Loading...
2008.08.19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 3-2007 Vance Cohen 1. Tax Map No. 295.8-1-2 (Cont’d Pg. 74) Site Plan No. 26-2008 Robert & Anne Clark 2. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-54 Site Plan No. 64-2007 Brian McCall 3. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-39, 38 Subdivision No. 11-2007 Larry Clute 5. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 Site Plan No. 20-2008 Laforte Construction 20. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-33 Site Plan No. 27-2008 Tom & Dusty Putnam 36. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-7 Site Plan No. 52-2007 GRJH, Inc. 47. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 309.14-1-6 Site Plan No. 33-2008 Della Auto Group 58. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-43, 44 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 08/19/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER TANYA BRUNO DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, August 19, 2008. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes th from June 17 and June 24, 2008. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 17, 2008 June 24, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FROM JUNE 17 & JUNE 24, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 VANCE COHEN MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is Administrative Items. The first one is Site Plan No. 3-2007 for Vance Cohen, who has requested a one year extension of a Site Plan that was approved on 8/28/07. Do you know, has the applicant started any work at all? MR. OBORNE-No, he has not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you know what his intention is? I mean, we got the hand written note, but it didn’t provide a lot of information. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Basically he’s just looking for an extension for his approved Site Plan up on Route 9. He hasn’t started it yet, and he would like to keep every and all parameters of that approved Site Plan in place for another year. MRS. BRUNO-Didn’t he request for both of his places, the one by The Great Escape for the parking, and the one up in the Outlets to be extended? Isn’t that what I read in his handwritten note? I can’t find it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There were two separate Site Plans. MR. OBORNE-They’re both on the same property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-No. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. OBORNE-I’m pretty sure, yes. MR. KREBS-Well, there’s 1471 State Route 9, and there’s 1159-1161 State Route 9. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. FORD-In checking, one of the stipulations we had before, as I recall, was some signage pertaining to the safety of pedestrians, and in checking that sign, or that site, I don’t recall seeing that signage present. MR. SIPP-It’s up there, Tom. It’s a handwritten sign that he’s got. MR. HUNSINGER-A handwritten sign. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. SIPP-Right by the little shack there was the hotdog stand. It’s only been there about a week. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I saw it. It’s rough, but it’s there. MR. FORD-Okay. Well, see, I haven’t checked in the last week. I’ve been checking in the last year since we granted that. MR. SIPP-Up until about a week ago it hadn’t been put up. I was going to mention it myself. It’s there now, but it’s a handwritten sign and it hasn’t stopped too many people from crossing the road. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other discussions, comments? They are clearly two separate site plans. MRS. BRUNO-My concern, and I don’t know if we really have the ability or power to do anything about anything, but since we have reviewed both projects, the one in particular up in the Outlets has kind of gone in the other direction, and it’s becoming an eyesore. Is there any sort of stipulations or enforcement that we could kind of get them to? No? MR. OBORNE-I am under the impression that he’s looking for, in this case, the Site Plan approval to be extended for another year, and I’m not familiar with the other one. I think that’s because it’s a building permit. That’s what I read here on the letter. MRS. BRUNO-The one up in the Outlets, right, for the go karts? And that’s the one I’m referring to. MR. OBORNE-That’s a building permit. They want an extension for that, and then also they want an extension for the Site Plan down by The Great Escape. So, yes, I misspoke earlier. Absolutely they’re two separate plans, but one deals with a building permit and the other deals with a Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we postpone that resolution until next week? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-That would give the Board a chance to swing by both sites, and also give Staff the time to get the site plan number for the go kart project on State road. MR. OBORNE-It will. MR. HUNSINGER-People okay with that, we’ll deal with this next Tuesday? MRS. BRUNO-I agree. Yes. MR. FORD-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 26-2008 ROBERT & ANNE CLARK FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next item is a further tabling consideration for Robert and Anne Clark, Site Plan No. 26-2008. It was tabled to this evening. The public hearing was held open. Apparently they haven’t provided the requested information. Is that a fair assumption? MR. OBORNE-Correct. They didn’t have the time. They have since submitted by the deadline date and you will see them next month. MR. HUNSINGER-We will see them next month? Okay. MR. FORD-Is there anyone who showed up tonight specifically for that, public? MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here for the Robert and Anne Clark project, Site Plan No. 26-2008? Okay. MR. FORD-Thanks for checking, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing was left open, and we will leave it open. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to table that to a specific date in September? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We should. I’m pulling the calendar up now. The two dates in thrd September are the 16 and the 23. th MR. KREBS-The 16 is already full, isn’t it? MRS. BRUNO-They both are. rd MR. TRAVER-It would be the 23. rd MR. OBORNE-23 or October. You’re talking about Clark. Clark was already tabled to th September 16, per the resolution, I believe. MRS. BRUNO-8/19. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s tabled until this evening. MR. OBORNE-Until this evening? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why it’s on the agenda tonight. rd MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we’ll table it until the 23, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2008 ROBERT & ANNE CLARK, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the Planning Board’s September 23, 2008 meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 SEQR TYPE II BRIAN MC CALL AGENT(S) ALBERT MUGRACE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 274 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF TWO WORK BAYS & STORAGE FOR TIRE WAREHOUSE. AUTO REPAIR AND RETAIL USES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1-08, SV 59-01, SP 44-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 LOT SIZE 0.58, ACRES 0.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-39, 38 SECTION 179-4-020 MR. HUNSINGER-And we did receive a letter this evening requesting that we table it because he hasn’t addressed the items. Hopefully I’m not the only one that got the letter. MR. OBORNE-I have one in the file if you want me to pull it out for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. A letter dated today from Mr. McCall. It says, “To Mr. Chairman: I request your consideration to table Site Plan No. 64-2007. I received a letter from the Planning Board on August 18, 2008, and would like time to address the concerns listed.” I think what he’s referring to is the letter from the engineer. Is there anyone here this evening that wanted to address the Board on the Brian McCall application? Okay. What’s the will of the Board? The applicant’s not here. MRS. BRUNO-I would much prefer that somebody did what he did, rather than, you know, go through a partial application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. We already heard that the, has anyone spoken to Mr. McCall? Did he give you any indication when he might be able to address the concerns from the engineer? MR. OBORNE-He was under the advisement of his counsel and engineer to table it. He did not seek a specific tabling date. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Has he submitted any additional information as a result of the engineering comments? MR. OBORNE-He has not. MR. TRAVER-Do we have any information as to when the culvert work is going to be undertaken? MR. OBORNE-The Homer Avenue? At this point, it has not been put out to bid. I think we discussed this previously. There’s still a little bit more work that needs to be done, and obviously a lot more cooperation before that gets going. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I think the only question is if we table it until September or until October. MR. FORD-Let’s do October. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to hear anything from the public? I think there’s somebody who’s here to comment on it? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any objections to holding your comments until the October meeting, or would you like the opportunity to make some comments? JEFF MEYER MR. MEYER-Could I submit a letter? MR. HUNSINGER-You sure can. Yes, you can submit it to Staff and we’ll make sure that Mr. McCall gets a copy, or did you have copies for everyone? MR. MEYER-I have copies for everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So what’s the date of the tabling, then? st MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t list the date yet. The two meetings in October are the 21 thst and the 28. I think my inclination would be to table it to the 21. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to the Planning Board’s October 21, 2008 meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE st MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we will re-hear the project on the 21 of October. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE I LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-20 LOCATION BETWEEN GENEVA DR. & HOWARD ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 7.81 +/- ACRES INTO 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.34 TO 0.54 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA/NYS DOH NYS DOH LOT SIZE 7.81 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-I shall. Application’s Subdivision No. 11-2007. This is Preliminary. Applicant is Larry Clute. The requested action is Preliminary Stage subdivision review. The applicant proposes a subdivision of 7.81 acres into 18 residential lots. Planning Board review and approval required for the subdivision of land. Note, the Planning Board has acknowledged Lead Agency Status, commenced SEQRA review, and forwarded their recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals has approved Area Variance No. 52-07 which addressed density issues. The applicant is now before the Planning Board for Preliminary subdivision review. The location is the addition to Geneva Drive. Existing zoning is SR-20, and it’s within a mobile home overlay district. Type I realty subdivision is the SEQRA status, and there’s been numerous parcel histories. Again, the project description was above. Staff comments: The applicant previously submitted a plan for the subdivision of 7.81 acres into 20 residential lots ranging from 0.29 acres to 0.39 acres. The applicant has submitted updated plans to represent a decrease in total lots to 18, with lot sizes referenced above, and those lot sizes referenced, again, are 0.34 acres to 0.56 acres. The Zoning Board of Appeals has received your recommendation from the Planning Board on the following: potential traffic impacts, lot size, density in relation to Comprehensive Plan, positive or negative effects on the development of open space, and public concerns. I’m going to go ahead and read into the record that the applicant, if allowed to build, can satisfy their density issues, although that was already approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. A little history of Geneva Estates. It was created as a cluster subdivision in 1993 when the zoning for the subdivision called for one acre lots. It th was settled that the 10 and final lot of Geneva Estates was to be oversized in order to th meet the requirements for the proposed cluster subdivision. It is this 10 lot that is to be subdivided. The spirit of the approval was to keep this lot an open space. The zoning has changed from one acre to 43,560 square feet per lot down to 20,000 square feet per lot, and one more note is in relation to the Town’s 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the recommendations for the moderate density residential planning areas should be considered. Particular attention should be paid to the conservation subdivision recommendations and lot density recommendations. See attached. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Larry Clute and Tom Center. When we were here last month, we had a very full discussion with the Board and on that basis you did the SEQRA review and granted a Neg Dec and we went to the Zoning Board the next night, and as Keith said, we were granted the variance for the smaller lots, which was essentially to match what’s in the neighborhood already. So we’re here for Preliminary and when we were here last time with this Board you asked us to include a 10 foot no cut buffer on the back by Queen Victoria’s Grant. That didn’t make it on to the Preliminary submission, but we’ve now made the Final submission, and 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) that is pending, hopefully, for next month, and that is included in the final subdivision plan. So we did what the Board asked in that respect, and I think we really went through most of the issues last time. I want to just ask Tom to talk about his discussions today with the Town Engineer, just a few issues that are left. MR. CENTER-The same engineering comments that we had the last time we were up in front we addressed those with the Town Engineer. I was trying to get with him before we got the submission. I ended up submitting it on Friday. I met with him this afternoon to go over all the comments. He was going to try to get in touch with Staff. I don’t know if he was able to get in touch with the office, but we did come to agreement on the, I believe it was four items that he had, five, six, seven, and eight, which were the same ones that we discussed at the last meeting. Number Five was additional site testing. What we’ve done is added to Drawing S-7 is a note basically stating that, prior to construction of each septic system, perc tests shall be performed by the engineer in the area of the septic system, to confirm that we have the adequate percolation rate, whether it’s a minute, minute and five, or under a minute. We’ve also added to S-7 modified soil systems, in case we do have a perc rate that’s less than a minute. We’re going to be moving some material in order to construct a road and some of these lots, so we wanted to make sure that we have the adequate perc rate on the site, prior to construction of the system. The second question was in regards to the pre-treatment for the drywells for the road. We discussed that. Again, the Town of Queensbury has an understanding with New York State DEC to allow for direct entry with the drywells for the stormwater and the wing swale, that as long as they maintain them on an annual basis, it’s similar to everything we’ve submitted previously with the stormwater systems in the Town, in the roadways. Number Seven was in regards to infiltration of the side slopes on the drywells, which we discussed last meeting, and our calculations as stated in here. Our calculations, we neglect the bottom of the drywell in the calculations to account for siltation over time, and the last item was a maintenance procedures for the permanent stormwater structures, which we added a note to the stormwater management report basically stating that they’re going to be maintained by the Town Highway Department under their agreement, or understanding with New York State DEC for the drywell maintenance on an annual basis. So those were the four issues. We went over those with Dan. We believe we’ll have a signoff. There was nothing additional that he asked for at this time. I believe prior to final we’ll have that signoff with him. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. CENTER-Also as John stated, we’ve added, on the final drawings, we’ve added that 10 foot no cut along the property line between Geneva and Queen Victoria’s Grant. MR. FORD-Could we just ask for a bit of clarification on the engineer, who’s going to do it, who’s going to observe it relative to the test pits for the septic systems? MR. CENTER-The percolation tests? MR. FORD-Percolation. MR. CENTER-I would assume Larry, it would have to be an engineer. He’s used us in the past, probably continue to be us to go out and perform the percolation tests, and the drawing does state it has to be performed by an engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the results are provided to the Building Department prior to the issuance of a building permit? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, that’s pretty standard procedure anyway, isn’t it? MR. CENTER-Very much so. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CENTER-Similar to a replacement system. In these instances, like we said, we have, you know, soil that can be fast. We did the perc tests out there when we did the test pits, and we had, you know, with enough water and performing the tests, we did pre- soak them and get them to a minute, but there’s potential across the site that you may have more well drained soil, because some areas have topsoil that’s been removed, things like that, so we want to account for, and plus there’s some areas that are going to be filled in, due to the construction of the road, so we want to make sure that we have the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) actual in place perc rate for the system, and the systems move, you know, when somebody puts a house, they move slightly around the site. This will be where the system is going to go. It will give us a more accurate perc rate. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Not to repeat myself or what the Board has just asked you, but, so what happen was, you only did perc tests on a certain number of the sites, correct? MR. CENTER-We did perc tests, with the Department of Health test pits, we did perc tests next to all those test pits to determine the perc rate with the test pits. MR. SEGULJIC-How many were there? MR. CENTER-I believe there were six or seven. MR. SEGULJIC-So out of twenty lots, you only did it on six lots. I’m just trying to get a handle on it. MR. CENTER-Which is a cross section. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CENTER-Within the test pits, if we see a change in soil, then we do additional test pits. It’s kind of a set up as a grid or a cross section of the site. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So then once they go to get the building permit, so they get the subdivision, when they go get the building permit is when you do the perc test to verify it’s a developable lot. MR. LAPPER-Well, the soils may have to be modified. MR. CENTER-The soils may have to be modified. It’s not like it’s not going to be a slow soil where the septic system would be too large for the site. What the case is with a faster soil is whether or not you have to modify it or not, to slow the soil down. Because this is an old sandpit, people have, they’ve taken some material out, depending on where a house goes relative to the lot, where the septic system is going to be, and the end result, we felt safer to, and I think Dan agreed, to actually perform the perc test at each one. I mean, we did get over all the test pits and perc tests, all of the perc tests came out at or above one minute, but like I said, we’re going to be moving some soil in the process, and we want to make sure that when we get to the final grading of the site, that we do a perc test and confirm. MR. SEGULJIC-Because you have to have at least one minute, right? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and you have one at one minute and two seconds. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So if it’s less than one minute, then you have to modify the soil? MR. CENTER-Then you have to modify the soil, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I just want to make sure I understand all this. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? Okay. We do have a couple of people. I don’t know if you were before the Board before, but the purpose of the public hearing is for the public to provide comments to the Board. You should address your comments to the Board. If you have specific questions, feel free to address them to the Board, and if it’s a question of the applicant, we will go ahead and ask the question for you. We do try to limit public comments to three minutes, and before you begin your comments, if you could state your name for the record. We do tape the 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) meetings and prepare literal minutes of all of the proceedings. So, ma’am, would you like to be first? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ELAINE MURPHY MRS. MURPHY-Sure. My name is Elaine Murphy. I live at Queen Victoria’s Grant, at Number 16 Queen Anne Court. I am directly behind this housing development. My problem is, there is not much buffer between my yard and where the housing is going to go. I do have problems now with a little hill back there of water running down and coming down to the front yard and not draining well. My concern is, as he just explained, the septic systems, and it’s not very good for me because I have the smallest buffer zone because I’m on the curve of (lost words), and that’s one of them. When I bought this property, in ’89, I was assured by the Elmore family that this was going to be forever green. This is why I chose this piece of property. How did it go from ever green to this? Can anybody tell me? MR. FORD-Who told you it was going to be ever green, who did? MRS. MURPHY-The Elmore family who owned this property before Mr. Clute did. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the immediate property adjacent to your lot is part of the homeowners association, it is forever green. MRS. MURPHY-It’s common ground behind me, but I have very little common ground, as I explained, because I am on the curve of the road, and everything sets back due to that curve. I am not very far from the backyard of these houses that are proposed to go there, and as I said, I bought the property because of that little piece of woody property there, and we’ve had a lot of difficulty with people coming through. It took me three years to put a lawn in because the people in back had made a path through, and every time I got one started they would just come through with their snowmobiles, their ATV’s, whatever, which they are still doing. They do, have settled down a little bit now because there’s foliage, but the foliage will soon be gone and they’ll be back again. In fact, the other night there was somebody wandering around the back yard that comes from this development farther up or from Howard Street or one of those streets up there and comes through. I do live alone. I’m a widow, and I live alone, and I’ve asked them very nicely not to come, and I have got some very disturbing language from them saying that I did not own the property and I couldn’t say anything. My concern is, what’s it going to be when we get 18 more families in there with ATV’s and snowmobiles and cutting through? What is going to happen to my privacy? I really feel that Mr. Clute should take into consideration either putting a fence or some type of barrier between the common ground property and his property to the backyards of these houses that will make for better neighbors for both of us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-When did you say that you had bought your property? MRS. MURPHY-’89. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. KREBS-Keith, was that when the Town owned the property when it was deeded to the Town for the purpose of, to the land? MR. OBORNE-For a pocket park or? MR. KREBS-You said in the Staff Notes that the remaining acreage was at first to be deeded over to the Town of Queensbury? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. KREBS-Was that about 1989 that that? MR. OBORNE-I think it was, Larry, it was prior to that, wasn’t it? LARRY CLUTE 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. CLUTE-It was prior to 1989. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and the Town rejected that. MRS. MURPHY-Yes, the Elmores were still there when I bought the property because we had problems at that time, and we finally came to an agreement that the children and the other people that were riding the ATV’s, but unfortunately that people that are going in there now are related to Mr. Clute and when we say anything we get the snotty remark, this is my father’s property and we have permission to be here. You can’t say anything about it, but if you want ATV’s, I’d prefer would you ride them some place else besides my back yard. We do not like the noise. I have a nice screened in porch, which was an added expense to put on which was my little haven until all the ATV’s, and as I said, they’re riding on common ground that belongs to Queen Victoria’s Grant. There should be some type of barrier between them and our property, the common ground, to kind of put a separation there. Right now we hear all the parties that are going on, and it’s the sandpit. We hear all the parties, and then we go out and we pick up the beer cans and all the trash that’s thrown over to us. To get 18 more families in there, how much more trash are we going to pick up and then we’re going to add their garden clippings and whatever else is handy to just throw over. I don’t feel a 10 foot barrier is going to be a great big help to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it clear where the property lines are between the homeowners association and Mr. Clute’s property? MRS. MURPHY-I believe it is. I believe the President of the Association is here. He could probably tell you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you know if the land is posted? MRS. MURPHY-I have posted it several times, and it’s torn down. The signs are torn down as fast as you can put them up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MURPHY-At one point last summer, I have a birdfeeder in the middle of my back yard, the ATV’s come down and go around the birdfeeder and go back up. I thought, well, the first one got off the track up on the common ground. Then the other one came down, and consequently the Deputy Sheriff was sitting there then, and he got a hold of the kid, but unfortunately our president at that time would not press charges, but this is my biggest concern, together with the septic systems that are going to be put in there, that do not drain down directly to me, because I have very little property in between there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions? Okay. Thank you, ma’am. MRS. MURPHY-I might add, in this little patch of woods, there is wildlife. We have some foxes which are not very welcome right now because they’re after the cats, but there are deer. We’ve seen many, and there are a lot of wildflowers in there. This is why the path was built around, so that you could take your children or yourself for a nice walk around there and there were little places where the kids could take and swing around on the monkey bar type things that were wooden in there, and to learn about the wildflowers, and it was nice and peaceful, but I’m afraid my peace has been interrupted, but I really would like to see Mr. Clute do something to separate this property so that they aren’t coming to us all the time. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Sir, did you want to speak? Good evening. MIKE TIMKO MR. TIMKO-My name’s Mike Timko, and I’m a resident at 39 Howard Street, and I purchased my house about three months ago from Mr. Clute, and I did a lot of research before I did that. I wanted to see what would happen in a neighborhood that he’s trying to revitalize, and I looked at neighborhoods he’s done two or four years ago, and most of those neighborhoods, actually all of them, have turned into quite nice little communities. So I took the chance on what is a little bit of a rundown area to buy a brand new home, especially in the market that we’re in, and see what happens. Now in the three months I’ve lived there, it’s already starting to turn around, and I’m one of the only new residents, there’s only a few. People are cleaning up their yards. Some of the rundown homes are 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) for sale. I believe that if you add more homes to the area, that you’re going to create a nice community. I believe that’s what’s going to happen. You’re going to raise property values in the area. You’re going to take an old sandpit and turn it into a useable space. You won’t have people, hopefully, traipsing through there anymore, because it’ll be people’s homes and yards. People want to take care of their new home. He’s not putting in trailers. He’s putting in what I appear to see is nicer homes. So I think it’s a win/win situation for the Town. It’s a win/win situation for myself, and other residents of the neighborhood, and that’s really all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did anyone else want to address the Board? Yes, sir. BILL HAMELIN MR. HAMELIN-It’s me again, Bill Hamelin, Queen Victoria’s Grant, not a big favorite of the ATV’s. Never will be. I like disciplined sports. Elaine pretty much said everything I was going to say, but I’ve still got to say something else. I’m worried, and I don’t know if this is proper to say at this meeting, I’m worried about the gentleman’s balance sheet. He has two spec houses on the street now. He says he’s going to sell half the houses before he builds the 18. So he’s going to sell nine, at one of the meetings we were at, he’s going to sell nine before he roams on forward with these buildings, so he’s only got to spec nine, and I’m just very worried that, in this economy, there’s so many houses for sale, at all sorts of prices, low income, middle income, high income, that he’s going to end up swallowing these 18 houses, and then they’re going to sit there and rot. That’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. DUANE COLLIGNON MR. COLLIGNON-Hi. My name’s Duane Collignon. I live on 11 Howard Street. I’m looking forward for these new houses to come. I own one of the Clute houses. It was a great opportunity for my wife and I about four years ago to get into. We found it very affordable, and we actually currently have been looking to leave Howard Street because we don’t see it, we were hoping it would clean up, and it definitely has cleaned up, but we’re outgrowing our house. So we’re actually thinking about putting an addition on right now, but we don’t want to if it’s not going to be worth staying. We’d rather leave the area to find a better one, and I would rather see more houses go up. I’ve seen the model house. We’ve actually looked in it, (lost words) slightly out of our price range. I’m sure it’s not for many other people, but I would see people that would buy those houses be responsible, which would clean the street up and be a nice neighborhood. We’d actually like to move across the street, in Burnt Hills, which is another one of Clute’s communities, that the communities are great, and we just feel, we’d feel safe, and when we bought the house it’s, we were looking at the long term. We knew that it would have to clean up. Almost every street around us there’s a nice communities, and I just feel like our street’s the next one to be nice. So we can feel safe with our kids. So we’d really look forward to seeing that, and we don’t think the traffic would really pick up, except for the new houses. Howard Street has been known for pretty busy for a dead end street, but we’d really like to see those houses go up so we could stay and not have to look for somewhere else. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Is 11 Howard toward the end of the street or is it? MR. COLLIGNON-It’s near the end. It’s three houses up from Sherman. MR. SIPP-All right. So you’re in the area which would be almost across from where this new develop, across Howard Street from where this new development would be? MR. COLLIGNON-We are, this new development would be on the end of our street. MR. SIPP-Yes. You’re close to that end. MR. COLLIGNON-We’re on the opposite end. MR. SIPP-On the opposite end. MR. COLLIGNON-Because we’re on the end of Sherman, and it would be on the dead end side, I believe. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SIPP-Have you had snowmobiles, ATV’s coming across this property and getting near your property? MR. COLLIGNON-No. We had a run in a couple of years ago with, Teemer Leary was running next door to us, and he was running his ATV’s, but he’s not a problem anymore because he’s not there. He’s in jail. So, other than that, I really don’t see any, we don’t have any problems with the ATV’s. We hear them. I believe they were up on the telephone poles across the street from like Burnt Hills, those telephone poles, but I really don’t hear them on our street anymore, which is nice, and I don’t see, if there’s new houses going in, more ATV’s coming in to newer houses. I just don’t see it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. COLLIGNON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sir. TOM CORLEW MR. CORLEW-My name’s Tom Corlew. I live in Queen Victoria’s Grant. I’m President of the Homeowners Association. A few years ago we entered into an agreement with the Town of Queensbury to put a water drain in from the next development up on Peggy Ann Road. When that in, it was supposed to be closed off so that nobody could use it. All that actually did was open up the next development to come through the back of our property to the pole line. Now we’re hearing, as you’ve heard everybody say, four wheelers, snowmobilers, motorcycles, and you can sit out there on a Sunday afternoon and just hear them shooting down through the woods. You go over and try to stop them. They say it’s common ground. Nobody owns it. We can use it. We’ve cut down trees, fell them across the trail. Someone comes in with a chainsaw, cuts a tree in half, pulls it out of the way, opens the trail back up. We’ve put up posted signs. Didn’t matter. They take the posted signs down. I mean, the main thing we’re worried about now is the people, I’m not one of them, but we have people that live with their backyard to that trail and to this new development. They’re within probably 50 feet of the back of the development. Yes, sir. MR. KREBS-I’d like to ask a question. Because if it’s common ground and it’s owned by the Association, you have a right, as an Association, to enforce the law. MR. CORLEW-We’ve had the police in. The police have caught the four wheelers and let them go. At this point, our next thing to do is catch them and then we’ll prosecute them. We have no other option. I mean, other than, if Mr. Clute would put a fence of some type up, maybe a berm with bushes on it or whatever, to discourage them from coming on to our property. I mean, he’s got to put this dirt some place that he takes out of a cellar, make it into a berm with some type of foliage on it to help reduce the noise, and maybe they won’t come our way. Hopefully they’ll go some place else. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think a majority of the ATV’s and snowmobiles are coming from Mr. Clute’s property, or are they coming from other properties? MR. CORLEW-I think they’re just using that as a, all of a sudden you have a nice road going right down through all these pine trees. It’s widen enough, the Town took dump trucks in. They’ve got a backhoe in there, and I believe last year they extended it farther down, to add more drainage because what they had wasn’t totally working. So now they’ve just extended that road. So all of a sudden you could pull in there now with a, I would say anybody that’s got a pick up truck could drive down that road without a problem. That’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Sir, can you, I don’t know, the map in front of you, actually, it’s right around there, it’s quite small at that scale, but can you point out where that drain and everything went in, and where this road is that you’re speaking of? MR. CORLEW-The drain that went in comes over here, and comes up through here, and then it goes all the way back in here. MRS. BRUNO-So the Town put a drain in there, and that’s where you’re saying the. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. CORLEW-The four wheelers, here’s the power line here, comes in, because they needed to drain this area. This is where they put the road in, but we have a trail that comes all the way around here, for septic cleaning, and things like that, and that’s where they come in, this road here now, coming off the power line, and they just come around here over to this development. It’s a natural, I would use it if I was doing the same thing. If I was doing a four wheeler, it’s a natural trail. All we’re asking is a fence maybe behind his property, something to buffer that, because as you can see how close it is here. We’re talking just a few feet, not even from here to the parking lot. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. KEVIN MONETTE MR. MONETTE-My name’s Kevin Monette. I live in the area that you’re speaking about. I lived on Leo Street, since 1988 to 1995. I then purchased a home on Dawn Road, 17 Dawn Road, and in that time, I’ve been in the area for 20 years. I’ve seen nothing but positive things from Larry’s new construction, rehabbing old homes. He’s created a very nice little community for me to raise my family in. It’s nice to see a rundown neighborhood, 20 years ago, turn around to be what it is today, and like I said, I’ve seen no negative, only positive things that the man’s done for our community, and I’d like to see him go forward and move on and keep making nice homes and affordable homes for people in our area. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MONETTE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. We’ll conclude the hearing for this evening. Do you have any comments about the? MR. LAPPER-Yes, if I could just summarize what we heard, and just give a couple of comments. What we talked about last month here and at the Zoning Board was the positive benefit of connecting these two dead end streets, and in terms of continuing to improve the neighborhood, and the people that are concerned from Queen Victoria’s Grant, I think it’s Larry’s position that having new houses with families is going to stop what’s going on now with people using this dead end area as an ATV and snowmobile access. That doesn’t mean they might not still use the pole line to the west, but they won’t get there through this property because people are going to have houses and cars and back yards and swing sets. So we really feel that this will be beneficial to kind of civilize that open area right now, and that’s going to address it. We were happy to provide the 10 foot buffer that we talked about with the Planning Board last month, but the lot, there’s just not enough room back there to put a berm, and Larry didn’t feel that a fence would be beneficial on these lots, that it would be nicer to be looking at the trees, but just having these families and these houses here should go a long way. He wants to just continue to improve the area, and we had lots of people on the record talking about that on Howard Street. So we think that this is all beneficial, and, you know, obviously Queen Victoria’s has an issue with policing their common property, but we think it’s going to be easier with these houses. Anything you want to add? MR. CLUTE-I agree with Jon with the policing of it. It’s very difficult to police vacant property. You just can’t be there 24 hours a day, and I have the same dilemmas that Queen Victoria’s Grant has. There’s no way to stop the activity that’s there, short of putting up a fence or allowing development, and once the homes are there and the yards are there, the trail’s no longer there. So the access to the Queen Victoria’s Grant property is now non-existent. The buffer zone that they have, quite accurate. Wildlife abundant, deer, fox as they say. I think a fence would be a distraction to that, you know, the free flow of the wildlife just doesn’t exist. Plus, forever green, a fence, I don’t know, I think contradicts the whole term. I think I’d rather look at the trees, and there’s an abundance of forest between Queen Victoria’s Grant and this property. The property I have, unfortunately, is a sandpit. So the actual tree growth is minimal, but along that back property line I believe we’ve got 10 to 15 foot worth of woods that could easily be no cut zone, and to add to the wooded buffer zone, but I believe the houses, that’s the end of the four wheeler. That’s the end of the snowmobile. No more trail access. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Clute, you actually segwayed into one of my questions. I, unfortunately, wasn’t able to get down to the subdivision, potential subdivision. So, could you describe to me what you plan or what you typically do for landscaping? If we’re 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) looking at a 10 foot, leaving the trees 10 feet, how much of this sandpit is going to actually going to become attractive? How attractive is it going to become? MR. CLUTE-I’ll be honest. Twenty years ago we did absolutely nothing as far as yards. Affordability, affordability, affordability. The standard practice, at this point. MR. LAPPER-Take a look at S-3 while Larry’s talking. That gives you a sense of what it’s going to look like with houses. MR. CLUTE-The practice at this point, though, is I pave the driveways. I landscape the front yards, which is some shrubbery and hydroseeding the grass. The rear yard I leave as an option to the homeowner. Again, expense sometimes is an issue, but I, as the developer, want to see the front yard. I don’t want to leave it sandy anymore, and so when I leave the subdivision or I leave the neighborhood, it looks like a completed neighborhood. So we incorporate the paved driveways. We incorporate the green front yard, and in the landscaping I do put some shrubbery around the homes, so when I do exit the subdivision it’ll be done. It’ll look like a neighborhood, and the no cut zone, self- explanatory. It just really extends the forever green space that Queen Victoria’s Grant already has, and so the benefit of that space, not only to them, is also to the recipients of the homes, if approved, and it’s just nice to look out in your backyard and see forest. MR. FORD-Would some of these non-vegetated backyards face their community? MR. CLUTE-Would it border their common ground? No question. Would it be visible from their property? Not a chance. That’s the whole point of their buffer. It really, I mean, it serves multi-purposes for them. There are trails within there for their quality of life issues, but also it serves as a purpose for the buffer of their community, which is a terrific community. There is a section in Queen Victoria’s Grant where it loops around and it, their buffer narrows, but again, the vegetation that I have is the vegetation that I have. There is no, it’s just a huge sandpit, but the map that we don’t have available, I mean, at a previous meeting we were able to see the map, and it’s a substantial forever green, which was done purposely for the Queen Victoria’s Grant. It’s a terrific feature for their property. MR. LAPPER-At a minimum it’s got to be 50 feet. MR. CLUTE-It is. If she’s on the curve, she’s the closest, I would say, she’s max 50, you know, she’s probably the closest at 50 feet, but of dense forest. MRS. BRUNO-So, the way that you’re describing it, I’m not really seeing it in terms of the existing clearing limits. MR. LAPPER-Tanya, look at the cover sheet. MR. CLUTE-Queen Victoria’s Grant affected property. She would be the closest. If she’s here, that’s at 50, and this is very dense forest right here. Their trail is, it’s subtle. It’s not very large until it opens up into Queensbury’s drainage. So theirs is, as they say, they’re not exaggerating in any way. It’s a nice trail. It’s nice to be able to walk in there and so it’s not really apparent. MR. HUNSINGER-So how wide is the drainage trail? MR. CLUTE-It’s when Queensbury put in the drainage. That was dump trucks wide. MR. LAPPER-But that’s not near you. MR. CLUTE-But it’s not near this parcel, but it’s accessible via this parcel. This parcel, call it a head to the trail. When you come in on Howard Street, it’s completely open. You’re right into the sandpit. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CLUTE-And that’s what a lot of these people are doing. They’re literally loading at the sandpit. They go through the sandpit, up through Queen Victoria’s Grant’s common property, through that property, hit Queensbury’s drainage. It’s all accessible as one of the gentleman said. If he was a four wheeler, he’d keep right on going. It’s all connected, and that’s what’s happening, but I think if you eliminate the trail head, I would have to believe that the activity would definitely slow down. I can’t guarantee that it 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) would go away, but I would have to believe that it would slow down because now you’d be going through people’s yards. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. You’ve eliminated the access. MR. CLUTE-I believe so. MRS. BRUNO-So, just so that I can understand this, right through here, I can see that’s the existing tree line which makes this all basically the sandpit. I’m guessing that the first lady that came up here probably lives right around here, because she spoke of a little hill and some of the drainage problems there. You were saying that there could be a 10 foot buffer, that it’s quite thick through here, but I’m not seeing that, if you’ve got the trees wrapping around through here. MR. CLUTE-Well, this, I’ll be honest with you, these lines aren’t really trees. These are topo lines. MRS. BRUNO-No, no, no, not these. I know those are topo lines. These are your trees. MR. CLUTE-Well, yes and no. There’s actually trees right along this buffer line right here. There’s minimal. This is a huge open sandpit. So there’s trees that aren’t annotated on this map. This is more thicker woods. This I would describe that the density of this parcel right here is equal to what they have as a buffer here, but in this area, it’s very thin, because it’s all open sandpit, but still to the back side of these lots, the density equals this, but the more you progress into the property the more open it becomes. So we were proposing, or actually we incorporated into the final plan is to not, you know, we just don’t cut to that back side and make it a deed restriction. MRS. BRUNO-You’re going to delineate that on the plans? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you explain to us, you said a lot of the lots are open. Are you referring to like Lots 24, 23, and 22? MR. CLUTE-Yes, absolutely. Those are, you’re right there at the cusp of that sandpit. If you were to go down in there, it looks like a mini racetrack. MR. HUNSINGER-So does the sandpit actually, does the sandpit, you know, the old sandpit, does it actually go into lands of Queen Victoria’s Grant Homeowners Association at all? MR. CLUTE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-So once you get to that property line, it is wooded? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-If you look at the contour lines, too, in particular, where it says Lands now or formerly of Queen Victoria’s Grant, you can see the 405 that’s on their property, and we have the low point of the road, between 24 and 23. Those lots actually sit at, you know, 401 is finished grade outside the house. So it will sit down a little bit to that rise. I don’t know what the topography is beyond that, but that’s another thing we do set down a little bit down from that knoll that’s in that, call it less wooded area along those lines. MR. HUNSINGER-The topography will help as a visual barrier as well. MR. CENTER-The topography, yes, it should. MRS. BRUNO-Just to clarify my earlier question, in terms of, you know, what do you do when you landscape. So we’ve got two very distinct areas. I understand what you’re thinking of doing now in the sand area. Go over to the densely populated by tree area, vegetated area, Lots 28, 27, those. How much do you plan on removing before you put the houses in? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, a good portion of, honestly, would have to be removed. Septic and house, and even though, from an outside point of view, standing at 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) the forest, looking at it, it’s terrific, it’s green, but the quality of the trees, per se, if I were a homeowner, I wouldn’t want them as my trees. They’re scrub pines, scrub oaks, so they’re not quality trees. There are some maples, and I tend to favor that. If they’re not in my way, I’ll leave quality trees, but when constructing homes, if it’s not a quality tree or a shrub, you tend to avoid it anyway. Most people don’t want them, but with the house and septic, the front is definitely going to open up. The rear does not need to be affected. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. CLUTE-As a matter of fact, by Code, you have a buffer zone incorporate setbacks. That’s already incorporated. That’s just part of the Building Code. It’s not Code to say that you can’t cut down the trees, but you can’t construct within this particular zone. So it’s very easy to state within the deeds no cut, so now not only is the Code stating you can’t construct, but in the deed you’re stating you can’t cut. On the final plan that would be incorporated. MR. HUNSINGER-If you’re showing S-3 as the quote unquote proposed clearing limits, it looks like you’re keeping a much bigger buffer across Lots 25 through 28 than just 10 feet. MR. CLUTE-Trying very hard. In writing, I would want to say, because if I’m stating the Queen Victoria’s Grant border, I have to take into consideration the less dense lots, too, and I think I’ve got 10 to 15 foot worth of trees there, but if I don’t have to encroach any further into the property, then I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t take down those trees, irrelevant if they were less quality trees or not because they’re incorporated into the forest, but you put in the minimal 10 foot, so not only if I didn’t clear it, the homeowner, when they came in, they’d be instructed, even if they wanted to open up their yard, they could only do it to a certain point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess what I’m saying is more than that, because you have this labeled as proposed clearing limits. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So to me, by delineating those proposed clearing limits as shown on this map, you’re saying we’re not going to cut any trees behind that limit. MR. CLUTE-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And clearly this limit is greater than 10 feet. MR. CLUTE-It is. It is. Yes, and like I say, I try, to a minimal anyway, to not cut it down. I’m not a big fan of clear cut in a subdivision, and so that would be taken into account. Whatever I have to take down, of course I have to take down. I have to accommodate a septic. I have to accommodate a house, and in particular perimeter, but if you can leave the vegetation, especially to the rear side, because it’s tied right in to pre-existing forest, Queen Victoria’s Grant’s buffer zone, which is a great amenity, a good quality of life issue. So it’s nice to keep. MR. FORD-Larry, tying in with that whole concept of vegetation, would it not be an appropriate step to take, and a nice amenity improvement, if you were to seed those backyards? MR. CLUTE-We could, just as easily. I like to leave it open for the same reason. If it were necessary, absolutely. I know it sounds really, I keep on saying it over and over, the affordability factor. You start getting into these numbers, ever number matters to people. So, can I incorporate the hydroseed? Sure. If I backed it out, it might be a savings for a buyer down the line, and it leaves the options open. Some, you know, maybe they could afford a pool or anything like that. It’s not a distraction roadside. It’s typically an issue rear yard side, but could it be grassed? Absolutely. MRS. BRUNO-Sounds like it would help, too. MR. FORD-That’s what I would like to see, personally. MR. CLUTE-Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MRS. BRUNO-You have a lot of people speaking about how your houses have brought the neighborhood up, and I think that that could only help, you know, if it is that barren. I would understand if you maybe you kind of had some foliage there or whatever, but I agree with Mr. Ford. MR. FORD-And there is a difference between running an ATV across someone’s grassy plot out back, their lawn, and a piece of sand, that no one apparently cares that much about, in as much as it hasn’t been seeded. MR. CLUTE-No question. MR. LAPPER-Would you agree to that as a condition if the Board wanted that? MR. CLUTE-I mean, I could easily seed the backyard as well. As I said, the front yard would be seeded and shrubbed and the driveway paved, and it’s just as simple to seed the rear yard as well. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s really only on a handful of lots. MR. CLUTE-As you’ve stated, yes. There’s some pretty big dense, higher density as you increase up the westerly side of the subdivision. MR. SIPP-Are these basically three bedroom houses? MR. CLUTE-They’re two to three bedroom units. MR. SIPP-Two story or ranch? MR. CLUTE-They range. Could be a ranch design, a raised ranch design, colonial design, very few capes being build nowadays, but ranches and colonials, typically smaller, tend to be your most affordable product. MR. LAPPER-I think that Don wasn’t here. You talked about 900 to 1300 square feet? MR. CLUTE-Yes. Really the square footage that exists already, if you were to come into Geneva Estates, or even get into Geneva Estates, on Eisenhower, on Dawn Road, a few on Howard Street, nothing really out of line in comparison to those homes, which those homes are 850, roughly the largest one being maybe 1500 square. So it’s that range, but again, the key being the affordability. MR. SIPP-This was commonly known as Bennettsville at one time. MR. CLUTE-I grew up there, so, yes. MR. SIPP-It’s an improvement over Bennettsville. MR. CLUTE-On the end of Howard Street was Bennettsville, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-A quick question. So the Queen Victoria’s Grant, that property, where the property intersects between your land and Queen Victoria’s, that’s wooded, on the Queen Victoria’s side now? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It’s common property owned by the Association. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MRS. BRUNO-This is all Ward Three, correct? MR. CLUTE-I think Ward Four. I think it’s Four. MR. SEGULJIC-And so I understand this, also, so you have the proposed clearing limits on Lots 28, 27, and 26, partially on 25. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-But there’s nothing on 24, 23, and 22 right now. MR. CLUTE-I think you’re going to find what stands there now, if you were to walk down there and what meshes into Queen Victoria’s Grant’s natural forest, there’s probably going to be 10 to 15 foot worth of that extending into the lots. MR. LAPPER-But no more than that. MR. CLUTE-But no more than that. That’s where the sandpit actually encroaches the closest to Queen Victoria’s Grant. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So we don’t have anything on 22 through 24 now. MR. CLUTE-Would be your closest lots, yes. MR. LAPPER-I guess the difference is this, though, Tom. He’s saying that the 10 foot no cut zone will be in the deed, and the homeowner will be bound by that, but when it says proposed clearing limits, on those three lots, 26, 27, and 28, that doesn’t mean that the homeowner couldn’t modify that, put in a pool, put in more backyard. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I’m more concerned about 22, 23, and 24, where there is nothing now. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. CENTER-It’s relatively sparser trees. When you look at clearing limits. MR. SEGULJIC-So are you proposing to plant some trees back there, then? MR. CLUTE-No, sir. I’m proposing to put in the deed. MR. SEGULJIC-But you had indicated you were going to put in a ten foot buffer. MR. CLUTE-It already has the 10 foot buffer. Those lots already have a 10 foot buffer. The lots more westerly. MR. SEGULJIC-But there’s nothing there. MR. CLUTE-Well, no, yes there is. Within 10 foot, there’s 10 foot minimal worth of existing forest on those described lots. As you progress further west, there becomes more forest. MR. HUNSINGER-I wish our GIS was up, because I remember looking at it the last time. MR. SEGULJIC-I would want to see that, because that’s not what this plan is showing. MR. LAPPER-If the GIS was up you would see it. MR. CLUTE-It was on the GIS, and it’s unfortunate that a lot of the information may not be on here, but these lots, this area right here, they do have trees within 10 to 15 foot. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. CLUTE-I think why he put this on is just outline the highest density of forest, I guess. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess, that’s what I’d like to see is to just see that on the GIS. MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, even though this is the closest part, this is not the head of the trail. The trail that’s really creating most of the issues is right through here and goes right up into their property. This isn’t the area where a lot of the disturbances are happening. It’s happening at a diagonal right here. MR. HUNSINGER-So where’s the head of the trail, like which lot number? MR. CLUTE-It runs at a diagonal through the higher density, through 26 and 27, right here, and then it ties into, they have a very pleasant walking trail through their property. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) You access that walking trail, you tie right into Queensbury’s very wide drainage, which also turns out to be a very nice trail. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow, well, you know, clearly their walking trail was never meant to be used by ATV’s. MR. CLUTE-No, it was not intended, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Other than the engineering issues, the no cut along the rear of the property line, and the perc tests, are there any other outstanding issues that members have? MR. FORD-The hydroseeding of the back lawns. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to identify specific lots? MR. CLUTE-Just as a blanket. MR. KREBS-Try to eliminate people from driving their ATV’s across. MR. FORD-You’ve got it. So you’re going to extend what you’re, you’re doing the front and side. You’re going to extend that back, I assume, to the no cut zone. MR. LAPPER-I think what we would say is disturbed area of the site will be hydroseeded. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Should we put a time limit on that, within? MR. CLUTE-It would be done before I closed. MR. LAPPER-Well, unless it’s winter. MR. CLUTE-Right, and then it would be Spring, first Spring. MR. LAPPER-So, by CO, unless, you know, in May if it was completed outside of the growing season. MR. CLUTE-This request is actually going to be made part of my marketing. I’m putting in an entire lawn. So I might as well state that. MR. FORD-So when you put in the lawn, you put in the lawn. MR. CLUTE-So now I’m going to be not only Queensbury obligated, but contractually obligated. MR. SEGULJIC-And the only other thing, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to see is the GIS overviewed area for the trees along the property line. MR. LAPPER-We could come back at Final and bring that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Unless Keith can do it for us next time. MR. HUNSINGER-Are people ready to move forward, then? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We already did SEQRA. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And would anyone like to offer a resolution for Preliminary Stage approval? MR. SEGULJIC-It looks like you took some notes on that. MR. HUNSINGER-I did. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Looks like you’d do a fabulous job. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll give it a shot. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 7.81 +/- acres into 18 residential lots ranging in size from 0.34 to 0.54 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/22/08 & 8/19/08; 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 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 10)MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: In accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff: Item Four, the proposal does comply; Item Five, SEQRA review was previously prepared and a Negative Declaration was obtained; Item Eight does not apply. Item Nine does not apply. The motion is made with the following special conditions: a. For Final subdivision, the applicant will address the engineering th comments of July 18. b. They will identify a 10 foot no cut buffer along the rear of the property lines. There will be a deed restriction. c. A label will be included on the plat stating that a perc test will be performed for each lot prior to the issuance of a building permit. d. The applicant will hydro seed the rear yards of the lots facing Queen Victoria’s Grant on the disturbed areas of the site. The hydro seeding will be done by the Certificate of Occupancy or if in the winter, the following spring. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: MR. FORD-You’re specifying only backyards along that Queen Victoria border? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CLUTE-I mean, you could state it as I’m doing the entire yard. I’m automatically, myself doing it, whether you requested it or not, the front. Your request is the rear yard. So it would be added to what I’m doing already. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-So let’s just make it rear yards. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Rear yards. That’s the motion. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. One quick question. We’ve already submitted for Final, and we just have to add these notes that we’ve agreed to tonight. Would it be okay if we re- submit by Friday so we can still stay on for September, just to add these conditions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t have a problem with that. MR. LAPPER-We already have the 10 foot buffer. We just have to add the seeding. MR. HUNSINGER-The hydroseed, yes. MR. LAPPER-The perc tests. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you already submit all 17 copies? MR. FORD-You’re already on for September? MR. LAPPER-Well, we already submitted last week so we would be. MR. OBORNE-There’s no guarantee they’re going to be on for September. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know. I understand that. MR. LAPPER-It depends how many are tabled. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-But in any case, that it would still keep us in the queue. We’ll resubmit by Friday with these conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fine. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. 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 4154 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 WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.44 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-33 SECTION 147-12 CLARK WILKINSON MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready, summarize Staff Notes, please. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. OBORNE-Application Site Plan No. 20-2008, Laforte Construction. Applicant proposes construction of a 4,154 square foot single family home located in the Lake George CEA. Total disturbed area is approximately 15,870 square feet, without septic and stormwater management disturbances, and as such this project has been classified a Major Stormwater project and requires Site Plan Review. Location 2609 State Route 9L, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA Status is II. Parcel History, it’s pending a single family dwelling building permit. Project Description, the applicant proposes a 4,150 square foot single family home on 1.44 acres. This project was tabled on May 29, 2008 in order for the applicant to address the following: Staff Notes, VISION Engineering comments, Floor Area Ratio calculations. The applicant requested further tabling consideration on July 15, 2008 which was granted until August 19, 2008. Site Plan Review, Sheet 1 Distance between proposed well and proposed septic ambiguous Limit of clearing not noted on plan Sheet 2 There’s no immediate concerns The applicant was asked to correct Floor Area Ratio calculations and to date none have been submitted. However, Staff calculates the FAR as 6.6%. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson with Paragon Civil Engineering, representing Laforte construction on this project. We have been here in front of you guys, and again, as he stated, we were tabled. I believe a majority of the comments have all been worked out and clarified. The last one that we were asked to do, which is why we requested an extension of the tabling, was get topography on the site to do a complete topographic survey, and then provide the grading plan and stormwater management to be shown, rather than the USGS contours that were originally on it, and it took a while to get that scheduled and done, and we’re down to, a few, what I see as a few comments that I’ll be more than happy to go through both Staff and VISION Engineering comments with you, but we’re here tonight to try to gain Site Plan approval of this single family house. To start with, I do have a transmittal that when I submitted the 14 sets of plans, there was 14 copies of the Floor Area computations with that package. I don’t know what happened to it, but I did re-do them as requested, and I can certainly turn them in. It’s a minor thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have them with you right now? MR. WILKINSON-That’s what I was looking for before you, and I can still find them and see if I can get them to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-Then the only other Staff comment was the limit of clearing is not noted on plan. I showed a proposed wood line. I didn’t clearly label it as limit of clearing, but that was his intent, and I can just label that. That’s relatively minor. The distance between the proposed well and septic, a contour label and the dimension overlapped. That’s why it’s hard to read. I’ll clarify that. It’s 107.8 feet to be exact, and addressing VISION comments, one, two, and three and four are all noted as completed. Number Five, I did the runoff calculations and storage requirements for a 100 year design, and he’s asking me to resubmit with a 25 year with no infiltration for frozen groundwater conditions. With my experience and knowledge of stormwater, the 25 year storm with frozen ground conditions will stay within the 100 year design as designed, but I’ll submit those computations, hopefully as part of the Final plan to get his blessing on it, but again, being designed for the 100 year storm, I did that purposefully to be a little conservative to make sure, in frozen ground conditions, because I don’t have anything below frost, because of high rock, that it was conservative enough of a design that it would maintain stormwater for the entire site. Item Number Six, the requirement for the 100 foot from the separation from the well from the driveway runoff or roadway runoff, I’ve shown grading in spot shots, and I can make sure that VISION Engineering, it’s clear enough to them, to try to divert all drainage away from the well. I believe I’ve done that with the grading and drainage plan, and if he needs some clarification or additional spot shots, I can do that, but that’s the intent, to try to build up or keep the well area a little higher to make sure everything goes away from it, so there won’t be any leakage down the sides of the well. MRS. BRUNO-It looks like it’s only just a little bit more than a foot. Your well is up on 100. MR. WILKINSON-Between the well and the, that’s the driveway. MRS. BRUNO-The driveway is .99, or 99.5. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-And if that’s the case we’ll move it, but we’ll make sure that we can meet that comment. It’s minor. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-Item Seven, additional information should be provided specific to the Code, Section 147 C, including timing and stabilization measures. I did not submit a construction schedule, and there was a couple of details that he wanted me to add that are specified in there. Again, it’s not a problem. I can just add them. Number Eight was completed. Nine is completed. Ten is completed. Eleven, existing ground slope under the proposed septic system, yes, it does, I measured it as not quite 30. It does exceed the 10, but it’s in a graded condition, and I can also slide the septic system a little bit sideways and make sure that it meets the not greater than 10%. If I slide it to the, would be the west, I can make sure that the discharge from the stormwater, as well as that area, can be utilized. That’s more or less where the test pits were done. There’s three test pits done in that area. I can make sure that they’re shown, that the system is shown in an area that’s less than 10%, so that I do not have to go in front of the Town Board of Health. Number 12 is revision to shallow trench detail. Again, it’s minor. It’s just changing the detail, and Number 13, clarification of plan diversion swale up gradient. There’s a couple of spot shots that I didn’t either put on the wrong layer and it didn’t plot or I didn’t add in that I thought I did, but I can clarify that, the drainage up gradient of the septic system to show the diversion with some spot shots added to that plan, and 14, stone trench deleted from the plans. Again, that’s minor, I can do that, and the last one is provide a cross section of the stone spillway, and I can certainly add that to the plan. So based on going through these comments, the only one that has any significance, in my professional opinion, is the one with the location of the septic area and the slope, and I will address that and make sure that VISION Engineering, the final design meets that compliance, and I’m here tonight to ask the Board for a final Site Plan approval on this project. Right now I’ll turn it over to you. I believe you still have a public hearing open, too, if I’m not mistaken. MR. HUNSINGER-We do. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I have some questions I’d like to have you address. MR. WILKINSON-Sure. MR. FORD-You have a typical leach field layout with a typical distribution box, and the laterals, and that does not correspond to your schematic on the first page, with the db’s placement relative to the laterals. Are you using the other, just typical of? MR. WILKINSON-Yes. The short answer to that is yes. The detail. MR. FORD-So it has nothing to do with what you’re proposing? MR. WILKINSON-No. To be specific, the plan, on the first sheet, which is the actual plan for this project, is where I want the D-box relative to the laterals, and that’s what the contractor should build from. The detail on the back just shows that each one has to have service from the D-box. It’s really, that detail is really to show the spacing and the length of the layout of the laterals. It’s not really referring to the D-box itself, and then the plan shows it, and again, it’s a typical layout. It doesn’t mean that it’s for this project. It just means it could be for any project. MR. FORD-Could you explain to us why you have designed it in such a way that the distribution box is placed as you have it on your schematic for the first one, as opposed to the typical one? MR. WILKINSON-Because of the slope of the site, if it was a flatter site, I could come in in the middle relatively easy, but because it’s a sloped site, I always place the D-box on the highest lateral, so that when you’re coming out of it, the distribution is always downhill and the flow is better, because on a sloped site, if you put the D-box in the middle, your upper laterals, because you have to come downhill from the D-box, could be too deep, going against the slope, and you don’t want them deeper than 30 inches. MR. FORD-Sure don’t. I just experienced that at our Homeowners Association this summer. What would be the maximum coverage of those laterals, soil? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-That’s in the absorption trench detail. There’s a minimum of two inches of stone over the pipe, and that’s a minimum, and a six to twelve inches of topsoil, that’s a maximum of 12 inches. So there’s anywhere from 14 to, I’d say 14 to 15, 16 inches max over top of the stone, which, or over top of the actual pipe, and the bottom of the trench is the one that’s critical. The bottom of the trench is anywhere from 24 to 30 inches below the soil. That’s the critical one. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-And where the other ones are is kind of irrelevant, because if you have a shallow system you have to bring in material and build it up, and, you know, if you want to get into that I can, but it doesn’t apply here. MR. FORD-But there’s a technical term for it, but in essence, that leach field needs to breath. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. It’s aerobic digestion occurs in the field, and it has to have air in order to do that. If you put the laterals too deep in the ground, it doesn’t get air readily, and it will fail. MR. FORD-So if your slope is too great, it doesn’t work. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. Right, and that’s why on the front sheet that I did set the D- box at the high end so I’m working with the slope, so I’m not going against it. MR. FORD-Thank you. Good explanation, good design. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-You said the critical point is the bottom of the? MR. WILKINSON-Bottom of the trench. MRS. BRUNO-The trench. So level trench bottom. MR. WILKINSON-That is correct. MRS. BRUNO-Can you just add that to the plan? MR. WILKINSON-What’s that? It’s in the absorption trench detail shows that. MRS. BRUNO-But I’m looking at that. You’ve got six min to twelve max on the earth. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MRS. BRUNO-Two (lost word) there, then you’ve got your depth of, I guess you’re kind of, the way I’m looking at it, it looks like you’re missing the distance from the bottom of the. MR. WILKINSON-That’s the 30 inches max. MRS. BRUNO-I’m not seeing that labeled anywhere, though. The only reason why I’m saying that is so if you hand this off to a contractor, we know that he built it. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and that’s a standard Health Department, and if it’s not on yours, it’s on my print that I just printed today, which I thought was the exact same prints that you have. MRS. BRUNO-I could be staring right at it. MR. WILKINSON-It’s on the very far left, right against the border. It says 30 inches max. MRS. BRUNO-I’m looking at the, I’m sorry, I’m looking at the wrong section. There you go. Yes. I’m hassling you. MR. WILKINSON-That’s okay. MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of housekeeping things. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-Sure, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-When I look at Lot Two on the plan, it says 1.44 acres. When I look in your stormwater plan, it’s 1., you have it listed as 1.75 acres. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Which one is it? MR. WILKINSON-No, the lot itself is 1.44 acres. The drainage area is 1.75 acres because it takes from the centerline of 9L onto the site. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. Then with regards to the weir, the weirs on site, you have them as five feet wide by two feet long? MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Shouldn’t it be the other way, the two feet wide by five feet long? MR. WILKINSON-No. The length of a weir is measured along a flow path. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You got me on that one. All right. How does the stormwater work on site? MR. WILKINSON-Through, basically it’s shallow depressions that are storing the water and infiltrating, and there’s one fairly significant sized basin, that’s the one to the east side of the driveway. That’s the largest one, and the culvert’s going under their driveway to connect those two basins. Basically they’re filling up with the runoff from the paved, and the roof areas, going to these depressions where they’re going to be stored, and they’re very large, shallow depressions, and then it slowly percolates into the soil, and if you get too many storms in a row, or it’s a large storm above 100 year, then there’s outlets, which are the weirs, that regulate how much water goes out, and it raises up to that point and trickles over those weirs. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s a weir along the west side of the driveway, I mean, no, sorry, a swale. So the driveway is going to be sloped to the west, to the swale. MR. WILKINSON-The driveway’s more or less crowned, but, yes. There’s slope in both directions. MR. SEGULJIC-So how are you going to get the water on the east side? MR. WILKINSON-The east side is where the discharge is from the stormwater basin. MR. SEGULJIC-But there’s no swale along the east side of the driveway. MR. WILKINSON-No, but there’s a depression there. This swale along the east, there is actually a swale, if you look at the contours and spot shots, it naturally flows into that depression, because I used the natural contours that exist there to create it. So the water already flows there. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying on the east side of the driveway it already flows into the? MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. If you look at the spots going up the hill, it actually flows there, and, I mean, if there’s a little clarification, a couple of more spot shots, I can certainly add those. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then on the west side you’re going to construct a swale. MR. WILKINSON-From near the end of the driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Into the basin. MR. WILKINSON-Down into that little small area that goes underneath the driveway with the culvert to the large stormwater basin. MR. SEGULJIC-And what’s that swale going to look like? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-It’s grassed, because it’s only about a one percent, one and a half percent slope. MR. SEGULJIC-But you didn’t provide any details on that, correct? MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So we don’t know, how deep is that going to be? MR. WILKINSON-Six inches to twelve inches max. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that stated in here? MR. WILKINSON-It’s stated in the report, I believe, and if it’s not, I can certainly clarify it on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-That should probably go on the plan, right? MR. WILKINSON-Sure. Absolutely. I could probably even show a section, if you’d like. MR. SEGULJIC-That would even be better. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. Perfect. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the two basins are going to communication. So it’s going to flow from the west side to the east side. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then from there it’s an overflow out. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, all the while, all in contact with soil that’s percable soil. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and now the roof leaders from the home are going to go into which basin? MR. WILKINSON-Both the ones on each side of the driveway, half the house is going that way. MR. SEGULJIC-Because on your plans I didn’t see any roof leaders going into the. MR. WILKINSON-There are no roof leaders. It’s a drip. They’re not putting downspouts on it, as far as I know. I’ve got to check the architectural plans to make sure if it is or isn’t on there. I was told they’re not putting gutters and downspouts. So it’s going to drip onto the grass, and then the grass is going to flow along to the depressions how I have it graded. MR. SEGULJIC-So the area on the south of the house is going to drip off and then collect in that basin, the lower area to the south? MR. WILKINSON-It’s actually a ridge in the middle of the house to the south that flows both ways, half towards the driveway stormwater and half towards the stormwater to the southwest of the house. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So what’s in the northern part of the house is going to flow to the north. MR. WILKINSON-This same idea. There’s a ridge right in the middle. Half of it flows towards the little depressed area on the west side of the driveway. The other half of the house flows by sheet flow to the depression that’s on the southwest side of the house. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess, just for me, I think that would be important for a contractor to have that clarification. MR. WILKINSON-On the swale? MR. SEGULJIC-On the swales and where what’s going to flow. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-I think, as far as where it’s going to flow, is very clear on the plan with maybe the absence of one or two spot shots for a little bit more clarity, but in general the contours that are on there show exactly what it’s going to do. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, the site now appears to have a lot of water on it. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct, because it had machinery on it to clear it. MR. SEGULJIC-That water’s been sitting there all summer. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-In theory the driest time of the year, although this has been a rainy summer. MR. WILKINSON-Well, not this year. This year we’ve had 12 inches of rain in the past two weeks. MR. SEGULJIC-But even before that 12 inches, even back in June, there was water standing. MR. WILKINSON-Again, it’s because of the activity of the machinery, because there’s a high rock there, some of the machinery actually, or some of the clearing actually got down to the rock elevation because they were clearing for the pad of the house, and that’s what they wanted to put the footings on, and that’s why you’re not seeing any infiltration there. Outside of the area that was bulldozed, there is no real other standing water. There’s some spots that have a little bit of standing water for short amount of times, but it dissipates after a while, but it’s mainly in that area where the house is going because there’s high rock there and they went down very close, if not on the rock. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, a lot of that site has standing water on it. Wouldn’t you agree? MR. WILKINSON-I would say, out of the cleared area, probably about half of the cleared area, or two-thirds of the cleared area. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s the only spot I know of in that entire area like that, that has that much water. MR. WILKINSON-Again, it’s because of the clearing that occurred and the activity of disturbing that and getting down near that rock elevation. Yet another reason why, if you look at the contours and the elevations that I propose, they’re higher by about two feet from where that ground is now. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because you also state in your plan that the depth to groundwater is about six inches. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. Before it was cleared, that was what the depth was at the lowest point, but once it was cleared and disturbed, it’s different. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, there’s a lot of water on that site. On your stormwater basins you’re saying are going down .9 inches. MR. WILKINSON-.9 feet depth, total depth. MR. SEGULJIC-But getting back to the six inches, you say the maximum depth of these depressions, when you’re speaking about the stormwater basins, you’re saying are going to be six inches. MR. WILKINSON-Say that again? MR. SEGULJIC-Your stormwater plan says the maximum depth of these depressions, referring to the stormwater basins, is six inches. MR. WILKINSON-That’s the maximum depth of water within those basins. The total depth of the actual area is .9 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it says the maximum depth of these depressions is six inches, due to high groundwater encountered. That indicates to me you can only dig down six inches. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-Correct, and still maintain the separation between the bottom of that and seasonal high groundwater, and again, I’m also, the site is also somewhat elevated from where you see it now, based on the contours that I show as proposed contours that I show as proposed contours. So that those stormwater basins are less than six inches below the existing soil. So they’re kind of built up around it a little bit, and then. MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s what I was getting at. You’re calling for build up around these, but I don’t see that on your plan. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, that’s what the contours indicate. MR. SEGULJIC-I see it written in your stormwater plan. Not from what I see. I’m not seeing that on this plan. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I just think, it seems like you should have a cross section across that. Now let’s talk about the septic for a minute. MR. WILKINSON-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Now as I read the Code, you should have at least two test pits in your septic area, and as I look at your plan, you have one on the site, unless I’m missing something. MR. WILKINSON-Well, there are, there’s been four test pits done. Some are not shown. MR. SEGULJIC-I only see one. MR. WILKINSON-That’s what I’m saying. Some are not shown. I inadvertently left them off. My mistake. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Well, I’d like to see those before I can approve anything. MR. WILKINSON-Sure, not a problem. th MR. SEGULJIC-Your plan also states that the test pits were dug on July 12. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And you look at the Code, it says, May, June, I think it’s May or June. I forget the exact date. MR. WILKINSON-Dan Ryan from VISION Engineering witnessed those test pits. MR. SEGULJIC-March, April, May or June. MRS. BRUNO-As long as he’s there, it’s all right. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s the recommended procedure. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct, and we went in front of the Board of Health on this particular project and got approval to do it out of season and Dan Ryan witnessed the test. MR. SEGULJIC-And got approval to do it out of season? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and that was the stipulation, that we could do it as long as they were witnessed by VISION Engineering, and he did. MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, I’m just kind of surprised that your test pit indicates down to a depth of 68 inches, no water was encountered. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-However, as you indicated, there’s a lot of standing water on site. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. Because the difference in the location, there is a knob, in the middle of the site where it was cleared, there’s a knob of high rock, and the test pits were done outside of that knob where the soil was, and apparently, and you know as well as I do, from the experience on this Board, that rock can be in one place, and then five feet, you can move five feet and it drops 30 feet for all anybody knows, but that’s why we did a number of test pits and the test pit data that was show is on the areas that are outside of that high rock. MR. SIPP-But you do have mottling at 30 inches. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. That was our boundary condition. MR. SEGULJIC-All the more reason why I’d like to see that test pit information. MR. WILKINSON-Sure. Again, it was inadvertently left off. MR. SEGULJIC-And then your grading notes on the first sheet you state that contractor shall provide dust and erosion control in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control Section 147-10. What exactly does that mean? What is the contractor going to do? MR. WILKINSON-What all contractors do. They try to prevent dust and sediment from leaving the site under the law, and that’s the DEC law, and again, the stabilized construction entrance that’s shown is the first step in making sure nothing leaves the site. As far as dust control goes, there are a number of methods to do it. You can use calcium. You can use other additives. You can use water. You can use whatever the contractor deems necessary that’s under the guidelines of New York State to try to eliminate dust. On this particular site, I don’t believe it’s going to be an issue. That’s a standard note that I put on to make sure the contractor is well aware that there is a regulation that is there for not only the sediment from rainwater but also dust is included in that law. So it’s really to protect me and to protect the Town to say, hey, I told you it needed to be done, so it’s got to be done. MR. SEGULJIC-And what I’m getting at, aren’t there special conditions if you’re within 500 feet of a water body? MR. WILKINSON-We’re not within 500 feet of a water body. MR. SEGULJIC-Your stormwater plan says you’re within150 feet of a wetland. MR. WILKINSON-Are you considering a wetland a water body? MR. SEGULJIC-Not me, the Town does. A New York State DEC wetland exists further south approximately 150 feet off site. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct, approximately. It could be 300 for all I know. MR. SEGULJIC-Within 500 feet of the mean high water mark of any lake, pond, river, stream, wetland. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a very important provision that you did not put on the plan. MR. WILKINSON-Sure it is, and again, my stipulation on this site is due to a lot of the wetness and stuff that you found on the site, dust is not going to be an issue. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not concerned about dust. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. What are you concerned about? MR. SEGULJIC-Runoff into Lake George. MR. WILKINSON-That’s why there’s silt fence protection, all the way around this. If you look on the plan, it is a sediment control plan, sediment controls are on there, and they conform to New York State DEC. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve seen a lot of silt fences out there that are failing. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-Because they’re not installed properly. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s one major debacle right now on Lake George, and I’m sure you’re aware of that. MR. WILKINSON-I’m aware of a few, not just in this Town. MR. SEGULJIC-My point is that you just have 147-10, but you don’t have any clarification as to what has to happen on site. MR. WILKINSON-I certainly do, and that’s part of the comment. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Excuse me. Let’s discuss this. 147-10, C-2, what does that state? MR. WILKINSON-I don’t have it in front of me. Can you read it for me, please? MR. SEGULJIC-How are we going to a contractor? It says within 500 feet of the mean high water mark of any lake, pond, river, stream, or wetland, no land area, including areas stockpiled with earthen materials, which have been cleared, may made or left devoid of growing vegetation for more than 24 hours without protective covering securely placed over the entire area and/or erosion control measures in place, and you’re going to say the silt fences. MR. WILKINSON-No, that doesn’t cover that note. That is certainly, I thank you for bringing that to my attention, because those are notes that I need to add to this plan, and I will certainly do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, acceptable protective coverings include natural mulch of a depth of two inches, rock riprap, non-degradable materials such as plastic or canvas covering or impervious structures. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s the way we can prevent a lot of these debacles. MR. WILKINSON-I’d be more than happy to add that note to the plan, and I thank you for bringing that to my attention. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, look at 147 and what it says, and I’d like to see that on the plan, so when the contractor’s out there, they know what they have to do, and when our Code Enforcement goes out there, they know what they’re looking at. MR. WILKINSON-Not a problem, and that’s one of the things that, in VISION Engineering comments, he specifically asked for the construction sequencing, and part of that sequencing is also knowing what’s going on, and I can certainly add those Critical Environmental Area notes that you’re talking about. I will definitely add those to the plan. I appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because Comment Number Seven talks about that. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and I appreciate that. MR. SEGULJIC-When you get in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, there’s different rules, and I appreciate that. MR. SEGULJIC-My antenna goes up. I mean, it’s designated by the State of New York and the Town of Queensbury. MR. WILKINSON-And I agree. I agree. They’ll be on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but spell it out. I mean, for example, on the plans you also state that if you’re going to use a grinder pump, increase the septic tank by 250 gallons. MR. WILKINSON-And seven square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-But you didn’t put seven square feet on the plan. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-It’s not in my standard notes? MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not in your standard notes. MR. WILKINSON-Then I used the wrong ones. I apologize for that. MR. SEGULJIC-But I would also say there should be enough communication between the applicant and yourself as to whether they’re going to use a grinder pump, and I’ll bet you they will. MR. WILKINSON-On this one I told them they can’t. MR. SEGULJIC-Then we should take that note off and say no grinder pump will be installed. MR. WILKINSON-Certainly, I can change that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-All right. Continuing on with 147-10, Number Three, any area which has natural vegetation cover, either partially or wholly cleared, removed, must be re- vegetated within 10 days. All right, and re-seeding with an annual or perennial cover crop. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. SIPP-And be part of that, the planting of native woody or herbaceous vegetation accompanied by placement of shore mulch, sufficient to control erosion while plantings are becoming established. MR. WILKINSON-Right. That’s a note that will certainly be added, along with Mr. Seguljic’s comment as well. I’ll take that whole Section and make sure I read it thoroughly and add those notes to make sure that it’s clear what the contractor has to do to comply with that Section of the Code, and I agree with that. That’s a very good comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-If you’ve addressed this before, then I apologize, but. MR. WILKINSON-I may or may not have. It’s been a couple of months since we’ve been here. MR. FORD-The stormwater basin, and the weir, and the swale, could you please address the design that takes that swale directly toward the end of your leach field laterals, as opposed to out to the north, as coming to the south? MR. WILKINSON-Well, there’s two things going on there. Number One is when I design, I design to try to follow the natural flow paths that already exist, and that’s generally where the water’s flowing now. So I’m trying to utilize that to my advantage. As far as looking like it’s going towards the ends of the laterals, that area, because it’s a shallow system, because of our constraints to seasonal high groundwater mottling, there’s actually some fill that has to be placed above that, so it actually becomes a little higher than the natural ground, and it creates its own swale along the toe of the slope, per se, and just helps keep the water moving along. It doesn’t get to the actual, to the laterals. The second comment on that is, that area is the area in question that the contours got, the existing contours that were provided to me, actually I measured about 20% and Dan Ryan said they were about 30%. I have to move that septic area anyway to make sure that it conforms to the less than 10%. So by moving that, I’ll get it out of the way. MR. FORD-It’ll be further away from the swale. MR. WILKINSON-It’ll be further away from that, but I also have to watch the one to the southwest side to make sure I keep further away from that as well. So it’s kind of a play it in between there and make it work. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. FORD-Interesting balancing act. MR. WILKINSON-And make sure that I’m within, that the test holes that we did are also shown on there, so that when I move that system again, it will be, it’ll have the two test holes that I know are there that just didn’t get plotted. They’ll still be within that system as well. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. WILKINSON-It’s just a short area that reaches that steeper slope, and I think it was because there was some activity going around, it was pushed that way, but that isn’t the way it was naturally occurring in that area. MR. FORD-By placing those laterals in another location, you’re going to address my concern there. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. I’ll move those away from that. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Back to the stormwater basins, and the two foot differential requirement. MR. WILKINSON-Two foot differential requirement. MR. SEGULJIC-Under 147. I believe there’s a, infiltration devices shall be designed such that the bottom of the system will be a minimum of two feet above the seasonal high water. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. That’s why I’m only going six inches into the existing ground. MR. SEGULJIC-But do you have test pits there? MR. WILKINSON-There’s one right next to it. I can certainly, you know, do more if you feel that it’s necessary. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, given you’re in a Critical Environmental Area, it’s very important that we get this right. MR. WILKINSON-I don’t disagree with you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-If you want test pits, then just mandate that there has to be test pits there prior to construction, I’m hoping, because I’m hoping to walk away tonight with an approval. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Personally I’d like to see them, before I grant approval, because what if you can’t get it? Then what do we do? MR. WILKINSON-I know I can, because I walked around on that site, and I was all over that site, and not only with the backhoe, but with a shovel to make sure. That’s part of what I do, personally, to design. I don’t design for my office. I design for the field. MR. SEGULJIC-And I can appreciate that. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re a good engineer, and all other wonderful stuff, but there’s a lot of water, standing water on that site. MR. WILKINSON-And I don’t disagree, and it’s really mainly because of that area that’s cleared is one almost solid mass of rock, and then it drops off just to the south of that where the slope is, and there’s no rock further south of that. That’s mainly the reason, the clearing and the fact that the rock is higher, and a lot of the soil has been taken off of that as well. Any other questions, Tom? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SEGULJIC-No, I’m all set for now. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Good evening. Kathy Bozony, Lake George Water Keeper. I was not aware that the topos had been submitted. I had not seen them. So the first comment on this page is that also I’m not familiar with why the site was cleared ahead of time and why it looks the way it does. I did see all the standing water there. It’s been there for a long time. A lot of ledge rock there. A couple of the concerns I’m going to go through right now with this. Proposed stormwater management plan utilizes the existing wooded swale near 9L for infiltration, and this swale has more than a foot of standing water in it, which should indicate that infiltration rate less than the four inches rate per hour used in the calculations will result in increased runoff volumes and rates. There’s standing water and ledge rock present in the area of the proposed Pond No. Three, as well as the house location. So I don’t know if there’s going to be proposed blasting or there’s evidence of erosion and sedimentation from the disturbed area of the site, and this is before any construction is, has even begun, and you can see it running off. I’m not sure if the Board’s aware there’s a lot of fill that’s been brought in that site, two to three feet on the north side, and you’ve got quite an erosion, sediment running down that. I don’t have all the details of the plans that you have. I was missing those, but I look at this site and I see management of stormwater is going to be very difficult. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-My name is Don Kruger and I live on Glen Lake. We did the site work up there, and the part that he was talking about where the water is ponding is total ledge rock, which is where we’re going to put the footings for the house. In all fairness to Clark, we did the site work a year ago, and we thought that we were going to be progressing ahead, but the Town felt it was, it had to go for a major environmental review. They had all promises of a building permit. So the thing has been tied up for a year. Plus I believe Mr. Laforte has experienced some financial reverses, apparently, but we want to go ahead with the project now, and as far as where you see that water sitting there, it’s in a dish and ledge rock. That water’s not going to drain out of there, but once the footings are in, that gets cleared off, the footings are in, the house gets built, we fill around it. Where she mentioned where the fill dirt came in, that’s for the septic system area, we had to import fill dirt there. There’s over 50 loads of dirt that’s been imported there for the septic area for that. MRS. BRUNO-Do you know if they’re intending to blast to get those footers in? MR. WILKINSON-Slab on grade. MR. KRUGER-You really don’t have to blast to put footings in. MRS. BRUNO-Right. Are you going to pin to the ledge rock? MR. KRUGER-They’ll be pinned to the rock, yes. Queensbury Code. Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. KRUGER-It’ll have to be cleaned off. There’s all mud there now, and in all fairness, I mean, it’s been a year. I mean, anything, the fences I’m sure have fallen down. Any other questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I have something from a neighbor across the street. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-“My name is Frank Munoff, and I reside at 2626 Route 9L in Queensbury, directly across from 2609 Route 9L, the address of tonight’s applicant, Laforte 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) Construction. I want to be a good neighbor, but I am somewhat concerned as to the size of this house in relation to the low lands it’s being built on. Since there are two driveways, I am to assume that this is just one of the houses that is going to be built there. If another one that size is in the plans, it sure will change things even more. Once again, I want to be a good neighbor and trust that you, the Board, will oversee the right stewardship of this property. The fact that the applicant has not followed any of the rules you had set forth previously leads me to believe that the environment is not as much of a concern to them as it should be. I’m also concerned about the Town of Queensbury sending me notification of something that has already taken place without your prior knowledge by the applicant. Were there any penalties involved for such actions? Perhaps no rules were broken. I don’t know. In conclusion, I will support your findings on this matter, but I am really quite skeptical because of the applicant’s previous actions in relation to the rules set forth by the Town of Queensbury. Respectfully Yours, Frank J. Munoff” MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other written comments? MR. OBORNE-That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any final questions for the applicant? What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Table it for more information. MR. SIPP-We need more information. MRS. BRUNO-I think everything needs to be smoothed out. MR. WILKINSON-Particularly? MRS. BRUNO-Well, just everything that we’ve talked about today that you’ve agreed you could clarify, I think we need to see that it’s been, it’s in black and white. MR. WILKINSON-Certainly. That’s certainly your discretion. MR. SEGULJIC-In particular the swale details. MR. WILKINSON-Are you going to make a motion so that it’s in there? Could you, please? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. What I have, I’d like to see details on the swales, additional, once again, as I read the Code, you have to have at least two test pits in this septic area, and you indicated you have four. MR. WILKINSON-Well, there are four total. I’ll make sure that. MR. FORD-On the site. MR. WILKINSON-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m going to say clarify the requirements of 147. I believe you know, I mean, I don’t want a note like 147-10. There’s a lot to that. Especially within the 500 feet of a wetland or a surface water as I pointed out to you, you are. MR. WILKINSON-And I believe there’s a couple of projects that I’ve been involved in that we were very specific on those notes, and I’ll use those as a guide and certainly include those. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, in this world of cut and paste. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. No, no, no. I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-And installation of test pits in all the stormwater management basins. Has anybody got anything else? MRS. BRUNO-I do. MR. WILKINSON-You want all of 147, did you say? 147-10? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, all of 147, and what’s relevant to this particular site, and I’ll be watching. MR. WILKINSON-You always do, Tom. MR. SIPP-Is that fill that was brought in for the septic area, is that going to remain there all winter? MR. WILKINSON-I’m not sure exactly where it is. I’ll have to meet with the contractor and make sure, and I want to, if it’s going to remain over the winter before it gets constructed, I want to put it where the septic system’s going to go and have it sit there. MR. SEGULJIC-You may have to seed it, too. MR. SIPP-Seed it. MR. WILKINSON-Absolutely. Is that where you were headed is the sediment control part of it? MR. SIPP-Yes. If it were going to stay by the roadside, it should be seeded. If you’re going to move it to the septic area, it should be seeded. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and again, the notes that Tom’s referring to will have all that detail in there, you know, the 24 hour note as well as the greater than two weeks note, get seeded. MRS. BRUNO-I have a simple thing, and that is that you ensure, from your clients, about the gutters, whether it is for sure a drip edge or a gutter system. MR. WILKINSON-I can pull the house plans on that, see what’s on there. They’re downstairs. MRS. BRUNO-I’m trying to remember them, in the back of my mind, I’m not, I don’t recall myself. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only other item is to address the remaining engineering concerns that are previously addressed in these comments. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. Is it possible, in this Board’s mind, to get back on next month’s agenda? I know that’s not usual, but we’re trying to get moving forward with this house for a number of reasons, one of which is the letter that I addressed to you regarding the health of one of the owners, the mother of the guy that’s doing the application, Laforte, and she’s. th MR. FORD-It might be hard to make the August 15 deadline. MR. WILKINSON-Well, that’s the impossible part, but that’s why I’m kind of asking the Board, is that something that you would be amenable to? I’m asking and I’m asking it of the Board, and give me a specific deadline and I’ll have it done. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, where we run into trouble is where, you know, we have to post the agenda. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s before the submission deadline. MR. WILKINSON-I know. MR. HUNSINGER-And then we’re in trouble. I mean, how quickly can you turn this around? MR. WILKINSON-Everything except the test pits I can have done in like two days. The test pits I’ve got to talk with the contractor and see if we can coordinate, and I also, when I’m up there, I’m always going to have Dan Ryan there so he can ensure that he’s looking after it for the Town as well, and any test pit I always call Dan and let him know what I’m doing. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I also don’t know how many items are on the agenda for October. MR. WILKINSON-Again, I’m asking on behalf of my client, and just presenting it to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Or September, yes. MR. WILKINSON-It’s up to you guys. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any sense, yet, Keith, how many projects we have for September? Because one of the comments I made to Craig, when we were finalizing the agenda for August, was if we need to consider, you know, loading up a meeting or having an additional meeting in September, I’d rather do that than, because, you know, there was discussion about loading up the meetings in August, which I didn’t want to do. MR. OBORNE-Right. As it stands now, we have 22 new applicants that have made it th prior to the 15. So already we have to decide to bump, obviously, what, 10, 8, 8 or 10, th and that’s not including what you’re going to, you already have tabled to September 16, I believe it is, five applicants, hence why in September you can’t really table anything to the first meeting. You have to do it to the second meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And again, yes, 22 applicants. Yes, we got crushed. If you are considering tabling Clark or Laforte, I highly suggest the second meeting in September, if you are. MR. WILKINSON-I’m asking on behalf of the applicant. MR. FORD-I don’t know how we can bump those people that are already in the pipeline, with that number of applicants, unless we go to a third meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we might want to do a third meeting out of necessity anyway. Maybe for the next meeting you can look and see when the room might be available. Oftentimes we’ll do it on a Thursday, either the same, you know, the same week as one of the other regular meetings. MRS. BRUNO-You’re saying in September, a third meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, for September. MR. OBORNE-We’re going to start finalizing the agenda on Thursday. So we’re going to be bumping people, probably making at least a temporary list on Thursday, we’ll be going through that, and obviously the agenda won’t be finalized until some time later after that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-I think it’s the will of the Board, at this point, if you want to do that, Mr. Chairman. I can just tell you we’re crushed right now, for lack of a better term. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Did I understand there’s discussion of having a third meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, that would certainly alleviate some of the scheduling concern. I know we’ve had to do that from time to time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So do we want to table this project to, well, it would either have rdst to be the 23 of September or we’d have to wait until October 21. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it’s going to depend on whether or not we’re able to do a third meeting. MR. KREBS-Right. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) rd MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, let’s table this until September 23, then. rd MR. SEGULJIC-September 23? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Can you have everything in by Friday? MR. WILKINSON-This Friday? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You said two days. MR. WILKINSON-The answer is yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because if you don’t, then it’s going to be. MR. WILKINSON-Tabled for another meeting, until October. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, until October. MR. WILKINSON-How about Monday instead of Friday? That would help me a lot, because I know I’ve got two other things that I have to get done for Friday right now in front of me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, what’s the date, is that Monday, then? th MR. HUNSINGER-It would be August 25. That would be okay, because it’s still before the final agenda meeting. rd MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we’re going to table it to the September 23 meeting with th submission of materials by August 25. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2008 LA FORTE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to the September 23, 2008 meeting with submission of materials by August 25, 2008. The additional information the Board is requesting includes provide swale location and details. Provide additional test pit information. Clarify requirements of 147 on plans. Installation of test pits and collection of soil data in areas of stormwater management basins. Clarify roof drainage. Clarify the garbage grinder, if it will be present or not, and address engineering comments. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. WILKINSON-Thanks for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-I hate to push the envelope on this one, but I think it’s incumbent upon us to get this cleaned up before the winter and give the applicant time to clean the site up before the winter. That’s why I want to push it forward. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED TOM & DUSTY PUTNAM AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-3A LOCATION 21 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF 450 SQ. FT. OF LIVING SPACE, NEW 2 CAR GARAGE & NEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR ANY HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. ALSO, REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS THE PROJECT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. CROSS REFERENCE AV 36-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/11/08 APA/DEC/CEA APA, LAKE GEORGE CEA LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-7 SECTION 179-9-030; CHAPTER 147B DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan No. 27-2008. Note: This application was tabled to this date in order for the applicant to submit updated plans by July 24, 2008 to include engineering notes. This application has been reviewed by Staff for completeness. Applicant: Tom and Dusty Putnam. Requested action: Planning Board, Site Plan Review required for a major stormwater project per 147-8, and the expansion of a non-conforming structure per 179-13-010 F. Location: 21 Wild Turkey Lane Existing Zoning is Waterfront Residential Three Acre. The application is a SEQRA Type II. Parcel History, this had an Area Variance in ’08 for shoreline setback relief, which was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Project Description: The applicant proposes to remove a 220 square foot screened porch and 450 square feet of asphalt. The applicant also proposes to construct a 620 square foot garage, a 440 square foot addition and 180 square foot foyer/covered porch. Furthermore, a new wastewater system is proposed to be installed, as the project has been classified a Major Project per 179-8 by the Zoning Administrator. The stormwater management and erosion controls are part of this project. Staff comments. As mentioned in the project description, this project is considered a Major Project. The applicant proposes to install stormwater infiltration devices within 100 feet of the shoreline which requires variance. The Planning Board previously made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning this issue. The Planning Board recommendation states that it has no issue with the infiltration device’s proposed location, provided that the stormwater management meets the requirements of Chapter 147 of the Town Code. The Zoning Board approved the Area Variance which concerned the infiltration device as proposed, as well as relief for the shoreline setback. Proposed stormwater management plans appear to be an improvement to the property since no stormwater plan currently exists. The proposed expansion would have minimal effect on the neighborhood as most houses are well buffered. Further, the house proximity is down slope at approximately 275 feet from State Route 9L. Staff recommends any spoils from the project be immediately stabilized or removed, due to the runoff from the adjoining slopes. This recommendation may need to be given more priority than currently noted due to the slopes present and proximity of the shoreline. This proposed action is located in a Critical Environmental Area. What follows is my site plan review, which I assume the Planning Board has reviewed. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Hello. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, with applicant and owner Tom Putnam and Project Manager Don Schermerhorn. As indicated, we were here at the July meeting. At that time, Dan Ryan had issued a comment letter which we had responded to, but because of the timing of submittals and what not, the Board hadn’t had the opportunity to have those plans, nor had Dan issued a formal response to those comments. That has happened. We did provide the Board th with the revised copies by July 24. We were placed on this agenda. Thank you for that, and Dan has subsequently issued a letter which I presume is in your file, and his indication is that he’s satisfied the responses that we’ve provided to his comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from Board members? MR. SEGULJIC-Overall I think it’s great what you’re going to do. My big concern nowadays is the, you know, it rained heavy last night, and if your site is open, you’re going to have a lot of sediment running into the lake, and you did take the notes out of the Code, but one of the things I think we need to clarify here is that either under 147-10, Erosion Control Measures, under C-2 I believe it is, within 500 feet of a water body, which you are, it says that either you are going to, any area that’s devoid of vegetation, the way the Code reads, it says, left devoid of growing vegetations for more than 24 hours without a protective covering securely placed over the entire area, and/or erosion control measures. Which one are you going to do? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there’s erosion control measures that are on the plan, silt fencing that’s provided on the down gradient side of the site, of any disturbed area. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re not going to do the protective coverings? MR. MAC ELROY-That may happen as well. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what’s going to be the trigger to decide that? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. MAC ELROY-The particular application that comes up. If it’s a site that there’s disturbance and earth is disturbed and it won’t be reactivated for a period of time, then there’d be temporary erosion control measures such as temporary seeding, you put some rye grass on that to re-establish some vegetation in that area. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it has to have a cover. The way the Code reads it has to have a cover, two inches of mulch, plastic cover, something like that. That’s what the Code says. I realize I’m breaking new ground. People have not followed this Code, and I’m just highlighting that. I’m not, as I always say, I’m not making any of this up. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there will certainly be erosion control measures in place, such as the down gradient siltation barriers, and if that is an and/or situation, then that is in place. MR. SEGULJIC-So who makes that decision? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the siltation barrier is on the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-And it is, would be a requirement of the site before any disturbance takes place. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I have no problem with the siltation controls, I do have a lot of problems with siltation controls. I can go around the lake, right now, and point out to you a lot of silt fences that have wind blowing under them. To me it’s very important you put the protective cover over the vegetation. It says and/or. You’re in a Critical Environmental Area. I would like to see you, you know, slash out the, see, if I was doing it, what I would have done is protective covering securely placed over the entire area, get rid of the and/or, measures, because you already have these sediment measures there. Well, I take that back. I’d take out the or and leave the and. How do we enforce that when you have an and/or? Does that mean if you have any turbid released into the lake you’re in violation of an EPA surface water standard, then? MR. MAC ELROY-If there is, potentially. MR. SEGULJIC-Wouldn’t you want to prevent that? MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, to me, it would make sense you strike out the or, and have it as an and. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. I placed the regulations on the plan as suggested, and we’ve done that. Now should we modify the regulation? MR. SEGULJIC-It says and/or. Who’s going to make that decision as to what’s going to get done out there? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I mean, if we get very specific, then Don, being the construction manager, will be. MR. SEGULJIC-How does the Town of Queensbury enforce that, then? MR. MAC ELROY-Of whether there’s siltation barriers on site? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it says and/or, protective coverings and/or. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, would having a siltation barrier, down gradient of the disturbed area, satisfy the requirements of the regulation? MR. SEGULJIC-Not me. I can bring you to a site in Lake George right now that they have sedimentation, they have silt fences. They’ve failed miserably. They had to go out and dredge the lake, and I’m sure you’re aware of that site. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I am. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I am. MR. SEGULJIC-They had silt fences up. It failed didn’t it? MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and we did have a pretty unique storm situation. MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn’t matter. MR. MAC ELROY-I understand it doesn’t matter, because it did happen, but that was not the intent of the design. It was not the intent of the contractor, and I don’t want to get off the subject on that, but we’ve provided that on there. If there’s a way that we should improve on that or if, by Don being here and the owner being here, we can, you know, clarify that, or. MR. SEGULJIC-Does the applicant understand what I’m getting at there? DON SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, certainly. I think the Code is unclear, if there’s an and/or. MR. SEGULJIC-So as a Town, when the enforcement goes out, he has to know what it is, and to have an and/or, I can see it right now. You’re going to come back and, you have siltation fences in place, you’re in compliance. That’s the way it would play out, but silt fences have a tendency to fail, and once again, I can bring you to several sites to prove that to you. So it’s not my decision here, it’s the Board’s decision. I guess, how does the Board? MR. KREBS-The problem, Tom, is that you’re asking the applicant to change the Ordinance, okay. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. KREBS-Yes, you are, because it says and/or. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m asking him to make a choice. MR. KREBS-You’re asking him to make a choice, but you’re saying that you want them to change the Ordinance so that our Code Enforcement Officers will know what they’re doing when they go there. I agree with principle. I don’t think it’s their responsibility to change the Code. They are providing an and/or situation. MR. SEGULJIC-No. For example, the Code says that you can add a garbage grinder, but you have to increase your septic tank by 250 gallons and 7 square feet in area, I believe. It doesn’t mean everybody has to do that. Either they do it or they don’t. They have a choice. MR. KREBS-They do it if they have a garbage grinder. They have to do it. It’s very specific. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and what this says, if you have open area, it’s and/or. MRS. BRUNO-Tom, what’s the number exactly? I can’t find it and I want to follow. MR. SEGULJIC-147-10 C(2). MR. FORD-Did we ask them to become compliant with that Code by putting that on the plan? They’ve complied with that request. They’re ready to make a modification in that, at our request again. Correct? If he wants to eliminate, Mr. Seguljic wants to eliminate the or, are you willing to do that? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I guess that, if that adds to it, more gray area. I mean, what is an area, then, that would constitute that type of covering, and which covering is appropriate for that? I mean, I think that that’s a site specific situation, and if we can get to, let’s see, you know, in this area, we’re going to disturb some new area where the garage is going to be. So there’s going to be some adjacent section to be disturbed. Now a certain amount of that may be rock. So how do we specifically treat that as opposed to if it was raw earth? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, rock would be okay. Raw earth isn’t, a soil is not. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. MAC ELROY-Understood, but I can’t tell you that that’s, you know, going to be rock or raw earth or to what extent, because that hasn’t been constructed. Now, and I don’t want to get too overly complicated with the thing. If, certainly there’s siltation barriers that would be in place prior to disturbance, and I don’t know the timing of Bruce Frank’s visit to the site, and when they break ground, and they see that siltation barriers are in place and that they’re properly installed and properly toed into the ground, okay, that’s the starting point. Then we do some disturbance, and that particular disturbance is going to be, remain open for over 24 hours, so that there’s some sort of remedy or additional action that you could take to mitigate or to lessen the vulnerability of that area. Is it placing some mulch over an area that you’re going to excavate on Tuesday but you’re not going to put a hard surface on or whatever until, you know, the following week. You cover it with a tarp or cover it with mulch or, I mean, there’s a number of different steps that they takes. Now, is that done, if that construction is done in, let’s just say December, versus if it was done in April. I mean, that’s a different situation, and a different level of vulnerability that requires attention of a different level. So I don’t want to be, I don’t think it’s appropriate to be so specific that, yes, we’re going to do each and every, because there’s the situation and then the timing that comes into play on that decision. I’m not trying to be difficult. MR. FORD-I was just trying to get at Tom’s concern, but you make a good explanation. I concur with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I understand Tom’s concern. I also agree with what Don’s saying. MR. SEGULJIC-If you’re going to leave an area open, as I read the Code, the stronger option is you put mulch over it, you put plastic over it, something of that nature. MR. MAC ELROY-Or you temporarily seed it with rye grass, and get that established. MR. SEGULJIC-Something. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Instead of leaving these huge areas devoid of vegetation, and, in a heavy rainstorm, your odds of it running off into the lake have increased dramatically. TOM PUTNAM MR. PUTNAM-But we would specify that, too, with our contractor, that that be so done. That would be in the contract anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-That areas that are going to be left? MR. PUTNAM-No, that they would be seeded within 24. MR. SEGULJIC-But once they’re open. MR. PUTNAM-Or whatever’s needed to cover that area. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying that you would specify that, so areas. MR. MAC ELROY-I think different situations, different timing warrant different actions. MR. PUTNAM-Exactly. MR. MAC ELROY-So I don’t know how you can. MR. PUTNAM-I mean, if we have a two week forecast of rain, we better cover up right away, and do a real good job of it. MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly the owner wants to be compliant. MR. PUTNAM-Absolutely. MR. MAC ELROY-And to be a good steward of the site. Nobody’s sitting here intending to. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. FORD-I think that’s indicated by the fact that they have put the Code on there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, they put the Code right on the plan. I mean, I’m not sure what else we can ask. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, a clarification. MR. MAC ELROY-It needs to be implemented, and that’s the key to anything. We can sit here and. MR. SEGULJIC-How are we going to let the contractor know? MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess that was kind of my comment. We frequently make comments about silt fences failing, but the question is, were they installed properly? I mean, you have the proper detail here on Sheet S-5. At some point you’ve got to kind of take a little leap of faith and assume that the contractor’s going to install it properly and that it’s going to work correctly. MR. MAC ELROY-And the responsible party, whether it’s in some cases simply a homeowner, in other cases it may someone who’s a coordinator for that construction activity, as in this case. That responsibility, that’s the contact person that the Town would have on the site. MR. HUNSINGER-And if the contact doesn’t install it correctly, then, you know, it’s his liability. MR. FORD-It’s on the project supervisor, on your shoulders, right. MR. MAC ELROY-And that’s identified, it’s corrected. If there’s a situation where you’ve got some disturbed area that’s not, you know, that looks vulnerable, hey, it would be a good idea to cover that with mulch, or to cover it with plastic, or to, you know, put hay bales around the base of that excavation pile, you know, there’s a number of different things that have to be followed through, and if the applicant or the contractor isn’t doing it, then, you know, they can be called out on it, but, no matter, I don’t want to be argumentative. You can put all the words and pictures, whatever, on the drawings, and the more you have, the better chance you have. I understand. I understand that response, but, you know, ultimately there’s a responsibility that the plans that are put forth and approved by this Board are followed through by the owners and their representatives and the Town, you know, just by being the caretaker of this, has some responsibility to monitor that to an extent. That’s the process we have now, is that the Town’s representative will have a look see, periodically, or respond to neighbors, if neighbors identify that there’s some issues. MR. FORD-I believe there’s a reason that we look at applications individually, and one of those reasons is so we can assess the organizational structure that is being brought to bear to implement the Code. You’ve got the Code there. You’ve, in my opinion, got the organizational structure that is going to allow you to make the right decisions, relative to the Code that you’ve already got on the plan. MR. SCHERMERHORN-If I may make a comment. I, personally, would not have taken on this project unless the owners did say they wanted to do the right ting, and they’ve given me a clear goal to be environmentally sensitive and follow the Code to detail, and probably do a little more than that, and I would not have done it otherwise, unless I had their support to do that. So, that’s just a comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Don? MR. SIPP-In the Town Engineer’s report, additional site testing deep hole infiltration test should be conducted on proposed drywell location to verify the depth, the depth to impervious, and also to groundwater. You haven’t done this. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, we did. MR. SIPP-You did? MR. MAC ELROY-We’ve responded to it and he’s indicated his satisfaction with that. MR. SIPP-Okay, then what about the distance to neighboring wells and or adjacent parcels? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. MAC ELROY-The same thing. MR. SIPP-I see they draw the water out of the lake. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. SIPP-All right. Now, in removing the covered porch and the site perc around the existing building, you’re going to be disturbing some ground, right? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. SIPP-Now, is this going to be re-done by a professional landscaper and so forth? Which means fertilizer, and I would like to see some. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I don’t that that necessarily means that. MR. SIPP-Okay, then, fine, if they don’t, but if we keep this ground covered, and I assume, not having seen this property, but between the retaining wall, which is north of your stormwater system, and the lake, there’s a good size slope there, and I want to make sure that nothing’s going to be traveling down that slope in the conditions that we’ve had this Spring and summer. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Well, there’s a good lawn area there, and besides the fact that they don’t want to have to disturb it and re-establish it, it also serves a purpose and a function. So that is an area that would be protected and that retaining wall kind of forms this line of demarcation. MR. SIPP-What is the height of that retaining wall? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it varies from two feet or so on the easterly end and a little more height, probably in the range of six feet or so, on the westerly end, and actually there’s a couple of them on the western end. MR. SIPP-Is that walk going down to the lake solid? MR. MAC ELROY-It is now, correct. Yes. MR. SIPP-That slope, I’d be a little concerned about water running down that walkway right into the lake. MR. MAC ELROY-I want to say that on the stormwater plan, Sheet S-2, we’ve indicated at the base there that we’re adding six foot length of infiltration trench that would capture that as it gets to the base, or a suggestion to replace that with grass walk pavers. I think the owner hadn’t made a decision about that, but that gives them the option. I think that was discussed at our previous meeting, too, that maybe they should replace it with that, and I think the owner will take that under consideration and see how that fits with things, but there’s an option for either. MR. SIPP-One more thing, on the garage area, the proposed garage, you’ve got a trench in front of the garage doors to pick up the water coming down the driveway. MR. MAC ELROY-You’re asking that question? MR. SIPP-Yes. I assume that trench is there to, you’ve got a driveway which goes from, well, just in the middle of the 350 to down to 345, five foot drop in thirty feet. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, the front of the garage slopes away from the garage down toward the basin that’s, the driveway slopes away from the garage and to a point of a catchment which then goes into the stormwater management system. MR. SIPP-Yes. Now that trench follows along the west side of the garage? MR. MAC ELROY-That’s a graded swale which then directs toward the drywell in front. MR. SIPP-Is that picking up from roof gutters also? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, because it sheds from the roof pitch of the garage, so, yes, technically, yes, it would. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SIPP-And that follows, now, with the proposed addition in the middle of that, is that swale? MR. MAC ELROY-The swale would work around that and be graded toward the drywell, the open grate in the drywell. MR. SIPP-Has all the roof been picked up, all the roof drainage picked up by gutters, or is it drip? MR. MAC ELROY-In that case it would be drip. There’s not gutters in that particular section. MR. SIPP-Well, I would not be averse to you looking at some plantings along that shoreline, especially where that walk area is. MR. SEGULJIC-They have some nice plantings along there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I’m just going to take one more run at this. What would you estimate your total disturbed area is going to be? Quick guesstimate. MR. MAC ELROY-The total disturbed area, now this is a trick question, or a trick area. The total disturbed area in terms of the stormwater regulation doesn’t include the septic system, the septic system or the area of the stormwater management. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. So you’re probably in the, I don’t know, probably in the range of five or six thousand square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. How much would a sheet of plastic, 2,000 square feet cost? MR. SCHERMERHORN-About 20 by 100? About $27. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what we’re asking for. If there is a disturbed soil, put a piece of plastic over it at the end of the day. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think what Dennis says is we’re already prepared to do that, but it depends on the conditions at the time. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you’re going to leave it open for more than 24 hours. MR. MAC ELROY-If you leave it open more than 24 hours, which is what the condition in the Ordinance. Is it feasible, certainly, to have areas of tarp. It’s not one big tarp, obviously. You wouldn’t just plant it over the whole site, but you may use that in different areas as part of your construction practices. MR. SEGULJIC-I do a lot of environmental clean ups. At the end of the day you put plastic over it. We don’t find it that tough. So is that something you think you could agree to? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t see why not. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Board on this project? Nobody. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I think you did a great job. We should move forward on it. MR. FORD-Let’s proceed. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It is an Unlisted Action. I think they submitted a Short Form. Whenever you’re ready, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Why don’t we say minor, but it will be dealt with? MR. FORD-But I think it can be addressed and mitigated. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Could action result. Okay, yes, mitigated by stormwater control plans. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-I propose a negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 27-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: TOM & DUSTY PUTNAM, 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 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MR. SEGULJIC-So, is the Board and the applicant agreeable that if we put in the motion areas of, is it okay if I say areas of disturbance left devoid of vegetation for more than 24 hours will be covered with plastic? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, again, I would just say that there may be other particular devices that you might use instead of plastic. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, what if there’s something better? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s why I’m asking the question. MR. MAC ELROY-It may be specific to the condition, and you say devoid of vegetation. Well, rock is devoid of vegetation, and you wouldn’t necessarily say that that’s vulnerable to erosion or siltation. MR. SCHERMERHORN-There are some semi-pervious materials, too, that work very, very nicely in those settings, instead of just having water captured and run off plastic. MR. SEGULJIC-How about if I say areas of disturbed soil? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Good. MR. SEGULJIC-Devoid of vegetation for more than 24 hours, and that’s more or less what the Code says, will be covered with. MRS. BRUNO-Most appropriate methods. MR. SEGULJIC-Appropriate devices. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2008 TOM & DUSTY PUTNAM, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: A site plan application & freshwater wetlands application has been made to the 1) Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes addition of 450 sq. ft. of living space, new 2 car garage & new wastewater system. Planning Board review is required for any hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline and for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Also, review is required as the project has been classified as a Major Stormwater project. 2) A public hearing was advertised and heard on 6/24, 7/22 & 8/19/08; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 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 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 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) 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. 27-2008 TOM & DUSTY PUTNAM, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five is Negative. Number Eight does not apply. Number Nine does not apply. With the following condition. That areas of disturbed soil left devoid of growing vegetation for more than 24 hours, will be covered with an appropriate device. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 52-2007 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE II GRJH, INC. AGENT(S) LLOYD HELM OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PETROLEUM ZONING MIXED USE LOCATION 107 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO THEIR APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 2,400 SQ. FT. GAS STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE. THE MODIFICATION REQUESTS ARE: CHANGES TO PARKING CONFIGURATION AND PAVEMENT LAYOUT; RELOCATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM DUE TO CHANGES IN PAVEMENT CONFIGURATION; CHANGES IN LOCATIONS OF SWM FACILITIES. AGENT WILL ALSO PROVIDE AN UPDATE AS TO THE STATUS OF THE “FUTURE ACCESS” TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 23-07, PREV. PH 10/16/07, 12/18/07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.02 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-6 SECTION 179-9-030 CLARK WILKINSON & LLOYD HELM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan No. 52-2007, GRJH, Inc. Requested action is applicant proposes a modification of their proposed Site Plan for the construction of a 2400 square foot gas station and convenience store. The Site Plan Modification request seems to be the result of incorrect positioning of the building. Location: 107 Main Street. Zoning is Mixed Use SEQRA Status is Type II. Numerous parcel histories, alterations, temporary signs are listed on the Staff Notes. Project Description: The applicant proposes a modification of their approved site plan for the construction of a 2,400 square foot gas station and convenience store. Modifications are as follows: Changes to parking configuration and pavement layout. Relocation of septic system due to changes in pavement configuration. Changes in location of the Storm Water Management facilities. Staff comments: This project is on Main Street and as such is to follow the Main Street Design Guidelines per 179-7-020. The following comments are for consideration: Those comments are Site Plan Review for the modification of 52-2007, GRJH. I assume that the Planning Board has read the Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I guess I just want to say, before we go any further, I don’t know how we got to the point of where we are, but I’m glad that you came back before the Board before the project was finished. Because too often when there’s a 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) problem in building a project, we don’t get involved until it’s too late and it’s all done, and there’s really no opportunity at that point to make any compromises or modifications. So I just, for the record, want you to know that I appreciate the fact that you’re here. MR. WILKINSON-Well, thank you. We appreciate that. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson of Paragon Engineering, representing GRJH, Inc. Here with me at the table is Jimmy Metz and Lloyd Helm, who are both representatives of GRJH as well. To clarify, for both the Board’s benefit and Staff as well, the major reason for the change in the Site Plan is the fact that once we got the survey information back on the location of the future access, it was actually about 20 feet further back, 25 feet further back, than what I had measured in the field or paced off in the field to try to get a feel for it, and right smack dab in the middle of where we had the septic designed on the back side of that pavement, which opened up more area towards the building, the other reason for the change in parking configuration is the parking that was shown on the north side of the building originally, there is no door on that side, and so since we had to move the septic, we also wanted to move those parking spaces, because there isn’t a door on that side of the building. We wanted to get them more access, easier access to the door that would be on the west side of the building. I’ll go through, quickly go through the comments again, both from Staff and VISION Engineering. There’s only four comments from VISION Engineering. Sheet Two of Five, Sugar Maple is not an approved deciduous shade tree. Whatever you want for a deciduous shade tree, we’ll change from Sugar Maple to whatever it is. By the way, the Sugar Maples were approved on the original Site Plan. I did not change that from the original Site Plan, but if you want something different, we’ll certainly take care of that. Parking spaces adjacent to east side of building will have no room to open the vehicle doors. On the plan that you have in front of you, I show two spaces on the southeast side of the building. Since that time, and getting the comments, I looked at it and the comments are, it’s absolutely right. Apparently I didn’t look close enough when I put the parking spaces in. What I’m going to do is remove the handicap space from directly in front of that building on the south side, on the south side of the building directly in front of the door I show a parallel handicap. I’m removing that one and moving that over to the right side of the building so there’ll only be one space on the right side of the building that will be handicap accessible and have an aisle so that there’s plenty of room to open the doors, and that also works better with our grade for ramping to get the ramp access to the sidewalk as well, and then what it also further does is alleviates the parking in front of that door by possible any vehicle and possible handicap vehicle, to give even more maneuverability on the main gas pumps with nothing obstructing the door, so people can come directly in. That was, again, I’d looked at it, once I got the comments, and that was, I said, wow, that’s a legitimate comment. Let me look at that and see how we can go over that. The no sidewalk apparent for north parallel parking spaces, on your Site Plan it’s shown extending, I think like 20 feet north of the building, and the comment is for maybe further sidewalk to be alongside all of the parallel spaces. If that’s a requirement, we can certainly add that. My question would be, would that be okay to be in asphalt versus concrete? Is that acceptable to the Board to do that for that additional sidewalk that we’d add along those parallel spaces? In addition, going back to the parking for one quick minute, on this site I have shown, from Day One, two handicap accessible spaces. We’re only required to have 17 spaces, and therefore under Code I’m only required to have one handicap space. So I’ve eliminated, or will eliminate, one of the handicap spaces, and that only handicap space will be on the, again, on the southeast side of the building where I think it makes the most sense. It’s very close and accessible to the door, the front door, and then all the rest of the parallel parking spaces on the west side of the building will be non-handicap accessible, but I will leave an aisle directly out from the door so that there is a space to come in from the diesel pumps on that side of the building, as well as the additional parking spaces across the parking lot. Back to the comments. No consideration for dumpsters or cardboard recycling containers. Again, we did not specify that on the original approved Site Plan. Again, an oversight on all of our parts. We’re looking at the northwest corner where the parking lot curves around, over by the three euonymus and one sugar maple planting there, just north of that, along that side of the parking lot, and we are also going to propose it to be stockade enclosed, so that it’s hidden from the ground. Again, you will be able to see it from 787, possibly, because it’s so much higher, but that’s the location that we have, or that we’re proposing for that, and again, it’s an oversight that we all missed it on the first Site Plan. We’ll certainly add it to this, and then there appears to be no walkway to the back door. There is no back door on this building. If you look at the building plans that are on file, and that we have a building permit for, there’s only the two access doors that I show on my site plan, the one to the west and the one to the south, again, both facing the pumps. The one to the west is for the diesel pump location and those parallel parking spaces, and the one to the south is for the main gas aisle in the front of the building. Parking configuration has changed. The parallel parking by the diesel pumps, elimination of the 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) four spaces at the rear. Again, I explained that. There is no door on that side of the building, and therefore we wanted to move those spaces out of there because we did have to make other provisions for the septic that now the access road is over top of that septic area. So that’s why we’ll try to eliminate those. Anything else in here? As far as the ANSI and all the accessible stuff, that will be addressed with the re-location of that handicap to the side of the building, and that’s going to be the only spot over there. So that’s Staff comments. On to the four VISION Engineering comments. The revised location of the septic absorption field is too close to proposed stormwater infiltration area. I’m at, I believe, 15 feet of separation, I need to be 20. I’ll just slide that out 20 feet to make sure I meet that. The proposed handicap parking spaces. Again, this is a reiteration of Staff comments, and I’ve addressed that with the re-location. Number Three, a grease trap is not necessary, and you can attest to that. All the food in this that’s going to be prepared, it’s pre-prepared before it comes in. It’s not prepared on site. So there is no actual, you know, grease and stuff generated on site. Then the last comment from VISION is regarding a pre-treatment device in the paved area, and I’ll address that and provide that accordingly. That’s it for that. There’s a couple, or there’s one other note that I want to make to the Board that came to light since this application was submitted. If you look on Sheet Two of Five, along the front area, you can see the future right of way, and it’s been noted that the existing sign is actually going to be located in the future right of way, and GRJH was asked to move that. We also wanted to make the Board aware that we were asked to move that, and we will move it. I show a re-located area that meets the Code, 15 feet from each property line. It would be on the west side of that parking area, and it’s actually, the edge of the parking is going to be the edge of the sign, because that parking is pretty close to exactly 15 feet off of that westerly line, and then it’s going to be placed 15 feet from the front line to make sure it conforms to Code. Again, I want to make sure the Board was aware that that’s part of the things that are going on here. That area in front, they’re going through the taking procedure for the State, actually the County, to take that property from GRJH, and that sign is located in that property that they’re trying to take. So we will re-locate that as part of this project as well, and again, it’s just trying to make sure everything is covered and that everybody is aware of everything that’s going on. MR. SIPP-Is it a freestanding sign? MR. WILKINSON-It’s a pylon sign, freestanding. Yes. MR. SIPP-Pylon. What’s the height? MR. WILKINSON-Currently 20 feet, 18 feet, something like that. MR. SIPP-How about cutting it down to 15? MR. WILKINSON-Whatever the Sign Ordinance allows is what we’re going to propose. MR. SIPP-How about cutting it down to 15? MR. WILKINSON-I believe that we wanted to just re-locate the sign that’s there to the new location. That’s what we were intending on doing. So we weren’t going to make it any higher or any shorter. We were planning on just relocating. MR. SIPP-Twenty feet’s a little high. MR. WILKINSON-Not when the majority of traffic using this gas station is coming from the Northway and it’s very, very difficult to actually see that sign from the Northway as it is now. You can see it once you’re heading down the ramp, but if you’re on the Northway, you can’t. MR. SIPP-You’ll see it heading down the ramp if it’s at 15 feet, too. MR. WILKINSON-Whatever’s allowed under the Sign Ordinance is what we’re proposing, and actually, again, it’s the re-location of the existing sign is all we’re trying to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-And that’s what we have, and we’ll open it up to questions and comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Comments from the Board? Questions? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set with it. MR. KREBS-I have one question. In all the information, it says that we approved a 2400 square foot gas station and convenience store, and on the drawing is says 2520 square feet. There’s a discrepancy there. MR. WILKINSON-I’ll check on that. Because the building, I haven’t changed the look of the building, and in actuality, the location of it hasn’t changed from the initial one. It’s 40 by 60. So it’s 2400 square feet. MR. KREBS-Okay, then your drawing is wrong. MR. WILKINSON-Is wrong. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it shows 60 by 42. MR. WILKINSON-Forty-two by sixty. Yes. It’s 42 by 60. So whatever that multiplies out. That’s always been the size. So I don’t know where the discrepancy goes, 42 by 60. MR. OBORNE-Twenty-five twenty. MR. WILKINSON-Twenty-five twenty. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s really quite an interesting site. We were there on Saturday, and, you know, you look at it on paper, and then you drive to the site, and then you drive onto the site, and it’s so deceiving because the entire Niagara Mohawk right of way is paved. MR. WILKINSON-Gravel. It’s gravel. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, gravel. MR. WILKINSON-And full of potholes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So it feels like it’s part of your property, and I’m sure customers have always used it as part of your property. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-They will always continue to use it as part of your property. MR. WILKINSON-No, not if National Grid has their way. That’s part of the negotiation that is still ongoing to try to cross their easement. They want it shut off from traffic and shrubs or something planted there. That’s one of the things we’re discussing back and forth, and what we don’t want to do is we don’t want to put it back to grass or something for them if it’s going to cost us topsoil and everything else. They have all the equipment and everything. Why don’t they do it? But it’s a negotiation thing that’s going back and forth. We’ve already spent a lot of money on this site and we’re trying not to spend more to get National Grid crossing. So we’re negotiating. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. KREBS-Keith, for the record, should that number be changed? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I’d like to see, I mean, what is it actually? MR. WILKINSON-The building permit lists 42 by 60. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-And that’s what my original drawing showed, and I don’t know where the 2400. MR. OBORNE-If that’s what you’ve got, if that’s what the building is right here, and it is the 2520? MR. WILKINSON-Yes. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. OBORNE-That’s golden. My main concern, though, and I’m going to take the liberty to say that your drive aisle past the diesel pumps is a major problem. It is, and I don’t know, maybe you glossed over it, but out of all of my Site Plan Review that is just glaring. You need to have a 24 foot drive aisle. Just imagine people getting out of there if there’s a semi pulled up there also. I’m not the Planning Board, but it is a requirement of the Town Zoning Code, and it’s a, it’s a glaring problem I believe. MR. FORD-You’re about to address that, aren’t you? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, but you notice I talked to them before I did. One of the things that I was just looking at and thinking of, because GRJH also has the station on Exit 19, the Sunoco there, and that went through Planning Board approval a couple of years ago, I’m not, I don’t remember the exact dates, but the usage of the store is such that there’s probably the need for two or three parking spaces near the building only. So that we could try to change that configuration to ensure that there’s access aisle around that, that there’s not a parking spot by the diesel pump. I’m thinking that if we use two parallels over there, starting from the south edge of the building, and then maybe an additional parallel further back, and then have all the, whatever other remaining parking area we need, use the existing paving which would be to the west towards Northway. There’s a whole section over there that’s all paved already that we can add three more spaces to it to meet the minimum requirements, but the actual need for them at the door is two or three if that would be satisfactory to the Board. I think it is a legitimate comment, Keith, and I apologize for appearing to gloss over it, but I’m just reading under stress of being in front of the Board. I just missed it. MR. FORD-They can do that to you. Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-So there would be only two spaces parallel to the west side of the building? MR. WILKINSON-Two spaces parallel on the west side of the building. Would two spaces be adequate, or do you need three? Two, and then have the handicap also on the, what would be the east side of the building would be the one handicap space, rather than the two that are shown there now, and that’s going to be the space with the aisle and everything. So you’ve got door access and it doesn’t cross borders. It doesn’t hit the building. MR. SEGULJIC-Just so I understand, because I’m probably going to do the motion, what you’re proposing to do, then, is taking the three parking spaces that are on the west side of the building, those northern three spaces, and move those to the edge of the pavement on the western edge of the pavement? MR. WILKINSON-Further west. Yes, where we’re showing ten spaces. MR. SEGULJIC-North of the existing diesel pumps. MR. WILKINSON-They wouldn’t be north of that. They would be spaced along that westerly edge. We have ten spaces there now. There’s room down at the bottom to stripe an additional two, and then add one to the north. So there would be 13 spaces along the westerly edge of pavement. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying one here, two? MR. WILKINSON-There’s room there to stripe one so you’ve got two, and then add one to this end. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-So there’d be, instead of 10, that would go to 13. MR. SEGULJIC-And then we’d eliminate these three. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and that would no longer be handicap because we only need one. This would be the handicap and those two would be there, and this wouldn’t be there at all. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s not there. This is going to be handicap over here. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I think I’ve got it. MRS. BRUNO-Can you come down and give us a little sketch, too? MR. HELM-This space in here, there’s room to add one stripe, and become two spaces, and then add one up here. So there’s now 13 instead of 10. This is no longer handicap. This is gone. This is handicapped on this side of the building, for our one handicap we need, and there’s two spaces starting from here, two spaces going north, and the rest are eliminated. MRS. BRUNO-So we’re not worried about here to here, or here to here? I mean, I know that, or, excuse me, here to here. MR. HELM-No, because I need 24 foot aisle. It’s going to be close. Well, the other thing is not add the one to the north and ask for one in reduction, because we said we need 17, but we’re not going to need 17. MRS. BRUNO-I mean, you’re saying a 20 foot aisle, you really only have 10. MR. HELM-Under the Code, as a convenience store, to have 17. MR. FORD-How many are you proposing? MR. SEGULJIC-Sixteen, yes. MRS. BRUNO-Clark, you’ve only got 10 over here. Right? If you have the back of the car right there. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, but this is eliminated and slid down. MRS. BRUNO-This one’s eliminated and slid. MR. WILKINSON-And this one’s slid right to the edge of the sidewalk. I’m going to slide them all down a little bit. MRS. BRUNO-It’s still not going to give you 20. MR. WILKINSON-We’re trying not to move the pumps, because that’s a huge expense. MRS. BRUNO-No, I agree, and that’s potential for. MR. HELM-You want 24 here? Which I think is a, that’s even tight on the curve right now. It’s 21 to the pump. MRS. BRUNO-I would say do your best. If we’re going to end up with this. I’m more concerned about over here, and if you’ve got somebody here, because if you end up with this, you’ve got to have your. MR. HELM-And not only going out but coming in with a big rig, too, I agree. MRS. BRUNO-Or even a little rig, trying to get past the big rig. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, what’s up to the Board? MR. HELM-Well, we were looking at, with Tanya, we were looking at if I add a space on the north end of those existing 10 spaces, that the clearance between the diesel pump and the end of that space might be also a critical area. MR. HUNSINGER-You could park them parallel, though. MR. HELM-You could do that, or we could ask for a reduction of one or two spaces because, you know, 17 spaces for a 2500 square foot store is ridiculous. So we could ask for that. Instead of showing them, we could just leave it open. Which is your preference, a reduction of two spaces so you’re down to 15? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re showing 16. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HELM-We might be able to do 16, but if ask for two, then I can make sure that there’s no error, you know, no problems there. The last couple you can. MR. KREBS-Like you said, if you just turned that last one on the top parallel. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you could just paint two spaces parallel on that and plenty of room. MR. HELM-And again, I don’t think those spaces over there are ever going to really be used. Employees only. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think you could pull that last space on the top on the north, on a parallel? Maybe if you ran it 40 feet up. MR. WILKINSON-I would rather not show it, and that’s what I’m asking for. MR. HUNSINGER-I was looking at the 37.8 feet to the boundary line, not to the edge of pavement. MR. WILKINSON-Not to the edge of pavement. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re right. You’re not going to get two spots back there. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you wouldn’t want to throw it up there. That’s where the garbage is going. MR. WILKINSON-No, that’s going further up, away from the pump. MR. OBORNE-That’s what I was talking about, though. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. That’s where the dumpster’s going. MR. WILKINSON-So if we could get a request of one space reduction, or two, let’s request two, because if I show an extra, it’ll be okay, but if I don’t show enough. Is that? MRS. BRUNO-That’s fine with me. I don’t think you’re going to get that many cars. MR. WILKINSON-I know we’re not going to get that many cars, but. MRS. BRUNO-I’d rather see the safety. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, I agree. The circulation needs to work better than worrying about whether there’s 17 parking spaces. MRS. BRUNO-You did mention the reason why you had moved the septic system back. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-I noticed that one of Dan Ryan’s comments was how close it was to the. MR. WILKINSON-To the stormwater. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, to the stormwater, 12 feet. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. I’m going to make it 20. MRS. BRUNO-You are? Okay. I think I missed that. Thanks. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. I have room to do that in that whole green area. MRS. BRUNO-That was my next question is if you’ve got enough. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-Any signs on the building? MR. WILKINSON-Just the pylon. MR. SIPP-Just the one. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MR. SIPP-Fifteen feet high. MR. WILKINSON-You’re pushing for that, Don, aren’t you? The movement of the existing pole to that location. MR. HUNSINGER-As long as you don’t make the sign LED, we’ll be happy. MR. WILKINSON-No. We discussed that at the first approval. Remember? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure it was a condition. MR. WILKINSON-And, no, that’s not proposed here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and back to the parking, so I understand it. We’re going for a total of 15? MR. HUNSINGER-Fifteen spaces. MR. WILKINSON-Fifteen. That’s what we’re requesting from the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-I have, we discussed 16. Which one are you going to eliminate? MR. WILKINSON-One over on the west side. We’re only going to show 11 over there, no, 12 over there. MR. SEGULJIC-Twelve over there. MR. WILKINSON-Twelve on the west side of the parking, or the paved area, two against the west side of the building, and one on the east side of the building. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s going to be handicapped? MR. WILKINSON-That’s going to be handicapped. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. If I understand this, I’ll just read what I have. As far as this motion goes, should I say we’re going to eliminate spaces? What I have written is that we’re going to eliminate three northern spaces along the building’s western side, insert a total of twelve spaces along the western site boundary, eliminate the handicap spaces to the south and west of the building, and place a handicap space to the east of the building at the southern end. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Three northern spaces? MR. WILKINSON-Along the western side of the building on the north. MR. OBORNE-That’s still going to leave you with the space going up from the south on the west side of the building. You’re not even close. You’re at 13 feet. MRS. BRUNO-That’s what I was saying. He said he was going to slide it down. MR. OBORNE-You need to eliminate the three middle ones. MR. WILKINSON-So you can leave the northern one, you’re saying? MR. OBORNE-Leave the northern one and the southern one, and you’re good, because it’s those three that are the problem. MR. WILKINSON-Well, one of the things that also occurred is you see how the sidewalk, I show the sidewalk radiused. It’s actually square. So I was going to bring that down an additional four, five feet. I don’t know if it’ll help or not, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Because to the building is 24 from the pump. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-Yes, but if I slide those spaces to the south, the parallel spaces, so that they’re, you know, five foot south of the building, right even with that sidewalk. MR. OBORNE-I see. MR. HUNSINGER-Eliminate that striping. MR. WILKINSON-And eliminate the striping, now I only have two spaces that are 20 feet each, coming from the bottom. I think it still might be close, but it’s definitely better than. MR. OBORNE-Okay. If it’s not, well, we can’t really talk about it, can we? Let’s see what we can do here. What are those, Clark, those are three and a half feet or three feet? MR. WILKINSON-What’s that? MR. OBORNE-Those stripes. Say four feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think people will park there. MR. WILKINSON-They’ll park there anyway. So you might as well plan for it. MR. OBORNE-That’s true. Well, unless you put a big rock there or something. Well, it’s been done. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m sure that the majority of people that go in to the store stop and get gas, and then they walk from the pump to the store. MR. WILKINSON-The majority, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but there’s always people that stop and buy convenience items, and they’re going to park as close as they can to the door. In fact, they’ll probably park where that front handicap spot is that we’re moving. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. They’ll probably do that anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because you see it all the time. MR. WILKINSON-And block everything. MR. HUNSINGER-You can mark every spot and plan for everything, but people will just do what they want. MR. WILKINSON-They’re still going to park as close as they can to the door because I want to run in and out and I’m more important right now because I need to get this stuff because I’m thirsty. That’s the way people think. I’m sorry. MR. OBORNE-I look at it from the point of safety and welfare, I really do, and leaving that spot there is just not going to cut it, for that aspect of it. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. So, keep one south of the pumps and one north of that diesel pump? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I’d sleep better at night. MR. HUNSINGER-Works for me. MR. OBORNE-So the middle three. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and that’s going to give us a total of how many spaces? MR. OBORNE-Fifteen. MR. FORD-Fifteen. MR. SEGULJIC-Fifteen. All right. Are we all set, then? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s a Type II action. No SEQRA. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SIPP-So you’re going to replace those sugar maples with what? MR. WILKINSON-Have you got a suggestion, Don? You’re usually pretty good at trees. MR. SIPP-Norway maple, an ash. I think that’s in the corridor. MR. WILKINSON-It’s in, for the deciduous shade? MR. SIPP-Yes. The Main Street Corridor. MR. WILKINSON-I’ll pick one out of that listing. MR. SIPP-I don’t know why the sugar maple. MR. WILKINSON-I don’t either. MR. OBORNE-It should be salt tolerant, too. MR. WILKINSON-It is, that’s why I picked it. MR. OBORNE-I’m pretty sure a red maple is. MR. SIPP-Red maple is. Sugar maple is not salt tolerant. MR. WILKINSON-Right. MR. SIPP-And I assume it’s because it’s next to that ramp, which is going to be salted, but an ash or a Norway. MR. WILKINSON-Norway maple. Let’s pick Norway maple. That’s still a maple. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The street trees will be Norway maple. MR. WILKINSON-They’re not street trees. It’s site trees. There’s only two, one street tree that’s the sugar maple that I’ll make the Norway, but the other ones are along the western edge. Do you want them changed as well? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I’ll say site trees. MR. WILKINSON-The sugar maples will become Norway maples. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I assume we’re all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2007 GRJH, INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to their approved site plan for construction of 2,400 sq. ft. Gas Station and Convenience Store. The modification requests are: changes to parking configuration and pavement layout; relocation of septic system due to changes in pavement configuration; changes in locations of SWM facilities. Agent will also provide an update as to the status of the “Future Access” to the rear of the property. Modifications to approved site plans require Planning Board review and approval. 2) A public hearing is not required for a modification; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) 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) NOT APPLICABLE – PROJECT IS A TYPE II; 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 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) 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. 52-2007 GRJH, INC., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five, it’s a Type II. Number Eight does not apply. With the following conditions. That the site trees will be Norway Maple instead of sugar maples, and that the parking plan will consist of a total of 15 spaces, and the plan will be revised as follows. The three middle spaces along the building’s western edge will be eliminated. A total of 12 spaces will be located along the site’s western boundary. The handicap spaces to the west and south of the building will be eliminated, and a handicap space will be located to the east of the building at the southern end, and within the resolution, under Number One, the noted construction of 2400 square feet will be revised 2520 square feet, and a stockade enclosed dumpster will be located adjacent to the northernmost three Norway Maple trees, and that the engineering comments will be addressed. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Well, that locates 13 of the 15. MR. WILKINSON-No, 15. MR. OBORNE-That’s 15. MR. FORD-Did you come up with 15? MR. OBORNE-You’ve got the 12 along the side. You’ve got the one northern one, southern on the western side, that’s 14, and then the one over. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. KREBS-And, Tom, we need to change that 2400 square feet to 2520. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other thing, I don’t know if we want to mention anything about the dumpster, the stockade enclosed dumpster. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Which will be located on the western boundary, near. MR. WILKINSON-Stockade enclosed. MR. FORD-Northwestern boundary. MR. HUNSINGER-Near the location of the three. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. WILKINSON-The last set of trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It would be just north of those trees? MR. WILKINSON-North of that. Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. WILKINSON-Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. WILKINSON-We’ll see you again when we come back for that access. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DELLA AUTO GROUP AGENT(S) B P S R; HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S) LINDA HART; 130 BIG BOOM RD., LLC ZONING HC-INT LOCATION 384 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES UPGRADE OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ADDITION OF A 4307 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND UTILITIES. EXPANSION OF AN ALLOWABLE US REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE SP 11-93, 61-93, 47-98, 4- 99, 55-95, SV 25-94, UV 54-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/13/08 LOT SIZE 0.79 ACRES; 0.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-43, 44 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan No. 33-2008, Della Auto Group, Site Plan Review for the expansion of an allowable use, 384 Bay Road. This is Highway Commercial Intensive. It’s a Type II SEQRA status. The parcel histories are numerous and variable. Project Description: Applicant proposes upgrades to the existing building and a 4,307 square foot addition. The proposal includes associated parking and utility. Staff comments: Parcel consolidation will be needed to be a condition of approval to avoid setback issues. The applicant intends to use the building for auto body repair purposes. The existing structure is 4,963 square feet in size, and the proposed 4,307 square foot addition will bring the total size of the building to 9,270 square feet. The proposed permeability for the site sits at 38.6%, well within the 30% maximum per 179-4-030, and Site Plan Review follows. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Again, for the record, Jon Lapper with Michael Della Bella and the engineer, Tom Hutchins. To start out with, Mike was able to consolidate a few parcels and sign an agreement with Linda Hart from The Harvest to square off the properties, which allowed this project to go forward. As the Board’s probably aware, the parcel in question has been for sale for a while. It’s a perfect location for the Della Bellas because it’s just a few blocks from their dealerships on Quaker Road. So the idea is to consolidate their body shop here, and it’ll be very convenient for their dealerships. The general plan is to clean up this site, move the pavement back from where it is on Bay Road now, add landscaping, which is pretty non-existent, add stormwater management, which is non-existent, and just generally upgrade this site. A few months ago, the Board approved the Adirondack Trust Company bank site to the south. This site was coordinated. We got the plans from the LA Group, so that we could match up the driveways and make these two sites work together. So in general, in a short amount of time, we’ll have two sites that’ll be re-developed, which should look pretty nice on Bay Road. I guess to start with, let me just ask Tom to walk you through the proposed improvements, and then we can talk about the comment letters. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. To summarize, looking at your layout plan, which is Sheet S-2, the existing building that has been there for some time, our proposed addition is 60 by 62, nominal structure, although there’s a notch out of that. So the areas won’t match. It’s located entirely to the rear of the current building, and we propose to remove the blocking fence there that is to the north of the current building and allow some customer and employee parking along the north of the 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) current building, also just toward the street, in front of the building, although we are pulling the asphalt back further than it currently is, and we have parking in the rear which will allow for some employee parking, as well as holding of vehicles that are in service. Utilities are all in place, water, sewer, electric. Stormwater, we have basically followed the model that was completed with the bank, in following their general pattern toward the rear of the site with a wet pond and a controlled outlet. Dan and I haven’t coordinated on his comments. He had a number of comments, many of them very minor, and a couple of them need a little thought, and we’ll probably discuss them. I don’t foresee anything that can’t be worked out between he and I, to be satisfactory. Currently there’s basically essentially, essentially no stormwater treatment facilities on the site now. We will be re- paving, cleaning up the site. I have shown some landscaping. It’s kind of difficult to the north and south as we’re very tight to the property lines. We have shown some plantings on the street side, and, yes, we planted sugar maples, and as you saw the last application, they may not be the preferred planting, but, lighting. There were some comments on our lighting plan and that is something that we can adjust and get within the Town standards. I did not calculate a uniformity ratio. It does, there is another level of analysis I have to go to in order to do that where we add the individual contours that I have shown on there. So in order to calculate a Uniformity Ratio, I have to take another step in that analysis, but I don’t foresee it being a problem. There was one comment about low lighting levels in the front, and we’ve sort of intentionally did that, because you’ll see there’s a pole just south of the entranceway. That pole has a street light, and it’s actually pointed almost directly over this entrance. That’s not accounted for in our lighting analysis. It’s not on our property, but there’s a significant amount of lighting there. We also anticipate some spill along this side from the bank, as the drive thru will be right there, which are generally well lit, and with that, I guess I’d turn it over to questions, or if Michael has anything he wants to add about the operation. MICHAEL DELLA BELLA MR. DELLA BELLA-No. I’ll wait to answer the questions. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. SIPP-All right. On the north side here, this little notch, this has been acquired? MR. LAPPER-It’s under contract to be acquired. It’ll all close together. MR. SIPP-From Linda Hart. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Owns both pieces that border on. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SIPP-So that little five foot notch there would be, your property would be extended, and that would leave you more room for a buffer in between. MR. DELLA BELLA-What we did is we squared it off. My property, the property of the body shop, went much further up into, well, close to the restaurant. It says Lands Conveyed to Linda Hart, that whole box, that was my property. So what I did with the Harts is they asked if they could square off the property, which I said no problem. I just needed that five or six feet there, so I wouldn’t abut them. I could, you know, have a little bit of room to put the stormwater in and everything else. They were in agreement with that. It squared off their property, so they don’t have a cockeyed piece, and we’re pretty square now, too. MR. SIPP-Are you going to have only one paint booth still only just one? MR. DELLA BELLA-Correct. We’ve already invested a substantial amount of money here because that’s all new. It’s the State of the Art booths that are, and the current paint booth is going to be eliminated, that’s in the front, and that was a discussion I had with the Harts. They didn’t like the paint booth there. It was too close to the front and too close to the restaurant. So we have an agreement and I moved it over, the paint booth is all the way at the end of the building, and they just re-ducted it, any exhaust that would come out of there is going towards us, toward east, versus going north where it used to go. So, between the filters and everything, you could stand up on the roof. MR. LAPPER-That’s all DEC standards for paint booths. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. DELLA BELLA-We had to get permits and, which has all been completed. MR. SIPP-Now, this easement, have you approached the Adirondack bank? MR. LAPPER-Well, when we did that approval, we showed it to their property line. On the other Site Plan approved by the Board, and now we’re showing it here, and they’re in exactly the same place. So we worked that out. MR. SIPP-Okay. They agreed to put in some. MR. LAPPER-Some plants. MR. SIPP-Some plantings, and I’m pretty sure that they were evergreen type. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Those plants are behind, which would be to the east of that connection point that we’re talking about, Don. So what’s positive about that, because there’s not a lot of room on this site, this is a narrow site, there are all, that whole line of trees that you’re talking about are on the Adirondack Trust Company site, but they’re right on the property line. So it should work visually for both properties. MRS. BRUNO-Keith, would you tell me exactly where the Bay Road corridor design starts? MR. OBORNE-Where does it start? MRS. BRUNO-Where it would start, right. At the corner of Bay and Quaker, or is it up further? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, yes, and it runs north all the way through, Jon, you should know this, too, but it’s definitely part of the Bay Road corridor. I can get that exactly for you, though. MRS. BRUNO-That’s okay. I just wanted to make sure that it was in it before. I just wanted to make sure that it was in and not out or, you know, vice versa. MR. OBORNE-It’s in. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Just from my standpoint, we went and looked at the site on Saturday and you have cleared all the way back to what you’re showing here, almost to the edge of the property. Have you cleared that? MR. HUTCHINS-No, no, not the full way. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. DELLA BELLA-It goes past, substantially, those trees back there. MR. HUTCHINS-It goes past, where it’s cut, it was all small stuff that was cut, and it goes back towards probably the back of where we’re showing parking area, but it’s not all the way back. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Another thing we noticed in our site visit is you mentioned the paint booth and so on, and there’s a lot of ductwork and mechanicals and so on on the end of the building. Is that going to go on the roof of the new building, or? MR. DELLA BELLA-That’s where it is now. That’s all brand new. That was just installed. That’s the end of that existing building. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DELLA BELLA-When the extension goes on, it’ll continue ducting because my agreement with the Harts is it’s ducting as far east as it can go. That’s where it’s going to go. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you’ll just keep adding sections to it, as needed. MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes. As soon as that extension’s put on, then I can extend it, but right now it’s much more powerful than it should be because it’s got another 50 feet to go yet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So what are you going to use the site for? Is it just going to be a body shop? Does it service all of your dealerships? MR. DELLA BELLA-This is a collision paint center. It does all my dealerships, but it also does substantial amount of body work for the public. Just like the one on Broad Street was. Same, similar type of thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-They’re basically re-locating their operations from Broad Street in Glens Falls to Queensbury. MR. DELLA BELLA-To Quaker Road, or Bay Road. MR. HUNSINGER-It just seemed like there was a lot of parking spaces to me. That’s part of why I asked the question. MR. DELLA BELLA-What I think the parking, we’re going to have probably I don’t know how many employees when it’s finally done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you’ll have a fair number of employees. MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes. It’ll be similar to our business as it was on Broad Street. MR. HUNSINGER-And we did notice, I think you mentioned something about sugar maples, but there’s red maples that are already there. You’re not taking those out? MR. LAPPER-No. Those are within the right of way, and we’re talking about adding them on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And if you want Norway, they’ll be Norway. MR. FORD-Any concerns with the parking spaces to the east and the ducting? MR. DELLA BELLA-The east to the back? MR. FORD-East side of the property, yes. MR. DELLA BELLA-No, no, no. Yes, no problem. I’m told never to say it, but you can stand up there right next to it and you wouldn’t smell it. I mean, that’s how clean it is now. It’s just unbelievable. So I’m not worried about anything. You mean like staining the cars or something like that? No, no. No, not at all. MR. FORD-Good. MRS. BRUNO-Tom, what’s your front setback at? MR. LAPPER-Fifty-eight I think. MR. HUTCHINS-Actual, to building? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s shown on S-2. MR. LAPPER-It’s right here. 58.3. MR. HUTCHINS-Here it is, 58.3. MRS. BRUNO-Bay Road corridor, we have a building line setback, front, from the street, 75 foot is required. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. LAPPER-That’s absolutely true, but this is an existing structure. Yes. So if it was a new structure, you’re absolutely right. MRS. BRUNO-So it’s grandfathered. Okay. Could you describe this building to me a little bit more than what we’ve got in elevations here, materials, colors, the works? MR. DELLA BELLA-Currently it’s a steel building with a steel roof. It’s got the front, almost the whole front of the building is glass. The sides of the building are metal siding, and the addition will be the same. MRS. BRUNO-Would you consider at all upgrading the siding to something besides a metal siding to try to? MR. DELLA BELLA-Make it look a little nicer? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-I’m not sure if we just, if you’ve got somebody on board with doing that, or if this is still at preliminary level, but that might be something that you can just ask your designer to maybe push following the design guidelines so that we can maintain, I mean, I know it’s a commercial, highway commercial intensive, so maybe we can balance it somewhere in between. MR. DELLA BELLA-Sure, and I agree with you. Our other buildings, if you’ve seen them before, the ones on Quaker Road, even the ones on Broad Street, my buildings always look much better than any other buildings that are around the neighborhood. So we’re going to make sure that that happens, too. It’s an upgraded collision center. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-The sign out on the Bay Road side, similar to Adirondack bank, monument type sign? MR. LAPPER-You have the existing sign that was there. You just changed the copy. MR. DELLA BELLA-The sign that’s there is existing, and all it was was a copy change at this time. The place is right where it is. It’s going to stay that way. I don’t have any other new plans for signage at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-The area to the north of the existing building, where you have those 10 spaces, and there’s those trees along the property line, those are going to remain in place, correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, they’re going to have to, there’s a cut line to the grade. It’s essentially right at that notch, Tom, we essentially have to take it back to the property line. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So what I’m getting at is the, if I’m interpreting it correctly, the landscaping code that says exterior lot landscaping. It says you’re supposed to have one tree every 250 square feet I think it is, but you can use existing trees. MR. OBORNE-Linear, linear feet. MR. SEGULJIC-One shade tree shall be provided for every 250 square feet, or any portion thereof of a landscaped strip. 80-40. MR. OBORNE-It is every 250 feet. It shouldn’t be every 250 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it goes into that, your strip has to either be three feet or five feet, and while you’re looking at it, is there going to be a sidewalk along Bay? I just don’t see it on your, it is, it’s right there. I’ve got it now. I just didn’t notice it before. MR. OBORNE-Tom, I have this as one shade tree, three inch caliper minimum, shall be provided every 250 linear feet or in any portion thereof of a landscape strip. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SEGULJIC-You have linear feet? MR. OBORNE-18001. That’s the page. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re looking along streets. I’m looking along exterior parking lot landscaping, E of that Section. MR. OBORNE-How large is the site? Tom, what’s the square footage on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s labeled on S-2. MR. OBORNE-It should be on here, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It’s on. MR. HUNSINGER-Asphalt and gravel areas, 9865 square feet. MR. HUTCHINS-What do you want, parcel area? MR. OBORNE-Yes, parcel area. MR. LAPPER-Here it is, 53,862 square feet. So it’s 1.23, a little over an acre. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Just a little over an acre. I see what you’re getting at, Tom, I mean, absolutely. I could do the calculations. It might take me a half an hour. MR. SEGULJIC-But if they’re keeping the existing trees there, that (lost words) that. MR. OBORNE-That should be fine, but I mean, they have a swale there. I don’t know how they’re going to be able to keep the trees there. MR. SEGULJIC-To the north? MR. LAPPER-There is a drainage swale on the north side because that was the only place to put it. MR. OBORNE-I think that precludes having to put any trees there. It’s going to be difficult. MR. HUNSINGER-And there’s trees to the rear. MR. OBORNE-Both sides there’s swales coming right on down. MR. SIPP-The existing trees that are there is about 20 foot in the front part of that lot, there’s about, the trees themselves are not the best trees in the world. MR. OBORNE-Yes, they’re pretty scrubby looking. MR. LAPPER-Well, one place we could add trees would be right where Mike was talking about that little jog, towards the north, because that’s not used for the drainage swale, right where it says iron rod set. There’d be room for some trees. MR. FORD-That would be a good place for them. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the other thing, the area, it’s roughly in the area that you’re acquiring. There are two or three decent trees, you know, larger mature trees. Most of it’s just scrub stuff, but there are two or three, you know, reasonable sized trees. Are you going to be able to maintain those? MR. LAPPER-In the back you mean? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, towards the back where the addition is? MR. LAPPER-Where the drainage basin is. MR. HUTCHINS-In the far rear the parcel? I’m not sure about specifics. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, roughly, they’re roughly in the proposed gravel area there, to the north of the new addition, in that general area there’s three or four decent sized trees, this size. They’re like this size. In fact, they’re right near where the, there’s a dumpster there, there’s a container. They’re right near where the container is off the back of the building there, near the paint booth. MR. HUTCHINS-The new building is going, is 26 feet. MR. DELLA BELLA-It’s 26 feet out. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s 26 feet further north than the current one. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just saying if you can, you know. MR. SIPP-Yes, but nobody’s going to be driving on that side, right? MR. DELLA BELLA-We wanted to make sure that was (lost words) we could drive out around the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. They’re required to. MR. HUTCHINS-We can, but not normally. That’s why it’s gravel. MR. SIPP-Your overhead doors would be to the rear? MR. HUTCHINS-All the overhead doors are to the south, yes. MR. SIPP-And therefore, well, we might have, but is there an overhead door on that northern side? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. SIPP-No. You’ve got a lot of tree cover there. MR. HUTCHINS-There’s a lot of tree cover there. MR. SIPP-You’re going to ruin some of it in the grading process, but it’s quite thick. The trouble is there it’s junk trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Mostly, yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So we could add a better quality, few trees right at the corner there of that jog. MR. DELLA BELLA-I like greens. I mean, we’ve got some spot to put it, we’ll. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we put some specifics on that? So when we say we’re talking about the jog, where the IRS is? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. What are we going to put there? MR. SIPP-I would put in some, because those popul there are useless trees. Eventually they’re going to die. MR. LAPPER-Get blown over. MR. SIPP-They’re going to get blown down or they’re going to crack under the ice weight or something like that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. FORD-They’re not worth saving, that’s for sure. MR. SIPP-Start some evergreens there, some spruce or pine or something. MR. DELLA BELLA-I’m okay with that. I like a spruce, as long as it fits with his design so I can drive around. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SIPP-Because you’ve got a possibility of five to seven years before the rest of that stuff may come down, and five or seven years they may be 10 foot high by that time. MR. LAPPER-It’s just a question of when you get to the swale. MR. HUTCHINS-I can make it work. MR. LAPPER-You can move it. MR. HUTCHINS-I can make that work. MR. LAPPER-How many trees? They get pretty big, spruce. MR. HUTCHINS-What, eight to ten? MR. SEGULJIC-Eight to ten spruce. Okay. Say ten spruce. MR. SIPP-Ten foot apart. You’ve got to figure one or two of them are going to die. MR. SEGULJIC-Ten spruce along northern. MR. HUNSINGER-Northeast corner of the proposed asphalt. MR. HUTCHINS-We’re talking about along that northerly line, not necessarily in the corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SIPP-Where you’re going to remove the fence. MR. DELLA BELLA-We can spread it out there somewhere, as long as the engineering that gets the water to the back. MR. SIPP-You’ve got enough room then.. MR. DELLA BELLA-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess all was asking about, the existing large trees, whatever you can save, and when you stand there and look up, it’s real obvious which ones are worth saving. The rest are just junk. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just struggling with how to describe this location. MR. LAPPER-If you could say starting at the jog. MR. SEGULJIC-Starting at the property line jog? MR. LAPPER-Starting at the property line jog on the north side, and heading east. MR. OBORNE-Where the proposed wing swale is? Where the northwest? MR. FORD-It’s the northwest corner of the property and it, technically it is. There’s two northwest corners, but, you’re right. That would be the northernmost. MR. SEGULJIC-How about if I say, if I understand this correctly, you have a marker of 155 feet? That’s from the road, I assume? It’s 155 feet east of the property line. MR. OBORNE-It’s part of your swale, though, isn’t it? MR. LAPPER-We’ll move the swale a little bit. MR. HUTCHINS-We’re back beyond, may I come up and make sure we’re talking about the same thing, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-We’re talking about in this area. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. HUTCHINS-And in back through here. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, and I’m just trying to describe that starting point. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. FORD-In this area here? MR. HUTCHINS-And we have plantings in there. MR. FORD-Okay. So it’s along this line. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s back here. MR. FORD-Way back there? All right. Then it’s further east than I thought it was. MR. HUNSINGER-Further west than I thought it was. MR. LAPPER-We’ve got a lot of shrubs around the sign up front, not tall stuff, but. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So what I’m going to say is plant 10 spruce along the northern property line, starting at 155 feet from Bay Road. MR. LAPPER-That’s perfect. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Anything else? MRS. BRUNO-We have a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-And we have a public hearing. Any other questions, comments 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 project? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-And if there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted action. What did they submit, a Short Form? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-I propose a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 33-2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DELLA AUTO GROUP, and 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) 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 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have the comments on plantings and we do have final signoff from VISION Engineering. MRS. BRUNO-Are we moving on this, or are we tabling it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we just did SEQRA. MRS. BRUNO-That was just for SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the feeling of the Board? MR. FORD-Let’s proceed. That’s my feeling. MRS. BRUNO-We’ve had, I’m a little uncomfortable because of the building. I know that Mr. Della Bella has very generously said that he will follow some of the guidelines, but I’d just like to remind the Board that, with the other buildings going up the road, we did go so far as to for material boards and full elevations of what will be built. That’s my feeling. MR. KREBS-For those existing buildings. MRS. BRUNO-No, they weren’t existing buildings, but where we’re adding on significantly in an area where we have very specific guidelines. MR. HUNSINGER-I know before we’ve approved projects subject to submission of paint schemes and building materials. Just have them come back with exterior finishings, paint schemes. MR. LAPPER-Exterior finish when we come back next month. MRS. BRUNO-I mean, a lot could really be done mixing that, I’m not saying you have to get rid of the metal building completely. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. DELLA BELLA-It won’t look metal when it’s done. It’s a special material that’s used, and I put it in a building that I did in Plattsburgh, but it looks like stone, but it’s a metal building, but you can’t tell it’s a metal building. That’s what it’s going to look like. MRS. BRUNO-I think I would feel more comfortable seeing some of that, perhaps, you know, there are different treatments. There’s all kinds of creative different ways of doing things, and I think I would just, you know. MR. DELLA BELLA-Right. Do you have something specific that you’d want to see? MR. KREBS-Are you talking about that material where you use the metal and then you put like a stucco paint on it? MR. DELLA BELLA-The efface or the stow, like on our building, it looks like a line in it, you know, it looks like a trowel line. It’s not flat. It’s not going to look like the aluminum siding that’s on the building now. That’s a flat aluminum siding. That’s not what it is. It’s very thick. MRS. BRUNO-Right. If you’re going on the efface route. MR. DELLA BELLA-It looks like it, right. MRS. BRUNO-It looks like it, you know, there are other materials that can be blended in that. I’m just saying in sensitivity of the fact that, you know, through the Bay Road guidelines they talk about the residential look and again, I realize this is a different type of business, but we are trying to have some continuity in the road aesthetics. MR. DELLA BELLA-You’ll be pleased with the material that I use on the building. MRS. BRUNO-And what color were you thinking? Do you have an idea? Is it more of a neutral? MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes, it is. It’s either a, it’s a, depending on how it’s going to look best with the size of the, the height is going to be, it’s like an earth tone type of, I should have brought it. It’s like a grayish or a brownish, that kind of family. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. What are you, roofing? Are you still doing a standing seam metal roof? MR. DELLA BELLA-That’s correct. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Any specific treatment on the windows? I don’t mean curtains. MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Yes, no, I don’t think there’s many windows in the building. There won’t be, just in the front, that’s all glass and very nicely done, but. MRS. BRUNO-I think Tom submitted pretty much wall packs. So there isn’t going to be anything. MR. DELLA BELLA-The only lighting that we have, we have the two pole lights, and I think that’s what he was talking about, that, unison or something, but whatever it’s supposed to be, that they wanted, that the only thing we can have, that’s what we’re going to have. It’s not going to be anything, it won’t be anything obtrusive. MR. LAPPER-One pole in front, one pole in back, and then the wall packs. MR. DELLA BELLA-It’ll be mostly just for safety, you know, the side of the building is going to be lit up. The bank will be right there. So I’m sure we’re going to have a lot of light coming from there on that. MR. LAPPER-Yes, the bank will have plenty of light. MR. D"ELLA BELLA-The security cameras and everything else. MRS. BRUNO-I think you know where I’m getting at. We’ve got the bank there, and more of that Adirondack theme and then you’ve got The Harvest, which looks more like a smaller house. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. DELLA BELLA-I understand, yes I do, and I think you’ll be pleased with it when it’s all done. It’ll take us some time, but when it gets all done. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of members? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, can we, because on another application we, just thinking ahead here, we granted approval with the condition that. MR. HUNSINGER-Subject to that they come back with the color schemes. MR. OBORNE-The hotel. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Mike would be okay with that, if we could get it approved subject, we’ll come back next month and bring a piece of this exterior for everybody to look at. MR. DELLA BELLA-I have it in my office. MR. SEGULJIC-So, is that what we want to do, then? MRS. BRUNO-Is there a potential that you could get some more detailed elevations? Do you have a designer on board, or was Tom your architectural? MR. HUNSINGER-There’s elevations here that just show the metal buildings. MR. HUTCHINS-There are elevations there, but they’re very conceptual. MR. LAPPER-The elevations won’t change, right? But just the material would change. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the material will change. MR. DELLA BELLA-The way that is, the way the building is set’s the way it’s going to stay, but the material that’s going to be used on it, when the conceptual drawing was done, was aluminum siding, but that’s not what I use. I use something, and again, I have it in my office. I could bring it to you tomorrow. You could see, whatever you want to do, but you’ll like it. MR. LAPPER-So if we come back with just that, or submit that, that’s simple? MR. DELLA BELLA-I’ve got absolutely no problem. You’ll be pleased with it. You won’t be able to tell that’s what it is. MR. FORD-I would feel comfortable with that. I mean, Michael has a history and a reputation before this Board, and in our community, and I would feel comfortable with his coming back with these. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it won’t take ten minutes. MR. SIPP-You did an excellent job on the front end of your Quaker Road. MR. DELLA BELLA-That came out beautiful. It really did. Thank you. MR. SIPP-Buick Pontiac. MR. FORD-Indicative, also, of your feeling for the community is your good neighbor approach to the way you have dealt with the Harts and others in this project to date, and I don’t see any reason why we could anticipate that there’s going to be any change in that attitude or approach. MR. LAPPER-Since you mentioned the General Motors building, we also submitted, at the same time, but we didn’t make the cut, to re-do the façade of the Honda building, much, much nicer than it is now. So we’ll be, hopefully be on next month, coming back to fix that. MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we do it the same night, then, if you’re going to be here anyway. MR. LAPPER-That would be great. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t have a date set for that, though. MR. OBORNE-Della Honda will be the first meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-The first meeting in September. MR. OBORNE-They’ve been bumped, so they get priority. MR. HUNSINGER-So bring the materials. Come back on, you sure it’s the first meeting? MR. OBORNE-I’m positive. th MR. HUNSINGER-On September 16. MR. OBORNE-And if it’s not, it will be. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except we’re already loaded up on September 16. MR. OBORNE-Well, no, if they get bumped from, because they’ve already submitted. They submitted back in, what, July? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They were the first item to get bumped. MR. OBORNE-Automatically bumped. Yes, so they’re first on the list. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Or second or third, because there were other people bumped. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll request that they submit building colors and? MR. LAPPER-It’ll be a sample of the materials. MR. HUNSINGER-And siding materials. MR. SEGULJIC-And siding materials. MR. HUNSINGER-For final review in September. MR. LAPPER-And that’ll be in the finished color. MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes, it’ll be in the finished color. th MR. SEGULJIC-So bring them to the meeting on September 16. Is that what we’re going to say? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Again, I don’t know if you need to specify the date. MR. LAPPER-Whatever the Honda dealership, we’ll be here for both. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Just, you know, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So the conditions, we have the trees along the northern property line. MR. HUNSINGER-Final signoff from the engineer. I think that was all I had, and then just review siding materials and the building colors. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’re going to approve this, but we’re going to put a condition on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. LAPPER-What Michael would like to do would be to be able to get started with the building permit application and get started on the expansion, but he’s not going to put the siding on until this Board has approved it, in terms of the façade. MR. HUNSINGER-And just say with final colors and building materials to be approved by the Board in September. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2008 DELLA AUTO GROUP, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes upgrade of existing building and addition of a 4307 sq. ft. building with associated parking and utilities. Expansion of an allowable use requires Site Plan Review 2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 8/19/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 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 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)NOT APPLICABLE: The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8)If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2008 DELLA AUTO GROUP, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Number Four complies. Number Five, Negative. Number Seven does not apply. The approval has the following conditions: That an engineering signoff be obtained. Ten spruce trees, three inch caliper trees, be planted along the northern property line starting at 155 feet, plus or minus, from Bay Road, and that proposed final building colors and siding be submitted to the Planning Board for review at the September 16, 2008 meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to specify the diameter of the trees? Usually I think we had said three inch. MR. SEGULJIC-Three inch trees, three inch caliper. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just, when you think about the colors and siding treatment, take a look at the Bay Road corridor requirements, and also, I mean, you’ve seen the other buildings, I mean, I don’t know if you’ve seen the plans for the bank next door, but you might want to think about a coordinating color with the bank. MR. DELLA BELLA-Yes. We’ll try and blend in as best we can. We won’t have any chickens on top of the roof or anything like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. D"ELLA BELLA-Listen, thank you very much. I appreciate it, but I also appreciate you guys staying late, ladies staying late. I really do. Thanks very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. Any other business before the Board? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re going to check on the Vance Cohen business? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it is two separate projects, so we get the right project number. MR. OBORNE-I can go ahead and do that. I know that the one project is a building permit. MR. HUNSINGER-And the Board can go and take a look at the sites, too, between now and next Tuesday. MR. OBORNE-Okay, and I wanted clarification on what did you want. Did you want the file? Do you want me to get you some information from the file, what the status is? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, for Cohen. I mean, you know, there were comments about the one piece of property not being kept up. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I don’t know if we can actually specify that per protocol or what we’re even, you know, if we have the purview to do that. It just almost seems like we’ve given the okay, that things have really gone the other way, and it really seems to be affecting the neighboring properties. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Maybe if you could just pull the approval resolutions on each. MR. FORD-I think that’s a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-You had it on the one project, but not the other. MR. FORD-I think there’s some non-compliance here. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I think so, too. MR. HUNSINGER-And like I said, in the meantime members have drive by each site take a look. Tom had raised questions about signs in the parking lot. MR. OBORNE-Now, this was before I was here. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they both were. MR. OBORNE-The building permit, did that require the first one, the one down by? MR. HUNSINGER-No, they both went through Site Plan Review. MR. OBORNE-They did? 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-That’s my question. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I remember both of them, the Scooters, up on the Outlets. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, that was because it was Special Use Permit. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And then of course the parking lot was just approved a year ago. MR. OBORNE-See, I don’t know what the ramifications are as far as his Site Plan. Because it will run out, I think, in two days. th MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. No, it runs out on the 28, I thought? I thought it was th August 28? th MR. OBORNE-I know it’s an eight. It is the 28? th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is the 28, which is why I said we can deal with this next week. stth It was approved on August 21, not August 28. This is the 1471 State Route 9. So that is the Scooters. That is the Scooters go kart. That’s the one that’s coming up first. MR. OBORNE-And that’s 8/21. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s the one resolution you did provide. MR. FORD-That’s where that eight came in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And the other one with the hamburger place, or is that the Scooters, the hamburger place? MR. HUNSINGER-No, the Scooters is the go kart. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The parking lot is the, I guess what you’re calling the hamburger place. MR. OBORNE-The hamburger place, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The parking lot by Great Escape. MR. OBORNE-And I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. MR. OBORNE-This obviously was not a priority because it was an Admin. item. st MR. HUNSINGER-So if they haven’t started construction by the 21 of August this year, then it expires? So do we have to deal with this tonight? Can we table it until next week? MR. FORD-Well, haven’t we just dealt with it by tabling it until next week? st MR. OBORNE-I don’t know, maybe you can give it an extension until the 21. I mean, I think that would be really the way to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO EXTEND APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 VANCE COHEN, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: To August 26, 2008. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Do you want to approve both of those? Because I’m not sure when the other one was, either now? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know when the other one was. I don’t have the information here. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t even have a Site Plan number for the parking lot. MR. OBORNE-I shall do my duty and dig it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-I have one other question for you, and it came to mind driving through the Outlets the other day. When Swank comes in front of us for their tent, they have to go through the whole Site Plan Review because they’re out in a parking lot. We all know. We have the gentleman that does the wood carvings up by Pfaltzgraff. Wouldn’t that fall under the same heading that he should be in front of us if he’s using that portion of the? MR. OBORNE-I would imagine. He might have a Transient Merchant’s license. I’m not quite sure. MRS. BRUNO-Could you please look into that for us? MR. HUNSINGER-I know he did once before, years ago. MRS. BRUNO-Did he? MR. HUNSINGER-And I don’t know what we decided or what was done with it. He has been before the Board at least once. MRS. BRUNO-May have turned into squatter’s rights. MR. HUNSINGER-Because we had a lot of questions about, you know, public safety and, you know, safe distances from what he was working on and that kind of thing. MR. OBORNE-Mrs. Bruno, I’ll look into it. I do have to be candid and I do have to prioritize at this point. MRS. BRUNO-Absolutely. I understand. It’s just something I’m putting out there before I forget it again. MR. OBORNE-So, I mean, I promise to get it to you before ’09, if that’s at all possible, but I will write it down. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business before the Board? MR. SIPP-I passed out some information on the lake there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thanks, Don. MR. SIPP-There’s more information if you want to go to the website. MR. HUNSINGER-And then, Keith, you were also going to check on the availability of the room for a third meeting in September, between now and Tuesday. MR. OBORNE-What date were we looking for? MR. HUNSINGER-Typically a third meeting would be on a Thursday. MR. OBORNE-Okay, of one of the weeks you would have a normal meeting. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but just in general, I mean, Thursdays is when the room tends to be available. I think that’s the only reason we do them then. Okay. If there’s no further business, a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2008, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 76