Loading...
2009.01.27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow H.O.A. 4. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 300.-1-19 Site Plan No. 52-2008 Joseph Riitano 10. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-9 Subdivision No. 11-2008 Wal-Mart Stores 11. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25 Site Plan No. 53-2008 Mark & Penny Kelly 19. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-17 Site Plan No. 41-2008 Great Escape Theme Park 33. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Site Plan No. 7-2007 Jolley Associates c/o Sean Crumb 47. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 302.5-1-98 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 01/27/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS SEGULJIC LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for th our second regular meeting of January on Tuesday, January 27. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SITE PLAN 48-2008: NPA II, LLC: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Did they submit any additional information? MR. OBORNE-Well, the issue is that the Area Variances, particularly the permeability of the site, needs to have a variance. That variance has not gone through yet, and at that point we can’t review or, well, you can talk about the Site Plan, but you can’t approve it or disapprove it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So are they back on the ZBA agenda for February? MR. OBORNE-They are, yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-So, is there any additional information that’s needed, other than the variance? MR. OBORNE-No, just the variance at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m sorry. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Just that I would request that that be put on at the second meeting next month, if possible, just because they will be at the Zoning Board. There were Sign Variances which were granted, and they didn’t get to the permeability variance, which is the last one. So that was tabled for additional information which was submitted. So that’s on in February. So they’re hoping, because they really need to do something with that site, they’re hoping to get back to the Planning Board after the Zoning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So if we tabled this, our February meeting, our second ththth meeting date has been changed from the 24 to the 19. So if we put this on the 19, does that? MR. LAPPER-I’ll be away with the kids, because it’s a school week, but happily you’ll have Stefanie here. MR. OBORNE-I think, as Staff, were planning on having that in March, tabled to March. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. OBORNE-Tabled to March. MR. LAPPER-Why is that? MR. OBORNE-That was the way the agendas fleshed out at the end. You have to go to, the Zoning Board will need to ask for a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning that. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. OBORNE-That’s what we’re asking for, and if they do, in fact, do that, then that’s going to put you back a month at this point. MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s on the Zoning Board agenda. It was going to be heard last time. There was just some additional information for the Staff Notes. So that’s on for a public hearing at the February meeting. This is obviously the first time I’ve heard the Staff recommendation that they want a Planning Board recommendation, but, I mean, at this point it’s on to be heard in February. I know that they’d really like to get before the Board. This involves closing on the purchase of the land from the State to do the drainage work along Route 9. There’s just a lot going on with this project. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I’m sorry, Keith, are they on the Zoning Board agenda for February or no? MR. OBORNE-They are on the Zoning Board agenda, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And they are potentially on your agenda for a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Upon completion of that recommendation, if in fact, the Zoning Board asks for a recommendation, then they would be back to you for Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That won’t be until March. MR. HUNSINGER-Now I understand what you’re saying. Okay. MR. LAPPER-But at this point there is no recommendation. They didn’t ask for a recommendation last, in January. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. th MRS. STEFFAN-And I’m assuming they’re on for the 18? th MR. OBORNE-They are on for the 18, yes, ma’am. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. th MR. LAPPER-So I would request that it go on on the 19, if that’s possible, and either way, it would either be there for a recommendation on permeability or for Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-But that would also mean we’d have to bump an item from the February agenda. MR. OBORNE-The thinking behind the whole process is that if the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals and there is a change in the Site Plan requested by the Planning Board or the Zoning Board changes something to the Site Plan, then we’re going to need to have information re-submitted. So, in reality, we are, although it probably won’t come off as this, we are trying to give the applicant time to submit a proper Site Plan for review. MR. LAPPER-I just can’t, I don’t understand this, because full Site Plans were submitted for the project. We appeared at the Zoning Board. It went very well. We took care of the Sign Variances. There was some additional information we needed for the permeability variances. This is just, there’s not much to the permeability variance. It’s just, the issue is that the whole site was one site. Then we had to subdivide Home Depot. So, you know, so one site has more green space, one has the other, but when you look at it 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) together, it works fine. I don’t see a big deal at the Zoning Board, and they didn’t mention anything about asking the Planning Board for a recommendation. So I would th just ask, to keep it moving, if we could have it on the agenda for the 19 and obviously if the Zoning Board does something differently, it might change, but at this point, there’s been, other than Staff making a recommendation, that isn’t coming from the Zoning Board. Obviously it’s up to this Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to chime in? MRS. STEFFAN-I just think for agenda control, I mean, the February meetings have been closed out. The agendas have been closed out on those because of the January th 15 deadline. So if we add this to the February agenda, we’re going to have to bump somebody else off. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MRS. STEFFAN-And in our organizational meeting we talked about that particular issue. rd MR. HUNSINGER-Were we able to confirm the meeting room for March 3? MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir, we have. rd MR. HUNSINGER-What if we compromise and put it on March 3? MRS. STEFFAN-We added a meeting in March. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. That would only be two weeks later. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How does that, I mean, does that still fit with the thinking? rd MR. OBORNE-Well, the February agenda also includes the March 3 meeting, because all those applicants need to go to the County, and, as such, we are sending those th applications to the County prior to the 30 of this month for their review. With that said, rdth all applications and Site Plans will be reviewed prior to February 3 or prior to the 10 of February, which is when it goes to the County. Basically what I’m saying is that the rd March 3 meeting is treated basically as a third February meeting, for application purposes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine, because this has already gone to the County. This project has, Northway Plaza has already gone to the County. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I believe it has already gone to the County. rd MR. HUNSINGER-So the March 3 date would still work. MR. OBORNE-Right, but it’s the applications that are pending released to the County that are in the queue right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. rd MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’d do the March 3? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: rd To the March 3 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MODIFICATION SEQR UNLISTED MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A. AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS ABOVE ZONING RR-3A, SR-1A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. DEADLINE DATE OF 1/9/09 CROSS REFERENCE SP 46-03, SB 16-03, SB 17-02, AV 22-02, AV 52-01, AV 36-05; PREVIOUS MEETING DATES 5/26/05, 6/28/05, 10/18/05, 11/15/05, 4/24/06 LOT SIZE 26.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.-1-19 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Application Subdivision 8-2005, Modification. This is, the applicant is Mountain Hollow H.O.A. The requested action is subdivision review for modifications to the stormwater control structure. Location is the Western Reserve Trail. The existing zoning is SR-1A or Suburban Residential One Acre. The SEQRA Status is Unlisted. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination concerning this application. Quick project description. Applicant proposes modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address the existing stormwater issues with the modification to an approved Site Plan. Specifically, the stormwater basin is proposed to be enlarged to increase the water storage capacity from approximately eight acre feet to approximately fourteen acre feet. Further, an inflow gauging weir will be installed near the stream inlet along with a pond level gauge in the main pond. Finally, seven drywells will be removed from the existing overflow basin and relocated on the south bank of the expanded bond between the 469 and 470 contours. Most of the recommendations, or most of the comments that I had last month were taken care of and addressed by the applicant. However, additional comments from Staff. Staff does recommend that the butyl sealant associated with the weir is dry tooled to ensure maximum adhesion, and if this project is commenced in winter, silt fencing will be near impossible to install. Please clarify the process that the applicant intends to use in order to install erosion and sediment controls. Again, those are not unreasonable comments, and I’d leave it to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. Project engineer, Tom Nace, with Mickey Hayes. When we were here last time, as Keith said, we had, the tabling resolution asked us to respond to the comments from Staff and from the engineer. We have, essentially, a signoff from both of them, with a few new comments from both of them. Tom resubmitted and did everything that Dan had asked for, and Dan acknowledged that. We view the comments that Dan has left as very basic and we certainly can comply with all that. I’ll let Tom get into the details, but this is something that we had discussed last time, that it would be best to do in the winter, before the Spring melt. So what we hope we can walk out with tonight is a Planning Board approval, subject to a final signoff from Dan Ryan, and then as soon as that happens, Mickey can get going. So that’s where we are. MR. NACE-Okay. Very quickly. Engineering comments, the additional new comments were a lot of administrative stuff, really, that he’s asking that the weir device should be included is cleaning that in the maintenance plan. The riprap channel he’s asked that it be provided downstream of the weir device and on into the pond which we will do. It does show, right around the weir device itself, that he is correct, the new channel leading into the pond needs erosion protection, and we’ll, as he’s asked in Comment Number Eight, we’ll include some check dams along that riprap channel down into the basin. The fence, we will have to come up, and that’ll go onto the maintenance schedule, something to require that the fence upstream of the weir device, if that fence could possibly clog up with debris from coming down the channel, that needs to be inspected and cleaned on a daily basis, and his additions to the emergency action plan appear to be good comments, and we will add those to the emergency action plan. MR. LAPPER-And then you had the two comments from Keith. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. NACE-The butyl sealant, the dry tooling, I’m not quite sure what is envisioned there, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Well, basically, you’re putting the tube into a gun, and you’re squirting it all over, if I’m correct, Mickey. What I want you to do, if you can, and I would appreciate it, is you need to spread it out with a dry tool. MR. NACE-Okay. Sure. MR. OBORNE-Just to cover it. That’s the main thing I want. MR. NACE-Sure. We’ll specify that, and the silt fencing installation in the winter is very difficult. You do the best job you can, clear the snow away, get down to the ground, scrap as much as you can to get the silt fence seeded in the original ground. It’s not going to be perfect. You’re going to end up coming back in the Spring, after things thaw, and re-doing most of it, but that’s really the best you can do in the winter, and in this case, the pond is the recipient of the silt, so it’s not like it’s going into a stream or somewhere that’s going to do some damage. So if there is a little bit of silt that gets past the fence, it’s not a disaster. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you be able to get it out of the pond if it did? MR. NACE-Yes. It could be dredged out of the pond. MR. HUNSINGER-How deep is the pond? MR. NACE-Mickey could probably speak to that better. It’s over 10 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MICKEY HAYES MR. HAYES-There’s one part that we dug out with a very large track hoe in the middle because there is some very decent sized fish there. There’s probably, I’ll bet you it’s almost 20 feet deep in just a very small area because we wanted to create a pocket for the fish. So when the water got warm, that they could stay alive. Because the residents fish there, but a lot of it’s probably eight, ten feet most of the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-The only other issue that Mickey wanted us to bring up, what Tom had put on the plans, after the discussion last time, was a chain link fence around the pond, and Mickey’s gone back and talked to the residents, and they’re not crazy about that. I mean, there’s an issue of safety and there’s a visual issue, and the neighbors are asking for a split rail. MR. HAYES-Yes, it’s more decorative. MR. LAPPER-So it’s up to the Board, but Mickey just wanted to discuss that. MR. FORD-A what instead of a fence? MR. HAYES-Well, basically like the residents have a little concern about having a split, you know, it looks kind of commercial or industrial. They’d rather have something, from the feedback they’ve given me, is like a split rail or something more decorative. It still serves the purpose to designate the separation from the pond for safety, but that’s something for you guys to discuss. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Well, I can see the appearance of it, but it doesn’t suffice from a safety standpoint. MR. SIPP-It’s liability, if somebody falls into that pond. MR. HAYES-Yes, you know, according to the DEC there are safety benches, but it’s different because of the fluctuations of the pond. It’s not clear if there’s, it’s up for the residents actually to decide if even wanted a fence in reality, but that’s their, they own the land. The residents of the Association own that land. So that’s their, I’m just saying 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) that’s their wish, that this is what they, they’re going to be the owners. They’re the ones that ensure it. It’s them, not me. So I’m just going by, they’re the ones that are going to own this in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think on the fence issue, you know, the point’s well taken that they own land. I know that the chain link is certainly more secure, in terms of keeping people out of the pond, but on the other hand, you know, a determined individual, I mean, this is not, as I recall, this is not a real high, it’s not really a security fence. MR. HAYES-I think a lot of them envision it looking more like a golf course, kind of like there’s ponds in all the golf courses, that’s as a resident, that’s the way they’re looking at it. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes. I mean, I guess I’m okay with the idea of the split rail. MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, they own it. It’s their liability. So it is their decision. MR. LAPPER-But Steve was saying, too, the four foot chain link fence, if a kid wants to climb it, they can climb it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I think that I, I know what I was looking for was for VISION Engineering to sign off. I mean, there’s a lot of unknowns here, as we discussed the last time they were here in December, and so this is a remedy, but the engineering practices are important, for a sign off from VISION. So as long as they satisfy those issues, I think we should go ahead, so they can get underway. We’d have to do a Short SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, personally I was never thrilled about the idea of a fence around the pond to begin with. So I can kind of understand where the residents are coming from. MR. HAYES-I think they’d prefer, even though a lot of them do have children, would prefer not to have any fence. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m sure. MR. HAYES-And being that Hiland Park has 20 ponds out on, so that’s their feeling, they want it to be an asset for a look. They see it differently probably than we would not living there. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. HAYES-And their insurance company has to bind whatever they’re going to, and the insurance that currently does it does not require a fence around any pond. So I’m just, I guess there’s a lot of different ways to look at it, but if, they want to see, they see the pond as a plus, not a negative, most of them do, actually, I can’t speak for everybody, just the general feedback. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. Yes, this is an Unlisted action. There’s no public hearing. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s no public hearing. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable moving forward? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“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, and it is addressing those, as part of the proposal. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, and it’s being mitigated. Okay. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“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. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., 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 27 day of, January , 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Any other conditions, other than satisfying the Staff comments and the engineering comments? MR. TRAVER-Do they need to amend the final plans to reflect a change in the fence? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MRS. STEFFAN-They’ll have to submit as built drawings as part of the boilerplate in the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did we have a cut sheet on the fence? MR. NACE-We’ll give you one that says split rail. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MODIFICATION MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. WHEREAS, A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address existing and proposed improvements to the site that were not part of the original approval. Modifications to approved subdivision require Planning Board review and approval. 2. WHEREAS, A public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification; and 3. WHEREAS, This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4 .WHEREAS, Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. WHEREAS, The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. WHEREAS, 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; and 7. WHEREAS, 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 - WHEREAS, If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9. NOT APPLICABLE - WHEREAS, The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MODIFICATION MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph 4 complies, Paragraph 5 Negative Declaration, Paragraph 8 & 9 do not apply. The modification is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant will satisfy the outstanding VISION Engineering comments which are the additional comments in the letter dated January 23, 2009, Items Six, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten, and. 2.The applicant will also satisfy the two additional Staff comments from the Staff Notes, and 3.The applicant will also provide a cut sheet on the proposed fencing. th Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 52-2008 SEQR TYPE II JOSEPH RIITANO AGENT(S) STEFANIE BITTER, BARTLETT, PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 16 SUNSET LANE APPLICANT HAS EXPANDED A NON- CONFORMING 1,632 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE BY RAISING THE ROOF. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING 1,632 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE BY RAISING THE ROOF. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 83-08; SP 39-05, AV 47-05; NOA 9-04, 6-04; AV 89-03; AV 56-02; BP 02-866, 442 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/10/08 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER APA; LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.17 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-9 SECTION 179-13-010 MR. HUNSINGER-We did receive notice from Staff, in an e-mail, that the applicant has requested that the application be tabled. MR. LAPPER-I can just explain briefly. This required a Zoning Board variance, and the Zoning Board decision last week required a modification of the plan. So this was tabled to address the Zoning Board resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Is this scheduled to go back before the Zoning Board in February? MR. LAPPER-It has to be re-submitted if that’s going to happen. It hasn’t happened yet, so, not necessarily. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, but the deadline was past. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s already come and past. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it has, and we’re anticipating March. I believe that’s what the letter thth says, and we shall wait until February 15, or 16, in this case. MR. LAPPER-I would think you’d just indefinitely table this for a while. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we did have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I guess if we just put it back into the queue, then you’d have to re-notice the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-You have opened the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t yet, no, but I will open the public hearing, and we will table this application. We’ll leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 52-208 JOSEPH RIITANO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: To an unspecified date. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) th Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re welcome. SUBDIVISION 11-2008 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE NOT APPLICABLE WAL-MART STORES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION QUAKER RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 39.65 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 33.28 & 6.37 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 61-07, FW 1-08, SV 1- 09 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER ACOE/NWI LOT SIZE 39.65 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25 SECTION A-183 MARK PETROSKI & MARY BETH SLEVIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Did you want this read into the record? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 11-2008. This is a Sketch Plan Review at this point. Applicant is Wal-Mart Stores. Requested action, two lot commercial subdivision, Quaker Ridge Road. Highway Commercial Intensive is the existing zoning. SEQRA status is Unlisted. Again, the Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination eventually, not at this point. Down the road you will need to make the SEQRA determination. Project Description. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 39.65 acre parcel onto two lots of 33.28 and 6.37. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. I do want to point to the bottom of the Staff Notes that the following will need to be accomplished by the applicant, if this was to be approved, an easement agreement for the pending Quaker Ridge Road Extension and the north entrance to the Wal-Mart parking lot from Parcel One onto Parcel Two would need to be executed. Number Two, obtain an Army Corps of Engineers sign off on the disturbed wetlands associated with Site Plan 61-2007, and Site Plan modification for Site Plan 61-2007 in conjunction with this subdivision request, that Site Plan will need to be modified. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. PETROSKI-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record, and explain to us what you’re looking to do. MR. PETROSKI-All right. Good evening. My name is Mark Petroski. I’m a project manager with Bergmann Associates. I’m here tonight on behalf of Craig Steinfeldt of Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated, and with us, familiar faces, Vic Macri, developer and property owner, President of Forest Enterprises Management, Inc., and also Mary Beth Slevin, she’s an attorney and partner with Stockley, Green, Slevin and Peters. I’m going to go through the Sketch Plan application. It’s a two lot subdivision. It’s pretty straightforward. It’s on Quaker Ridge Boulevard, and I just want to take a moment. It’s been a while since we were here last, probably several months, and there was great anticipation of what the name of the occupant of the prospective Site Plan approval was going to be, and it’s since been announced as Wal-Mart, and I don’t know if you had any questions that had come to mind that you wanted to ask us. I can certainly wait until I’m done speaking, but if there’s anything you’re curious about, I’m certainly, the team is willing. MR. FORD-Yes, there are some questions. MR. TRAVER-Actually, if you recall, we spotted the name Wal-Mart on the plans quite early on. MR. PETROSKI-Right. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MRS. STEFFAN-But the only question I have is that you are appearing before the Zoning Board for four wall signs, in excess of the number of allowable signs in the Sign Ordinance, and I just, I wanted to go on the record by saying we did a Site Plan approval and you’re asking for more signs than we approved. We specifically talked about signs. MR. PETROSKI-If you’d like, we can share. I brought some boards that I could show you what the sign application looks like, and I also have some picture collages of some other properties in the community to show you comparatively what it looks like, and it’s pretty comparable with what other property owners have done. MRS. STEFFAN-Just, the Town Board has gone through and made some revisions to the Sign Ordinance and obviously they’re looking at the Zoning Code again, but it’s just, I know that we reviewed that Site Plan. We anticipated signage. We talked about it, and now you’re asking for four more. So, I, as one Planning Board member, was disappointed in that. MR. PETROSKI-Well, I think, not to be defensive, but whether or not Wal-Mart was going to be on the site or not was still not a done deal, and so not knowing whether they were going to be there or not it was hard to actually say this is what was going to be. So we had to wait until the project moved along to a point where they were willing to say, yes, we’re more committed than we were. The deal still isn’t done, but now we know what they want to do, so we can present that to you. So I apologize for the sequence of events, but I do have the information here, and I can show you. I think it’s appealing its design into the storefront, and I think it’s relatively inconspicuous compared to what you’ve seen on other commercial stores of the same size. So I’m willing to share it with you. MRS. STEFFAN-We’d love to see it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be helpful. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. Well, let me do the Sketch Plan thing, unless there’s other questions that any. MR. FORD-I can come back to the rumor mill later. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you know, I think the biggest question is, you know, what’s the need for the subdivision? Is there some other Site Plan that you plan to bring in for the new lot that’s being created? MR. PETROSKI-And I’m going to cover that in my discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. MR. PETROSKI-I thought you might be asking what’s the status of the Wal-Mart store on Route 9, and there’s no intention of closing that store or doing anything with the store. It’s not going to be a dark store. It’s staying there. MR. FORD-You pressed me into the issue of the rumor mill. It has been rumored that Wal-Mart has a history of coming into a community with a Wal-Mart store, having a second application, which becomes, one or the other becomes a Sam’s Club. Would you address that. MR. PETROSKI-There’s no discussion right now about either one of those stores becoming a Sam’s Club. I can’t say that in the future that won’t change, but at least to my knowledge there’s no discussion in that regard. The Queensbury store is successful. It was just expanded to a Super Center in 2004, and that’s their current program. They’re adding the grocery component to their general merchandise stores. The old stores are called Division One stores. These are now Super Centers. The store that we’re putting in is also a Super Center. It’s a smaller one. They don’t think that, from market studies and other things, plus the constraints on the site, that a larger store would work at that location. So there’s some competition between those two stores, but they think that overall they’re sized for the general marketplace to be able to service the area. So there’s going to be two Super Centers. MR. FORD-Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. PETROSKI-Any other questions on rumors? Okay. As you know, the application th did go to Warren County Planning, on the 14, and they made a decision of no countywide impact. During the Site Plan Review process, as I said, the deal with Wal- Mart was a strong possibility, but it hadn’t reached a conclusion. The Site Plan, as we know, was fluctuating in terms of its scale. We reduced the size of the store a couple of times, and there was no clear answer on how much land would be involved in the initial development because of that. We know there were wetlands issues on the property, depending on how much land was developed, and part of the land deal was that there would be additional land available of Mr. Macri’s ownings, or property ownings, that could be used for mitigation if the need arose. So obviously if we had more wetland impact, we would need to have more mitigation, and that land could have been used for that purpose. So not knowing that, it wasn’t really clear what we were going to be able to do at that point in time. So since the excess land is not needed for the Wal-Mart project the way it’s been approved, and since the wetland mitigation is currently contained on what’s Lot One, which is the Wal-Mart Site Plan, and since Wal-Mart does not, they do not desire to own anymore land than they need for this particular project, that we’re submitting this two lot subdivision and then Mr. Macri would retain the balance of the land for whatever purpose that he should find use for. It is currently zoned GB, or, I’m sorry, Highway Business, so it would be for some purpose related to that. Pretty simple graphic here. It’s a two lot subdivision. We’re not actually proposing any improvements at all related to the subdivision itself. It’s simply a paper subdivision. All the improvements that were approved as part of the Wal-Mart Site Plan remain the same. So the blue is the Wal-Mart Site Plan, which we’re going to correct our application. It’s 33.27 acres for that lot, and then Lot Two, which is the tan colored lot, would be 6.39. So when we submit the Preliminary Final application, we’ll correct those numbers. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-Earlier Staff comments referred to the easement. Right at the end of Quaker Ridge Boulevard we extended that as a private driveway that would come up and into the Wal-Mart parking lot. As a matter of fact, I have the Site Plan. Right at the end of Quaker Ridge Boulevard is where the private driveway extended up and into the Wal- Mart parking lot, and so what Staff’s referring to is that that last piece will have to be in an easement to allow for customers of Wal-Mart to be able to traverse Mr. Macri’s property. So, getting into the Staff comments, I’d just like to go through those really quickly. There was a question about the wetlands that remain on Parcel Two, Lot Two. We’ve already addressed the wetlands on Lot One, and we’re working on the application, but there’s about .86 acres of wetlands that remain, and that’s per the jurisdictional determination that we already have on record with the Town. That’s how much is on Lot Two. So we’ll clarify that on the Preliminary Final application, and we will crosshatch it in a way that makes it stand out so you can see where it is. We already talked about the easement. We submitted a Short Environmental Assessment Form, but we already met with Mr. Brown, I think a couple of weeks ago, and he asked that we submit a Full Environmental Assessment Form. So we have drafted up that to present to the Planning Board for the next meeting, and as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, I have, and I’ll pass these out, the Corps of Engineers deemed the application that we th made complete on December 15, and this is the notification that it’s gone to public notice, and that’s a 30 day period for public notification and comment, and then after that they finish processing the permit application. Their goal is 120 days from determination of completion. So, sometime around the middle of April, tax time, we should have hopefully a permit in hand. So that’s what we want. Another comment was about the waiver for trees. We have on our Site Plan, we show tree cover and brush cover and those kinds of symbolisms. We’re not looking to do anything at this time. So that’s why we’re asking for the waiver on the tree, on locating trees. That’s an issue for Site Plan approval. So since we’re not proposing any other improvements than what we’ve already proposed with regards to the Wal-Mart Site Plan, that’s why we were asking for that waiver, and then on the final three items, again, we agree about the easement. That will be required. I’ve given you an update on the Corps of Engineers process. It’s not something that’s required for the subdivision. It’s something that’s required for the Site Plan approval, and then the third item, on a Site Plan modification, I assume what the concern is is making sure that the Wal-Mart Site Plan is still in compliance with the Code. MR. OBORNE-I think that has a lot to do with it and we’re talking for posterity, but your FAR calculations will change. Your permeability calculations will change. The amount of disturbed wetlands will change, minuscully, you know, but nevertheless, the approved Site Plan will change. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. PETROSKI-So I don’t know if those calculations are something that we should address as part of the subdivision process, because we can demonstrate that we meet the zoning criteria with regards to the subdivision. So setbacks are satisfied, permeability, FAR ratios, those kinds of things, and we’re not disturbing anymore wetlands, that’s already been fixed. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I don’t disagree with that at all. It’s just the data will be changing, and we’re going to need that updated, and we’re at Sketch Plan, just to remind the Board we’re at Sketch Plan right now, and that, more of that will be taken care of at the Preliminary and Final phases, but I do appreciate the information being talked about now. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, just for the benefit of the applicant, I did have the same questions, even though I wasn’t sure what the Staff comment was, but I did have the same questions, specifically, about the Floor Area Ratios and, you know, setbacks and all of the other Site Plan Review requirements, if those would be impacted at all. MR. PETROSKI-We’ve already done the math. I mean, we have to demonstrate that to the Town, but we’re comfortable that we’re going to meet all the Code requirements for both lots and we’ll share that with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. Okay. So would it make sense to try to review any Site Plan modification in the same evening? I think that would be my preference, you know. MR. OBORNE-I think that would be a very clean way of accomplishing this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, especially if you already have the numbers, the data. Okay. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. I guess at this point I don’t really have anything else to share with you. We certainly would like the opportunity to submit for basically Preliminary Final at the same time because the complexity of this is relatively simple, and hopefully make th that application by the 15 of February, so that we can get on the next possible meeting with the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-And I don’t know if it’s possible to schedule a public hearing that far in advance or not. So that’s my presentation, if you have any other questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-Just roughly, where are the wetlands on Lot Two? Just an approximate area. MR. PETROSKI-Craig Brown asked us to develop kind of a development parameters map, if you will, to submit with Preliminary/Final, and I brought a copy of that. I can show it to you and send it right down the row and everybody can take a look at it. It shows where the wetlands are. On the plan I’m looking at with Mr. Sipp, there’s an area that shows wetlands just off the extension of Quaker Ridge Boulevard, and they have all that kind of like a little plant symbol, and so that this area will be left all undisturbed. All the wetlands will be left undisturbed, and this becomes the only area of the property that would be subject to development, and then we identified one location which is the least disturbance for wetlands, which would be used for access to the property, the narrowest point of the wetlands. MR. SIPP-Do you propose any tree cutting on Lot Two? MR. PETROSKI-We’re not proposing anything right now. We’re just proposing the creation of that lot, and anything that would be done on that property would be subject to Mr. Macri coming in with a Site Plan application. Because Mr. Brown asked us to identify areas of clearing, but there’s nothing that we’re proposing right now that would require any clearing. All we’re identifying is the maximum area within which we could develop, without touching the wetlands, and having the least impact to the wetlands with regard to site access. MR. SIPP-Does Lot Two join on lands that Mr. Macri owns? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. MR. SIPP-On the east or the west side? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. PETROSKI-On the south side, actually, between that frontage road, between the frontage road and this Lot Two. There’s two lots still, I think, that are currently. MR. FORD-Between Lot Two and Quaker Road? MR. PETROSKI-Between Lot Two, there’s the service road. MRS. STEFFAN-Three, there’s three. MR. PETROSKI-So between Lot Two and the service road. MR. FORD-Right. MR. PETROSKI-Those two lots don’t go all the way to Quaker Road. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So this precludes, if you do it that way, this precludes that driveway ever going all the way through to the road behind it, right? MR. PETROSKI-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Behind it is the NiMo. VIC MACRI MR. MACRI-That’s one of the reasons we’re retaining the property, to be able to connect through the NiMo right of way. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I was going to say, the wetlands are right there, but that’s an access. MR. MACRI-So at that point there’s going to have to be some mitigation done, and we’re aware of that. MR. FORD-It looks like three or possibly four lots, four possibly five lots, between East Quaker Service Road and Lot Two. MR. MACRI-This lot we own. This lot we don’t own. These two lots we do. So there’s three lots that we currently own. This lot is owned by Sportline Products. So we’re retaining these. We also own the property directly behind the NiMo right of way, but that property is all industrial commercial property, and that’s what the plan is to develop that industrial commercial. This, as we had discussed many times, you know, it’s our vision that this area would become a life center to help support whatever businesses wind up in back, so that they have some community businesses like restaurants or whatever, but we don’t have any tenants at this point. We’re developing plans and plans, and it’s very premature at this point that we can discuss what we could clear, what wetlands we would disturb, until we get a major anchor for that area, and we can do a layout based on that anchor’s requirements. I mean, we don’t really know what’s going to happen, but it will be developed as a commercial plaza. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions on the Sketch Plan? Anyone have a problem with the waiver request for the trees? MR. OBORNE-Just a point of clarification. That request is not typically something you would ask for at Sketch, and that is the synthesis of what I was thinking when I read the plan. It’s not to scold or anything. It’s just to state that it’s not typically something you ask or request. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-I mean at Sketch. If I may add, this Army Corps of Engineers signoff is important. I think that, in order for this subdivision to go through, and in order for Site Plan modification to happen, this Army Corps of Engineers permit will need to be signed off. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. PETROSKI-We’re on that path. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to show us your signs, then? MR. PETROSKI-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there was something else from the Board on the Sketch Plan. MR. PETROSKI-I have that real nifty 3-D simulation. We have the Zoning Board meeting tomorrow night, so, I didn’t bring my computer, but we have that all on that simulation, again, but this panel right here shows you the front elevation and shows you the signs that we’re talking about. We’re basically talking five signs, okay. This is the Wal-Mart sign, their normal, what their new logo. That’s the largest of the signs. It’s about 220 square feet, and the way the Zoning Board and Staff is approaching this is that would qualify as the allowed sign because you’re allowed one building sign up to 300 square feet, and then there’s the other four signs, and the way these signs work is they’re primarily for way finding on the site. Traditionally Wal-Mart, and I’ve got a board here to show you, and what you saw at the Queensbury store is they used to have like meat and grocery and deli and all these other signs, and they’ve kind of gotten away from that. It’s all part of their new image, and the signs are really only located above the entry doors. Okay. So right here, this is the entryway to the general merchandise area, and it says home and living over the top. Over here, this is the entry to the garden center. It says outdoor living over the top of that, and then another sign over here which goes into the grocery, which says market and pharmacy. Now it’s my understanding that, by State law, if they have a pharmacy in the building, they have to have a pharmacy sign on the building. So it has to be there someplace, and then there’s one other sign which is a sign that says recycle, because that’s another State requirement that if you have a recycle center, you’re supposed to have the word recycle. That’s my understanding. The architects will be here tomorrow and they can explain all that. So those become the four signs, and it’s basically simply directional, for people coming on to the property, so they can see where they’re going to get into the building. I mean, obviously if this was a strip plaza of a similar size frontage with multiple tenants, you’re going to have multiple signs of a similar nature to direct people to, you know, who they’re going to, you know, where they’re going to shop. So this is kind of along the same lines, and it gets rid of all the things like it says always and we sell for less, and sort of sloganish type things, and they really simplified it down to this minimum, and then total signage square footage is 428 square feet. So compared to the Code maximum of 300, it’s not that far off, and the thing that we have to keep in mind, because you’ve seen the simulation. We’ve got the forest in front. We’ve agreed not to cut down any of the trees out in front, and so you have virtually no visibility of these signs, you know, from 800 feet away through a forest. So it’s not anything that’s going to be splashy or, you know, just, it’s not gaudy. It’s designed into the frontage of the building. It’s very strategically placed. The signs are white, generally. So that they stand out enough on site, and the only sign that’s lit is the Wal-Mart sign itself. The rest are just, they’re unlit signs. So you don’t have all that lighting going on that’s just accessory. So, we took some photographs of the neighborhood K-Mart store and when you look at the package of signs, again, they have the pharmacy sign on the front of their store. They have the Super K, 24 hours, Fresh Food, indicating that they sell grocery also, and on the far side you’ve got the three signs that have to do with the automotive services, and then around the corner you actually have another business in there which is Warren Tire Service and the Goodyear sign. So in terms of the total signage package, it’s very similar, in terms of quantity, as to what we’re looking for for the Wal-Mart store, and then, when you look at the existing Wal-Mart on Route 9, it’s fairly similar, but they changed the name. So they have signs over the entranceway. So like this one says Food Center, instead of market and pharmacy, and this one says low prices instead of Home and Living, and then, I don’t think the Garden Center is labeled on this one, but they also had the Tire Lube Express. So you’ve got the Tire Lube Express sign, and then that’s where they had the one hour photo and the pharmacy and the optical signs also, and this also has another tenant inside the building which is Citizens Bank, and they have their sign up on the wall, right adjacent to where it says Low Prices. So in terms of the package of signs, it’s very similar and consistent with what’s been done, both at the Queensbury Wal-Mart that’s there on Route 9 and the K-Mart store that’s around the corner from this site, and I took some photos, we’re all familiar with this, but, you know, this is what you’re looking at from Route 254, Quaker Road. You see the massing of the trees, and again, I have the simulation to show the Zoning Board of Appeals, but you can drive along and get the 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) effect of really what building you can see from the road, and it’s not a whole lot. So, I think it’s a good design. I think it’s very in keeping with the storefront. It’s designed in. The colors are nice. There’s not a whole lot of excess lighting. So I think it turns out to be rather appealing, and it’s really a benefit to the customers so they know where to go in terms of the services in the store. So that’s the sign package. MR. SIPP-What’s the size of the sign out on Quaker Road? Do you remember. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-Well, we had submitted an application for a pylon sign, as we had said, right at the corner, and it’s within the Zoning Code requirements. It’s 25 feet high, and it has 64 square feet. It’s a pretty simple sign. I think the pylon sign at the existing Wal- Mart store is 116 square feet. So it’s a little bigger. MR. SIPP-I hate pylon signs. MR. PETROSKI-Retailers love pylon signs. MR. HUNSINGER-Why is that? MR. PETROSKI-It’s visibility. It’s finding where the driveway is and knowing where to get into the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I mean, I was thinking about that specifically this weekend as I was driving around the Town, and you see these signs way up in the air, and they really don’t direct you to the driveway. All they do is, I mean, they take your eyes away from the road. I would think that they’re actually more of a hazard then a benefit to people. If it was 12 feet in the air, I think it would be more visible to drivers, you know, because you won’t have to look up to see it. MR. SIPP-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-It’ll be more in the line of sight. MR. SIPP-Nobody’s going to be driving around looking for Wal-Mart. They’re either going there or they’re not. Coming off the Northway, maybe you’re looking for a specific business, but. MR. PETROSKI-Well, I mean, it’s understood that Wal-Mart is a destination shopping experience. There’s not a lot of, you know, you’re not going to get as much drive by, probably more people plan a trip to Wal-Mart to buy all their personal needs and groceries and whatever, but in my experience, the difference between having a sign and not having a sign is huge in retail. I mean, it could make 50% difference in their sales. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand, absolutely. MR. FORD-Well, we’re not saying go or no go, sign or no sign. MR. PETROSKI-I understand, but I’m just trying to respond to the question about, you know, your observations. I mean, nobody likes all those things sticking up 60 feet in the air along the expressway. MR. FORD-Higher is not necessarily better. MR. SIPP-When do they expect to start? MR. PETROSKI-We were tracking out to bid some time in June, and it depends on the Army Corps of Engineers, you know, getting their stuff done in time, and also, we’re working through the highway plans with the County, and the Town, and the State’s also helping out, as far as reviewing the traffic signal design. So we’ve already submitted preliminary design for the signal, and everybody’s given us their comments, and so we’re preparing final plans right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you for indulging us. We appreciate it. MR. PETROSKI-You’re welcome. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Did we give you enough feedback on the Sketch Plan? Anything else, do you have any questions for us? MR. PETROSKI-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’re going to submit both plans, the modification to Lot One and the Lot Two subdivision on the same night? MR. MACRI-Unless you see any modifications that we should be aware of, prior to submission. MRS. STEFFAN-But you have to change the calculations, the FAR ratio with the change in the lots. MR. PETROSKI-Correct. Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So that would be a modification. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. That’s fine. We’ll make that part of the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. th MR. PETROSKI-Are we okay to make a Preliminary/Final for the 15 of February? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t see why not as long as they address Staff comments. It seems reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t see any problem with that. MR. OBORNE-Yes. We would prefer that actually. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I do have one request of the applicant is one of my notes states that as far as the wetlands go, if you could demarcate that a little bit better, with planametric points, that would be great. Thank you. MR. PETROSKI-And is it a public hearing, is it automatically scheduled or is it something that you do? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, what will happen is if your package is submitted by the th 15 of February, that will put you to be on the agenda for March. That doesn’t guarantee a spot on the March meeting, because it will depend on how many projects we have rd ahead of you. We are going to have a Special Meeting on March 3. So that should clean up a lot of the backlog, if you will. Do you have any guess, at this point in time, if it’s likely that they would make the March agenda? MR. OBORNE-I think that it’s a good, yes, it all depends on what time they come in. We do have four bumps, even with the three meetings. We still have four bumps, and depending on what you table, and what comes in prior to their application. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. So I would say the odds are pretty good at this point. MR. PETROSKI-All right. I have the application drafted up, and I’m hoping to meet with Keith tomorrow or Thursday and then if he’s all set, basically, with the content, then we’re ready to submit, you know, by the end of the month. th MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I mean, if you can get it in before the 15 of February, that would certainly be to your benefit, yes. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. OBORNE-I, too, with the impending weather, I do request that you call prior to coming over. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-All right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 53-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MARK & PENNY KELLY AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 43 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES STABILIZATION OF EXISTING STONE AND EARTHEN BANK AS PART OF A LARGER PROJECT. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF A SHORELINE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 35-08; SEASONAL RESIDENCE; BP 08- 530, BP 08-441, BP 08-411 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/10/08 APA/DEC/CEA APA, LG CEA, DEC PERMIT LOT SIZE 0.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-17 SECTION 179-6-060D DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 53-2008, Mark and Penny Kelly. Requested action is hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline in the WR-1A zone. Location is 43 Mason Road. Existing Zoning is Waterfront Residential One Acre. This is an Unlisted action. Project Description: Applicant proposes stabilization of existing stone and earthen bank as part of a larger project. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. As far as Staff Notes goes, pretty much bread and butter, and I assume that the Planning Board has read them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. Thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the owners and applicants, Mark and Penny Kelly, for their property at 43 Mason Road. That’s located say halfway Cleverdale point on the westerly shore, and as Keith indicated, the application is for some shoreline improvements and vegetation removal along that shoreline, basically a stabilization of the shoreline with additional riprap, and the removal of two large white pines. We do have a letter from an arborist, Mark, maybe you could pass those out, indicating the condition of those in his recommendation that they be removed. In addition, there’s a pretty significant planting plan for that shoreline area as well, just implementing native species, the recommended type of planting for the shoreline area. At this point, there’s also some small, and I emphasize small, retaining wall along those shoreline area, just to transition the grade through that location, but there would be significant planting in that area as well, prior to the stone riprap at the shoreline. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. MAC ELROY-That covers the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-The original request of the arborist was to address how many trees? MR. MAC ELROY-This letter that you have is for two. MR. FORD-I understand the letter, but the original request, was there a request for the arborist to look at all trees of a certain size or was there just concern about removing those two? MR. MAC ELROY-At this time it’s those two. There had been other trees in accordance with the Town, working together with Bruce Frank, but these two are the ones that are specific to this application. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. TRAVER-In the Staff Notes, the question about the type of rock to be used, regarding the leaching into the lake, can you address that. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Well, we would add a note to the plans that would indicate that there wouldn’t be limestone rock used. This is something that I’ve had recent discussions with in another application that will be before you next month, perhaps, on another project similar, riprap. I’ve added that note already, based on Keith’s recommendation. So we’ll add that. MR. TRAVER-So what would you be using in place of the limestone? Granite? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the easy answer is, yes. It would be the natural rock that’s readily available, that is not limestone. I mean, that’s a natural feature along our shoreline, and I had to ask a geologist myself, what is the typical rock that is made up of that, granite. MR. TRAVER-And that’s granite, I believe. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. SIPP-Are there any plans for replacing these two pine trees? Not shown on these plans. MR. MAC ELROY-No, but there’s a pretty significant planting plan as part of this. There’s not a specific pine, white pine planned in that, in the plan. MR. SIPP-Well, somehow I ended up with two plot plans MR. TRAVER-Yes, I did, too. MR. SIPP-One shows a number of, in the plant schedule, total of 171 items, and the other one shows a total of 276. Now which one are we using? MR. MAC ELROY-I guess I’d ask you, in the title block of the plan, which is along the right side of the plan, what is the date in the record of work? th MR. SIPP-Both of them have August 7. MR. MAC ELROY-That’s in the large title block, but under the record of work, which is about the middle of the page, there’s lists of revisions or additions. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Is there one that’s dated 12/15/08? MR. SIPP-All right. The 12/15 is the one to use, then? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. SIPP-Okay. Now I did not do a break down, but on the other one, and I think this would be similar, even more so, of the total number you have of 276, on the original, that’s about 60% of them are on the south side. MR. MAC ELROY-Along that south boundary. MR. SIPP-South boundary. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. MR. SIPP-So 60% of the plantings are on that and only 40% on the other. MR. MAC ELROY-I haven’t totaled it up or added it. I mean, there’s quantity and then there’s also size or significance. MR. SIPP-When you say juniper, I assume that’s a red cedar you’re talking about. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I’ll have to apologize. I’m not the landscape architect. I’m the engineer. So a juniper would be, I think, the typical ground cover type planting that 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) doesn’t grow to any significant height, but provides some groundcover and stabilization of that area. MR. SIPP-You do have some tall growers in there, Canadian Hemlock. MR. MAC ELROY-The shadblow service berry is another taller species. MR. SIPP-But you also have a lot of black eyed Susans, which are nice, and then you also have a lot of daylilies, which are nice, but I don’t think they’re necessarily the best items for screening out nutrients from the soil. I don’t think the root systems are that deep, especially on the daylily, and some of them border the lake, some of these areas. We got, recently, a new set of rules set up by the APA, and one of their rules is cutting of trees within 35 feet of the lake. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. SIPP-And they allow that you can take out no more than 30% (lost word) in one year, 35%, I think it was. Now you’ve only got two trees here that are of any size that I can see. Now if you take both of them out. MR. MAC ELROY-Now, any of those standards that refer to removing vegetation assumes that that’s healthy vegetation. Any dead and diseased trees would not enter into that equation. MR. SIPP-See, we didn’t have that notice. MR. MAC ELROY-That letter prior, yes. MR. SIPP-So, but I think you may have to notify APA, and may even have to have a permit. I don’t know how their new regulations work out. MARK KELLY MR. KELLY-We have 20 trees that are probably 40 feet high on the property right in front. They’re not shown on there, but, you know. MR. SIPP-On the lake? MR. KELLY-Right on the lake front. We still have very large trees there. We’re only asking for two. So we’re not asking for any, we’re not even close to 30% trees that will be from 35 feet in from the shoreline. MR. SIPP-What kind of trees are they? MR. KELLY-They’re the same kind that we’re taking down, white pine. They’re huge. I mean, they’re 60, 70 feet up. The only reason why we’re asking to take these down is we just spent $200,000 on a boathouse that these two trees are rotten and they’re going to come down. Everybody says, you know, you’re spending $200,000 on a boathouse, and you have these two trees that are leaning towards the boathouse, I don’t think that’s right. So, if you’re saying it’s all right, you know, I’m just saying, insurance company’s will not accept, if it falls, then it’s on us. I’m just asking for your plea to realize that they’re rotten, and if it was your house, would you leave these trees up? MR. SIPP-Yes, because they’re not noted on here. We don’t know that you have that many trees. All we know is that you’re going to take down two, and we didn’t even know they were diseased. We assumed that you just, they were blocking your view and you wanted to get them out of your way. MR. KELLY-Okay. We could show you a piece of paper, I mean, the tree right next to it that was taken down, and when they took it down, there was, half the tree is completely rotten inside, and they said this is identical, it’s two inches away from the tree that we’re asking, and look at it, the whole inside is completely rotten. MR. SIPP-You see, these trees are not plotted on here. So it’s difficult to judge what’s going on. MR. FORD-That basically was where I was going with my original question about how the arborist came to select those two and there are a lot of other trees that are there, and those two happen to be of poor quality. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. MAC ELROY-Poor quality and potentially of hazard to the existing structure. MR. KELLY-Our next door neighbor that’s been here for probably 20 years, Bob Evans, he even looked at it and said, you know, those trees, he said we never had red ants coming to our property. Now we have red ants, and they’re all coming from these two trees that are rotted inside, and he said, whenever you have red ants, he said, you have a rotten tree, and the only thing we’re asking is, I just don’t want to see this investment go south, because of a tree. MR. FORD-Makes sense. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If he’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Board on this application? You know the drill, but if you could identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Same name as last year. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We had a couple of questions and comments regarding the application. First off we were wondering if it was determined if all aspects of the existing Site Plan had received proper Site Plan Review. There’s currently a single family residence labeled as existing on the plans under construction in a Critical Environmental Area. It appears there’s some information on stormwater on the plan, but we just did not know if a major plan was provided. The wastewater system proposed requires the installation of fill within 200 feet of the setback to Lake George. Has a requirement been met for the variance on that, and also we had a question on the floor area ratio requirement regarding the structure, and that the project should be reviewed as a whole to determine the adequacy of the development along the shoreline and not segmented into smaller parts. Regarding the proposed submission for shoreline stabilization and the alterations, the applicant should justify the need for the proposed shoreline stabilization, with removal of the vegetation is proposed and will be replaced with two small retaining walls and low lying vegetation with the remainder of the buffer of the lake to be planted with lawn and smaller vegetation, substantial mixed height vegetation is planned on the sides. We were just wondering if they could relocate that along the shoreline. There’s some well established shoreline just to the north. In fact, we did talk with the Evans’. Mrs. Evans was not aware of the trees being removed and said that the existing conditions are not unstable and she was surprised at the removal of the trees. Again, this was before the information was submitted regarding potential damage or weakening of the trees. We wonder whether the project requires an APA permit. The APA regulations state that retaining walls constructed of laid stone smaller than 200 square feet and that do not exceed two feet in height do not require a permit, as long as they are set up to design, to control ongoing erosion problems, and are limited to the area necessary for such erosion, and follow the elevation of the shoreline. So we just request that the APA be contacted on this, and the applicant also received a permit, or claims that a permit’s required from the DEC to install riprap into navigable waters into the lake, and we were just wondering if that permit was obtained. Typically the DEC does not encourage the hard lining of the shores. They like to keep the vegetated transition between the land and the lake. Hard lining is not good for the fisheries, and we just think that that should be addressed. We do have pictures which do show that there is substantial trees that are on the property, and we do also have one of the neighboring property to the north, which shows a well vegetated shoreline with hemlock that we’ll submit into the record. So, those are just some of our questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. MR. OBORNE-Excuse me. I’m sorry, I have two more public comments. MR. HUNSINGER-You have written comments? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-This is to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board members, “Dear Members of the Planning Board: This is written in response and reaction to the Notice of Public Hearing applicable to the above referenced matter scheduled for Tuesday, January 27, 2009, that above references Site Plan 53-2008. The hearing notice describes actions proposed as part of a larger project. The notice details certain required provisions applicable to the project, including the stipulation that removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. This roughly approximates rushing out to purchase a fire extinguisher after one’s house has been destroyed by flames. It may have some uncertain future benefit for the damage has essentially been done already. Less than one year ago, extensive vegetation was clear cut from the property to which this notice applies, much of it within 35 feet of the shoreline. Even a cursory inspection of the waterfront area revealed the extent and quantity of trees which were felled during the winter of 2008. The ruse used by the contractor to justify this measure was that the trees were diseased and needed to be removed. Due to regulations pertinent to vegetation removal within 35 feet of the shoreline in a WR zone, leave the determination as to the health of the vegetation to the property owner, and his/or her agent. In this instance, it appears that such determination was made solely by such person(s) with no concurrent advice from a disinterested, impartial and knowledgeable authority. Since a significant element of the basis for this hearing is already a fait accompli, one can only hope that any ensuing determinations will, in some small way, offset and compensate for the greater negative impacts which were undertaken unilaterally and are already apparent. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, William B. Wetherbee” And one more from Irongate Family Practice Association, Glens Falls, Town of Queensbury Planning Board RE: Mark Kelly property, Cleverdale “I recently received notice that the Kellys would be reinforcing a retaining wall and removing more trees along the shoreline. They have done a beautiful job building their new home and it is a great addition to the community, but I would object to the removal of anymore large trees along the water’s edge. I am concerned about the runoff and the physical appearance of the shoreline from the lake. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Robert L. Evans”, and that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Can we see the pictures that the Lake George Water Keeper submitted, please. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments in response to some of the questions raised during the public hearing? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, regarding the stormwater and wastewater plans, within the Town files are permits and design information for both the wastewater system for the structure, for the residence, and a stormwater system design for the residence, all compliant with Town standards. That was the basis of the building permit that was issued, and that is the process that we followed. This particular application deals with items that does, in fact, trigger Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. That’s why we’re here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure. MR. MAC ELROY-So we followed the process as it was detailed to us, as far as the building permit process and the Site Plan Review process. MR. FORD-Can you address the number of trees, mature trees, that have been already removed? MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t have direct knowledge of that, other than having been on the site. Perhaps Mark would have a better handle for that, but there were some trees that were removed on the site. I can indicate that. Perhaps Mark has a better idea. MR. KELLY-How would you like, what do you mean? MR. FORD-Size, type, number? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. KELLY-How many we actually took down? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. KELLY-I don’t have a clear count. We probably over, from 35 feet in, probably 10 trees have come down. There’s probably, I think there’s at least 20 to 30 trees that are still there from 35 feet in. This property that we purchased probably wasn’t touched for probably 30 years. So there was, or 40 years. The two ladies that owned it basically lived there, stayed there maybe one week of the year. So you had a lot of vegetation that was overgrown, and what he talked about the trees that they removed when the construction was being built, that was 35 feet and to the road, and they were, there were two people that came out, well how come you’re taking down more trees. Because the foundation was going exactly where those trees were, and they had to come down, and there was one very large tree that set directly in the middle that was back 65 feet from the water. So, you know, no one likes changes, but I thought we did everything that we were required to do and we did everything by the letter of the law. So the only thing, what I’m asking for now, is I have two trees that they are rotting, and, you know, many people have come there, and I can’t believe Bob Evans, because he’s the one that came over there and showed me, and Bob’s very tough, and he said that tree is rotten. MR. FORD-So you have 10 trees that were removed within 35 feet of the shoreline. How many total were removed, approximately? MR. KELLY-On the whole property? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. KELLY-Maybe 20. I don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-But based on your description you’re saying it’s still pretty wooded. MR. KELLY-It’s still wooded. I mean, there’s very large pine trees there. I’d have to count how many. I think if you go by, I mean, we’re trying to do the best job possible. The house is going to look beautiful. Copper everything. I mean, we’re not, so, and with the riprap, I mean, that’s what the Board wanted, and we’re accepting, we’ll go riprap. We would love to see a wall, but if that’s what you want, we’ll put it in there. We’re trying to make the property look nice, and that’s all. If you’re telling us to make it look nice, whatever we want to do, I just want, when people drive by this, you know, we’re trying to make Queensbury look nice. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and back to some of the issues that were brought up, there is a DEC permit that was required and has been obtained for that stabilization for that riprap along there, and I won’t dispute Chris’ comments about how they don’t like what they don’t like, and I think Queensbury has shared that, is vertical wall, sea walls. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-But in place of that, the natural riprapping of that, is something certainly DEC approves, and they have in this case as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you submit a copy of that with your Site Plan? MR. MAC ELROY-No. I do have a copy in my file, but it actually was obtained by another consultant, but I do have a copy of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you speak to any stormwater management controls on the new construction that’s going on outside of the hard surfacing? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I know there was a comment. I don’t know if it was Keith’s or Dan’s comment, about stormwater, and I’m trying to visualize how we do stormwater management for riprap on the shoreline. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s not what I was asking, other than that, yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the only other, well, the vegetative, in itself, is a management technique. It’s something that’s recommended by the LGA, by, I’m sure, the Water Keeper, other organizations that are looking to safeguard the quality of the lake. So that in itself is the, you know, a good management technique that’s used for stormwater. The 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) only true impervious surface, is part of this application, is the retaining wall, and that would be a dry laid, stackable block that’s 15 inches high, which reminds me of another issue that Chris had mentioned, was APA, and I did have conversations with them about, you know, what is permissible under their guidance and it’s a little different than I heard Chris say, but the explanation I got was that there can’t be any sections that are 100 square feet. There could be multiple sections, and they have to deal with the function, you know, they have to be functional as well, and we think that this combination with the planting of the vegetative buffer here that that ties in with that, because it helps transition that grade. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SIPP-Right now, where does the water off of the roof go? MR. MAC ELROY-As part of this stormwater management plan, part of the building permit file, there is four different areas of infiltration, and I realize that that plan doesn’t necessarily show them, but there are four, three infiltrators that capture roof runoff. So a roof leader to a pipe in the ground to a cluster of infiltrator that are infiltration devices that are located at various corners of the house. The driveway is, there is an infiltration trench that the driveway is graded to. It’s pitched to that infiltration trench, and that’s another device that’s part of guidance from the Lake George Park Commission guide for minor stormwater projects. So there is a complete stormwater design that’s part of the Town file and was part of the permit that was, or information that was provided for in the building permit application. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was asking about, yes. I guess I wasn’t as clear as Mr. Sipp. MR. SIPP-The proposed driveway is not hard surface? MR. MAC ELROY-No, it would be an asphalt driveway, but that’s new impervious surface that is managed through the infiltration devices that are proposed. MR. SIPP-Well, I’d like to see these, because we just got caught up in an infiltration device on a piece of property down the road from you a ways that is within 100 feet of the lake, which is a no, no I guess. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, for a major project, there is a requirement that infiltration devices need to be 100 feet from the lake for major projects. MR. SIPP-Well, are any of these within 100 feet of the lake that you have? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, first of all, I’ll make the distinction, it’s not a major project. It’s a minor project. It falls under that classification. The infiltrators that come from the roof leaders are within 100 feet, but those don’t require, aren’t required to be 100 feet from the lake because it falls under the minor classification. MR. OBORNE-If I could interject here, it is my understanding, in my notes, I’m pointing specifically to the minor/major of this project. It is something that I’m asking the Planning Board to make a determination on. I don’t believe Craig has made that determination. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I know that during our building permit process, when we submitted these plans, I was directed to pass them on to, I happened to, the Town would have done it, on to Dan Ryan, for his review. MR. OBORNE-I have not seen those plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. One of the things that happens a lot, and I can maybe shed some light on some of the reasons why it might seem confusing is because you’re proposing hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline, that brings you before our Board for Site Plan Review. The building permit process didn’t trigger Site Plan Review, but, you know, once we opened Site Plan Review, you know, we tend to look at the whole site and ask questions about maybe information that wasn’t provided in our package that we reviewed, and that’s where some of these questions are coming from, because we are compelled by the SEQRA laws, you know, you can’t segment the project. So we need to ask questions, at least, about some of these issues, even though you already have a permit. In fact, there’s been a couple of times where a major project came before this Board, only because they were proposing a walkway to their boat dock, and then we 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) started asking a lot of questions about stormwater management on the new house, and the yard and some other things that otherwise would not have been asked. So, that’s kind of where we’re coming from. MR. MAC ELROY-And to get into that, if you saw the design plan that was part of the building permit application, you’ll see that the difference between the pre-condition or the pre-existing condition that was here, and the impervious area that was, that existed, versus that which is proposed, we’ve actually provided in the design of those infiltration devices, as if it was from scratch, that there’s no credit for previous impervious area. So we’ve addressed that. I think that that was recognized probably through Craig’s review or Dan’s review, you know, and I think that we addressed that. We’re here, and certainly if there are further questions about that I can answer that as best I can. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-But, you know, we followed the directives that we were given. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, understood. I don’t think anyone was implying that you did anything wrong. It’s just that, unfortunately that’s the way that, sometimes, the process operates. Yes. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? Everyone pretty satisfied with the information provided? MR. SIPP-I think we need, I would like to see the stormwater system on our plot plan, and I’d like to see regulation here about this proposed driveway being over the top of the septic tank, and if I’m assuming that’s a septic system the way it’s laid out. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes. There’s not a problem with that. That’s done routinely. The tank, as it’s indicated, is a heavy duty septic tank. It would have to be H-20 loading is what it’s referred to for traffic bearing structures, but that’s not unusual. MR. FORD-It’s made of what material? MR. MAC ELROY-Concrete. It’s a precast concrete tank. There’s also a pump pit involved there as well, another structure that would be partially under the paved area that would be similar heavy duty. MR. SIPP-How do you pump that tank? MR. MAC ELROY-How do you pump the tank? Through the access hatch that there would be, or cover that would be paved into the driveway. MR. SIPP-Well, I assume it’s plotted on here the way it is, and therefore three fourths of the tank is covered over. MR. MAC ELROY-On your plan, yes, you can see, correct, you can see that, and it shows two access ports that would be at grade, that they would have access, a pumper would have access to that, similar to the pump pit, which would have access to the pumps. It wouldn’t be paved over. Many times when tanks are in a grassed area they aren’t raised to grade, but you’d have to dig those up, whether it’s summer or winter, but in this case, obviously within the paved surface they’d have to have a cover paved around, would be at grade. MR. SIPP-And I would like to see more of these trees plotted out on here, where they are. I’m still not completely sold on all of this landscaping on the south side of a piece of property. MR. MAC ELROY-In what form you’re not? MR. SIPP-Well, I didn’t know that there are a lot of other pine trees out there. They’re not plotted on here. So it’s difficult to figure out what’s covering what area. Black eyed Susans, to me, are not the ideal thing for a filter strip. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there’s combinations of plantings there that have been devised through a combination of our landscape architect’s knowledge of what is appropriate and the guidance document, which is published by the APA for native species in the Adirondack Park. MR. SIPP-Yes. Well, I accept that, except that I didn’t know that there were a lot of other trees in here, and the size of these trees and the root systems they had, and what you 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) have on here, to me, is not enough to do a good job of filtering of this lawn area. Also I think you take note of the fact that we asked you to use a low phosphorus fertilizer on this. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That won’t be a problem. Again, I don’t know if it had been mentioned, but Dick Meade is the, Meade’s Nursery is the contractor who will be doing this work, and he certainly is knowledgeable of conditions. He’s actually a neighbor up the road here. So he’s well familiar with the site conditions and proper planting techniques and species selection. A certain amount of, they aren’t highlighted. I can look on here and see where certain existing vegetation is shown. I can’t tell you that it’s exactly all of them, but, you know, there are certain, if you look in the underlying base mapping, there are indications of certain trees and vegetation that exist on that site. They weren’t necessarily called out. We highlighted, certainly, the new, the supplemental vegetation. MR. SIPP-You’ve got to, you know, I hope these retaining walls, as you have them placed on here, will do the job, because it is a pretty steep slope that you’ve got there. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that will help transition the grade that is existing and proposed. That’s why we have two levels, but they’re not significant in height. About 15 inches would be the exposure. MR. SIPP-I mean, you’re going to a seven eight percent grade, just roughly, from 220 or 230 within 40 feet. I’d just like to see more vegetation in the particular area there, that is existing, not what will be planted, but what is also existing there. MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, or Paul, did you have any comments? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Don, you said you wanted the stormwater design submitted. Are you still steadfast on that? MR. SIPP-Yes. I think we should have an idea of what stormwater devices are being used and how they’re placed on there. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, could you comment on what would have been submitted with the building permit? I mean, how would it compare to what we would see for Site Plan Review? Would it be similar? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think it would be similar, but it would also show more of the facets of how the house is being built, obviously, trusses and the like. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I’m talking specifically about the stormwater controls. MR. OBORNE-I have not seen this plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-This is the only part of this plan that I’ve seen. I know Craig is aware of this. I know that there were issues in the summer, previously, with the house being torn down. I believe, again, I am not intimate with this Site Plan. MR. MAC ELROY-I have them right here, if it would be helpful just to even look at, there’s a plan sheet for the wastewater design, a plan sheet for the stormwater design, and a sheet of design details and the basis of those designs. MR. HUNSINGER-Now, you had said earlier that you believed that that was reviewed by the Town Engineer, Dan Ryan, the stormwater? MR. MAC ELROY-I sent the stormwater to Dan or gave the, his office is right next to mine. So I gave that stormwater plan to Dan because Craig had wanted to get his input on that fact, and let me just. MR. SIPP-Yes, but VISION says here, it should be clarified what stormwater measures exist on the site, and if there are proposed alterations that will impact the control 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) measures of the drainage patterns. The existing stormwater devices should be labeled and shown on the plot, or Site Plan. The driveway shows. MR. MAC ELROY-States it as proposed. MR. SIPP-States it as proposed, and should be clarified. The existing septic system rd should be labeled as such. Now that’s what Dan, on January 23, transmitted to us. So I would like to see these stormwater controls. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I’m certainly not trying to rush this project through, but I would feel comfortable if we, you know, could make a condition that the stormwater controls be, you know, just make it a special condition that the stormwater controls be reviewed by the Town Engineer, and as long as he’s happy with what’s been proposed and already. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and we don’t have any problem with that. He has already looked at it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. Because there isn’t a time here. He’s much better off if he takes those trees down while the lake is frozen. That’s what’s been recommended, and we don’t want them underwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you feel comfortable, Don, if we just had a condition from the Town Engineer that he sign off on the stormwater controls? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ve got a lot of conditions here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, a number of conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-So he needs to satisfy engineering comments, but also stormwater controls need to be (lost words). MR. MAC ELROY-Let me ask you a question. Would it be adequate, because they’re already available, just submit additional copies of these plans that show the wastewater and stormwater design, as opposed to transferring that much more information onto that plan? MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. That’s fine. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And could I ask Madame Secretary to add Staff Notes to that. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually I’ve broken out some of the Staff Notes, but let me just make sure I go through and check off, to make sure I have them all in here, but I’ll double check. MR. OBORNE-I’m specifically interested in the materials used for the retaining walls. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The silt boom and the filter fabric issue? Yes, I’ve got that in there. MR. HUNSINGER-We should have the applicant submit a copy of the DEC permit for the record. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I got that. Now the item on the Staff Notes, the four retaining walls with associated fill, I thought that was, the retaining walls vary in length, are these walls dry stacked or built with a cementing agent. So that’s not the riprap. That’s different. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the walls. MR. MAC ELROY-That’s the wall. It would be dry stacked, block, stone. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, you had said earlier that it would be dry stacked. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. OBORNE-Block, concrete block? MR. MAC ELROY-Not necessarily concrete. There’ll be some, there may be a cut stone, I assume. MR. KELLY-Like a granite stone, just a regular peeled stone. MR. OBORNE-Which I would have concerns if it was concrete. MR. KELLY-It will not be concrete. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. FORD-And will mortar be used? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. OBORNE-Excellent. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t ask you about any straw mulch or equivalent until the plantings take. There’s a Staff comment about. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I think the comment, that had to do with the location of the tree, where the tree. MR. OBORNE-No. I’m looking for stabilization until the plants take, something along those lines, and that’s typical. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Standard. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s pretty standard stormwater control. Okay. Since it appears that we’re moving towards a resolution, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It is an Unlisted action. I think you submitted a Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“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-I think there is some potential for erosion. MR. FORD-Yes. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Without any stormwater controls. MR. TRAVER-They’re mitigated by the controls on the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. FORD-It’s being addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it is addressed. Okay. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“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. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“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. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then, based on comment one being satisfied, I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 53-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MARK & PENNY KELLY, 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 27 day of, January , 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2008 MARK & PENNY KELLY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1)WHEREAS, A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes stabilization of existing stone and earthen bank as part of a larger project. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)WHEREAS, A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/27/09; and 3)WHEREAS, This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)WHEREAS, 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 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) 5)WHEREAS, 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)WHEREAS, Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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)WHEREAS, 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 - WHEREAS, If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9)NOT APPLICABLE - WHEREAS, The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10)NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2008 MARK & PENNY KELLY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph 4 complies, Paragraph 5, Negative Declaration, Paragraph 8 & 9 do not apply. It is approved with the following conditions. rd 1.That the applicant will satisfy VISION Engineering comments of January 23. 2.That stormwater controls will be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. 3.That the applicant will address replacement of any native, woody or herbaceous vegetation. That must be accompanied by a layer or straw mulch or equivalent of sufficient coverage to control erosion until the plantings are established, and are capable of controlling erosion. Please place the above mentioned e and s controls on the final plan. 4.The applicant must also correct the scale on the plat from one inch equals five feet. 5.The applicant must also revise the silt boom or filter fabric curtain to terminate at the shoreline. 6.That the applicant will put a note on their plat regarding low phosphorus fertilizer. 7.That the applicant will correct the plant schedule for the ilex glabera. 8.That the applicant will put a plat notation that there will be no limestone used. 9.Also a note on retaining wall details that it will be dry stacked and no mortar used. 10.The applicant will remove the diseased trees, the two white pines, while the lake is frozen. 11.That the applicant will provide Staff with a copy of the DEC permit. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) th Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Gretchen, for the review by the Town’s Engineer, do we want to stipulate something beyond review, like signoff or approval, rather than just reviewing. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will amend that first condition that the stormwater controls will be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. MAC ELROY-Great. Thank you very much. We appreciate your patience. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 41-2008 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER LLC ZONING RC-15, LC- 42A LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFIED COLOR SCHEME FOR SASQUATCH RIDE. SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 80-08, AV 81-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/8/08 DEC, CEA, NWI DEC GF-15, GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS [35.46 AC] LOT SIZE 237.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1- 20 SECTION 179-9-020 JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. Site Plan 41-2008, Modification, Great Escape Theme Park, Sasquatch. Requested action, modified color theme. Location: 1172 State Route 9. The existing zoning is RC or Recreation Commercial 15 acres, and Land Conservation 42 acres. SEQRA Status is previous EIS. No SEQRA determination is necessary. Project Description: Applicant proposes a modified color scheme for Sasquatch ride. Site Plan modifications require Planning Board review and approval. No real issues with the plan. I’m going to have to assume that the Planning Board has read Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LEMERY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and everybody. I’m John Lemery, counsel to The Great Escape. Don McCoy is with me. He’s the President of the Properties, and we have Rick Marshall who is here to talk about the sign, to the extent that we get into that. After we came and got the approval for the ride, one of the designers at the company said that they would like to paint the top of the sign red. I talked with the Planning Staff about it and he said that we could paint it. He didn’t have a problem if we painted it a green and gray and yellow, but if we wanted to paint it red, we’d have to come back and seek a modification. So there was a determination by the Planning Staff that if we wanted to paint the top of the sign red or the top of the ride red, that we had to come back to the Planning Board, so, that it would be a Site Plan modification, and so we said, okay, we’ll come back and we can discuss that with the Planning Board. So I guess the first issue, principal issue, has to do with the color of the ride at the very top of the ride. So with that I’d like to turn it over to Don McCoy. DON MC COY MR. MC COY-Okay. Thank you. Good evening everybody. A little bit of background I think we discussed the last time we were here. The Sasquatch Ride is strategically our new signature ride for The Great Escape, and obviously it’s of significant importance to us, as it’s a new thrill ride, and part of doing that is we want to apply a quality theme to the ride. At the last meeting we had submitted a request. The ride was approved to be solid white or the towers would be white, and since that time our design team has attempted to put together something I think is far less stark and far more appealing, and the theme is intended to be an Adirondack National Park theme. The control building and the tower itself will have those colors and various Sasquatch elements. As you can see, I believe everybody’s got a colored rendition. The base of the ride they’d like to see an olive tone, and the center of the ride would have a tan, simulating the riders going past the tree line and into open space and the top of the ride. While I would necessarily 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) say it’s red, the design team refers to it as sundried tomato, but it’s intended to be kind of a duller reddish toned top of the ride, and the real key there is that it’s just part of a standard Adirondack Park National color palette. So we’re trying to propose something we think is going to look a lot better and is far less stark than a plain white ride. So, with that, I’d just respectfully request that you take that into consideration, and I’d be happy to answer any questions, although I’m not a designer. MR. FORD-Have you ever been above the tree line in the Adirondacks? MR. MC COY-Personally, no, not unless it was in an airplane, and all I’ve seen is pretty much white right now. MR. FORD-It doesn’t lend itself too much to red above the tree line, generally. MR. MC COY-How does it look in the Fall? Would it fit in in the Fall? I think it’s just a combination of the dried red and the olive and the tan together, working together, on the entire Site Plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This really isn’t a bright red. That’s a maroon, right? MR. MC COY-It is a dark color, yes. It’s kind of, it’s not intended to be a bright red. It’s a, the terminology they use is, you know, the sundried tomato, but it’s kind of a flat, dull orange. MR. TRAVER-It would seem to me that any discussion of the color of the ride, other than what’s been approved, would have to include the final design for the sign, and I know that you have an appeal I guess underway regarding the sign, but I think the issues, in terms of the size, whether it’s illuminated or not, we already have the up cast lighting, and I don’t see how we can look at the color, in the context of this ride, without knowing what the accoutrements are going to be, including the sign, especially including the sign. MR. LEMERY-Let me comment on this, because there’s a significant amount of confusion and disagreement with the Planning Staff about this The Impact Statement says the Planning Board finds, this is the Findings, that it shall reserve itself the right to review, during the Site Plan review stage, the color and the lighting plan of any ride that falls within 20 feet of the height limit or any of the height zones. It didn’t talk about signs. It talked about ride lighting. So when we were here, we believe we were dealing with that issue when we talked about the up lighting and the Board approved the up lighting. I think there were honest mistakes made on all sides, on the Planning Staff and perhaps on our side, too, because when we, and I got into a dialogue with Craig Brown who said, well, you said you’d come back to the Planning Board for any sign, and I didn’t recall saying here, and I’ve read the minutes, that we would come back to the Planning Board. We said we would come back, if we were going to get a sign approved, and I’ve been th doing this, I’m in my 44 year as an attorney, doing this kind of work. We filed an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals as soon as we found out from corporate what they wanted for a sign, and we had a pre-meeting, folks, with the Staff. We sat with the Staff and went through a pre-meeting. No one at that point said, hey, wait a minute, you’ve got to come back here and have us review what you want to do before you can go to the Zoning Board, because as I read, and I don’t know if Keith, and I’m not making a comment that anybody did anything wrong because I think it was confusing. I looked at the, and I’m the one who was involved in this back in 2001, and I said, well, we’ve already got an approval for our up lighting. If we want an oversized sign, and we want more than one sign, which is what The Great Escape has, we have to go to the Zoning Board. So we filed our application with the Zoning Board, after we met with the Staff and after the application was approved. We went to the Zoning Board. We got a unanimous approval of the sign, and the Zoning Board did SEQRA on the sign, and then we moved on, knowing that we had to come back here, once they, in New York, decided they wanted to try to paint the top of this sign maroon or tomato, whatever. so then I got a call, about a week and a half ago from Craig Brown saying, well, we want to look at your sign lighting again. I said, well, why is that? We’ve got the lighting plan approved. We did the up lighting. No, we think we have the right. You said you would come back. I said I would come back, but I didn’t say I would come back to the Planning Board. Well, we want a right to discuss it. I said, okay, I guess we can do that, and we had to make the decision whether we would come back and discuss it or simply say, you know what, we’ll withdraw the application for the painting, at which point he said, well, and I asked our people to go over and get a permit to construct the sign, and he said I’m not going to give you a sign permit. Now you’ve got to go back to the Zoning Board for a sign permit because we think you made statements to the Zoning Board which aren’t true. Now as I said, I’ve been doing this for years. I’m not unsophisticated in these matters, and I try to 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) tell the truth and deal with these things in a forthright manner. So if it was confusing, you could read these minutes in many different ways and I suppose you could read the Zoning Board. When we go back to the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board’s going to say to us, well, why are you back here. So what happens is because of this kind of confusion, we’re back here tonight, somebody wants to talk about the sign, and then they want the Theme Park to go to the Zoning Board to talk about the sign next month. We finished up with the Planning Board. We went to the Zoning Board, which we believe was the, we were required to do if we wanted an oversized sign. We got out of that meeting. We got the approval and they let the sign fellow go and start working on the sign design. I didn’t hear from Craig Brown until a week and a half ago, and we were in th the Planning Board, we were in the Zoning Board on December the 17. That’s when we met with the Zoning Board and got an approval that night, unanimous approval for the sign. So I’m looking for some direction here. I don’t have any problem discussing the sign with everybody and I’m, and we’ve got our sign designer here. So hopefully everybody can get comfortable with it. I happen to think that the Impact Statement says ride lighting. It doesn’t say sign. So there is a legitimate issue about that, but we’re not looking to cause any problem, create any issue. We’d just like to get through it, so that they can get on with the significant expenditure they’re making and the significant investment in the theme park and in the Town. So I’m not sure where we go with it. I’m not sure what you folks want. We’re not trying to be deceptive or deceive anybody. We thought we were doing what we were supposed to do by going to the Zoning Board, and I think that’s where it is. So I don’t have any problem discussing the sign in connection with the color. Craig took it upon himself and said, well, you don’t have to go back to the Planning Board if you want to color it green and brown. So he made a unilateral determination that green and brown was okay when we had come in here and said white. So I’m thinking, well, if you say it can be green or brown, and we don’t have to, you’re not asking us to go back to the Planning Board to modify the Site Plan, well, then why can’t you approve red, or whatever the color is here, what are we calling it, magenta or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Sundried Tomato. MR. LEMERY-So, he said, no, no, no, if you want to do that, then you have to go back to the Planning Board. That’s okay, but this is awfully expensive for applicants, you know, back and forth and back and forth. These aren’t cheap things that get done here, and some people can’t afford to do these kinds of things. Fortunately this company is trying to do the right thing, but we’re trying to get some direction so we don’t, we got into this the last time where we ended up having to come back because somebody said you didn’t do this or we didn’t do that. So I’d like to get it resolved, if we could resolve it tonight we’d be very appreciative. MR. TRAVER-Well, thank you for that explanation. I appreciate your clarifying your position on this. I think, where I’m trying to come from on this is that with regards to the sign, and you’re backing this up through your explanation, there are a few different directions that this whole issue can go, and I submit that, until we get some resolution on this issue of the sign, which it doesn’t appear something that we’re going to be able to do tonight because there are some questions are unanswered and you have an outstanding appeal. MR. LEMERY-Well, wait a minute. There are no questions that are unanswered about the sign. The sign is the sign. The reason we, we would not even be thinking about going to the Zoning Board, except that Craig Brown said I’m not going to issue you a sign permit. So you’ll have to go to the Zoning Board and discuss it with them again. Okay. If we have to go to the Zoning Board, I filed a notice with them that so if something happens there, there will be a problem because we’ve already got a unanimous approval from the Zoning Board. I can tell you right now that I’m positive the Zoning Board’s going to say, well, why are you back here, well what are you doing back here? So let’s try to answer your questions and get through this tonight. We don’t want to do a Carolina Two Step and go back month, to month, to month. We don’t have time. This theme park opens in May. This ride’s going up, and we have to try to deal with it. This is not something we caused. I’m not even suggesting it’s something that the Planning Staff caused. Maybe it’s an anomaly in the way the Zoning Code is written, and the Sign Ordinance is written. So I understand that, but these are not issues that need to be discussed ad infinitum. If you have a problem with the sign, those comments can be, I’m assuming, can be addressed to the Zoning Board, but the Zoning Board’s already approved it. Because we went to the Zoning Board after we had come to this Board and after this Board had approved the lighting for the ride. I don’t know how to explain it anymore than that, Mr. Chairman. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MRS. STEFFAN-I also think, I was not at the meeting when this was approved, and I went through and I read the Planning Board minutes and the Zoning Board minutes that were provided, and I certainly think that there were some assumptions made, and I don’t know if the Planning Board would have given you the approval that they gave you if they knew that the sign was not going to come back for review. That’s what the, in my mind, that’s what the minutes indicated, that the sign would come back to the Planning Board. The minutes also reflect, in the Zoning Board of Appeals, that they asked if it was okay with the Planning Board. MR. LEMERY-And I answered that, and the reason I answered it was because the Planning Board issue had to do with the up lighting. It didn’t have to do with the sign. So I said, yes, we are fine because we have got the up lighting. We have a waiver for the up lighting. So it wasn’t in some sort of intent to hide the salami with the Zoning Board. I simply said, yes, we’re find, because we’ve got an approval for the up lighting. That’s what that was all about, Gretchen. It had nothing to do with the sign lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s a miscommunication and so we are where we are, and so we have to see how we can resolve it. MR. LEMERY-Right. I agree with you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was here that night. We didn’t say anything about a sign. If you needed a Sign Variance, I would assume you went to the Zoning Board. MR. LEMERY-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you did go to the Zoning Board. MR. LEMERY-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So I would say that’s the end of it. MRS. STEFFAN-No, there was quite a bit of discussion about the sign. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t recall any discussion about the color of the sign or where it was. MR. LEMERY-There’s no reference to the sign in the Findings. We said if we have to get a sign, we’ll come back. I didn’t say we’ll come back to the Planning Board. I said we’ll come back. Not once did I say we’ll come back to the Planning Board. I knew full well. MR. FORD-I read that. MR. LEMERY-Yes. We had to come back. Meaning if we’re going to come back for an oversized sign, we’ve got to go to the Zoning Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s where you belong. MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Now, but I don’t recall any discussion about color. MR. LEMERY-No, sir, there wasn’t a color because we said we would paint it white. So we think we’re here legitimately about the color. We think you have the right to approve color because that’s what the Findings say. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I guess if there’s a discussion about color, you’re in the right room, because it’s up to the seven of us. MR. LEMERY-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-On the sign that we have here, it has Sasquatch on the top. On the stuff that is provided, there’s Great Escape on the top. Are there two signs that are going to be there or just one? MR. LEMERY-No, it was just, it was Great Escape by the time we got to the zoning, and we’ve got somebody here who can explain it. It’s really pretty benign, did you read, you read the Zoning Board minutes. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, I think your explanation helped immensely, at least it helped me to understand where went and where we are, and I think the rest of us found it useful as well. I think, you know, it’s almost impossible to separate the color and the design of the sign, or the design of the ride without addressing the sign and talking about the sign. I mean, I understand you already got approved by the Zoning Board. MR. LEMERY-I’m okay with that, and I asked him, do we have to modify, do we have to come in for a modification for the Site Plan for the sign, and he said, no, just a discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEMERY-But I want the Planning Board to be comfortable, if you can, with the sign, and I think it’s fair to ask about it and understand it, and we’ve got our sign guy here, so, and I think actually we’ve made a further modification. It’s not going to be visible from the east. They’re not going to do the back, just the piece facing, just 87. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. The Zoning Board just approved it for one side. Right? MR. LEMERY-No, I don’t think so. MR. MC COY-They considered it one sign. MR. LEMERY-Yes. They considered it one sign, two sides. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LEMERY-But we’re not going to do the back side. MR. SIPP-What’s the back side, facing what? MR. LEMERY-Facing the east. MR. FORD-The east, right. MRS. STEFFAN-The Park. MR. FORD-And what will that look like from the east? MR. LEMERY-I’ll ask the sign painter what that would. RICK MARSHALL MR. MARSHALL-My name is Rick Marshall with the Marshall Sign Corporation out of East Greenbush, NY. That’s what we did. Basically this (lost words) generated by their corporate design people. That’s the sign, the design, right there, and that’s in scale, on the ride, the top of the ride. We were approved by zoning to have one on the front and the back. I think the discussion now, I found out when I got here, was that corporate decided to just do the one on the face of the ride. The sign is typical channel letters. It is a white acrylic face with an aluminum return. We’re using a green technology LED for rd the lighting, uses 1/3 the power of neon. It also is more dependable. It’s pretty basic. It’s five by twenty overall size. If you look at the far left, you’ll see it in scale on top of the ride, 180 feet up. That’s like a postage stamp there. That’s not a very big sign for the amount of structure that it’s going on to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That sign’s white. The drawing we got it’s cream. What is it? MR. MARSHALL-The sign is white, with a blue return. Here’s the side view of the letters. MR. MC COY-Yes. Only the letters are lit, not the sign. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, but on this drawing. MR. MARSHALL-That drawing did not come from my office. I’m not sure where it came from. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. HUNSINGER-It came from The Great Escape. MR. MC COY-That’s not correct. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, that’s not correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right. It does say Sasquatch. MR. SIPP-What type of lighting? This is lit. MR. MARSHALL-It’s internally illuminated with white LED lamps. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. MARSHALL-The old technology would be using white neon. MR. SIPP-This will be turned off when the Park is closed? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. MC COY-Our agreement was the sign would be turned off after operating hours. MR. FORD-Right. It’ll be on when it’s operating. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, sir. MR. LEMERY-And we further agreed to have a rheostat put on the sign, and if there were complaints about the illumination, that it could be turned down. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that was one question. Is there a foot candle level that’s on this? I mean, how bright is it? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, it’s a standard brightness. It’s not any brighter than any other channel letter. I think I was asked for foot candles, and I called Sloan Manufacturer, and they actually built the tenant D box and put LED’s in it, and measured an average of 92.4. Now, what that means is, to me, I’m not an electrical engineer, but it’s not going to throw a lot of ambient light out and it’s just designed to light itself. MR. LEMERY-It’s designed so that you can see it from the Northway, when you come down, you can see it. MR. SCHOENWOLF-So that’s a more realistic portrayal of the color of the tower than this is, too, then, right? If you look at this, these are kind of like Adirondack colors. They’re dark reds and tans, yellows, greens. MR. FORD-There’s a gold on this one that isn’t there. You appear to be looking right through the structure itself. Is that right? MR. MC COY-Yes. I mean, it is a, it’s a tubular, you know, spaced frame. So you’ll be able to see through the actual structure. MR. FORD-I’m thinking, now, of where the signage is. You look right through the structure there, except where the letters are? MR. MC COY-Correct. MR. FORD-The way that appears there, as opposed to this. MR. MC COY-Yes. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, those are individual channel letters. MR. FORD-And will it say The Great Escape? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, that’s an accurate representation of the ride and the sign, in scale. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks a lot better than white. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. TRAVER-With the up lighting that we approved for safety purposes, that will be illuminating this whole ride, what is the need to have this sign illuminated? I mean, the whole ride is a sign. With that lighting turned on, that entire ride is going to be illuminated, including the lettering at the top. So why add additional illumination, when you have the whole ride saying Great Escape, here we are? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. It won’t be able to frame itself unless it’s internally illuminated. You’re going to get like a weird shadow, if you take a flashlight and put it under your face or see someone do that, that’s how that would look. It would look all distorted. I don’t think it would be readable. MR. MC COY-And a note on the up lighting, the intention of the up lighting is to shine up, the ride carriage or the ride unit really only travels up to about 150 feet. So that lighting is designed just to light that unit through its course. So the operator can see it clearly. MR. TRAVER-So you’re saying when that up lighting is operating, the whole ride will not be illuminated? It won’t illuminate that upper part of the structure where that sign would be? MR. MARSHALL-I’m not the lighting designer, but my understanding it was a safety issue for the people in the operating booth to just see the people in the cars at a certain lower level. MR. FORD-So it will not be illuminated that 42 feet beyond the end of the ride? MR. LEMERY-The light’s on during the ride. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but like when the ride is down, when they’re loading people, it’s not, is it lit up? When the people are on the ride? MR. LEMERY-Yes, during the operating hours. MR. MC COY-I think they just stay on consistently, the up lighting. MR. SIPP-On that up lighting, this is a representation of the ride itself. It has four sides. MR. MC COY-Yes. MR. SIPP-With three people on each side. MR. MC COY-Yes, sir. MR. SIPP-And the up lighting is designed so that the man in this building will be able to see if somebody’s in distress? All right. Tell me this. How does he see the people on the pad? MR. MC COY-There’s two operators. The way the ride’s designed to operate is there’ll be two operators in the control booth and there’ll be two operators controlling the lines and the loading at the base of each tower. So there’ll be one at the base of each tower, and each operator will be responsible for the safe loading and unloading of that particular base, and then the operator inside the control booth is responsible for actuating or dispatching the ride, and monitoring the ride as it goes up. The employees or the attendants on ground level would not be able to accurately or adequately monitor what’s going on as the unit travels all the way up. MR. SIPP-And I say again, if he’s in this building here, how does he see the back side, people on the back side? If somebody were to stand up in this ride and wave like this? MR. MC COY-Well, I don’t know that that’s a scenario I can accurately respond to because the way the safe harnesses and the units are set up, he’s responsible for watching the ride unit. I don’t think he’ll be able to necessarily the facial expressions or anything like that. MR. SIPP-Then why do we need up lighting? MR. MC COY-So he can see the ride unit and the ride carriage travel to the top. MR. SIPP-Can you do this with down lighting? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. MC COY-I don’t know that you can do that from the bottom down. MR. SIPP-From the top down. MR. MC COY-Right, yes, from the top down, because it would be shining. MR. SIPP-If he can’t see the back side of this ride, what is the sense in having up lighting? MR. LEMERY-We’re beyond that. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we already approved that. MR. SIPP-All right. We may have gone over there, but I’m asking why do we have up lighting if he can’t see half of the people? MR. LEMERY-That’s a statement you’re making. It’s not accurate. MR. SIPP-Why not? MR. LEMERY-Because you have people on the ground who are looking, you have attendants on the ground putting the people into the harnesses. They’re watching the people as they go up. The people in the tower are watching the units. Once you get in the harness, you can’t get out of the unit. You can’t get out. So the operators have to look, and if they see an issue with the ride itself, they bring it down. They’re not going to be able to see an individual personally, at 150 feet. They look at the ride itself. They see a problem with the ride, they have to bring the ride down. MR. SIPP-What I’m saying, John, is can’t we do the same thing with down lighting? MR. MC COY-I think the attendants would be looking up into the. MR. FORD-I was just going to make that point. They’re going to be looking into light trying to look at that car. MR. LEMERY-That’s the problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and again, we already approved that. MR. SIPP-In other words, the ride attendant is going to have to walk away from the tower to be able to see if anything’s happening up there. MRS. STEFFAN-On the issue of the color of the sign, I have the pictures from the original board package. So I don’t know if any of the Planning Board members wanted to take a look at it. You can see, obviously they presented colors, but the pictures they’ve identified were in gray scale and white scale. So I don’t know if you want to take a look at them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are these the ones from New Orleans? MRS. STEFFAN-These are, yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think I would just like to see the sign, and I understand what you’re saying. If you were to, as you’ve designed the sign, which, by the way, I noticed was designed in August, well before our October meeting, as you’ve designed it, it’s designed to have internal illumination, but surely it’s possible to design a sign to take advantage of the up lighting that would not need internal illumination. It would still be visible. MR. MARSHALL-I can’t speak on the up lighting issue. MR. LEMERY-The up lighting only goes to about 150 feet. You’d have to increase the intensity of the up lighting, which would cause a problem, to get it all the way up to 185, 188 feet. MR. TRAVER-I’m not sure that we know that. MR. LEMERY-Look, let’s keep it on focus. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. SIPP-These things come up, John, just like you said, well, we don’t have to come back, but we’ll have to come back. MR. LEMERY-If you turn down the color here, and you say we’re not going to allow you to paint this thing red, if that’s the position you want to take, on the Planning Board, with The Great Escape, then so be it. We’ll go to the Zoning Board because Craig Brown tells us we have to go to the Zoning Board, but we’ll be going to the Zoning Board under protest, and we have a unanimous approval. It won’t be any different, and I did not say that, and I did not make a misstatement or not tell the truth when we went to the Zoning Board the first time. Contrary to what Craig thinks, by saying we have no problem with the lighting, because we were referring to the up lighting, not the sign lighting. So, you know, that’s a legitimate question. You didn’t want to hear it. He takes a unilateral position. This is a company that spends $2 million in Queensbury every year, and, you know, it’s a ride that’s been approved. We’re talking about the color of the ride. If that’s something that you find offensive, so be it. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Lemery, I think you already explained your, and put your comments into context, and I think that was helpful. MR. LEMERY-I mean, it’s so frustrating because we go on, and on, and on and back and forth and people trot back and forth here time after time after time. It’s very expensive. People, it’s very expensive for applicants to keep coming back time after time. Let’s table this, let’s table that. People, you need to understand how expensive it is. We are not in great economic times, and a lot of the developers are going to have to look at, well, can we afford to go through that kind of situation? I just want you to be mindful of it because it’s an absolute truth. It’s thousands of dollars every time somebody comes back in here, well, I think we ought to talk about it next month. I think, you know, I don’t want to hear about it any more, but, let’s talk about it next month. So we go on and on. Let’s talk about it now, and if we can’t agree, we can’t agree. If you turn it down, you turn it down. If you’re willing to make it work, we hope that you will say okay and we’ll go on to the Zoning Board and get through that one. All right? MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Can we talk about the color? What’s member’s, Board member’s feelings on the color? I think it was helpful to look at the visual impact pictures that Gretchen brought to kind of help put the colors in context. MRS. STEFFAN-So, it was originally approved in white. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s so far away from where I can see, I don’t care what color they paint it. It’s 180 feet up there. MRS. STEFFAN-But what would the rest of the community think? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t think they’d even think anything. Those that see it from the Northway are going to get a quick glimpse and that’s it. Those that are coming down Route 9 better pay attention to where they’re going. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I know we’ve asked about ride colors in the past, you know, and I think, for most of the rides, you know, it’s just kind of been, what are you proposing. This is the color we’re proposing, and we just kind of say, okay. MR. MC COY-John was just mentioning we had just re-painted the Boomerang closely there in a bright red, bright yellow, but, you know, it was closer to the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. LEMERY-It’s only when we’re within 20 feet of a zone that, under the Impact Statement you review it. MR. HUNSINGER-Now, for example, and I forgot what it’s called, is it the slingshot that’s white? MR. LEMERY-That’s white. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we, do you remember any discussion about the color of that ride when that was before the Board? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. LEMERY-I think the manufacturer had white and we said white, and I personally don’t think it’s all that attractive in white. I think it’s more stark than if it had a decent color on it, but that’s just my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it depends on the background. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and the difficulty with the sign color is that this thing is huge, and it’s going to be visible year round, and it’s not just when The Great Escape is open. It’s the rest of the year, and so at a time like now when most of the ground is covered with white, if that thing is sticking up in green and red, it is going to stick out like a sore thumb, and so, during the summer, when the leaves are on the trees, it may blend in better, but we have to think big picture. So it’s not just about promotion. MR. LEMERY-It’s not going to blend. It’s a big, huge tower. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s pretty obvious, with the pictures. MR. LEMERY-It’s a big tower, but it was approved, and this is a theme park, and it’s been a theme park since 1954. MRS. STEFFAN-I know, I used to go to it. MR. LEMERY-And it was here before any of the residential developments around it, and we’ve all tried to, you know, this Planning Board has done a great job, everybody on this Planning Board, trying to mitigate these competing interests of the neighborhoods and the theme park, but if they can’t continue to put these rides in, they won’t be able to survive. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone else have comments on the color? For or against? What was the thinking behind making the top red? MR. LEMERY-You’ve got me. I have no idea. MR. MC COY-You know, I think when, I talked to the designers about this thing, and throughout the system, a lot of these things are much bright, they’re bright colors. They’re bright blues, yellows, reds and greens, and, you know, theme park elements are intended to be very bright and colorful, you know, to evoke that emotional response. What the design team really tried to do, and the best way that I can explain it, is that they wanted to create a pallet that really was a little more subtle but it was more appealing than white and fit in with the, you know, just that Adirondack, you know, National Park, and this is a color that they had seen in a lot of their research and felt like it would be an appropriate color to put at the top. I don’t know that there’s any real magic to it. It’s just they felt that it just looked a lot better than having a white top to it. I think, personally, my personal feeling is it’s far more eye appealing than having a bright white tower sitting up there, that looks industrial. This is intended to look and be part of a nice theme, which is our Sasquatch theme, and it fits in with everything we’re trying to do there. The control building itself will have the same color scheme, and the canopies and everything will have a similar feel to it. The tower is obviously the biggest part of that theme. MARK NOORDSY MR. NOORSDY-If I could just add one comment. I’m Mark Noordsy from Lemery Greisler. On the color issue and how much that’s going to stand out, just looking at what we had put in our submission letter, and it was a while ago, but back in 2001, when the GEIS was adopted, there was a statement in there that the Park has always maintained the colorful, eye catching atmosphere usually associated with the parks. I mean, this wasn’t uncontemplated to have colorful attractions. Also, the views of a 200 foot structure are only going to be visible from Route 9 or the Northway. I mean, it’s not, the way the different height areas were contemplated, the visual affect of this high of a structure is limited to just those areas, off of the Northway and off of Route 9. So that, again, my point being, these were things that were considered when the generic EIS was adopted back in ’01. MR. LEMERY-Mr. Underwood, on the Zoning Board, lives on Glen Lake, and he was very adamant about the fact that this could not be seen. First of all, it’s location, if you look at The Great Escape, you face it from Route 9, it’s on the southern end where the hill’s a lot higher than toward the northern end of the theme park. So he said, this is not at all going to be visible anywhere near Glen Lake. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. FORD-We read his comments in the minutes. MR. TRAVER-There do seem to be some complications. I’d be interested in Staff or perhaps Counsel commenting on the whole situation regarding the sign and how this is going to be clarified, and what, if any action, we take this evening, may clarify that situation with regards to the appeal and all of the rest of it. MR. HILL-Well, as I understand it, I think that the applicant is saying that they believe that they obtained the necessary Site Plan approval here, at the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-To include the sign? MR. HILL-Pardon me? MR. TRAVER-To include the sign? MR. HILL-I don’t think so. I don’t think you approved a sign in conjunction with your, the approval that was issued here. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HILL-I think what they’re saying is that, in their view, jurisdiction with respect to the sign, resides in the Zoning Board of Appeals because it exceeds the maximum allowable area, my understanding. Mr. Lemery can clarify if he has a different position. Right now, there is an appeal pending at the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to the sign. The Zoning Board apparently will review their prior approval and make a determination about whether that approval should stand, and if it does not, then I think Mr. Lemery has indicated that there’s likely to be some fall out from that. In his view, that’s as far as, or that’s the place where there is jurisdiction over the sign. With respect to the correspondence between Mr. Brown and Mr. Lemery, Mr. Lemery’s offered some clarifying, or some remarks, in an attempt to clarify his view of the record. I believe from what Mr. Brown has said, that he believes that by virtue of the record that was established, I think his view is that this Board has some jurisdiction with respect to the sign, and I think that will, perhaps has yet to be determined, and perhaps will depend, to some extent, on the outcome of the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to that appeal. MR. TRAVER-So if we, hypothetically, if we were to, as the applicant wants to, and I can understand their interest in getting this resolved, but if we were to approve this color change tonight, would we, in effect, be approving the sign, however it was resolved, or if there was a ruling that we did have some authority, would the sign then come back for us for further review? MR. HILL-Well, I think whatever you decide tonight, the record will indicate the limit of whatever it is that you’re approving. There is a pending appeal at the Zoning Board of Appeals, and that may have some influence as to whether this comes back. If you want to adopt an approval tonight or a modification of your approval that includes an approval of the sign, you could certainly do that, conditioned upon ZBA, the ZBA decision standing, you could certainly do that. If you choose not to, and to limit your approval strictly to the color change that’s being proposed by the applicant, that would be the limit of your modification of your approval, and then I think at that point, any further procedure on this would depend on what happens at the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we can approve the color, and leave the sign issue out there, and if we do need to re-visit that issue, then we will anyway, because if the Zoning Board upholds their original decision, then that’s done. If they don’t, then one of the possibilities would be that it would come back for us to then take a look at the sign. Correct? In other words, when we looked at the Site Plan without a sign, in October, and we approved it. MR. HILL-Well, I think, if I understand the record correctly, you looked at it with a sign. There was some discussion about a sign, and the applicant withdrew the sign from the plan, and then you approved that revised plan that did not have the sign in it. Is that correct? MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Yes, that’s more accurate. MR. HILL-Okay. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, if we don’t deal with the sign tonight, then nothing regarding the sign changes with regard to the Planning Board, and we can move ahead and talk about what the applicant came here tonight to talk about, which is the color. Correct? MR. HILL-I think so. I think you’re certainly free to do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HILL-Mr. Lemery’s already expressed a preference that of course, in his view, he would like this Board to, if I understand correctly, do whatever it is this Board is going to do with respect to the sign so that the applicant can be beyond the Planning Board process and have the Zoning Board process be the only remaining process to go through, but you can limit yourselves, tonight, strictly to a review of the proposed color change if that’s what you wish to do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So that leaves the sign with the ZBA. That’s clean. MR. TRAVER-Well, and that’s where it is anyway, because if they have the jurisdiction, right? That’s what I’m trying to clarify. I have no problem getting. MR. HUNSINGER-No, and I think you did, and I’m glad that there’s at least one member of the Town Board here, because we seem to get into this too often where, and it’s not fair to the applicant. It’s not fair to the Planning Board, and it’s not fair to the Zoning Board where, to me, in my mind, the sign review should be part of Site Plan Review, but instead it ends up going back to the Zoning Board, and no offense to the Zoning Board, but they don’t understand Site Plan Review like the Planning Board does. The applicant gets caught in the middle, do I go to the Zoning Board, do I go to the Planning Board, and so we get this back and forth, and this certainly isn’t the first time that this has happened, and I think, when we were, you know, now that we’re looking at the Town Ordinance, I think we need to, you know, look at the Sign Ordinance again, and clarify the Sign Ordinance, and put Site Plan, put signs back under Site Plan Review, so that the Planning Board can deal with it as part of Site Plan Review. We don’t have to send applicants to the Zoning Board unnecessarily, and we can have a more continuity in the process. MR. HILL-I didn’t mean to imply in my remarks that you would be without jurisdiction, but if the Zoning Board of Appeals rescinds its prior approval, then at that point the applicant has, I think, bigger issues with respect to its proposed sign than simply Site Plan Review. Then it’s got a variance that it would need to get, and I think in Mr. Brown’s view this Board does have jurisdiction with respect to signs, which is consistent with what was said. MR. OBORNE-As far as the Planning Board, they don’t have jurisdiction over Zoning Board of Appeals process. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand that. I wasn’t implying that we did. MR. OBORNE-You definitely have jurisdiction over color, placement, size, etc. MR. TRAVER-So let’s just deal with that. MR. OBORNE-And I do want to also say, just for clarity, that it is the size of the sign, but it’s also the height of the sign. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand that. Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And this is 192 feet high. MR. HUNSINGER-The ride is. MR. FORD-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-The ride, to the top of that peak, 192 feet. MR. FORD-The structure is 192. MR. LEMERY-Yes, that’s correct. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it only goes to 150 something. MR. LEMERY-The carriage. MRS. STEFFAN-The ride itself, but the frame of it is 192 feet, and so I remember in the minutes somewhere there’s no light on top of it because it’s under 200 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no requirement. MR. LEMERY-The FAA doesn’t require a light, but they’ve got jurisdiction over that, and we’ve notified the FAA, and that was in the Findings. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s not an issue at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re back to color. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the other thing is, unless we put something in the motion, they could, if we say, no, we want it to be green, unless we put something in the motion, they can go paint it yellow and gold like the other ride next year. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what they’ve asked is to use this color scheme. So, I mean, we could reference the color scheme on the drawing and, I mean, they have the make and model and name for each color. So that’s pretty specific. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Was that your intent? I mean, I assume your intent was to be that specific. MR. MC COY-It was. It was to show you exactly what we want to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FORD-And, Chris, are we at cross purposes to discuss the signage at all? Cross purposes with the ZBA? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t think we’re at cross purposes, and the applicant said, you know, if we had questions, let’s talk about it. It does fall under the ZBA’s jurisdiction, though. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It seems to me that we should just deal with the color at this point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just deal with the color. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Specifically omit anything about the sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone have any problems with the proposed colors? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if they look at what’s on that sheet, you’re going to put specific colors on, right? MR. MC COY-Yes, sir. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. MC COY-Specifically what’s, they’ve listed the name of the paint. I think the number, so, that’s specifically what we’ll do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I mean, I suppose it would be nice if we could have some kind of paint that would make the thing invisible when it wasn’t operating, but realistically, it is an amusement park, and, quite honestly, when I looked at this compared to the approval in October that was a white color, I think this is better. Just the fact that there’s a contrast, I 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) think is, at least part of the year, going to help make it blend in a little bit, ironically, as much as possible for such a big structure. So I guess I don’t really have, provided, again, provided we’re only dealing with that and not the sign. MR. FORD-My feeling, I’d concur with that. As long as we’re not talking signage, if we’re going to talk signage, I’ve got some other things to say, but the coloration, I think it’s one of the better color combinations that could be used. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LEMERY-I just wanted to clarify one thing Gretchen said. I fully understand, if they wanted to paint that sign another color at another time, we have to come back here, because it is a Site Plan modification under the Impact Statement, under SEQRA. So you do reserve, for yourself, the right to review colors at any time when the ride falls within the corridor, falls within the height restriction. So you do have the right, at any time, to review the change of colors if they want change of color. So, if I’m still around, we’ll come back to the Zoning Board for a Site Plan modification. MR. SIPP-I’ll be here. MR. FORD-I do have a question for clarification, because I was not at that previous meeting, and that is, how and why was the signage not addressed in sufficient detail so that we would have, not be here with this discussion going on? MRS. STEFFAN-I went back to the minutes and it’s a misunderstanding. MR. OBORNE-Well, if I may, and I hope I’m not opening up a Pandora’s Box here, but there is a clarification I would like to make for the record, and that is, on, and actually it’s on the Lemery Greisler application, and it’s on Section Four, Page Six. There’s two references to Mr. Oborne. That is not true. The Mr. Oborne after Mr. Traver is actually Mr. Lemery speaking. That’s a typo. MR. HUNSINGER-The first Mr. Oborne on Page Six? MR. OBORNE-After, you see the two Mr. Obornes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. The first Mr. Oborne is Mr. Lemery talking. MR. TRAVER-And you can tell in the context of the discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And I have gone through that with the earphones on, with the stenographer, Maria Gagliardi, and we have changed that, and it is on the website and has been changed. I’m not quite sure when you got these, John. Did you take them off the website? MR. LEMERY-No. Here’s what happened. When I got the call, a week and a half ago from Craig Brown, telling me that we had to come back here, I said I don’t even have the minutes of the Planning Board, nor do I have the Staff comments. This was last week. I was on vacation, which always happens, by the way. MR. OBORNE-And I don’t think it changes too much. If I said both those statements, it’s still the same statement. However, I just wanted to make sure, for the record, that my thinking when I was talking to you, Mr. Traver, was that, yes, they do, need to come back for Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand that. Thank you for that. I do think that clarifies the context a little bit. MR. LEMERY-Yes, and you can also look at it, if it’s compliant, it’s compliant. Nobody needs to go anywhere. If it’s not compliant, we’ve got to go to the Zoning Board to get it. That’s the way I would read it. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly, yes. Okay. If there’s no additional questions or comments from members of the Board, would anyone like to put forward a resolution? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’ll make a resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2008 MODIFICATION GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)WHEREAS, A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modified color scheme for Sasquatch Ride. Site Plan Modifications require Planning Board review and approval. 2)WHEREAS, A public hearing is not required for a modification; and 3)WHEREAS, This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4)WHEREAS, Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies/does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5)WHEREAS, Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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. 6)WHEREAS, 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 7)WHEREAS, If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 8)WHEREAS, The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 9)NOW THEREFORE BE ITMOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2008 MODIFICATION GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Five [removed], there’s an EIS submitted, so we did not have to reconsider SEQRA. Paragraph 8 & 9 do not apply. It is approved based on the submission of the color scheme for the ride, which will be Sherwin Williams Color Answers SW2915, Sundried Tomato, at the top of the sign, complimented by Sherwin Williams Color Answers Yellowstone and Sherwin Williams Color Answers Spring Meadow. th Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Sipp ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much. MR. MC COY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set, gentlemen. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOCIATES c/o SEAN CRUMB AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC INTENSIVE LOCATION 474 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO THEIR APPROVED SITE PLAN; SPECIFICALLY A 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) CHANGE IN LIGHTING TYPE AND LOCATION. SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08-358, 446, 447, 499, 521, 601, 602; SV 2-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 2.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-98 SECTION 179-4-020 CARL RUPRECHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 7-2007, Modification. Jolley Associates, the applicant. Requested action, Site Plan Review modification for change in approved lighting. Location 474 Aviation Road. The existing zoning is Highway Commercial Intensive. This is an Unlisted. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination concerning this application. Project Description: Applicant proposes a modification to an approve Site Plan in order to eliminate an existing Jolley wall sign located on the front of the building with three 150 watt spotlights, and I will go on and say that I assume that the Planning Board has read the Staff Notes and is ready to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. RUPRECHT-Good evening. My name’s Carl Ruprecht. I’m substituting for Sean Crumb tonight. As noted, the illumination for our Jolley sign on the face of the building was inadvertently left off the original lighting plan, and as a result, we’ve applied for this modification. I spent a few minutes this evening after dark driving around the area up there just to see what else there was for lighting and noted that ours really isn’t much different than anyone else’s, despite the use of the lighting that we’ve installed. I took two photographs from the same position on the property, one with the lights on, one with the lights off. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. Yes, why don’t you start down at that end. MR. RUPRECHT-And I was very pleased to hear the gentleman representing Wal-Mart when he made the comment that signage and lighting are extremely important to retail businesses, and I can’t speak loudly enough that we have the same opinion, and that illuminating that sign is, from our perspective, imperative. MRS. STEFFAN-The difficulty for us is that it may have been inadvertently left off, but we don’t up light anything. I mean, you heard the discussion on The Great Escape, and up lighting is just not an acceptable situation for us, and so, you know, in a situation like this, where you inadvertently left it off, now we’ve got something that’s lighting up, or we’ve had other applicants who have done the same thing that you did, well, actually not inadvertently left them off, but we’ve had applicants who have installed up lighting post Certificate of Occupancy, and then had to come back before the Board when Code Enforcement identified that there was a problem. So it’s not an acceptable practice in the Town, because we want to preserve the night sky. So we don’t want light shining up, and when anything, even if there are existing situations like that that have occurred before we revised the Code, when they come back for re-development, that’s changed. So it’s one of those issues where we’re trying to preserve the night sky, and so up lighting is just problematic for us. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and also just a little more background. What happened was the store at Exit 20, the lights were on, and I don’t know if a complaint was made or Enforcement Staff went and saw it and made them turn it off, and that’s kind of how it got caught on the Exit 19 project, because we caught it at the Exit 20. I mean, I drive past the Exit 19 store every day, and I mean, I think the store looks nice. I mean, one of the things that I have noticed specifically is the way that the new store fits the character of the neighborhood better because all of the buildings going down that side of the road are further back off the road than the old building. So I think that, you know, the character of the neighborhood has been enhanced by the new store. So I have nothing but good things to say about the new store, with the exception of the up lighting. I mean, if the lights were up in the awning facing down onto the sign. MRS. STEFFAN-They’d be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-We might feel differently about it. MR. RUPRECHT-I reviewed other signs in the area, and I found one in particular that is down lit, that I should think, and not being a lumination engineer, I can’t tell you what foot 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) candle that this would be, but that’s Friendly’s right down the road from us. That’s down lit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and that’s well before the new sign, the new lighting ordinance. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s been around for a while. MR. RUPRECHT-There were countless other signs, and they’re all up lit, too, but I assume they’re grandfathered. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I can’t tell you the year or the date that the new lighting was adopted by the Town Board. It’s been within the last three or four years. For example, you know, the Hess station that’s near Exit 19, you know, and I’m not picking on them to pick on Hess. I mean, I go there a lot, too, but their lighting is not compliant. It’s way too bright to meet the new Code requirements. MR. FORD-May I ask a question? MR. RUPRECHT-Yes. MR. FORD-Why can’t the lights simply go under the eaves? MR. RUPRECHT-Well, they probably can. We’ve got about 30 other stores that have all been built this way and as I said, it was an oversight. We just told the engineers to use past plans and go from there, and for whatever reason those three lights were eliminated from both drawings. MR. FORD-It would accomplish the same objective, however, correct? MR. RUPRECHT-I think it would. I think it has the negative effect of creating some shadows on the sidewalk area because of the overhang we have on the front of the building. MRS. STEFFAN-Isn’t this the same, well, actually, the one at Exit 20 is similar to this except for the three lights are spaced farther apart than that. MR. RUPRECHT-It could be, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that coming back for modification? MR. RUPRECHT-These aren’t fastened down. They’re just set there because we knew that we didn’t have the permits for it. So we just put them there and wired them up with the expectation that we would be permitted and at that point make the adjustments. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-If you told the engineer to just design this the way he’s designed the others, why didn’t he? Why didn’t we see the lighting proposed? MR. RUPRECHT-Because it was a different engineering firm, and in the exchange of blueprints from a previous job to these other two different firms, Tom Nace did Exit 20, and Bohler Engineering did Exit 19, kind of simultaneously. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. RUPRECHT-And they both had the same set of plans, that, for whatever reason, from a Vermont site, didn’t show those three lights, and so when I was approving the plans I didn’t catch that. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understandable. MR. RUPRECHT-And as a result it was submitted to you without that information. MR. TRAVER-It’s a minor detail, in view of everything that went into the design. Yes. Well, my own feeling is, if you reduce the lights to one, and you put it up in the center under the eaves shining down, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. you’re talking, that would be one 150 watt fixture. It would certainly be adequate design to illuminate that sign. It would have a different type of shade than what you have depicted there. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. RUPRECHT-So there’s no question that up lighting is out of the question? MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s not necessary. I mean, we’d rather not consider it because it creates other issues, and in this case, you have an ideal location for the lighting right directly above the sign. MR. RUPRECHT-Well, I have a concern about the single light, though, not illuminating the whole word uniformly. MR. SCHOENWOLF-Well, then you could use other lights. We’re talking about we don’t want the spillage into the sky. MR. RUPRECHT-I understand. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So if you’re coming down, even with less light, and you’re just lighting around that area, you’re going to wind up with a better looking front than you are. MR. RUPRECHT-I’m willing to go with down lighting. I would prefer to stay with three lights. I think we can probably reduce them somewhat from the 150 to 100 watt, but I’d like to space them in the peak area that’s projecting out further than the other areas. I’d like to space them in the two corners and the uppermost point so that they’re giving us some sort of orientation, and illuminating the whole Jolley instead of just the center of it. MR. TRAVER-How about 75? MR. RUPRECHT-I’m not sure that metal halide is available in that. I’d have to research it. I know it’s available in 100. MR. HUNSINGER-I assume, too, that these lights have cut offs. I mean, just looking at them in this picture, it looks like they have a cut off shield. MR. RUPRECHT-I think that the lens and bulb are recessed within the housing, and therefore don’t need the cut off shield, but, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you mentioned a concern about there being light spillage, you know, off onto the sidewalk, and I’m sure you could find a cut off fixture that would eliminate that. MR. RUPRECHT-Using down lighting, yes, we can arrange that. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, is this, are they coming back for a modification on the Exit 20 building? MR. OBORNE-Yes, they are, ma’am, and there are other issues with that also. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and they haven’t gotten their approval yet for the one on the corner of Route 9 and Aviation, have they? MR. OBORNE-Yes. They have gotten their approval for that, absolutely. MR. RUPRECHT-Different style building. MRS. STEFFAN-I was away for a couple of months. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did approve it. MRS. STEFFAN-You approved that one. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a different style, though, as he pointed out because the awning is lower, and so. MR. OBORNE-And it’s staying, also, I believe, it’s not being removed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RUPRECHT-Would you like to address the Exit 20 tonight and kill two birds with one stone? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there’s other issues, we can’t address those, but certainly this lighting issue would be, we wouldn’t know what to do with that. MR. RUPRECHT-Will we need to re-submit to the Board, or can we agree tonight on three 100 watt fixtures in the down light position? MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the opinion of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, you’re halfway there, as far as I’m concerned, in the down lighting. We certainly appreciate that you recognize the value and changed the direction of the lighting. I’m still concerned, and it would be nice if you didn’t have to come back with the cut sheets and the plans and so on, although maybe that will be necessary, but I’m just thinking if we could get by with the minimum amount of wattage, and just looking at those lights and the photographs that you provided us, which was great, by the way. That was very helpful, thank you. It would appear to me that just one, for example, that center light of the 150 (lost words) would have been enough to light the whole sign. So I’m just wondering if you, just take that one light and move it up to the top, why wouldn’t it do the same thing? MR. RUPRECHT-I think I would have to use a different style of light that would spread it. In other words, I think that’s too concentrated in that particular design. MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand, but what I’m talking about is the total energy output, the 150 watts. We also are trying to keep the amount of wattage down. It also saves you money. Right? You don’t feel confident that however, whatever combination of fixtures or whatever you did that you could keep the wattage below? You were proposing 300 watts? Could you get any closer to 150, which, again, I’m looking at one of the three of these lights, and it seems to me that it’s. MR. RUPRECHT-I can tell you that, when we originated this building design in 2002, we played with some lighting, and we did not use down lights because the first location that wasn’t, they had the opposite opinion of you folks. They thought that up lighting was better. So we went with up lighting and we have consequently used it since then. The 150 watt bulbs in three fixtures spread out further than that did the best job of illuminating the whole sign without shadows created. The sign is three dimensional, and it stands out by about six inches, and it would create shadows that would make it from different angles unappealing. MR. TRAVER-I see. MR. RUPRECHT-So, we, I think compromising or dropping down to using down lights with 100 watts, I think that that’s, you know, from our perspective, that would be acceptable. MR. SCHOENWOLF-You’d have to use a couple of them at least. MR. RUPRECHT-Well, I think we’d try to use three. MR. SCHOENWOLF-Yes, but you could move them over to the side of where that extra peak is, because what you really don’t want any hot spots. MR. RUPRECHT-Right. MR. SCHOENWOLF-You just want a nice, even light so you can read the name of the company, and by keeping it under there, it doesn’t escape into the sky. MR. TRAVER-And I think, and Staff, correct me if I’m wrong, but with the downcast lighting, can he not extend them out a little bit and have them sort of facing back down toward the sign so that there’s not as much shadow? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I would imagine that’s feasible. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s just a matter of the fixture. Right? MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I would like to see that, you know, prior to approval we would need a new illumination on that, and I also want to, not to steal your thunder, Mr. Traver, but if these aren’t cut off or resolved tonight, there will be an enforcement action on this by Code Compliance. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because they’re on and they’re not supposed to be. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. RUPRECHT-They’re off now. MR. OBORNE-Well, we’ve heard that before, too, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, every time I’ve driven by the store, they weren’t on. So MRS. STEFFAN-No, they were on this weekend, I know. I got gas there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And by the way, I really like the layout of the site. It’s a great building. I enjoy using it all the time. MR. TRAVER-To that end, since obviously you don’t have control, 24/7, of the lighting, you might want to disconnect the wiring or something so that somebody doesn’t just, not necessarily aware of our concern, and just throw the switch. I don’t know how you have it hooked up. MR. RUPRECHT-The breaker is off at this point, but it’s easily bypassed. So we’ll disconnect the wires. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they might think something is wrong because it’s not. MRS. STEFFAN-Question for Keith. Is it adequate if we approve a modification with the language that we wanted downcast fixtures that are Code compliant? Is that sufficient, or should we ask them to come back? I’m asking for a recommendation, because the applicant will be back for a modification on another site in Town. So we know they’re coming back. MR. OBORNE-I would prefer it to be clean, and to have them come back with new plans and cut sheets and the whole nine yards. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. RUPRECHT-Can we leave it up to Keith, then? I mean, if he approves the cut sheets and so forth, will that, or am I going to have to come before the Board to make that submission? MRS. STEFFAN-I think you’re going to have to come back before the Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Although it sounds as though we might be able to address it at the same time as another application. Because this could be a relatively minor. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, well, the Exit 20 project, is that scheduled to come back in March? MR. OBORNE-Yes. No, wait, it’s coming in February. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, in February. I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t put the two on the same night. In fact, I think it would save the Board a lot of time to add another item. MR. TRAVER-I think if we urge the applicant to take advantage of Planning Staff to ensure that he’s in compliance, so that it’s a simple matter for us to note that the changes have been made that we talked about. It doesn’t seem like it would be that bad. MR. OBORNE-In an effort not to be too rigid, I think if you do approve it with specific laid out parameters that the applicant must come back with, including compliance signs, cut sheets that are amenable to Staff, then I think we could probably take care of this. MR. RUPRECHT-That will speed things up a little bit. I’m receiving memos every day why aren’t my lights on. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not sure, because I’ve started to write down what I heard about three 100 watt fixtures, and I don’t know whether that’s appropriate or not. I don’t know what the foot candles of that are. We may be telling him to do something that’s not compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the problem. MR. OBORNE-I think the minimum foot candles for those, do you plan on taking those lights and just putting them up there? MR. RUPRECHT-No. MR. OBORNE-Are you going to do new lights? MR. RUPRECHT-I don’t think they’ll solve the problem. Plus, those are 150 and I’m agreeing with 100 watt. MR. OBORNE-Are you looking, maybe, for goosenecks also or? MR. RUPRECHT-I don’t think so. I think I want to try to put them on the overhang, in an unobtrusive manner. I don’t want them to be quite. MR. OBORNE-It would be nice if they were recessed and pointed down. Maybe that. MR. RUPRECHT-I don’t think I can recess them with the type of construction. I think they’re going to be surface mounted, but I’m not sure. I want to review that, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, even these fixtures can be seen. I mean, even on the other store where they’re spread out more, you can still see them. MR. RUPRECHT-But they blend a little bit better down there. Being up in the peak, again, I’m not sure. We don’t have any other buildings with peak lights. So I’m going to have to research this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s hard to say. MR. TRAVER-And there isn’t another Jolley in our jurisdiction that has the approved lighting for the sign. Correct? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. OBORNE-No, right. MRS. STEFFAN-I went by one in Clifton Park the other day. MR. OBORNE-Now I will advise the Planning Board that they will be giving up their right to aesthetics, if you leave it to Staff. MR. RUPRECHT-I thought our building was quite acceptable. I heard nothing but compliments. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but the lights. MR. RUPRECHT-You don’t trust us to put attractive lighting up? MR. OBORNE-With that, yes, but you’re putting a lot of power in my hands, and I just want to make sure you know that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. RUPRECHT-I think your point that I’m coming back in February for the other building, I think I would just as soon present to you folks what our alternative will be, and let you folks make the decision. MR. FORD-Great idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Let’s do that. MR. FORD-Good suggestion. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) MRS. STEFFAN-What meeting is that slated for, the second, do you know? MR. OBORNE-I don’t have, the agendas are not final. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’re not final yet. rd MR. OBORNE-Obviously we have a little bit of change to do on the 3, due to a tabling tonight. So I really don’t know. I assume it’s early because they were bumped in December. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course these are modifications so there’s no public hearing. We don’t have to worry about, you know, public hearing. MR. FORD-I think that’s an excellent decision because I think that we’ll have a better comfort level on both sides of the table. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re going to table this to a meeting in February when we also review your other Route 9. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 MODIFICATION JOLLEY ASSOCIATES c/o SEAN CRUMB, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: For the 474 Aviation Road project. It will be tabled to a meeting in February, at the same time that another Jolley Associates building will be reviewed. The applicant will come back, at that time, with a lighting plan, a revised lighting plan, for signage lighting, that will contain cut sheets. The lighting plan will be Code compliant, with downcast fixtures. That the applicant will immediately disconnect the up lighting on the face of the building on Aviation Road to comply with our Code Enforcement Officer’s recommendation. th Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-If you could add a condition also that these lights currently need to be removed or at the very least power is to be physically removed from the lights. They need not to be able to be turned on. MR. TRAVER-Don’t they have to do that anyway? MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s a Code Enforcement issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it’s Code Enforcement. MR. OBORNE-And there is a SEQRA that needs to be done with this also. This is an Unlisted modification. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RUPRECHT-That can be done at the time of approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I apologize. I thought you were approving it. I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’re tabling it. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-The only other issue is submission of materials. When do they need to submit the new information by? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) st MR. OBORNE-By the end of the month, the 31. th MRS. STEFFAN-Friday, the 30. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And just so the Board understands, it is my intention to add this as an additional item. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-For that evening. MR. FORD-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So that we will, you know, we’ll basically treat the two applications as one. We will have an additional item that night. Okay. MR. TRAVER-They’ll be done concurrently, I assume. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We’ll do one right after the other. Okay. Thank you. MR. RUPRECHT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you next month. Any other business before the Board? For those people that weren’t here at the beginning when there was some discussion, the th Town Board has scheduled a public hearing for February 24. The public hearing is to discuss the new Zoning Ordinance. Because the Town Board scheduled this room for the same night as our scheduled Planning Board meeting, we will not be meeting on the thth 24, but instead we will be meeting on the 19, and then we were able to confirm the rdrd Special Meeting on March 3, and, as Keith pointed out, really the March 3 day is really a third meeting in February for purposes of Staff Notes and the application materials and all that kind of stuff. MR. TRAVER-Yes. thth MR. HUNSINGER-So we will have two meetings on the week of the 16, the 17 and the thrd 19, and then March 3. Anything else on those issues? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I was just conferring with Counsel here. For Great Escape, we needed to do a SEQRA, because you did approve that, and I neglected to inform you of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, when Gretchen made the motion, she did mention that it was part of the EIS and that no further SEQRA review was necessary. That was part of the motion. MR. HILL-Under the circumstances, that seemed adequate. I didn’t hear that portion of the proposed motion, but I’m certainly glad to hear that you recognize that there was potential SEQRA involvement, that you referred to the EIS, and that the gist of it is that there wouldn’t be any significant adverse effects from the proposed change. So that’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. MRS. STEFFAN-I was not that specific. I was more vague, but I did add it in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was the gist, and it is in the motion. It is addressed in the motion. Any other business this evening to come before the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I would encourage the, Chris and I obviously spent a lot of time on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Committee and subsequent zoning amendments, and I know that the Town Board has spent a lot of time amending and revising the zoning that was put together by Saratoga Associates, but I think that all the Planning Board members would be, it would be well advised for you to take a look at the proposed zoning and how it would affect our world. I mean, you’ve all been involved, now, in subdivision reviews and site plan reviews, so that you understand the Zoning Code well 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/27/09) enough that you can go through, my understanding is that the amendments are highlighted, so that you can go through and review and identify whether it fits or doesn’t th fit within your experience, and be ready to comment at that Board meeting on the 27. th MR. HUNSINGER-24, yes. th MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry, the 24. I think that it’s very important for both Boards, the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, you know, to be able to identify issues that work real well and issues that may need to be modified. So I would recommend that everybody participate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you for bringing that up. I was going to if you didn’t, and I hate to lean on Staff here. Has anyone at Staff been tracking any changes from the Draft and then what the Town Board has maybe changed? MR. OBORNE-As far as the Zoning Code? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Both Craig and Stu are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-How difficult would it be to get a copy of maybe a marked up, because being, you know, I was actually Chairman of the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, so I have a good understanding of what was proposed, but I don’t know what may have since been changed by the Town Board. Personally, I would find that very useful if there’s such a document. MR. OBORNE-I’ll inform the Senior Planner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was going to say I’ll maybe just e-mail Stu, but if you could reach out to him, that would be fine. MR. OBORNE-That probably would be a lot cleaner than having to go through a middle person. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll do that, then. Anything else? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ll make a motion we adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 2009, Introduced by Paul Schoenwolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: th Duly adopted this 27 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schoenwolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 56