Loading...
2009.03.24(Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 38-2008 Robin Inwald 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Subdivision No. 11-2007 Larry Clute 1. EXTENSION Tax Map No. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11 Subdivision No. 3-2008 Ronald & Linda Ball 11. Preliminary Stage Tax Map No. 295.10-1-31.1 Site Plan No. 47-2008 Nigro Companies 21. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-22 through 26 Site Plan No. 12-2004 Aftab Bhatti 24. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52.12, 52.13 Site Plan No. 64-2007 Brian McCall 28. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-39, 38 Site Plan No. 48-2007 NPA II, LLC 48. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD KREBS THOMAS SEGULJIC STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll call to order the Tuesday, March 24, 2009 meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. The first item on the agenda are two administrative items. The first one is Robin Inwald. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SP 36-08: ROBIN INWALD FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-There is a prepared motion to further table the item. Did you have any information from the applicant when they may have the requested materials? MR. OBORNE-No. I have contacted Charlie Johnson from Paradox Designs and there has been no response. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So the applicant didn't ask to be tabled. It's just that it was supposed to be heard and its not? MR. OBORNE-Yes. That is correct, ma'am. I do recommend that we do table them for, until May, if at all possible, just to give them a chance, and maybe, you may want to direct me to contact them again and if not, then deny without prejudice if we don't hear anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess that would be my inclination. We'll table them to a May meeting, and if they don't meet the April 15t" deadline for May, then in May we'll propose to deny without prejudice and then put them back in the hopper. MR. OBORNE-That would be my recommendation. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: That'll be tabled to the May 28t" meeting. Submission deadline would be April 15tH Duly adopted this 24t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SUB 11-07: LARRY CLUTE REQUEST FOR 90 DAY EXTENSION FROM DATE OF APPROVAL TO OBTAIN SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR FINAL SUBDIVISION SIGN-OFF (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. HUNSINGER-There is a letter from the applicant's agent in the package. Any discussion? Anyone like to put forward that motion? MRS. STEFFAN-They said they want 90 days, but here in the motion it says to July 21St That's four months, but. I guess I'll make a motion to approve the extension and the Final approval for Subdivision 11-2007 for Larry Clute. That'll be tabled to the July 21St Planning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, we're not tabling them to a meeting. We're just tabling for when they need to file the completed plans. MRS. STEFFAN-Sorry. MS. RADNER-Why don't you start over, just to clarify the record. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FINAL APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Final subdivision approval was received on October 21, 2008; and Section A-183-13E(2) states that conditional approval of a final plat shall expire 180 days after the date of the resolution granting such approval and that the Planning Board may extend the time within which a conditionally approved plat may be submitted for signature for one or two additional periods of 90 days each; and On March 17, 2009 a letter was received from the applicant's agent indicating that they had just completed the NYS DOH Realty Subdivision process and would like to request an extension of the submission deadline for final subdivision plans to obtain all other signatures required for sign-off; and Therefore, Be It Resolved, MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FINAL APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Final deadline for the submission of their materials would be July 21, 2009. Duly adopted this 24t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. On our regular items, I would like to move around the agenda, if it pleases the Board. I'd like to move John Fedorowicz to the first item. That's because we have Counsel here. If there's no objection from the Board. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) JOHN & LAURA A. FEDOROWICZ ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.7 AND 6.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 8-99, SUB 1-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-19.11 SECTION A-183 JON CAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Under tabled items, the first one will be Subdivision No. 13- 2007, Preliminary Stage, for John Fedorowicz. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. OBORNE-Sure. Subdivision 13-2007, Preliminary Stage. Applicant is John Fedorowicz. Requested action is Subdivision of Land that requires review and approval by the Planning Board. Location is 1433 Bay Road. The existing zoning is Rural Residential Three Acres. This is an Unlisted SEQRA status. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdividing a 10.14 acre parcel into two lots of 3.7 and 6.44 acres. Prior subdivision that created this parcel, Subdivision 1-2000, included the condition of no further subdivision. Staff comments. I would have the Board look down towards the additional comments at the bottom of my Staff Notes, and just to make sure that they understand that approval of this proposal would require the following five actions by the Board: Modification of the Subdivision 1-2000 approval to remove the "no further subdivision" condition, You would have to have an approval of a SEAR negative declaration, Approval of the Stormwater Management application (Major Project), as per Chapter 147 of Town Code Approval of the preliminary subdivision application, and approval of the final subdivision application. With that, I do want to note that under the remaining four waiver requests that are still pending, the one that is still there for a waiver is the location of septic fields on all adjacent properties. All others have been taken care of, and pose no issue to Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Capper, project attorney, with Kevin Hastings, project engineer. Rubin Ellsworth is with us tonight, site excavator, and Laura Fedorowicz is here. John is not here tonight. When I got the Staff Notes, I noticed that a number of the items that we'd already taken care of were still on here, and I understand this has been pending for well over a year. So, you know, I certainly don't blame Staff on that, and we talked about it and went through the file, and the difference is that there's a subdivision plat prepared by Van Dusen and Steves, which is separate from the Site Plan which was prepared by Kevin, but all of the information was provided, with the exception of septic systems on the adjacent properties, because they were built many years ago, and there's no public record of that. So we weren't able to locate them for that reason, but we previously talked about that with the Board and the Board indicated that that was acceptable, and our well and septic system are a sufficient distance from our property line that there's certainly not going to be any issue with neighboring property lines and that's all been in the record as well. I guess I'd just like to say, briefly, we've bee talking about this for a long time. I know a couple of the Board members have been particularly offended by the fact that the predecessor in title had a condition of no further subdivision and the owners now are seeking a subdivision, but, on the record, Mike Hill had stated to the Board that you should look at this as if it was a brand new subdivision application and make sure it meets the criteria, and I think that we've really nailed it, in terms of, you've asked us to get emergency service letters. You've asked us to get the culvert permit from the County, DEC Endangered Species letters. I mean, everything has been documented in this file, soil tests, and in terms of the driveway, the issue when the condition was imposed was because of the grade issue. So we, this is completely different than the previously applied for subdivision because of the lot was expanded, the new lot, so that there would be plenty of room for grading, for constructability. The slope on this road is 9.19, on this driveway, which meets the criteria for a Town road, let alone a private driveway just to one house, and what's interesting, and I didn't even understand at the beginning of this process, was that the subdivision, or when this lot was subdivided to create the 10 acre lot, the location of the house at that time was where we're proposing it now and subsequently when the Fedorowiczs bought it, they went and constructed the house in the lower area on the south side, but I mean everything we're asking for now was even approved on that subdivision. So it's not that this isn't buildable. It's just that, you know, procedurally, it was a case where there was a condition and we're asking for the condition, the new owner's asking for the condition to be waived, but we're certainly not trying to offend anybody, and we're trying to prove that this meets the criteria, and we hope that you'll take that as the standard. I wanted to just, I had submitted previously, just for the record, the two lot subdivision that this Board recently approved on Pickle Hill Road, and the reason is just the comparison. Laura knew about it just because she lives here, that this driveway is approximately 825 feet, and the nearby subdivision that was approved was approximately 1600 foot driveway. So it's double the length and I believe, at times, steeper than the 9.19% here, and that went through without a problem. So my point is just that it's not about the subdivision. We meet every standard. It's just the issue that there was that condition, and it's certainly in the Board's prerogative to change a condition if it's appropriate. Rubin, I'd just like to put on the record your qualifications and just talk about constructing this road, driveway, excuse me. RUBIN ELLSWORTH 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. ELLSWORTH-Rubin Ellsworth, with Ellsworth and Son Excavating. The design that was designed for the driveway, it meets the criteria of the Town. I have done many driveways in the Town of Queensbury that are much more difficult and steeper than this. I think the stormwater is a great idea. How it was developed, and it's not going to cause a big impact for runoff. MR. CAPPER-And that's it for us, except any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SIPP-I read the minutes of that July '08 meeting in which you refer to this other piece of property, and the driveway is longer, but it is not anywhere near as steep. In fact, percent of slope is never even mentioned in that. I went to the minutes of that meeting, and read the whole thing. I read the one in September where they had Final approval and slope is never mentioned. MR. CAPPER-Rubin is constructing that driveway. Do you have any sense of how that compares to this? MR. ELLSWORTH-Again, we haven't finished the last part of it. We're still designing and still doing it. We ran into winter, but it's, I would say it's not quite as steep as this, but it's not a long ways off, but again, we have not finished the job. We may do work to lessen the slope on that. I can't say exactly what it's going to be, but it's definitely a lot longer, and the slope going up in there right now, if I had to guess, it's probably within around seven percent to eight percent. MR. SEGULJIC-And what kind of cuts do you have on that road, driveway? MR. ELLSWORTH-Again, we haven't really, I mean, we just barely got the clearing part done last fall. We haven't really got into building the driveway. So, to be honest with you. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there any filling associated with that road, driveway? MR. ELLSWORTH-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-There is, and what type of type of filling? MR. ELLSWORTH-There is. There'll be some cut and fill situations in starting up a side slope, because it's a side hill, rather than being just, you know, we're approaching a side hill. So we've got to fill on the lower part of the driveway to bring us up. MR. SEGULJIC-What type of filling are you going to do? MR. ELLSWORTH-We're going to bring in gravel material. Percentage? MR. SEGULJIC-Depth wise. MR. ELLSWORTH-I would say on the lower part it's probably six feet in places. MR. SEGULJIC-And then what about the cut on the top? MR. ELLSWORTH-There'll be some cutting on the upper hillside, there'll probably be two feet, two to three feet. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. As I understand this driveway is going to have a cut of up to 10 feet, and your lower part's going to have fills of up to eight feet. Maybe even 10 feet, but in some ways that's not an application in front of us. MS. RADNER-Well, if there's a comparable application that's been determined by this Board, it certainly is germane to what this Board does, and you're taking the right steps in distinguishing that if in your mind they are distinguishable. KEVIN HASTINGS MR. HASTINGS-This is Kevin Hastings, for the record. The section that is approaching ten feet is the deepest cut, and I would estimate that runs for maybe 100 feet, if that. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, which driveway are you speaking of? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. HASTINGS-The Fedorowicz, this application. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So there are cuts of 10 feet. MR. HASTINGS-There is a short section that does reach 10 feet, and likewise on the lower end it's in the range of five to six feet. MR. SEGULJIC-And then on the side slopes you have slopes approaching and over 50% slope. MR. HASTINGS-Well, the side slopes are laid back for stability. MR. SEGULJIC-But they approach and exceed 50%. MR. HASTINGS-Well, if that's what's required, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-It's not required. I'm asking. MR. CAPPER-That's what's required to meet the profile. MR. HASTINGS-Yes, that's what's required. MR. SEGULJIC-But you're going to have slopes of 50% on the side slopes of this driveway, approaching 50%, in some cases over 50%. MR. HASTINGS-They're going to be two to one. Two to one is the back slope. So that's 50%. MR. SEGULJIC-Isn't it three to two? MR. HASTINGS-Yes. That's in the driveway section on Drawing Three, and a rock cut, it's two to one, and that's at a maximum. MR. SEGULJIC-On Sheet Two of Five you say serrated cut slopes to three to two, or flatter. MR. CAPPER-I'd just like to ask Rubin if there's any problem building that with the two to one side slope and the ten foot cut and fill. Any challenge for you? MR. HASTINGS-No. That would be a better case scenario. MR. CAPPER-In terms of constructing this? MR. HASTINGS-Yes. There's not a problem at all doing two on one slopes there. It's done regularly. Very common. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you point out where else you've done this? MR. HASTINGS-Where else? I did it on my own driveway. I live on Ellsworth Lane as well. My driveway, I'm constructing a 2500 foot job right now on Bolton Landing that we have approximately like 3,000 feet of ditches and all the ditches are two on one slopes. MRS. STEFFAN-How do you get things to grow on the side of that? I mean, once the construction is done? MR. HASTINGS-Again, we can use topsoil and doing the proper seeding and, you know, placement of hay. There's erosion mats to meet that that are specially built and designed for them, for those cases, for the slopes. Some of it you can do with riprap as well. So you're not always looking to try to make something grow in them. They make an erosion mat that you can place in there that holds, you know, to stop it from erosion so grass does, to grow. MR. SEGULJIC-So quickly in summary, the driveway you're using as comparison has a slope of, I believe you said seven percent, and this driveway has a slope of what, again? MR. CAPPER-9.9. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. SEGULJIC-And this driveway of Fedorowicz has a much greater cut and fill than the other driveway you're speaking of. MR. HASTINGS-It's similar. It's in a couple of spots. They have two short spots that do have. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you had said, I believe, two or three feet of cut? MR. HASTINGS-Yes, on the uphill side. MR. SEGULJIC-Which is a little different than 10 feet of cut, and then on the fill on the bottom we have over 10 feet on the Fedorowicz driveway. So there appears to be significant differences between the two driveways. Especially when we speak of the grade, and the filling and cutting. MR. HASTINGS-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-That's all I need to know. MR. CAPPER-But there's no problem with constructing a drive like that, a ten foot cut on a hill, that happens all the time. MR. SEGULJIC-But you're on record as saying there's a significant difference between the two. MR. HASTINGS-I'm not saying there's a significant difference, only because that's a very short span. We're doing a much longer, right. On Pickle Hill Road it's a much longer span that we are making those cuts, and we're making that over a few hundred feet long. MR. SEGULJIC-So this Fedorowicz driveway is much longer also. MR. HASTINGS-No, no, no. Pickle Hill is much longer. MR. SEGULJIC-Pickle Hill is much longer. MR. HASTINGS-Yes, much, much longer. MR. CAPPER-And what you just said is that cut on Pickle Hill is much longer. MR. HASTINGS-Correct. The cut on Pickle Hill is much longer. MR. TRAVER-I think, for my part, one of the biggest concerns I have is the impact it has on the view of the mountain itself, from Bay Road and from the Critical Environmental Area. This driveway, and it appears probably the opening for the house is going to have quite a visual impact on the mountainside in that area, and that's aside from the issue of the no further subdivision, that's a major concern of mine. I think keeping those mountain views is certainly a goal that we've had in the Town. This will permanently impact on that. I realize that's just a characteristic of the site, but nevertheless, it's something I think we need to consider. MR. CAPPER-In all of the two years that we've been here, that issue was never raised about the visual impact of the driveway, but because it's such a curve, it's certainly very different than if it was just a straight cut, but either way, I mean, I would view that, if it was denied based upon that visual impact, I would view that as a regulatory taking that the value of that subdivision lot would have to be compensated, but that is a legal matter. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. We do have at least one taker. In the back of the room, there is a handout on public hearing procedures. If you've never been to a Planning Board meeting before, it does outline some of the requirements of the public hearing. We do ask that you state your name for the record into the microphone. We do tape the meeting and we use the tape to process the meeting minutes. We also ask that you limit any comments to three minutes, and we do have a timer. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I'd like to thank the Board for the opportunity to provide public comment and appreciate the applicant's and Planning Board's effort on this difficult site. The last meeting was September '08, and we submitted comments regarding that application, which we feel some are still outstanding. Number One, stormwater management plan is still not finalized. Responses include statements such as stone trench may be shallow or non- existent, and we're referring to the infiltration trench near the home and the upper part of the driveway, and also it states where rock ledge precludes stone trench, stone trench will be constructed in a more suitable location. It would seem the final design should be more defined prior to an approval. All test holes indicate shallow depth to bedrock prohibiting stormwater management near the source, routing it to the bottom of the hill, and also, so therefore there are concerns regarding the stormwater management system. The proposal, the home proposes to route the lateral to the septic system through the infiltration trench previously. Right now the proposal will disconnect the infiltration trench where the sanitary sewer lateral crosses that trench line. It seems like there should be more information provided on that to prevent the migration of stormwater towards the septic field. Also, the disturbance required still seems excessive for a single family construction. We estimated seven foot fills, 10 foot cuts, and significant blasting. Although assurances were made regarding restoration and protection, the site is very constrained with steep slopes and bedrock, and there's a high potential for impact from construction. So if there could be more assurances or other guarantees regarding the construction on this area. Those are our comments. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. MR. CAPPER-All of the stormwater management plan issues were addressed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, and I just want to point out that it's a, in terms of what Chris said about development of this parcel, it's an approximately six and a half acre parcel in a three acre zone, and again, the original subdivision map from nine years ago showed the house in this location. I think that addresses driveway and any other impacts that it was always envisioned that this was buildable, and that's in the record and that's been approved by this Board. We don't see anything unique about this. It just had to be carefully engineered and it was. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a comment made, and I did see it in the materials preparing for this evening's meeting, that I don't think we've talked about in any detail before, and that is the need to blast. Could you comment on that? MR. HASTINGS-As we responded to that, the blasting of ledge rock is expected to be minimal depending on the formation. So if the formation is rippable, then I would assume that Rubin would be able to use mechanical means to break the rock and excavate it as opposed to drilling and shooting the ledge rock. So some of that will have to be a field determination, but from previous construction in the area, Rubin, is there any indication that you've blasted ledge rock? MR. ELLSWORTH-Again, I don't blast. MR. HASTINGS-I mean, in the sense of would you expect this situation to be similar or not. MR. ELLSWORTH-Yes. Again, I think some of that rock could be removed just because of the fractures that seem to be there in a lot of. There certainly could be some blasting that could be done, but it also may be able to be done with a hammer that goes on an excavator. We may be able to hammer some of the rock out. So there may not be any blasting. It's one of those, you've kind of got to, as you dig it and see what's there. If it's not, there may be no blasting required, but it's certainly not, if blasting was to occur, it's certainly nothing out of the ordinary that it would take to put a driveway in those conditions. MR. SEGULJIC-Nothing out of the ordinary to have to do bedrock removal for installation of a driveway? Do people typically remove bedrock to put in a driveway? MR. ELLSWORTH-That's not very uncommon. Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-I disagree with that comment. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. ELLSWORTH-Well, I'm probably doing six driveways right now, and every one of them has required blasting. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the maintenance plan for stormwater, you did everything. You did the driveway, the swale, the check dams, the retention basins, outfall channels, and infiltration drywells. You forgot one very important aspect. The road itself. MR. HASTINGS-Well, the road itself is going to be in various stages of construction. MR. SEGULJIC-This is a maintenance plan for into the future. MR. HASTINGS-Well, that partially is true, but the stormwater pollution, prevention plan is a construction document, and there are permanent controls listed for the driveway maintenance in the future. So it may not be shown on here graphically, but it is part of the permanent measures. MR. SEGULJIC-What would happen if the driveway wasn't properly maintained, 15 years out? MR. HASTINGS-Depending on the neglect, I really don't know. There could be different various forms of failure. MR. SEGULJIC-Which would include? MR. CAPPER-But that's if it's not maintained. MR. HASTINGS-But that's not if it's maintained. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you have no provisions for maintaining the driveway here. I would hope you would grade it periodically. MR. HASTINGS-That would be up to the owner to maintain it, absolutely. MR. CAPPER-It shouldn't be a gotcha. If the answer is it has to be graded periodically, it has to be graded. We've done everything that we've been asked to do. This is a buildable lot. It doesn't require any variances. MR. SEGULJIC-I had asked you for a maintenance plan. You've neglected the most important aspect, the driveway itself. MR. CAPPER-Well, then we hereby amend it to say that it'll be graded periodically as necessary. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think it's going to take a little more than that, though. MR. CAPPER-Do you think it needs any more than that, Kevin? You're a licensed engineer. MRS. HASTINGS-It would need periodic inspection, self-inspection, by the owner, and if repairs are required, a homeowner would be incumbent upon them to make those repairs, to stabilize any washouts, any deteriorations. MR. SEGULJIC-So there will be washouts, then? MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that the owner said he was going to blacktop that driveway? MR. CAPPER-It has to be blacktopped at the beginning, at the bottom by the road for the first, what, 50 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-I'm prepared to make a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-May I just ask. Counsel, would you reflect upon Kevin Hastings, as the engineer, he reiterated some of the issues here that he has researched, and one was the New York State Natural Heritage Program was contacted for a review of records of threatened and endangered plants or animals, and they responded on 10/1/08 with a 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) negative findings statement. I've read that letter, and I want to make sure that that is an accurate representation that it is a negative findings statement. MS. RADNER-Well, if the letter is a part of your record, then the letter will speak for itself, and the engineer's characterization of the letter doesn't take the place of the letter. Whatever the letter says, it says, and I don't have, I don't believe, a copy of that letter. So I can't comment on it one way or the other. MR. FORD-Okay. If I may read from the letter, because my interpretation of the letter was different than Mr. Hastings. We have no records of known occurrences of rare or state listed animals or plants, significant natural communities, or other significant habitats or in the immediate vicinity of your site. The absence of data does not necessarily mean that rare or State listed species, natural communities or other significant habitats do not exist on or adjacent to the proposed site. Rather, our files currently do not contain any information which indicates their presence. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted, and then I feel this statement is important. For these reasons, we cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of rare or State listed species or of any significant natural communities. I'd see that as not a negative statement. MS. RADNER-Yes. They're telling you that they don't have any record of for example Karner blue at that site, or any of the other species that have been known to be in any other parts of the Town, but they're not willing to say definitively that there are or are not because there've been no field surveys. MR. FORD-Would you characterize that as a negative findings statement? MS. RADNER-I'm not going to characterize it one way or the other. MR. HUNSINGER-You don't need to. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Seguljic? MR. SEGULJIC-I have a motion prepared to deny the project. MS. RADNER-You need to close the public hearing before you can make your motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a motion that I could pass out to everyone if you wish to see it, as I'll read it along. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And I have made a couple of subtle changes to it, and it's only at the end. MS. RADNER-So what you're passing out is a draft that you've done and you're going to be revising it a little bit on the fly? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Thank you for clarifying that. MS. RADNER-Okay. MOTION TO DENY MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Whereas, Subdivision Application #13-2007 for John Fedorowicz proposes to complete the following actions: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) Modification of the Subdivision 1-2000 approval to remove the "no further subdivision" condition which was imposed by the Planning Board in 2000 during an earlier subdivision approval; Obtain approval of the Stormwater management application (Major Project), as per Chapter 147 of Town Code Obtain Approval of the preliminary subdivision application. WHEREAS, the site is located on the eastern slopes of French Mountain within the Rural Residential Planning Area (as defined by the 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan), the Lake George Basin/Lake George Park Commission Boundary and 200 feet upgradient of the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. WHEREAS, approximately 50% of the site consists of slopes greater than 10%, 35% of the site consists of slopes greater than 15% and a portion of the site has slopes greater than 25%. The applicant proposes to develop a single family home at the termination of an 880+/- 12 ft. wide gravel driveway at a grade of 10% along its entire length with side slopes of greater than 50% along the driveways edge. The driveway construction will require significant cutting (blasting and excavation to remove up to 10 ft. of bedrock and soil) and filling (up to 9 ft.) to achieve compliance with the maximum 10% driveway grade required by Town ordinance. WHEREAS, the history of this lot first derives from an initial subdivision of 26.74 acres in June of 1999 (Subdivision 8-1999 dated 6/15/99) into 2 lots of 11.61 acres and 16.14 acres for Byron and Judy Rist. Subsequently, in May of 2000, the 16.14 acre lot was further subdivided (Subdivision 1-2000 dated 5/16/00) into 2 lots of 6.0 acres and 10.14 acres for Byron and Judy Rist. It was at this stage that the condition of no further subdivision of this 2 lot subdivision, Subdivision 1-2000, appears. On 8/1/2002 the 10.14 acre parcel was sold to John and Laura Fedorowicz, the applicant for this subdivision. On May 16, 2005, the applicant requested a modification to Subdivision 1-2000 to further subdivide their 10.14 acre parcel into two lots of 6.27 and 3.87 acres respectively. The application for modification was denied on the June 28, 2005 Planning Board meeting. WHEREAS, 179-9-070 D states that the Planning Board, in conjunction with its a,H,Hroval of any site ,elan re view ,Hro~ect, may im,HOSe such requirements and conditions as are allowable within the ,Hro,Her exercise of the ,police ,Hower, including the restriction of land against further de velo,Hment of ,Hrinci,Hal buildings and the im,HOSition of reasonable conditions. 179-9-080 states that the Planning Board shall not a,H,Hrove a use unless it first determines that such site ,Hlan review use meets all a,H,Hlicable standards. In order to a,H,Hrove any site,Hlan review use, the Planning Board shall find that. C. The use would be in harmony with the general,HUr,HOSe or intent of this cha,Hter, s,Hecifically taking into account the location, character and size of the ,Hro,HOSed use and the descri,Htion and ,HUr,HOSe of the district in which such use is,Hro,HOSed...... D. The establishment, maintenance or o,Heration of the ,Hro,HOSed use would not create ,Hublic hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the ,narking of vehic%s and/or equi,Hment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of,Hersons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. E. The ,Hro~ect would not have an undue adverse im,Hact u,HOn the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or o,Hen s,Hace resources of the Town..... WHEREAS, The Town of Queensbury within its Open Space Plan adopted by the Town Board on July 7, 2003 recognizes French Mountain as an area listed by the public as being desirable and further states that: A large ,Hart of Queensbury's diverse beauty comes from the dramatic scenic backdro,H ,provided by mountain ranges that frame vistas throughout the town; and The general ,public has voiced strong su,H,HOrt for the ,preservation of French Mountain area. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) WHEREAS, The Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan Goals include the following goals for Rural Residential Planning Area; - Protect important natural areas and viewsheds in the town, especially unique landforms, ridges, and slopes. Promote the ,protection of natural resources such as the water, air, Critical EnvironmentalAreas and wetlands..... - All homes should undergo a site design ,process and the Planning Board should work with the builders to achieve the fol%wing goals: - Minimize impact on rural characteristics such as fields and forests - Protect the views of the,public -Conserve existing land forms and features and minimize grading/filling - Restrict building on steep slopes - This,portion of the community is highly valued for its rural character, which not only contributes to the high quality of life for town residents, but also makes it economically attractive to visitors. The goal of these recommendations is to ,perpetuate the connection residents have with their natural surroundings and ,protect the rural landscape It is the finding of this Board that: A "No Further Subdivision" was placed on the parcel by a prior Board; - Past application for subdivision was denied - Applicant has not presented adequate information to convince this Board that a change of circumstances warrants a different result. Therefore I motion to deny the removal of the "No Further Subdivision" placed on this parcel by a prior Board. Duly adopted this 24t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. CAPPER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED RONALD & LINDA BALL AGENT(S) CHARLES SCUDDER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A/RR-5A APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1 ACRE & 7.05 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNNG BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 8.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO.295.10- 1-31.1 SECTION A-183 CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. Application Subdivision 3-2008, Preliminary. Ron and Linda Ball are the applicants. This is a two lot residential subdivision. The location is West Mountain Road opposite Lehland Estates. Existing zoning is SFR-1A and RR-5A. This is an Unlisted SEQRA action. Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of an 8.05 acre parcel into two lots of one and 7.05 acres. I do want to read additional comments, as this application has been before the Board in the past. Additional comments include the applicant is offering a slightly steeper slope driveway to be constructed at half the length of the 10% driveway and with minimal earthwork, versus substantial earthwork. As this proposed driveway will only be serving one house site, consideration may be given to a straighter, steeper drive. Two, silt fencing associated with shorter driveway appears to be perpendicular to the slope along the length of driveway. This is not an acceptable practice given slope steepness. Please design a 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) detailed Erosion and Sedimentation plan to include all structural measures both temporary and permanent for this driveway proposal. Three, due to soil conditions, any vegetative erosion controls such as the grassy swales will require lime as the soils are strongly acidic. Staff suggests a soil analysis to determine the type and amount of amendments the soil may need in order to establish and maintain any permanent vegetative erosion controls. Four, clarify as to the need for a culvert at the driveway entrance. Five, on page 5 of the Long Form the applicant writes 3 houses to be built. Please correct to show 2 houses, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SCUDDER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. SCUDDER-Charles Scudder, consulting engineer for the client, Ron Ball. RON BALL MR. BALL-Ron Ball. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add? MR. BALL-To what he just said? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BALL-Well, I think I'm going to let Charlie speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-Well, Mr. Chairman, we have to ask the indulgence of the Board, because we want to put before the Board a, we want to re-visit a former discussion about the road, and pursuant to that, I'd like to hang something up on this easel here. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes, go ahead. MR. SCUDDER-You don't have this, but this is what we're proposing tonight, and I realize you don't have it and you haven't had a chance to look at it, but this is what it looks like, and I have a large scale drawing here that I'd like to hand out, two of them, actually. The driveway that he had proposed earlier and we agonized over it, endlessly. We don't think is workable. From our point of view, it isn't feasible to do it. There are deep cuts. The Town, I'm told by Craig Brown and the Staff that the Town Subdivision Regulations require a one on three embankment slope and cut areas. Well, just think what that means. For every foot you go up, you go out three feet. So if we had an eight foot cut, we're talking about 24 feet on both sides, plus the width of the road, plus the shoulders, plus the arrangements for drainage, and it seems to me that we have competing interests here in the Town, because on the one hand you want to minimize the driveway slope, but on the other hand you want to minimize the degradation to the site, that is to say tearing down the trees and opening up the ground and so on. So, beyond, the driveway length to get up to the home site is 580 feet, which, the more I look at that plan, I hope you'd agree that just seems absurd to do that when we can do that. So the tradeoff is, what do we do about the slope. Now I have a profile here which I could show you, but I'll do that after I finish my discussion here. This is the home site. Some of you, if not many of you, have been there. These trees are thick pines. This tree is in the absorption system of the wastewater system. These pines have to come down because they're just so big that they threaten the home itself, and they're really not that wonderful anyway. They are trees, to be sure, but you know what we're talking about. A 36 inch eastern white pine can be a messy proposition. This is a very nice maple. This is a nice maple. This is a nice oak. A couple of nice white birches right here. Twenty- four inch white pine here which is a nice one, a couple of oaks here, and these trees would remain. Now I've symbolized the trees that are to come down with a little "R" here in parenthesis. These would all come down. Unfortunately, this maple is in the parking area, and we'd either have to remove the tree or move the parking area. Move the home, which could be done, but it would complicate things. So we're thinking of having to remove that tree. This is a tree we made a bit of a fuss about earlier on, which is a 36 inch maple, and in our original scheme for the property lines, that tree was going to disappear from our site. So we had made an effort to recapture that tree, and keep it on Mr. Ball's property. Now the driveway itself, instead of 580 feet, is 335 feet long, to this 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) point, versus 580. I've moved the entrance from the old road, the old farm road we called it, which was right here and the road went right up like this. I've moved this north because we gain an advantage here because we get 20 feet or so right along the contour here, which helps us diminish the slope of the road. This is 16 foot wide at the entrance, and it gradually slopes, or gradually is reduced in width to 10 feet up through here like this, all the way up. The slope of the road coming back from the edge of pavement on West Mountain Road is three percent for a minimum of 25 feet. That's an important requirement laid down by the Town and supported by the Town Engineer because you don't want to be coming out onto West Mountain Road at a steep slope. So, it gives a vehicle or a truck or something an opportunity to be almost level here. Three percent is hardly perceptible. That's enough to drain water, but otherwise you wouldn't know it. Now as to stormwater, the effort is made to keep the stormwater on the upland portions of this site as much as possible, and pursuant to that we propose to put a stone ditch all the way down this side of the road with a pipe in it, with a gauze around the pipe to prevent the infiltration of fines, and to tilt the road three percent or so so the water will sheet off into that conduit, and periodically be turned off into an underground chamber here, here and here. Now there's a distance of 25 feet from the edge of the pavement back to the right of way line. That land in there belongs to the County. I've had the County engineer down there, and he has, he and I have come to an understanding of what the County would like, and it's not a problem. We'll get a letter and we'll get a permit as soon as we submit a plan, and the plan, he tells me, does not necessarily have to be approved by this Board, but the plan we submit will have to be, from our point of view, approved by this Board. Now the area of disturbance is defined by this heavy line here, and we have quantified that area on our computer, and it's about 65 hundredths of an acre, and it will be, in order for us to achieve our grading. Now, what arguments can we make to allow the Board to give us a waiver on the road slope? Do you have a communication that you can hand out here? Or do you want to read it into the record. I don't know how you want to do it. MR. OBORNE-Well, if you're going to read it, you should read it. It's not public comment. What I can do is, why don't you hand that out to them. This talks about the Queensbury Central Fire Department, and I'll go ahead and hand it out to you. MR. SCUDDER-Well, emergency vehicles are one of the main concerns relative to the discussion of driveway slopes, and so we asked the Central Queensbury Fire Chief to come to the site and look at it, and to look at our plan, and to look at our profile, and to give us his opinion as to the efficacy of that road for the trench, you know, for fire trucks to get up and down. So he did that and wrote that letter that you see before you, and that happened just a few days ago. MR. HUNSINGER-So how much of the driveway would have a slope of 13.9%? Is that the average of the entire driveway? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. I'll show you. You see this broken line here that goes like this, that's the original grade. That's what's there right now. MR. BALL-That was the original driveway. That was the original road. It's been there for 50 or 70 years, and they've used it almost year, either they used it to build the stone walls up in there that used to come out of the farm for the barn that's across the street. They head right up that road and they used it, and then after those people that originally opened up that road, the original people that opened up the road, they sold it to someone else, and those people used it, and someone had planned to build a house up there, and that's they made this road in there. They put a curb stop right near the road, and that's why you see so much fill taken away near the edge of the road. I had to take that away before they put the power poles in, otherwise I'd never be able to get to the curb stop, that someone paid to have. I checked with the Water Department. They have no idea when the curb stop was put in there, but also upon the, further on the property at the end of the road, there's a well, somebody put a well in there. So they had really good intentions of building a house up in there, and that was the easiest route up there. If you let us use this driveway, this will have the least disturbance on the property. If we have to go back to what you would like us to do, that new driveway is going to make an awful mess up there, an awful mess. MRS. STEFFAN-So, Mr. Ball, the driveway profile that you're identifying, for those of us who went on that site, on site visits, and walked up the driveway, that's the grade you're depicting? MR. BALL-Yes. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-I thought you drove up there? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I drove part of the way. I didn't drive all the way up. MR. SCUDDER-Well, I have a two wheel drive pick up truck, old one, which I drove up there with a jug of water in there to do percolation tests and in fact I backed up there. Now you probably know that pickup trucks don't have the best traction. So that is the existing grade, and this is the driveway grade that we propose, this heavy line. It's 25 feet here. It's a three percent, then we have a transition vertical curve here to get to the straight part, and this is 13.9% up to the edge of the pavement at the parking, then the turnaround. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. So, at the top you're going to do some cutting, then, if I'm understanding your plan correctly. MR. SCUDDER-Actually, yes, you can see it. MR. SEGULJIC-A foot or two up there, is that what I'm seeing? MR. SCUDDER-That's three feet. That's the maximum cut here. This is four feet down here. This part is in the County right of way, and we'll have to get their permission, and they will give us their permission to fix that up. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right, and then as far as tree removal with this proposed driveway, are you going to have to remove any trees? MR. SCUDDER-I've identified the trees that we're going to take down. MR. SEGULJIC-Just up at the top and where the home is. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. One thing we have to do, though, is make sure that there's enough vertical space for the fire trucks, but they have no problem with width. MR. SEGULJIC-And is this going to be a gravel or an asphalt driveway? MR. SCUDDER-Paved, it'll be a paved driveway. MR. SIPP-It's going to be paved. MR. BALL-Paved or pavers. I may decide to use driveway pavers, a portion of that. MRS. STEFFAN-What is that? MR. KREBS-The concrete blocks. MR. BALL-It's fairly new to the area, but you see more houses are starting to do it now. MR. FORD-Interlocking? MR. BALL-They're interlocking, yes, but they give you better traction than a blacktop driveway. MR. SCUDDER-Do all of you know that Mr. Ball is a landscaper and a stonemason? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I have a question on your stormwater management for the driveway. You mentioned that along, I guess it would be the south side of the driveway, you have a pipe that you're going to infiltrate the sheet runoff from the driveway. You're going to cant the driveway a few degrees, and then you're going to have a filtration of some kind to filter the water. Isn't that going to be, with 300 feet, some odd feet of that filtration, isn't that going to be a maintenance nightmare? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. SCUDDER-I don't think so. It's going to be a stone trench, you know, a foot and a half deep, say, and a foot and a half wide, something a backhoe can do. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Right. MR. SCUDDER-Put the crushed stone in there and then put this pipe in on top of maybe six or eight inches of the crushed stone, and it's perforated, and it has a filter fabric around it, comes that way. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's what I was wondering about. That filter fabric, I would think particularly shortly after your construction, and the initial few years of runoff and so on, I would think that that fabric would, and understand that I'm not an engineer, obviously, but I would think that that fabric would be quite a maintenance issue. MR. SCUDDER-Well, you do worry about things just like that. We may have to do some other treatment around the trench, sheet fabric, but these work quite well. We expect to get some infiltration all along the trench, but we're not designing for that. We're designing to have the water collected into these chambers, which will be underground chambers. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCUDDER-There's crushed rock around and so on, all below grade, so that the water will be absorbed right there. MR. SEGULJIC-So they're sort of like a drywell, then. They're going to collect the water. MR. SCUDDER-They are a type of drywell. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-But they're, you may have heard about a project in Lake George, near the Station, where they put a big drainage project in there. Used many of these things. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. TRAVER-My other concern is you mentioned that, again, and I'm trying to get my head around the physics, a little bit, of this water on the driveway. You mentioned, we're looking at a 14 degree angle in one direction, and a three degree angle in the other direction. Isn't the water more likely to follow the 14 degree angle and you're going to have a big torrent coming down that driveway? MR. SCUDDER-Absolutely, and I was going to say that they want to put little, I don't know if you've seen this. I have from time to time, like little speed bumps. MR. TRAVER-Like water bars? MR. SCUDDER-Water bars work pretty well. They catch any of the water that sheets down, doesn't get captured in the trench, and would be diverted to the chambers that way. MR. BALL-Or you can crown the driveway. MR. SCUDDER-We're going to crown the driveway when we get down here. We only want to throw it to one side, unless you want to put it. MR. BALL-No. MR. SIPP-How are these pavers for plowing? MR. BALL-They're quite heavy. They come approximately, some of them are 16 inches long by 12 inches wide. They're specifically designed for northern weather, but I know, not my own driveway, but we installed them, and there's somebody living, what's that, right by the Dome there, that development. MRS. STEFFAN-Hidden Hills. MR. BALL-Hidden Hills. We just put one in Hidden Hills about three years ago. It seems to be going quite well. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. SIPP-Are these permeable? Will water run? MR. BALL-Water runs through them. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. BALL-Through them, yes. MR. SIPP-And they're made out of? MR. BALL-They're made out of cement. They're colored. They don't have any sharp edges. They're rounded edges for falling purposes, and they won't crack like a blacktop driveway. MR. KREBS-In fact, if you have any kind of frost heaving, they'll heave, and as the frost goes out, they go right back down to the original place. MR. BALL-Yes. That's right, yes, they do. MR. KREBS-I have a back patio that I made that way. MR. SEGULJIC-So I was just going to ask that question, as far as the construction of the driveway, you're going to build off the natural grade there, except in a couple of spots you're going to cut. MR. BALL-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you're going to bring in. MR. BALL-For the driveway? MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. BALL-It's going to be what we call tailings, it's a stone dust. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and you're going to lay that down on top of the natural grade. MR. SCUDDER-It's called shoulder stone. MR. BALL-Yes. Well, no, not on the natural grade that's there. MR. SCUDDER-Just on the shoulders all around. MR. BALL-We may have to remove some of the soil that's there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. BALL-Because I can't leave any big rocks. MR. SEGULJIC-You can't have any of the organic material either. Okay. So then you're going to remove that, going to grub the area, whatever, and then lay the, I forget the term you used. MR. BALL-The tailings. MR. SEGULJIC-The tailings on top of that, and then put pavers or the asphalt on top of that. MR. BALL-Yes. Then we would grade it, compact it and grade it, and then we put down the pavers. It's not going to be all pavers. MR. FORD-Can you show us where you plan to have the pavers and where it'll be blacktopped? MR. BALL-Well, I'm thinking of the entrance. What I'd like to do is at this entrance I'd like to have the retaining walls be made out of the same colored stone as the pavers that I'm going to put in there, so it will be more appealing. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. SCUDDER-I don't think we mentioned retaining walls. MR. BALL-No, I don't think so. MRS. STEFFAN-Which is actually a good idea, because there's quite a cut at the entrance of that driveway. MR. SCUDDER-There's a four foot cut at the entrance. There's a four foot cut right there at the entrance, maximum, right here, and this part, from this line right out to the edge of the road, is the three percent road, and that's in the County right of way. This part in here is on his property, and right in here is where he'll build the walls, and I presume there'll be architectural walls, not just any old kind of wall, since he's a stonemason. Am I right? MR. BALL-You better believe it. MR. SEGULJIC-So a lot of these details we haven't gotten yet, none of these details, and I have this plan here, and I admit that, what is this, trash, okay, or recyclables. MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit, I like this scenario better, because, you know, that is a lovely hill. MR. SCUDDER-That's the first positive thing I've heard come from this Board. MRS. STEFFAN-And to put that other driveway scenario in would really ravage that hill, and that is contrary to what we're trying to accomplish with the Comp Plan and in that particular zone. So, I certainly like this scenario much better. Certainly the engineer has to sign off on whether the mechanics work or not, but I like this approach much better than the circuitous driveway. MR. SCUDDER-There's one little collateral benefit that I think we may get here. In this area right in here, we can landscape, and I think that the County would be happy to have us landscape it, because the one thing they're worried about is water getting under their road, freezing and popping the road. The other thing they are concerned about is that we have adequate sight distance north and south. MR. SIPP-Pick out plants that are salt resistant. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Plants that are able to tolerate salt, and high quantities of salt. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I'm sure that. MR. SCUDDER-But anyway, you can see the obvious benefit of that, because somebody driving by that looks here won't look right up that long driveway. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and in just the last three years, the County's had to deal with the driveway right down the road from this location that had runoff running right into the road, right into West Mountain Road, and the County had to be there on many mornings in the wintertime to try to clear the ice off the highway and so, you know, I'm sure that that's why they want to work with you on that solution, because they don't want history to repeat itself. MR. BALL-Exactly. MR. SCUDDER-Well, this is what we talked about with Mr. Van Dusen. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-Yes. I don't know, maybe we cut you off. I'd like to know where else, other than at the entrance, you're going to plan on using those pavers. MR. BALL-The patio. MR. SCUDDER-Why don't you say you haven't planned that far. MR. BALL-I haven't planned that far yet. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. FORD-All right, but you're going to incorporate them on the entrance and perhaps around the curve? MR. BALL-Yes. MR. FORD-And then from there on, your plan right now is that it would be blacktopped from there to the parking lot? MR. BALL-They're really expensive to begin with. MR. FORD-I know. MR. BALL-But I planned on this a long time ago. This is what I wanted, and I know, this part of it would really be helpful for traction purposes. Pavers a lot more benefit to a grade than blacktop. MR. SCUDDER-This is 50 feet. This is 100 feet from here. MR. BALL-And I don't know if I'll go quite that far. I'm not sure. I may go to this point. MR. SCUDDER-That would be, say, 75 feet to that. MR. BALL-It may be that far. It may be, because I'm going to make this quite wide. I'm going to flare it into the ground. MR. FORD-That's 16, right? MR. BALL-Sixteen, yes, and it's going to be flared. MR. SCUDDER-Well, I don't show the flare. MR. BALL-No. So, I would say probably up to this curb here some place. That's just a guesstimate, though. MR. FORD-And can you compare the slope there with the slope, is that about the same slope as further up the driveway? MR. BALL-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-The three percent slope just goes in 25 to 30 feet, then we have vertical curve to transition from this line right here, we transition from this line right here to the 13.9% slope here. So, all of this is 13.9. I mean, if we could make it steeper than 13.9, which wouldn't bother the Fire Chief, but it might bother this Board even more, you know, we wouldn't have to do any cutting, to speak of. We could almost follow the existing grade. MR. FORD-My concern, and I really like those pavers, but I see almost a flat area, very little slope at all, where you're beginning the entrance, and that's all paver, correct? MR. BALL-Yes. MR. FORD-At 16 wide. MR. BALL-Yes, enough room for two vehicles, in case one's coming in and one's going out. MR. SEGULJIC-What are you going to be running up there? MR. BALL-I don't know. MR. SCUDDER-Now, you asked about details. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, yes, there's a lot of details that have got to. MR. SCUDDER-Well, the Town Engineer has written a 22 item thing here. We've done almost all of them. You don't know it, but we have. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess from my perspective I'd really be interested in seeing what trees along this driveway you're going to have to remove, if any. MR. BALL-I don't think there's any. We've talked to the Fire Chief, and his only problem was he said this was easy driveway compared to some of them in Queensbury. He just said some of these branches overhanging the driveway, he'd like to see them cut back. I said I'd be more than happy to do it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-He's not concerned about the width. He's concerned about the height so he could get the truck underneath the tree branches. Can somebody read his letter into the record? Is that done? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we all have copies of it, and there is a copy for the file. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, it's just a lot. I'd like to see a lot of this hashed out and re-visited. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We'll definitely have to table it and have the engineer look at this. MR. SEGULJIC-My concern is obviously the grade, but it does, some of the tradeoffs do make sense. I'll stop at that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and, you know, I have some experience on a driveway about this long, with that kind of slope, and I have a blacktop driveway. We didn't blacktop it the first year, but after the frost goes out, you'll want to have it blacktopped, and with the drainage along the side, actually can be very effective, and, so, you know, having walked the property, I think that this is a reasonable solution if we can get the engineer to sign off on your stormwater and look at the slope. Certainly I think that taking out a minimum amount of trees is a much better solution. So we do have to have, obviously, the engineer look at the plan and evaluate it. MR. SCUDDER-Believe me, he will look at it. MR. SIPP-My only concern is setting a precedent. MR. SCUDDER-I thought somebody would bring that up, but you do have a provision in your standards for your (lost word) and this, it seems to me, anyway, is a good place to exercise it, and also the matter of the side slopes. One on three is pretty flat. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-I don't have a calculator, but I think it works. MR. BALL-One on three is real flat. MR. SCUDDER-But, I mean, it's 33%. MR. BALL-I don't know if they're aware of it, but the road in front of us, the West Mountain Road, is one on three. The road itself is one on three from the center of the road. I mean, to ask someone to do there in their driveway, I'll bet you on 1,000 driveways in Queensbury, you might only find one that's one on three. I mean, that's rarely, and the fire department says they'd have no problem with it. The guy said no, there's no problem at all. I'll write anything you want me to say. There's no problem. MR. FORD-So you dictated this letter? MR. SCUDDER-Wait a minute. MR. BALL-Who's the one that initially said we should have a one on three grade, a three percent grade going out to West Mountain Road? Who came up with that? Who came up with that term? I know. I know. MR. HUNSINGER-It's in the Zoning Ordinance. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MRS. STEFFAN-It's in the Code, yes. MR. SCUDDER-Are you familiar with the road from Diamond Point over to Warrensburg, that hill? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-And those slopes there. They are steep slopes on that bank, and I remember when that work was done when Paul Naylor was here, and they stabilized those slopes with certain vegetation. I think it was crown vetch, but a lot of that material, before they did that, a lot of that material wound up down in Lake George. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what we don't want to have happen. MR. SIPP-If you use crown vetch here you've got to have a lot of lime. MR. SCUDDER-Well, we know where to get lime, but this soil is pretty well drained soil. I did note that you've been doing a little research on the soils around here. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. MR. SCUDDER-But we're prepared to dig the test holes to verify our design at the locations where we're going to put the water in the ground. So far we're basing it all on our percolation tests for the wastewater system. MR. OBORNE-Right. I think what the applicant's trying to do is to get a feel for this project as presented to you and he will obviously be tabled and we'll flesh out all the details at a date to be determined. MR. SCUDDER-Well, we've got most of it done. We do have some (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I believe Gretchen started off by saying she liked this plan better than what was proposed. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think provided the engineering, the mechanics of it can be managed. It has a lot of advantages over the other design. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think so, too. MR. FORD-I concur. I think it's better. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the members of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and note that there are no takers. What's the will of the Board? Do we want to table this? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and have them address Staff Notes, VISION Engineering comments, and, you know, obviously they've got a new plan presented. The applicant said that, and his agent, have said that they've addressed some of the concerns. So let's have Staff take a look at those and have the engineer take a look at them and see where we are. MR. SCUDDER-So the public hearing is over? MRS. STEFFAN-No, it's still open, until the next, but no one is here to speak to your application, but no one's here to speak to your application tonight. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No one's here to speak. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Will you be able to have everything on the new plan ready by April 15tn~ MRS. STEFFAN-April 15tn~ MR. SCUDDER-April 15t"? That day rings a bell. Yes. MR. BALL-I think so. MRS. STEFFAN-So three weeks from tonight. MR. SCUDDER-Will we require, if everything is out of the way by April 15t", could we put it to bed that night? MRS. STEFFAN-No, no, April 15t" is your submission deadline for materials. You'll actually be on the May agenda, but the Planning Staff has to have all the materials by that date so that they can get it to the engineer and get comment back. So that we'd be ready to hear it on May. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, is the May 19t" or May 28t"? What's the agendas look like? MR. HUNSINGER-Right now we only have, I think, three items. MR. OBORNE-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So we could do the 19tn~ MR. OBORNE-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD & LINDA BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: This is tabled so that the applicant can address VISION Engineering comments and Staff comments, and to provide both Staff and VISION Engineering with a revised plan. This will be tabled to the May 19t" Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of April 15tH Duly adopted this 24t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And the record will show that we left the public hearing open. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 47-2008 SEQRA TYPE II NIGRO COMPANIES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) UPPER GLEN ST. ASSOC., LLC ZONING HC-INT., HC-MOD LOCATION 735-751 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING 6,546 SQUARE FOOT VIDEO STORE INTO A RESTAURANT, HAIR SALON, AND GAME STORE WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RECONFIGURATION OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMITIS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 98-3257, 98-3256, 98-5244; WARREN CO. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZES 0.39, 0.46, 0.48, 1.0 & 6.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-22 THROUGH 26 SECTION 179-4-020 JON CAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Keith, to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 47-2008, Nigro Companies. Requested action is Planning Board review of site signage to include landscaping. Location 751 Upper Glen Street. Highway Commercial Intensive and Highway Commercial Moderate are the existing zones. This is a Type II SEQRA. No further action necessary. The applicant proposes conversion of a 6,546 square foot video store into a restaurant, hair salon, and game store with associated site work to include signage and landscaping. This application was approved on November 18, 2008. A clarification resolution was issued directing the applicant to obtain their building permit without final approval of building signage. The applicant has subsequently submitted building signage for Planning Board review for January 20, 2008. The applicant was tabled until March 24, 2009 pending additional details. I do want to state that it was actually January 20, 2009. signage details, I do want to say that the Super Cuts wall sign is compliant. All the wall signs are compliant, with the exception of the Five Guys wall sign. We'll probably need some clarification on the overall sign dimension to be used on that. The Planning Board may wish to verify the location of the proposed freestanding sign. If the sign is to be placed in the same location as the existing sign, then it would appear that the proposed sign is compliant. If there are any changes to the location of the proposed sign, the applicant must submit new updated plans for review, and just a quick knowledge for the Board, the freestanding sign has been installed, and there may be issue as far as where its setback is located, and Mr. Capper will discuss that, and I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CAPPER-Hi. I think this is pretty straightforward. There were two issues. The Five Guys sign is, this was submitted February 17t", and it is three feet by twenty-two feet seven and a half inches, comes out to 67.80 square feet. So that should be okay, and I have a confirmation from the sign company today that they say, round it up to 68 square feet. So that covers that. The really good news is that they are planning to open on April 20t", and I think that's going to be pretty popular. Really good burgers, and the story with the pylon, this was apre-existing sign that this Board said you didn't want it as a pylon, you wanted it as a monument. So all that they did was they took off the pole, they dropped it down. So the sign box was already there. They dropped it down, put in the apron, and then there was, you know, pretty nice landscaping which was certainly necessary which you previously approved, and the letter from the Town Engineer confirms on the plan he said the pylon sign proposed on the Site Plan application drawings by Bergmann Associates shows the sign located 15 feet from the property line. So you have to scale it off because it wasn't identified, but he did, and that verifies that it is, because the property line is all the way by the sidewalk. So I think that we've done everything that we've been asked. MR. FORD-Excuse me, Jon, could you address Number Two under VISION Engineering? MR. CAPPER-That was addressed by Keith because he has all the square footage. So somehow there was something crossed in the communication, but Keith's memo has the square footage of every sign except for Five Guys, and I just provided that. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. CAPPER-I think that buttons it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SIPP-What trench were they digging out there today? MR. CAPPER-I didn't see, but I know they're working like crazy to get the thing open. MR. SIPP-Well, what is the trench for? MR. CAPPER-Where was it, in the front or the back? MR. SIPP-Well, towards the rear. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. CAPPER-Yes, that's where the utilities are, probably sewer connection. I know the grease trap is back there. That was on the original Site Plan. I remember that that was in the back. MR. TRAVER-Could you clarify the, again, the square footage of the Five Guys sign? The handout that I have says 72.42 square feet, and I think he said it was 68. MR. CAPPER-Because there was an original submission and then a revised, and that's the difference. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. CAPPER-So the revised submission. MR. TRAVER-So the figures you gave us tonight are the revised figures? MR. CAPPER-No. It was submitted, because I have a cover letter dated February 17tH MRS. STEFFAN-It's what we got today. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see that. Thank you. MR. CAPPER-Okay, and I could certainly put on the record Ray's Sign saying that it's 68 feet, if you want, to just include that. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Thank you. Actually, it does say on this one raised sign 67.8 square feet. MR. CAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. That's what we just got today. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CAPPER-I'll admit that I went to check it out at Exit 15 yesterday and the burgers are really good. Dangerous for the waistline, but you can get sauteed onions and mushrooms. It's all the same price. Good stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Anything else from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? We did close the public hearing? I'm sorry, yes. Big letters on the fly sheet. Let the record show the public hearing was already closed. Anything else from members of the Board? It's a Type I I action. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2008 NIGRO COMPANIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF, SPECIFICALLY CONDITION 5 G. Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: This application was approved on11/18/08; and On 12/16/08 the Planning Board issued a resolution directing the applicant to appear before the Planning Board on 1/20/09 for review of signage plans; and All previous conditions of approval apply. Duly adopted this 24t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CAPPER-Thank you. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE II AFTAB BHATTI AGENT(S) JONATHAN CAPPER, BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN THAT INCLUDE THE REMOVAL FROM THE PLAN OF THE APPROVED LANDSCAPED ISLAND AT MAIN ENTRANCE AND A CHANGE TO THE PARKING LOT LAYOUT. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 85-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.0, 0.83, 0.39 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51, 52.12, 52.13 SECTION 179-9-030 JON CAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 12-2004, Modification Number Three, applicant Aftab Bhatti. Requested action, modification to approved Site Plans require Planning Board review and approval. Location is 543 Aviation Road. The zoning is Highway Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes modifications to an approved Site Plan that include the removal from the plan of the approved landscaped island at the main entrance, removal from the plan of a parking space for landscaping and a change to the parking lot layout. Modifications to approved Site Plans require Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments: Site Plan 12- 2004 Mod was approved on February 28, 2006. The applicant is before the Planning Board for a modification to the approved Site Plan mentioned above. Specifically, the applicant wishes to gain approval for the removal from the Site Plan of the parking lot island located to the south, the two spaces at the entrance to the dumpster enclosure, and the southwest parking spot that was approved for landscaping. Further, the three lots associated with this application must be consolidated as per the conditions of approval for Site Plan 12-2004 Mod dated 2/28/06. These requests are the result of a Site Plan Inspection Report generated by Bruce Frank dated December 18, 2007. The following are responses to the applicant's agent letter dated November 14, 2008 in the order received, and I'm going to assume that the Planning Board has reviewed those responses and I will add, under additional comments, that the freestanding sign is not located on as built survey. Please locate. Parcel consolidation must be accomplished and may be a condition of approval. Engineering fees must be paid and may be a condition of approval, and I'd turn it over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. CAPPER-For the record, Jon Capper and Sam is with me. Let me just go down the list. One of the conditions of the original approval was to consolidate the parcels, and that couldn't be done until they had a final closing with their loan, after the construction was done, because there were two separate mortgages. So they had to be separate parcels for the bank. So that did get done over the summer. What Keith indicated is that we had submitted the form that we filed with the County, dated August 5t", but it didn't show up on the records until March 1St tax status date when it actually kicked in. So we called today and verified it's all one parcel. So we had the documentation in the file that it was properly submitted, and now it's been consolidated by the tax map office. So that's done. The block planter is gone. Although it does still show on the map because it was there when the map was done. So I guess we have to, when we do the final, final map we'll have to take that off. The landscaped island, this is in front of the canopy for the Quality Inn, and basically Sam determined that it was too tight. We got the Fire Marshal to come and do an inspection, and the Fire Marshal issued a letter saying that he's in agreement that he doesn't want it there, and that was submitted to you with the application, the Fire Marshal's letter, but in exchange for that, what Sam is offering is to plant some evergreens that we can specify behind the office next to the Silo on that corner. That certainly could be beefed up, and so I would throw out three, six foot spruce trees or anything else that Don or anybody else wanted to specify, in terms of plantings, but that's just a suggestion. It's just a tight site, and when it was designed, it was a very narrow island anyway. The other thing I have to mention, where it says sign, that is the pylon sign, right by the front entrance, but the other thing that the Fire Marshal is talking about is that space that is just east of sign is where he's also saying that it's not safe. So what we're proposing is that we'll cross hatch that in yellow, so that nobody parks there, and we agreed to that when we were on site with the Fire Marshal. Do you see where I'm talking about on the map? MR. HUNSINGER-So that existing parking spot. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. CAPPER-That existing parking spot has to go because it's just, I mean, you can get around it, but you shouldn't. It's just too tight. So we told the Fire Marshal we'd get rid of that. MRS. STEFFAN-And the landscape island that exists is not on the plan. MR. CAPPER-It doesn't exist. MRS. STEFFAN-It's gone? MR. CAPPER-It was supposed to be. It was never constructed. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-At that spot. MR. CAPPER-Yes. That spot, the blue car can't be there. So that'll get cross hatched. Let's see. Then in terms of the spots. Now, the reason we're adding two spots by the dumpster is because, to get up to the 86 required. So those will be labeled for employees. Just because that's something you can control. But to get to 86, we have to use those two, and then the issue is the third spot, which, and this shows that it's three quarters out. That was paving that was there before Sam bought it, probably since the beginning of time with whatever happened with the roads in those days when the road was relocated. So that's something that's partly within the right of way of the State highway but there's never been a problem. I mean, he'd like to leave it there because he needs it to make his 86 spaces, and it's always been there. MR. HUNSINGER-So the two proposed spots in front of the dumpster would only be for employees? MR. CAPPER-Yes, because at some point the garbage is going to have to be picked up and if you mark them as employee spots, guests won't stay there and if the employees have to move, they can move. It just seemed like a practical. MR. HUNSINGER-How often is the dumpster? MR. CAPPER-In the summer, how often is the dumpster? SAM BHATTI MR. BHATTI-Summer is twice a week. MR. CAPPER-Okay. Twice a week. MR. BHATTI-Winter is once a week, and normally they come after 11 o'clock and after 11 o'clock all the people have already checked out. MR. CAPPER-In the morning. MR. BHATTI-In the morning. They only come between 11 and 2. Because people start checking in at 3 p.m. and they all check out at 11 o'clock, and before. MR. CAPPER-Because of that type of motel that it is. Now the stormwater basins, when Bruce did his original write up, after the CO was issued, his letter indicated that they worked fine, although they could be better defined, but since they're working fine, we're just proposing to leave them alone and we don't have anything, VISION didn't say anything about that, and there was a pole light that had to get changed and that happened. That's done, and that's been verified, and on the VISION comments, they're saying whatever the Board requires should be on one final plan that gets submitted to the Staff which will indicate everything we've talked about, and the parking, the handicap spaces shown on the survey are not ADA compliant, and the issue there is that they're right on the site, but this map doesn't show the blue cross hatched. So we'll update the survey. If you look along the two story motel building that's on the west side where you have the handicap spot, sort of towards the rear. That space next door is actually cross hatched where the stairs are. That's not a parking spot. You could probably put a motorcycle in there, but, so that has to be shown as cross hatched, and then also the one, there's also a blue cross hatch that's not on the map by the canopy, and we'll have to add that by that handicap spot. So we'll make those changes, if that's acceptable to the Board, and submit it to Staff. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MRS. STEFFAN-I don't know about anybody else, but my head's like kind of confused, because there's just so many things going on. So I've got the VISION Engineering comments. I've got Staff Notes, and it's just, I don't know, I don't know whether we can approve it with all these conditions. I guess that's a point I want to make. So what do we do? MR. OBORNE-If I may add, is the Board comfortable with what the applicant is proposing? MR. HUNSINGER-That's a good place to start. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it certainly seems reasonable, and obviously the applicant is trying to wrap this up and get to some kind of conclusion. There are some things that the applicant has to do in order to complete this, but I would like to move it along. MR. FORD-I have a question. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. FORD-I know this site is so tight and I know that there are requirements for parking spaces. I'm just concerned about that allocation of employee parking in front of the dumpster. Is there any other place? MR. CAPPER-There's nothing else. There's nowhere else on the site that they could go. Otherwise, we would certainly, that's a last resort. Yes, and in fact we're using, you know, half a space in the State right of way, you know, to have that last conforming spot, or conforming in terms of number. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-It all seems to make sense. It's just clearly denoting what we're approving. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CAPPER-We could go through it slowly. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that's what we've got to do. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, one of my concerns with this particular project, I mean, it's gone through a lot of different iterations, and I guess I would like to see everything. I would like to see a final Site Plan with everything, with all of the changes made before I approve, that's how I feel about it, just because we've seen this so many times and there's been so many issues with this particular Site Plan, I would feel better if everything was wrapped up before. MR. CAPPER-If that's your position, that's fine, but I just want to explain that the only changes to the map we would be doing would be yellow stripes where you can't park, blue stripes next to the two handicap spaces, and then. MRS. STEFFAN-Employee parking marks. MR. CAPPER-Employee parking in front of the dumpster, and where it says masonry block planter out by Aviation Road, that'll be removed, and that's it. MR. OBORNE-I would want to add also the landscaping on the Silo side. MR. CAPPER-The trees, yes, on the east side. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Those would be helpful. You had that picture up there a minute ago. Certainly some trees in that area. MR. CAPPER-Yes, but it doesn't say it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-What about the ownership? Was there an issue of, in the Staff Notes about ownership? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. He said they took care of it, consolidating the lots. MRS. STEFFAN-So that has been completed. No, there was another comment. It wasn't consolidating the lots. It was about ownership of somebody else's. MR. CAPPER-That was the parking space by Aviation Road, closest to Aviation Road, where that dark black line goes through the spot. MRS. STEFFAN-So in the right of way? MR. CAPPER-Yes, but it's just always been there, and they need it. MRS. STEFFAN-And when could the Town expect that the engineering fees would be paid? MR. CAPPER-When we submit the map, I would say probably take three weeks to get the map re-done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no takers. We will leave the public hearing open for the time being. Is the Board leaning towards moving this one this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-Moving it or tabling it? I want to see a plan finished. MR. HUNSINGER-Are we more inclined to move it or table it I guess is the question? MR. FORD-Looking at the history of the site and the project, I would feel more comfortable if I had in front of me everything that has been stipulated tonight. MR. SEGULJIC-Tabling. MR. CAPPER-We're not going to argue, whatever the Board's preference. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CAPPER-In that case we'll get it in by April 15tH MRS. STEFFAN-For the 19t" meeting. MR. CAPPER-I've got it all marked up on my map. We'll get it to the surveyor. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Okay. I'll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 AFTAB BHATTI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: This will be tabled to the May 19t" Planning Board meeting with an application, or submission deadline of April 15t", since the applicant can satisfy VISION Engineering comments as well as Staff Notes. Duly adopted this 24t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. CAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 SEAR TYPE II BRIAN MC CALL AGENT(S) ALBERT MUGRACE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 274 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF TWO WORK BAYS & STORAGE FOR TIRE WAREHOUSE. AUTO REPAIR AND RETAIL USES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1-08, AV - 07, SV 59-01, SP 44-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 LOT SIZE 0.58 ACRES, 0.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-39, 38 SECTION 179-4-020 ALBERT MUGRACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. Site Plan 64-2007, Brian McCall. Requested Action, Site Plan Review for auto repair and retail expansion. Location, 274 Quaker Road, existing zoning is Highway Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II, no SEQRA determination required. Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct an 1890 square foot addition to an existing structure on Quaker Road. The addition will include two work bays and storage for tires. Staff comments: Area Variance 1-2008 was approved on June 18, 2008. The applicant has reduced the size of the proposal from 2,550 square feet to 1890 square feet, from three work bays to two work bays. The addition of two parking spaces has been provided for, per 179-4-040, Table Five. Further, the new parking configuration should provide for smoother site circulation during non-winter months than previously proposed. Currently, the area to be built on has five storage containers used for used tires. These containers are in violation of Section 179-5-020. Ostensibly these structures will no longer serve a purpose and be removed prior to construction. I do want to read into the record the additional comments that is associated with the site, with the Staff Notes. The Homer Avenue stormwater project is in the final stages of design. An agreement with affected landowners and project participants concerning timing, duration and cost is forthcoming. Upon completion of the agreement, the project will be put out to bid. Any questions concerning this project may be forwarded to the Department of Community Development and/or the Town of Queensbury Supervisors office. Snow may need to be removed from site as storage capacity is minimal and encroaches on the right of way located to the rear of the site. Due to the restrictive nature of this site, the ongoing maneuverability problem between adjoining parcels is prevalent and acrimonious, and I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. MUGRACE-Good evening. I'm Albert Mugrace. I'm the architect in charge of this project. I work for the Tire Warehouse. As of four o'clock today we were in receipt of a letter from the Department of Community Development Queensbury Planning Board, and also a letter from VISION Engineering, LLC, and I don't know if you want me to go over all the items listed in these two letters, basically, or if you want to just ask questions. We're here to. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don't know if you need to go over all of them, but maybe, I mean, there are some comments from Staff, you know, I don't know if you want to comment on, and there are some outstanding items from VISION Engineering. MR. MUGRACE-From what I understand VISION Engineering, reading the letter, they've, there are all together 12 items here, and they're all marked completed, except for, I think it's Number Six, site drainage pipe connection to the proposed Town culvert should be designed to the highest elevation possible. Pipe with a minimum cover rating of one foot should be used. I believe there was a discussion between Dave Meyers, our engineer, and Mr. Dan Ryan, and they've basically, our engineer has agreed to do that. So everything else is completed, in relation to the letter with VISION Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the other comment he has is on the drainage easements. Where do we stand with that, the last item on his letter? MR. MUGRACE-Right. ROB MC CARTHY MR. MC CARTHY-Rob McCarthy, counsel. We had a meeting last Friday the 13t" with the two members of VISION, a Town Board member and also your Town Attorney, I don't know if he's in-house or outside counsel, Mike. MR. HUNSINGER-Mike Hill? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. MC CARTHY-Thank you. We went through a whole litany of questions that we had. My client is the only client that's going to be affected by the construction. It's broken down into three phases. The first phase is behind the building, which ties into the end part of the, from the property down into the stream area. There's the second phase which is in the front of the building, which is from the main road into about, I don't know, maybe 50 feet or so. And the third phase, which is the most important phase, is the phase that runs directly across the bays of my client, and from Day One, and I've told the Board this the last time we were here, that we needed some type of construction schedule and we needed some type of bid documents to figure out actually how that was going to be bid. We discussed possibly working on Sunday. We discussed possibly plating it every certain amount of feet, and the Town Engineer was going to come to my client's place of business to look at it, and then get a proposal together, what best would suit my client's needs, to the extent that, once again, they're the only ones that are going to be out of business for a period of time. So that's what we're waiting for. The bid documents have to be very, very specific because you're looking at bidding on, working on Sunday, and certain requirements, and that's just what we're waiting for. In conjunction with that, we have a meeting, a court conference tomorrow with the litigation that's pending, which the Board's aware of. I've spoken to all the different parties. I think we're all on board. We're just waiting for the Town to move. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Was there anything under Staff comments that you wanted to address? If not, we can just open it up for questions. MR. MUGRACE-I believe most of the items listed in this Site Plan Review have already been discussed previously, and I don't see any items there that should be addressed still. There is a, we talked about the consolidation of the parcels, single direction traffic flow in a counterclockwise manner. That is something that we've given serious consideration to, but unfortunately, because of the density of the lot, it's going to create more problems than it's going to solve, I believe, and we kind of like mutually agreed a couple of times on that, with the Town Engineer and the Town Planners. The collection of the roof drainage, actually construction sequencing omitted from plan it says here, but obviously as soon as we get some sort of a direction on how this project's going to proceed, we will coordinate it with all the, you know, all the parties involved. Collection of roof drainage from the existing building, that has been addressed. Our engineer has spoken to Dan Ryan from VISION, and they've discussed that in full details, and I believe that that's addressing the storm management report, and the drawings that, you know, are part of that report. Snow storage, the only, really the only place where we can store snow there, in an effective way, is close to the road, you know, near the ditch. MR. OBORNE-And that is of concern to Staff. Because that snow is not treated. Usually it's, well, right now, it's melting right now, obviously, but a lot of the snow restricts the site even more. It is a problem, and I think that that's a given, at this point, but really it's not been addressed to a satisfactory manner, in my opinion. We do have concerns about the snow being put into the drainage easement on Quaker Road. Because, again, it's not treated, and it should not be that heavy of a lift, in my mind, to take care of the snow storage issue, but again, that's my opinion. MR. MUGRACE-Well, you talk about, in the next sheet here, about snow may need to be removed from site as storage capacity is minimal and encroaches on the right of way located to the rear of the site. So maybe some kind of a coordinated effort might be implemented there, you know, and try to alleviate that issue that way. MR. OBORNE-Something certainly needs to be done. MR. MUGRACE-Because obviously, you know, the grades are what they are in the front of the property. MR. OBORNE-It's a tight, tight property. MR. MUGRACE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So how do you deal with snow now? Do you just push it all the way to the front? BRIAN MC CALL MR. MC CALL-We just plow it to the open areas on the lot now, and we maneuver the property fine the way it is. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. HUNSINGER-But isn't the only open area the front? MR. MC CALL-The front and the rear of the property, there's some existing room. MRS. STEFFAN-And that doesn't inhibit the right of way? Because during the last public hearing there were two other businesses, one on the side of you and one behind you, that use the right of way. Is that correct? MR. MC CALL-No, it was open for the full width of the right of way. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. MC CALL-Their trucks are able to go through, customers and everything. MRS. STEFFAN-To maneuver, okay. MR. MC CARTHY-There's one other issue. The property needs to be consolidated, which the documents are done. We're just waiting. We'll do that momentarily. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. MUGRACE-The last item on the Site Plan Review from Staff has to do with the restrictive nature of the site, ongoing maneuverability problem between adjoining parcels is prevalent and acrimonious. We're in full agreement with that, and we're trying to do the best here to improve the, well, we're not going to improve the circulation, but at least we're going to try to contain it. MR. MC CARTHY-Which we did. We changed the configuration of the parking and so forth, as the Board had requested, and that will make maneuvering around the building much easier. I think we've accomplished everything that you've asked in the last four or five meetings that we've had. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-I'd like to save mine until I've heard the public input. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on this application? Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JEFF MEYER MR. MEYER-Chairman Hunsinger, members of the Board, my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney with Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth. I've previously appeared on this on behalf of the Adirondack Wine Merchants, the adjoining property to the east. We've since been retained by Minogue's Beverage Center to also object to this application and to request that the project be denied, due to the numerous health, safety and general welfare concerns, and the problems that will be exacerbated by the increase in use. Initially, one of the big concerns, obviously, is the increased traffic hazards and the inability for vehicles to circulate the site. There was just discussion as to whether or not it would be one way or two way. If it has to be approved, we would strongly encourage the one way be re-evaluated, as there is only 20 feet in between the building and the property lines, and it's just simply not enough room for two way traffic. There is no shared rights of access along the Minogue side of the building. There's a right of way that stops probably 10 to 15 feet into the property, and just so there's no confusion as to the ability for, you know, essentially shared use of this open space. Presently, delivery trucks can't circulate the site, and they're consistently trespassing onto my client's property. When they are delivering items, they often, if not always, block the right of way completely. We have submitted photographs to document that of, you know, when the tires are being removed. Additionally, there's, you know, traffic can't circulate on its own property to enter and exit the bays, which essentially goes right to the heart of the issue. Along the lines of traffic circulation, there's no emergency access. If a tractor trailer or larger truck can't circulate it, there's certainly no way for a fire truck to circulate it. There's no fire lanes. There's no markings. There's nothing to ensure the Town would be able to take care of the community in the worst case scenario events. Along those lines of being able to utilize the site as presently designed, it's not compatible with the proposed use. We've talked about circulation issues, and the insufficient space to turn 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) around in the bays. Parking is frequently discussed. Currently there's insufficient parking for the use. They have a great deal of business that comes in and out of this site. It's the reason for the expansion, but they're frequently looking for other spaces to park their cars, and it tends to happen on my client's property. Periodically there's, you know, we bring it to everybody's attention and, you know, nothing ever changes. We've never actually taken the step of posting and towing vehicles. We're trying to avoid that scenario, but the site can't hold the amount of business that they do, and another note is originally they had always discussed about the purpose of this addition is service larger vehicles, you know, the new large Cadillac SUV's, the large trucks, and if that's, you know, truly the intent, why are the bays smaller than what's presently there? You know, why is everything kind of shrunk down and encroach, it just, I don't know, we're having a hard time reconciling the justification that's been presented. MR. HUNSINGER-Any final comments? MR. MEYER-Final comment is we had submitted a letter and a stormwater engineer's report to review the plans, and there is no, in addition to everything else, there is no off street loading facilities on site. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Was that letter submitted to Staff? MR. MEYER-It was submitted to Staff Monday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It's in the folder. MR. HUNSINGER-So it'll be read into the record in a few minutes. MR. OBORNE-If you'd like it to be read, sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. How lengthy is it, or was there copies for everybody? MR. OBORNE-I do have copies. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. ROB DOAN MR. DOAN-Good evening. A couple of quick comments. My name's Rob Doan, owner of the Adirondack Wine Merchants property to the east. When you look at that picture up there, it's somewhat misleading. We've had several surveys done, and I've had folks from the Town out, including Bruce Frank, and they've stood on the far eastern property line of Mr. McCall, and where that blue line is in relationship to our adjoining properties, it's actually closer to the center island of his planter. So where you see, on the side of my building, one vehicle, and you can see on his property where the container is, or was, you couldn't, the property line was actually right up against that container. So just for you guys to recognize that's slightly misleading. The other thing is snow removal. Tom Ross's property has a garage at the back of it, and if you look at a couple of bushes that are back there now, there's currently some damage done to them. My point in that is that the snow is not only pushed to the front, but it's also pushed to the back of the building, as they've said. It does restrict the access and the easement there, and it restricts it to the point that about a month ago or within a month ago there was a Waste Management truck there, stuck across the easement, for about seven hours, in other words, no traffic going one way or the other. Now that didn't impede my business, but it did impede Minogue's and it did impede the Tire Warehouse certainly, and it didn't impede Time Warner, and the only reason that I bring that up is for clarification. It seems to me that in every meeting that we've come to, there's been points presented on both sides of this, and there's been some congruency on either side of the property, which has been in stark contrast to the presentation that's been made by the applicant. I would hope that you would sincerely take a look at what both the Minogue's has put forward and what we have put forward. I'm not trying to stand in the way of anybody doing any good business, and I'm not trying to stand in the way of anybody building their business, but when it does infringe on other property owner's ability to do business, and when it impacts the Town in a negative fashion, it needs to have a fine tooth comb run through it. It needs to be looked at very closely. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. MC CARTHY-Just a couple of quick comments. We didn't prepare that. I don't know what he's referring to. MR. OBORNE-Yes. That's for demonstration purposes. It's a generalization. MR. MC CARTHY-And we concur. That's why we're here. I mean, we know that it's tight, and that's why we made the changes that we wanted, you know, that the Board wanted. You've asked for us to do a litany of things. We have no problem and we've done all of them, and hopefully that will resolve a lot of the concerns of the neighbors. So, that's it, and if there's any other questions, we'd be more than happy to answer them. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. TRAVER-I guess, to re-visit the issue of the management of snow in the wintertime, would you be prepared to agree to a plan to remove the snow from the site, as opposed to pushing it into the areas, as has been the practice in the past? I think we need to acknowledge the concerns of, first of all, the apparent damage, or potential damage to the property in the rear, but perhaps even most importantly, the placement of the snow, as Staff pointed out, untreated, essentially going into the water, which is going right into the Halfway Brook, is of real concern, and it relates to the density of the site, I understand, but I think it's almost asking you to make an accommodation to the environmental quality of the area, due to the density of the site. MR. MC CARTHY-I don't think we'd have an objection, within reason. I mean, obviously, if it's a couple of inches on the ground, it's not going to make a difference. Our concern is where you're looking is not just where we plow, where my client plows. Everyone seems to be plowing in certain directions. So, I guess, you know, we'd have to have some cooperation from the neighbors also that they're not just going to plow up to us and then we incur the cost to remove it. Within reason. I mean, it only makes good business sense. If it's too much snow on the ground, then we can't operate, and it has to go. So within reason, I don't think we'd have an objection. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, of course the other merchants have the same problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KREBS-So are you going to require that they take their snow away? MR. TRAVER-Well, except that they're not quite as proximate to the culvert. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, they are. I mean, Minogue's, the Beverage Center, is right there. They're closer, to be honest with you. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. MC CARTHY-And they've got more back area that they would be plowing than we would be plowing. Especially with the new building. I mean, then it's limited area there that we would be plowing. MR. FORD-What about the concept of one way traffic? MR. MC CARTHY-Well, I think the presentation was, originally provided what the Board wanted. We wanted circulation. I think that's what we've addressed from Day One. Going one way, I don't know if necessarily it's feasible. It meets all of the requirements, and that's what the Board requested, you know, months ago, that's the direction we went in. I mean, there's enough room, 20 feet is enough room. It meets what is required from the Town requirements to get around the building. MR. FORD-Two way traffic. MR. MC CARTHY-Correct. MR. OBORNE-Twenty-four feet would be two way traffic. Just for clarification. Twenty feet is for fire emergency vehicles. Town Code states that the drive aisles must be 24 feet. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. FORD-So we do not have that. MR. MC CARTHY-I'd have to look at the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, part of the problem in having one way traffic is there's that right of way access. MR.OBORNE-Absolutely. Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-And we couldn't impose restrictions on that. MR. OBORNE-I think it would be difficult to enforce, and it would be difficult to actually have happen, human nature being what it is. MR. MUGRACE-We've got, on this side, 23.5 to the property line, and then of course there is that easement that goes through here, which would add additional width. MR. MC CARTHY-To the right of way. MR. MUGRACE-And then on this side, which would be the east side, we have plus or minus 25 feet, 24 feet 7, which is pretty much consistent all the way through, and in the rear we have about 37 feet, and that's where the access road is. MR. FORD-Do you have any other way of addressing the business neighbors to the east and west of you, relative to utilization of their property? MR. MC CARTHY-Well, if you're facing the street, I don't know the directions. The liquor store put boulders up. So I don't think that's an issue. I don't necessarily know if that's appropriate with fire trucks and so forth, but they put boulders up. I don't know if that's going to be ever an issue, no one can get through. To the other side, it is tight. There are customers. I've been there on Memorial Day, and the beer distributors customers are parked on my client's property. Does it happen? We try not to let it happen. We would put signs up. It's tough when someone comes in without, you know, before they are a customer, on both sides of the fence. I mean, we can't say to them they should be responsible for someone that's coming in on our side of the cut and going over to them. You just can't control everything. We try to be a good neighbor. Unfortunately sometimes it happens. I mean, they had pictures of trucks that they said were on our property. We provided you with pictures of a delivery truck, a beer truck, on our property with a forklift. It is tight, but, you know, we're trying to address that with everything we've done. MR. FORD-Are there times when it is obvious that you have customers or Staff who are parking their vehicles off your property? MR. MC CARTHY-If they are parked off our property, we make it a point, especially since we've been here, you know, over the last year, we make it a point to tell them to move over, you know, to come on to the property or to bring their car over, and if it is, it's usually a short period of time from my knowledge of the business, where you want to get them in the bays as quickly as possible. You want to be working on them. They come in, tell them, all right, park over here, let's get you in, but it's a rare occurrence. MR. MC CALL-For that to happen, it is a rare occurrence. It's not something that happens, you know, daily, weekly. When I do see it, if I see it once a month, in the last couple of months, and it was addressed immediately. MR. MC CARTHY-And we're not professing at all that it doesn't happen, nor can Minogues say it doesn't happen. I mean, it happens. It's one big parking lot. You try not to let it happen, and that's what we do, but I can't say that we're going to be able to control every customer, but when we realize that the customer is in the wrong spot, we tell them to move it over. MR. HUNSINGER-Has there been any attempt to try to mitigate some of that through striping and markings? MR. MC CARTHY-No, it was never brought up. The boulders on one side kind of resolve that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. MC CARTHY-On the other side, no, but once again, as a customer, I don't think a stripe down a line is going to make too much of a difference, just as a practical matter. If someone's coming in to go get a six pack of beer, and they're going to make it into the second one because they missed the first one, they're going to come through. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MC CARTHY-Unfortunately there's not much we can do about it. I mean, I would have no objection if you want to put a stripe down the road, the middle of it on the property line. I don't think that would be an issue, just a couple of gallons of paint. You just don't know if it's going to practically resolve anything. What we need to have is two neighbors, one, cooperate with each other, and, two, be more courteous with each other and say, hey, listen, you're on my property. Can you bring your car over here and visa versa, just like any neighbors in a development. MR. SEGULJIC-This has been going on for a long time. I wish I had wisdom to solve the whole thing for you, but back to the beginning though. The reason why you're putting the two bays in is? MR. MC CALL-The reason we're putting the two bays in is, like a lot of the larger vehicles nowadays, the SUV's, and we do need larger bays. These lifts that we have, for the newer vehicles, kind of take up a little bit more room. We just need the room to work on those type of vehicles. Increased tire storage. There's two new competitors in the area that have opened up, you know, a new box store, I believe, has opened up down the road, a lot of new competitors. We need to be able to compete with them. MR. SEGULJIC-So, are these two bays going to increase your customers? MR. MC CALL-Not necessarily. I'm not saying it won't increase sales, but it's more in line for the type of vehicles that are out there now. I can't say that, I mean, obviously we want it to increase sales, but. MR. SEGULJIC-So you're putting in these two new bays to service the bigger vehicles that are potentially out there, because you need a different lift? MR. MC CALL-Correct. MR. FORD-You couldn't reconfigure an existing bay and accomplish the same thing? MR. MC CARTHY-Then you'd lose some storage because they're bigger lifts. They're longer lifts. The trucks, you know, the trucks will get through the same garage door size. It's the length that you have to work on that becomes an issue, and the lifts are extremely expensive. They're heavy duty. Take up more space. MR. SEGULJIC-This certainly is a tough one. MR. MC CARTHY-I think we've accomplished everything the Board had asked. As you've indicated, that we've been here, I don't know, maybe a year now. MR. SEGULJIC-Quite a while. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, and every time we've come, you've asked us to do stuff, and I think we've addressed that for everything that you wanted, we've addressed, and I understand also the Town wishes to have this culvert taken care of, and this helps out the entire project. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, clearly, one of the other things of the proposal is that you eliminate the storage containers that are out back, which, as are pointed out in Staff Notes, are not compliant, but they are there, and it does resolve that issue. MR. MC CARTHY-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? People comfortable moving forward? Is there additional information that we want to see? MR. KREBS-I think we know what the issues are. It's just a matter of making a decision to approve it or disapprove it. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MRS. STEFFAN-And certainly, after just reading the Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth correspondence, and then the evaluation by Paragon Engineering, they certainly bring up some questions about the stormwater design, and I know we have signoffs from VISION Engineering on most elements, but it certainly does raise some other issues. MR. KREBS-But, you know, we also have stormwater coming off of Quaker Road that isn't treated that goes into the same culvert, that goes into the same brook. So if you're not willing to go after the County and get them to do something about, there's a lot more surface on Quaker Road than there is on this parking lot. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you guys just change tires, or do you change oils and transmission fluids? MR. MC CARTHY-Brakes. All that is taken off. DEC is involved. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You do have DEC requirements. Yes. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, I mean, that's, yes. To be honest with you, it's a relatively clean operation at these points. It's not the same thing as 20 years ago. I mean, everything is accounted for, the DEC permits. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a comment, Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP-I can see we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. So the situation is such that you can't make any more land, and you can't stretch out the space that's there. So you're going to have to deal with what you've got, and if this building is compliant and we think it's going to work, I don't see how, everybody's going to suffer, but I don't see that we can waive a magic wand and have this thing come out the way everybody would like it. It's just not going to happen. So I would go forward with whatever we think can do the least harm. MR. FORD-Well, the least harm probably is the existing structure. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, not necessarily because we've changed a lot of the traffic flow. We've changed a lot of the water runoff. So I don't necessarily agree with what you're saying. We've made the changes to make it better. I mean, you do nothing, you're still going to have the water runoff. You're going to still have the traffic problems. You're still going to have the parking issues. This is to prevent that. I mean, we agree it's tight. That's what we're here for, and this is a package deal that makes it more appealable to the Town, the neighbors, to us. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and we have an addition on the back of the building, and not the storage huts either. MR. SIPP-Does anybody have any idea how this stormwater structure is going to be put in place and how big it is and where? MR. MC CARTHY-Yes. There's plans. I don't know if the Board has them. There are plans from VISION. It's a substantial project. I think it's a, it's 48. It's big, it's a big project. As I said, they're going to put it in in three phases, and it's going to run and there's going to be catch basins. MR. SIPP-Yes. This is obviously going to drain Homer Avenue. MR. MC CARTHY-It's coming from the road, if I can point up, it's coming from the road. There's going to be a culvert to the left, and it's going to go right into there. Phase I, it's broken into phases. This area right here, this area right here, and then this area. I'm not exactly sure if this is one and two and three. This is definitely three, or this is one and two. Because the culvert here, catch basin here is going to come down, run, and then go into the corner, and that's going to resolve all of the issues down the road. There's the litigation that you're aware of. That should solve that problem also. MR. SEGULJIC-Now I know this was discussed before, but just for clarification, the engineer's comment, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed all the technical review comments thus far. We recommend any project approval be conditioned on the following. The stormwater design, that comment. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. MC CARTHY-That's been resolved, I believe, from VISION. We've completed all the comments they had. MR. SEGULJIC-It says since stormwater design as proposed requires the on site culvert to be replaced, we recommend no permit be issued for the applicant's project. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, we clearly cannot get any CO until that's done. I mean, approval process, we should get our approvals, obviously if the Board approves us. The Town, what I'm told, is trying to bid this as soon as possible, and hopefully have it up by May, bid by May and start as soon as possible, as per our meeting last week. It doesn't necessarily mean that we can't start construction and then tie in. I don't think we should be able to use the premise until such time, and get a CO for that part of it, until such time as we tie in, but we clearly understand the project is contingent upon the culvert being in there. My point is, I don't know how long the Town's going to take. I mean, it's really out of our personal hands. MR. SEGULJIC-So this stormwater project is going to happen? MR. OBORNE-It's going to happen, one way or another. MR. HUNSINGER-It has to. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MC CARTHY-And we're contingent upon it. That's where all the water is dumping, or stormwater is dumping in. So if that doesn't happen, then we're going to be back. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, that's what they're saying, yes. MR. KREBS-And won't that culvert help with the snow runoff, too? MR. MUGRACE-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Are you talking to me? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Are you talking the Homer stormwater project? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. OBORNE-They'll be putting in oil separators and they'll be on the hoods to separate the oil and the water. MR. MUGRACE-Okay. We have basically two collectors in the rear of the property, and they're identified as D. They're catch basins, and then down here, near the property line, there is an actual oil separator. This is design to accept all the sediments, and obviously it needs to be cleaned every so often, but I believe that that will take care of some of the snow issues, too, you know the snow storage issue, because the property, the topography here has a tendency to, everything has a tendency to discharge towards this basin. That's why it was put up in that location. So, this is going to help, not just this property, but all the adjacent properties as well. MR. MC CARTHY-There's also a catch basin on the top left hand, which would be in the picture on the top left hand corner, the catch basin. MR. MUGRACE-Yes. That's this one here. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, the engineering comment, engineering has been addressed. MRS. STEFFAN-Except in any motion it would have to be, there's two outstanding items. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess I'm just trying to think out loud here. MR. SEGULJIC-The big issue with the Staff comment is the snow removal. I believe you've agreed that you'd be willing to work with that. If we deny this project, everybody's miserable. We're nowhere. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. HUNSINGER-As Mr. Sipp said as well. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I think where I'm coming from, I say we move forward with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-That's the way I feel. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Do you want to let them speak? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MEYER-Again, my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney with Fitzgerald, Morris. Just two quick points on, I guess clarification. One is relative to the stormwater. The letter we submitted from Paragon Engineering correctly notes that the stormwater regs for the Town in Section 147 require, you know, essentially everything engineered for the first flush rain event. What's existing and what's proposed. That was not done and it is not handled by the culvert project. They tie in, but they're completely separate projects. My second point is, relative to the parking issues and maneuverability on the site, the previous approval that was granted, I can't find the year right now, I think it was '99, required that no parking would be along the eastern side of the building. There's constantly cars parked there. There's photographs of cars parked there, and it also required the spots in the front of the building be lined. In addition to the storage containers, and numerous other issues, you know, those requirements weren't followed. Assuming it's an enforcement issue and not necessarily this Board's issue, but when you talk about lining parking spaces and whether or not it will help, we don't actually know because they didn't comply. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to make any other final comments? MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just clarify, 147 only applies to land clearing, subdivision of land located both within the Lake George Park and the Town of Queensbury. So 147 wouldn't apply. MR. MEYER-I'd have to follow up with Clark Wilkinson. MR. SEGULJIC-I don't think it would apply. I guess, if we deny this project, what does your client gain from this? MR. MEYER-One of the gains is a less intensive use than what will be there, if they approve the project. The other thing, essentially, my client has more or less two fronts, to resolve some of the neighbor issues since discussion and amicable agreement seems to have passed. One is through private matters, relative to trespass and looking into whether or not it would be feasible or even wise to, you know, formally obstruct that boundary line. The other is to, you know, utilize this avenue to say that this is a problem. We think if you allow them to expand the use, it's only going to exacerbate the site design issues. I mean, it's, unfortunately the building wasn't really designed for a tire. MR. SEGULJIC-You had said the other problem was that there's parking spaces on the east side of, west side of the building? MR. MEYER-Along the west side. MR. SEGULJIC-But, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any on the west side. MR. MEYER-No, no, no. They're not proposed on this one. They were instructed to be removed from the previous one. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. They have been removed. MR. HUNSINGER-And that's part of the reason why we made them put the green space in. MR. SEGULJIC-So that's been addressed, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, partially. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. MEYER-But we're just saying that they're used, even though they're not on this Site Plan, there's nothing lined, and they are being used. MR. SEGULJIC-So, if we have the applicant ensure that no one is to park on that west side of the building. MR. MEYER-I understand there's enforcement issues. I'm not going to deny it, but, you know, signs, something, you know, there's nothing that's been done. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So that would be helpful to address your issues, then. MR. KREBS-But can I just ask, this picture, which you submitted before, which is a beer truck delivering beverages, is not on your property. So what are you going to do about? MR. MEYER-I guess another question is, that's not before this Board, and if we're going to start. ROB MINOGUE MR. MINOGUE-My name is Rob Minogue. I'm the owner of Minogues Beverage. Also in this photo, this issue right here is a dead issue. I've taken care of that. I currently, upon the meeting that that was addressed, brought up, I now pull my truck to the front of my building, turn it around in my parking lot, and drive back and unload it from my overhead door in the back. I do not encroach on his property anymore, since that meeting, that does not happen. Also I'd like to point out, in this photograph you will see cars parked on the west side of the building, which, it was the 1997 Site Plan I believe that that was, and that has never been addressed. That has been an issue from Day One. I've been in that building for going on 12 years now, been running that store, and it's been an issue from that point. It's never been addressed, nobody's ever done anything with next door, and as far as being a good neighbor, putting a line down the center, I'll be quite honest and frank with you, what I will gain with it is if there's a line put down the center of that property, between our buildings, he wouldn't be able to pull a car in or out of one of those bays, right now, without encroaching on my property. So I'm a pretty good neighbor. I have serious, I'm seriously against this because with the addition of two bays on that property, it's going to be a snow removal, snow placement issue. They're going to be working on larger vehicles, longer vehicles, which will be being backed out and then further encroaching on my back property, because you have a longer building, and I have submitted photos of a camper parked in their existing bays right now. Now we all know the length of a camper, and that thing had to come within minimum feet of my building to even pull in or back out. If I park my truck, my side loader truck, in our loading dock area, that vehicle would not have been able to pull in or out of that bay, existing bay, as pictured on the one that I've submitted. I've submitted several photos to the Zoning Board, to the Planning Board here, and it seems like the pictures are denied. I've been told, or the Board's been told, we don't know if those are our trucks. Minogue gets a lot of trucks. I know the trucks that come in and out of my building, and I've taken pictures of the graphics on the sides of these trucks now so that I can prove it. I was pulling out of work last night, and when I pulled out of work, I pulled out, I parked in the front. I had to go out onto Quaker Road because they had one of their box trucks backed up to the storage containers that don't belong there blocking the easement. Blocking the easement. I couldn't pull out. Customers couldn't pull in. When I'm talking four to six o'clock, those are my busiest hours. That's when people are passing in and out. He's got a truck parked there. That prohibits my business from successfully operating. MR. SEGULJIC-Did you put the, there was some kind of a rock, stone, boulders were placed. MR. MINOGUE-I didn't put any boulders. MR. FORD-That's on the east side. MR. MINOGUE-That's on the other side. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-No. We do have those pictures that you mentioned, yes. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. MINOGUE-Okay. I just want to make sure that they get recognized and understood. That I haven't, that I've taken the time to show this, and my issue isn't the customers. He pointed it right out here that I don't have control over customers, any more than he has control over customers. They pass over my lot, his customers do, mine do his, probably. Okay. Done deal, but I can tell you right now, I wish I had a camera, a traffic camera, sitting on the sign in the front of the building this past winter, because with the snow situation the way it was, his trucks were pulling in and out. He had a box truck pull in, ran over my, in the front, the sign, it's a garden box around there, ran over the corner of it. I just had that fixed last summer. Okay. I had to go out and tell the driver, he was pulling in my entrance, not even my exit. He was pulling in my entrance trying to cross cut it. I was running the register. I had a customer up there. The customer, good fella, runs out, he says, I'll move my vehicle. I said, no, you don't have to do that. I'm going to take care of this. So I just politely went out and I said, excuse me, I said, you're not supposed to be entering my entrance or my exit. I said, there's his entrance, but he couldn't navigate the turn, and this is what goes on, and lip service is given here. Every meeting I've come to, you know, the lip service is tremendous, and I'm really getting tired of it. I feel like I should wear my fly fishing boots in here. I really do. MR. SEGULJIC-So it sounds as if the issue is greater during the wintertime because of the snow. MR. MINOGUE-Absolutely it's greater during the winter, during the snow, absolutely. It goes on year round. It's just, to use a big term, exacerbated in the winter. Okay, and it's a problematic issue year round, 365 days out of the year, and there's been no, I've had, you know, everything slung at me, bad neighbor, his customers are doing this. Well, let's put a camera right out there and do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We saw your pictures. MR. MINOGUE-I brought one of the Board members down to take a look at this, okay, and I think, and I don't know if I should bring this up. I don't know, quite honestly, but I guess anything's no holds barred right now. It wasn't too long ago that we had someone from the Town taking pictures, taking a look at the way the existing situation was with the snow, and it just happened, a week later, there was a truck pulling in, and the way that their employees park there, and the narrowness of that corridor, the tractor trailer slid to the front of the car, pushed that car into one of their storage containers. I was at the bank, so I don't know what agreement was worked out between the two individuals, but there was no police report filed, and I wish I was there to take a picture to prove to you what's going on. I'm there every day. I know what's going on, and I'm not giving lip service. I'm telling you the truth, and I've provided the pictures to prove that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MINOGUE-And the one last comment. That back piece of property, and I said this to Keith. That's going to put additional traffic on a piece of property that right now is not, it's a virgin piece of property to the Tire Warehouse. They're not running their vehicles in and out of it, in and out of their bay, running over that piece of property right now. That addition goes up, those two bays go on, they're going to be encroaching on my back piece of property, and I don't know where any individual has a God given right to tell a man that he has to give up his property so that an adjoining neighbor can successfully operate his business, or expand his business. I don't know where that's written anywhere. MR. SIPP-Before this was the Tire Warehouse, that was a bakery outlet. MR. MINOGUE-That was a bakery outlet. MR. SIPP-Was there a problem there? MR. MINOGUE-There was never a problem at that point. My father, when he had that, when he was there, the bakery trucks were out of there in the morning, and they were out. They didn't come back until 4, 4:30 in the afternoon. So we never had that constant traffic that's there, like with this business, completely different business model. They're running trucks or cars and vehicles in and out of those bays on a continuous basis, from the point they open at eight o'clock to the point that they close at six. With the bakery, those trucks were out of there at six thirty, six o'clock in the morning, and they didn't come back until four, four thirty in the afternoon. It was never an issue when my father had the store and Millbrook was there. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. SIPP-If the winter is the biggest one, not the biggest, but one of the thorniest parts of this, can you not get together, hire somebody with a dump truck and a loader? MR. MINOGUE-I don't have an issue with the snow. I don't have any issue with my snow. As a matter of fact, I'm glad you brought that up, because I bring in a front loader to take any snow that I have in the front that might be piled up too much and I take it and I set it into the back of my property. This winter, the gentleman that I have that removes that snow, that does my plowing and has a front loader to do that, asked one of the employees at the Tire Warehouse to ask if his boss, being Brian McCall, wanted to have him remove the snow. He said no. MR. MUGRACE-I have no idea what the relevance of that is. MR. MINOGUE-Well, I'm just saying that I remove my snow and I keep my snow on my own property. MR. MC CARTHY-You push it towards the back, towards the stream, where it melts into the stream, and our proposal is that. MR. MINOGUE- You push snow to the back, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Can you address your comments to the Board, please. MR. MINOGUE-Well, we push snow, and it doesn't, it's far removed from the stream, okay. Their issue, as a matter of fact, their gentleman that plows their parking lot was in the store not too long ago, a couple of days ago, and he was asking me if there was anything he could do to mediate the situation with his snow. I said, look, I said, as long as you keep an eye on your property, I don't care. That's fine. His words were, well, we try to push it over into the Halfway Brook in the front. What is that? I couldn't make this stuff up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I understand. MR. MINOGUE-I mean, this stuff is just too much to make up. So that's where I can benefit. So, you know, you want to paint a line, he wants to paint a line right down the center line. Let's paint a line right down the center line. I'll stand out there, from the morning they open, until they close, and I'll tell them, hey, get off my property here. You can't pull that vehicle in. You can't do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MEYER-Any other questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead. MR. DOAN-Again, Rob Doan, Adirondack Wine Merchants. It seems to me that the property doesn't really work all that well as it is right now. So for us to add an additional one bay, a half a bay, a quarter of a bay, let alone two or four bays, is only going to make the situation worse, and what does either property owner to either side of Mr. McCall stand to gain by this was a question that Mr. Seguljic asked. They gain the value of their properties being maintained. If this goes through, and the reason that I put boulders down my side is because damage was happening to my property, and I have to pay for that. I need to maintain my property for the value of my property, and if I can't control that, how can I be asked to do anything? MR. SEGULJIC-Have those boulders worked for you? MR. DOAN-They've worked great. They've worked great. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. DOAN-I think Mr. Minogue's point is if he puts boulders up on his side, their property is useless. So what's before you right now is do we add a couple of more bays to a property that really doesn't work the way it is right now. I mean, that's the question. Can we add something to something that, if it works at all, works barely. So if we're going to add two more bays, what does anybody gain by that? Well, the only person that gains anything is Mr. McCall, because he gains the capacity for his business, but certainly none of the neighbors, including Time Warner, including Tom Ross, gain nothing. Now they're not here so I can't speak for them, but if you've looked at the adjoining properties, 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) nobody's going to gain anything except for the capacity of the Tire Warehouse. So, Tom, you asked, you know, what do we gain. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you for that clarification. MR. DOAN-My God. It's not a question of so much what we gain. It's a question of what we lose. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MC CARTHY-Very quickly. We're just rehashing this. The property works. I mean, it's tight, yes, but what we did is make it better. So I understand their concerns and we've made it better. We've added, you know, you have parking problems. We've made it better. You have circulation problems, we made it better. It fits the requirements of the Town Code, of what needs to be circulated through there. It fits. MR. HUNSINGER-I know when we first started talking about your Site Plan, we spent a lot of time talking about no parking on the west side, and one of the things that we asked you to do to help enforce that is to put in some of that, the green space along the side of your building. Do you have any objection to putting up any kind of signage as well, you know, to say no parking? MR. MC CARTHY-A no parking sign? No, that's not going to make a difference, yes, it's minimal. We can put one up on the building, no parking on this side. The other thing that you have to understand, with two more bays, there'll be less parking issue. You'll be in. You'll be out. It will have more of a flow of the project. So it's not that there's going to be 20 cars backed up. You've got two more places for people to work on, you know, so the time that we need that big truck to come in, obviously, that's what will be there, but if the big truck's not there, it's not like we're going to say, okay, we can't use those two back bays and not take the other five cars that are waiting in line. So, I mean, the parking problem might actually alleviate some of it. MR. FORD-Has any consideration been given to any kind of planting canisters or anything else? The boulders on the east side work. Has any consideration been given to putting something down that line on the west side? MR. MC CARTHY-If Mr. Minogue wishes to do so, I mean, he can. I think it's, aesthetically doesn't look good. I mean, you're just going to have boulders in the middle or planters or something that's just going to sit there, you know. MRS. STEFFAN-This business is open from eight to six, six days a week, seven days a week? MR. MC CARTHY-Six days, right? Six days. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Monday through Saturday? MR. MC CARTHY-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-How many employees? MR. MUGRACE-Eight. MRS. STEFFAN-Eight employees. Where do they all park? MR. MC CALL-In the parking spots. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the reason I ask that question, I'm looking at 14 spaces, and so if you've got eight employees, I don't know if they all drive. So that starts to limit your parking. Do your customers usually leave their cars, drop them off, or do they wait? MR. MC CARTHY-It all depends. I mean, everyone on the Board has gotten tires on their cars. It's up to you guys. It's up, not to you, but it's up to the customer. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. MUGRACE-If I may, there's also an issue, which is a Town requirement, that there is an interconnect between these properties because of the intensity and the density of this property. It's a pretty unique situation here. I think that's what we're trying to bring 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) across, and with the design that we did, we tried to re-organize things somewhat, and make everything flow as well as humanly possible, really. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the interconnects are absolutely designed so that people can flow between businesses without having to go out on the highway, and that area does work. I mean, if you go to Cool Beans and have coffee and you want to go get wine and then you want to go to Minogues and pick up soda. I mean, that all works, but the problem is at the back part of the site. If you go to the chiropractor and the accountant. I guess what all the business owners are saying is they just want, you know, if anybody's going from the accountant to Minogues, they want to be able to just use the access that's there to get through, and the some of the discussion is that that doesn't always happen. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, you know, there's a lot of hearsay of things happening and accidents and so, but there's no police report. I'm not going to get involved in it. I don't know. All I know is that people get through there all the time. It's a right of way. No one's parked there. This project meets all the requirements of the Board, and we've done everything the Board has asked of us over the last year. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, one of the things I know about human behavior is that if folks start out with a good relationship, trust, they give each other the benefit of the doubt, but when there's some tension between folks, when there's not good faith on all parts, then one little incident becomes much bigger than it really is, and so over time these parking issues can become very difficult and can really divide people and the relationships can be destroyed, and so I'm not exactly sure what the Board's going to do tonight, but I'm going to ask all the folks in the room that, as this goes forward, that there has to be a lot of due diligence to make sure that everybody's getting along, because that's the only way that this is going to work, regardless of whether the business stays the way it is or whether it grows. You guys have spent a lot of time making sure that those relationships are repaired. MR. MC CARTHY-They're neighbors, and you're stuck with your neighbor. MR. TRAVER-I'd like to ask you again about the parking on the west side of the building. Apparently there was something in the Site Plan, the most recent Site Plan before this application, that indicated that there should be no parking on that side of the building. Is that your understanding as well? MR. MC CARTHY-That wasn't my client's. I don't actually know, I don't have information on it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I'd ask the applicant, then. Is that your understanding? MR. MC CARTHY-It wasn't his application, either. So I don't want to comment on something I don't know, I didn't present it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Let me ask this, then. Have there been any, have you attempted to restrict parking on that side of the building in any way? MR. MUGRACE-Yes. We've removed the, I think what they're referring to is there are some stripes presently on the site, on the west side of the building, which run perpendicular to the building. There's about three or four spots here, and the parking is still there. MR. TRAVER-So there are parking, there are striped parking spaces on the west side of the building? MR. MUGRACE-Absolutely. They're right there now. MR. MC CARTHY-And that's all we're trying to remove. MR. MUGRACE-The proposal is to remove those, and some bushes here, to kind of like minimize the amount of space for parking there, eliminate those. MR. FORD-And have those, and eliminate those, and have those people who would be parking there park where? MR. MUGRACE-Well, the people normally will park here. We'll create another spot in the front and six more spots in the back. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. SEGULJIC-So can we have all the employees park in the back? MR. MC CARTHY-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Do they currently? MR. MC CARTHY-I mean, that's pure business sense. You don't want your employee, your customers walking from the back. You want them in the front. MR. SEGULJIC-On the other hand, you want to look like you're full. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, in this business, full means they go to Wal-Mart. It's not a restaurant or a bar. MR. SEGULJIC-Do more people drive in, or do they make reservations? MR. MC CARTHY-It's a mix. MR. SEGULJIC-They've left us with a tough one. MR. FORD-I see it as, to try to simplify it, you've got a bad situation, and the application, if approved, is going to worsen it. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, see, that's where we disagree, because it doesn't worsen it. MR. FORD-We can agree to disagree. MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, that's fine. I mean, if it changes the parking, changes the traffic flow, it changes the water runoff. It does a lot of things that the Town is wishing to happen, and all suggestions from the Board. MR. FORD-Would you agree that the current situation is not a particularly happy situation? MR. MC CARTHY-I think it's unhappy for everyone there. MR. FORD-Okay, and can you tell me how this application, if approved, is going to improve that situation? MR. MC CARTHY-Just exactly what I said. The traffic flow is going to change. You're going to get rid of the storage in the back. You are going to create a better, excuse me, the water runoff is going to be better on the property. There is, I think I said the traffic flow is going to get better. It's, the property meets all of the Town requirements but what we're asking for. There's nothing that we're asking for that's outside of the norm here. The property is tight, but that's what the zoning says. You need a certain amount of footage on each side, that's what we have. You need 24 feet, we have 25 feet. Do we wish we were somewhere else and we had a lot of bigger place, yes, and what Mr. Minogue said that, you know, that he doesn't want his business impeded on, we don't to have our business impeded on. We want to do what we can do on our property, so we can maximum our dollars, be a good neighbor when, and I agree with Mrs. Steffan. We agree. Neighbors have to be neighbors, but we're not asking for anything that isn't within the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-On your plan, the new addition, it looks like you have some stairs there. MR. MUGRACE-No, this is just a, which ones are you referring to? MR. SEGULJIC-Right there. MR. MUGRACE-Yes. There's an elevation difference here. There's a loading dock up here. So the floor elevation here is four foot higher than it is here. MR. SEGULJIC-Across the whole building? MR. MUGRACE-No, just in this area here, from here over. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. MUGRACE-So at one point we were trying to get some circulation from this point to this point, which is going to be four foot lower. It's going to match (lost words). So this is four foot lower than that, and the stairs there are internally located, and they're just there in the event that we want to access this space up here from down here. That's all. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MRS. STEFFAN-So we've got a Short SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's a Type II. MRS. STEFFAN-I have Unlisted, Short. Where do you get that from? MR. HUNSINGER-Staff Notes says Type II. The agenda says Type II. MR. KREBS-I have a question. Does that right of way end where the dotted lines on the drawing indicate? MR. MUGRACE-Well, the surveyor indicates that the, yes, it does show us stopping here, but I don't know the legal aspect of what's happening here really. We haven't really (lost word) with the surveyor to find out whether that right of way continues. It makes sense to me that it should continue to the road here, otherwise there's no way to access. MR. TRAVER-Are you talking about this? MR. KREBS-No, I'm talking about this right of way right here. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. KREBS-See, that comes in? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS-I guess I have a question. You have 23 and a half feet between your property line and the bay doors that exist there today. What's the average length of an automobile? MR. MUGRACE-About 16 to 18 feet. That's what you've got for a parking space. MR. SIPP-You can't deny the man business. MR. MC CARTHY-But that's what the right of way is for. I mean, it's an ingress and egress. MR. FORD-He's got business. MRS. STEFFAN-Didn't we do some measurements, and extended cab pickups like 20, 21 feet, something like that? MR. MC CARTHY-And that's why we also have the building shorter, that you requested the first time, and that's where the bigger trucks are going, it's going in the back, which gives you more room. So we tried to address every concern you had, and that's a valid concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, we were discussing, Gretchen and I were discussing the SEQRA status, the Staff Notes are Type II. MR. OBORNE-Correct, and the reason being it's less than 4,000 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the will of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Let's move it and see what happens. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a list of conditions? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I prepared them ahead of time, but I just added a couple of things to it. MR. OBORNE-I just want to remind the Board that the public hearing is still open. MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make a motion to approve Site Plan 64-2007 for Brian McCall. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, negative declaration. Paragraph Four E does not apply, and Paragraph F doesn't apply. This is approved with the following conditions. Number One, that the applicant must consolidate parcels. Number Two, that the applicant must coordinate construction sequencing and denote on the plan, after conferring with the Lead Agency. Number Three, denote collection of roof drainage from the existing building, based on the design that receives VISION Engineering signoff. Number Four, place a Code compliant dumpster enclosure on the final plans. Item Five, that snow storage should be directed to on site pre-treatment. Number Six, that the applicant is prohibited from encroaching on the right of way at the rear of the site. Number Seven, that during the winter, snow may need to be removed from the site. MR. OBORNE-If I may, ma'am, how would you want that to be accomplished? I mean, do you want to give certain parameters to that? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think that that would be very difficult to do, because if we have a season like this, they need to take it off. If we have a season like last year where we had two inches of snow. MR. OBORNE-What if, and not to write your resolution, if it encroaches upon the right of way it must be removed? MR. SEGULJIC-If I may interject, I believe the applicant has agreed to remove the snow from the site. MR. MC CARTHY-I said within reason. MR. OBORNE-Within reason, right. MR. SEGULJIC-And what were you considering to be within reason? MR. MC CARTHY-Like I said, I mean, if you're asking me to remove. MR. SEGULJIC-Any snowfall greater than four inches will be removed from the site? MR. MC CARTHY-No, because if it's 60 degrees 10 minutes later, and it melts, no. I mean, I understand what the Board wants us to do, and we have no objection. The right of ways will not encroach, nor will our neighbors be encroached. I mean, there's so many variables in that, that it's very difficult, when you're dealing with snow, to say what it is. I mean, you have a March storm and literally it goes up, you know, 10 degrees in a day, and it melts that morning. I don't know, if you have two inches of snow, should it be six inches of snow, but if you have two inches of snow 15 days in a row, you might need to remove it. MR. SEGULJIC-I'll agree with that one. MR. MC CARTHY-So, you know, there's just so many variables, I don't know, really, how to help you. I understand what the concept is. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then how do you measure snow, every three hours, like the weather service says? MR. MC CARTHY-But I understand what you want, and we have no objection, no encroachment on the right of way, no encroachment on our neighbors, obviously. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'm going to go back and do this again, so that Maria can put this together. MR. SEGULJIC-And, excuse me, Gretchen, there was just one other one, that was the no parking along the west side of the building. MRS. STEFFAN-I've got that toward the end. I added that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes addition of two work bays & storage for Tire Warehouse. Auto Repair and Retail uses in the HC zone require Planning Board review and approval 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/17/09 & 3/24/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, it's a Type II action. Paragraph Four E does not apply, and Paragraph Four F doesn't apply. This is approved with the following conditions: a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b) This project is a Type I I SEAR and no further review is required; and c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. d) The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e) NOT APPLICABLE If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and f) NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g) That the applicant must consolidate parcels. h) That the applicant must coordinate construction sequencing with the Lead Agency and denote on the plan. i) That the applicant will denote collection of roof drainage from the existing building based on a design that receives VISION Engineering signoff. j) That the applicant will place a Code compliant dumpster enclosure on the final plans. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) k) That the applicant will direct snow storage to on site pre-treatment areas and not in the drainage ditch. a. That during winter snow may need to be removed from the site, more specifically if snow encroaches on the right of way, if there's cars parked in the right of way, if there's delivery trucks. There could be a variety of things. I) The applicant is prohibited from encroaching on the right of way at the rear of this site. m) The site drainage pipe connections to the proposed Town culvert should be designed to the highest elevation possible. The pipe with a minimum cover rating of one foot should be used. n) No permit will be issued for this project until after drainage easements requested from property owner have been obtained and construction is complete for the culvert replacement project. o) There will no parking on the west side of the building or the east side of the building. The applicant will provide wall mounted signs directing no parking. p) The applicant will stripe their parking spaces in the front of the building and in the back of the building. Duly adopted this 24t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Ma'am, if I may, I apologize so much. The encroachment on the right of way meaning parking or? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. If there's cars parked in the right of way, if there's delivery trucks There could be a variety of things. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CARTHY-I'm sorry, can I just have a clarification on the issue on the permit? We understand that we cannot have a CO, but are you saying that we couldn't even start construction? Because that's out of our hands. MRS. STEFFAN-The permit condition was put in there by VISION Engineering, and so I just added it to the motion. MR. MC CARTHY-But I guess that's my question, because, I mean, we can conceivably have this building up and framed and so forth, and then just wait for the tie-in. The only reason I say that is I don't know how long the Town is going to take. They tell me that it's going to be out for bid May and June, hopefully get it done. They also said that the construction will probably take a little over a week, but that's outside of my hands. If that happens in June, I can have this framed and ready to go by June, and then tie-in. I think what I would ask is that you would not permit a CO for that portion of the building. So we would not be able to use the building until it's tied in, and that would be reasonable to the extent that all of our drainage for the building is supposed to go into that system. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I have to ask Keith, what do you think that the intent of VISION Engineering was on that? MR. OBORNE-VISION Engineering's intent is that the Homer Avenue project needs to be complete before they get a building permit. That's my understanding. Again, I can't speak for Dan Ryan. If that is a problem for the applicant, I suggest you table. MR. MC CARTHY-Come on. We're down to one issue. I don't know what they're referring, I mean, I know they want this job done, and we've met with them, and we have every intention to go forward. We're waiting for them, but if, you know, if you have bid problems, and this doesn't go until June, and then we're starting construction, you know, the we're starting in the summer. I don't know why, what would be the benefit of us starting our construction, starting the site work, starting the framing and then hopefully, you know, before we do anything, it has to be tied in. MR. SEGULJIC-It does say no permit. It doesn't say CO. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, so that's a building permit, but my assumption, from earlier meetings, was that this project, they wanted to expedite this project and get it done this Spring. MR. OBORNE-I was not privy to the meeting that counsel is referring to, and all I can go by is what VISION Engineering comments are stating. MRS. STEFFAN-I know that this is a very high priority project. MR. MC CARTHY-And we want it done also, but unfortunately that's out of our hands. To be honest with you, I'd prefer to do it privately and get rid of the Town and save a lot of money on the bid and get it done, but unfortunately. MR. SEGULJIC-We have two options as I see it. We can go forward with the motion and see how that does, with them requiring the permit. If, for example, it gets approved and we determine differently, you could always come back for a modification. Correct? MR. OBORNE-You're talking another two months, then. MR. SEGULJIC-Or we table it and we wait two months to get a determination. MR. OBORNE-These are recommendations, okay. Now, with that said, Dan Ryan obviously is the Town Engineer, and he has a reason as to why he's stating this. If I was to give an opinion as to why he is stating that, it's because he wants those controls in place before the building is built. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and there could be issues that could come up that could impact this, and it would be terrible to have a building. MR. HUNSINGER-There must be concerns about sequencing. MR. SEGULJIC-It could be an issue when the building is constructed. So I think we have to leave it as the permit, and if they find out otherwise, they can, otherwise you can get a modification. We can work on that. MR. MC CARTHY-Well, I mean, if that's the position, that's fine. I mean, we would just come back if there is a concern, but if that's what it is, that's what it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. MC CARTHY-Thank you very much. I appreciate all your help. MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to encourage you all to please work on improving the quality of the relationships with your neighbors. MR. MC CALL-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NPA II, LLC AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14,500 SQUARE FOOT WALGREENS PHARMACY AND A 4,642 SQUARE FOOT CHILI'S RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 77-08; SV 74, 75, 76-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZE 22.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION 179-4- 020 JON CAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. MR. SEGULJIC-You're going to make this short for us? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. CAPPER-Very short. I'm essentially here to table, with a short story. MR. OBORNE-Let me just do a real quick, well, I'll just do the note that's on top. This is Site Plan 48-2008, Northway Plaza Associates, Site Plan Review for the construction of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy, 4,642 square foot Chili's Restaurant, reconfiguration of existing office space to retail space, parking reconfiguration and associated site improvements. Northway Plaza, 802 State Route 9 is the location, and the SEQRA Status is Unlisted. You will have to make a SEQRA determination. I do want to read the note in, and then we'll move on. The Zoning Board of Appeals has approved Area Variance 77-2008, which dealt with permeability relief. The revised plan submitted to the ZBA included a reconfiguration of the parking lot to the east, adjacent to the cemetery. The revised plan includes drive aisles that do not meet the 24 foot requirement for access and as such will require a new Area Variance application from the applicant. The Planning Board may wish to discuss the site plan and subsequently table this application until the ZBA renders a decision concerning the impending drive aisle variance. Staff recommends an April 28, 2009 tabling date for this application. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. CAPPER-For the record, Jon Capper. First of all, I wasn't at the last meeting, but it was very much appreciated that, after a lengthy discussion, this Board recommended the variance to the Zoning Board. Northway Plaza is obviously a site that is in transition right now, with the large vacancy. Keeping the office tenant and allowing them to expand in the back is really important to the viability of the center, as is the restaurant and pharmacy project. Ultimately, when that gets done, they believe that the market will have turned around and they'll be able to re-tenant the front of the center with retail, but it's just real important to keep the office tenant in the back and to do the Chili's and the pharmacy. We've been working for about four years on this, initially because we thought that there would be a negotiation to get rid of the Monroe Muffler lease early. That didn't happen, but in all that time, we've worked with the County and the State to acquire small property rights in the front to enable this project to go forward, and as consideration for that, to do a significant stormwater project within the State right of way to treat all of the stormwater that comes down Route 9 untreated and goes directly into Halfway Brook. So there's a lot of benefits to this project, but that said, the Cemetery Committee had issues with what we were proposing, and ultimately last week, after a lengthy discussion, the Zoning Board approved a modified variance where we move the, where the buffer is now, approximately 30 feet everywhere from north of their maintenance buildings, because the Cemetery Commission were concerned about their maintenance buildings, but north of there it's about a 30 foot buffer now, with a fence, and significant plantings on the cemetery side of the fence. So that was a compromise that protected the cemetery. Right now you can see right under the understory of the trees because they're evergreens and they're mature. So you can basically see the parking lot and you can see the back of the building. This way, you'll be looking at the back of a fence with a lot of plantings, so that even though the parking will be closer to the cemetery, visually it will be a lot better. So the Zoning Board was very comfortable with that. It seems to address the cemetery's concern and it also addresses the office tenant, but as a result of that, we had to have, in order to make it work, we went to diagonal parking, because it requires less drive aisle width. That's how we were able to find the extra room for the buffer. The Queensbury Code doesn't acknowledge that. It doesn't talk about perpendicular parking, but it just talks about a 24 foot drive aisle, but, you know, typical engineering design, if you have parking that's on a diagonal, you don't need that much room to back out. So we've got a new plan, but that also, at the last minute, it was determined, too late to submit, that that requires a variance because we don't have the 24 foot drive aisles. We came in with 18 feet, which the engineers on our side said was plenty, but now, at the last minute, it came up that there was a Code issue about 20 foot fire lanes. So I think one of those drive aisles has to be 20 feet, and Keith pointed out that in the new Code, drive aisles have to be a minimum of 12 feet. So it's all changing, but regardless. MR. OBORNE-That's for one way traffic. MR. CAPPER-Yes, for one way, and this is one way, but regardless, it's real important that the project move along quickly, in this economy, because they've got Chili's ready to submit for a building permit right now. We've got to get going with the DOT construction project, and that's all good, but we didn't have time. We spent all last week working on getting through the ZBA, so there wasn't time to address the engineering comments for this Board, which, you know, are fairly detailed, and we're looking at them now, so the plan is to re-submit, well, submit responses to the engineering and Staff comments by the 15t" and get back here as soon as we can. In the hope that we can get it approved quickly and get it in the ground. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. HUNSINGER-When will you be before the Zoning Board again? MR. CAPPER-Well, we've got to re-submit tomorrow. They gave us until tomorrow to submit for the drive aisle width, and that may, that'll change the plan a little bit because we'll try and do the, the engineers are changing it to 20 feet to meet the Fire Code, and that plan will have to be submitted to you, because it'll be slightly different than what you have now, so I think the best we can do, although they're really in a rush, is to get back to you, get submitted by April 15t", and be back here in May. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CAPPER-But it's going the right way, and it really got started when the Board recommended the variance, and we appreciate it. MR. OBORNE-Jon, you don't want to try for the April 28t"? You think that's too quick of a turn around? MR. CAPPER-Well, the problem is, I mean, it's a question. We have to get on the ZBA. MR. OBORNE-We can get you on the first meeting of the ZBA, and then the second meeting. MR. CAPPER-The question is, if we don't, I'm just looking, you know, I'm always trying to move the schedule, but if we don't get in until April 15t", are we going to be able to get back to this Board? We won't have, we'll have submitted VISION responses, but we won't have their turn around on our responses. I mean, it would really be helpful to be here in April because we're trying to get it in the ground, but I don't know if it's realistic. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I see the logic in that, absolutely. I think my approach, if I may, is to, I think we agree that this is probably not going to get an approval in two cycles. I mean, in two cycles we're looking at an approval, realistically, and I was hoping to get it on the 28t" so we could at least start that first phase of the cycle and take care of any issues that the Planning Board may have. With that said, if you'd prefer to have a cleaner, more succinct document or discussion. MR. CAPPER-Well, my thought is that if we're really close to trying to get this thing in the ground, we'll try and push it, after the Board's told us what changes they want and how, you know, we'll try and push it on the second end of the cycle, as quick as possible. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. That's fine. I have no problem with that at all. MRS. STEFFAN-And I also think that if the applicant has the time between now and April 15t", to answer some of the comments, we're a lot further ahead of the game. At this point, you've gotten a lot of direction. MR. CAPPER-But it's an important project and we really appreciate the consideration, and if there was a way we could save a few weeks on this one, we would, but I think, realistically, we'll get back here in May and try and, hopefully we'll be pretty close after that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, then I'll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: To the May 19t" Planning Board meeting. That will mean a submission deadline of April 15tH Duly adopted this 24t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. CAPPER-Thank you all. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other business to come before the Board? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-I had one item. Site visits. January and March, I was able to procure a Town vehicle for site visits, but no one else showed up, which is why I had said let me know if you're coming or not. Because I was the only one there, Saturday, two weeks ago. Next site visits are on April 18t". So, if you can't make it, let me know. I won't bother to try to get a car, and we'll go from there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So noted. MR. HUNSINGER-So noted. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MR. SIPP-One thing, Chris, I wanted to present some changes I'd like to see to the Sign Ordinance for your comments. I didn't get it all down, but I will either e-mail or bring to the next meeting, my thoughts here on some changes that I'd like to see in the Sign Ordinance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That would be great. If you want to e-mail those to people. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be real handy, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and when what I could do, Don, is I've got the Ordinance, we had a discussion, I think two months ago, didn't we? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But the Town Board was changing the Sign Ordinance, so I didn't forward it, but I have, you know, the comments that we . MR. SIPP-I've got three or four copies of it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That's great. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Don. I appreciate it. Now I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. FORD-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 24, 2009, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 24t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger 51