Loading...
2005-01-25 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY GRETCHEN STEFFAN RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC ANTHONY METIVIER MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MAC EWAN PLANNER-STUART BAKER GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM EDWARDS TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to make a couple of opening statements before we get started. The way the agenda is written up, if you have one in your hand, is the fourth item on the agenda is for Jeffrey Threw, and the sixth item on the agenda is for Jelenik Construction. I’m moving those up to slots one and two, because I think they both have a potential for being tabled tonight, and then everything else moves as it goes. In other words, we’ll take the agenda, then, as it’s currently written. So, with that, I will start with Jeffrey Threw, for Subdivision No. 20-2004. SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY THREW AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: WR-1A, SR-1A LOCATION: 25 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 6 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO THREE (3) LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 TO 3.92 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 66-04 TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 6.1 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF THREW, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Jeff Threw, representing this application for a proposed three lot subdivision on Eagan Road. It’s the 6. some odd acres that Jeff currently owns and his existing house is on, and we’re looking to break off two 1.13 and 1.06 acre lots fronting on Eagan Road for single family homes. There was some comments that were from Staff and from C.T. Male. Tom Nace went through and myself today and addressed most of those comments. We just got those out this evening. If there are any particular comments the Board may have, we’ll entertain them. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a particular comment, I think, and I wanted to poll this Board, first, on the comment itself. I was a member of the completeness review meeting that reviewed this in November for completeness to go on the December agenda, and that didn’t get on because of the sign. You remember that, for this. During that meeting, we were having an internal 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) discussion at the meeting about the need for a stormwater report on this property. You had submitted a waiver, which technically allows you to come before the Board with a waiver without a stormwater report, and I think you got a phone call, I believe it was from Mr. Hilton, or was it from you, yes, that said it would be probably a good idea if you got a stormwater report together, because he didn’t know how far you’d get with this Board without one. Now, I’m going to poll the Board. My position is, without a stormwater report, I don’t want to go through this tonight, because I don’t want to have to get a stormwater report and then go through it again. So I’m going to poll the Board on the Board’s feeling for a tabling of this application. MR. STEVES-Can I ask what triggers the stormwater report on a two lot residential subdivision? MR. VOLLARO-Just looking at the property itself. I mean, having paid a site visit over there, the property looks to me like it needs a stormwater analysis. I mean, we spent a lot of time walking around over there. MR. STEVES-I’m just asking. MR. VOLLARO-That’s basically the reason was, when we looked at it. MR. STEVES-Because Tom Nace’s question back to the Board and to C.T. Male is what triggers it. He did the grading plan. He has the erosion control matting there. All the fill and grading that was created on these lots were created under a DEC permit for a stump dump, and what we’re asking to do is just grade that off, as you can see on our grading plan, stabilize the slope, as was requested by Staff, under a site plan review, so that we could then move forward with the two lot residential subdivision, and close down what was being done over there, round off the grading and allow for two single family homes. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there an existing stormwater ditch on the site, drainage ditch? MR. STEVES-There’s not a drainage ditch that comes off the road. It was a large ravine that headed down toward the river on that site, in the southerly direction, that existed on the site, from Day One, and it’s been filled in over time, and now the upper area that is to be stabilized, as you can see on the plan, and then two single family homes created from that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, in looking at the, I think Staff still feels that this needs a stormwater report. I, in looking at it, we certainly looked at the drawings very carefully. We certainly went out and took a good look at the property. So I would like to poll the Board, based on that information and see whether the Board would propose to table this or continue on with this discussion. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t know. I mean, we could at least listen to it. I don’t know how far we’ll get, like you said, but, I don’t know. I’m torn either way. MR. VOLLARO-We have a fairly long night tonight. So I’m trying to move. MR. METIVIER-I know, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you should take things off the agenda. MR. VOLLARO-No, I realize that, but the applicant was notified by Staff for the requirement, suggesting, because he has a waiver and would be allowed to come before the Board with a waiver, but it was suggested very strongly that he get a stormwater report, and that hasn’t been forthcoming MR. METIVIER-Well, if you don’t grant a waiver, then he needs it. So if we’re not going to grant the waiver, then I guess we’ll table it until he gets one. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-That’s essentially what the tabling is about. MR. METIVIER-If you’re going to require and not grant the waiver, then we might as well ask for it and table it, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Hunsinger? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if my feelings are as strong as yours, Mr. Chairman, but I would certainly go along with your opinions on this. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I’d like to see a stormwater report. When we visited this site, there was a tremendous amount of fill of all different sorts, and even though there, according to Mr. Steves, there’s a DEC permit for a stump dump, there was a lot of debris on that property that caused us to question exactly what was underneath the ground. So, yes, I’d like to see a stormwater submission. MR. SEGULJIC-I think the stormwater report makes sense, but I think it would also make sense to give him some direction as to what else we’re looking for before we send them away, and then come back again. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the application, as it stands right now, is, we thought, during completeness review, that it was a fairly complete application, absent the stormwater. So I don’t know what else we can really tell them at this meeting, what other direction we can give them, to be honest with you. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think that, wouldn’t it make sense if we requested that they put in some test pits? Because, I mean, being a stump dump, I’d be concerned for construction, because that’s going to rot. It’s going to lead to instability on the site. MR. STEVES-The area that the houses are being constructed were not portions of that. This is the houses, that’s why we located them where we did, it’s the back of the lots, that area was filled. We gave you a map that showed the pre-conditions from 1990 about, and what they currently exist, and you can see the upper portion of the lots were not filled that much. So, you know, the reason for that previous plan, that’s why it was submitted to you. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would just still have concerns with stumps or anything else buried on the site because that leads to void in the fill over time, and then issues. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. SANFORD-I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I think we should table this, pending submission of a stormwater report. That’s it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, I’d entertain a motion for tabling. MR. SANFORD-I’ll make a motion. Now, we have two. Should I make the motion for both? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There are two on here. Subdivision No. 20-2004 and Site Plan No. 3-2005. MR. SANFORD-Do you have a date in mind, Mr. Chairman? MR. STEVES-Yes. I was going to ask that question, because all the topography and the grading and the details are here. As far as Mr. Nace being able to develop a plan and report, or just? The plan’s basically here. You would just want a report. Is that correct? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. STEVES-Okay. As far as him being able to develop a report, it would be fairly quick. So you tell me when you would like to table this to. I would like it to be as soon as possible, naturally. MR. SANFORD-How is the agenda looking? MR. BAKER-I don’t have a feel for how many applications we have received for the following month yet. MR. SANFORD-How about you, George? Do you have an idea? Can we get it in on March, or do we have to go to April? MR. HILTON-Well, the deadline for March is February 15. So that’s still available. If you’re th looking at something earlier, I guess I don’t have a handle on how many applications we’re looking at for February. MR. SANFORD-How about the first meeting in March? MR. HILTON-If they meet the deadline of February 15. th MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. BAKER-And again, as Old Business, this would be near the front of the agenda. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2004, PRELIMINARY STAGE JEFFREY THREW Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Until the first meeting in March, and we’re looking for the submission of a stormwater report. Duly adopted this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask a question. I’m not sure where you stood on the test pits, but just if you want to clarify whether or not you’re going to be asking for those. MR. VOLLARO-I think, in your Staff notes, in your fourth paragraph in Staff notes, you said, have any test pits been dug to determine the contents of the fill that has been placed on this property, as these filled areas could be used as locations for houses or septic systems. So that is part of the Staff notes which the applicant has, and I don’t know if we want to take that any further. He knows from Staff notes that test pits or something that’s a concern. MR. STEVES-That Number Eight, to speak to that, we have sent that letter out that says test pits and percolation tests will be performed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Okay. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Seguljic ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. SANFORD-Okay. Mr. Chairman, ready for the second one? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to make a comment to the audience here. Because of the amount of applications that we have and the length of this, that this might be tonight, I’m going to invoke the 11 o’clock rule tonight. So if we’re running an application and it looks like it’s going to get into the 11 o’clock, I’m going to stop at that application and not go any further. So just so we all understand, we’ll try to move it along. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2004, JEFFREY THREW Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Until the first meeting in March, again, pending receipt of a stormwater management report. Duly adopted this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Seguljic ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open. It was open at the last sitting, and I’ll keep it open through this sitting, so that the public hearing on this will remain open. SITE PLAN NO. 3-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JELENIK CONSTRUCTION, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: FINCH PRUYN & CO., INC. AGENT: PAUL TOMMELL/CLARK WILKINSON ZONE: LI LOCATION: SHERMAN AVE., JUST WEST OF I-87 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT FOUR SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS (10,200 SQ. FT. TOTAL) ON SHERMAN AVENUE, JUST WEST OF INTERSTATE 87. SELF- STORAGE USES IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 10-05 TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-5 LOT SIZE: 1.00 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson, with Paul Tommell, Alice, P.C. in Saratoga, representing Jelenik Construction for the site plan and designer of the site. We’ve asked to still appear before you. We’re in front of the ZBA for a couple of variances, and one of the issues that came up during the ZBA presentation was fire access around the site, which is also a site plan issue. We have met with the Fire Marshal since then, last Friday, and are trying to work out an agreement or actually a solution to having fire access and fire safety around the site, which effects the way the site plan is. However, I wanted to personally try to come before you tonight to get a feel from the Board as to other issues that you may be looking for. An indication of, you know, we’re going to need to, you know, I know there was a hydrant that was requested by the Fire Marshal and we’re willing to put that hydrant in on site and get an easement around it and try to turn it over to the Town for their use, but other issues such as landscaping, there were no comments from C.T. Male on the landscaping. I wanted to know if the Board seemed to think that that was adequate as shown, and no other, the lighting is usually a typical large issue for Planning Boards as well. We do have building mounted downward pointing lights. It’s not going to be highly lit, but it’s going to be lit enough that people can see in their units in the dark. So with that, bearing in mind that I know we’re not going to get a decision from this Board tonight, I just wanted to get an indication, feel for the rest of the site plan, other than the issue we’re trying to work out with the fire access. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s a fair statement. I think we can just give you an opinion. Would you like to start with that, Mr. Sanford? MR. SANFORD-Yes. Again, there’s a public hearing scheduled tonight, and I assume, even if it gets tabled, you’ll open that hearing? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SANFORD-So we’ll be hearing from the public tonight on this application. I guess we will. MR. VOLLARO-I think we will. When the public hearing is open, I’m going to see if anybody wants to come up and talk to the issue, if they want to they can, because I’m going to open the public hearing. Since it was scheduled and announced. MR. SANFORD-Like I said, I’m actually interested in hearing what the public has to say. Based on what I read in the paper, I know there are some concerns, but the attention that I’d like to see focused, in moving forward with the application, is site screening, buffers, and things of that nature. As far as ecological impact, while no one may actually like to see these storage units in close proximity to where they live, they really have a relatively low impact. There’s not a septic system issue or any of that. Height is typically low, but your lot, as I recall from site plan, is heavily wooded, and I would hope to think that you would keep an adequate treed barrier surrounding these things so that the people who live in Hidden Hills are protected from the site of them. I also will note that they typically have quite low traffic. That’s been my experience on the Board, and so I don’t see that as a major issue, the traffic, but I do see site issues as a priority. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else have any comments for the applicant? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, just like Rich, my concern would be, you know, it’s a relatively heavily wooded site. I’d like to see you minimize the number of trees you have to cut down, because it doesn’t make sense, to me, to cut down trees and then replace them with new trees. So, keep as many trees as you can and then in-fill later, and the second thing is the lighting. I haven’t looked at that in great detail, yet, but I just, downcast lights and minimize lighting as much as possible. MR. WILKINSON-And again, that’s our intent is to try to bring just enough light to see and not enough light to be visible from all over. MR. SEGULJIC-And of course the color should blend in so its visibility would be minimal. MR. WILKINSON-We’ll have colored elevations next time, too. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have anything different to add than the other folks. MR. VOLLARO-I’m pretty much on the same page with the two Board members that have spoken. I would like to see the trees along Sherman Avenue remain as much as possible, and get this, the unit set quite deep on the lot. MR. WILKINSON-That’s a good suggestion, especially in light of the neighbors that came out for the ZBA as well. It’s a good suggestion. MR. VOLLARO-That’s about the only thing I have, on this one, until we get to the actual meeting, but that’s my comment. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have anything else to add, other than what’s already been mentioned by other members of the Board. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing more to add, either. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, I’d be soliciting a tabling motion for this application. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you want to open a public hearing first? MR. METIVIER-Not that we want to get too involved in this, but I would like to hear some public comment. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’ll open the public hearing. I’ll open the public hearing now and anybody that wants to comment on this particular application can step forward. MR. METIVIER-Letters, George? MR. HILTON-None that I could find. MS. RADNER-You can leave the public hearing open and they can comment at the next hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I will leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and now I will entertain a motion to table this application. MR. WILKINSON-Prior to that. One suggestion, or request, actually, that I do have, since we did have a completed application and we’re trying to work out a site detail, I was wondering if there was any possible way to get on next month’s agenda, or do we have to wait until March and resubmit for the 15? th MR. SANFORD-You wouldn’t resubmit. MR. VOLLARO-See, I think we have to wait for the decision to come. MR. WILKINSON-From the ZBA. MR. VOLLARO-Get cleaned up from the ZBA, and then we move on that. MR. BAKER-What we’ll do is schedule similarly to how it was done this month, with the Zoning Board, with the application on the first available Zoning Board meeting agenda, and then followed by the Site Plan Review application on the immediate following Planning Board agenda. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Where would that put us, Stu? Would that get them in February, the first meeting, the 15? th MR. WILKINSON-It would be the second, because we’d have to go over to the ZBA on the first. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it would be February? The Zoning Board meets on the 16? th MR. BAKER-Yes. The concern, I guess, that comes up is the Zoning Board, in their tabling of the application, didn’t specify a date. So we’re presuming, based on our discussions with Clark, that he’s going to be aiming for the first Zoning Board meeting. Which would mean. MR. VOLLARO-February 16 is the first Zoning Board meeting. th 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. BAKER-Which would mean we’d aim for the following Planning Board meeting, the February meeting of the Planning Board. MR. WILKINSON-The 22. nd MR. SANFORD-I have one, Mr. Chairman, one additional follow-up question, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-Just let me try to get this cleared up. The first Zoning Board meeting is February the 16. th MR. HILTON-I guess my concern is that, not seeing a date specified, I’m not sure if this, and since the February deadline has passed, I’m not sure if the variance requested has been placed on a February agenda, and I hate to announce, this evening, that we’re placing it on a February agenda, and. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to have to make this tabling motion an unspecified date. I don’t know how to pick a date. MR. BAKER-Yes. That would be our recommendation at this point. MR. HILTON-And at the worst we would have to re-notice, do the 500 foot notice. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Just a question. I didn’t spend a lot of time on this application because I received advanced notice it was likely to be tabled, but had I spent time on it, I was wondering why we couldn’t have proceeded forward with this, conditioning any approval on ZBA variance approval? I think we’ve done that in the past, and so I was just wondering why we’re holding back on this. MR. HILTON-I don’t recall ever conditioning a site plan or an application review by the Planning Board on receiving an Area Variance or any type of variance, and since the parking requirements have not been met, and a variance has not been granted, this Board cannot go forward with this application. MR. SANFORD-Okay, because my understanding of the issue, at least based on what I read, I think, in the paper or something was that it was just Fire Marshal concerns that they hadn’t received a signoff on fire safety. Is it greater than that, the ZBA issues? MR. HILTON-I believe that the relief they are seeking is from the parking requirements, the number of parking spaces that they are providing. That doesn’t meet what’s required in the Code. Now, those additional concerns, I think, are as a result of reviewing the application, but specifically the relief is that they don’t meet the parking requirement. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. WILKINSON-George, we were also applying for relief of the aisle width, because we have no parking. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So, fine, so this is consistent with how we’ve practiced in the past. MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. BAKER-That’s correct, and part of the rationale behind this is so that the Planning Board doesn’t find itself reviewing any application that doesn’t comply with the Code, either on its face or after having been granted a variance. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. I just wanted to make sure that, we sometimes move forward and condition applications, and I just wanted to get clarification. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is that it? I’d like to entertain a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2005, JELENIK CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Pending approvals from the ZBA on Area Variances. No specified next hearing date, but we will entertain this at the meetings following the ZBA approval. Duly adopted this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. MR. WILKINSON-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I just have a short question for Staff before we get going any further. I’d like to ask, how did we get to 11 items tonight, roughly, including the two resolutions at the end, and I only counted Threw as one. MR. HILTON-Well, I think that the SEQRA resolutions that have been added, with the January 21 draft are probably just really quick items for the Board to consider possibly at the end of the st meeting. We anticipated those being very short consumers of time, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-They’ll be short, yes. It’s just a question of protocol. MR. HILTON-I’m seeing eight items and then discussion items. I guess I don’t have an answer, but I would think that, you know, hopefully the discussion items, the idea being that considering the Threw application as one, and then with the discussion item for Potter, you know, I think. MR. VOLLARO-Really two discussion items at the end. Anyway, just, you know, we’ve got a new seven application limit coming up. So I just want to make sure we adhere to that. That was my only comment. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, as a follow-up question, along the same lines, could I please direct a question toward Staff? And that is, if the Staff would take the time to explain to this Board and perhaps to any other interested people in the audience, just what is a discussion item? You may recall, we had a workshop not too long ago and we talked about our Code and what it calls for, and basically, you know, we have, along the ladder of priorities we have a Sketch and then we might go to a Preliminary and then to a Final, and there was a lot of concern expressed about Sketch Plan and how Sketch Plan provides the applicant an opportunity to discuss the project, but it may, at times, not be complete enough, and we don’t want to, of course, give the wrong impression and mislead the applicant, but when I look at discussion items, I see no parameters as to what a discussions item. I have no idea what criteria justifies a discussion item, and I guess I’m just wondering, if it’s not in our Code, is it appropriate for this Board to entertain discussion items and are we at times at some risk doing so? And I’m talking 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) in terms of legal risk in the case of the first discussion item tonight, and in the case of the second one, why do a discussion item in lieu of a Sketch Plan? MR. HILTON-I guess I would, well, I can’t answer the legal question, but I would simply say that there are no specified criteria for submitting a discussion, or presenting a discussion item to this Board, but the practice has been that an applicant has always been allowed to come before the Board, with the Board’s permission, of course, and discuss, really just discuss an idea or an application in the very, very early stages, and I think that that’s, in both cases tonight, well, I think that’s the intent of these discussion items tonight. As far as any legal ramifications, I can’t speak to that. MR. SANFORD-George, in both of these cases, it’s not in a Preliminary Stage. Both have appeared before us. One is actually, an attorney has been engaged to basically challenge a decision that was rendered by this Board. In the second case, it’s a re-packaging, to some degree, of an existing plan that was presented a while back, and so it isn’t an initial topic at all, and I’m just kind of curious, I don’t see where we, and the Board, as a follow-up to your question, the Board wasn’t consulted on this. Certainly I wasn’t. It merely appeared on the agenda. So it wasn’t with the Board’s permission that we entertain discussion items. I think Staff unilaterally, perhaps, made the decision to have these discussion items, or in conjunction with a Board member or two. Correct me if I’m wrong on that. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess I can’t, you know, give you a timeline or give you an exact moment by moment accounting of how this discussion item got before the Board, but I know that the past practice has been that the applicant has been able to, applicants have been able to come before this Board with either new ideas or revisions presented to this Board as a discussion item. MR. SANFORD-Is it part of the public record? In other words, will these be in the minutes? MR. HILTON-These materials are available in our files in our office and they are for public review. MR. SANFORD-We’ve already established and set it up for tonight, but I would like to hear legal counsel’s opinion as to whether or not these potentially could create some legal issues for us, by entertaining these items. See, I don’t see a win for the Town in entertaining discussion items. I see where the applicant might benefit, but I don’t see where there’s an up side to the Town. First of all, there’s no criteria, there’s no requirement as to what they present. It just seems to me that all we could do is be accused of sending false messages or misunderstandings here. So I just would like legal to comment. MS. RADNER-Historically we’ve included at the end of our agenda, any other business that may come before the Board, and when we had shorter agendas, there would be members of the public who would bring broad issues to the Board’s attention, issues that might apply to more than one application, and on occasion they would bring up matters that did have to do with a particular application. We found that that created a disadvantage to the Board and to the members of public whose applications might suddenly be brought up when they’re not here to discuss the items. So it’s actually to your benefit, if an applicant or potential applicant gives you a little forewarning that there’s something that they would like to discuss. Because they are not getting an approval, yes, there’s legal risk, but assuming you guys do more listening than speaking, it’s more of an opportunity for the applicant or potential applicant to present something to you and to get an idea how individual Board members may view that. At times it will be based upon a particular project that is envisioned. At other times it may be some trend or issue that they’re seeing that applies to more than one property, and certainly this Board can limit those. They can limit the amount of time that any application is before the Board, but it’s simply an opportunity for a discussion, just as it’s called. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. SANFORD-Well, where is see the exposure, and then we can truncate this, is in the situation where we do give opinions without comprehensive information, and so we go out and we send, we give an opinion but we don’t have the facts. MS. RADNER-Well, that’s what we caution you not to do. That’s why you should be doing a lot more listening. MR. SANFORD-The easiest way to accomplish what you’re suggesting, Counsel, is not to have discussion items. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Sanford, I understand where you’re going with this, and I can understand the rationale that you’re using to explain it. However, it is on the agenda for this evening. This might be a topic for us to put into a workshop, to determine the up sides and down sides for a Planning Board when listening to this type of an application, but for tonight, I think we should take Counsel’s advice, when we get to that particular position, and listen to what they have to say, and not voice too much of an opinion one way or another that can be used at a later date, in a he said/she said vernacular. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-And with that, I would like to go forward with the next subdivision. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1999 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION WILLIAM & ANGELA KLADIS AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LC-10A RR-5A LOCATION: 260 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO MODIFY A PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION BY ADJUSTING A LOT LINE FOR LOT 7 OF THE GRANGER SUBDIVISION ON LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD. MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 252-1-36.7 LOT SIZE: 18.85 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES & MIKE BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Mike Borgos as Counsel for Kladis. I’m here with Matt Steves. I think we can keep the agenda moving right along pretty quickly with this application. It’s fairly straightforward. It’s an existing subdivision. We’re looking to make this lot more compliant. He really wants to be able to provide more of a buffer for his home site. It’s undeveloped presently, and he made an arrangement over a year and a half ago with his neighbor to expand his lot. They defined the property boundaries, which Matt has mapped here for us. He’s not looking to put another house on it. He’s not looking to subdivide it. He just wants to protect more of the natural landscape that’s up there. That’s it in a nutshell. MR. STEVES-He’s adding five acres from the McLaughlin piece that is now owned by Greg White, to enlarge his total holdings from 19 to 24 acres, and as Counsel has already stated, it is not for any development purpose. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is there or do we need a proposed deed of transfer on this? MR. BORGOS-It’s not required. The only reason we’re before the Board tonight is just to get permission to amend the existing subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-The lot that he owns now is Lot Number Seven from the Granger subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the 19 22 acres. Okay, and he’s going to add 5.71 to that. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. STEVES-Correct. So it is required by the Town of Queensbury to come back in front of this Board for any modification to an approved subdivision. MR. BORGOS-I think that arises out of the practical necessity of the Warren County recording office, the mapping office, Tax Map, they need to have a mylar that’s recorded up there, for them to be able to reference and adjust their records accordingly. MR. STEVES-And as far as the Staff comments for notes to be placed on it, it was similar to the mylar that we’ve already handed George for the Raven subdivision. We have no problems with any of those notes. MR. SANFORD-The property that the land is coming from, is that going to be fine as a standalone? I mean, there’s two pieces of property here. There’s this one, and then, is it the Granger subdivision that the land’s coming from, the Granger subdivision, or have I got it reversed? MR. STEVES-Reversed. He currently owns Lot Seven of the Granger subdivision. He’s acquiring five acres from a neighboring 36 acre parcel. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So the other parcel is going to be fine with the absence of the five? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-Then the reason again, I think you addressed it, the attorney addressed it, I’m a little confused. MR. BORGOS-Well, he was able to find a nice large lot in Queensbury, and he found a neighbor who’s willing to help him make it larger. Normally we’d just do a boundary line agreement and make that adjustment, without any Board intervention, but because this was part of an existing approved subdivision, we’re going through this process. MR. SANFORD-I see. Okay, and there’s no construction on that piece? MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to just follow-up on that. Is he planning to do a construction project on that? MR. BORGOS-Yes. It’s my understanding the house is going to be constructed on the existing Lot Seven and not on this piece that we’re talking about tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So when, is there any problem with putting a deed restriction on the new 5.71 for no further building on this lot, or not? MR. BORGOS-I don’t think it’s necessary. It’s not his intent to do anything with it, but I don’t think, it’s anything that we should do to restrict the alienation of that. MR. STEVES-Well, if he were to come in and want to further subdivide, he’d have to come back in front of this Board. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, anyway. MR. STEVES-The only thing he might be able to do is put up an accessory structure such as a shed or something, and I wouldn’t want to, on 24 acres, tell somebody they can’t put up an eight by ten shed on a five acre parcel. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I just asked the question to try to get an idea what he planned to do with it. Is there any wetlands on the land to be conveyed at all, do you know? MR. STEVES-I had a discussion with Mark Rooks today, about that stream that goes to the pond, and as the Staff has noted on the McLaughlin piece, the now White piece, the only thing that they have mapped as wetland naturally is the water surface of the pond, just like any other water surface would be. MR. VOLLARO-But that stream, if I remember reading in that, that stream heads toward an APA wetland. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-And as I just stated, the APA wetland is the pond itself. Any water body is considered a wetland under APA regs. I talked to Mark Rooks. He is actually e-mailing me a letter that I will forward to Staff tomorrow that he has no concerns with the stream. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, on the 5.7, on all of this, there’s a stream that goes through the 5.71 acres, are there any setbacks, any setbacks on that 5.71 that’s being conveyed from the stream? Or that would come from the site plan later on? MR. STEVES-That would come from site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What about metes and bounds on the altered McLaughlin subdivision? I know that Staff has put a note in on that, on their Staff notes, and I was wondering. MR. STEVES-There is a file for Greg White that has been submitted to the Town but isn’t yet to this Board. There is a complete metes and bounds on that parcel, but to add to the two parcels, at 100 scale, it’s even a map almost twice this size. I could put an inset in here for you, with the entire property. MR. VOLLARO-That may be. I’ll just divert to Staff for a minute. Stu, that was your comment in Staff notes, and I’m just wondering whether an inset is something that we would want? MR. BAKER-An inset would be great. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I think we would ask for an inset. That would clear up that. MR. STEVES-I have no problem adding that to the comments, with the other notes from Staff. We surveyed both parcels to convey off the five acres. That’s not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any other comments on this application? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I just have one question, I guess, for Staff. Because the zoning line goes through the middle of the property. It says RR-5 and LC-10. How many lots could they put on this site, if it was the 24 acres, then? MR. BAKER-I would have to defer to the Zoning Administrator on that. I don’t know offhand. Yes. We would have to defer to the Zoning Administrator on that because with split zones the density calculation can get involved. MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand they don’t want to subdivide it now, but in the future is what I’m concerned about. MR. STEVES-I don’t believe it’s anymore than two, what currently exists on the lot. The current lot is 19 acres, and about five acres of it in the five acre zone, and roughly the 14 acres in the 10 acre zone, and adding five more acres to the 10 acre zone still doesn’t give you enough to get you two more lots. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, then, that makes me more comfortable. MR. STEVES-Two currently and two in the future. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what it looks like. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’ll go along with that. MR. VOLLARO-Are we all set? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s no public hearing on this, and there’s no SEQRA to be done on this. It’s a prior SEQRA for a modification. So I think we can entertain a motion for approval of this application. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1999 WILLIAM & ANGELA KLADIS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Lot line adjustment for Lot 7 of the previously approved M. Granger subdivision. WHEREAS, the application was received in 1215/04, and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing is not required for a modification; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for MODIFICATION is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the draft resolution provided by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. That items 1 through 4 of the Staff comments relative to the final plat: 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) 1. The property line labeled as “ORIGINAL LOT LINE” should read “ORIGINAL LOT LINE – TO BE DELETED. 2. Notes should be placed on the plat as follows: a. Total new area size of parcel known as Tax Map No. 252-1-52 (McLaughlin) b. The area to be conveyed should be labeled “AREA TO BE CONVEYED.” 3. The location of the stream and the required 100’ stream and lot line setbacks shall be shown on the revised plat. 4. The metes & bounds of the new lot lines for the revised parcel known as Tax Map No. 252-1-52 (McLaughlin) should be also be shown and submitted, on a separate sheet if necessary. This is recommended since the amended McLaughlin property is proposed to be subdivided. 2. The applicant shall provide an insert to the plat that shows metes and bounds on the White property, 3. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan 4. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 5. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 47-2003 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION NIGRO COMPANIES AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: HC-MOD LOCATION: PRICE RITE PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY LOCATED IN THE PRICE RITE PLAZA ON ROUTE 9, IN ORDER TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE, A NEW LOADING DOCK AND NEW LANDSCAPING. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9-05 TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-25 LOT SIZE: 6.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-4- 020 JON LAPPER & STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. VOLLARO-For the record you are, sir? MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper and Stefanie Bitter, on behalf of Nigro Companies. Are you going to read the application, or would you like us to just get started? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t been making a practice of having the Staff notes read under the presumption that the Board has read all the Staff notes, and if there’s a particularly complex set of notes, but I will have them read, but this one is not. MR. LAPPER-Sure. As the Board is aware, we were here last year for a site plan modification for Tractor Supply, which is now open, and they had some operational issues that require a request for modification all around the, what would be the southwest corner of their property, farthest from the road, next to the NiMo power line which separates this property from the Aviation Mall. Among the changes, the most significant for Tractor Supply is the ability to store the storage carts outside of the fence. This is very similar to what Home Depot and Lowe’s and Ace Hardware do to have some outdoor display area, and in order to do that we had to get a variance which was granted by the Zoning Board last week to lose some parking spaces, but this area of the site never has any parking. So the Zoning Board was happy to grant that. Beyond that, there’s a sliding gate in the back, just for easy access from unloading trucks. There’s a loading dock area right next to the building and then a shed also for storage and display next to the building inside that area, and that’s pretty much it. MR. VOLLARO-This swinging gate we’re talking about, that’s the one down in, without a north arrow line, it’s a little tough to. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The gate is all the way in the southwestern corner, in the back of the facility. MR. VOLLARO-You’ll notice that Staff has talked about putting a north arrow on here. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Where’s the proposed shed? MR. LAPPER-It’s against the building. MRS. STEFFAN-Is it that little cube that, at the end of the trailer display? MR. LAPPER-No. It’s next to the building. The trailer display is next to the fence. So that’s inside that storage area. We believe that none of these items would really be visible from off site, because of the way they’re located on the site. It’s just to make it easier for their operation, and of course there is a landscaping requirement in front of the storage area that will have to be added in the spring. They only have a Temporary CO because they didn’t get done in time because of winter. So that still has yet to be done. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have a couple of comments on this application, but I’d like to hear from other Board members before I get jumping into it. So if somebody else has questions. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there going to be any lighting associated with this? MR. LAPPER-Nothing new. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Any other Board members have any questions on it at all? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m looking at a pre-application conference for site plan review. I think this took place on 12/15/04, and a couple of things that were on that pre-application meeting notes were, and I’ll read from that. One is an elevation drawing of the shed. Now I’m not sure how much that adds to this. What kind of a shed are we really talking about here? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. LAPPER-It just leans against the building to have a roof to store some stuff. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So I really don’t see any need to have any elevation drawing. MR. LAPPER-Because it’s all behind the fence. MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter, for the record. The elevation drawings were submitted the day after to Craig Brown’s attention, the Zoning Administrator. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They weren’t included with Staff notes. I didn’t see them in the Staff notes, any elevation drawings concerning the shed. MR. LAPPER-We probably have a copy with us. MR. BAKER-The elevations weren’t with the application materials I reviewed. MR. VOLLARO-No. MS. BITTER-That’s correct. Actually, I indicated on the day of the application meeting that we were unable to supplement them on the 15, but I did supply them to Craig, I think, on the 16, thth but I’ll look through my files and make sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, the other thing that it says is that the plot plan should show the property lines of Nigro versus Niagara Mohawk, and I didn’t see that on the drawings either. MR. LAPPER-I see that on the plan that I’m looking at, the NiMo power line. This is a site much like the Staples site across the road, where the NiMo line bifurcated it and we had to get permission from NiMo, which in this case happened a long time ago. On our site, here’s the building and there’s the NiMo right of way. Many of the parking spaces are under the right of way. MR. VOLLARO-That’s this dotted line on our map? MS. BITTER-That’s this area right here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s just not noted on the map, so it’s kind of hard. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Maybe if it was labeled. MR. LAPPER-Mine says Lands of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., but I think. MR. VOLLARO-Ours doesn’t say that at all. What plan are you using, by the way? What’s the number of your update? 12/15/04? MR. LAPPER-12/16/04, revised site plan. MR. VOLLARO-See, we’re working with a different set of plans. MR. BAKER-Yes. I reviewed the plans dated 12/15. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So we submitted them the next day, after we had the pre-ap conference. Stefanie took care of it and got it in to Craig. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-It’s always a problem when we’re not on the same page with respect to drawings. Because we ask questions from the drawings, and if they’re not the same drawing, we all have problems. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It sounds like an administrative problem, if we submitted them and they didn’t get to you. We can talk to Marilyn about it. I remember last month you didn’t get the C.T. Male review letter on one of our projects that we got and that Staff never got that to the Board. So it sounds like there may be a persistent problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, technically the submission deadline’s the 15. So if you th submit something on the 16, we’re not going to get it. That’s why there’s a deadline. th MR. LAPPER-Well, if Craig accepts it. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the issue there. MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Administrator will sometimes say, look, I’d like one other thing and bring it in tomorrow, you know, because otherwise he wouldn’t have accepted it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Bob, where are you going with this, though? Is any of it of any material concern? MR. VOLLARO-There isn’t much, no. I just wanted to go through all the points. Just like you do on some other stuff. MR. SANFORD-All right. Okay. That’s fine. I didn’t know if there was something I was missing. MR. VOLLARO-No. There’s nothing on this. I just want to make the record clear here. On your site development data, I think you’ve got some numbers incorrect on that. Just so the record shows the correct numbers. Really I think you’ve got a permeability of 77% and not 17. It turns out to be your 300,567 square feet total over your parcel area of 39567. That comes out to 77. MR. LAPPER-Yes, you’re right. This was a pre-existing site. That’s why. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I got this. I got this in with the package. So I just wanted to make sure that what was in the package is correct, and I don’t think it is. So I think that has to be changed. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So that we can get an updated site development, to reflect a percent non- permeable of 77%. All right. I’m going to ask the Board a question here about going through our regular, I don’t think we need to go through our standard site plan review thing. I think we’ve got it here. So I’m pretty satisfied with the way it’s set up, and with that, I would entertain a motion for approval of this application. There’s no public hearing, and there’s no SEQRA since this is a mod. MR. SANFORD-All right. If everybody’s comfortable with that, I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 47-2003 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Modification to previously approved site plan to allow outdoor storage, loading dock and new landscaping WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/15/04; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing is not required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for MODIFICATION is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. The site development plan be corrected so that the percent non-permeable equals 77% and the permeability number is 23. Duly adopted this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 6-2003 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION PROVIDENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: HC-INT/MR-5 LOCATION: 275 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUS SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY CONSTRUCTING A 24 FT. X 42 FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-32 LOT SIZE: 4.08 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) JON LAPPER & STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-This is also a modification of a previously approved site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. Okay. Again, I’m not going to have the minutes read on this. I think all Board members have read the minutes. I think the applicant is familiar with the minutes that came from, not the minutes but the Staff notes. MR. LAPPER-Yes, the Staff notes. For the record, Jon Lapper and Stefanie Bitter again. This is the building that was constructed recently on Bay Road. This Board, I know, spent a lot of time reviewing this last time. The building is almost completely leased up and one of the tenants needed an extra approximately 1,000 square feet of space. So what is proposed is to eliminate seven parking spaces which were in excess of what was required and replace it with a small, one story addition. This is on the southwest corner of this building, back far from the road. It won’t have any impact on traffic or anything else visible off site. We have a blow up of what we submitted with the application on the Board. The area that’s highlighted is the new addition. The Staff notes, there was a comment about a storage trailer, and that is because there is a 5,000 square foot medical office that’s being finished out right now, so that’s just, in anticipation of this. That’s just a construction trailer. MR. SANFORD-What’s the use? What’s the purpose of this addition? MR. LAPPER-Office space. MR. SANFORD-Office space. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-One or two stories? MR. LAPPER-One story. MS. BITTER-There was a question on that in the application. On the Pre-app meetings the description incorrectly identified it as a two-story, but it’s just one. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-No public hearing on this? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SANFORD-It seems straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a modification so there’s no public hearing, and no SEQRA on this application. I have a couple of questions that I’d like to ask, but I’d like to solicit any questions from the rest of the Board before I jump into anything. MR. HUNSINGER-I though it looked pretty straightforward. It won’t even be noticeable from the street. The materials are proposed to match the existing. There’s no impact on landscaping. MR. VOLLARO-No. I just have one. The building itself is 24 by 42, size wise, the new addition. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Now, looking at the roofline on that, the roof of that building, one side of the roof drains directly toward the neighbor, which would be the, if I’ve got my drawing correct. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. LAPPER-Towards the rear. MR. VOLLARO-Toward the rear, and it sheds across that parking lot and heads right toward the housing complex that’s next door. MR. LAPPER-Yes. There is a landscaped area. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was looking for sort of a French drain or something at the bottom of that roof to catch that, all of that roof runoff, because it’s running right off to a parking lot. MR. LAPPER-Well, my answer would be that it was impervious before, or primarily because of the seven parking spaces that are being eliminated. So, in terms of the stormwater system that was designed to handle that, there was some part of that that was lawn area, but the seven parking spaces would be removed. So there’s not much of a net change in terms of the impervious surfaces. MR. VOLLARO-That may be true, but there’s a certain amount of flush coming off that roof that’s going to force a run across that parking lot. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about is that that water doesn’t find its way over to the neighbor’s property because shedding off that roof gives that water a certain amount of inertia, if you will, to allow it to run that lot, and I just wanted to make sure that there’s something there that would hold it, and I would hope to have seen a French drain at one side of that roof, but since we haven’t had an engineering review on this, and don’t need one, I’d have to defer to whatever. MR. LAPPER-I guess my non-engineering response would be that it’s really a minor change in impervious surfaces. So the system that was designed should be more than sufficient to handle a little bit more runoff. MR. HUNSINGER-And there is lawn between the addition and the sidewalk. MR. LAPPER-And there’s also lawn between the parking lot and the neighbor. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll put that to bed anyway, and the waivers to stormwater and lighting and landscaping for the new building addition. Are there any additional wall packs, additional wall packs, I should say, on the new building at all for lighting? I didn’t see any in the rendition. So I don’t know. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if there’s a, I don’t see anything for the entrance, but you’d think that there might be residential fixtures. MR. VOLLARO-If it isn’t anything that’s, you know, any light poles or anything like that on the plans that are there, then I would say that the lighting is probably fine. MR. LAPPER-No, no light poles. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we could condition it saying that any exterior lighting on the new entrance shall match the existing entrances, or something to that effect. MR. LAPPER-That’s perfect. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. That makes sense. You can do that. Now, again, I’m going to ask a question of our Board, whether we should go through our site plan review criteria on this, or I think we’re fine here? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re all set. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then with that, I would probably ask for a motion to approve this site plan. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 6-2003 PROVIDENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Modification to previously approved site plan to construct an addition to office building WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/15/04; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing is not required and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following condition which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. That any additional light features on the external portion of the building match what is already there. Duly adopted this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We knew you had a busy agenda. We tried to give you two quick ones. Appreciate it. NEW BUSINESS: 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) SITE PLAN NO. 5-2005 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK AGENT: JOHN LEMERY, LEMERY GREISLER ZONE: RC-5 LOCATION: GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT NEW RIDES AND AMUSEMENT FACILITIES IN THE COCO LOCO/JUNGLE LAND AREA OF THE GREAT ESCAPE. AMUSEMENT USES IN THE RC-15 ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 12-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/12/05 TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 LOT SIZE: 237.64 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JOHN COLLINS, JOHN LEMERY & RUSS PITTENGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-May I ask the Staff a question here. Is this Board supposed to read and understand what was given to us tonight? MR. BAKER-No. We’re distributing it for your information. Staff received it today. So we’re conveying it to the Board today. Staff hasn’t had a chance to review it, either, and I don’t know if engineering has reviewed it either yet. MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t know what relevance it’s got to this application right now. I mean, if there’s something germane in here that we should understand, then I just don’t see how we can assimilate this information tonight, without having a chance to look it over. I spent a lot of time today reviewing this application, and now we have something new on the night of the meeting. We’ve always said we don’t want any new information on the night of a meeting because it can’t be digested properly. MR. LEMERY-This isn’t new information. The Staff has had this information. We’ve gone back and forth. My name is John Lemery, by the way, Counsel to The Great Escape. We’ve gone back and forth with the Staff. There were two or three things that Staff mentioned, and we responded to the Staff. So all this does is answer some questions that Mr. Houston raised, your new engineer. These have been answered, and I think we’d like to proceed with the application. None of these issues are issues that really have any consequence to the site plan application, really. MR. VOLLARO-But the Planning Board members have got to have a chance to review this, Mr. Lemery. I just don’t, you know, it’s very poor protocol, as far as I’m concerned, for us to be getting something the night of the meeting that should be read and digested by the Staff before they sit in this chair. MR. LEMERY-We got this yesterday, Mr. Vollaro. We got this from the Planning Staff yesterday. We responded this morning. So we’ve responded in a timely way. This came into our office yesterday, from the Planning Staff, knowing full well we had a meeting here tonight. Is that correct? MR. PITTENGER-Yes. If I may. My name is Russ Pittenger. I’m with the LA Group, in Saratoga Springs. We received engineering comments from C.T. Male on the 18. th MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know that. MR. PITTENGER-And we responded by fax on the 20. The Staff comments that you have th before you were received yesterday, and we’ve responded to those. In addition to that, there are two clarifications on some issues that we thought may have been left hanging out, based on the engineering review. We’ve revised the plans to incorporate these new alternatives and changes, and we as though, based on the comments that we received from the review engineer and the Staff, that we have incorporated those changes. I apologize for the lateness of providing that to you, but really it’s in an effort to address the engineering issues that were raised. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. LEMERY-Let me make a comment. We filed this application on the 15 of December. All th right. We got the Planning Staff’s comments on the 18 of January. So, this is, as far as we’re th concerned, you have a new engineering firm here, C.T. Male, which. MR. VOLLARO-They’re not new to this. MR. LEMERY-Well, they’re new to The Great Escape and they’re new to this entire site plan process that we’ve been going through for years here, which is fine, but it’s unreasonable to assume that the engineering staff of the, the engineering people, having an application filed on the 15 of December, 33 or 34 days later, we get a comment which our engineers turned around th immediately. So the only issue here is this berm that somebody’s looking to deal with, with regard to the stream here which is really very simple, Mr. Chairman, and I think we can answer that question to your satisfaction. So I don’t think anything here, unless somebody tells me differently from the engineering group, is of a material issue that ought to hold up the application. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I did is I looked at the C.T. Male letter of 18/05, and I believe it was Mr. Pittenger’s response of 1/20/05, and my comment to myself here in my review is what is the status of that exchange via the Community Development Department. In other words, there’s been an exchange of ideas. He’s answered C.T. Male, Mr. Pittenger has. MR. LEMERY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-On his 1/20/05 letter, and what I’m looking for I guess now is that, does engineering agree with all of the comments that Mr. Pittenger has made, and so we’d need, essentially, what we call signoff from C.T. Male on that. MR. LEMERY-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t know how this piece of paper impacts C.T. Male’s ability to say yes or no concerning all of the answers on 1/20/05 plus this addition, and that’s my concern at this particular point, and I understand that there’s, it’s tight. It’s always tight these days. This is not new. We get stacks and stacks of paper. You realize that, and the amount of paper that’s being handled here, we can have some mistakes. MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, wouldn’t it be appropriate, and we do it often, even though we don’t like it, to review the application and condition it upon a signoff? I mean, what would be? MR. VOLLARO-I wouldn’t have any objection to that, except I, personally, like to review material, all of it, so I get a very good understanding of what’s going on on the application. MR. SANFORD-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-And in this particular case, not even C.T. Male can tell me, I don’t believe tonight, Mr. Edwards, I don’t know if I’m speaking on your behalf, but I don’t think you’ve had a chance to look at this response either, or have you? MR. EDWARDS-Actually I have. It came to our office today by fax. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. EDWARDS-And it’s mostly adding better alternatives to the stormwater management design. They already had worked through the comments to address. It’s also coming up for a different alternative for a retaining wall, which is probably a better alternative as well then the poured retaining wall to hold back that slope. I reviewed it, to some extent, not fully, but I think we’re on the right track here. I can say that much. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, that’s certainly comforting news. What I guess I’m looking for, then, from C.T. Male, and I’ll go through this now, really quickly, is that your letter, or Mr. Houston’s letter of 1/18/05 was quickly responded to by the LA Group on 1/20/05. So there’s a Q & A thing, question and answer relationship, between those two, and on that basis you would have to either agree or disagree, or there’s a couple of things in there that you might want to talk to, I think. I don’t know. So you’re not ready to talk to the signoff yet tonight, are you, or are you? MR. EDWARDS-I would say not tonight, but, you know, as Rich suggested, could it be conditioned, perhaps. MR. VOLLARO-We can condition it. MR. EDWARDS-If I didn’t feel comfortable with the way this was progressing, I would say I wouldn’t sign off on it, I wouldn’t even consider signing off on it yet, but I think we’re reasonably close to that point. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Then I could probably go along with a condition of approval that the C.T. Male would sign off on this. Since the engineer said this is a better proposal, in terms of the retaining wall and so on, I’ll go along with it. MR. LEMERY-I will say that the Town Engineering people have to respond in a quicker fashion to an application, so that the applicant is not put in a position where we’re before a Planning Board on a matter that involves a construction period that is critical to the opening of our business, for example, and that it’s 34, 35 days from the time we file an application until we get a response from your engineers. For a couple of reasons. Number One, we’re paying the engineers. We get a bill from the engineers to pay them. Number Two, it’s unreasonable to put us in this kind of position. I understand your issues, and there isn’t anything here that is at all, or should be at all problematic for the engineers. This is not any kind of a material issue with regard to the site. So, I think, from that perspective, we’re happy with a conditional approval, if that’s what we can come out of here with, but we need to admonish the engineering people to be more responsive. MR. SANFORD-Could I ask whether or not C.T. Male has a comment on that? In other words, what I’m hearing here, from Mr. Lemery, is the turnaround time was lengthy, it was over 30 days, and he’s saying that that’s inappropriate. Do you have a response on that? MR. EDWARDS-I don’t want to get into too much detail on that, no, but I will say that it all goes back to the time that we receive submittals, and we have a certain amount of time to look at things, and I think a week before the meeting is reasonable to get comments out, especially when you say for a project of this size, which is not a huge project, but not a huge amount of comments. So we didn’t have 34 days to look at this project, nor do we for any project that we look at. It’s always usually a couple, three weeks timeframe, and for this one it was no exception. It was a couple, three weeks at the most. It was, I thought a reasonable timeframe to get comments out. MR. VOLLARO-Now, Mr. Lemery, under new requirements that we’ve made, this is probably going to get worse, not better, because we’re asking now that communications between the applicant and the engineer, for example, go through Staff, as opposed to back and forth between engineer and applicant, because we’ve had a lot of confusion, in terms of the passing back and forth of information. So we’re asking for that. So it might slow things down, is what it might do, but we’re trying to make sure that we don’t get, you know, for example, a lot of times we’re faced with we’re working with one drawing, and the applicant’s working with another because he’s already made some arrangement with Staff or something to have a different drawing or whatever. Whatever the situation is, we’re trying to get Staff to be the controlling element between the applicant and the engineer and the information that the Planning Board gets. So, just to tell you what’s happening here. Okay. Now, before we get into this any further, there will be a public hearing on this tonight, and there will be no SEQRA 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) review because SEQRA was done on a past Findings Statement I guess it was. I have one question that I want to get answered is on the site development data sheet. I think you’ve got an error on that, and I want to just go over it. I think your percent permeable is correct, but I think your permeability is exactly the same as your non-permeable number. So I think you’ll want to change that. Get down to your site development data sheet, if you have that, you’ve got it, Russ? MR. PITTENGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It should be 40.7, down under permeability, where it says setback requirements, get all the way back down to permeability. It’s the third from the bottom. It’s 59.3, just the same as the non-permeable is. Are you with me? MR. PITTENGER-Yes. I’m with you on the permeable. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Just so the record shows correct. I’m not trying to pick on anybody. I just want to make sure everything is set up right. MR. SANFORD-If we’re doing housekeeping, I have a follow-up question.\ MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Go right ahead. MR. SANFORD-On Mr. Lemery’s, I think it’s Mr. Lemery’s, letter of January 14, 2005, hand delivered to Marilyn, on the bridge, on the progress on the bridge, he concludes by, that finally we will provide further and more detailed information regarding the bridge at the upcoming Planning Board meeting on January 29, 2005. I take it that’s a typo because I didn’t know we had a meeting on the 29, which I think is a Sunday. th MR. VOLLARO-I think we got that information before this meeting, as a matter of fact. It was delivered to the house. Is that the package you’re talking about? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I guess two questions I have. Were you meaning today, today, John? MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a typo. MR. LEMERY-Yes, correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So I didn’t know we were going to be discussing and getting a progress update, verbal update, on the pedestrian bridge tonight. MR. LEMERY-I think we’re, if we have any questions about what’s in the data, we’re more than happy to try to answer those questions for you. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve already said that. I thought we’d hold that off until we got to this and then we could just talk about that subject. MR. SANFORD-All right. I was just wondering where we were going with this. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now there’s a, on Drawing L-2, I guess it is, and it has to do with 179-6- 060D(4). This is the fill or hard surfacing within 50 feet of a lake or pond, etc., etc. We’re being asked to, I think, we’re being asked to waive that? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’d like to discuss that, because it needs Planning Board approval for the waiver, just a quick discussion when you get up there on the Board to give us some idea of what’s happening with this other 6,145 feet, and that’s the only thing that I have before we get into anything else, and then if Mr. Pittenger wants to get up and start, that’s fine. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. LEMERY-Before we start, this application was filed, the theme park, if those of you have had a chance to go over and take a look where this is located, the old Coco Loco area, the area where the Chapel was located and near where Jonah and the Whale and that area in there, and it’s being re-themed with a number of rides and attractions for children. Rides that parents can go on with children to try to increase the Park attendance, visa vie the families. The last few years have been devoted, in some respects, to getting some of the larger attractions in there to bring in some of the more kinds of thrill rides, but this entire project is devoted to bringing in the families with the young children. So that they’ll have an updated experience at the theme park. It’s a several million dollar project. It’s not just something that is just some land development. There are a number of rides and attractions going in here. It’s going to be highly themed. We can tell you what the theme is going to be at this point, because it hasn’t been released yet by the company, but it’s going to be very exciting and we think it will add significantly to the Park experience. We’ve provided you with a list, as part of the application, of the new rides that are going in, and John can speak to some of the rationale, why this is being done. Do you want to speak to that? MR. COLLINS-Sure. Yes. As John said, this is a family area, geared toward families with kids, obviously, a big part of The Great Escape’s historical marketing mix and attendance. The rides that are being proposed are pretty much where we have existing buildings there is some, a couple two, three areas that are new, but they are themed, as John said, around the ability for the adults to ride them with the kids. I believe all but a few of them enable the parent to ride with the kid, and as John mentioned it’ll be a highly themed area. It’ll be a new area for a park that is so much geared toward family with kids, we really didn’t have a designated kid ride area. We had some kiddie rides up around the fest area, which is up by the bumper cars, and obviously the Cinderella and the swan boats, etc., but this area would be dedicated to that market segment, and we think well overdue for this area. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you need updating now and then I’m sure. MR. PITTENGER-You have a whole pile of drawings there, and there are color photographs and examples of the various ride character. There are some variations from the actual rides that are going in. We’re going to, the surface treatments underneath the rides may be different than the photographs that you have there, but generally this area that we’re calling, that we’re discussing, we defined just a study area of about three acres in there. It’s across the bridge. It’s along the street. There’s an existing restaurant there. There’s the existing amphitheatre. In the analysis that we were mostly concerned with, by the way, you also have an existing survey of the rides and the attractions that were there. There was a large wooden elephant there that has since been removed. There’s several items in there that are being maintained. The theater and stage is being maintained. The entrance to Jungle Land is being maintained. The existing Coco Loco restaurant is being maintained. There’s a building immediately opposite the bridge that’s being maintained and re-themed. The bear house is being maintained, although the pit behind it is being eliminated, and there’s a church that we had originally planned in our proposal to the small church to be relocated. That’s actually just going to be removed. It’s unsuitable for being relocated. One of the issues that we had to discuss and to deal with was the issue of drainage in this area. There is a drainage, existing structure up at the road, service road to the north of the plan, near the corner of the Coco Loco, which does collect water from the service roads. What Plan L-2 shows, it’s a little bit clearer in color, but it shows what I’ve colored in brown here is the proposed additional impervious area. MR. VOLLARO-Russ, excuse me. Is that cumulatively, the 6,145? MR. PITTENGER-That is subtracted. That’s actually 8,000 some odd there, and what is in green is paved to be removed. So we’d end up at the 6,145. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s a cumulative number then. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. PITTENGER-Correct. That’s the net change. So generally speaking there’s an existing walkway that runs through here. We’re renovating some of this stuff for handicap accessibility, but generally we’re placing new rides in and around where the existing rides were. It was our desire, from a functional standpoint, and I’ll talk about the stormwater in a bit, but what we’re trying to do in here is we’re cutting the serious effects or the effects that are going to happen to change the area is that we’re going to be cutting into this hillside with a retaining wall that’s going to be eight feet high, and that cuts into the hill. That allows us to provide two attractions here, in this area where the whale, I think, exists we have a center mounted ride. We’re trying to preserve and maintain and increase the amount of green lawn along the stream. We’re providing approximately 50 plantings, some trees, many shrubs. The bear house is being maintained as an attraction, but in this green island around the bear house is going to be a train heading up toward the theater and stage which is going to be generally maintained in its current condition. We have a circular ride there, a circular ride at an elevation halfway between this lower area and the upper eating area around the restaurant, and there’s a little race car track that goes in here, and we’re also expanding the pavement there. Faced with the additional impervious and the fact that there are little or no stormwater controls existing out there now, what we tried to do was capture what water we could, and treat it as a mitigation for the increased impervious. So what I did was a calculation for the stormwater quality first flush runoff, and that gave me a volume of some 678 cubic feet of water that we should be treated, and the original plan that I had was to collect it at a point that allowed us to capture the most amount of runoff, but still gave us enough separation and groundwater that we could get some percolation and get some benefits from that infiltration. One of the comments that C.T. Male made in Jim Houston’s letter was that you really need three feet to groundwater from the base of that. So what I proposed in my initial response was to split those drywells in two. Have two footers to have a trench drain to collect it, have a sump and a structure to overflow into those drywells and thereby providing the pre-treatment, the collection and then the three foot separation to groundwater, and that was going to happen in two locations. So really, this water coming through here would be intercepted here. In phone discussions with Jim Houston, and later Jim Edwards, they expressed two concerns about my responses. One being that they thought, or Jim Houston thought that this wall would end up impacting more of that hill than I assumed of the 16 feet, and the second comment, I got on the phone with Jim Edwards, was that something about Item Number Four which was the infiltration and the treatment of the stormwater. So what I proposed as an alternative, which is on the plans that I revised, and it’s in the fax that you didn’t really have a chance to look at, is to, I have a detail that really eliminates the drywells, but what it does is, eliminates the drywells, but what it does is it provides a sump and then pipes it into a drainage system that utilizes this green space here for the grass treatment, according to the new stormwater regs. So there are two alternatives that we will continue to discuss with C.T. Male to deal with that stormwater, but what we are doing, in fact, is treating that increase for the stormwater quality. We really don’t have a capacity here to treat the 100 year storm, but this is similar in situation to, for example, our parking lots across the road at the hotel and waterpark where we have low lots, you can’t perc it. So we’re going to treat it as it goes through the grass filter strip. I think general overview, that’s the project. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one other comment on this. We’re being asked to do a lighting waiver on this, and there wasn’t any lighting plan submitted at all. MR. PITTENGER-I would say that on our site plan L-3 there are lighting locations. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I can’t get anything out of that in terms of foot candles on the ground Russ. I don’t know what they are. MR. PITTENGER-The only thing that I have is the first color page following the site plan are some typical lights that we envision putting in there. I think they’re about, what’s the wattage on that, 150 watt bulbs, perhaps, directed downward. So we do have some information on that. MR. VOLLARO-I see there’s some additional words on the waiver request that talk about it not impacting the overall lighting of the Park itself. We’ve been taking, you probably haven’t taken part in this very much, but as this Board has been moving into fairly large and complex 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) applications like Wal-Mart and a few of those, we’ve paid a lot, a lot of attention to the whole lighting scheme, in terms of foot candles on the ground, uniformity ratios, things of that nature, and the Board’s becoming quite competent in that area, we’re beginning to be able to understand what that’s all about and be able to ask intelligent questions, and that’s why I’m bringing this up, because there’s no way to tell just what the, I can see from what you’re saying that the lighting will probably be okay. The problem is it’s not quantified in any way. So it’s very difficult, when you’re asked to do a waiver on that, just based on words, it’s hard for me to rationalize the okay on the waiver without having the ability to understand exactly what the applicant is talking about. MR. LEMERY-The area is right smack in the center of the theme park, and it’s all directed down. So we didn’t even give it much of a thought, other than the 150 watt light bulbs that are out there for the pedestrians, you know, on the foot paths. So it’s down in a lower area and you can’t even see it from any of the areas that might be impacted. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just ask the Board. How does the Board feel this, the lighting? MR. SANFORD-I figured all the lighting is going to stay within the Park. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. As long as everybody else is pretty much on track with that? Okay. MR. SANFORD-I have a question, though, that I think we discussed, Bob, and we weren’t sure of it, and maybe Staff and/or Mr. Lemery could clarify it. As you know, on 2001, there was the FGEIS was adopted, and then when the hotel plans were presented we did a Supplemental, an SGEIS in 2004. So when we get additional, like this is a modification, or I guess this is a modification that’s coming in front of us, or a new plan or a new ride or an attraction, do we look at the collective two documents as now being one, or do we, at times, look to the 2001 document and at other times look at the 2004, depending upon the nature of project? And here’s the question. I’m not suggesting that there’s any significant issues, although we can discuss them and perhaps will later, but in your letter of January 14, Mr. Lemery, you spell out th what we are understanding, which was that The Great Escape will use its best efforts to complete the construction of the bridge in a timely manner, and in the past when we’ve had applications in front of us, if there hasn’t been compliance, we sometimes will not further entertain modifications on an application. Removing from The Great Escape, if a person didn’t do what they were supposed to, we’ll say well first take care of that and then come back and see us. Now, this is a question of clarification. When I’m looking at the status of the pedestrian bridge and whether or not there has been best efforts on the part of The Great Escape, and I’m not saying there hasn’t been decent efforts, but I was just wondering, let’s assume, for the purpose of my illustration, that I conclude there haven’t been. Does that have any bearing on this particular application because that was a product of the 2004 SGEIS, and is that appropriate, or am I to be referencing the FGEIS of 2001, and I would like to have that clarified. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to jump in on that, because I think you’re missing one step. The first step was correct. On the 2001 FGEIS it said that we had the authority to, if the bridge wasn’t completed in a two year period, then we could take a look at what was happening in Area A, which was the current area that the rides are in now. Now, on November 25, 2002, and I’m going to read from something, a letter or memorandum I wrote to Marilyn Ryba on January 23. I won’t read the whole thing. I’ll say that on November 25 of 2002, the Planning Board rdth acquiesced and endorsed the delay of the pedestrian bridge until after the U.S. Route 9 sewer improvements have been installed. If you recollect that we had that little difference in there, and we said, okay, we would not look at the bridge because of that. Now, I went on and said, since this milestone, that milestone being the sewer completion, is essentially complete, and I asked this question, does the Planning Board revert back to Section Five E Five, and with respect, and that’s Section Five E Five of 2001, with respect to site plan review of attractions in Area A. I’m a little confused as to whether we gave up what we were looking for in the 2001 FGEIS, and what we finally wound up with with the 2004. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. SANFORD-Your concerns are related. What I’m wondering is, in an extreme case, and I got your progress report and reviewed it. So I don’t want you to jump to a conclusion that I’m finding major fault with it, but let’s say you didn’t do a damn thing on the bridge. Let’s just say for. MR. LEMERY-Well, let’s not say that, because that’s not true. So let’s not waste everybody’s time with those kinds of discussions which are not reasonable. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Lemery, I’m trying to understand how we’re to evaluate projects, not just this project but future projects, whether or not we’re relying on 2004 or 2001. MR. LEMERY-What we resolved, as far as my understanding is concerned, is that we first of all got an extension with regard to the bridge, because of the sewer, and so when we came back with a Supplemental Impact Statement which has to do with the west side of the road, not Area A, which you’re correct about, we reached an agreement that we would have the bridge complete on a best efforts basis by the time we opened the hotel, and we would provide you with quarterly progress reports so that there would be a clear understanding of what was being done by the company with respect to building the bridge, and we assumed, on that basis, that if we had come in here this spring, to put a new attraction in, it wasn’t going to impact our ability to get that attraction approved, provided we were meeting your obligation which was set forth in the 2004 Impact Statement to proceed with the bridge, and I can give you some further updates about the bridge tonight if you’d like, but I think that’s our position, Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So essentially, on that basis, that description, we’ve kind of given up what we had in the 2001, and have reverted now to the 2004 position. MR. LEMERY-Yes, but it’s pretty clear to me that if we don’t get this facility, the bridge, built, that you can withhold further approvals of attractions over on the east side, because that was a condition of the 2001. MR. SANFORD-That was my question. MR. LEMERY-So we’re very clear about that. MR. SANFORD-I wasn’t, but I appreciate your comment. You clarified it. MR. VOLLARO-I think we’re on the same page here. I just wanted to make sure because I’ve also taken time to read, and I just have one question on the package, and I have read it, even though there’s as rubber band around it. MR. LEMERY-You’re talking about the 14 submission of the bridge status, you mean? th MR. VOLLARO-This was a letter that we got from Marilyn Ryba on January 18, which th packages all the letters that you wrote to various people like Verizon and so on and so forth. All those letters to people who would have a bearing on your ability to complete that bridge. This is a quarterly progress report. The last thing I saw in the 2004 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement was a schedule dated 31 March 2004. It’s in the back of that large book. I know there’s a Schedule. I didn’t bring it with me tonight, unfortunately, but believe me, in the book, is a Schedule submitted by The Great Escape or the LA Group in conjunction with The Great Escape dated 31 March 2004, and it shows the bridge coming in coincidence with the water park. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that. It’s a bar chart. MR. LEMERY-Yes, we’re still on track with the Schedule. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now I’m trying to reconcile in my mind. This is the first quarterly report that I, as a Planning Board member, got. Are there other quarterly reports that went before this? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. LEMERY-There was one other that we provided to the Town. It was the original application. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LEMERY-For the bridge, and the Planning Board approval for the bridge. That was our first progress report. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and what was the date of that? MR. COLLINS-November 14, somewhere mid-November. th MR. LEMERY-Well, it would have been 90 days before that one. So we’re right on target. MR. VOLLARO-You’re right on target with respect to this. MR. LEMERY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-See, I was looking back at the March 31, 2004 Schedule as being the marker. There’s a different marker, and I don’t know what that is. I guess, John, you’ve identified it to be in November. MR. COLLINS-Staff can check your records, but I’m pretty sure it was November was our approval. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Could I ask Staff, is that pretty close? Okay. So we are on track with progress reports. I just wanted to make sure that that was, that’s where we were. We’ve taken care of the lighting thing, I guess, the Staff agrees and I tend to agree. MR. SANFORD-Well, while we’re on the bridge, I just have a couple of quick questions for either Mr. Lemery or the applicant, and that would be, there’s a letter that we received from DOT. It was dated December. I wish I had it in front of me. I think it was the 15. th MR. VOLLARO-It’s part of this package. It’s in this package. MR. SANFORD-Right, but let me finish my question. In there, and I just want clarification. I think it’s clarified, but I just want to hear it again. They’re saying that they haven’t received a permit application, and they were saying please advise the applicant, that would be you, that this process takes some time and encourage you guys to do so. Have you, at this point in time, filed a completed application for a permit? MR. LEMERY-Yes. The application has been filed, but I’d like to make a comment here, that let’s not get all caught up in the bridge, for a couple of reasons. It’s a complicated process that has a sequential impact, and that impact has to do with the fact that those telephone lines over the bridge include Verizon, Time Warner, and the other cable company, Adelphia. Now the Verizon issues, that’s fiber optics. So that cable has to be spliced and put back together. What DOT did, and we explained this before, was that as a condition to the permit to the bridge, it required certain modifications, and we made it clear from Day One that we could not control what DOT would do with regard to the bridge, but what DOT did say, and I’ve said this before in here, was that they required certain modifications to the Route 9 intersection, which included extending the Route 9 turning lane coming south on Route 9 from Gurney Lane, and they also added a turning lane from Glen Lake, the Glen Lake Road, turning north onto Route 9, required the medium to be striped, as you go up to the bridge, increase the entrance to the ring road to a four lane highway, and in addition, required a tripping device on the off ramp. All of these were conditions to the bridge approval, which were added by DOT. So our traffic engineers have been working, in the meantime, and I think we provided you with that, the deeds have been prepared. We’ve got a deed that will go from, and all this property is owned by Warren County. So this has to go from Warren County, one deed from Warren County to DOT. One 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) deed from Warren County to the Town of Queensbury. One deed from Warren County to the hotel and waterpark, and the meantime, NiMo, we have paid the fees necessary to NiMo and Verizon to do the studies and the plans that they require to raise the level of the poles for the bridge, sequence and move the traffic lights. Put up a light at the Route 9 intersection. So it’s a complicated process. MR. VOLLARO-Does that also include moving the gas line as well? MR. LEMERY-Yes, exactly. So these are complicated processes, and we’re doing everything we can in a timely fashion to move it along, so that we can hopefully get it done by the time that we’ve got the hotel open. So, it’s not really productive, and we’ll provide you with the quarterly reports, but it’s not really productive to start nit picking about certain issues unless you understand the entire sequence of events that has to take place, and we’re hostage to NiMo. NiMo comes in and says, well, we can’t get to that until next week, and I can tell you we’ve been all over them to get started on their plan. Verizon says we can’t start until NiMo finishes, and then it’s going to take us four months, and then Adelphia, of course, and Time Warner is saying, well, we’re all set when Verizon finishes. The problem with Verizon, there’s a, the fiber optic box is up at the corner of Route 9 and the Glen Lake Road, which is where the DOT wants the turning lane. So we’ve got to sequence that, and as it has been explained to us, they’ve got to splice the cable and re-do the cable so that all the doors don’t open at the jail, and, you know, everybody walks out. So, it’s complicated, Mr. Sanford, and it’s time consuming, and it’s extremely expensive, but it’s all being done. Our traffic engineers are on it. Our electrical consultants are on it, and we understand your concerns, Mr. Chairman and everyone, and we’re moving as quickly as we can to get it all done. MR. VOLLARO-A quick comment on having read all of this. One does not get a warm and fuzzy feeling after reading the document, like when Verizon says, well, we’ll be done in 2006. I looked at that. MR. COLLINS-Yes. I think we also have to state the pressure that this project brings on them to bring that, and they are ahead of schedule, based on what their initial engineering proposal was, was they wouldn’t give us a price for four months. Well, they’ve been able to provide us that sooner. So that in itself. The intent is, obviously, you know, you’re asking about the permit. That application has been submitted. We are securing the surety bond so that the State is covered during that process and is it going to happen before Park opening? No. It’s just, the sequence is just there’s too much out there. My intention is hopefully to get all the footer work done, as you imagine with the hotel being in full swing being built, get the footers done for the bridge, and then fly the steel after the season closes. Just because of the timing purposes, which John said, you have to shut the lights down, when the bridge goes up, and you can’t shut the lights down until the road is done up north, and the road’s not done up north until all what John said is secured from the County, which then that requires a movement of a pole up there. So it’s a sequence of events, but we feel very comfortable that we’re on process to complete that and have it done, you know, in time for the 2004 Supplemental Findings. MR. SANFORD-Let me just clarify so there’s not a misunderstanding. The reason I brought up the bridge was because, as I mentioned earlier when this application, we first opened discussion, I referenced Mr. Lemery’s letter which he said he was prepared to talk in more detail about the bridge, and so I didn’t think I was going into an area that was inappropriate, and he verbally confirmed that. MR. COLLINS-No, that’s true. MR. SANFORD-Basically when I looked at this, I see what progress is being made, and the only thing I was going to add is I would encourage Ryan Biggs to move forward to complete their design. They’re at about 75% complete, and it’s been quite a bit of time. So if you could encourage your own employees to complete that design function, I think it would be helpful. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. COLLINS-The design is done. The construction drawings including all footers will be done by the first week in February at the latest. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Fine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we’ve rung that out pretty well. I have a much better understanding of where we’re going. So everything’s out and above board on the table. I appreciate the progress reports. I’ll be looking forward to the next one. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to go back and respond to a question that Mr. Sanford had for Staff a little while ago. He was asking which environmental impact statement applied to this particular application. Upon my review of the application submitted, and both the original Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, as well as the Supplemental one, I agreed with the applicant that it was the original Final GEIS that applied, the 2001 that applied, and that was the basis for my review. MR. SANFORD-I mean, again, this is interesting. I would like legal to weigh in. It doesn’t have to be tonight. My understanding is when you do a Supplemental, you’re basically adding, you’re adding to the 2001 final, and by doing that incorporation, you’re ending up with one document, not two documents, and so I would have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion. MS. RADNER-Yes. The 2004 does not replace the 2001. It supplements it. It’s just as it’s called. The 2004 issues, though, the applicant has been working with the Planning Department to address. Again, the 2001 issues are still there. They still have certain thresholds that they can’t pass without triggering additional environmental review. They basically gave you their plan build out in 2001, and they’re bound by that. To the extent that 2004 carves out exceptions or creates different rules for sections of the Park, that’s supplemental, and it’s my understanding that those 2004 exceptions or side agreements don’t impact this particular project, though, because it’s in a different area. MR. SANFORD-Well, see that’s what my question was, and I guess I’m not sure if I follow the logical progression, because when we’ve done site plans for, for instance on Home Depot. We took a look at that whole plaza, and we looked at water drainage, way over by Route 9 close to the McDonald’s, and we were talking about a building that was on the other extreme end of it, and basically my understanding was when an application came in front, we had the obligation, not just the right, to basically look at the total comprehensive project, and so anyway, I don’t think we need to take up the time now, but I don’t know if we’re on the same page with it. MS. RADNER-Again, I don’t know that your analogy really applies because that wasn’t a project that involved a Generic Environmental Impact Statement. That was a project, but it wasn’t a project that contemplated the sort of staged review that this project is receiving. MR. VOLLARO-I think we’re pretty much finished with that now, okay. I’d like to put that one to bed, because this is a subject that we could discuss. I still have questions that I would probably approach our Staff with, based on a letter that I wrote to Marilyn, which I think I’d like some clarification, but it’s not necessary to do tonight, and I’ll get to Staff on that myself. Now, we’re going to open the public hearing, and I’d like to limit the comments from the public to four minutes a piece, and those that would like to speak on this application are free to come before the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. Paul Derby, 86 Ash Drive, President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. A week and a half ago, I read all the files on this that the Town had, and last Wednesday at the Zoning Board of Appeals our position was that we supported their variance 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) for the setbacks to the wetlands, and we asked them if they would do additional plantings, and I believe that they agreed to do that. MR. VOLLARO-That was to keep the water from going into Glen Lake? MR. DERBY-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I read that portion, yes. MR. DERBY-Okay. Now, I’m not sure. I guess I have a question. There appears to be that there’s been more correspondence or more items added to the file since that time. MR. VOLLARO-Are you referring to what was put in tonight? MR. DERBY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and we got clarification on that from our resident engineer, our engineering consultant, that what was placed in file tonight was really more beneficial than what was in the response that Mr. Pittenger made back on, I guess it was 1/20. I won’t even get to the note, but I think that Mr. Pittenger responded to the LA Group’s, to C.T. Male’s 1/18 letter. He responded on 1/20/05 with a certain position, and C.T. Male questioned that position, and now that position has been rectified by what’s in here, and it’s better than what was in C.T. Male’s 1/20/05 position. I think that’s what I got from listening to Mr. Pittenger talk here at the stand. So I don’t see that the additional information, based on what I know, is in any way detrimental to the project. MR. DERBY-Okay. That’s the way it appeared to me. I just wanted to make sure that C.T. Male was comfortable with the stormwater management plan, as it is. MR. VOLLARO-Well, their statement was they’re well on the way. They feel it’s coming along. This application will be probably approved contingent upon receipt of a C.T. Male signoff on this project. That’s how this Board is setting right now. MR. DERBY-Okay. Then the Glen Lake Protective Association has no problem with it as long as it’s proper stormwater. It seems like a good project. I don’t see any negative impacts to the environment, and I do want to thank you, actually, for having the conversation about the bridge because there’s a lot of information I don’t think the public knew about, and it was very helpful. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t think that conversation is yet fully terminated, but it won’t be discussed at this meeting. I will take this issue up myself with Staff at a later date. MR. DERBY-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else from the public want to speak on this application? KAREN ANGELSON MS. ANGELSON-Karen Angelson, 1 Greenwood Lane, Twicwood. I just would like to commend the Board on the discussion on the bridge. This has been my main concern about all this addition that’s going on, in addition to noise, and of course the water, but the safety of the public, and I do hope that you keep right on top of it and ask multiple questions of the lawyers of which holds true and what can be occupied, if the bridge is not completed. Don’t let them do the hotel if they can’t, if the bridge isn’t completed. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-We can’t stop them from doing the hotel. We can talk about the operation of the hotel. MS. ANGELSON-Right. That’s what I mean. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s all, gentlemen. I don’t see anybody else coming up. So feel free to come back up again. There’ll be no SEQRA on this, since the previous SEQRA applies. MR. LEMERY-I’d like to clear up some misconception. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. LEMERY-It’s possible that the hotel could be completed and ready for occupancy before this bridge is built, if we run into further problems with DOT or anybody else. It’s a $45 million project, and as long as we’re meeting the obligations, the bridge shouldn’t be an issue. So I just want to make it clear, it’s not, the opening of the hotel is not and was never conditional upon the bridge being completed and you folks know that. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-We know that, except that DOT is going to play a role in whether, in the safety issue, and I read that in some of their. MR. COLLINS-Yes, and let’s also give DOT their credit, too. They have done everything to expedite this. So I don’t want, you know, them to be, you know, they are not holding it up. They have been very responsive. MR. SANFORD-They supported the pedestrian bridge in writing in this packet. They encouraged The Great Escape. MR. COLLINS-Yes, there were a couple of questions they had, and, you know, I think we answered their questions. MR. VOLLARO-You also have, I think, on your side of the fence, have to think a little bit about it, and you will, I’m sure, if the bridge is not complete, the hotel is operating, and the lights are no longer there because they’re up at the other end, you now have to concern yourself with pedestrian safety, and you’ll have to worry a little bit about how you’re going to control that. It’s a tough job. MR. COLLINS-Well, and, you know, the pedestrian bridge budget is in this year’s budget. So unless there’s something that happens outside of our control, I don’t see any reason why that won’t be finished by the time, you know, the end of the year. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. COLLINS-I feel confident, knowing what we know today, without getting into any major issues with the utilities and the relocations, that we can hit that deadline. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The next progress report or next quarterly report would probably shed more light on it. MR. COLLINS-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. No SEQRA on this. I think we can move toward a motion for approval. MS. RADNER-Bob, did you close the public hearing? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll close the public hearing. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll make a motion to approve. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-2005 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: New rides and amusement facilities in the Coco Loco/Jungle Land area. WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/15/04; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 1/25/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. The applicant update the site development data sheet to correctly read 40.7% permeable. 2. The waiver requests are granted. 3. The applicant will obtain a final C.T. Male signoff on the proposed stormwater management. 4. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Duly adopted this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. LEMERY-Thanks very much. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Lots of luck with your project. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NASREEN KHURSHID AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: RT. 9 JUST PAST WALMART PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 6700 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT ALONG WITH AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9, NORTH OF WEEKS ROAD. RESTAURANT AND HOTEL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 6-05, SP 58-04, AV 67-04, SP 70-89, UV 114-89, SP 7-93, AV 7-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/12/05 TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17 LOT SIZE: 3.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MICHAEL BORGOS & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are? MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos, Counsel for Nasreen Khurshid. I’m here with Tom Jarrett from Jarrett Martin Engineers. I want to give you a brief overview of the project. The site is the present location of the Budget Inn, opposite Sweet Road on Route 9, just north of the Wal-Mart Plaza. The existing motel is 20 units. We’re proposing a re-development of that motel. As Jaime has on the Zoning Board calls it a recycling of that property. As you’ve seen from the drawings, it’s a substantial updating of the façade, proposed second story to be added at a future date. The location of the restaurant would be partly where the present owner’s residence is that’s being used as the office now. So with the demolition of that building, another office will be built between the two front buildings that are closest to Route 9 on the east side of the property. The Outback Restaurant will take that location between the present structures and the car wash property to the south. As part of the planning for this, we’ve met extensively with Staff and gone through a couple of different versions of the site plan. We’ve tried to anticipate a lot of questions and concerns, one of which was traffic flow. There were two existing curb cuts on this property. The proposal as it is now is that there will be two curb cuts, but one will be closed, and a new one opened, pursuant to the land swap agreement we have with the owners of the carwash to the south. By acquiring about 30 feet more of frontage from the adjacent parcel to the south, we’re able to line up an entrance with Sweet Road, which everyone agrees is going to be superior to having another curb cut with people trying to make a turn across Route 9 there, and we think it’s going to handle a lot of that traffic much more efficiently. I’ll let Tom Jarrett address some of those Staff comments that relate to that and the recent developments with DOT, and I think Tom can walk you through the site plan as well, and give you some of the particulars. MR. JARRETT-Thank you, Mike. MR. VOLLARO-Just before we start, Mr. Jarrett, are we all looking at the same drawing, 12/15/04? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Go. So long as I’m on the same drawing with you, I’m happy. MR. JARRETT-So far we are. We submitted the drawings that you have in front of you, we submitted those to DOT back in December, and received comments from them that were much more favorable than the comments received on the earlier design, as Mike has alluded. They are asking for a traffic study now, and essentially our understanding of that comment is that they want to study the signalized intersection. We’re adding a fourth leg to that intersection. They’re comfortable with our entrance configuration, but they do want to make sure that that signal operates efficiently. MR. VOLLARO-They also wanted to take a look at a loading analysis, based on those signals, I think, for the structure supporting the light. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. JARRETT-For the structure supporting that light, that’s correct. Part of our project team is Creighton Manning Engineering, and they are pursuing that traffic study and that loading analysis as we speak. We should have an answer for you for the next meeting. One of the issues that DOT raised is an extension of Sweet Road to connect with the paper street, Pine Drive, at the rear of these properties. As part of our negotiations with the carwash owner, we gave up the rights to Pine Drive at the southern end. So we no longer control that road, and we’ve relayed that to DOT. That’s still, that possibility still exists if the carwash property comes in for redevelopment, and that owner can work with the Town to achieve that connection if its feasible and appropriate at that time. MR. VOLLARO-Is Ermiger the carwash? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And DOT understands that position now. We received a number of Staff comments that range from landscaping and buffering through lighting, building design, neighborhood impacts, and I can go through those quickly if you wish. The landscaping plan we plan to use the natural wooded buffer to the rear of the site, continue that buffer. We’ve submitted a planting plan to you for the front of the site, which the Staff has commented that the species selected do not meet the Town listings, and we had a professional landscape architect prepare this landscape plan, and he had very definite reasons for submitting the plants that he did, including working in conjunction with the existing utilities, so that the plants don’t grow into and interfere with the existing utilities. However, we will defer to the Board and the Staff and go through the Town listings should the Board wish. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing, I think, that was mentioned there, this was against 179-80-030. This is recommend the tree, now, what Staff recommended was, and I think that the big thing that they put in there, that it should be salt tolerant. Now I don’t know whether oaks and maples are that salt tolerant, but they may be. I don’t know anything about plants and trees. MR. HILTON-Well, I guess I can clarify my comment, is that with recent, other recent applications within this design area along this corridor, the Board has approved landscaping plans that include street trees from the species listed in our Code. In terms of consistency, in terms of continuing that look along Route 9, my comment was to continue that with this application. In addition, the species should be salt tolerant to protect the. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I can understand that, we’d try to get some degree of sameness. That’s an altogether good thing, but that the trees look a little bit alike going up Route 9, yes, I can see that. MR. HUNSINGER-Are the species described in the Code not salt tolerant? Is anyone implying that? MR. HILTON-Again, I’m not a landscape architect or certainly don’t understand or can’t give you a complete guarantee. I know that pines and some of the evergreens are less tolerant than the deciduous trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I was aware of that as well. MR. HILTON-Right, and that’s, beyond that, I believe that the variety of oaks and maples are probably more tolerant than some. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess the basis of that is take a look at 179-80-030 and see what trees are listed in there, and see whether any of those are applicable to this site. MR. JARRETT-We will, and we’ve scheduled a meeting with Staff for tomorrow to discuss some of these items, and we will discuss that issue. The landscape architect that we have employed assures me the species we’ve selected are just as salt tolerant as the Town list, but I can’t speak to that personally, and we’ll discuss that with Staff. So we’ll come back with something that we think is appropriate and hopefully that Staff can support. MR. VOLLARO-Just one other thing. I think the DOT letter had mentioned that the applicant was to clarify that the, and I don’t know why he asked this question, but he did. That the applicant was to clarify the commensurate portion of the stormwater controls for the initial phase will be installed up front. I guess they have to be. I mean, I don’t see how you could not do that. MR. JARRETT-Yes. I was going to get into this when you talk about stormwater, but I’ll answer it now since you brought it up. We planned the additional parking in the rear, and we met with the Zoning Board last week and received approval to add parking in the rear later if it’s necessary for the restaurant and the motel combined. We’ve planned stormwater management devices for that area, the increased pavement, if we need it, and they’ll be built at that time, and not before. Apparently he misunderstood our comment in the report and asked if that was going to be built now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-How do you want to proceed, Mr. Chairman? Do you want to go through the checklist? MR. VOLLARO-I think we probably ought to go through the site plan criteria. Yes, the answer to your question is yes. I just want to get a couple of things up front before we get into that. So we don’t have to go over them again. I would like some color renderings of the motel itself. We didn’t get any of that. MR. JARRETT-I can show you those in just a second. Do you want them now, or would you like to go through the comments first and then see the renderings? MR. VOLLARO-Well, are the renderings going to be part of the plan, part of the submission? They were not part of the submission. MR. JARRETT-Colored renderings were not. We have colored renderings with us tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Will they be turned over to Staff? Okay. We’ll look at that when they get out there, and then there has to be a signoff letter by C.T. Male, I would guess. Now that, as I spoke to the folks that were just up before you on The Great Escape, we’re looking for that information to be sent directly to Staff and not to the applicant. MR. JARRETT-Correct. We understand that change. MR. VOLLARO-The railroad track has changed a little bit. Okay. I think we’ll go over our design standards, or why don’t you go over and give us a rundown on that first, and then we’ll go over the other stuff. MR. JARRETT-Yes. I can quickly run you through the project. As you recall, the current driveway entrances to this site are in the center between the existing office and the motel, and to the north end of the motel, and our current plan abandons, encloses that existing driveway entrance in the center, in favor of this new driveway entrance opposite Sweet Road, which would be available to the carwash in the future should they wish to connect to it. There’s no 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) plans right now for the carwash to utilize that. In fact, my opinion is it would be inefficient for them to use that in that current site configuration. MR. VOLLARO-Knowing how that operation works, I don’t see, I couldn’t see what the logical connection was between the two. MR. JARRETT-No, there’s no plan to connect at this point. However, it does give efficient access to both sites in the future, the long range plan. As I said, we plan to maintain this existing wooded buffer in the rear of the site. The main parking is situated toward the front and the expansion parking here, the extra 20 spaces would be in the rear later, if we need it. Part of our proposal right now is to fill in between the two existing motel buildings in the front. This area replaces the office where the restaurant is proposed right now. There’s a small old building there that would be replaced with an office between these two buildings. I think that, in a nutshell, is the overall site. Let me go to the renderings showing you the restaurant and the motel. These views are the front and rear elevations of the restaurant. These are standard designs for Outback, standard color schemes for Outback, as I understand it. I’m only familiar with the very local ones. A question came up regarding the trim lighting along the eaves, and that is an accent lighting that adds no illumination to the parking lot. Outback has responded to us, via e-mail today, that it would add no illumination factor to the site. Strictly a trim for aesthetics on the building. These are the right and left elevations, north and south elevations of the building. MR. VOLLARO-That constitutes almost a total demolition of the existing motel, then, complete replacement. MR. JARRETT-This is the restaurant, this is the restaurant. This replaces that small house that’s the office for the motel. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. I guess my question still stands, though. The motel. MR. JARRETT-The motel. Let me flip the motel and show you what we’re doing with the motel. Okay. This is the small office here on this center plan, which is where the restaurant’s going to go, and this is a rendering of the new motel, and right here is the center infill between the two existing structures. MR. VOLLARO-I see. MR. JARRETT-And our proposal is to build this immediately, which is necessary to be able to build the restaurant, and then this second story would be added, presumably in a year, and that has been the subject of a variance request that was granted by the ZBA. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the height of the building? MR. JARRETT-I can double check that. MR. VOLLARO-Is it under 40? MR. JARRETT-Yes, it’s under 40, and our site calculations take into account the total expansion, both floors and all the parking. The numbers you see take into account the entire site. MR. SEGULJIC-Could I ask you a quick question? The existing hotel units in the back, what’s going to happen with those? MR. JARRETT-They remain, and they will be expanded eventually as well, a second story added to those. MR. SEGULJIC-At a later date potentially? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But their façade would match? MR. JARRETT-Their façade, in fact it’s right here, these are the rear units, would match the front. MR. SEGULJIC-So that would be done immediately, changing the façade? MR. JARRETT-Yes, the façade actually is going to be upgraded now, for the basic motel buildings, and then the second story added later. Presumably within a year or two we may need an extension from the ZBA for that. The owner would like to do it immediately, but cash flow is going to be dictating that situation. MR. VOLLARO-Now can you flip back through to the first chart for a minute, the site. MR. JARRETT-The site. MR. VOLLARO-You mentioned something about Pine Lane, while you were talking, from your seat before. MR. JARRETT-This is Pine Lane here. We’ve shown it as abandoned here because it’s transferred for this, and it’s cut off on this enlarged plan, by the way. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Where does it go? MR. JARRETT-Actually it’s a paper street that goes nowhere. It dead ends behind the Mount Royal Plaza to the north. MR. SEGULJIC-Is it wooded now or is that actually a street now? MR. JARRETT-It’s wooded here. It’s a street. It’s actually part of, I believe it’s somewhat developed behind the plaza to the north. I’d have to double check that, but I believe it’s. MR. SEGULJIC-But right behind the hotel now, it’s wooded. MR. JARRETT-Right behind this it’s all wooded. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-You see one of the problems I had, when we did site plans, you know, I think we’re almost there on this one, but I was very concerned. We went over to Robert Gardens and walked in a little ways, and none of your drawings show Robert Gardens there and it’s in very close proximity to what you’re planning, and there’s, I’m concerned about what effect that’ll have on the people living there, both in terms of noise, traffic, and also odor from the restaurant and so I was wondering, I don’t know where we’re going to go tonight with this, whether or not we’re going to bring this to conclusion, or whether or not we’re going to have to have another go at it, but I certainly, for one, would feel more comfortable with drawings that incorporate the surrounding area to the project, namely the Robert Gardens, because if you didn’t do the site plan review, you would have missed that entirely. Like if we didn’t get out of the car and walk around, and just go with your drawings, we wouldn’t have a clue as to how this may adversely impact the people living in the rear. MR. JARRETT-We do show a portion of one of the buildings, but you’re correct. It doesn’t show all the buildings, right. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. SANFORD-Right, and I think that I would certainly feel better seeing that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the comments I had on that, in the area you were just looking at, really, is that from that future parking lot to, and you had a picture on there of a small apartment right there. There’s only 80 feet from that proposed parking lot to that building of Roberts Gardens. It’s pretty close. So you know banging of the car doors and all of that sort of stuff, that’s pretty close. Now the question that was asked, whether that’s all wooded, and will it stay wooded, would that provide some buffering for that, I don’t know. MR. JARRETT-This is proposed to stay wooded. That’s part of the approval request. We would stipulate that that would stay wooded behind this parking area. We’re hoping that the additional parking here would never be required, in which case the buffer would even be larger. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s got to be a 20 foot buffer between this and the Roberts Gardens, at a minimum. We would probably be pushing for a little bit more than 20 feet. Because 20 feet’s not much. MR. JARRETT-We did take a couple of pictures of that buffer. Apparently you’ve all seen it. We took a couple of pictures during the winter, worst case scenario, and it does show you some of the buildings through the trees. This is taken from the existing motel parking lot, looking to the west. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s also a building that’s not listed on the plan. I think it houses trash receptacles for the motel. It was in the back. MR. JARRETT-One of the questions that came up, I think from Staff, was what is this square here, this rectangle here behind the restaurant, and that’s actually a concrete pad. So it would not impede traffic at all. The dumpster is in behind an enclosure closer to the building, and that’s just a concrete pad for trash vehicles to enter. MRS. STEFFAN-But when we did our site visit, there’s a little building behind the motel complex. MR. JARRETT-Existing? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. BORGOS-I believe that’s a small shed that is going to be removed. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, because there was garbage and stuff around it. So we weren’t sure. MR. JARRETT-If I’m remembering the shed you’re talking about, that will be removed, yes. Yes, that gets removed. MR. VOLLARO-I think what we want to do here now is quickly go through our site plan review criteria and just go over quickly. MRS. STEFFAN-Can I just ask a question on the site plan review application, on the site development data, it lists in A, the building footprint, and I’m not really sure where those numbers come from, because we’re looking at a 6700 square foot Outback Steakhouse, and then we talked about 2,000 square feet of additional motel floor space, but on the building footprint, it says the existing square footage is 7,697, the proposed addition in square feet was 17,885, and the total square feet was 17,885. MR. JARRETT-The addition is incorrect. The existing square footage includes the small office building, which is going to be removed. The addition is, that’s an incorrect number. The total square footage is correct, the 17,800. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, because it didn’t make sense to me. It didn’t add up. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let’s go quickly through. Let’s look at design standards. Conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Conformance with design corridor standards, building design layout and signage. MR. HUNSINGER-I had some comments and questions on that, with respect to the overall site plan, and compliance with the Route 9 corridor standards. I like the way you show the hotel portion of the site plan with limited parking up front, a nice big green area, a buffer between the parking area and Route 9, and I’m just curious if it’s possible to do the same with the restaurant, either by pulling the restaurant closer to Route 9, and moving some of those parking spaces to the rear, or maybe some other way to eliminate one of those rows of parking in front of the proposed Outback store. MR. JARRETT-We’ve attempted to do that. We did attempt to do that during design, and we found out. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, what you did with the hotel I think is really great. You have the vast majority of the parking in the rear, which is what the design corridor standards call for. MR. JARRETT-We attempted to do the same thing with green space for the restaurant. We found ourselves trading off that rear parking area. So it’s a matter of trading the buffer in the rear versus green space in the front. So, I’m not sure what the answer is. We thought we achieved a good balance. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I might be the only one that has that comment, but I did want to raise that question. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I only had one thing under design standards. I’ll jump in there for a minute. The restaurant is approximately 200 feet from Roberts Gardens. Now normally the prevailing wind is from the west. So in most of the time, the odors and the noise from the building won’t get probably to Roberts Gardens, but at the time that they do, I think that’s going to be, I’m surprised I don’t see anybody from Roberts Gardens here at all, to talk to this, but I find that the restaurant being that close to Roberts Gardens Apartments is a question. We walked that. We paced that off pretty much, and it’s pretty close. Two hundred feet is not an awful lot. MR. BAKER-The Board did receive written comments from the owner of Roberts Gardens. MR. VOLLARO-They did? MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Did you want to read them into the record or do you want us to go through this first? MR. BAKER-During the public hearing, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Site development design. I think I’ve got my question answered on that, if anybody else has got one. I had, will the curb cut opposite Sweet Road serve the carwash, and the probability is no. MR. JARRETT-Correct. We know of no plan for the carwash to use this entrance at this time. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Unless I missed it, there’s no sidewalk connecting the restaurant to the sidewalk on Route 9? MR. JARRETT-No direct connection of sidewalk? No, there is not, just parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to continue with that, Mr. Hunsinger? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I don’t know what else to say. MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds like a good suggestion, having more green space in the front. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But, I mean, is there any way we can get more green space in the front? Putting the building the other way, anything like that? MR. JARRETT-We’re at the 75 foot setback in that corridor. So we can’t move it forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That kind of takes care of that. So on parking field design in the same area, my comment on that is still that the future parking is only 80 feet from the Roberts Gardens Apartments in the back, and that’s getting pretty close. That’s future parking, however, but that’s getting close. MR. JARRETT-We’ve talked to Outback, and if it is required that we build that parking, Outback would be willing to designate that as employee parking. So it would not have a lot of activity back there. It would be fairly minimal activity. MR. VOLLARO-That certainly would help. Eighty feet’s not much, when you get right down to it, as far as doors banging in the summer and all that’s concerned. Not very much buffer there. Could we make that a condition of the approval, when we get to that? MR. JARRETT-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Stormwater and sewage design. The only thing I have on that is Mike Shaw’s e-mail of 12/22, I can dig it out. Do you have that? MR. JARRETT-Yes, we do. MR. VOLLARO-And also the letter from the Water Department of 12/22? MR. JARRETT-Yes. We saw the response from fire company as well. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Well, they said that they didn’t have a problem. MR. JARRETT-Staff has asked us to put more detail on the plans regarding water and sewer connections, and we have no problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Everybody happy with that one? The lighting design. I see you made a comment that the peripherals on the building aren’t going to effect the parking lot, foot candles on the ground. MR. JARRETT-The trim lighting at the eaves, yes. MR. VOLLARO-What I couldn’t understand in this plan is that, you know, how is the uniformity ratio of 3.57 to 1 arrived at? I couldn’t get to it. I messed with those numbers for awhile. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. JARRETT-8.57. That number doesn’t ring a bell. Do you remember where you saw that? MR. VOLLARO-I think so. If you get down to, I guess it’s C-2, right in the left hand corner. MR. JARRETT-That’s the correct. MR. VOLLARO-And Uniformity Ratio. The required is 4 to 1, and you get 3.57, and I couldn’t arrive at that. I don’t see how you arrived at the number, given what you gave me as, when you say Table Above, Table Above, and Table Above. I used those numbers. I used the average over the min and got 4.78. MR. JARRETT-That’s the number published above. We will pursue that for you. Outback prepared this lighting plan for us, and we will pursue that answer for you. MR. SEGULJIC-And it also seems that some of the areas of parking lot are excessive. I mean, 10.4 foot candles. I think the Code is 2 and a half, I’m correct. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The Code is 2 and a half. MR. SEGULJIC-That seems like there’s excessive light there. It seems to be along the road also. Is that because you’re taking into account street light? MR. JARRETT-That’s right at the old entrance, I believe, and the parking in the front. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see much spillage. MR. JARRETT-There’s a tiny bit of spillage off the south line toward the carwash, .6 maximum there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, .6 is max. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, even in the back you have 9.4’s and things like that. So I guess we’d like to see that lowered. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just as a general comment. I think with some of the commercial lighting plans that the Board has been reviewing recently, you’ve seen that break down of the averages by parking area, by building exterior, etc. I guess my comment to that would be it would be extremely helpful here, and just, on another note, my comment, just to state it again, is really a question. Are there any wall mounted lights proposed in either the restaurant or the motel. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have that in my, are there wall packs on the building. I’ve got that comment. I also have a comment on trying to separate the lighting in different areas so that we can get a look at the uniformity ratio in each of those areas. MR. JARRETT-We saw that comment in Staff notes, and we will provide that for you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Landscape design. I think we’ve been over that. This is concerning the trees primarily and the 20 foot buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we haven’t really talked generally about the landscaping plan, which I think was very good. The only thing I think you really need to do is perhaps replace that one species with one that’s more typical of the Route 9 corridor. Other than that, I think you’re okay. MR. JARRETT-Yes. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Now, how are you satisfying the 20 foot buffers? Those are all between residential. That forested area back in there, part of it would be the buffer requirement, but in the white space, that white space there is not part of Roberts Gardens, is it? MR. JARRETT-No, that’s commercial property. That’s part of the carwash. MR. VOLLARO-Part of the carwash. So there wouldn’t need to be a 20 foot buffer between commercial units. There would be between Roberts Gardens and this development. MR. JARRETT-If they developed that portion of the site, they would have to provide a buffer there. MR. HILTON-Yes. It’s part of the land swap, the area that’s shaded. It is part of the land swap. It is currently part of this property, but the proposal is to make it part of the carwash property. MR. VOLLARO-But still in all, I can’t see the drawing from here that he has, but all of the green space that he shows to the north of the proposed Steakhouse, Outback, there’s more than 20 feet there. That’s providing that that buffer stays. Somebody could take that down. I think we have to specify that that shall be a minimum of a 20 foot buffer from that point along the so called Pine Road or Pine Drive, undeveloped. MR. JARRETT-We intended that to be a buffer, and we have no problem with conditioning any kind of action with that tree stand remaining. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The trees are greater than even this delineation of Pine Drive. There’s a lot more vegetation there than that. It would be nice if that would stay, because it would give at least. MR. JARRETT-That’s our intent to do that. So if you wish to condition it that way, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can that be a condition of? MR. JARRETT-Yes, it can. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. To go on to the environmental area. MR. HUNSINGER-There are the C.T. Male comments on the stormwater plan to address. MR. JARRETT-Correct. We have begun to address those. They are technical in nature and we plan to have those resolved by next meeting for you. MR. VOLLARO-Now, under the environmental, I had two things I put in there, and I’ve talked about them before here, but I’ll talk about them again, and they’re noise and air quality, the fumes and odors from the building. I’ve got a real concern about that for the people who live in close proximity to that. As I said, there’s about 200 foot from the Outback to the property line where. MR. JARRETT-Well, we’ve heard the comments from the Board as well as Staff, and some of the neighbors have contacted us directly regarding those issues, and we will come back next month with some direct feedback from Outback. In fact, we’ll have a representative from Outback with us next month. We deferred them this month, feeling that we would be up again next month. We will bring a representative and let him talk with you directly, him or her. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That would be fine. I don’t have anything else, in terms of neighborhood character, involved agencies, or other criteria not reviewed. So I think we’re finished with our site plan. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Just one last thing. Do we want to have traffic, a potential right of way shown between the properties for traffic? MR. VOLLARO-Between which? Between the carwash and? MR. SEGULJIC-Between the carwash and the restaurant property. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s the question that I asked before, whether or not that place directly south there, the green, would be used. In other words, would the new curb cut that they’re developing be used for the carwash, and they said no, and I go to that carwash. So I know that making a curb cut there, or not a curb cut, but an interconnection between the properties might not be beneficial. I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the point’s well taken, though. We always require applicants to show a potential future interconnect. MR. JARRETT-And we have indicated that in our application. That is a potential in the future. I don’t happen to personally feel it will be for the carwash. It could be for some redevelopment of that site. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but usually it’s shown on the plan somewhere. MR. JARRETT-We have no problem indicating it on the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-North and the south. MR. SEGULJIC-Don’t we want these properties to be interconnected at some point? MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can have them show that on the plan as a potential interconnect. MR. SEGULJIC-Why wouldn’t the carwash want to be serviced by? MR. JARRETT-Right now the traffic flow pattern through their site, I don’t think it’s conducive to an exit right there, but they ever redevelop that site. MR. SEGULJIC-And then going to the plaza to the north, that’s not conducive now, I assume, because the building is right there. MR. JARRETT-A connection could be made. We didn’t see any advantage to it, to be honest with you. If you insist on it, we can do it, but I didn’t think was any advantage. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think at a minimum we want them to show it on the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think so, too, just to be consistent. You can just label it as potential, you know, future connection. MR. JARRETT-Not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Is that, the northern line on that drawing, is that part of the? MR. JARRETT-That is the plaza. MR. VOLLARO-That is the plaza. MR. JARRETT-Yes. There is a tree buffer between the plaza and the motel, a thin tree buffer, and those are adjoining properties. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do we have any other involved agencies, County, DEC, Lake George Park Commission, APA or Army Corps? I don’t think there are other involved agencies here. I think we’re pretty much finished. Is there anybody here that wants to speak to this application? I’m going to open the public hearing on it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, we do have the letter from the owner of Robert Gardens. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. Since there’s nobody here to speak for them, would you please read that into the record. MR. BAKER-Certainly. “As a long term property owner of Robert Gardens North Apartments located on Weeks Rd., Town of Queensbury, I have concerns regarding the above proposed construction. Our apartment community consisting of 200 apartments, borders on the above property that is proposing an extension of their existing motel and adding a restaurant. We have always prided ourselves in offering quiet, convenient, secure and well maintained housing for the Queensbury, and wish this to continue for many future years. The majority of our tenants are retired citizens and those that are professionally employed, who enjoy the quiet atmosphere and secure housing we offer. We feel we are a valuable asset to the Town of Queensbury. The concerns area as follows: 1. The noise that would be escalated by a larger motel and restaurant with constant traffic. This would be disturbing to our tenants who occupy apartment buildings bordering on property. This past year we have seen a great deal of foot traffic coming through our property from The Budget Inn, in behind our apartment buildings, to apparently get over to the Wal-Mart plaza. Increasing the size of The Budget Inn will ultimately increase the amount of foot traffic through our property. 2. The issue of food trash that would be generated by the restaurant. Not only creating an odor in the summer months, but the concern that it be properly contained to avoid any infestations. Again, because this borders our property of residential housing, with only a wooded area between us. It is request that a berm be built and a barrier of stockade fencing and appropriate landscaping be erected between the properties, by Mr. Khurshid, to alleviate the noise factor and infringement onto our property by those visiting/occupying motel and restaurant. Also, that the concern over food trash be properly addressed and noted. Sincerely, Rudy Paulsen, Owner January 25, 2005” MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Okay. We’ve heard from them. They’ve got some of the same concerns that we have, and they’ll be addressed by the Outback people when they come before us on the next visit. I think I’ll close the public hearing, if nobody else wants to speak to this application. MS. RADNER-Mr. Vollaro, are you sure you want to close the public hearing if you’re going to have them come back? MR. VOLLARO-They’re coming back, so we’ll leave it open, and we’ll have to do a SEQRA. MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, if they’re coming back, shouldn’t we wait for the SEQRA until then? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I guess we should. Okay. So we don’t do anything. We’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. SANFORD-Well, we have to come up with a tabling motion. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Chris, do you want to handle that tabling motion? MR. HUNSINGER-I had three items. I know there’s probably some more. The first one being the traffic study, C.T. Male comments, future potential interconnections to the properties on the north and south on the plot plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Revised lighting plan. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Revised lighting plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Designated employee parking. MR. SANFORD-Did he mention revised drawings showing adjacent properties? MR. HUNSINGER-No. That’s why I said, I knew there were more. I’m sorry, how did you word that, Richard? MR. SANFORD-Revised drawings showing adjacent property owners, particularly the Robert Gardens complex, structures, and basically I want to measure it out, and that kind of thing. MR. JARRETT-We have no problem providing that information to you, but bear in mind, it’s contingent upon access to that property. If Robert Gardens denies us access, we can’t provide that, at least not accurately. I’m sure they will. They don’t have any reason not to. MR. HUNSINGER-Something else were color schemes. They did show us some, and quite frankly I had some questions on that, but I think we can deal with that later. MR. JARRETT-If you can give us a heads up as to your concerns, we can go back and talk with Outback and with our architects on the motel. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, looking at the green that’s on this plan compared to the green roof on the Outback, they look to be the same, and it looks kind of bright, as opposed to a dark green. MR. JARRETT-So you’d suggest a darker green on the Outback roof? MR. HUNSINGER-More of an Adirondack dark green, as opposed to the bright green that was shown. MR. JARRETT-Bear in mind I’ll be bucking corporate standard, but I’ll do my best. MR. HUNSINGER-They use bright green? I’m thinking something more this color, as opposed to, you know, more of a fluorescent green. MR. VOLLARO-Do we want to talk about the buffer at Pine Drive being at a minimum of 20, and shall be retained. They said they would. MR. HUNSINGER-So we want them to show that on the plan? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Show the 20 foot. MR. VOLLARO-Actually, show the woodland that’s back there as being retained. MR. JARRETT-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-It would probably be even more than 20 feet. MRS. STEFFAN-They also need to revise their site development data. MR. VOLLARO-And the site development data, and you’ve got the revised lighting plan down. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know if you mentioned already the landscaping plan for the trees? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Right, thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Chris, you mentioned a sidewalk. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Where do we want to go with that? Should we have them show a connection? MRS. STEFFAN-There is a sidewalk in front of the Mount Royal Plaza. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s a sidewalk along Route 9 in front of here, too, but there’s no connection to either the hotel or the restaurant. MR. JARRETT-Traffic flow around the restaurant dictates that we have that circulation. I don’t know how it would be easy to dedicate it as a sidewalk. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just trying to think, in the past, how we’ve dealt with similar issues where we had them draw a dotted line or something, or some sort of striping to show pedestrian access. MR. JARRETT-We can do that. We can put a sign. MRS. STEFFAN-Because folks will be walking from the motel to Wal-Mart, probably. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was thinking when they were reading the letter. If people are leaving the hotel and walking to Wal-Mart, if you had a proper marked. MR. JARRETT-Off the record, I’m hoping that clientele for the motel will change a little bit and we won’t have that pedestrian traffic to Wal-Mart, but we certainly will have pedestrian traffic from the motel and the restaurant. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, to the plaza to the north. MR. VOLLARO-I’m thinking about how to deal with the entrance to the Steakhouse over to a sidewalk. I just don’t see how they’re going to do that. MR. JARRETT-We can do a crosswalk with a sign, however. MR. VOLLARO-You can probably stripe it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’ve done that in the past. MR. JARRETT-At least warns drivers that there is a crossing. That’s not a problem. We can do it between the motel and the, we’ll do that between the mote and the restaurant as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Because this summer there were a lot more people walking on Route 9 than I’ve noticed before. MR. VOLLARO-I can’t think of anything else, Chris. I think you’ve got them all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think we’re ready. Do we have a date that we’re tabling this to? MR. SANFORD-How soon do you think you could get this stuff done? MR. JARRETT-The traffic study is kind of our controlling factor right now. We hope to be ready for next month. We would like to be back on next month’s agenda. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-You mean, our first Planning Board meeting is February 15, and the th submission date would be January 18. th MRS. STEFFAN-Which has past. MR. VOLLARO-Which is past. So I don’t know how you’re going to get to that. MR. JARRETT-Well, actually, what I’m referring to is not next month, but the following month for the February 15 deadline. th MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we’ll be tabling this to March. Would it be the first meeting in March? MR. HILTON-At this point, you specify. It’s your choice. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’ll specify it as the first meeting in March. MR. HILTON-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2005, NASREEN KHURSHID, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: To the first meeting in March pending the submission of the following: 1. A traffic study, 2. The applicant shall address the C.T. Male comments, 3. The applicant will show potential future interconnections to properties on the north and south, 4. A revised lighting plan, 5. A designation for employee parking in the future parking area, 6. Revised drawings to show the adjacent property structures, 7. The submission of color schemes for both the hotel and the restaurant, 8. A new plot plan shall show the pine buffer along Pine Lane with the dimension, 9. The applicant shall revise the site development data, 10. Revise the landscaping plans to be in conformance with the Route 9 Corridor requirements, 11. The revised plan shall also show a pedestrian walkway from the restaurant and the hotel to Route 9. Duly adopted this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. JARRETT-Thank you. This was constructive. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2004 JANE POTTER ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: NORTH SIDE SHERMAN AVENUE, EAST OF POWER LINE CROSSING SEE LETTER DATED 12/15/04 TO CHAIRMAN MAC EWAN AND BOARD MEMBERS FROM JONATHAN LAPPER FROM BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-27 JON LAPPER, STEFANIE BITTER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-In keeping with some of the comments that were made previously on discussion items, I think that I would prefer that we hear what you’ve got to say and we remain relatively silent. MR. LAPPER-Without lecturing the Board on democracy, I think that discussion items are good because it just, before the applicant spends a lot of money on design, you get a sense of what the Board’s looking for. Even though it’s not always apparent, our job, as consultants, is to try and provide a product that meets the Board’s requirements, and also the applicants needs. So this is a very unique situation, and the reason why, for the record, Jon Lapper, Stefanie Bitter, and Matt Steves, and Jane Potter the applicant is here tonight as well, and the reason we’re on as a discussion item is because we submitted for Preliminary and Final. Matt Steves was here before the Board for Preliminary and Final last time. We resubmitted for Preliminary and Final and it was not accepted, so we couldn’t get on a regular agenda item because Staff or the group from the Planning Board that reviews applications for completeness determined that we couldn’t be heard, and where we’re really going with this is that we think that we need to go to Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment action and ask the Court to decide whether this is a taking, and what I’ve discussed with your Counsel, it’s a question of whether you want to go ahead and deny the application, but in order to deny it, you have to accept it and put it on the agenda, and then we can appeal that, or else, because we’re not trying to embarrass the Board, instead of appealing a denial, maybe we could just stipulate that this is a legal issue and not a planning issue and let the Court decide whether or not this is a taking that requires compensation by the Town. What’s going on here, essentially, our client has a four lot subdivision that’s pending, and apparently from discussions, from correspondence in the file from the Highway Department and discussions with the Planning Board, the last time this was up, there’s a pre- existing issue that has nothing to do with mitigating impacts from these four lots, that the Town would like to connect Ferris Drive to Sherman Avenue. Apparently there were a whole bunch of people from Ferris Drive that are concerned about their road becoming a through street, but that’s not our issue. Our issue is that to require that this land be dedicated to a Town road, the purpose is not because these four lots are going to create a traffic impact. It’s because there’s already been a plan that has a public purpose, that there ought to be a connection, and our legal research shows that when there’s a public purpose that’s not related to impacts created by the project, that that’s the case where it’s a taking, where there has to be, it doesn’t have to be a condemnation, it could be agreed, but that the Town has to pay fair market value. What happens to Jane is that she has a property that she’s purchasing for $50,000, as we put in our letter. She’s proposing to subdivide it, so that four houses can be built here. The road has been estimated to cost $50,000, and she would lose a lot. So in terms of the economics of this project, it doesn’t make sense for what would then be a three lot subdivision, that she could pay $50,000 and $50,000 to improve it, but beyond that, the legal argument is that she shouldn’t have to pay the $50,000 for the improvement, nor donate the value of that road bed, because that’s not, again, to mitigate her impacts, but it’s because of a public purpose for the Town, and there’s nothing wrong, any municipality, the Town of Queensbury, has the right to condemnation if there’s a public purpose. The Town has a right to take the land and put the road in. The Town of Queensbury certainly has the money to allocate to that, if that’s deemed by the Town Board to be a public purpose, and certainly this Board can appropriately recommend to the Town Board that it should be taken as a Town road, although obviously our client would prefer to have four lots rather than three. The Town has the legal right to do that if you want, but our position is that what would not be legal would be to demand that this applicant who comes in with a four lot conforming subdivision shouldn’t be asked to have to spend the money to dedicate the land and to create and pave the road and drain the road, etc. So it’s not really a planning issue. We see it as a legal issue, and if that’s the case, it would probably be best served for everybody to let the Supreme Court decide whether this is a taking and whether 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) compensation is required, and then if we’re correct and the Town Board can decide whether it’s an appropriate expenditure of funds and whether they want to make this a Town road, but that, under these circumstances, it’s just not right to ask Jane. So if you want to let us go forward, we can submit the subdivision, as we already have, and you can reject it and deny it and then we can appeal that, or we could just all agree that we should go for a declaratory judgment and ask the Court to decide what the right answer is, but if we can’t get on an agenda, we can’t do anything. MS. RADNER-May I? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you may. MS. RADNER-Because there was discussions regarding discussions had with Counsel, I just want to put a slightly different spin on things. My understanding is that what this Board has done so far is not demanded a road but demanded that they see a plan that would include a road, which can be two very different things. I would not recommend to you at this point that you stipulate that this is going to go to Supreme Court. We can’t, of course, stop the applicant if he wants to file some sort of a petition. He’s certainly got his right to do so, but we think that you, as a Planning Board, know your jobs, know what you’re doing when you do a subdivision review, and that it is within the parameters of our Subdivision Regulations for you to examine design layout, impacts of this project, access to this site, and impacts that this site will have on adjoining properties. My understanding was that one of the things that the applicant wanted to discuss tonight, and this may be my misunderstanding from discussions with them, was the costs of just submitting the proposed plan and the reasons why they don’t want to submit even the proposed plan, and then perhaps this Board could give them some direction of whether they would be willing to consider the application complete and go forward without that proposed road, or whether they really feel that the proposed road is necessary as at least an alternate plan. Does that make sense? MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense. We had asked, I think the tabling motion on this had asked for an alternate plan. I think Mr. Sanford put the motion up and he had asked for an alternate plan, and I don’t know whether the applicant is planning to do that or not, but I would like to see it, if there’s a feasible alternate plan, I certainly would like to see it, because right now, just from one Board member, I don’t see how those lots will function with that hammerhead there, in terms of how the Highway Department’s going to handle snow at the end of that, because both of those driveways on both of those lots, and I don’t have the drawing in front of me, I’m going from memory now, but both of those driveways come out on that hammerhead. MR. LAPPER-The Town’s plowing that hammerhead now. MR. VOLLARO-They’re using it to put snow on. It’s a storage spot for snow. MR. STEVES-There’s an existing driveway off the end of that hammerhead now, on the west side. Are they going to plow and impede his driveway? No. They clear the entire hammerhead, just as they would do if there were two more driveways out there. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not what Mr. Missita said in his letter, or maybe he’s leading. MR. STEVES-Another driveway could be off the end of Ferris Drive and we wouldn’t have to be here. He could build one house and put another driveway at the end. MR. SANFORD-Bob, why don’t we save this for when and if it comes back to us as an application. Right now it’s a discussion item. I think we’ve spent time with it. We’re likely to spend additional time with it, but I just don’t see why we should be rehashing the actual review of the application. MR. HILTON-Well, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just to kind of, and I think it’s been touched on, but I just want to clarify. The tabling resolution specified an alternate plan be supplied. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it did. MR. HILTON-I think we have to kind of iron that out, whether or not they’re going to submit one or not, because let’s take, for instance, we, Staff, receive no alternate plan showing a through road from Ferris to Sherman. It’s likely that the application would be deemed incomplete, once again, and not appear before you. So I think we’re kind of in a Catch 22 here, and unless this Board specifies, if they’re going to look for an alternate plan or not, or amends a previous motion, I don’t know, but just to let you know how it might be treated. MR. SANFORD-George, I think you made a valid point, and I think I applaud the effort to call it not complete. However, I think Mr. Lapper has made some compelling points as well. I say if they’re not willing to do it, I agree with Counsel, whatever legal avenue they want to take is the legal avenue they’re going to take, but I think that we should give them the opportunity to come back with an application, even if it’s the existing application, and make a decision. MR. VOLLARO-I tend to agree with that, and I suspect that that’s what they will do is come back with the existing application, we would deny that. MR. SANFORD-Well, we may or may not deny it. You don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know. We denied it before. I’d like to clarify what the Highway Department said. MR. METIVIER-We never denied that application. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t deny it. We tabled it. MR. VOLLARO-We tabled it, but we tabled it for a reason. MR. LAPPER-That would be perfectly acceptable to us what Mr. Sanford said, and I also, I don’t dispute that it would be a good Town purpose to put the road in. It’s just a question of whether it’s appropriate to ask the applicant to pay for it. She’d rather not have the road there, but if you think that that’s the right answer for Town Planning, it’s a question of how it should be denied and who should pay for it, but if we could just get back in, and even if it means a denial, at least we could move the process forward. So that’s perfectly acceptable. We feel we’d accomplish something tonight if that’s where we go. MR. VOLLARO-I’d say to come back in with whatever you’ve got to come back in, whether you’ve decided to take it as an alternate plan or not. MR. LAPPER-The problem with designing the road is that it’s the engineering for the road, the grading, the stormwater, and, since she’s not planning on building it, to have to spend the money for the engineering is something that, you know, she’d rather not do. We’d rather have a denial and then we could decide what to do. We don’t want a denial, but we’d rather that route than spend a few thousand dollars on engineering fees and get something approved that she can’t afford to build anyway. MR. SANFORD-You just want to know where you stand. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, and I really respect your opinion, Jon, but I disagree with you wholeheartedly. I do believe it is a planning issue. That’s just my own personal opinion. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Whether or not there should be another cut through between Peggy Ann and Sherman is certainly a planning issue, but the legal issue is whether or not this applicant, for a four lot subdivision, should be asked to pay for it. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m just thinking in terms of the SEQRA and the subdivision plans for the subdivision to the north, and that may have been viewed very differently if all of a sudden you had two additional lots. So I think it really is a planning issue. MR. LAPPER-But this has nothing to do with that subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-It has everything to do with it, if you want to put two driveways off the hammerhead at the end of Ferris Drive. MR. LAPPER-I just mean that it wasn’t part of the same plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Then all of a sudden it does become part of that same plan, and that subdivision was not approved. I’m just trying to lay out some of the reasons why I do, indeed, think it’s a planning issue and not a legal issue. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and it may be good planning to put the road in, but it’s a question of the legal issue is who should pay for it, and I guess, and we submitted to the Board a Federal Supreme Court case, Dolan vs. City of Tigerd, which is in Oregon, and this was one of the big taking’s cases that happened six or seven years ago, where someone was asked to put in a bike path, and there was a question of whether it was related to that project or something that the community wanted, which we think is pretty on point, and that’s the basis that we would ask the Court to look at this. So, I mean, in terms of, and I’m not disputing Chris. It’s a question of who pays for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. LAPPER-So we’ll resubmit and we’ll come back and we’ll talk about it again. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s the plan. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. QUEENSBURY PARTNERS PROPERTY OWNER: BRB GROUP AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP ZONE: PO LOCATION: SW CORNER OF BAY RD. & BLIND ROCK RD. CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS A MIX OF 4 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND 12 MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS CONTAINING 164 DWELLING UNITS ON A 34 +/- ACRE PROPERTY. INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED SHOWING FOUR OFFICE BUILDINGS ALONG BAY ROAD AND MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS WITH TWO AND THREE STORIES. TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 MICHAEL TOOHEY & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TOOHEY-Good evening. Let me introduce myself. My name’s Mike Toohey. I’m an attorney from Saratoga Springs. I’ve represented the Albany Partners who are one of the principals with regard to this application, with regard to other projects that they’ve successfully put forth in the Saratoga County. We appreciate the fact that the Board is allowing us to have this discussion this evening. As you know, Bruce Schnitz was here with this plan back in October, and there was a very pointed and frank discussion with the Board having to do with the use and utilization of this plan. We took many of the things to heart that the Board proposed at that time, and have come back with another plan that we’d like to go over with you briefly. Do you have the plan in front of you, so that everybody can see what we’re talking about? MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure when it’s appropriate. Mr. Chairman, would you rather I wait before I ask a question? 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would like him to continue on presenting his position, because I’d like us to not get into too much dialogue with the applicant on this one, if possible. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. MR. TOOHEY-Okay. Thank you. The plan that you have before you, we believe, is both in compliance with the Town’s Master Plan and with the Zoning Code and all pertinent parts of the Zoning Code. What we’ve done, from the plan that was first here, which was entirely comprised of multi-family units, is to shift those units and build in the Professional Office, which this property is located in, Professional Office is along Bay Road. The buildings that you see in the front, that are marked A, consist roughly of 20,000 square feet apiece. They are designed in compliance, we believe, with the Bay Road corridor concept, as to exactly what it is that you’re proposing to have, 10,000. They are in compliance with the height. If you look at the way they’re designed, they take into consideration exactly what is being considered by the Bay Road portion of the Zoning Code. Now, behind that, we have introduced two different styles of multi-family residential uses. Within the Professional Office zone, and the Zoning Code, the law for the Town of Queensbury, multiple family is, in fact, permitted, and the density that we’re proposing, through the buildings that you see here, is less than the density that is permitted under the statistical analysis that the Town makes with regard to the number of units that could be proposed, that being the area that is there would allow 177 units. We’re proposing 164 units in buildings of two and three stories. We showed you, the last time we were here, the general design of the building. You can be assured that as we come back and go through this process, that we would have the full design for those properties analyzed. The question, as we like to say, the 800 pound gorilla that is really in the room with regard to this project is a diversity in concept, an idea having to do with what comes first, the Comprehensive Plan, or the Zoning Code. It’s our position, and I think it’s supported very clearly legally, that with regard to those two different documents, the Zoning Code is an Ordinance. An Ordinance is a law of the Town of Queensbury that the various Boards are charged, and members of the community are charged with enforcing. The Comprehensive Plan is merely that. It is a plan, and interestingly as you look at this project and the timeframes in it, the Comprehensive Plan, as it is it is called, the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, was created in that year, and within the Code, or the Plan itself, it talks very clearly that the purpose for the Comprehensive Plan is to get the Zoning Code changed. The Zoning Code was subsequently changed by the Town Counsel, and it is the position, the legal position, that the Town Counsel is the legislative body for the community and they have the responsibility for creating the Zoning Code that we all have to live by, and in passing that Zoning Code, subsequent to the Comprehensive Plan being created, you have to consider that they included those portions of the Comprehensive Plan within that Code that they wish to have included. The reverse of that is also true. Those areas that they did not want to include within that, they have excluded. Specifically with regard to this property, as we all know multi-family was a permitted use prior to these changes that we’re talking about. The Town Counsel imposed or put and added in to it, the Professional Offices concept in here, but very specifically did not exclude from that the multi-family and 20 other uses that are permitted within the PO zone. Now one of the arguments or discussion points that were had at your last meeting is that the Zoning Code says that only Professional Offices can be located within this zone, for the first 1,000 feet. The problem with that is there’s nothing within either the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Code that says that. In fact, quite the opposite is true. If, and we’ve all looked at this. If you look at your chart, you’ll see within those 20 uses there’s only one pertinent footnote, and it says that offices and professional offices only can be located within the first 1,000 feet. At no point does it say that any of the other uses, the other 18 uses within that Code, have to be outside that 1,000 feet, and there’s nothing else, because if you really go and interpret that that’s the way that this is going to go, many of those uses that you have become ludicrous. For example, if you’re saying that only Professional Offices can be within that 1,000 feet, then a house of worship, church has to be 1,000 feet away. A produce stand, which is clearly intended to be on the roadway, has to be 1,000 feet away. Every one of these other uses have to be 1,000 feet away. That cannot be what the Town Counsel intended, and in fact that’s not what they wrote. The other aspect of this that becomes important here is that the Zoning Code, when it was created, the new Zoning Code, the Town Counsel had the opportunity to create a whole new zone. They could have called it a Professional Office One 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) zone. There’s 30 some zones within the Town of Queensbury. Clearly they have the ability to create zones, and if what they wanted to do is really say that the Bay Road corridor was so unique as to require that only professional offices be located within that 1,000 foot buffer on both sides of it, all they had to do was create another zone. They decided, affirmatively, as the legislative body, not to do that, and left in those other 19 or 20 uses. If they did that, there was a purpose for that. Right, and one of the purposes was to allow this kind of mixed use when you take into consideration the Bay corridor design concepts. Now what we have here, what we believe we have here, is something that corresponds, ideally, with the Bay Road design corridor. What it has is professional businesses. It has the 75 foot setback. It has the 36 foot building that is one or two stories. It will be designed to look residential by its very nature. It has limited shared access into the property. It has parking that is generally located to the rear. Access to the property will be to the rear. Sidewalks and pedestrian pathways will be created. If you go down through that entire Code, you have exactly what it is that it says is required, and there is nothing within the Code that says we can’t then transition within our own property to use that property for other uses. Now, in reading very carefully the minutes of the last meeting, the only reference that I could glean that talked about there being this 1,000 foot criterion references in Sketch Number Seven, which, as you know in the Code is very, very hard to read. So what we did was get that Code blown up. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve already blown up that. MR. TOOHEY-Great, great. Thank you. Because I couldn’t read the darn thing before, but if you look at every note that is on this thing, there is nothing in here, either by scale or otherwise, that tells us that it has to be this use, 1,000 foot back, in the PO zone. All right. The only reference that I saw in your last minutes is the reference that is kind of up in the right hand side where it says 100 foot buffer to residential zone. That 100 foot buffer is used to modify the term residential zone. Residential zone is not intended to be the use within the existing zone. It is to the residential zone. I know you’re all familiar with your own zoning map, and if you look at that, on that entire Bay Road corridor, if you go either to the east or to the west, behind the PO zone, are residential zones. So what this is referencing is, as the PO zone, with its multiple uses, many of them relatively heavy, moves in on to the residential zone, that there has to be a 100 foot buffer to the residential zone. It doesn’t mean that halfway through this thing, or at any point through this, that there has to be a requirement for a 100 foot gap between in which there is a buffer. In other words, there’s not designed within this plan to be a no man’s land, or no woman’s land, in which there is nothing that is supposed to exist. Now, let’s talk about implementation. Since this has come into being, there have been other projects that have been approved within this corridor, and if you use this 1,000 foot criterion as being the lynchpin for this particular corridor, that means that there should be no residential multifamily developments that are within 1,000 feet of the Bay Road corridor, and in fact there are two that are within 1,000 feet of the Bay Road corridor, those being the Cedars and Baybrook Apartments. Both of those are not outside the 1,000 feet. So this own Board, during its approval process, has not interpreted that with regard to the development of the plans. Now, what we’re trying to do here is develop a plan that is a mixed use type of plan, that keeps to the heart of the Bay Road corridor, that being a Professional Office on the front end, but also does not purely ignore the entire rest of the Zoning Code with regard to other uses that can be and are permitted within that particular zone. So as a result, what we’ve done is taken all those concepts of shared parking, limited access, big setbacks, sidewalks along the front, all those things, and tried to have a mixed use development on this particular piece of property. That’s the concept that we’re bringing back. That’s the modifications that we have made to the plan, and that’s the basis and our rationale for being able to do what I think your Zoning Code allows us to do. MS. RADNER-May I make one minor point for clarification? Just for the record. Mr. Toohey made references to the Town Counsel, and of course our Zoning Ordinance is passed by a Town Board, and so hopefully none of you have confused the references of Town Counsel to Town Counsel as in your attorney. It’s, of course, the Town Board that passes that. MR. SANFORD-What’s the purpose of this discussion? I mean, why are you here? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. TOOHEY-The purpose we’re here is at the last meeting in October there was a very frank discussion and we, in fact, at that meeting, said we were going to come back for further discussion, and the members of the Board invited us back at that time. They said that’s fine, you can come on back, back on in, because we want you to modify the plan that you had presented at that time, which was purely multifamily. MR. SANFORD-I guess my question, if I’m not making myself clear, is why did you come back with, as I said earlier, I don’t know if you were here at the beginning of this meeting, but I’m not sure what a discussion item really is. We typically will have a Sketch Plan and there’s some criteria that exist for Sketch Plan and then we could have an exchange once we have those criteria fulfilled, and then there’s Preliminary and then there’s Final and there’s these types of things, but a discussion, I’m not exactly sure what this is. Obviously you’re giving us your point of view. MR. TOOHEY-Right. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but, you know, in our Code we don’t provide for this as a regular approach to developing a parcel of land, and so I’m a little bit confused as to what your intention is, and what you’re really expecting out of this. MR. TOOHEY-Okay. One of the things, as a public body, which is exactly what the Planning Board is, is not to make the process anymore difficult than it has to be for purposes of applicants, and as a result, again as a public body, as a public service, one of the things I believe that all Planning Boards, Zoning Boards, or even Town Counsels have are the right to discuss with people who in good faith come to you to ask for your opinion with regard to this. We understand that this is not binding on them, but as opposed to spending what you’ve already heard once this evening is thousands of dollars with regard to various levels of planning that go into any one of these projects, I think we’ve got a right, through your good offices if you so chose, and you certainly can sit there and say we don’t want to discuss with the public projects, but through your good offices we can gain some insight from you as to whether or not we’re on the right track. What has happened so far? At the last meeting we came in and clearly, from the comments that we saw, we were not on the right track. You didn’t like the fact that, by your view, we had not taken into consideration what you believed to be the heart of the Bay Road corridor is. So what we’ve done is go on back and try to modify our plan so as to incorporate, on a line by line basis, those things that are there, and we’re asking for input from the Board. The Board absolutely has the right to sit there and say thank you very much, we don’t need to give you any input. Thanks for being here, but we would ask you to, you know, give us your insights. MR. SANFORD-Well, Mr. Toohey, you said you read the minutes, studied the minutes of the last meeting. I think I haven’t looked at them since a while back, but I do recall, I think at that meeting, when the gentleman who was here where you’re sitting got into what if’s with the Board. I think I made the point that it really isn’t our role to help an applicant design a project. That’s not our role. It would perhaps definitely be an inappropriate role for us. Basically what we’re supposed to be doing, as I look at our job, is to be responding to an application that is in front of us, and that was clearly stated, I think, in those minutes and it seems to me, by having this discussion, you’re almost looking for a cooperative effort in designing your project, which was clearly stated in the minutes, that that’s not a role that we feel comfortable with at this Board. MR. TOOHEY-Okay. In the last time we were here, we, in fact, had a full application that is still pending before this Board, and at that point, you’re absolutely correct that your position was that you felt uncomfortable with regard to being of assistance, but there were many other members of the Board who were very cooperative with regard to attempting to create a plan for utilization of what the Town has discussed as an important site within the community, so as to come up with the best possible plan. Ultimately Planning Boards and applicants are trying to come up with those plans that are suitable for the Town’s needs and economically viable for the 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) developer’s needs. If those two lines don’t intersect, usually you don’t end up with a plan, and as opposed to sitting and just continually bringing back plans, what we thought, and based on the minutes of that meeting, what we received back was the idea that go back, do it again, and come on back and talk to us. Now that seemed, certainly not from your point of view, but from other members of the Board’s. MR. SANFORD-Well, the reason I feel the way I feel, it’s not to be antagonistic or confrontational. It’s because I think there’s a risk we run. If we give you ideas without having a completed application in front of us, we lack quite a few material facts. So we may, someone on the Board may give you a suggestion. You take that to heart, and you come back and incorporate it in your plan, and then when we have a complete application in front of us, we don’t feel the same way. The rebuttal is, well, why did you say that when we were having the discussion, and this has happened to us. So I think it’s from a point of being just prudent. I think it’s risky on our part to establish a dialogue when we don’t really have anything in front of us, other than, I guess, a concept. I think we run a risk. MR. VOLLARO-I’m deep in the listening mode here. A couple of things that were said that I want to clarify. The two residential communities that are on the Bay Road currently may not be set back to that 1,000 feet, but they’re certainly not up front on the road. The apartments cannot be seen from Bay Road, and you’ve really got to strain to look in on the Cedars. They’re all set pretty far back. I don’t know they’re 1,000 feet, but they’re close. MR. TOOHEY-They’re not. MR. VOLLARO-They’re close. MR. TOOHEY-The reason I brought that up is I believe from the minutes that I saw, that that thousand feet, at least for some of the members of the Board, was a law, part of the Ordinance and there was a line driven in the sand. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a guideline. It’s part of the Bay Road guidelines, and I, for one member of the Board, looked at it exactly that way. MR. TOOHEY-Where do you see that guideline? And again, I am not being confrontational. I really tried to look at it. MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the Code. It’s part of our 179 Chapter, and it says Bay Road Office Park layout. MR. TOOHEY-That’s this plan we have right here. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. TOOHEY-And there’s no place on this that says 1,000 feet. MR. VOLLARO-No, but it does say that the buffer, that the residential zone is 100 foot behind. That’s where I’ve drawn the line of 1,000 feet. MR. TOOHEY-Okay, but that doesn’t say 1,000. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t say 1,000 feet, no. MR. TOOHEY-And I think I’ve given you the only logical explanation for what that phrase means on it. When you talk about buffer zones within zones, the term zone is a term of art. It really means something, and you do have zones here. You have the PO zone and behind, again, through this entire corridor, on both sides, you have residential zones, and what they’re saying is they don’t want to have those 20 some uses that are permitted within the PO zone to abut right up to that residential zone. So they’re creating a system, by reference only, because it’s not 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) in the Code, reference only, that you need to put 100 foot buffer, i.e. a setback. As opposed to a setback, a buffer is a defined use and utilization of land that has to do with trees remaining, berms being created, other things of that nature. MR. VOLLARO-Well, right now there’s a lot of precedent on the Bay Road for the way we see it, the Schermerhorn activity that’s going on, that’s all commercial up on the Bay Road, office space. That’s what he’s decided to put in there. The Baybridge community is set way back off the Bay Road, although it is viewable, it’s a residential community, it’s set far back off the Bay Road. All the work that’s been done so far, since this Code has been put in place, has been complying with this as residential offices, as professional offices in the PO zone. I still hold, I could ask a couple of questions here, but I think Mr. Sanford’s absolutely correct. We should probably not be getting into very much dialogue of what is this and what is that, and how high and how low, whatever, until we have a firm plan in front of us that we can discuss. I wouldn’t want the Board to get into too much dialogue on this, for exactly that reason. You’ve given us your view, and I understand it, and we’ll listen very carefully to it, and I can understand where you’re coming from, but I think the Board has to be able to act on an application that stands before it. MR. TOOHEY-But again, one of the concepts that we had we came back here is the idea of feedback. See, I don’t perceive, as Mr. Sanford does, that all of a sudden you’re putting yourself at great risk. What you’re doing is trying to act as a Board that is, in fact, planning something, by giving input for it, as opposed to running back in and out, as to the general concepts that are incorporated here. I think it is always very helpful for a governmental body, a governmental board, to be of assistance to the people in the general public. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I know this, that there was a previously approved project on this site that I thought was well done. It was for professional offices, and what was previously approved is what we think we want there. MR. TOOHEY-That may be what you think, except we’ve got other rights. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, although that was a concept put before us which we approved as a subdivision at that time for Professional Offices, and now it’s turned into something else. Something different. MR. TOOHEY-Again, from the minutes of the prior meeting, there were certainly a couple of members who sat there and said that they would like to discuss, if not look favorably upon, like to discuss the idea of a mixed use type of development, all right, one that is, incorporates both of those things. That’s clearly within those minutes, and again, what we’ve attempted to do is present to you, in compliance with the Code, and the Master Plan, the idea that this is what we’re going to do, because even in the Master Plan, it leaves open the idea that there can be high density residential in the Bay Road corridor, so long as sanitary sewer, public sanitary sewer, would be supplied, and this plan we have already told the Board, and we’ll tell them again, that our intent would be to extend the sanitary sewer line north on Bay Road, so as to incorporate this zone, and again, there are portions of the Master Plan that says, yes, that can be done. Number Eight Neighborhood, Eight/Nine Neighborhood. There’s a very specific part about that that says we don’t want to see multifamily units within this area, which is where we’re talking about, until sanitary sewer can be introduced. That’s what we’re doing. So, you certainly can take from that that once it is, it is permitted. It is permitted within the zone, and again, all we’re looking for is some input. MR. SANFORD-Well, here’s a bit of advice. The problem I have with the process is that if we’re frank, like Mr. Vollaro just was with you, you then fall back on your strict interpretation of the law, or the Code, as a rebuttal for why you discount his input, and so it seems to me that this process could lead to almost designed through incremental, an incremental process, which I don’t think is healthy for this Board to get involved with that kind of a process. If you took Mr. Vollaro’s, what he just expressed to heart, he’s basically saying, put aside your very technical interpretation of the Zoning Code. He’s saying there’s a lot of attributes that don’t work with 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) the corridor, and yet when he makes a statement like that, which is as plain as can be, your position is, well, land owners have rights, and the law doesn’t necessarily totally interpret it. So I’m wondering what kind of a discussion really is this? Is it a debate or is it an exchange of ideas? I thought when you came in the first time, I’m not sure if that was a Sketch or Preliminary or what that was. The gentleman that was there, I thought he did a very nice job in having an exchange and the discussion, and I think he heard us loud and clear what our concerns were. Now, just to jump out a little bit on a limb, and violate my own feelings which I don’t think we should discuss this too much, I don’t think this deviates too much from your first plan. I don’t really think, if you read those minutes, you really heard what we were saying. MR. TOOHEY-Input from anyone else? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything further to say, but I would like to make a comment to Staff. There are a number of people sitting in the audience here, and I’m wondering whether we should open this up to public discussion. MS. RADNER-A number of people are here because they received a courtesy notice that advised them that this was up for discussion, but that also advised them that there would not be a public hearing this evening. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There was that advice. Okay. I didn’t know. MR. SANFORD-But, Counselor, there’s no parameters to discussion items. I think we discussed that earlier. MS. RADNER-Correct. MR. SANFORD-So, Mr. Chairman, it’s really a discretionary call. There isn’t a format for this. I think we’ve established there’s no format. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I think that what you’ve said is a notice was sent out from Staff that said we would not have a public hearing, would not have public comment. MS. RADNER-That it’s not scheduled for a public hearing, correct. AUDIENCE MEMBER AUDIENCE MEMBER-Who was it sent to? MR. BAKER-It was sent to the follow citizens groups. Twicwood Homeowners Association, Citizens for Queensbury, Courthouse Homeowners Association and the Glen Lake Protective Association, and property owners within 500 feet. That’s correct. MR. TOOHEY-Just for my own clarification, because one of the things that Mr. Sanford is talking about, it sounds more like what he’s discussing is the process that you go through for subdivision of property. Clearly this is not something we’re not seeking any subdivision of the property. This is a site plan review process, all right. So in a site plan review process there’s not a Preliminary and a follow-up, etc. That, again, has more to do with a subdivision of the property, and in a site plan process of my experience in the communities that I’ve been to is that there is this give and take that we’re looking for, and it is not so striated as to have to be conceptual, Preliminary and Final, again, subdivision approval, and I didn’t know if the Staff, and certainly you have control over your own Staff, have any insight as to that. The other, there’s one other point on this. If we weren’t permitted, because we have some violation of the Zoning Code, the 1,000 foot rule, wherever that may be, I don’t think our original application would have been passed on, because it would seem to me that the Staff who looks at these, and the members of the Planning Board who are on the committee that look at it would have sat there and said, the application is not completed and should be referred to the Zoning Board 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) because you need a zoning variance of some nature to allow the plan to go forth, and that’s never happened in this. MR. SANFORD-You’re from Saratoga? Sometimes politics enter into things that happen up here in Warren County, and I’m not saying that it is or it isn’t here, but a lot of times we get applications in front of us for a whole host of reasons, and one could debate or discuss whether or not they should have ever got to that point, but they get in front of us for whatever reason. MR. TOOHEY-And for whatever reason that they’re there, they have to be processed in an orderly fashion, I would think. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me say this. We’ve looked at your concept. We’ve heard the words. Each Planning Board member has heard the words. I have to agree with Mr. Sanford. I don’t think that this is a very radical departure from what we’ve seen before. It merely puts a couple of offices up on the Bay Road which tends to try to shield the real issue, in my mind. MR. TOOHEY-And what is the real issue? MR. VOLLARO-The real issue is that we’d like to have the residential setback 1,000 feet. That’s my position on that. MR. TOOHEY-Maybe I can ask the question in a different fashion. Is that 1,000 foot rule something you would like or is it, that 1,000 foot rule, you can point to in anything that says it’s got to be 1,000 feet? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing that I can point to is Figure Seven, really, and I didn’t bring my blown up copy so I can’t read these general guidelines. See, what I view that as, if you look at this drawing, where it says 100 foot buffer, now I’m getting into dialogue which I said I wouldn’t do, but I will in the sense it talks about a 100 foot buffer to the residential zone, and then it gives what looks like the outline of a property outline for that commercial parcel, and then says from that point on, to a hundred foot buffer. It would be 100 foot between that and the residential zone out in the back, and you can’t scale this drawing. That’s one of the problems I had with it. It says scale one to one hundred, if you look at the scale at the lower right hand, and getting to the actual full drawing, if I could get to the Chazen drawing, the Chazen drawing is full scale, and on a one hundred to one scale, I could determine whether or not that line showed 1,000 feet or not, right, but I can’t do it on this drawing because it’s been a reduced drawing. MR. TOOHEY-Okay. That’s not indicated in here. MR. VOLLARO-I might ask a question to Staff here. I would like you to contact the Chazen group and be able to get us at least one full scale drawing of Figure No. 7, so that we can scale off this drawing. MR. TOOHEY-And again, not to be argumentative, we’ve done that already, and this plan, even as it’s sitting, there’s not 1,000 feet. It’s just not there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. TOOHEY-And again, please look at whatever map you want. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that’s it. I think that closes it. We’re not going to do a public hearing because, I don’t know. Let me put a question out. How many people in the audience would like to speak? It’s 10 minutes to 11 and I think that I would like to hear some public comment on this, actually. So, I’m going to violate whatever rule has been established and go forth with some public comment. MR. TOOHEY-This isn’t a public hearing. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MS. RADNER-No, it’s not, but it’s at his discretion to allow public discussion just as he allows discussion from you. MR. VOLLARO-This forum, as Mr. Sanford put forward, is not a forum that appears in our Code, so I think I have the right, here, to request that some of the people that are here to speak, and let them speak. MR. TOOHEY-So the process is that we can’t have a discussion, but, in a non public meeting, the public can have a discussion. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve had your discussion, pretty much. MR. TOOHEY-No, we’ve spoken to you, and we appreciate the opportunity to do that, but there’s been at least four members of the Board who have never, have not responded with regard to anything that’s going on. MR. METIVIER-How can we respond, though. I mean, we can’t respond because we don’t have an application in front of us. If we tell you we like it, we don’t like it, we want something else, you come back to us and you say, well, the last time we were here you told us this is what you wanted, and we’re bound to that. We’re not necessarily bound to that. We’re in a Catch-22 here. We don’t know how to proceed with this. This conversation should not be taking place tonight. My feeling is, if you want to come forth with an application for us, pertaining to what we asked you to do the last time you were here, so be it. If we like it, wonderful. If we don’t, we’ll send you back, but to have this dialogue, and you searching for an answer from us, do you like it or don’t you, we can’t do that. We just cannot do that because we’re not in a forum that we could, and you will hold it to us. It’s happened before. The whole thing with Sketch Plans. People come back and say, well, when we were at Sketch Plan you told us this. Well, you know what, we shouldn’t do Sketch Plans either then. Bring us an application and at that point we can let you know yes or no or great or bad or, you know what we’re looking for. We told the gentleman who was at the table the last time exactly what we were looking for. This isn’t particularly it. This is not it. Okay. We wanted to see things, you know, you discussed your issues with the 1,000 feet, and how you perceive it, and we know how we perceive it, and, you know, this isn’t necessarily what I’m looking for. MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel about getting some public comment tonight on this. Should we or should we not. Mr. Sanford? MR. SANFORD-I think, leave it up to the public. If they want to comment, but I think the, I would say applicant but he’s not the applicant, but Mr. Toohey encourages discussion. MR. SEGULJIC-I think you should do it. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m really on the fence. I’m feeling like we should, probably the best recommendation is to have the Queensbury Partners meet with Staff, because some of the things we have in our discussion item memorandum are things that they need to address. It gives direction on heights and things like that, and driveway entrances and things that need to be dealt with before we see the next plan. In listening to the discussion, it gave me some things to think about. Yes, when we review applications, we look at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and we look at the Zoning regulations, which are supposed to be our Town laws, but I also was thinking that we’re in the middle of a transition period. We’ve grown a lot and we still have a lot more growth to face, and so we’ve got a Planning Ordinance Review Committee that’s looking at Zoning regulations that aren’t working. We’re looking at hiring a consultant to help us with that process. So we know that we have some things that aren’t working right now, and your application happens to fall in the middle of all that, and this Planning Board, and I’m new to it. This is my first month as a member, and I’ve served a year as an alternate, and I’ve sat through all these meetings, and it’s not an easy job, because you are weighing and considering against a whole raft of criteria that’s just, the amount of pages is staggering, and it’s 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) not just the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it’s not just the Zoning regulations, it’s also the Open Space Vision for the Town. It’s looking at affordable housing strategies. We currently are waiting for the final build out analysis on the Town, and so we have all these issues that we’re trying to weigh and consider. We have people that are trying to build on wetlands all the time, and we do get feedback, and I’ve heard it as an alternate. I’ve heard it as an audience member. Things that come up during some of our site plan discussions or preliminaries come back to bite us, and some counsels will tell the Planning Board, well, why didn’t you tell us that. We just invested all that money. Well, this is not an easy job, and so there’s a great deal of information that we need to weigh and consider, but the first course of action, I think, is to talk with our Community Development Staff first to address some of the issues that are prevalent, and then to come back with a revised plan, so that we can give you some guidance. I know, for one, I have to go back and look at some of the items that you have mentioned. That’s where I am. MR. TOOHEY-Very good. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I think I would tend to agree with Gretchen more than some of the other comments. I think it’s a very, this could be a very difficult position for us. There’s a lot of development pressure. There’s a lot of concerns among the Town about, that we may have reached our capacity in multi unit residential housing. I do think there is some value in these conceptual discussions. I certainly think there was some value in the discussion we had last time with the other plan, because I think you got the clear message that if you came forward with a plan that was residential only, that it would not be looked upon favorably. So, you know, you took those considerations into thought, and came back with a revised plan that I think you have made some very compelling arguments meets the intent of the Professional Office zone. I know a lot of people don’t want to hear that, and in some ways it bothers me to even say that, but I think your arguments were pretty compelling, and in a lot of ways, I think a lot of the comments that we made at the last discussion are incorporated in your new plan, and I’m saying that strictly on a conceptual basis. If you were to file this as a formal site plan, there would be a lot of considerations, environmental, vehicular, pedestrian traffic, as well as others that we would have to take into consideration, but, you know, I think you have really captured the essence of what the Professional zone reads in our book, and like I said, it hurts me to say that because I don’t think that’s what any one of us sitting up here have in mind when we think Professional Office, but I do think, you know, that’s what I’m thinking. MR. TOOHEY-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do any of you want any public input, or do you think that we should? MR. METIVIER-What is your intention moving forward? I mean, do you have an idea, now, what you want to do? MR. TOOHEY-We were clearly hoping to get some more feedback this evening. So what we’re now faced with is a situation in which we have to put a plan forward that very likely will be this plan, and that we do this in a month or two months hence. Whereas if we had some more feedback, we could modify before we do that. Again, we thought, in all honesty, is that we really sat down and looked at the two balancing acts, which are the Zoning Code and the Bay Road Corridor. The Bay Road Corridor within the design criterion very clearly sits there and talks about Professional Offices mixed with Multifamily. There’s a sentence in Sub-Paragraph D that says that. You use the term there. So what, again, we tried to do, is to do that. Clearly, at least for some of the members, we haven’t hit the mark yet, and we’ll have to decide what we’re going to do. MR. METIVIER-Mr. MacElroy, how far back do the PO’s go from the road there? Is that about 100, 120 feet or so? MR. MAC ELROY-The PO zone? MR. METIVIER-No, the Professional Offices. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. MAC ELROY-Professional Offices. It starts at 75 and goes back probably 115, 125. MR. TOOHEY-What we’ve tried to do is keep that within that 150, within the PO zone there’s a height criterion that’s 150 feet. We’re in that, so that the 150 foot cuts that first layer of parking that’s behind the buildings about down the center of it before we begin to roll into a more residential use. That was kind of the eyeball we looked at. MR. METIVIER-Have you looked at the financial aspects of moving the Professional Offices back to the second row of your multi use? I mean, is it financially feasible for you to do that? MR. TOOHEY-The applicant would have to talk about that. MR. MAC ELROY-In substitution of the residential? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. TOOHEY-The answer is no. You cannot eliminate that many multi-family units. MR. METIVIER-And make it financially feasible to do it. MR. TOOHEY-And make it financially feasible. I know that just from the conversations we’ve had. MR. METIVIER-Now why is that? I mean, if you’re leasing out professional office space versus multi-family. MR. TOOHEY-Professional Office space, one, as this corridor moves forward, it’s our perception that there’s going to be a glut of Professional Offices, if all you’re going to do is allow Professional Offices for 1,000 feet off of Bay Road. Queensbury, Glens Falls, Warren County cannot absorb that much Professional Office, Number One, but skipping that concept, that planning concept, there is a better return on investment in the multi-family side of this than there is in the Professional Office side. What we were trying to do is take to heart the comments that were made, so as to build a mixed use kind of situation in which, for example, one of the concerns that came up, we didn’t discuss, I thought we would, is the impacts on the school districts. We can show you, very clearly, that we have two very large projects that have, are multi-family. Our ratio for children going into the school districts, in two different counties in the Capital District is .16 per unit. That generates out of this 27 kids, K-12. I mean, it will have no impact, and the amount of, if you want to get into it, the amount of taxes that are paid significantly outweigh the amount of impact it would have on the school district. Those are some of the kinds of things that were talked about before, that we were prepared to move forward with. MR. METIVIER-Now you made a comment about the surplus of Professional Office space on Bay Road alone, but how about the surplus of multi-family units, you know, rental units in the Town. MR. TOOHEY-From what our research can find, that there is not a surplus of those. MR. HUNSINGER-They can’t build them fast enough. MR. METIVIER-I know, but at some point. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re right. At some point we will reach a saturation point. MR. METIVIER-You will have to. I mean, you know, where are the people going to come from? I mean, you’re aware that they’re also going on in Hudson Falls and Kingsbury and, you know, I just can’t imagine, at some point we just can’t support it all. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. TOOHEY-Well, what we have, and again, we only can base it on our development pattern. We’ve got projects in Albany County, Rennselear County, Saratoga County, and in those three counties, that, in many respects, or not dissimilar to Warren County. Apartments that are at this high end in fact occupy as fast as we can build them, for the simple reason that not everybody wants to live in, and your Master Plan talks about this. Not everybody wants to live in a detached single family home. That’s where I live, but guess what, my two kids, one’s out of college, one’s almost through college, I’ve got a house. I’m not necessarily sure I want to shovel the snow many more times or mow that lawn. So the idea that, at this level, you are back at a, this isn’t a second choice or a secondary choice for living, it is a primary choice, but it’s a different choice, and our experience is that these things fill up very, very rapidly. MR. METIVIER-I mean, I know how quickly the ones fill up here now. I mean, there are waiting lists, literally, you know, at this point, but I just question your comment about the Professional Offices. They seem to have filled up equally as fast. MRS. STEFFAN-I have one question on the contour lines. I notice those contours. Are you planning on keeping the contours of the land as they are, or leveling? MR. MAC ELROY-No, there’s a grading plan associated with that as there was with, not dissimilar from the previous application, and that’s not too different than the previously approved subdivisions. MR. SANFORD-Now, I’ve got a quick question for you. When you read the minutes, because you weren’t at the first meeting, right? MR. TOOHEY-That is correct, I was not. MR. SANFORD-But you read the minutes. MR. TOOHEY-Yes, sir. MR. SANFORD-Did it occur to you that there was public support for this project or not? MR. TOOHEY-It occurred, I have been at a number of meetings that were, not the last meeting, it has occurred to me that there is not public support for this project. MR. SANFORD-But I guess I’m asking you, just as a discussion point, does that weigh in on how you design a plan and how you go forward? We all want to be responsible good community people here, and I believe that some of the people involved in this project are political leaders in the County. I would think that the public opinion would be of paramount importance, and I think that when you read the minutes, you should incorporate some of those comments and those thoughts when you look at how you’re going to design your project, so that you keep the people happy, and I think that’s important. MR. TOOHEY-There’s a point, I think, that’s got to be made, that I think is inappropriate. You’ve introduced politics into this twice. Now I want to make it very clear that Albany Partners has nothing to do with politics in Warren County, Saratoga County, Delmar, or Rennselear/Albany County. What they do is they build projects. We happen to be under contract to purchase the property from somebody who is involved in politics. That is not to our benefit, but I’m beginning to believe it is to our detriment. So we’ve never introduced politics. MR. SANFORD-Well, my question wasn’t really about politics. It was more about community thoughts, opinion, and how you incorporate the character of a community expressed by its people into your plans to develop an area. Now let’s talk about your development company. When the vast, vast majority of the people get up and speak continuously for hour upon hour upon hour, in opposition to a project like this, how does register or weigh in with you coming back with a concept like this? 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) MR. TOOHEY-Because we believe that the law is paramount, that people who appear in opposition to a project are not superior to the law. If we were bringing a project in that was not permitted under the Zoning Code, then at that point we would have to go the Zoning Board, or to the Town Board or some Board and have a meeting in which we say we would like you to vary the Zoning Ordinance to allow us to do that. MR. SANFORD-You answered the question. Public concerns and opinion is subordinate, obviously, to your financial goals. MR. TOOHEY-I don’t think I said that. MS. RADNER-Rich, I think you’re getting into inappropriate territory here. MR. SANFORD-Well, earlier he mentioned to the financial viability of his project, and this is a discussion item. I just was asking him how he factors it in. MS. RADNER-What I would encourage the applicant to bear in mind is how much this project differs from what you’ve submitted in the past is going to weigh on whether Staff treats it as a new application where they assign it a new application number. You’re welcome to bring any new application back, of course, to the Board, but work with our Staff, as Mrs. Steffan suggested, to make sure that you meet the criteria to have a complete application, so you can get back before this Board, and again, I don’t know, at this point, whether you’d end up with a new application or the same application number. MR. METIVIER-Did you have an application before, or was that Sketch Plan? I don’t remember. MR. SEGULJIC-Site plan. MR. TOOHEY-Site plan. All you’ve got to do here is site plan. We’re a permitted use in this configuration. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time this evening. MR. SANFORD-Do we have Lead Agency items, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we have two of them. We have two draft resolutions we’ve got to get through here. We can get through them pretty quickly. The resolution here is Lead Agency Status for purposes of conducting a SEQRA Review for Petition for Zone Change 1-2005. OLD BUSINESS: SEQRA RESOLUTIONS 1. SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SB 17-2004 & PZ 1-2005 J. DREPS/E. CERNIGLIA MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT RESOLUTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SEQRA REVIEW FOR PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ 1-2005 AND SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Petition for Change of Zone PZ 1-2005 and Subdivision No. 17-2004 application for a proposed five (5) lot commercial subdivision, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. Duly adopted this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to do the second one? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING SEQRA REVIEW FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 15-2005 AND SITE PLAN NO. 6-2005 FOR SINGULAR WIRELESS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan application for a proposed Telecommunications Facility w/165’ tower, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. Duly adopted this 25th day of January, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. VOLLARO-And with that, I’ll adjourn this meeting. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/25/05) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman 69