarify the special permit that was adopted on April 15, 2008. MOTION TO CLARIFY THE SPECIAL PERMIT THAT WAS ADOPTED ON APRIL 15, 2008 FOR SITE PLAN NO. 10-2008 RANDY GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: That the approval of the Special Use Permit for the temporary use of two tents was not intended to limit the days of use, but that it was only to be used until the end of October. That services were never intended to be limited to just Wednesday and Sunday by this Board. That the use is to be limited, though, to church activities. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: MR. SIPP-Church activities only. With that there’s no limit on what could be done. MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you’re saying. MR. SIPP-Church activities only. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Sure. Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1984 MODIFICATION SECT. 5 BEDFORD CLOSE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JANE & EDWARD GARDNER III; DONALD & PEGGY MERRIHEW 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONING SR-30/SR-1A LOCATION 2 & 6 BROOKSHIRE TRACE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO LOTS 105, 134 & 135 OF THE BEDFORD CLOSE, SECT. 5 SUBDIVISION. THE MODIFICATION REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE LOT SIE TO ALLOW FOR EXISTING FENCE. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.38; 0.81 +/- ACRES SECTION A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item on the agenda, scheduled item, was Jane and Edward Gardner the Third and Don and Peggy Merrihew, Subdivision No. 6-1984 Modification. I didn’t receive any details as per why the applicant asked this to be withdrawn. Was there a letter in the file? MR. OBORNE-One of the applicants did not sign off on that, that line change. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So the one applicant just came and did it without the other applicant’s knowledge. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s a defacto withdrawal, basically. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. SUBDIVISION 1-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED R. CASE PRIME AGENT(S) CAFFRY & FLOWER OWNER(S) R. CASE & MARGARET PRIME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 51 HILAND DR. & ROCKWELL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 16.4 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2.63 TO 5.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL PER CHAPTER A-183. CROSS REFERENCE AV 73-05; SKETCH 3/25/08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 16.4 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1- 5 SECTION A-183 JOHN CAFFRY & STUART MESINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 16.43 acre parcel into four lots of 5.44, 5.59, 2.81 and 2.63 acres respectively. Lot One is 5.44 acres and is located on Rockwell Road. Lots Two, Three and Four are located off Hiland Drive and are accessed by a single loop driveway that is privately owned. This parcel contains 16.47 acres of which 1.90 are Army Corps of Engineers wetlands. The wetlands account for 11.5 percent of the property and are protected by a minimum 100 foot setback. The proposed house sites are further buffered from the wetlands as are any proposed hard surfacing. The leach field for two of the lots (1 and 4) require a stabilized blended soil in order to satisfy the requirements of Chapter136-9c of the Town Code, Special Standards for Sewage Disposal. As mentioned above, lots 2, 3, and 4 are accessed by a single loop driveway. The driveway will be located on lands owned by the owner of lot 2. The owner of lot two will be in charge of upkeep and snowplowing and the cost will be shared equally by the three lot owners per the subdivision covenants. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. CAFFRY-Good evening. John Caffry from Caffry and Flower, representing Case and Peggy Prime, who are here with us tonight. We also have with us Stuart Mesinger, a Planner from the Chazen Companies, and Paul Guillett, an engineer from the Chazen Companies, and they’re here to answer any questions about any technical issues. We’re here for Preliminary plat review. Sketch Plan review was done in March. We’re asking tonight for you to do the SEQRA Negative Declaration, and approve the Preliminary plat, if you feel it’s appropriate to do so. Since the Sketch Plan review, we’ve added all the additional information that was requested by the Town, and we’ve addressed all the Town Engineer’s issues, although he did add one new one which we will get to at the end. We think we can satisfy that very easily. The property’s 16.47 acres. Right now it just has one house on it that’s occupied by the Primes. They’ve been there since the 1960’s. As was said, it’s a four lot subdivision, with the lot size being 2.6 up to 5.6 acres. There’s one acre zoning. There’s existing deed covenants for two acre lots, and we’re in 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) excess of both the zoning and the existing deed covenants. So the sizes are much larger than allowed, and also many fewer lots than are allowed. If this was to be maxed out, it could probably be at least eight lots, even after subtracting out the wetlands and everything else, but that’s not the Prime’s intention. They want to do a conservation oriented subdivision with large lots. There are deed covenants that have been proposed as part of the application that would prohibit any further subdivision of these lots. They want to try and preserve the neighborhood character and keep the lots similar to what the rest of the neighborhood is like. Mr. Prime, in fact, was involved in the original subdivision of that neighborhood. There would be the one new lot on Rockwell Road. That’s fairly straightforward. Two new lots near the Prime’s residence coming off of Hiland Drive, one lot would have their existing residence remain on it, two new building lots, which would be lots three and four, which share the driveway that already exists for that house. They would have a deeded right of way that’s also in the package. The variance for that, instead of having those lots on a Town road, that’s already been approved. That information’s also in the application. This driveway would be pretty much on the same footprint as the existing loop driveway. There’s been some minor modifications to that on the plan, but it’s just very minimal changes to that. It’s the same basic layout. As was mentioned, the maintenance would be done by the three owners, and paid for by the three owners. As shown on the subdivision plat, shaded in gray, there would be buffer zones along the lot lines, as well as around the streams that go through the property and around the wetlands, and those are, in general, at least match the minimum required by any regulations, and in some places may be a little greater. We’ve done wetlands studies, wildlife studies. Those are in the package. It’s been, not found any significant issues with those. There’ll be no wetlands impacts. We’re not going to fill any wetlands. There’ll be no building within at least 100 feet of the wetlands. So there’s no wetlands permits required from any agency for that. There’ll be private septic and wells. Lot Two, where the house is now, would keep its existing septic and well. Lots One, Three, and Four we now have perc tests. Those are on the plat, the results of them. The only issue that came up with that was some of them perked a little fast, and they’ll have to be a specialized kind of system, with the soils modified in order to perk slower. That was the one new issue the Town Engineer brought up. He wanted the details of that shown on the plan. That’s easy enough. We could add that to Page Two of the plan, as part of final plat review. The SEQRA, it’s an Unlisted action. No need for coordinated review. So we’re requesting a Neg Dec. We’ve requested four waivers from the Subdivision Regulations, and they’re not substantive waivers. They’re really just procedural waivers, in the sense of information that we don’t think is pertinent to this particular project at this stage, that we don’t think should need to be shown. One is to show the wells and the septics on the adjoining lots. Usually the reason you need that information is to make sure the septics on the new lots are set back at least 100 feet from the well on the existing surrounding lots. Here, the proposed septic system locations on the plat are all at least 100 feet from any boundary line, and mostly are much greater than that. So we really think that’s a non-issue, and we request a waiver, so that we don’t have to go out and survey the neighbor’s septic and wells. We also ask for a waiver of providing stormwater and grading and erosion control plans now for the individual houses, because with these being fairly large lots, the owners will have some flexibility as to where to locate the house, and it would really be inefficient for us to design those systems now, and then to have you guys review them, have the Town Engineer review them. If a new owner came along and wanted to put the house 50 feet further over, which there’s plenty of room to do, all that would have to be re-done. So we’re asking that that be done at the time when they apply for the building permit. Again, the Town Engineer didn’t seem to have any problem with that. I think the only question was exactly how’s that get handled? Does it get handled by the Staff or do those people come in for Site Plan Review? We think it can be handled by the Staff, but I certainly would like to hear what they would say about that. There’s a requirement to show existing contours off site. Again, with the large lots, we’re not proposing any building anywhere near the boundary lines of the existing lot. So we didn’t see any point in doing the work and the surveying to show the off site contours, and finally with showing utilities and culverts on adjoining properties, all the drainage from the site basically is going to go into, it’s going to be controlled once those plans are done, but if there is any drainage, it’ll go into the streams and the wetlands. It won’t drain onto neighboring properties and effect anybody’s property. So we asked for a waiver from the need to show that. We don’t think that that’s going to affect anything. In terms of utilities, this site’s already serviced by electric. We’re only adding two houses up on Hiland Drive there. There’s not going to be any change in utilities. They’re not going to be bringing in new power poles or anything like that. So there’s no public sewer and water up there. So we don’t see any need to show that again either. We saw no objection to the waivers, in either the Staff Notes or the engineer’s comments. We think they’re reasonable. We think they meet the requirement for granting waivers, from showing these details on the plans. Again, they’re not substantive. They’re really just procedural, and again, we’re 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) requesting a Negative Declaration, that you approve the four waivers, and that you give Preliminary plat review, or approval. We think the application is complete, but we’d be glad to answer any questions the Board would have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any. MR. SIPP-The access road, the loop which is constructed there, is this going to be blacktop? MR. CAFFRY-Is that going to be paved? Is the driveway going to be paved? MR. PRIME-Yes. MR. CAFFRY-Yes, it’ll be blacktopped. MR. SIPP-And it will be what width? What I’m concerned with is State Fire Code, which requires that the driveway be 20 feet in width in order to be able to be accessed by emergency fire equipment. MR. CAFFRY-We went through that with the Zoning Board of Appeals, and at that time, and this is all in the application package, because that was a big issue at the Zoning Board, on getting the variance to use a shared driveway rather than a, building a Town road to Town specs, and Chazen Companies did an engineering study. They got data on the size of the largest fire truck that the Town owns, and did a study to make sure that it was a sufficient turning radius. They got a signoff from the Fire Marshal in the form of a letter, because we had to litigate this issue with the Zoning Board. They put in an affidavit by the Fire Marshal as to the study he did to make sure that it was okay. All that information’s in the package, and the court ultimately ruled that the turning radius was adequate for fire trucks. MR. MESINGER-That’s Exhibit F of your application package. MR. SIPP-Yes, well my concern is, which Code, which authority here establishes what the width of that road should be? MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s the State Fire Code. MR. SIPP-That’s what I’m wondering. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it doesn’t have to be 20 feet. MR. MESINGER-No, it doesn’t have to be 20 feet. There’s many Town roadways, in fact, that are not 20 foot wide roadways. The issue here, and the issue that the court found, is that this road has to be designed for a Town of Queensbury fire truck, and so if you go into Exhibit F of your application package, you’ll find all the specifications for a Town of Queensbury fire truck. We did the engineering analysis that showed that the roadway allows a turning of that fire truck. This is not a public roadway. It’s a driveway, and that’s why it was such an important issue is that so that the driveway meets the requirements of your fire trucks. MR. SIPP-Fine. So, in other words, when you say access road, the driveway is exempt from the Fire Code? MR. MESINGER-The driveway is the access. The driveway has to be adequate to provide fire access, and we’ve shown that it is in this case. MR. SIPP-Okay. So a 12 foot width would be adequate? On your map, basically, that road is 20 feet wide. MR. MESINGER-Two separate points here. I guess, I want to get to the first one. It would be, a 12 foot road might be adequate if the curves to it, or if the curves were of such a radius that the Town’s fire equipment could access it. We didn’t look at it that way. We looked at it and we said, what’s the biggest truck Queensbury has and will this road accommodate that vehicle. That’s how we looked at it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is in the Bay Ridge Fire District. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. MESINGER-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So what is the biggest truck Bay Ridge has? MR. MESINGER-That’s in Exhibit F. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I know. I read that. MR. MESINGER-It’s a big truck, I know that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We’ve got a lot of those in North Queensbury to access the driveways, and you don’t have to turn them around. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I understand the response that you made, but you didn’t answer the question, I don’t think. MR. MESINGER-Which is how wide is the driveway? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How wide is the driveway? MR. MESINGER-Do you remember how wide the driveway is? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we drove across it back in March, I guess it was. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I drove across it today. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you? Yes. Well, in March there was snow on it. In March there was quite a bit of snow on it, and we weren’t sure if the Town van was going to go through the snow, because part of it wasn’t paved. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That would be a question, because not all of it’s paved. MR. MESINGER-We’re measuring it out at 16 feet wide, which should be a typical driveway width. Remember this is going to operate as a one way driveway in practice. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I’m sorry, what was the width? MR. MESINGER-Sixteen. MR. HUNSINGER-Sixteen feet. MR. SIPP-We have another situation coming up next week in which we have an access road that’s only 12 feet wide, and my question is, who’s jurisdiction does this fall under, the State Fire Code or the local fire company’s decision? MR. MESINGER-I don’t know that answer to that, other than to tell you that it’s a private driveway that has to meet the, you know, that has to be able to serve your fire apparatus, and this one does. The Fire Marshal has agreed that it does, and the court has directed that the variance be issued. MR. SIPP-I read the court’s decision, and it seems to me that the State Fire Code would applied in all cases here, and anything that’s called an access road. MR. MESINGER-Well, that would imply that every driveway has to be 20 feet wide, and I don’t think that’s just, I really don’t think that’s the case. MR. SIPP-If you’re set back 100 feet from the road, with a dead end in somebody’s garage, it might not apply there, but if you’re set back 800 feet from the road. MR. MESINGER-Which is not the case here. I mean, this is a driveway that’s, I mean, I can’t keep saying it. I hear your point, and you hear my point. MR. SIPP-I’m not arguing that you’ve got anything wrong here, but what I’m saying is that when this comes up again next week, in a different situation, an access road can be a driveway. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But a driveway is not an access road, and therefore it doesn’t have to meet the State Fire Code, and there’s hundreds of them in Queensbury that don’t. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. SIPP-All right. Well, then, the State Fire Code does not apply to a driveway? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Driveways, no, it does not, but you’ve got to be able to get the fire truck in the driveway before you build your house now, in the area where that truck resides. MR. MESINGER-And I think that’s the point. I mean, the point is, is this designed so that you have safe fire access? And the answer is yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They went one step further. They said they’ve got to turn it around. Most places they tell you to back it out. MR. SIPP-Yes, well, that’s it. They’re going to back up 800 feet? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Sometimes we have to around the lake. MR. MESINGER-Not here. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from Board members? MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve, also, in the past, had situations with questionable driveways, and we kind of threw it up to, well, their fire insurance will be indicative of whether there’s access or not dealt with some of these things. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s also no water. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I have a feeling there’s people in the audience that want to address the Board. I will open the public hearing. I would ask that anyone wishing to speak identify themselves for the record. We do record the minutes. We do record the meeting and prepare minutes from those recordings. I would ask that you address any questions or comments that you have to the Board. Did we pass out the public hearing information this evening? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I did. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on the table out there? MR. OBORNE-It is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I would just ask that anyone wishing to speak follow the outline as provided on that sheet. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM SOTANSKI MR. SOTANSKI-I’m Tom Sotanski. I live at 21 Hiland Drive. I’d say the south end of Case Prime’s property, and I request that all waivers be denied, all of them, and I also, besides the people that they think are going to move there, I also have a right of way on that driveway. Of course my property runs right up to the last telephone pole. Last week, luckily my neighbor was home, a 10 wheeler came up with pressure treated wood, and it looks like he was trying to get into a short cut to 9L again. That’s the problem we have, and he had to back all the way up, from the Prime’s house, all the way down to my driveway, and I would say that’s 1,000 feet, and it’s happening in the winter. The plow has to go up one way, come back down, and then he turns around and he backs up and he plows the other way. There’s no way, they got stuck there every winter they try to turn around, on my property, and it’s certainly a real joke, because it’s a dead end. The State law, I talked to the Town Supervisor. There has to be a dead end sign at the beginning of the road, at Hiland, in the middle, and at the end where the road ends, and that driveway is not, his driveway is not wide enough for two cars to pass. There’s not enough width on our road for two cars to pass, especially if there’s a truck, Town truck hit the mail person two years ago, and she never showed up for work after. I never saw her, but that happened two years ago in a snowstorm, and they also do the same thing with the other road, the dead end street and there’s no dead end signs there. So, and there’s a 40 mile an hour speed limit sign, I believe, or it went down to 30, 30 mile an hour speed limit. The Town wanted to put a blind driveway sign on my lot, but I told them well maybe the dead end sign will slow them down a little, but it doesn’t. They do about 40 and 50 miles an hour, especially when they’re mad when they have to turn around, cars. Basically that’s it. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Ma’am? MARY JANE SOTANSKI MRS. SOTANKSI-My name is Mary Jane Sotanski. I live at 21 Hiland Drive. Tom is my husband. One of the things that you addressed, I’m very concerned about the safety of that road. I raised five children in our property, in our home on 21 Hiland Drive, and they have to walk from our driveway all the way down to the end of the road at Rockwell Road and wait there for the school bus, and I have five children that did this for many years, okay. The way that the curves in those roads are, and the way that things go, if you’re looking at the road, there is no way, let me get the right pictures, there is no way, even with, if you take out all the vegetation from the side of the roads, that you would ever be able to make the road visible from the way that those curves are in the road. I have pictures here of the curve in the road, and I know, I’m not sure if it was Case’s son, but I know the person that came around this corner was doing at least 35, 40 miles an hour, and they almost hit me as I was walking on that side of the road, taking care of my garden. Can you imagine if one of my seven children, the five that I raised up here, was in that area? And you can see the people, you can’t, the sides of the road are so high you can’t see, you cannot see. There is a sign, at the beginning of the road there’s a sign that says 30 miles an hour. Tom and I had the Town put in the dead end sign, and underneath the dead end sign, it says 20 miles an hour. It’s a curve. There’s a curve sign, and then up at Summit there’s another one that says dead end. No one can enforce that 20 mile an hour speed limit going around that corner. This is the way that this area looked when this whole thing started back in October, well, this picture was taken January 5, 2006. The way that the vegetation is now, you can’t see anything. You cannot see anything, and it’s grown and grown and grown, and it’s worse and worse and worse, and it’s not going to get better. MR. TRAVER-You mean the vegetation is blocking the signs? MR. SOTANSKI-Yes. MRS. SOTANSKI-Take them up, let them see. MR. SOTANSKI-Right here, that’s the dead end sign. This is our driveway, and I lost my mailbox three times this year from people backing up trucks. They couldn’t see, they start swinging over trying to get up the hill. MRS. SOTANSKI-Yes, we’ve lost our mailbox three times in three years because of the snow plow guy backing into the mail person. I was just glad it wasn’t one of my kids. MR. KREBS-Doesn’t the Town trim this vegetation? MR. SOTANSKI-They don’t come up and do anything. MRS. SOTANSKI-I’m very sorry. I’m very upset about it, because it is not safe. It’s not safe. This is our new driveway that comes in, that you will not see on the old aerial signs, aerial views, because we had our house re-done, and our house is in one of these pictures. During the course of the winter, a tree blew down and it went across the road in front of our driveway and into Annette’s driveway. Someone called the Town. The Town came and decided that the best way to fix it was to plow the tree in front of our new driveway, and they left it there, and the only ones that took it away were my husband and I. Now my husband has been sick, and we have had to use that front entrance for ambulances to come to our home. This is, you know, this what’s going to happen. This is exactly what’s going to happen. Now the next issue that I have is that, with the four houses, the three houses at the upper end, that are being put in, you can picture that there are going to be six cars, take them up, six cars coming in and out, two for family, to start with, but what if they have grown children, and now you have four cars per family? That’s 12. We have at least four dead enders come up there, up and down that drive every day. They go to the stop sign, the dead end private road sign, and they have to turn around. They have to stop and turn around. That’s where everything ends, and that’s where the big problem is. Now, picture, for a minute, you’ve got 12 kids, not kids, you’ve got 12 cars, you’ve got four cars per house, three, six, nine, their kids, their family, their friends, whatever. That road is not conducive to the level of traffic that is going to be generated by these two other properties being put in on this land, and I think that’s all I have to say, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MRS. SOTANSKI-And by the way, just so you know, I also insist that those waivers be declined. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Ma’am? JOAN MC GRATH MRS. MC GRATH-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MRS. MC GRATH-My name is Joan McGrath and I live at 38 Hiland Drive, which is next to Lot Number Four. In regards to the subdivision proposed by the applicant, I have several observations and comments. The area is indeed rural. There are natural resources that need to be preserved. The applicant has proposed that 4.8 acres are to be cleared. Lot Number One of 5.44 acres, 24% would be cleared. Lot Number Three of 2.81, 45 would be cleared, and Lot Number Four of 2.63 acres, 73% would be cleared, and the driveway loop, a quarter of an acre, would be cleared. This amount of clearing will have a significant impact on the soil, erosion, runoff, plant and tree life, possibly effecting the high water mark of the stream. The environmental impact could be significant for all abutting neighbors. The septic systems are designed on slopes with a gradient of 30 to 40 feet from the house down to the wetlands and the stream. The site test pit results indicated up to five feet of sand. If there is a breach in the septic system, even with clay and silt add to Lots Number One and Four as proposed, the wetlands and stream vegetation and adjoining property will be affected. Following the Town guidelines by placing the septic system at 200 feet will maintain a water quality standard to avoid pollutants to surface waters of the State. I have a question. Why will herbicides and pesticides be used? There is a concern that these products will leach into the wetlands and the stream and cause a negative impact. The freshwater wetlands located in the Town of Queensbury are invaluable resources for flood protection, wildlife habitat, open space and water resources. Considerable acreage of freshwater wetlands in Town has been lost, despoiled, or impaired. Other freshwater wetlands are in jeopardy of being lost, despoiled or impaired. Recurrent flooding, aggravated or caused by the loss of freshwater wetlands, has serious effects upon natural eco systems. Any loss of freshwater wetlands deprives the people of the Town of Queensbury of some or all of the many and multiple benefits, such as flood and storm control, wildlife habitat, protection of subsurface water resources and erosion control. The applicant is requesting waivers for the following, to show wells and septic systems on adjacent properties outside of the subdivision; Number Two, to provide stormwater drainage system plan and construction details, grading and erosion control plans and drainage report; Three, to show the existing contours of the areas 100 feet off the site; Four, to show utility lines, culverts and drain pipes on the adjacent lots; and Number Five to obtain a permit from DEC to improve the driveway. The request for waivers needs to be denied as they are not reasonable. He has submitted plans with houses, wells, septic systems and driveways. He needs to complete the plans with all the requirements as noted above. Abutters and neighbors have the right to review these plans in order to assess pre and post construction effects on the land, and includes stormwater, grading, erosion and drainage issues. Putting the responsibility for applying for permits to individual owners will be a burden not only for them but also for the abutters in the Town. If each new owner seeks a permit, this subdivision could take years, depending on how long it takes to sell each lot. If the Planning Board approves the applicant’s subdivision plans, the new owners will think that the lots are buildable as is, that no further Planning or Zoning Board approval is necessary to build a house, a driveway or a septic system. If the application by the new owner is denied, the Town could be sued to overturn the Board’s decision. The applicant should submit an analysis with supporting data on the impact of the project on the environment, both during construction and thereafter as the project is expected to take six months, and one of the long term plans for land use by the Town of Queensbury is to, quote, examine and plan other ways to make Halfway Brook an important natural amenity, which is part of that watershed. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. FRED UNKAUF MR. UNKAUF-Hi. I’m Fred Unkauf. I reside at 38 Hiland Drive, and I’m an engineer by profession. So I’ll try to use a few numbers. The proposed two acre lot sizes of Lots Three and Four are not consistent with the neighborhood. The Sketch Plan shows all the properties located within 500 feet of the project site. That includes about 29 house lots, 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) with a total aggregate acreage of about 138 acres, which comes out as an average of 4.7 acres per house lot. The properties that are most effected are the properties that directly abut Hiland Drive. There are five house lots currently over 35 acres, or seven acres on the average per lot, and so Lots Three and Four, at about two acres each, would really not be consistent with the average. As a result, they’re going to reduce the rural nature of the neighborhood and basically lower property values. Combing Lots Three and Four into a single lot would certainly make that a more consistent solution. I’m concerned about the septic systems for Lots One, Three, and Four, and especially for Lots One and Four. Lots One and Four did not pass their percolation test, and as a result would normally require a 200 foot separation from wetlands, but their separation is just over 100 feet. I believe the soil here is very unusual. It has a very high sand content, as shown in the test pits that were dug, but it doesn’t show what, the test pits did not show what’s under that sand. A few years ago, I had an occasion to dig a test pit on my own property, and my property is adjacent to Lot Number Four and has about the same elevation profile as Lot Number Four. I dug a test pit at about the same elevation that they’ve proposed to put in their septic field. What I found, after about a few inches of topsoil, was four and a half feet of sand that one could best describe as beach sand. It changed color from brown to gray as one went down, but it was basically just like beach sand, very porous, very easy for water to get through. At the bottom of that, however, I found something I can only describe as hard pan within about an inch of striking the bottom, my shovel was then bouncing off that surface, and it felt like concrete. It took some hard work with a pick just to go down a few more inches. What I did then was to pour some water into that hole, and what happened was it just drained out of the hole as quickly as I could put it in with the hose, but it remained standing, in those bottom couple of inches of the pit, which was the hard pan. So I would see coming out of that is sort of a, if you can envision a huge culvert at about a 20% grade going down into the wetlands that happens to be filled with sand. Anything that escapes the leaching field is going to wind up in that sand, is going to get trapped and just wind up in the wetlands. I was more interested because the lower half of my property, which is about the same elevation as the applicant’s property, as it reaches the wetlands, was very wet, consistently wet, and many of the trees in there have been dying, and in some cases I could go to a 70 foot tree and just push it over, the roots were so weak, and I’ve concluded that what’s happening is that the water is going right through that sand bed. Even when we have heavy rainfalls, water in my upper couple of acres of lawn is just going right through the earth winding up getting deposited at the lower elevation. The same is going to happen to any sewage that winds up escaping from the leaching fields from the proposed site. So I’m recommending that a study be done to more carefully look at the layering, the very strong layering effects in the soil, to see whether or not in fact the 100 foot separation with some amount of backfill is going to actually produce a workable septic system and protect the environment. I also request that the waiver not be granted to the requirement to show wells and septic systems on adjacent properties. My property has two septic systems, and one of them is, in fact, adjacent to Lot Number Four. I also request that a waiver not be granted to provide stormwater drainage system plans and erosion control and grading and so on. Most of the land is going to be clear cut, especially on Lots Three and Four, which are basically downhill lots going right into the wetlands. Any runoff that occurs from the soil is going to further increase the wetness in the so called buffer zone for the wetlands and cause more trees to die off in that region, just as my trees have been dying off, and I’m a little bit further away from the wetlands, but they’re dying off simply because of the characteristics of the soil. So as one takes more vegetation away, and that’s not just the soil, the fact that I have all of this lawn, but on these new houses, they’re going to have the same sort of a lawn situation. They’re going to have drainage going through that sand right into the same wetland. If I may make one last comment. The applicant has proposed a number of covenants and restrictions that would be incorporated in the deeds that would provide, presumably, some minimum protection for abutters in terms of privacy and safety in terms of the driveway and so on. My lawyer says that those covenants are really kind of worthless because at any time the new landowners can get together and decide to scrap all those covenants and take them out of their deeds. The only way that those covenants would have any enforceability is if you folks make them part of any building permit that you issue in the future. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. JERRY BECKWITH MR. BECKWITH-Good evening. My name’s Jerry Beckwith. I live at 1023 Ridge Road, just behind Lots Three and Four, and my concerns are the same as the McGrath’s, and also I’m concerned about the clear cutting of the trees, the 45 and 73% clearing on those, and again, there’s a brook that runs behind my property. It goes into Halfway 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) Brook, and like I say, I‘m concerned about the drainage from those lots into that brook and into Halfway Brook. So I’m opposed to all of it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. ANNETTE DELAHOYD MS. DELAHOYD-Hi. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. DELAHOYD-My name is Annette Delahoyd, and I reside at 30 Hiland Drive. I am the house that is next to the Unkauf/McGrath property. It’s a unique property. I have some maps here. It’s unique because it sits on top of the hill. My house sits on top of a hill. My driveway is parallel to the street. It comes down to enter my drive. I’m concerned about safety, by the way. You have to take a really sharp turn. It’s probably a 180. It’s not a problem in the summertime, but you can guess that it’s a problem in the wintertime. What has me very concerned is that the variance was granted which has sealed the deal that this is a private turnabout. We really don’t have a legitimate rd turnabout. The issue of safety that Mr. Sipp brought up is really a concern. July 3, as an example, I think someone mentioned, this great, big, long tractor trailer flat bed with construction, prefab construction on it, I don’t think they were looking for a through place, I think they had the address confused, Hiland Drive with Hiland Estates up on Haviland. The truck went all the way down, did not turn around. It backed out. Again, the concern is the road turns. It’s this back up traffic that is a problem. In the wintertime we have snow plows that back up. Now technically, which I discovered later on, in my searches, there is, what they call the hammerhead turnabout. There are two easements, but one of the easements is private property, has another easement on it. Now that sits at the end of my driveway, is now part of the Unkauf property. That gets snow backed right into it. Now my problem with my personal issue with the snow removal, I need a very wide apron at the bottom of my driveway. If I don’t have it, I can’t get a running start to get up the driveway, neither can the oil truck come up, propane truck, or possibly an emergency vehicle, I hope I don’t need one, but that is, so snow is an issue with me. Now, with, if that, let’s just say that piece of property were cleared for an easement, there’s also a utility pole there. The Town’s going to, you talk about cost. They have to move a utility pole. It’s going to jeopardize the Unkauf property. It’s going to jeopardize my property in value. So as far as I’m concerned, that turnabout that’s been deeded to the Town, it hasn’t been used in 40 years. To assume that it’s appropriate to start using it now is bogus. I don’t know what to say. I don’t know why we have to have a judgment from the courts to say that this has to be a private road. It didn’t solve any problem, except perhaps the problem of cost to the applicant, and I just don’t think it’s a good neighbor policy. If that were open for all vehicles to turn around, it would be a safer street because backing up is not a safe alternative. Now, if you want to see pictures of my driveway, I have them. I have copies of the deed and the map so you can, you know, see that it’s for real. It’s also in the Zoning Board packets. It’s not in this packet, but that judgment was made, in my opinion, erroneously. The issue of safety came up at the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board thought that I was concerned about a fire truck or a safety vehicle turning around on the private property. I was not. I’m concerned that there is no appropriate turn around. Now to say that we still have a turn around, again, is incorrect, because that’s sort of like regressing. If you ask the neighbors on Summit Lane who have a hammerhead turn around at the top of their hill, it’s a miserable condition, because there’s a house on, all around that hammerhead, there’s a house down in a gully, and the snow removal is a problem, and again, the plows have to back in, back out. Garbage trucks back in and back out. I don’t have garbage service at my curb. I go to the landfill, but someday somebody might, and they’re big trucks, and someday there will be children again in the neighborhood. We’re all old in this neighborhood. We’re all going to go away eventually, and the young people will move in with kids. So I see this as an opportunity for the neighborhood to be improved if that could possibly be a public turnabout. Now, I don’t know what you do with this issue, but that is my concern, and I think it’s legitimate. So, if you want pictures of my driveway and what it actually looks like, I can pass them out to you. Also, one other thing. There is a utility line that crosses the road, and I don’t believe a fire truck can, a big truck with hook and ladder, whatever, can go under there, because it’s flagged, because it hangs really low. So there are safety issues, and I think you need to look into them, and it has a long history. So, do you care to see any of this? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, why don’t you start it down there. Thank you. MS. DELAHOYD-All right. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. ANTHONY VIDETTO MR. VIDETTO-Good evening. My name is Anthony Videtto. I live at 1031 Ridge Road. My concern is with my well water. My well is located in the rear of my house between my house and the proposed subdivision on the hill. My property is located quite a few feet below the level of that development. I don’t know anything about septic systems or leaching fields or anything like that, but I just want to make sure that everything is done by the Planning Board to make my home safe for me. Therefore I’m not sure these waivers should be granted. I think we should be aware of everything that’s supposed to be there and they should follow all the steps that are necessary to follow. I thank you for letting me speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You’re welcome. Good evening. MARY JANE MOELLER MS. MOELLER-Good evening. My name is Mary Jane Moeller and I live at 13 Summit Lane, and my property abuts the Unkauf’s property and Annette Delahoyd’s property. I probably have the least footage within the Prime property there, but I do have footage. My main concern is my well water. Several years ago my late husband started complaining to me how the water had changed in taste, and I noticed that also. Then a few years ago I started using the highest grade house filter that I could possibly buy, because I knew something was wrong, and I had already been told by a well person and my plumber that the water coming into the house now had changed over the years, and I can put in a three month or a six month high grade filter, and within one month now that filter has to be changed. I have talked to people and they say what has happened now is the underground veins going perhaps from the area of the Prime property across Annette’s property is the reason that my water is changing. So, with that said, I would like to deny that those four waivers be passed. Anything that has to do with the wells, the septics, anything, I would appreciate not having those waivers passed. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? SCOTT BALLARD MR. BALLARD-Hello. My name is Scott Ballard. I reside at 20 Howe Drive, adjacent to Lots Number One and Two. My one question is probably for Staff concerning if the waivers are granted at this stage for the stormwater and well and septic issues, is that becoming a blanket waiver in the future for any future purchaser of any of the lots that we would, as abutters, not be notified at that point of any changes or alterations or their plans at that point, or is that something that, in the future, we would be notified about so we’d have some indication? And also I guess my other question would be, as addressed by Mr. Mesinger is, I know they did a fairly substantial survey of the wetlands and demarcating those, but in terms of the physical property lines of the abutters, if any of that is to be demarcated prior to the sale of any of the lots at all. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open, but we will stop taking testimony this evening. If the applicant wants to come back up to the table. I don’t know if you have any comments to the Board, based on some of the concerns that you’ve heard? MR. MESINGER-I think if you guys will take a few minutes, it would probably be appropriate for us to address them. If you want to hear them, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MESINGER-With respect to the waivers, and the waiver that I think people are, the two that people were most concerned about, one having to do with the location of the wells and septic, and I think you know the issue, but so that the abutters at least can hear it because I’m not sure that everybody here does. It has nothing to do with design. What it has to do with, the reason that that requirement is here is to make sure that when you, when a new person puts in a well, or a septic system, it doesn’t affect, or be affected by the well or septic system of the neighbors, and as we all know the required separation distance is 100 feet, and so the idea is if you were to put a well on your 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) property line, then we’d want to know, was there a septic system within 100 feet of that that would affect it. All of our systems are more than 100 feet from our property line. So there isn’t a reason, a realistic reason to require that, that we locate other people’s systems, because they already exceed that minimum 100 feet. In other words, it’s built in to the design of the subdivision that we meet that requirement. So that’s why we’ve asked for that waiver. With respect to the waiver on the design of the stormwater and grading plans for each lot, I think John explained it very well. We could certainly do that for you, but you might be looking at it again because these lots are large enough that people have a good deal of leeway in terms of how they design. We’re not saying don’t do it. We’re saying let the person who actually builds there ask for the waiver, or rather design this system and come in front of you, and the plans clearly state that they have to do that. It’s your choice whether you do it or you have Staff do it. It gets done. It just gets done at a more appropriate step. I wanted to talk about the right of way that exists for the Town to turn around in. Nothing that we are doing in this plan affects that in any way. That right of way still exists. It’s there if the Town chooses to use it. It’s there if the Town doesn’t choose to use it. There are not one but two letters in your record from the Town Highway Superintendent, one at the Zoning Board stage and one in your application package, from the Town Highway Superintendent saying that he has no objection to this proposal and that it does not affect him in any way. They’re happy with the way they’re plowing it now. I understand the neighbors are not, but nothing that we do affects that. It continues to get plowed in the same way. With respect to making Mr. Prime’s driveway a public road, he chooses not to do that. He feels the value of his property and this project is enhanced the way he’s designed it, and the court has specifically allowed him to do it that way. I hear the neighbor’s concerns about the vegetation and the signage on the roads. Those are Town issues. If I lived there, I’d try to get the Town, obviously, to clear the vegetation out. There’s nothing that Mr. Prime is doing, or this project is doing, that would affect that, and, you know, with respect to the safety of kids walking, again, the Town should cut the vegetation back. Obviously, it’s not a terrible situation if five kids did it for a number of years, two houses is not a lot of cars on this roadway. A couple of other things. Let me just go through my notes here. With respect to the amount of clearing on the lots, Queensbury doesn’t have a requirement that limits clearing on lots, as you know. In fact, what we’re proposing to do is in excess of the requirements. There’s a buffer along the lot lines of 20 feet that is in excess of the 15 foot setback requirement, and we’re proposing to leave, on the new lots, the 100 foot buffer from the wetlands uncleared. So that’s in excess of any requirement that the Town has. With respect to use of herbicides and pesticides, I’m not aware that the Town has any rules regulating private use of herbicides and pesticides. With respect to the idea that the density or the design of this project isn’t consistent with the neighborhood, we very strongly disagree with that. We’d presented an aerial photograph, if I recall, to the Zoning Board of Appeals that illustrated the housing around there. The average housing density that was reported by Mr. Unkauf is 4.7 acres per house. We can do the math here and see that four houses, on average, on a 16 acre property, is four acres per house. In any averaging exercise, some are bigger. Some are smaller. In fact, we’re at a minimum more than twice as big as the minimum lot size in the district. With respect to the percolation test and the characteristics of soils, it’s not true that Lots One and Four didn’t pass their percolation test. What Lots One and Four need is a modified system that the Town of Queensbury allows. The Town Engineer has asked us to put a note to that effect. I think you can look to him for advice as to the suitability of these soils. If you go ahead and look at the test pit data for the lots in question, you’ll see that, in fact, we’ve found loam and sand to a depth greater than four and a half feet, as cited by Mr. Unkauf. We didn’t find that hard pan layer, and those results you’ll see on the engineering plans in front of you, and again, I’d just say you look to your engineer. That’s what he’s here for. We think these systems, we know these systems comply with all the relevant requirements, and they’re far enough, and several neighbors came in and quite legitimately said I’m concerned about my well. I don’t know a lot about this project. That’s the right concern to have. Again, we’re more than 100 feet from our own property lines and we have soils that meet the minimum requirements for a perc test. I think I’ve touched on all the points that I wanted to touch on, and I will now see if, John, was there anything I missed? MR. CAFFRY-I just wanted to cover a few issues. John Caffry again. I think the thing to stress is that adding two new houses on Hiland Drive is not going to exacerbate this situation. It’s a Town road. It’s a Town road. It’s maintained by the Town up to the point where it becomes a private drive. If you have two houses with a couple of cars, the amount of traffic there is not going to make things any worse than they may or may not be. If it needs more dead end signs, well then people could ask the Town Highway Department to install more dead end signs. We have no problem with that. I think, with regard to kids walking to school, the Primes raised four kids up there. The youngest one, Ted, sitting back there, you know, I don’t think it’s a problem walking down to Rockwell 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) Road to catch the school bus. With regard to the clearing, the other thing I want to make clear, too, is we’ve shown buffer zones around the wetlands, around the property lines. Nobody is saying that the people that buy these lots are going to clear cut everything else, up to those lines. Those are lines of where people may not cut. Most people that come in are not going to strip the entire lot right up to those lines, and again, Queensbury doesn’t usually regulate that for subdivisions, but I just want to stress that it’s not that that’s going to mean, we’re not proposing to go in and rip down those trees. People are going to want trees around their homes, and it varies depending on what people want, but these are large lots. It’s not likely that’s going to happen. So I just wanted to clarify that one issue there. With regard to the septic and everything else, people had concerns about that, but I think the engineers have shown, and the Town Engineer didn’t have any problems with it, that we meet all the standards for the septic systems, and we wouldn’t propose something that didn’t. So the people that are, some people are concerned about their wells, but they’re basically uphill or up gradient. It’s not going to be an issue. The people over on Ridge Road that had a concern, I think that they should be assured that, you know, our engineers designed it and the Town Engineer approved it as meeting all the standards. So I don’t think they should have anything to worry about down there. So, again, that shouldn’t be a problem and with the hammerhead turnarounds, we’re not proposing, somebody objected to us using it. We’re not proposing to use those hammerheads. As Stuart said, the Town can if they want to, but we aren’t proposing to change them. That’s not going to change, and if there’s an existing problem with people turning around or going up the wrong way and having to back out, we didn’t create that situation, or this project didn’t create that situation, and by putting a couple of houses up there we’re not making it any worse. Maybe there’s something that could be done with signage to reduce that, but it’s not a problem related to this, and legally your decision has to be limited to what’s related to this project, not to some pre-existing problem that we are making worse. If we made it worse, that would be one thing, but we’re not making that any worse. So we don’t think that’s really pertinent to the decision this Board has to make. There may be another solution elsewhere. So that’s basically what I wanted to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Just to clarify the process. This is really a question, I suppose, for Staff or for you, Mr. Chairman. This subdivision, if granted, is still going to require the purchaser, if any, of these three additional lots, to come before this Board to get their specific designs approved as far as septic and stormwater management and so on. Is that correct? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m going to pass that to Staff, but. MR. OBORNE-Well, permits would have to be issued. So that is one buffer right there to make sure that those happen. We have a system in-house that can flag those issues. MRS. STEFFAN-But that has to be a plat notation, correct? Because if they’re sold individually and people just apply for building permits, they don’t have to come for Site Plan Review. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. If this is, exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-If its sold by a developer, it’s a different, if they’re going to develop it. MR. CAFFRY-The plat already says that the buyers would have to get approval for the stormwater and related plans. That’s already a note on the plat. If this Board decides you want to retain that jurisdiction and do it through Site Plan Review yourselves, rather than having just the Staff do it, we would just amend the note. We could put that on the final plat. That wouldn’t be a problem, and it is more work for you, but if that’s the way you went, that’s all we’d have to do is just amend the plat a little bit. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? Where we do we want to go with this tonight? MRS. STEFFAN-This is Preliminary subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think that’s my main concern is that with the nature of the, the apparent nature of the soils and so on, that we have an opportunity to review the specifics of any building projects that are conducted in the future on these three sites. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) So if we can make that notation and that’s acceptable to the applicant, I think that that would be wise. MR. CAFFRY-Yes, we wouldn’t object to that, if you wanted to make that a condition. Again, that’s the kind of thing we would just tweak when we submit the final plat and. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. KREBS-I was just saying, that protects the public. You’ll have an opportunity, as you asked, to come back again and make any comments that you want when you know what the final design is for each of those lines. MR. TRAVER-The proposed design. MR. KREBS-The proposed design. MR. HUNSINGER-Are members of the Board comfortable in moving forward? MRS. STEFFAN-What about, some of the concerns that the neighbors had were about clearing limits. So somebody could buy a piece of property and they could clear it before they came for Site Plan Review. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Up to the buffer zone. MR. HUNSINGER-Up to the buffer. MR. KREBS-You can’t control that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you can do that on any piece of land. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. MESINGER-And the buffer exceeds the setback line. I point that out on the non- wetland portions, but you’re right. I mean, anybody can do that within the, if you’ve been back there, these are very nice lots, with mature trees. You’d be cutting down what you bought. It just wouldn’t make sense. MRS. STEFFAN-But developers do that kind of thing. Individuals don’t often do that, but often it’s easier for a developer, and so they will often clear things to put services in. MR. HUNSINGER-Or to create a view shed. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if members are comfortable moving forward, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And we’ll move to SEQRA, Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN- Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: R. CASE PRIME, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We do have engineering comments remaining. One of the things I noticed on the plan is that Lots Two and Three aren’t labeled. Lot One and Four are labeled, but Lots Two and Three aren’t labeled. MR. OBORNE-They’re difficult to see. They are labeled. MR. CAFFRY-It’s in the buffer. MR. MESINGER-Yes, it’s in the buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s in the buffer. MR. CAFFRY-We can move it so it’s more visible. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, now I see it. Okay. I stand corrected. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, have the waivers been dealt with? MR. HUNSINGER-Not yet. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-They asked for stormwater, contours, well and septic, and utility lines on the adjacent properties. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2008 R. CASE PRIME, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 16.4 +/- acre parcel into four lots ranging in size from 2.63 to 5.44 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval per Chapter A-183; and 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/15/08; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; OR if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7) The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8) NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9) NOT APPLICABLE The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2008 R. CASE PRIME, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative Declaration. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not apply. This is approved with the following conditions. 1. That for Final approval the applicant will have to satisfy VISION Engineering comments and Staff Notes. 2. That the applicant, in preparation for Final approval, will need to add a plat notation that each lot will require Site Plan Review. 3. The Planning Board has granted waivers for wells, septic, stormwater, drainage, utility lines on adjacent properties. th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Just for clarification for members of the public, basically what we did is we did grant the waivers that they requested, but we will require each property owner, before they build a house, to come back before this Board for further Site Plan Review. There would be a public hearing and there would be another opportunity for public comment. You’re all set for Final. MR. MESINGER-Thank you. MR. CAFFRY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We do have one more item of business, and that is the letter that was submitted to us when we came in this evening on GRJH, Inc. at the Exit 18 Citgo, requesting presence before us next week. Apparently the building was built two feet away, if I read this right, two feet west of where it was shown on the plan? MR. OBORNE-Two feet? Is that what it is, two feet? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what this says here, and they list a number of changes, and then request that they come present their changes to us next week, so that they can continue construction. Apparently, I guess Staff has maybe issued a Stop Work Order. MR. OBORNE-Yes. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I wondered why they stopped moving on that. MR. HUNSINGER-What is the feeling of the Board? There is a response comment from Craig Brown, too, where he states that submittal to the Planning Board should include all supporting documentation, including stormwater management report, lighting plan, landscaping, grading plan, etc. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, evidently there are sufficient changes that it’s a new application. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s kind of my feeling. I mean, I don’t know how we can possibly have that come to us the night of the meeting, explain to us all of the changes, and expect us to be able to assimilate that and make a determination. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think it also has to raise a concern if they did not build the, they started construction and failed to follow their own plans. I would be quite concerned that whatever information they try to prepare for us in less than a week may not be representing what they now intend to do. I think it should be reviewed by Staff, and by the Town Engineer and go through, certainly a red flag to me that they need to go through that whole process. MR. OBORNE-And as a caveat, though, having Dan Ryan have to look at that within a week, I mean, that is a no go, just right from the start, it’s a lot to ask. MR. TRAVER-It’s just not reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think you heard the feeling of the Board. MR. OBORNE-The will of the Board, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Submit the information and get on the agenda. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and Craig’s pretty succinct in what he wants. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-I mean, I think Laforte is another issue you might want to address, nd because it has to do with a request to just basically move up to the 22 there, and I might have misstated by saying they don’t have. They, in fact, do have their plans ready. nd They’re going to move it up as quickly as possible, if you do say it’s okay on the 22. Again, that would be hard on the Staff and VISION Engineering, again. MR. HUNSINGER-Didn’t we already talk about Laforte? MR. OBORNE-Yes, we did talk about Laforte. I don’t think we made. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We tabled it to August. MR. OBORNE-Right. You have tabled them into August. That is correct. So that’s a non-issue, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The only other thing I had, unless anyone else wants to bring up anything, is we talked about this I think maybe one or two months ago, the New York Conference of Mayors in conjunction with the Association of Towns and the State of New York Planning Federation are sponsoring Planning and Zoning Summer Schools, they rd call it, and next week it’s going to be held here, in this very room, on July 23, and I did contact Staff. The Town will pay for you to attend. The cost is $60. I’m planning to go. It does count towards the required four hours of training that we have to take every year. So you can just go to the one session. It is all day. It starts at 8:15 and ends at 3:45. I just wanted to bring it back up as a reminder. Yes. Okay. If there’s nothing else, a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 15, 2008, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/15/08) th Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 69