Loading...
2009.04.28(Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 16-2009 Kevin Maschewski 1. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-19 Site Plan No. 18-2009 Joseph & Debra Gross 2. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.2 Site Plan No. 19-2009 Mohammad Tariq 15. Tax Map No.288.-1-56 Subdivision No. 2-2009 Cerrone Builders 22. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 315.-1-1 FINAL STAGE DISCUSSION Proposed World Class Kids Day Care 27. Site Plan No. 23-2009 Great Escape & Splashwater Kingdom 31. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 Site Plan No. 17-2009 Wal-Mart Stores 47. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25 Subdivision No. 11-2008 Wal-Mart Stores 54. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25 FINAL STAGE 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 04/28/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THOMAS SEGULJIC, ACTING CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. SEGULJIC-I'd like to call the Tuesday, April 28, 2009 Queensbury Planning Board meeting to order, and the first agenda item we have is Kevin Maschewski. EXPEDITE REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 16-2009 SEAR TYPE II KEVIN MASCHEWSKI OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 106 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 777 SQUARE FOOT BOATHOUSE WITH A 561 SQUARE FOOT SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 40-07 [BP 98-123, 07- 533, 07-384, 98-279] WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 NO COUNTY IMPACT APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE LG CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-19 SECTION 179-5-050, 179-4-020 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, as far as Staff, any comments? MR. OBORNE-Sure. This is considered an Expedited Review, based on the Policies and Procedures for the Planning Board. Having sat down with Craig and with the Planning Board Chairman, who decided to move ahead to expedite this issue, there are no issues in regards to height. There's no issues in regards to there being any sleeping quarters. There is no issue in regards to their being any cooking on the premises. So we ask that you expedite this, give it a quick review, and any questions that you need to ask, Kevin, I'm sure he'll answer them. MRS. STEFFAN-The only question I have, Keith, is do these drawings have to be stamped by a licensed, professional engineer? Because I didn't notice a stamp on these. MR. OBORNE-There was not a stamp. I did not notice that. It would be preferable, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And that's all I have. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The floor is yours. MR. MASCHEWSKI-For the record, my name is Kevin Maschewski. I'm the property owner. As Keith had indicated, it's pretty straightforward. No variances. No setback issues. No height issues. The design was certainly structured around all Code compliance. Standard boathouse, wood frame construction, mansard roof shingles. Pretty typical to what you see on Lake George. Roof shingles would match the shingles on the house. Railing would match a darker stain to match the stain on the house, but pretty much a straightforward design. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I would just say that we visited the site, and there didn't seem to be any complications that we could see. (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MRS. STEFFAN-No, and the only comment I had was about the PE stamp. I didn't know whether that was required. I assumed so. MR. FORD-No issues from me. MR. SEGULJIC-So everyone all set, then? So I guess we'd be ready to make a motion, then. MRS. STEFFAN-There's a public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-There is a public hearing. All right. There is a public hearing. Does anyone wish to comment to this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-Seeing none. It's a Type II action. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2009 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. This is approved with the condition that the applicant will get a professional engineering stamp on the plans. Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following date: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MR. SEGULJIC-You're all set. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with your project. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Great. Thank you very much. Have a good night. SITE PLAN NO. 18-2009 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING LI-1A LOCATION 27 SILVER CIRCLE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THE ADDITION OF TEMPORARY OPEN STORAGE SHED STRUCTURES AS WELL AS AS-BUILT CORRECTIONS TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVED PLAN. COMMERCIAL PROJECTS REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 6-04, BP 04-783, 04-365; SUB 11-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/8/09 LOT SIZE 3.43 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-17.2 SECTION 179-9 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE GROSS, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan No. 18-2009 Joseph Gross is the applicant. Requested action, Site Plan Review for a commercial project that requires a building permit. The location is 27 Silver Circle. The existing zoning is Light Industrial One Acre. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. SEQRA review is required. The Short Form would be just fine. Project Description: Applicant proposes a modification to an existing approved Site Plan for the addition of a temporary open storage shed structures, as well as an as built correction to the originally approved Site Plan. The design calls for three covered storage sheds, each approximately 2240 square feet in area and includes two storage containers for additional storage and roof support. The roof trusses of each storage shed are supported by a four foot knee wall stabilized by lag bolts installed through the top of the storage containers. There are six storage containers associated with this project. Plan review does follow. No major issues on site, and with that said, I'd turn this over to the Planning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. The floor is yours. Tell us about your project. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. GROSS-Okay. I think some of you came out there and looked at it. We are an electrical contractor in the area. We're gearing up for some additional work. We have quite a bit of work. We have about 80 electricians working right now. So I need to keep everything neat and organized, and I wanted to have a roof. They have no foundations. They go right on those steel boxes. As you can see, I try to keep the place pretty sharp, even keep my surroundings. I'm trying to neaten up the back end is what I'm trying to do. It's not the neatest behind me. So what I don't have to see that's not mine, I don't care. So this neatens it up and it also puts everything under cover for snow. You'll notice they're already pitched backwards, the natural grade that was made by the contractor. O'Connor did the excavation to put the park (lost word) in years ago. So the boxes are leaned back. The snow goes onto the box. It slides back right into the water thing. It was designed by Tom Nace. So this is done on a lot of job sites. You see it usually. You don't see anybody crazy enough to do it like I'm doing it, but I think it'll be a nice fit. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anything else, then? MR. GROSS-No. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. KREBS-I've got one question. It said on one of the prints here, it looked like there were three drainage, and it says removed on SP-1, and particularly since you're going to pitch the road towards the back, and I didn't understand why those drainage. MR. GROSS-Yes. You see what they are, you've got like a, I don't know, I call a swale or it goes all the way around the property, they made me put in. Those three drains in the back are there. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. GROSS-But all that represents is, I don't know why in the beginning he wanted me to, they had the idea I'd put a pipe with another drain at the top, and I never put them in. I thought it was ridiculous because the water just goes right on, there's nothing to stop the water there. It's just a, it drops off. MR. FORD-Who is the "he" that you are referring to, please. MR. GROSS-This is way back when Tom, I think it was, he works out of Van Dusen's office over here. He's a nice guy. He did the. MR. TRAVER-Tom Nace? MR. GROSS-Tom Nace, he works with Tom as well. I think he was the one that drew that in. The bottom line is I called Tom on those. I said, Tom, do I really need them? And he goes, no, I don't really see why not. So we took them out, and that's what his letter represents. They never got put in in the first place. It wasn't like I took them out for this project. I never put them in in the first place. Once I started building the place, quite frankly, I was just anxious to get a set of drawings and start building, you know, that was about four years ago. I didn't notice what they were even for, and once I realized what they were for, you know, there's nothing to stop the water. They're just going to go right on by these grates in the ground. Now I guess if you were going to put like a curve across the back or something you might retain water, but that's not the case. It just drops right off. MR. KREBS-Okay. The print just said that it was removed and I just wondered why it was removed. Never been there. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, are these structures temporary? It's kind of an unusual. MR. GROSS-Yes. They don't have a foundation. They're, basically, to me, it's like a shed, you know, it's like a shed. Could they be moved? Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-How much do those storage trailers weigh? MR. GROSS-I'd only be approximating. I can't lift the whole thing with a fork truck. It's got to be almost 8,000 pounds, I'm going to guess. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. GROSS-I can't lift it with our 6,000 pound fork truck. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. GROSS-Like say a lot of times on job sites, because we're doing some pretty big job sites, and they'll actually stack two high and put the roofs across so you get the height. I wasn't going to quite go to that expense. So I said, well, I just come up with this brainstorm to save money and get quick storage quick. Those boxes are full with, as far as I'm concerned, some pretty valuable stuff. We get a lot of stuff that, products that are 20 feet long, 12 feet long. You really can't store it well, so we're constantly tarping, all winter long, and this way I can just, I can buy all my conduit in bulk. We bring tractor trailer loads in there and I can stockpile it. I don't know if you were there. We had the, for the Saratoga Water Treatment, we had cable (lost word) just stacks of it. I don't know if you, it had already been gone by the time you'd seen it, but, I mean, it was piled high. We had tarps over it. We want to eliminate that. I want to, that's labor saving. Temporary, I mean, they're not really a permanent fixture to the property. They could be moved, and everything I did is bolted. So it could be taken apart. MR. FORD-Do you have a projection on how temporary, temporary is? MR. GROSS-Well, I'd like to think that, I'm hoping to get a big piece of the AMD project. So I'm hoping, at least, I'm going to need them for the next four or five years, you know what I mean, to work this project. If, down the road, I got real slow, could I move them, could I put them on a different site? Yes, I could. I guess whatever the pleasure is, I don't know, if there was a reason, if the Town wanted me to take them down, they could be moved, if they were an obstruction of any sort. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. GROSS-I don't know. That's not really giving you an answer. Because I don't want to pin myself down to an exact date, because I hope I'm so busy that I need to come here and ask you to build four more, and I'll buy the lot next to me. MRS. STEFFAN-Question. The August 3, 2005 Site Plan Inspection Report from Bruce Frank, our Compliance Officer. There are a lot of issues that went unanswered. How come? MR. GROSS-I don't really have much excuse. See, we moved in. I verbally had told him, I asked about curbing, I went and got answers, and I just never followed through with all the drawings and everything, and that's all I've just got left. They came out, you know, I did the landscaping that they wanted. Once I started seeing the prices of everything going in, I said why am I putting this curbing in, and, quite frankly, it's just like those drains in the back. They said, well, I guess you really don't need them. I said, well, I'm not going to put them in. I'm not like I'm out on Route 9, guys, where you're building me like I'm a, you know, I'm a storefront, and, you know, it looks great, but I just had to cut expenses. They didn't get answers just putting it on the back burner, and it wasn't a thorn in my side, so I didn't deal with it. So no better excuse than that, to tell you the truth, but everything there, I wasn't foolish enough not to do it, put a curbing in. Everything that needed to be there needed to be there, and I did, you know, I got approval, but it wouldn't hurt matters, and I proved that by the letters, you know, following up with it, but it's okay the way it is. I should have followed up with the drawings back then to get the site approval changed, but it was a moving target, like the back, I didn't have quite figured out how I wanted to do it, so everything's been a moving target. You can see my retaining wall. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the difficulty is when you go through the Site Plan Review process, and, you know, you've got an approved plan. It's important for you to complete your site according to the approved plan, otherwise you have to come back for a modification, but, you know, a hanging issue like this doesn't look good for you now when you're coming forward with a new Site Plan, and you're believability index goes down considerably because you're telling us that this is the Site Plan that you want and you want us to approve it, but how do we know that you're going to follow through with the promises that you made in this Site Plan, and I want to be very frank with you on that. MR. GROSS-That's perfectly understandable. If you look and see, though, I'm pretty well built out. I'm pretty much done, and that's kind of what happened. I didn't even have all this done. What happened was I was building out the front. You'll see that we had to reduce costs, we had to shorten the size of the office. Okay. Well, we're going to 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) shorten the size of the office. Then I said we'll get rid of some curbing. The stairs changed a little bit. The door had to be moved over. Out back, I wasn't even done with that. So it's been a moving target, but I'm pretty well built out. What you see is what you get. There's nothing I can do more after this. Everything in the front, these drawings represent what's there now, and I'm not going to change it. So I guess as credibility goes, there's really nothing to change. I'm really submitting on what's already done. MR. SEGULJIC-So the drawings you submitted represent the. MR. GROSS-What's there. MR. SEGULJIC-These issues that were noted during the site inspection? MR. GROSS-Yes. Absolutely. They've all been addressed. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess, technically, how would that work, then? Does he need to get a modification for that? MR. OBORNE-He needs to have your blessing, basically, he's coming to you, obviously, to have modifications to his approved Site Plan. This is basically an as built approval that you'll be granting him tonight, if that happens, and, on top of that, he's changing, again, not changing a Site Plan, but adding these structures for storage, which is what precipitated all this. So, in short. MR. SEGULJIC-So I assume what happened was he came in for a new Site Plan Review, and at that point, the compliance letter was found. Didn't you respond to the compliance letter? MR. GROSS-Bruce gave me a call and said, Joe, How's the time you're going to clean up the whole thing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. GROSS-But I want something, I want to take care of something old, and I said okay. There we go, get it done. So I gave it to my guy and said take care of it, get the drawings, do what we've got to do, and let's dig up that letter and Keith was helpful and told me what I needed to do and we got it done, and we tried to do it as fast as we could to get it in last month. You were overbooked. So I got pushed off to this month. MR. FORD-I have a problem moving toward approving, by his own admission, a moving target. MR. GROSS-Well, if you want to put a time on it, I mean, if you think it's a reasonable time to re-visit it, whether I still need the sheds or not, you know, we can take a look at that, put a time on it. MR. FORD-But time is one of the issues. What is actually there, as compared to the plan, is another issue. MR. GROSS-These plans represent what's there now. MR. FORD-You're trying to get an approval for something that exists. Not what was planned. That establishes a dangerous precedent for us in the Town of Queensbury, I believe. MR. SEGULJIC-So if I'm understanding your notes correctly, there's a lot of, like, for example, there was a cedar fence installed on site that was not previously approved, but now it's on the plans. It's all things like that. MR. OBORNE-It's an as built survey, for lack of a better term. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And an as built Site Plan modification. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, with the new structures. MR. OBORNE-With these new structures, yes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. KREBS-But I have a question. Why did the Town, when they inspected in 2005, they haven't done anything to make sure that the applicant conformed to what he was supposed to conform to, and it's now, it's 2009. MR. OBORNE-That would be a question for Code Compliance, to be honest with you, I can't answer that question, Don. MR. GROSS-And obviously, I might not have it exact, but everything I did, it wasn't an issue, because they knew that what I was doing wasn't, you know, taking the curb out, you know, you see an issue with it and they said, I'm not seeing an issue, but you're going to have to re-submit. I did all that, and then I was the one lack. Bruce did, in his defense, he called me a few times and said, hey, you've got to get the new drawings in. He goes, I don't see any issues with what you did, but I didn't, you know, quite frankly, the driving force for me to get the new, the drawings re-as builted was to try to get these sheds in the back. MR. KREBS-Right, because I don't see any, my problem is I don't see any documents from Bruce that says he did agree to anything other than what he reported originally. Do we have anything? MR. OBORNE-I can't answer that. No, there's none in the file. MR. FORD-Do you have anything, sir, any written documentation to support that? MR. GROSS-No. MR. FORD-So you have no written communication from Bruce at all? MR. GROSS-I probably do, sir, somewhere in my office, to say get the as built drawings to me, back into the Town for approval. It's a few years old, so honestly I don't know. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, Mr. Gross. You're saying he said get the drawings to the Town for approval? MR. GROSS-Bring in front of the Town, but again, he saw me. I was moving, he said what are you doing now, and I explained. He kept an eye on me, what I'm doing, and then making sure that I wasn't way out of whack here. Really, when you look at it, I don't mean to sound, I changed, I reduced the size. There's more green area. I didn't, you know, I had approval for a bigger building. I went with a smaller building. I didn't put a curve in, and I put a retaining wall, and I took three drains out. That's all I did. MR. TRAVER-But just to clarify, from our standpoint, the Code Compliance Officer saying you need to submit for approval, doesn't mean that he approves your not complying with the original. MR. GROSS-He doesn't have the authority. You have the authority to approve it. MR. TRAVER-Right. What I'm saying is that him saying that is not the same thing as saying that he's okay with the fact that you didn't comply with the original Site Plan. He's saying that if you don't comply, you're going to need to modify that Site Plan, which is part of what you're here for tonight. MR. GROSS-That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to clean up an old issue. I'm trying to clean an old issue up. MR. TRAVER-Now you mentioned something earlier, in your statement, that you had said something to your Staff about go ahead and take care of these things or whatever. What were you, were you referring to these items? MR. GROSS-Get the drawings done, go get it done. I didn't have time. MR. TRAVER-Go get the drawings done, not come into compliance with the original Site Plan. MR. GROSS-Done whatever the Staff, the Code Compliance Staff, said that I had to do to come here, just go get it done. Get the drawings done, go to Tom Nace, have him look it over and make sure the water, have him give you a letter saying that there's no impacts. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. TRAVER-So your efforts were directed to getting our approval for not completing the original Site Plan? MR. GROSS-Right, to get the as built approved, and. MR. KREBS-Right, and (lost words) included as these three storage buildings that he's put up. MR. GROSS-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Right, and understand, our question with regards to the time period that you want this storage is because in your application it stated that they're temporary. Temporary as opposed to permanent. MR. GROSS-Permanent. Well, some of my argument there, quite frankly, is valuing them to the property, you know, for assessment value. That's my argument, that they are a shed. What do you put on a 10 by 10 shed on the property? Do you put a 10 by 10 and you said, okay, you've added $500 worth of value? It's something that isn't a permanent fixture to the property. I'm asking permission to leave them there, and, you know, quite frankly, I'll probably get taxed on them, and if they're too absurd I will take them out when they're not needed anymore, but, you know, when they're done, I plan on sandblasting them, painting them the same color as the building. Everything will be prestige. It'll look very nice. All the extra racking down in the hole is being pulled out of there. I rent, the original shop, so you know, is out front, and that's rented to Brookfield Power, and I have a 10 year lease with them, and I plan on keeping them happy. They didn't want the whole yard. So you can see I moved the fence around. So they let me have a little more of the, when I negotiated with them, I said, well, geez, I could use more yard, well we don't need the yard in the back. So I said, well, great, I'll move the fence over, and they're a great tenant, and I'm not going to mess that up. So I'm cleaning that, what I'm doing is getting the roofs in and I want to put everything nice and neat under a roof and keep that whole area very neat and orderly, so I can be the oddball in the neighborhood there. MR. TRAVER-I understand. I'd like to go back, again, to August of 2005 when there were some issues with compliance with the original Site Plan. You said something before about, you had a conversation with Bruce and you had indicated that you were going to bring the property into compliance and then you just got sidetracked and everything. MR. GROSS-Got sidetracked and I didn't do these as built drawings, and he's done, he's come to me a few different times and asked me to get it done. You need to clean it up, he said. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you didn't disagree with the issues that he found. You just never got around to coming into compliance? MR. GROSS-Right. I didn't disagree that I didn't put the curb in and I didn't disagree that I didn't put those three drains in and I didn't disagree that that's the issues, you know what I mean, they changed on those are the issues, and I changed the size of the building, you know, I didn't disagree with it, but it was pretty obvious to me, what things I thought mattered the most, like I had had a landscaping approval done by you. I had an exterior lighting approval. I didn't change any of that. I didn't change anything that would be an impact, I thought, to, you know, that would be, like I said, the cutting of a curb, cut the curb out, reduce the size of the building, put this retaining wall along the back, so I could make use of the property. So I didn't see it, and, yes, just was lax in getting the as built drawing, and, yes, putting these sheds up prodded me along to get this whole thing done, and get it cleaned up. MRS. STEFFAN-The tractor trailers that are behind that landing on the corner of your property, I think where you said you've moved the fence from Brookfield Power. They've been there a long time. They look like they've been there a long time. They've been there for a couple of years now, two years they've been there, and they're full of, quite frankly, they're full of product, they're full of materials. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but they were open and we could see some. MR. GROSS-Yes, you could see some cable tray in there. They have aluminum tray. Those doors are tough to shut. So they don't shut them so well, but again, just packing a 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) lot in a small area. You're trying to utilize different means. Believe it or not, that building's full. So, actually it's pretty full. MRS. STEFFAN-It's very busy. We were there, and there was a lot going on. MR. GROSS-Yes. I was there, I think you pulled in. I was even there on Saturday, cleaning. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MR. SEGULJIC-Keith, if I could ask you a question. You make a comment about the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is still applicable? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Plan not updated to reflect new conditions. Please clarify purpose of non applicable designation on this page. Where I'm confused is, I don't see, where it says it's not applicable, but he has the stormwater requirements. MR. OBORNE-I believe it was in the narrative. It was in the response from Nace Engineering, and to the. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I'm looking at, just to clarify, you cited Site Plan Number Three. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And that's where you say please clarify purpose of non applicable designation on this page. MR. FORD-Sir, I have a question. How would you characterize your response to the August 3rd letter from Bruce Frank, where he stipulated 15 items where there were deficiencies? How would you characterize, as an independent observer, your response to that letter? MR. GROSS-I should have gotten it more timely to get it back to him. I honestly don't see, I don't have the letter in front of me. I wish I, I'm almost positive I don't have that letter. MR. OBORNE-With the response to the Chairman, there is an X through the page. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. So you're saying the X means everything is off? MR. OBORNE-It's an N/A, not applicable, original construction drawing, and it's the SWPPP. SWPPP requirements are on here, maintenance stabilization. Now it's something I point out during Site Plan Reviews. If I have an issue with something that's said or something that is drawn or taken off. It all depends on the issue. It's not to say that in this case, Tom Nace didn't engineer this correctly. I'm not stating that. I'm stating simply that the SWPPP is still an active SWPPP and it needs to be followed through. MR. SEGULJIC-The NOI they submitted for the original construction project you're saying is still active? MR. OBORNE-Well, sure. MR. SEGULJIC-It wasn't withdrawn, then, you're saying? MR. OBORNE-It's not the contention that there's anything wrong. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It's stating that it is still applicable. MRS. STEFFAN-It has not been complied with. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-But it is still applicable. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MRS. STEFFAN-The stormwater plan wasn't developed according to the approved plan. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And it is still governed by the stormwater, the SWPPP. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But I do want to state, I'm not stating that the engineering that is on the site, or the modification doesn't work. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I believe for the most part it does. MRS. STEFFAN-But we don't know it because we didn't have the revised, we didn't have the modification to the stormwater management plan. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering. If I remember right, the issues were the building was smaller so there was less impervious area, but the eaves trenches were smaller, too. We went back and looked to make sure that they were still adequate, and they are more than adequate. The area where the trailers and roofs are located had been treated as hard surface in the initial plan, in the initial stormwater plan, so that doesn't increase the rate of runoff or the amount of runoff, by putting a roof on it. There were originally catch basins along the side of the gravel area that lead out to drywells. The drywells have been installed, as I understand it, and the catch basins were left out because that whole area drains off to that side, and there was really, with the way he arranged the sheds, there was no need for the drywell, or for the catch basins. So I believe those are the salient points of change is from a stormwater impact, or a stormwater impact. MR. SEGULJIC-And did Mr. Ryan look at your responses, then? MR. NACE-I have no idea. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I'm embarrassed to say I didn't see the engineering letters. MRS. STEFFAN-Here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Yes. I have one other general comment. Just that the plans, and this is the problem we always have when there are modifications and all this other stuff, because what I'm looking at, at SP-1, you know, you have the, I guess it's a 7,000 square foot building, or 7200 square foot building, but it's really only a 4,000 square foot building. Shouldn't that? MR. GROSS-No, he's got it within the building. He was trying to show you the original, this drawing. MR. SEGULJIC-But that's not what's there. MR. GROSS-Four thousand square foot is what's there now. MR. SEGULJIC-But not the 7200 square foot building. MR. NACE-No. I think what he was trying to do, he took the original Site Plan, and red lined it so it would be easier for you to see. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Why don't we just have what's there, I guess. MR. NACE-I'm sure they can produce that as a final drawing. MR. SEGULJIC-Would that make sense? MR. NACE-The intent was to be able to show you. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think that's Number One on VISION Engineering. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Just to have what's really there, not. MR. OBORNE-And you certainly can direct the applicant, as a condition, of tabling or approval, to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. GROSS-He was trying to pose it in so you could see the changes to what we did. MR. SEGULJIC-And I think that's fine. He did a good job at that, but it just lends itself to confusion as to, down the road. MR. NACE-I think he was, in actuality, trying to make it easier for the Board to see the changes. MR. SEGULJIC-Sometimes it becomes like trying to jump into a moving car. Any other comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-When you have a truck come in to unload, which way do they come, off of Silver Circle? MR. GROSS-Silver Circle, yes. MR. SIPP-And then go out the other way? MR. GROSS-Silver Circle's a dead end. Everything comes in and out of Silver Circle. It come in and they back right in to the loading dock. MR. SIPP-They come in and they back up to the loading dock. Okay, and swing around and come back out. MR. GROSS-A lot of times some will do the swing. Some, you know, right now we're down there by ourselves and sometimes we'll just stop and back it in. MR. SIPP-All right. Has the erosion that was noted in 2005 been taken care of? MR. GROSS-I don't know of any erosion, to be honest with you, on that. There's no erosion. I mean, it's all pristine lawns right there. MR. SIPP-There's numerous erosion gulleys that were formed along the slope, swale, outside the, on the outside storage area on the south, west, and east sides, need to be filled and stabilized. MR. GROSS-There's been riprap stone they put all along, along the back side. That's what he's talking about. Because, you know, just like we said, we took out those basins, catch basins. The water would run so darn fast it was making little trenches in the small stone. So they put riprap across it, there, we stiffened it up. MR. OBORNE-If I may clarify, Don, on my Staff Notes, under the Staff comments, it goes down through each and every one of Bruce Frank's issues, and six through fifteen have been taken care of. MR. SIPP-Okay. Now, was there any landscaping done in 2005? MR. GROSS-Yes, sir, it was all done. MR. SIPP-And you're putting in 17 more spruce trees. MR. GROSS-I put in more than what I was asked to do, but I put in what was originally on the design, and then what you'll see is the Lands of Kineke there, I went ahead and I didn't, I was trying to, I went ahead and I planted those spruce trees along the little bank there. To (lost words) be bad. More is good. MR. SEGULJIC-More is good in that case. MR. SIPP-Any dumpster on this property? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. GROSS-There's a garbage can, yes, sir, back here, and then we have a metal dumpster that comes in and goes. When we have a job, we'll bring the metal dumpster, fill it up, and tell them to come take it away. MR. SIPP-And that is, where is that? MR. GROSS-It's kind of a moving target, the metal dumpster. We put it in the gravel area in the back, and you'll see it, you'll see that I keep all the trailers kind of like in a, like soldiers all down through there. So whatever (lost words) he drops one. We'll fill it up and then (lost words). MR. SIPP-So this gate on the south side, it would be the east side, is never used? MR. GROSS-No, it's always used. That's the only way to get into the back property right now. I keep a gate going between my old shop and here only for like fire reasons. If the fire truck had to get through there to the back, they'd have a reasonable way to get around the back, but there's a big, that gate (lost words) that thing would hold back (lost words). It's made out of two inch steel, and three inch tube steel. Kept locked. It keeps it pretty secure back there. MR. SEGULJIC-Any other questions? MRS. STEFFAN-I think some of the confusion here is that usually when changes like this occur on a Site Plan, we get a modification that comes back, and I understand you're trying to do two things at once here, but for us that's why the water is a little bit muddy right now, because we're used to doing the modification, change to your Site Plan, approve that, and then look at the next change that you want to make. So I think that's why you're hearing some confusion. MR. SEGULJIC-So I'm sensing people want to table this? Is that correct? MRS. STEFFAN-On this particular project, I wouldn't want to condition anything, just because. MR. OBORNE-Well, what would be the issues that you're looking for more clarity, as far as the plan before you? Do you want an as built survey? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would say the engineering letter needs to be addressed. Staff comment needs, I guess, well, what other questions, with regards to the parking, since they have nine more spaces than are allowed under the Code? MR. OBORNE-Well, the Planning Board certainly can waive that. MR. SEGULJIC-So that's one of the actions we should take, then. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the parking wouldn't be my issue, because they have some traffic, but not a lot of traffic in their building. MR. GROSS-We're not retail. We just have 10 people that work there. We park out front. You can come by anytime and see that there's plenty of parking spots. I thought more spots were better than not enough. MR. SEGULJIC-So what's the Board want to do, table this for clarification, or are you satisfied with going forward with it now? MR. KREBS-You're looking for him to clarify it by bringing in as built drawings that represent exactly what's there? Is that what we're looking for? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think that would be helpful, yes. We don't know. MR. GROSS-These don't represent as built drawings at all? MR. SEGULJIC-No, you have a 7,000, 7200 square foot building with a 4,000 square foot building that's labeled new office. I think it could be confusing. If I could speak for the Board, I think everyone's okay with it. We're just going to need to clean it up. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. GROSS-So you want me to bring him back as built drawings and then the building, or all in one shot? The hardship is it's two more months to get back in here. So summer's over, the project's already underway. MR. KREBS-Well, the buildings are already built anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I'd have one comment to that. You had, what, three and a half years to address those comments from Code Enforcement people. MR. OBORNE-I do want to remind the Board that you do have a public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Good point. Anyone wish to speak to this application? MR. OBORNE-You need to formally open the public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-I wish to open the public hearing. Does anyone wish to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-I guess you're preparing a motion for us, then? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I need to know what you want. Because you just said as built drawings. MR. SEGULJIC-I think he needs to address the engineering letter, and then we have Staff comments, but I think the one thing with Staff comments is that I think we should give the applicant some direction as far as, I'm looking at the second page of the Staff comments, you know, where they're talking about the cantilever gate different from the approved sliding double gate. MR. OBORNE-Well, these are all on the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess, in theory, we'd have to grant the modification. So what I'm asking the Board, is everybody okay with all of those? MR. OBORNE-If you ask the Board what? MR. SEGULJIC-If they're okay with these modifications, if he comes back with a plan that just cleans everything up for us. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we've got a drawing, now, that identifies the, what was approved versus what was built, and we don't have a drawing that has what's there with the new proposed changes. We've got separate drawings. MR. OBORNE-Correct, and I would, correct. I don't want to influence the Board unduly. MRS. STEFFAN-But at the same time, what does Staff need to be able to do their work to the best of their ability? MR. OBORNE-I think Staff has everything that Staff needs. If their engineer signs off on it, which he has designed this, and VISION Engineering doesn't have any issues, or would sign off on that, I would be pretty satisfied, to be honest with you, because what I have on my plan review, basically states what's on the plan, and my only real issue was with some stuff that needed to be cleaned up, such as the septic tank size, and explanations as to why these things these things on the Site Plan Inspection Report weren't done, and I think that that was explained. With that said, you're asking him to go and remove or clarify the 4,000 square foot from the 7,000 square foot. That's fine. I mean, I don't think that that's much of an issue for them to turn around in a quick manner. MR. SEGULJIC-It depends on what everyone wants to see. What's the will of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Responding to VISION, Staff Notes, and an as built will do it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So as far as the modifications from the original plan he's looking for, it appears as if everyone's okay with it. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MRS. STEFFAN-If they satisfy Staff's needs. MR. OBORNE-Yes, Staff and Engineering comments. I mean, it's my impression that the as built plan was presented. That's my interpretation. Now there are issues that the Planning Board with the process by which the applicant has arrived at this point, and he does show where these structures are located, what they're to look like, obviously since they're up pretty much already. He's looking to complete that. MR. KREBS-Well, do you think there's enough detail? I'm just looking at the second drawing, SP-1, which says new storage, new temp storage sheds. Where, specifically, are they located? I don't see them located on the drawing? I mean, it's like also the 4,000 square foot, what happens if, at a later date, he decides to get a 7200 square foot building? He has a drawing that's been approved that has. MR. OBORNE-If you approve this modification, that sticks. If he wants to change anything on his Site Plan that requires a building permit, he is required to go before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. MR. FORD-It sticks? I don't think so. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don't we each take a couple of minutes, look at the plans, see if you're satisfied with them as is, and after that we'll make a motion either approving or tabling, or disapproving. MR. GROSS-I can have them create a new drawing and take out what was and what is. MR. OBORNE-You have to satisfy the Planning Board. MR. GROSS-No, that's what I'm trying to say. It's easy enough to do, talking to Tom, I would just get him to do it and bring it to you guys, if that's a condition to get the building permit. MR. KREBS-Well, it's just like A-100, that top drawing, which has the brown roofing shown. MR. GROSS-He just used that for a shade. MR. KREBS-No, but I'm just saying, how deep are those buildings? You give a width? MR. GROSS-Forty foot, sir. They're 40 foot by 40 foot. MR. KREBS-I know, but it doesn't say that on the drawings. So if you decide later that you want to make it 60 feet, we don't have any control over that because there's nothing on the drawing that says. MR. GROSS-The building permit I applied for, that's on there, it's 40 foot by 40 foot. He missed it on this drawing. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. GROSS-But on the building permit it's 40 foot by 40 foot. He missed the dimension on that. It also spells that out on Drawing SP-1, 40 foot. On SP-1 it shows the area to be 40 foot by 168 feet, that's the area. So it would be all. MR. KREBS-Yes, but that says the area, area of what? It doesn't specify. It says area. Is that the area of the sheds? Is that the total area? MR. GROSS-No, the new temp storage area is what he was, the new temp storage areas. MR. KREBS-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-How high is your retaining wall? MR. GROSS-I believe it's approximately four foot high. MR. FORD-Tom, is that the size you designed? MR. NACE-Excuse me? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. FORD-Is that the size you designed? MR. NACE-No, the retaining wall they built on their own. I was not aware of it. On this current go around, they asked me to simply respond to the specific issues in my letter. Mostly the drainage. MR. GROSS-There was no drainage on that area. So instead of having a sloping hill, we decided to put the concrete wall, so we could access those boxes. MRS. STEFFAN-Unfortunately retaining walls are a very hot item in the Town. We're very particular about retaining walls. Since you put one up without a plan, on an approved Site Plan, it's another one of those areas that is just difficult to take here. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. What's the Board want to do? Mr. Traver? MR. TRAVER-Again, I think engineering and Staff comments need to be addressed. We need to have a plan that shows these structures, not just the area where they're to be located. MR. KREBS-They're actual location and their size. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Krebs? MR. KREBS-That's what I'm saying. I'm agreeing with him. I think that we need to have drawings that represent what he is going to actually have there. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-At least that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mr. Sipp, what are your thoughts? MR. SIPP-I think we need. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Mr. Schonewolf? MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've got to have a drawing. You make it conditioned on that. MR. SEGULJIC-So what I'm sensing is that we need to have clean drawings and the two letters addressed. MRS. STEFFAN-We need them to provide as built survey and drawings, what was and what is. MR. SEGULJIC-Orjust really what is. MR. FORD-I would not vote for anything that would conditioned. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I think we're getting it together. MR. OBORNE-I don't want to cut into Madam Secretary's condition like I did previously, in previous meetings. If you are to condition this on VISION Engineering and/or Staff Notes, if you could be specific as to which ones. MRS. STEFFAN-I do have those arrowed. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Great. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, Tom, you're going to leave the public hearing open. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We're going to leave the public hearing open, and with that, we have a motion. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2009 JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS, 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 a modification to an existing approved site plan for the addition of temporary open storage shed structures as well as as-built corrections. Commercial projects requiring a building permit in the LI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/28/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2009 JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled to the June 23rd meeting, with an application deadline of May 15t". So the applicant can provide: a. As built survey and drawings of existing conditions, as well as temporary structures, and b. So that the applicant can address Staff Notes, specifically the items listed under SP 2 and SP 3, and c. So that the applicant can address VISION Engineering comments, most specifically Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and those are: Item 1 is the as built survey, Item 2 is the setback lines identified on the Site Plan, Item 5, details of the retaining wall proposed on the plan, Item 6 is the foundation details of the proposed structure shall be included on Plan A-100, and Number 8 is the site plans and building drawings on A-100 should be signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer. Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-We'll see you in June. SITE PLAN NO. 19-2009 SEAR TYPE II MOHAMMAD TARIQ AGENT(S) GARY HUGHES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1449 ST. RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 233 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO EXISTING OFFICE/LOBBY AND 2,062 SQUARE FEET OF DECKS/RAMP TO TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS AT THE RODEWAY INN. EXPANSION OF A MOTEL IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 19-05, AV 22-05; BP 05-855, 05-215 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 NO COUNTY IMPACT LOT SIZE 1.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-56 SECTION 179-9 GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-And if we could have Staff comments. MR. OBORNE-Yes. One moment, sir. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 19-2009. Applicant is Mohammad Tariq, Roadway Inn. This is the expansion of a motel in a Highway Commercial zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 1449 State Route 9. This is a Type II. No further review is required. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 233 square foot addition to the existing motel office to include a handicap ramp accessed from parking lot. Further, the applicant proposes the construction of 2,026 square feet of deck and access ramps to one of the existing motel buildings on site. The existing rooms in the 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) building associated with the decks are to be reconfigured into suites, and the open areas into storage. Finally the project includes the removal of an existing concrete walkway and the construction of a new walkway associated with the decks. Staff comments: The applicant received approval for front, rear and travel corridor setback relief, as well as permeability relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 25, 2009. The area beneath the deck is currently vegetated with grass and will need to be designed to carry the concentrated stormwater to either the existing off site system or in situ. The applicant has requested relief from landscaping, grading, stormwater and lighting requirements. What follows is Site Plan Review, and I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. The table is yours. If you could identify yourself. MR. HUGHES-Yes. I'm Gary Hughes. I'm a draftsman and agent for Mohammad Tariq, the owner. MR. SEGULJIC-Tell us about your application. MR. HUGHES-Basically, a description of it, we're proposing adding to the front building, an office addition, office lobby addition, an improvement to add a handicap ramp to that office. The way it is now, it's very difficult for a handicap person to get to the office area, the office lobby area, and incorporated in that addition would be a sign tower. If you were to look on Page Two, that's a covered entrance, the ramp runs up to, and a sign on that, we call it sign tower. On Building Three, the one directly behind the office building, we're proposing new decks. The way it sits right now, you walk in, basically off the lawn or off a sidewalk into the rooms, we want to create decks for that and we want to have a stairway up to the second floor decks, and with the new stairs coming down, if you see on the plot plan, Building Three, a new sidewalk, we're going to take some sidewalk out and just re-route the sidewalk down to the parking area. MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else at all? MR. HUGHES-No, the ramp, the office addition, the sign tower, the new decks, and a stairway. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I'll open it up to the Board. Any questions at all? I had no issues with the Site Plan. The Staff Notes had identified that you had asked for a waiver on lighting, and based on your narrative that you presented, there weren't going to be any changes, but then somewhere it came out that there was a discrepancy between the number of lighting, the number of lights. MR. HUGHES-On the floor plans I show 18 lights. On the elevation I show 16. I left them off the gable ends on the elevations. If you refer to Page Five and Page Seven of my plans, Five being the elevations. If you look at the left side elevation, the left of the building, there's no light as there is on the right side. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUGHES-I left those off, but then if you go to the floor plans, you can count eight on the first floor, which is Page Seven of the plans, and then there is ten on the second floor. So that, I would like to clarify that discrepancy on the final plans. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-And there will be how many? MR. HUGHES-Eighteen total. There was a difference on whether it was going to be 16 or 18, and just for reference, in the Staff Notes it said Building Number One. That's actually Building Three. The one behind the office building is actually Building Three. Building One is actually the office building. If you look at the plot plan, the office is Building Number One. The building behind that is Building Number Three, which is where the 18 lights are going. MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-My other issue. You got the VISION Engineering comments? MR. HUGHES-Yes. I received them this afternoon in the mail. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I was feeling like it was smooth sailing until I got those. So can you address Items One through Six on VISION Engineering for us? MR. HUGHES-Okay. I just briefly read them. I got them in the mail this afternoon. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUGHES-Zoning setbacks lines should be shown on the plan. Yes. That can be done. They were not shown on the initial survey, my initial map, my initial plot plan to the Zoning Board. I did not do that, but it's being brought to my attention that what I should have done, between the Zoning Board meeting and your meeting, I should have put that on there, and I also did the same thing with the Item Two. I do show the 12 foot. We asked for a variance for the 20 foot setback to go to 12. There again that is, it's identified on the plan at Building Three. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, isn't that the approval that you got? MR. HUGHES-Yes. We got approval for that, relief from that setback. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it's just that it's not noted on the plan. MR. HUGHES-It is on the dimension line. If you look at Building Three, it says 12 feet plus or minus proposed setback, and the actual, what we need is, what we should have had was 20. We did get that approval for that variance. I believe what he's asking me to do there is to note that in the plans that we did receive that variance from the Zoning Board, I think, that height. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you would have to do that anyway on your as builts, right, Keith? That would have to be done, as part of our motion as a condition of approval. MR. OBORNE-Well, the Area Variances and anything with the bulk dimensional chart has, any variances that were needed have been approved, and has been duly noted on the Area Variance plans. So it would be redundant. It certainly would not hurt. It's not a requirement. MR. HUGHES-What I would propose is to take these notes, since I've just received them today, to take these notes and condition them to final plans, final approved, because you have to review the final plans. Correct? MR. OBORNE-Yes. My suggestion is to put the actual Area Variance approval resolution on the final plans, along with the Site Plan approval, if you are to receive one tonight, on the plans also, then it's all clear as to what all the approvals are. MRS. STEFFAN-And what about the permeability requirement? MR. OBORNE-That was approved also. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that's the second thing. MR. HUGHES-What I did, I've got an explanation of three things that were brought up by the Planning Staff, the first being that my name wasn't on the plans, which I'm prepared to do. The issue of the 18 lights, as opposed to the 16 shown, and I do have cut outs of the lights that we're proposing to use, and I also have, they had a stormwater issue with the ZBA, and I think that I've addressed that with an explanation of how I intend to do that. I was wondering if I could approach the Board with those three solutions. MRS. STEFFAN-That's up to you, Mr. Chairman. MR. SEGULJIC-I'm fine with it. Is everyone else okay with it? MR. FORD-This is in response to VISION Engineering document or what? MR. HUGHES-Yes. Some of these are duplicates. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the VISION Engineering. MR. HUGHES-The Staff and VISION, and the Zoning Board. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. OBORNE-What he's asking is if you would accept them now, for a quick review. I think that's all that's being asked of you. MRS. STEFFAN-The Chairman said yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So the Town Engineer has not seen these comments, yet, because the one big issue I would have is the stormwater. I shouldn't say issue. One big concern that I would like him to review in his comments. MR. HUGHES-Okay. What we have is a situation where there's an existing stormwater system. What it is is a shared system. Mr. Tariq's system is technically on the neighboring property, or in front of the neighboring property, and it's apre-existing stormwater system. I've asked Mr. Tariq before how the system works, if there's anything running off into the road, off the property. No, it doesn't. It does run over onto the neighbor's property to the manhole cover. I haven't seen any flooding there this Spring. Through the winter, we got a little bit of rain in the winter there, some bad rain where things theoretically would have been frozen up. It seems to be working, and I realize, understand, that it probably doesn't meet Town requirements as far as having too much blacktop. Two wrongs don't make a right. The neighbor's property is almost totally blacktop, but they've handled, obviously, the stormwater. That being said, when we're bringing in the new decks, we're reducing, theoretically reducing the permeability of the property, and what I'm proposing there is to address, to actually decrease the load on that existing system by putting three drywells around the new decks and drain the roof as opposed to the decks, and as you can see, the decks are less area than the roof. So what I'm proposing is to drain the roof and the stormwater to relieve the stormwater from the decks, increasing the load on the stormwater system below the existing. So in theory what we're doing is trying to reduce the actual input of water onto the existing system, We're trying to move the water back up on the property. MR. FORD-Could you clarify something for us? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. FORD-You indicate that an eight foot diameter 24 inch high drywell has a capacity of 1107 gallons. That's under what conditions? Or is that just total capacity? MR. HUGHES-That's total capacity. That, and I took that information from the Lake George Park Commission standards and the APA standards. Basically what they do is they take the square footage times 1.5 gallons of water, and that's the water that you have to deal with, and then they have a chart for different size tanks, different situations, swales, and that particular tank that I'm proposing does handle, I believe it's 1107 gallons of water. MR. FORD-What happens when that maximum capacity is reached? MR. HUGHES-It's going to overflow, if you have a 100 year storm, it's probably going to go, and a lot of them will go, overflow. MR. FORD-We've had those recently. MR. HUGHES-Yes, we have. Exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-How about the pavement along the northwest corner of the property? It appears to encroach on an adjoining property. MR. HUGHES-There is blacktop, as you can see on the plot plan. For whatever reason, I have no idea, probably Mr. Tariq could explain this to you. There is blacktop, you can see where the property line is, and it's been blacktopped over to a fence, and do you use that? MOHAMMAD TARIQ MR. TARIQ-I mean, six years back, when I bought the property, all I did was like re- paved it. It's a new pavement. So all I did is, an existing pavement. So this is just if you came up like without my intention, like, what I was doing is I was covering what pavement was existing over there. So we just re-did it. So the guys who did the job, the 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) deal was re-pave the whole parking lot. So, I know if I have to sell, I'd have to find out, because that's what it was over there. That's what I did in 2006. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it was an existing condition. You just paved over it. MR. TARIQ-It was an existing condition, and we just paved it up. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So getting back to the stormwater, so the decks, the proposed decks, you're not proposing any stormwater controls for those? But you are saying what you'll do instead is take the stormwater off the roof and into the eaves and into the driveway? MR. HUGHES-That's correct. Basically a trade where we're actually taking more water than what the decks would give off. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then with regards to the lighting, I guess I got confused in that you say that there's 18 new lights I think is the quote? The building is already lit, isn't it? MR. HUGHES-Yes, it is. MR. SEGULJIC-So why are you calling it new, then? MR. HUGHES-Well, we're putting new lighting. MR. SEGULJIC-And what do those lights look like, what are they? MR. HUGHES-They're a can light. They shine down, and I've got the cut sheet on them. They're five inch diameter. They're available in four or five different colors. There's no up lighting. It's all down lighting. MR. SEGULJIC-And what is the wattage on those? MR. HUGHES-Pardon me? MR. SEGULJIC-What is the wattage on those? MR. HUGHES-It can vary. Let me just look. MR. TRAVER-What's the wattage you're proposing? MR. HUGHES-We're proposing about 60 watts. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and they're all downcast then, correct? MR. HUGHES-Yes, they are. That's correct. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. FORD-And the lighting plan is where, where can we find that? MR. HUGHES-Basically I just showed the lights on the building. Page Five and Page Six, also in the Plan View it's on Page Seven and Eight. MR. SEGULJIC-Did you submit those lighting cut sheets? MR. HUGHES-No. To be honest with you, I just got them today. MR. SEGULJIC-Any other comments from the Board? Because there is a public hearing with this, correct? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I'd like to open the public hearing. Anyone wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-No commenters. Well, what's the will of the Board? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. TRAVER-We could condition it. MR. SEGULJIC-Personally, I see some issues. I mean, the stormwater plan, I mean, we're proposing, I mean, it sounds good, but I don't know if it's going to work, and that's the purview with the Town Engineer to give us his comments on that. Number Two, I'd like to see the cut sheets. I think having 60 watt lights there sound fine, but we should have the cut sheets. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, minor things, as far as I can see. MRS. STEFFAN-How long do you think that it would take you to address those minor issues? How long could you revise these plans and provide the information? MR. HUGHES-Ten days, ten working days. That would be the worst case scenario. I have the cut sheets on the lighting right now. I would want to talk to Dan at VISION and see exactly what he's looking for. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and just to clarify, because one thing we would want, is if you're going to say you're going to put in 60 watt light bulbs, we'd like to see that tied in somewhere, so we know there's going to be 60 watt lights there. MRS. STEFFAN-And instead of talking directly with Dan Ryan and VISION Engineering, you should direct your comments to Keith and Staff. MR. OBORNE-That's what I was going to comment. MRS. STEFFAN-The VISION Engineering is a subcontractor of the Town, and so all the communication needs to go through our folks. MR. HUGHES-I understand. MR. SEGULJIC-Anyone else have issues, comments? MR. FORD-You covered the two I had. MR. SEGULJIC-So it sounds like the Board wishes to table this? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-How sensitive are you to time? MR. HUGHES-Do you want to explain to them what your vision was? MR. TARIQ-The lobby is the most important, because of the franchise conditions coming up for the breakfast area, for the guest. The building is, I mean, the back building is still there. We're not going to touch anyway (lost word) the season. MRS. STEFFAN-I'm believing that this is going to be, some of the changes that you have to make are minor, but they obviously have to be changed and then submitted and then reviewed by VISION Engineering, and so, what do you think about adding it as an extra item on the 28t" of May? MR. KREBS-It should be a very quick. MR. SEGULJIC-Actions speak louder than words. MR. OBORNE-That's an administrative nightmare. If you so wish it, I'm sure we can accommodate. On the 28t" of May? MRS. STEFFAN-May. MR. OBORNE-That's the second Planning Board meeting. That's fine. The submittal date. MRS. STEFFAN-If he needs 10 working days, give him a little less than that. MR. OBORNE-I think you need to turn it around a lot quicker than that. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. How about Friday the 8t", I would say, because you usually submit to Dan Ryan on Fridays. MR. HUGHES-I can be flexible, too. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I just want to make sure I have all the Staff Note items. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a comment, you should locate where you're proposing these drywells on your plan. So when you submit this to the engineer, everything will be, because for example right now we don't know where you're proposing those. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We'll leave the public hearing open. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2009 MOHAMMAD TARIQ, 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 a 233 square foot expansion to existing office/lobby and 2,062 square feet of decks/ramp to two existing buildings at the Rodeway Inn. Expansion of a Motel in the HC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/28/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2009 MOHAMMAD TARIQ, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: a. Tabled to the 3rd Planning Board meeting in May, which will be the 28tH and b. The applicant will have a submission deadline of Friday, May 8t". So, again, submission deadline of May 8t" for the Planning Board meeting on May 28t", and this will be added as an additional item on that night, and c. This is tabled so that the applicant can: 1. Correct the number of lights to 18 on Building Three. 2. That the applicant can provide cut sheets for the downcast lighting, and also provide wattage for those lights. 3. That the applicant will denote the individual who prepared the plot plan. 4. That the applicant will address VISION Engineering comments. 5. That the applicant will denote the proposed drywell locations on the plans, 6. That VISION Engineering will need time to review the stormwater controls presented by the applicant. Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Was there a duplicate condition in there? Wasn't VISION Engineering comments, and then? MRS. STEFFAN-There was VISION Engineering comments, but then there's a specific, that VISION Engineering needs to review the stormwater controls. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I understand. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Now, gentlemen, we have changed our normal process for you to give special consideration. Please do not disappoint us. Okay. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. HUGHES-Thank you very much. MR. TARIQ-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 PRELIMINARY & FINAL SEAR TYPE CERRONE BUILDERS AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING; MICHAEL O'CONNOR OWNER(S) CERRONE BUILDERS ZONING SR-1A, RC-3A, WR-3A LOCATION CORINTH & WEST MT. ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 222 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 25 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.03 ACRE TO 47.6 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1-07; TOQ BOH 4/6/09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE DOH LOT SIZE 222 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.-1-1 SECTION A-183 TOM NACE & MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-With that, if Staff could read notes. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 2-2009, applicant is Cerrone Builders. Requested action is Preliminary and Final subdivision review. Location, Corinth and West Mountain Roads. The existing zoning is SR-1A, RC-3A, and WR-3A. SEQRA Status Type I Realty Subdivision. SEQRA review required. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 222.2 acre parcel into 25 lots ranging in size from 1.03 acres to 47.68 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Note, the previous approval expired while waiting for a water district extension. Staff comments. I'm going to go down to the additional Staff comments by me. The final application for this subdivision was approved on February 19, 2008, with the following condition, that the applicant will change the language on Sheet Two under Special Restrictions for this subdivision that should read the top of the house foundation shall not exceed the 460 foot elevation contour as shown on the subdivision drawing. The plat notation for the above condition, as well as Preliminary conditions has been denoted on S-2 of the Final subdivision under the heading Special Restrictions for this Subdivision. Plan review follows. I do want to apprise the Planning Board of this application protocol. Waiver for Sketch Plan is requested. You are to seek Lead Agency Status. You are to Acknowledge Lead Agency Status, do Preliminary Stage subdivision review and Final Stage subdivision review, and I'd turn this over to the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-And with that, we'd turn it over to the applicant. Identify yourself. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant. The applicant principle, AI Cerrone, is here, right behind us, and Tom Nace is the engineer for the project. I think the Staff comments pretty much say what occurred. We were here before. We asked for Preliminary approval for the whole 25 lots. We asked for Final approval for the first 15 lots, the most southerly one, and that was granted, and that was granted, and then we got bogged down, if you will, with the Health Department. It took a long time for them to sign off, simply that's what they're doing, they appear to be doing. We submitted the mylar maps for signature by Staff, or for Staff to approve so that they'd be signed off by the Chairman, and discussion then arose as to whether or not there should be an extension of the water district for the back portion of some of the lots, and some how or other that fell through the cracks. So our initial approvals expired. It's the same application. Same, we haven't changed any of that. We have gone to the Town Board and did get an approval of the extension of the water district, as was noted by Staff. So we're here to ask you to re-instate the Preliminary approval for the entire 25 lots, and Final approval for the first 15 lots of the lots on the southerly end of this property, and I think, I agree with the protocol that Keith has laid out as to how we should go about this. Tom has asked, in writing, for a waiver of the Sketch Plan. I think you need to re-visit SEQRA. I think you can re-visit SEQRA and say that there has been no substantial change and affirm your prior findings, and then you can hopefully give us Preliminary approval for the 25 lots, and Final approval for the 15 lots, and then we will be out of here. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I hope. MR. SEGULJIC-So nothing has changed? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. NACE-No. I did, as Staff requested, I did make a verbal change on that one condition on S-2. Previously it had been stated that no house foundation shall be located above the 460 contour, and they wanted the top of the foundation no higher than 460 contour. So we made that change. MR. SEGULJIC-But you haven't got the water district approval yet? MR. NACE-We have. We now have the water district approval. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you have a copy of the change, the plan that has the noted change by Tom Nace? MR. OBORNE-I have not seen. MR. NACE-The mylars that I have here for your signature have that change. MR. SEGULJIC-So, assuming that we're all satisfied, the protocol is that we grant a waiver from Sketch Plan, then Seek Lead Agency. Now if we Seek Lead Agency, don't we have to do notification? MR. OBORNE-No, because all other parties have signed off on this. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So basically what you're going to be doing is you're going to be re- affirming the previous SEQRA Findings, under this subdivision, the new subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-And since, you know, in my opinion on that, since the Town Board is the Town's Department of Health, and they just signed off on the approval, then I do not see a need to go back and re-open SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-Just re-affirm. MR. FORD-Yes, we re-affirm. MR. SEGULJIC-Now is there a public hearing with this, then? MR. OBORNE-There is. MR. SEGULJIC-There is. Okay. Are there any questions from the Board? Everyone understand what we're doing? All right. With that, I'll open the public hearing. Does anyone wish to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. For now, I'll leave it open. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, until we do the SEQRA. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Until we sort through this. MOTION TO APPROVE A WAIVER FOR SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FROM SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 222.2 +/- acre parcel into 25 lots ranging in size from 1.03 acre to 47.6+/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. MOTION TO APPROVE A WAIVER FOR SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FROM SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a subdivision application for: Applicant proposes subdivision of 222.2 acres of land into 25 lots ranging in size from 1.0 acres to 47.6 acres. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]: Town of Queensbury Town Board MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Next. MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, in connection with the above referenced projects, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review according to the resolution prepared by Staff. MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is the Board unanimous regarding re-affirming the SEQRA that's already been done? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Based on previous discussion. MR. FORD-We don't need a motion on that? MRS. STEFFAN-On what? MR. FORD-The re-affirmation. MRS. STEFFAN-No, because that'll be part of the final motion. MR. O'CONNOR-If you're going to incorporate it into the motion, fine. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 222.2 +/- acre parcel into 25 lots ranging in size from 1.03 acre to 47.6+/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With that, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and I will make a resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 222.2 +/- acre parcel into 25 lots ranging in size from 1.03 acre to 47.6+/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/09; and 3. The application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2009 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has re-affirmed a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four C does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. Paragraph Four G does not apply. a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c) NOT APPLICABLE. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and d) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and e) As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and f) NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and g) NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project. MR. O'CONNOR-And we have mylars to sign, because we aren't going to let it expire again. MR. SIPP-When are you going to start on the water? MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe I'm wrong, Don, but there is no physical extension of water, except for the line that will go into the subdivision itself. The line already goes there, but part of the lots in the back. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. NACE-The whole issue of the water, this little sliver here wasn't in the district. All the houses and all the value in these lots was in the district, but there's a sliver here that the Water Department wanted to put in, up to the no build line. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I make a comment, too. We call this Phase I and Phase II for matters of convenience, not because of the phasing requirements of your regulations, because the total is less than 35 lots. We actually have the second part done at this point, and we will be submitting it before May 15t", and hopefully get into your next agenda whenever you have it. We've concluded what we needed to conclude for that stormwater. So it's not a matter of you've got to get so many of Phase I done before you go to Phase II. It was a matter of we didn't have enough information to do the stormwater on those last 10 lots and we now have. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Okay. So we'll look forward to seeing you again. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. There's been a request. Does anyone have an issue if we do the proposed World Class Kids Daycare discussion, just move that up? MRS. STEFFAN-Just move that up. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No, that's fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Is anyone here for the World Class Kids Daycare? DISCUSSION: PROPOSED WORLD CLASS KIDS DAY CARE [PARR LANE & MANOR DRIVE] APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,480 SQ. FT. DAY CARE CENTER. DAY CARE CENTER IS LISTED AS AN ALLOWABLE USE IN THE PROPOSED ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY. TOM JARRETT & MIKE BREEDA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-If you could just introduce yourself and tell us about your project. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, and Mike Breeda, the owner of World Class Kids Daycare Center. We are here tonight, essentially for discussion, but we'd also like to expedite the project as best we can, and the reason we're here for discussion is that the project is proposed in a zone that was not appropriate for this use originally, but the re-zoning that just passed has made this project now conforming, and now that the zoning is correct for this site, we'd like to expedite it as best we can. Mike is caught in a lease situation in his current site, his current location, and needs to get out as soon as possible. So that's why we're trying to push this along. MRS. STEFFAN-Is this the daycare center that's in the Sokol Plaza? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. BREEDA-Correct. MR. JARRETT-And Mike is trying to move to this property north of Aviation Road. Now this is a little bit unusual, in that the parcel is a 2.13 acre parcel that we propose to subdivide and leave the southern portion open for the proposed or potential roundabout that the Town is proposing. Mike has been working with the Town Board toward that end, and he can speak more to that if you wish, but I think the Town Board is appreciative of Mike's cooperation, and what we need to do is propose a subdivision along with Site Plan Review with this project. We've proposed a daycare center for 84 children on the north portion of the parcel, with entrances off Farr Lane and Manor Drive. Parking is an issue that we need to discuss with you. The zoning office, and the Zoning Administrator has declared this to be a pure daycare facility. We argued that it is a combination of daycare and pre-school, because Mike provides a number of functions that require additional parking. He operates two facilities right now, one in Queensbury and one in Moreau, that each require more parking than what the current zoning in Queensbury would allow. As a daycare center, we could provide 16 spaces, using the 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) 100% waiver, the 100% overrun on allowed parking, in other words, we're allowed eight. We could go to 16. We need 30, 31, I think it is. If we classify this as a daycare and pre- school, and Mike can speak to that in a second, then we would be allowed the eight spaces for day care and three per classroom times five classrooms or 15 for the pre- school, for a total of 23, and then with the 100% overrun on a waiver, we could achieve the 31 that we really need. So, we would like to open up that discussion, and we hope the Board would support that re-classification of the site, which would avoid the need for us to go to the ZBA for a variance. With regard to stormwater, we have excellent soils on this site, and we're providing a stormwater system that is compliant with the Town standards. Wastewater is proposed via a new onsite wastewater disposal system, outside the building, as you can see on the plan. Lighting would be compliant. Landscaping would be compliant, and I think we really serve not only a need, but a benefit to the Town in this area, and I guess I'll open it up to questions, unless Mike wants to add anything. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, I think it's a perfect application for the site. I think it's absolutely necessary in that part of Town. I would support the 31 parking spaces, but beef up the landscaping, so that you've got, certainly around the perimeter, you enhance the landscaping that is provided for in the Code. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Other comments? MR. SIPP-Where does the new zoning start and where does it end? Does it start off at Aviation Road and go back along Farr Lane? Or back to Manor? MR. JARRETT-I believe the whole Neighborhood Commercial zone has been re-written, re-defined to allow this use, and maybe Keith could jump in here. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. It's a Neighborhood Commercial, and it will be, I believe it runs to Manor. If you look up on the overhead, it runs to Manor. Basically the traffic circle is proposed to pretty much bifurcate this property here. What's going to happen, as you see on the Site Plan, the entrance will be here, the building will be in this area. So, it is an approved use under the new zoning, and I would say that, under the new zoning, the Planning Board can approve almost any amount of parking within reason. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I certainly think the area, I mean, Manor Drive is filled with Multi-Family duplexes, and it's, that particular area has changed quite a bit, because Farr Lane, obviously the Indian Ridge Development is fully built out at this point, but also there's a cut off on Farr Lane east that takes you into the Queensbury High School track area, and so there's a lot of development in that particular area. So I think it's an idea application for that location. The accounting firm is right next door, you know, there's nice commercial buildings there that are, well, they're not commercial. They're Professional Office, and so I think it's perfect. MR. FORD-Could we have an explanation, a clarification on the reason for the additional spaces? What activity is there? MR. BREEDA-Well, first of all, we have 16 staff. So technically we could have 16 cars in the parking lot at one time which would not allow for any parents to access the park to pick up, drop off. We have, we never have 82 kids at one time, but we're licensed for 82, and I would say, as an average flow, drop off, pickup, we could have anywhere from five to ten parents coming in the same timeframe where they have to park, shut the car off, go in, pick up, drop off, and then, as far as the special events, graduation, you know, in the pre-K class there's possibly 16 kids. We have a graduation and all their parents and grandparents come. We have barbecues. All the special occasions. MR. FORD-Probably 31 won't be enough. MR. BREEDA-So, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I remember the parking lot being packed and seeing all the little kids coming out in the Halloween costumes and thought, wow, parking's an issue. MR. BREEDA-Yes. South Glens Falls, too, they park along Route 9, now. I think we have more than 31 spots down there, and they're lined up on Route 9. MR. KREBS-Do you ever have buses in there for special needs children or anything like that? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. BREEDA-We're handicap accessible. MR. KREBS-I was thinking about the room you need to get them in. Do you ever have buses? MR. TRAVER-The vehicles that you need the extra room. MR. BREEDA-Yes, because we have bus pick up and drop off in Queensbury Schools also, which would probably take place on Manor. I'd have to check with the bus company, but they would probably pick up and drop off right off Manor. MR. SIPP-Now on the south side of where you want the school, there's a house and a garage and some of that probably is going to be invaded by the roundabout. MR. BREEDA-Correct. MR. SIPP-Is that house and garage going to remain there? MR. BREEDA-That'll remain as is, existing, until we decide, you know, that's partially the reason for the subdivision, because then the house will stay, and then when the time comes, for the roundabout process to go forward, the Town purchasing that land, they would take care of that. MR. SIPP-So that eventually could be used as parking area also? MR. BREEDA-It could. Now, in that square north of Manor Drive, you own that, too? MR. BREEDA-No, that's where, on the back side, the north of Manor Drive, has been removed from the lot size that was for sale. That separated, and the Helen Sleight Estate still owns that, north of Manor. That's not part of this project. MR. SIPP-I think it's a wonderful place for it, and I think it's worth going forward on. MR. FORD-Yes. Green light. MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else? MR. JARRETT-Our next problem is scheduling. What we'd like to ask is, we're going to try and get on the next available meeting, and I'm not sure what your schedule looks like at the moment, and we still have some details to pull together. MRS. STEFFAN-June 23rd is the next meeting. So you'd have a May 15t" application deadline. MR. OBORNE-There's no room on the June 23rd, because I believe that there are previous plans. MRS. STEFFAN-The 23rd's the last meeting one is June 23rd The first meeting is June 16t". The second MR. OBORNE-I apologize. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I thought we had agreed about this. Yes. So June 23rd, the last Planning Board meeting in June, there's still room on that agenda. MR. BREEDA-What other things do we have to address that would hold up? The reason why, well, it's tough, but we were originally scheduled for March's meeting. That was full. Got pushed to April. Couldn't apply for the whole thing because of the zoning, hadn't passed yet. That's passed, but since it was submitted as a discussion, we couldn't make it a full meeting review. So now to get pushed to June really hurts my construction time and my contractors and. MR. JARRETT-I'm hearing that our biggest issue right now is landscaping, but I'm not hearing any other major issues that the Board has at the moment. So I guess we'll. MR. OBORNE-Are you sure there's no variances required? MR. JARRETT-The only variance that we knew of was the parking. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. OBORNE-For permeability? MR. JARRETT-No, and I'm hearing that the Planning Board can deal with parking here. Is that? MR. OBORNE-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-When is the new Code going to be adopted? MR. OBORNE-The new Code's been adopted. As to the status of it being accepted by the Secretary of State, I don't know. As of today, it has not been accepted. MR. JARRETT-So, until it's accepted, can this Board act on our parking of 31 spaces, or does it have to go to the Zoning Board for a variance? MR. OBORNE-My understanding is based on the Zoning Administrator's determination that this is not a school but is actually a daycare center, that you would have to go the Zoning Board in order to get approval for above and beyond. MR. JARRETT-We're in a Catch-22. MR. OBORNE-You are in a Catch-22. Absolutely. If you submit your Site Plan, let's say you submit it by Friday, and the new Zoning Code goes into effect prior to that, I think you're fine. MR. KREBS-When was the Zoning Code submitted to the State? MR. OBORNE-It was submitted to the State the day after the adoption. MR. KREBS-Which was, when, in March? MR. OBORNE-No, that was the 6t" of April, I believe. MR. KREBS-It could be a 60 to 90 day thing, if it goes to the Secretary of State. MR. OBORNE-Well, it's my understanding that it's actually a very quick turnaround. MR. KREBS-Yes, that's what they think. MR. JARRETT-Can we request Craig to re-classify this as daycare and pre-school? MR. OBORNE-Sure, you can ask him anything at this point. MR. JARRETT-Would the Board support that if we write a letter requesting? MR. BREEDA-We do, we have apre-school class before Kindergarten. Then we actually take school age kids, 20 school age kids. MR. OBORNE-I think the statute that, I don't know necessarily if it's a statute, that Craig is using is that in order for it to be a school, it has to have a certified curriculum, recognized by the State. MR. BREEDA-We do follow a curriculum, but it's not. MR. OBORNE-I understand. MR. TRAVER-Do you have Staff that are certified teachers? MR. BREEDA-Yes. MR. SIPP-Year round, you year round? Do you have special needs? MR. BREEDA-We do. MR. SIPP-That ought to get you a waiver on a lot of, you know, special needs students. MR. OBORNE-Well, it does sound like the Planning Board is green lighting, for lack of a better term. My suggestion is to contact Craig. I think that's your next option, at this point. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. JARRETT-We will do that. Thank you for your time. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 23-2009 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED, PREVIOUS EIS GREAT ESCAPE & SPLASHWATER KINGDOM AGENT(S) JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS; LEMERY GREISLER ZONING RC-15 LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10,000 SQ. FT. FOOD STORAGE WAREHOUSE TO BE COMPLETED IN TWO PHASES [5,000 SQ. FT. EACH PHASE]. CONSTRUCTION THAT REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT IN THE RC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08-583 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/8/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE NWI WETLANDS, DEC WETLANDS GF-15, GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 237.04 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION 179- 9 MARK NOORDSY & BOB HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 23-2009, Great Escape & Splashwater Kingdom. Requested action, construction that requires a building permit in the RC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Location, 1172 State Route 9. Existing zoning is RC-15. SEQRA status, this is under a previous Environmental Impact Statement. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 10,000 square foot food storage, dry storage warehouse to be completed in two phases of 5,000 square feet each. Construction that requires a building permit requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments: Proposed location of the project is east of State Route 9, off of Round Pond Road. The location for the proposed warehouse is current occupied by 14 storage containers adjacent to the Bavarian Palace. The applicant states that upon completion of the project, the storage containers will be removed. The Planning Board may wish to verify the timing of this statement, as the project is proposed for two phases. The first phase will be construction of a 5,000 square foot food storage facility, soon after Planning Board approval. The second phase is to be built is a retail/warehouse storage facility with a timeframe for construction between 2010 and 2015. The applicant is requesting waivers from parking lot lighting and parking lot space requirements. VISION Engineering has given you approval for the SWPPP. I handed that out earlier tonight, and I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. If you could identify yourself, and the floor is yours. MR. NOORDSY-Okay. Thank you. Mark Noordsy with Lemery Greisler law firm. With me is Bob Holmes, Jarrett Engineers, and Brian Martineau, the Safety Engineer at Great Escape. First of all, thank you very much for putting us on your agenda tonight. I know we had made a special request to that effect, and we appreciate you doing that. Our problem is that the previous food storage warehouse had burned down. We have temporary arrangements which are only good through the 4t" of July. So we've got a construction problem or need, as, of course, everyone else does, but that's why we asked to get in. We would have liked to have gotten an application in earlier and had this whole process getting going earlier, but it took quite a bit of time as far as internally deciding whether to replace the warehouse where it was or to do this proposal. In the prior location, trucks were entering the Park from Route 9, going through a narrow, tight path in order to get to the warehouse. The new proposed location next to the Bavarian Palace will avoid that, you know, keep truck traffic away from patrons, keep them away from the employees, and it's a better location as far as servicing the new food and beverage facilities that are at the Park. It'll be closer to those other facilities. This is only a change in location. It's not going to be an increase in deliveries. The number of deliveries are around 15 to 20 per week. They're generally in the morning hours, and generally are trucks smaller than a full tractor trailer. It's going to be about less than a third of a full sized tractor trailer. There is some brief mention of this in the EIS that was approved in 2001 where there's contemplation of new facilities supporting of the amusements. This actually isn't a new facility as it is replacement of existing. The parking lot at the Bavarian Palace has had a dual purpose for a number of years. It serves as employee parking and then also as special event parking when there is an event at the Bavarian Palace. There won't be any changes to that parking lot except for widening the curb cuts and changing the flow of traffic to one way. The curb cut widening does result in reduction of three parking places, but there is already overflow, 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) employee parking next to Martha's. As noted in the application, the idea, or the ultimate goal is to have all deliveries going to the Park, going to this one location. So the second phase of the proposal would be an additional 5,000 square foot warehouse to receive the merchandising. Right now that is stored off of Route 9. On the cover page of the plans you can see where that is, but the ultimate goal is to consolidate all of the deliveries into one spot. Again, just talking about existing deliveries, basically moving the location of where those deliveries will go, and where that storage will be. Keith referred to the comments, and Bob and Brian are going to go through those, and we've got some updated plans in response to those comments. We'll address those as well as any other questions that you have. MR. HOLMES-I guess first, Mr. Chairman, we do have some updated plans that are here and we've got some answers to comments from that, and at your discretion I would like to distribute them, if you would so allow. MR. SEGULJIC-Are you talking about a whole new set of plans? MR. HOLMES-Yes, they are a full set of plans. I mean, I can quickly walk you through what the deviation is. MR. SEGULJIC-The problem is. MR. HOLMES-They're really minor comments that were addressed to deal with Staff comments, Town Engineer comments and Fire Marshal comments. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it's just tough, because we look at these and all of a sudden you have another set for us. MR. HOLMES-I understand that. MR. SEGULJIC-How does the Board feel about that? MR. KREBS-I'd like to look at the new ones. MR. NOORDSY-It's in response to the comments that we received. So they asked for us to change the drawings. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, see, that's one of my problems. The Board makes, it's my understanding the Board makes a decision as to what's going to get changed. You reacted to comments. What if we didn't agree with them, for example? MR. HOLMES-If you don't like any of the Staff comments or Town Engineer comments, the plans before you are certainly adequate. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I didn't say any of them. MRS. STEFFAN-I think, in my opinion, it's nine o'clock, and we have a little time, and if those plans address specifically the comments that are here and VISION Engineering, it'll be a good start for us. MR. HOLMES-Exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Well, pass them out, then. MR. HOLMES-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And of course the applicant is well aware that we usually don't accept items the night of the meeting. MR. OBORNE-He was informed of that tonight. MR. FORD-So we can discard these? MR. HOLMES-Some of those, the booklet that you have there is still relevant. The plans are what is revised. MRS. STEFFAN-And I just want to say, I've said this before, one of the things I appreciate about Jarrett-Martin Engineering is that they take our comments, they put 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) them in italics, they number them, and then put the answer underneath. For clarity purposes, I think that that's excellent. MR. HOLMES-Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I certainly can walk you through, one by one, if you would like, and we can address those. MR. SEGULJIC-Go ahead. MR. HOLMES-We start with the VISION Engineering comments, and they're all grouped together. VISION Engineering comment one, the plan should include the new location of the existing guard station to be relocated. If you look on the new plans as being on C-1, which is Sheet Three of Fourteen, right between the Bavarian Palace and the new proposed facility, there's a small building. Actually, a correction, the view is better on Drawing C-2, which is the blow up of the building. You can see the existing guard shack in its present location would fall directly in the middle of the modified security gate, and the proposal at this time is to shift, just basically shift this building, which is a portable building, to the west slightly closer to the Bavarian Palace to facilitate the gate. MR. FORD-Good idea. MR. HOLMES-The next, I mean, do you want me to forge ahead? MR. SEGULJIC-Go right ahead. Keep on going. MR. HOLMES-Okay. Grading, pavement elevations, and elevations around the building should be included on the plans. The primary reason that it appears from Mr. Ryan's comment that he may be a little confused is I just want to explain that this is basically a perfectly flat site. Any grading that we're going to have is going to be very nominal. We do have some very slight grading that would only be on the eastern portion of the site, and that's going to be taken up by a five foot high concrete knee wall that will be integrated into part of the building. So that existing slope and grading and drainage and drainage on that east side will virtually remain intact, and there should be no changes. Number Three, location of the stabilized construction entrance should be identified on the plans. We have, on Drawing C-1, shown a construction entrance to be located in the middle of the parking lot. Just a small item of note, it is not typical for a construction entrance of this type, which is heavy rubble, crushed stone, to be installed on top of asphalt. We have had conversations in my office today and recently with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation stating that if there is sufficient existing concrete asphalt or asphalt paving, that that paving will, in many respects, drop out any kind of sediment or traveling of sediment from trucks and so forth before it gets to the Town right of way, so, as construction progresses, what we're basically proposing, should the need arise for that construction entrance, that would certainly be put in place, but the intention at this time would be to proceed without it because we have a large area of existing pavement that will be, in essence, swept daily during construction. So we can verify that no sediment will be tracked onto the public right of way of Round Pond Road. MR. FORD-How and when would that be modified? MR. HOLMES-How and when? Part of that is, that would probably be at the discretion during construction that if it's noted that sediment is traveling across the full length of the parking lot onto the road, that we would have to make that judgment call at the time. That would be included in the inspection reports that myself, as the engineer, we're required to perform on a weekly basis, that we can notify that. I'll admit, generally, during construction, I'm there much more frequently than just on a weekly basis so, myself, I don't have a great deal of concern that we would be tracking a whole lot of sediment. Fortunately the soils we're working in here are very good and well drained soils that we're not likely to create mud or dirty sediment or dirty water that would be traveling off the site. MR. FORD-But you are the one who makes that determination? MR. HOLMES-Probably, yes, I would say yes, in conjunction with The Great Escape. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I'm confused, because on your plan you say provide as required, stabilized, stabilized construction entrance, but you said you would just provide it if it was necessary. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. HOLMES-The goal is we would provide it if we find evidence that we're going to be tracking, that the sediment is being tracked onto the public right of way. If we can satisfactorily contain any sediment from not traveling off the property. MR. SEGULJIC-But that's not what your note says. It says you're going to provide it. MR. HOLMES-Provide as required. MR. SEGULJIC-Provide as required. MR. HOLMES-Perhaps we're playing a little bit of semantics, or understanding the meaning. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that's where I'm getting caught up, because you're saying as provide as required. So you're going to provide it, but I think a better would be provide if necessary. MR. HOLMES-Perhaps a better way would be provide as needed, if necessary or as needed. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Yes, something like that, if deemed necessary, or something like that. MR. HOLMES-Yes. Okay. Continuing on. Inlet protection proposed for the structures during construction should be labeled on the plans. We do have details on our EC-1 drawing, and we have references also on Drawing C-2 and C-1 that show where we have new proposed stormwater controls that the inlets are to be protected during that time, during construction. That would basically include surrounding the inlet with silt fence or hay bales and also providing a fabric underneath the grate to make sure they do not fill up with any sediment or dirty water. Size of the proposed water service should be included on the plans and consideration given to providing a shut off valve for the water service. We have modified the plans, and you can actually see that on Drawing C-1, that the proposed water service would be eight inches in diameter, and just a little bit of a side note to this. That the existing, this facility that we're proposing to serve does not exceed the size requirements for requiring fire sprinkler system, but it is something that The Great Escape is considering, given recent history. So that's going to be considered and it will be basically at their discretion on how they wish to protect or maintain their assets, and also as part of that we have included on the plans the detail for a water shutoff valve. All of that would certainly be reviewed and agreed upon with the Town of Queensbury Water Department prior to any kind of construction. Need for an additional fire hydrant in the vicinity of this new building should be reviewed by the Fire Marshall. I did, yesterday, have a conversation with Mike Palmer, the Fire Marshal, and he had indicated that he did not see a reason for an additional fire hydrant, that there are two existing fire hydrants in close proximity, right along Round Pond Road. Calculations for the stormwater measures identified in the Appendix of the SWPPP should be provided to our office for review. Keith basically addressed that, that the Staff did get the necessary copies to Mr. Ryan, and he basically replied today with the plans submitted appear to be sufficient. I like that comment. Continuing on. The Fire Marshal comments. The Fire Marshal's Office has a concern that staged trucks or trucks backed up to the loading will impair emergency service access to the gate. An overlay is requested showing the travel footprint of an Engine and Ladder vehicle from Queensbury Central Fire Department, to verify access. The existing Bavarian Palace security gate, as far as fire access goes, Brian probably can fill in a little bit more detail, is not the primary access point in case of an emergency. That occurs off of Route 9 at the North Gate, because from that point they can access any point into the Park, and then only access through this gate during an emergency would be solely at the discretion of the Fire Chief at that time, and should that need arise, any of the delivery trucks that could be or might be possibly blocking that gate, the driver is always with his truck during deliveries and would be able to relocate that truck. Currently, the Fire Chief and Safety Manager have a plan in place for access through the gate. The Fire Marshal's office will leave that arrangement in place. Again, according to Brian at The Great Escape, the primary access point is through the North Gate, and that's where they primarily access from. Do you have any additional you want to fill in with that, Brian? BRIAN MARTINEAU MR. MARTINEAU-I mean, I actually walked through the whole site with the Chief, and I know Mike Palmer was (lost words) but actually went out and walked around there. At that time he showed me no concerns, from our history of working together, knowing that 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) if we do have something, you know, a lot of times (lost words) communicate and we know what's going on on the property, where if we have to clear area, we will clear area, with our security guards or whatever, and allow them access anywhere they need to go, but he didn't see any problem with it at that time, because normally they'll come through the north gate and determine what's the best plan of attack for anything that we have going on. MR. HOLMES-Okay. Moving on. All right. From Staff comments, the Staff wrote this down, based on the pages in our documents. For C-1 they noted the extreme southwest parking space appears to be encroaching on the proposed path of the truck travel. Staff recommends that the landscape box be extended parallel to the southern most parking space in order to avoid potential turning issues. I did take a closer look at that, and we have a concern by extending that planter box. We understand the necessity to protect a parked car in that space, but at the same time, we really don't want to extend the planter box much closer to the actual truck travel, or traveling lane, because that would cut off our turning radius pulling out of the driveway a little bit more, but as a compromise to that, and we feel what we can do is we can provide the yellow marking paint on the ground, more closely delineating what the exit lane would be out of the driveway. MRS. STEFFAN-Those landscaping boxes have seen better days. I don't think they're going to last a lot longer. MR. HOLMES-Yes. Part of the other thing is also due to the height of those boxes, extending them out, that putting them closer to a travel lane there's greater fear that they could be hit or disturbed or damaged or vice versa, causing damage to a vehicle. Okay. On Drawing C-2, access gate between the proposed Bavarian Palace is undersized. Per the New York State Fire Code, Section 103.5, Fire Apparatus access gate must be a minimum of 20 feet. Plans have been modified to change the 12 foot wide access gate, security gate, to 20 feet. Drawing C-3, has the applicant submitted a Permit to Work in County Right of Way? Please verify. At this time we have not submitted a permit, or application to the County Highway, basically pending the review process here. Providing a successful outturn, that once we receive Site Plan approval we will be pursuing that work permit, no work, obviously, will commence prior to obtaining such permit within the working right of way. Okay. Next one. Proposed truck path travel exiting the site is not drawn. Please place on the plans to ensure minimal disruption of traffic flow traveling east on Round Pond Road. We have improved, I guess actually you may see it a little bit better on Drawing C-1, and it's also reflected on C-4 that, I'm sorry, that would be on C-3. We show the truck travel plan, or path fora 48 foot tractor trailer. As Mark had alluded to previously, a majority of the trucks that will be traveling in and out of this facility are likely to be much shorter in length, or they might be straight box trucks. We kind of took this as being kind of the worst case scenario. On occasion, the Park may see a slightly larger tractor trailer, but nothing that will exceed the 53 foot maximum allowed by DOT. Actually also on that line that had been alluded to from the Fire Marshal, as far as travel paths, as far as the fire engine or ladder truck, we believe that while I was unable to obtain turning radiuses from the Fire Chief in time for this meeting, I believe that you'll find that they will closely resemble what we have shown as far as the turning radiuses width and dimension of a tractor trailer. In all likelihood, the tractor trailer is a far worse case scenario. MR. OBORNE-If I may, where, did you say on C-3 you're showing this? MR. HOLMES-On C-1 we show the path through the parking lot itself, and then also we do show it as part of the blow up on the dashed line on C-3. You can see there's a dashed line we identified as truck path, where it's pulling out onto the road. MR. OBORNE-No, I don't see it. MR. HOLMES-The entire path is on C-1. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it's easier on C-1. MR. HOLMES-The C-3 is showing the entry and exit. MR. OBORNE-I don't have any problems with the internal movement. It's coming out onto Round Pond Road. Isn't that what I state? MR. HOLMES-Yes. You were identifying, we show the extension of the line on C-3. You see the 33 foot radius? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HOLMES-There's a dashed line that's immediately adjacent to that edge of pavement line, that alignment, that line extends out onto the shoulder. MR. OBORNE-Okay, and that's not crossing the median of Round Pond Road? MR. HOLMES-The way we have it, it comes awfully close to crossing the median, but we believe it truly works, but obviously, travel path and direction, or how the driver drives, is terribly subjective to driver ability. MR. OBORNE-Yes, but, okay, did you state that excuse me, Planning Board, did you state before that you don't have the turning radiuses from the Fire Marshal? MR. HOLMES-The Fire Marshal, we did not invent, I had contacted the Warren County Fire Coordinator, and he was in contact with the Fire Chief on my behalf, and the Fire Marshal was also in contact with the Fire Chief. I did not receive direct contact from the Fire Chief, and the Fire Marshal, at that time, when I spoke with him yesterday, did not know of what the turning radius requirements were for that truck, or for the engine or for the ladder truck. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the engine is just a regular, like a dump truck. That's not the problem. Is the aerial truck, but I would bet you money that it's a lot better than your big tractor trailers that you're going to get in there, your 16 wheelers. MR. HOLMES-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because that thing is fairly inflexible. We moved it in and out of the exhibits down here with no problem. MR. HOLMES-I know in the past they've drilled in and out of the Park, and they've been able to gain access in all locations. MR. MARTINEAU-Yes. They actually made it better through the Park when they do the Sky Ride evacuation drill and stuff, better than they have in the past with their previous trucks, because it has the tighter turning radius. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly. MR. OBORNE-That's all I have. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Tractor trailers are going to come up Round Pond Road and then take a turn in right there, right? MR. HOLMES-Yes. If you, describing, coming off of Route 9, as they approach the Round Pond Road parking lot, Bavarian Palace parking lot, they would take the second entrance, which we are changing to one way access into the parking lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-One way in? MR. HOLMES-One way in, and then it will be exit only on the first driveway. The driveway at the far end of the parking lot will remain unchanged, as a bi directional travel lane. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the sight distance is okay for making that left turn? MR. HOLMES-Yes. Actually, we were actually finding, as far as exiting the parking lot, that the sight distance is considerably limited in that middle driveway, so that's why we believe it's wise to limit it to one way, because the sight distance at the western most driveway has the best line of sight. Okay. Page C-5, Uniformity Ratio not compliant. The Uniformity Ratio is above the level of illumination in relation to the lowest level of illumination for any area. Compliant uniformity ratio is 4:1. Please refer to Section 179- 6-020 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code. We do understand what the Staff is referring to, but please take a look at my response. Let me read that to you. Deliveries to the proposed warehouse facility primarily occur during daylight hours. It is the desire of The Great Escape to balance safety and the desire to minimize excessive exterior lighting around the fagade of the proposed building. We believe we are at the practical limit of providing this balance. It is our belief that the 20 foot candle requirement in lighting in the vicinity of the loading area can be excessive, especially when the building 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) interior lights will provide additional illumination during deliveries due to the overhead doors open during such operations. The reason for the Uniformity Ratio being out of compliance is due to the interaction between the exterior fagade security lighting, which is, the Town standard is providing one foot candle of power, and then the 20 foot candle for unloading areas and then a five foot candle requirement for entry ways, that when we start looking at the overall illumination around the vicinity of the building, we're going to be ranging from one foot candle up to something that could be quite high. So when we look at the whole unit, look at that whole project area as far as the illumination goes, that will skew that uniformity ratio. MR. FORD-When you refer to quite high, give us approximately what is quite high? MR. HOLMES-With regards to what, Uniformity Ratio or foot candles? MR. FORD-What were you referring to when you said quite high? MR. HOLMES-The loading area we were referring to we believe that the 20 foot candles, in many respects, can be excessive because once, if we have just the exterior of the building at 20 foot candles, once we open up the overhead doors for delivery operations, whether, it's not likely to occur at night, but if it so does, we're going to have additional illumination at that time, and what we're proposing in this schematic on the lighting plan, as you can see, in front of the doors, we propose to have foot candle powers that range between 10 and 13 foot candles. MR. FORD-But you wouldn't have all 10 open simultaneously anyway, would you? MR. HOLMES-I'm sorry? MR. FORD-You have 10 doors to open? MR. HOLMES-In the loading and unloading area, there's only two overhead doors. Likely you may, if you're working out of one door or two doors, the one or more of the doors in that one particular location would be, may be open atone time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So there's only four lights and one on the end, and that's it. MR. HOLMES-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're not going to deliver at night anyhow, are you? MR. HOLMES-Not typically. Is that a typical process at all, Brian? MR. MARTINEAU-No. Most our deliveries are always in the morning. The majority of the time it's before the Park's even open. MR. HOLMES-We've actually, is that okay to forge ahead? MR. SEGULJIC-Keep on going. MR. HOLMES-Okay. The next two comments I've kind of lumped together because they cover the same aspect. One with regards here to Page Five, the existing pole lighting not compliant within project area, and then there was also a narrative comment. Concerning existing parking lot lighting, Staff recommends that all lighting be compliant. As part of the application, we've submitted a waiver for exterior lighting within the parking lot itself. We view the parking lot lighting, and this project, as being two separate items, ad we would like to keep that out of the picture. It just so happens that in this project we're proposing access to the facility through an existing parking lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which is already lit. MR. NOORDSY-Prior nonconforming lighting. MR. SIPP-Say that one again? I want to figure that one out. That doesn't make sense. You're asking for a waiver on the existing lighting or the proposed lighting? MR. HOLMES-The existing, in many respects it could be both. The primary is to ask for a waiver from the existing parking lot lighting itself. Then the other part of it would be a waiver from, in essence, the Uniformity Ratio around the building itself. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. SIPP-Yes, but where does that leave us when you get two waivers there? Well, you're asking, what is the waiver, in the sense, for the, what is there now? MR. NOORDSY-To my mind, I don't see that being, the waiver is more applicable, I think, to the first lighting issue, where we're talking about new lighting going in and looking for a waiver from the requirements of the Code. The existing lighting is there. It is not compliant, but it was installed prior to the current requirements being in place. We're not adding that lighting. It's there. We've (lost word) about whether you need a waiver or not. To my mind, you don't need a waiver for that. It's a prior, nonconforming situation. MR. TRAVER-What's the problem with bringing it into compliance? MR. NOORDSY-You lose more parking places, and it's a pretty big task, which Brian and Bob can speak to more of the specifics, because technical aspects are not my forte. MR. HOLMES-What would really be involved is presently we primarily have two light poles and two primary fixtures that illuminate much of the parking lot. In order to bring that into compliance, we could be looking at eight to ten different light poles and fixtures to address the same coverage area that they provide now. Most of these lights, while they're not cut off fixtures, are directed primarily onto or away from the, onto The Great Escape property away from the Round Pond Road itself. There's probably one small exception. There's a corner light right in the extreme southeast corner of this parking lot that does show up a little bit. He does have it there on light. You can see that's the one, that is the primary lighting fixture for a large area for that parking lot. MR. SIPP-That's looking west, or west end? MR. HOLMES-Yes, west, southwest. MR. SIPP-West end of the. MRS. STEFFAN-The Hotel's behind that. Isn't it? MR. HOLMES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The lighting you're showing on C-5, does that take into account the existing lighting? MR. HOLMES-The lighting that we're showing on C-5 is depicting only the exterior lighting provided for the building, with one exception. There is an existing parking lot light, with a downcast fixture, right along the edge of the parking lot. That fixture is proposed to remain intact, and that one, again, is apre-existing, nonconforming. While it is a cut off fixture, it is mounted at an elevation of 33 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Pardon me, I didn't understand that. The lighting shown on C-5, does that take into account the existing lighting? No? It's just, we're looking at the proposed buildings independently of any of the existing lighting? MR. HOLMES-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So you haven't, I mean, why wouldn't you look at the existing lighting and then fill it in for what you need? MR. HOLMES-This is the part where we're trying to, we're, how do I want to describe this? We're kind of keeping the project or the building itself separate from the parking lot. It's just coincidental that we're accessing, or access to this new proposed facility is through the existing parking lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you've got to drive through a nonconforming area to get to a conforming area. MR. HOLMES-In essence, yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, actually what you're proposing is driving through a nonconforming area to get at a newly constructed nonconforming area, to get a waiver. Right? MR. SIPP-You're in two nonconforming areas. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MRS. STEFFAN-Are those lights on year round, in that parking lot, do you know, in the Bavarian Palace parking lot? MR. MARTINEAU-(Lost words). I think to save some energy at times we do shut them down. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wondered, because you're open from May to October, and so, are they closed? MR. MARTINEAU-Right. During the time that the park is open, we have employees parking back there, they are on. MRS. STEFFAN-And are they off, off season? MR. MARTINEAU-Off season? If we're not using the Palace for anything, they're reduced down, but the two on the one end always stay on. MR. SEGULJIC-What's reduced down? MR. MARTINEAU-There's some, the parking lot, the whole side, the lower edge of the parking lot. MR. SEGULJIC-So they're not turned on, then? MR. MARTINEAU-Not during the, when they're not being used during the off season. MR. SEGULJIC-So they're turned off, then? MR. MARTINEAU-Yes, but once we start having employees out there, they come back, we turn them on. MR. SEGULJIC-You turn them on. Okay. Well, I guess, once again, why not take your existing lighting, and then fill it in with new lighting to meet the requirements? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think the point that they're trying to make is that in order to make it Code compliant, they'd have to add a lot more lighting. Now that situation also came up at the Aviation Mall when we looked at that project. In order to make that lot compliant, we would have had to add a lot more fixtures. So maybe in this particular situation, we. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I'm just talking about this one area. MRS. STEFFAN-Because the part that Staff is talking about is this, that (lost word) the parking lot to the Bavarian Palace, and to make the whole site Code compliant, with a four to one Uniformity Ratio, they'd have to re-look at their parking and probably add more lights, which I would not be in favor of, as long as they're downcast, as long as what's there is downcast. MR. NOORDSY-On Issue One, the new lighting, that waiver request is not, it was just a practical suggestion. We can certainly put in, you know, conform with that, if the Board so chooses. Issue Two, you know, we're not constructing a parking lot. Obviously if we were, then we would have to conform with the requirements. Issue Two, we're just trying to, like I said, does not have to go through and put in additional poles and move spaces, but we're not, the project doesn't involve, it does involve a little bit of a loss of the parking spaces in order to make the traffic flow, but we're not adding a new parking (lost word). MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HOLMES-Forge ahead? MR. SEGULJIC-Forge ahead. MR. HOLMES-Referring here to the Page Six comments, Warehouse does not have restroom facilities proposed. Restroom facilities for warehouse personnel must be within 500 feet of the structure per Director of Building and Codes. We do, that is correct. At this time we are not proposing a restroom facility, but we do have restroom facilities in close proximity, both at the Bavarian Palace and the Fest Area restroom, which is in 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) close proximity to the Wiggles World, which is immediately to the north of this area. Both of them fall within the 500 foot setback, or, I'm sorry, the 500 foot distance to travel. Next, with regards to the elevation plan. Wall lighting location should be denoted on the elevation plans. We have so noted that on the plan, the elevation. Then we got into, Staff had provided some additional comments that weren't necessarily drawing specific. Dumpster pads and recycling containers not sited on plan. As this project is a warehouse, it would logical that waste and recycling materials would be generated. In essence, please clarify. As far as recycling goes, the primary recyclable material that would be coming out of this would be primarily cardboard, and The Great Escape utilizes a centralized cardboard collection and removal location, and that's actually in the area of the existing, the former location of the food warehouse. They have cardboard collection bins and so forth that are there, that are picked up on a regular basis. So employees would be transporting any cardboard generation out of the warehouse to that location. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you do that through the Park when it's closed, or? MR. MARTINEAU-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HOLMES-And in essence, with regards to solid waste generation, they have trash compactors that are located elsewhere through the Park. So it would only be on a very temporary basis that any solid waste or recyclable materials and they would be stored inside the building and removed on a regular basis. Number Two was please denote location and type of signage for the modified one way traffic. We have located, on Drawing C-3, one way traffic sign locations, and we have also provided on, if I can remember the page, on Drawing D-1, we've put in a small sign requirement, and we refer to, actually, a couple of New York State DOT signs that refer to one way signs and do not enter signs, in order to control one way access in and out of the parking lot. Number Three, building colors should be submitted for review. On the elevation page, we have provided a color rendering. Primarily we're trying to match colors that are similar to the existing Bavarian Palace that would be a blue roof, white walls and some brown trim and wainscoting, and then the last three comments we had were basically acknowledging the notes that really didn't require much response. I hope this has been clear and concise in walking you through. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any comments from the Board, or any other comments? MR. SIPP-What's the building material? MR. HOLMES-What is the building material? It would be a steel building material with a metal roof and metal siding. Warehouse facility. MR. SIPP-You're not going to burn this one down? MR. MARTINEAU-Had enough of that. MR. KREBS-Now when is the retail phase going to take place? Is there any date on that? MR. HOLMES-At this time? No, I mean, there's a specific schedule, we're looking at a window of the next five years. Part of that's going to be at the discretion of the Park and how they handle their capital funding allocation. I don't know how, Brian or Mark, do you have any comment? MRS. STEFFAN-They have a really good year, it'll be sooner. If they don't, it'll be later. MR. NOORDSY-That's pretty much it. MR. SIPP-Which one goes up first? MR. HOLMES-The food warehouse will be what goes up first, and that is the eastern portion of the building, and that is to happen immediately. MR. SIPP-If not sooner. MR. HOLMES-If not sooner, correct. You are correct. MR. FORD-You haven't started construction yet. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. HOLMES-Not at this time. While we do have contractors on the property tonight, they are not working on this facility. MR. SIPP-You know what Charlie Wood did with the Bavarian Palace. He had a berm out there on Round Pond Road. You couldn't see it go up until he was finished, and he tore it down and went to the Town Board and said it's there, I want a waiver. It's a non compliant building. They gave him a waiver, and he built the thing without a building permit, and had the gall enough to tear down the berm and say, tough. It's already here. What are you going to do about it? MR. NOORDSY-Well, we don't do that. MR. KREBS-When will the containers be removed? As soon as you start construction or? MR. HOLMES-Yes, I believe that's the intention because the containers are located in the area of the first phase. MR. KREBS-That'll be an improvement. MR. SEGULJIC-So you had said something like two trucks max, two trucks a day? MR. HOLMES-It's going to be average, maybe a little higher than that, depending days, but we were more easily able to target a weekly average, as opposed to a daily average. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any other comments from the Board? What's the will of the Board, then? MR. TRAVER-Well, we've got these revised plans tonight. Do they need to go, do they need to be reviewed by the Town Engineer? MR. FORD-For sure. MR. OBORNE-Well, that would be at the direction of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It's in the motion I'm putting together. MR. SEGULJIC-So, is that the only issue we have is engineering signoff, or are there other issues we have? Everyone okay with the lighting? Less lighting is always better. MR. KREBS-Nonconforming, pre-exists. So. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, my feeling is I'm not okay with it, but I understand the applicant's argument. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I certainly don't want more lighting in the parking lot, and less lighting on the buildings would certainly be satisfactory. MR. OBORNE-I'd remind the Board that a public hearing is scheduled for tonight. MR. SEGULJIC-Excellent point. I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-It's noted that no one commented. So, what I'm sensing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is people are comfortable with this as long as we get the signoff from the engineer. Is that an accurate assessment? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And so we're okay on the signage, the one way signage. I saw it on the plan. Building colors. This is for parking lot lighting and this is for the parking lot number of spaces. The applicant is requesting waivers for parking lot lighting and parking lot space requirements. So is everybody satisfied with the turning radius as it was presented? We're certainly ask for a signoff from the Fire Marshal. That's actually how 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) I've worded it, the Fire Marshal's signoff for emergency vehicle turning radius and access management. Is that okay? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you want the Fire Marshal or the Fire Chief? MR. SIPP-Fire Marshal. MR. TRAVER-Fire Marshal. MRS. STEFFAN-Because they would be the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal. MR. SCHONEWOLF-See, the truck belongs to the Fire Department, and they're the ones that drive it and know it. I don't know if the Fire Marshal's aware of that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but the signoff comes from the Fire Marshal. MRS. STEFFAN-Fire Marshal. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It doesn't matter. Fine. Yes. MR. FORD-He'll probably go to the Chief to get the information. MR. TRAVER-Exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-We're getting there. MR. HOLMES-Understood. MRS. STEFFAN-Does anybody have any issues, should we denote that the truck traffic should come from Route 9 to Round Pond Road? One of my concerns for this is that trucks may be coming up Country Club Road to Round Pond Road, and I don't think we want to have that. Does it matter to anybody? MR. FORD-I agree with you. Route 9. MR. KREBS-I agree with you, but I don't know if you can legally restrict that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which trucks are you talking about, delivery trucks? MRS. STEFFAN-Delivery trucks. MR. KREBS-Because there are already trucks that come up Country Club Road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-All the time. MR. HOLMES-Some of the delivery trucks we have actually stop first at the Country Club, and then to The Great Escape, or vice versa. MR. FORD-Good point. MRS. STEFFAN-And those are probably smaller trucks. They're not the big trucks. Okay. All right. MR. MARTINEAU-I know, personally, I've seen bigger trucks on that road, not knowing where they're coming from, but. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MR. TRAVER-I imagine they try to avoid it, just because of the traffic. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I'll leave it off. We can't regulate that. How do we phrase the lighting? Because we've identified that it doesn't, the lighting needs to be downcast. MR. OBORNE-Gentle reminder to the Board to close the public hearing. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. SIPP-This has nothing to do with this, but how is the electrical substation coming along? MR. MARTINEAU-Honestly, I'm not quite sure. MR. SIPP-What was that bank excavated for and opened up to put a substation in there? MR. HOLMES-In essence it's still a work in progress. It's a little over a year. I think we're close to 18 months, I believe. MR. SIPP-Do you have enough power? That was the reason for building it, putting that thing in there. MR. HOLMES-At this point I believe, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is the tower finished? MR. MARTINEAU-They're still working on that tower. MR. TRAVER-They won't really need the extra power until the turn the sign on on top of Sasquatch anyway. MRS. STEFFAN-I think I have everything. Do we want to put a timeframe on the project? One of the things that Staff identified, completion of the project will be removed, but we may wish to verify the timing of the proposed two phases. So do we want to put an expiration date on it, or? MR. TRAVER-How about, well, they were talking in terms of three to five years. So what about five years? Put it on the outside. MR. HOLMES-That seems to fit in the schedule that we're working on now. I mean, that could be subject to change, and obviously if we exceed that, we would come back before you. MRS. STEFFAN-They have to return to the Planning Board for Site Plan. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So as far as SEQRA goes, we don't have to revisit that. MR. OBORNE-Well, it's an Unlisted. So you will need to do a SEQRA determination on this, and I would assume it'll be a Neg Dec under the Short Form. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I guess that's the first thing we've got to do. With that, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Short Form NYCRR Part 617.4?" "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 MR. SEGUJLIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. TRAVER-No. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I'll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GREAT ESCAPE &SPLASHWATER KINGDOM, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28t" day of, April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With that, we have a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2009 GREAT ESCAPE &SPLASHWATER KINGDOM, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 10,000 sq. ft. food storage warehouse to be completed in two phases [5,000 sq. ft. each phase]. Construction that requires a building permit in the RC zone requires Planning Board review and approval 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/28/09; 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. 23-2009 GREAT ESCAPE & SPLASHWATER KINGDOM, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, we did a Short Form review which had a Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. 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 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 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) This is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the proposed lighting fixtures for the building must be downcast and not to exceed Town Code. 2. The applicant must satisfy Staff comments on wall lighting locations to be denoted on elevation plans. 3. The applicant must obtain VISION Engineering signoff. 4. The applicant must obtain Fire Marshal signoff for emergency vehicle turning radius and access management. 5. That this phased project is projected to be completed in 2015. If the applicant is not complete by December of 2015, they must return to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. 6. The Planning Board will grant a waiver for parking lot lighting and will also grant a waiver for parking lot space requirements. Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-This is approved with the following conditions: That the lighting on the site must be downcast and not to exceed Town Code. MR. OBORNE-Would that be on the building? MRS. STEFFAN-I'm sorry. Lighting in the parking lot must, wait a minute. I have another lighting related thing. Hold on. MR. OBORNE-Was it the one light that was associated with the building site? MRS. STEFFAN-Not the wall lighting. I'm not sure, because I just edited this. No, we gave them waivers for the parking lot lighting. MR. HOLMES-Might I suggest new proposed fixtures? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We're at the conditions. The proposed lighting fixtures for the building must be downcast and not to exceed Town Code. MR. FORD-Could we use the word "by" 2015, rather than "in" 2015? That gives them the opportunity to complete it prior to. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MRS. STEFFAN-In vs. by. I thought I said to complete by. MR. FORD-I thought you said in. I'm sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-I could have. I wrote down by. MR. TRAVER-Also, since the parking lot lighting is not part of this project, why don't we not waive it, in case at some point in the future they come back to modify the parking lot in some way? Then we can bring it into compliance, potentially. If we waive it, it's forever, as I understand it. MRS. STEFFAN-But isn't it a requirement for? MR. TRAVER-Well, their argument is that it's not part of this application. MR. OBORNE-That's their argument. That's not necessarily the Department of Community Development's argument, but it's obviously up to you. I understand what you're saying. If you say maybe specifically for this project, and that's what you're approving now, I think that that's fine the way it's written. MRS. STEFFAN-Any further discussion? Any further discussion on lighting? MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So with that, is there a second? MR. FORD-Yes. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MR. SEGULJIC-You're all set. MR. NOORDSY-Thank you very much, and, once again, thank you for putting us on the agenda tonight. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you and good luck with your project. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2009 SEAR TYPE PREVIOUS SEAR [9/16/08] WAL-MART STORES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT, INC. ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION QUAKER RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE A REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE FROM 39.65 TO 33.28 ACRES, CHANGES TO FACADE COLORS, PYLON SIGNAGE LOCATION, AND BUILDING AND PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION. MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 61-07, FW 1-08, SV 1-09, SB 11-08; UV 27-93, AV 34-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE ACOE/NWI LOT SIZE 39.65 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25 SECTION 179-9 MARK PETROSKI & VIC MACRI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-I'm going to go ahead and read Staff Notes in. I'll start with the Site Plan. Site Plan 17-2009, Wal-Mart Stores for modifications to an approved Site Plan. Location, Route 254 Quaker Road and Quaker Ridge Boulevard. Highway Commercial Intensive is the zoning. SEQRA Status is previous SEQRA. The Planning Board to re- affirm previous SEQRA determination for Site Plan 61-2007, VMJR. Project History is also noted here. Project Description. Apparently the applicant proposes increasing the overall square footage of the retail structure. Further, the applicant proposes changes to location, building color, site parking configuration and loading docks, the cutting of trees in the County right of way and a change to the pylon sign configuration. Finally the applicant is proposing an additional entrance to the east side of the building, a change to the configuration of the seasonal garden center to the west, and a change to the loading areas to the rear. Staff comments. The applicant stated that the size of the building and a change in style has not been agreed to by the Walmart home office at the time of the original submittal to modify dated February 13, 2009. It does appear now, with the submittal of the letter of intent, that the applicant has been given final direction from the 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) client. As the revised submittal does not have modified site plans depicting the above mentioned changes, approval must be postponed pending review and submittal of plans, Engineer review and site plan review. Please see attached Letter of Intent dated April 15, 2009 that lists the changes proposed to the approved site plan. Keep in mind, this deals with the Site Plan, and not the subdivision, which is on the schedule after this. I'd turn it over to you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. The floor is yours. If you could identify yourself and tell us about your project. MR. PETROSKI-This is Site Plan first? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. For the record, I'm Mark Petroski with Bergmann Associates, here on behalf of Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and with me, Vic Macri who's the property owner, and also Mary Beth Sleven, legal counsel, with Stockley, Green, Sleven and Peters. Thank you for having us here this evening. I know it's late. I'd be willing to keep my comments as brief as possible and let you ask questions. We made an application in February 15t" for the Site Plan modification, and at the time, we bundled a few things together, to try to keep things relatively simple. Wal-Mart had decided that they would prefer to go with a different color scheme. They also recognize that there's some merchandising changes in the store that they wanted to make, so they had to make some slight modification to the building footprint, and then when we were looking at the pylon sign, we realized that, if you go out there, I don't know if you had a chance to look at it, but the road grade dropped off quite a bit, and with all the changes in the area, you wouldn't have been able to see the pylon sign pretty much at all, coming from the east. So we've packaged that up and put the Site Plan modification together and sent it in on the 15t". Since that time, as Keith is mentioning, the management at Wal-Mart had some further changes that they wanted to make to the store. Timing was difficult because we were kind of halfway in between trying to get on the agenda for this meeting and we submitted a sketch to the Planning Office and asked them to take a look at it and said, is this something that can be dealt with administratively at some point in the future, and they said, no, we really need to come back in to the Planning Board and share that with you. To go into more of the details, it starts to get a little bit confusing, and I don't want to confuse everybody. So, what I'd like to do is kind of show you what our application was, before you, and talk about those things, and then show you what also changed on the Site Plan that actually, it hasn't been submitted. The Staff have asked for engineered drawings, and we still have to go through that process. My hope is by showing you what we're planning to do that at least you have a better sense of where this is going, and then we'd be able to get on the next agenda as quickly as possible, and maybe minimize the amount of effort involved. MR. FORD-Maybe we could also predict what changes will be made in the next three months? MR. PETROSKI-Well, you know, actually a credit to Wal-Mart as a company is they are very responsive to their customers and they're also very responsive to their critics, and they're constantly changing, and that's part of their culture is they're trying to adapt to what their customers and their critics are saying, and that's kind of the process that they're in. MR. FORD-It's kind of hard to pin that to a wall when you're a Planning Board member and trying to determine what it is that you're voting on at this time, as opposed to what's possibly coming down the road. MR. PETROSKI-Well, I think to try to keep this without getting too complicated is if I show you what we originally submitted, which you have before you, you have the drawings and everything, just go through that, and then I have a plan which shows you what the additional changes will be, and then at least you'll be informed of what it's like, and in my mind it's not that significant. You may feel differently, but at least you'll be able to see what the differences are. MR. SEGULJIC-So you're looking, for lack of a better term, for more of a Sketch Plan, just for discussion's sake? MR. PETROSKI-Well, I guess you could call it that, because we understand we haven't officially made the full engineered drawing submission for this latest revision. Okay. So 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) you have a Site Plan modification in front of you, and those things that are in front of you are still things that we plan to do, okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-But it's been updated, again, and that part of it you haven't received an application for. So we have to still. MR. TRAVER-I think, in the interest of time, I would rather see the updated plans before we have a discussion of what you're proposing to do, so that I would be prepared to better understand the context of what you're describing. I mean, I really don't see the value in having you go through an explanation this evening when, you know, we haven't had an opportunity to look and comment on the plans. I think that would be a bit redundant. MR. MACRI-Well, in the scope of the project, I mean, in reality, what you're dealing with here is 5,000 square feet of additional floor area. No changes in paving or hardsurfacing, because you're replacing roof with paving, and a realignment of the parking to adjust for the modification, and, you know, in the real world, at least my world, in the contractor's world, this would be handled with a change order on a job. We brought it to the Town, just to make sure, and kept everybody informed. There was a feeling by both Craig Brown and Chris Hunsinger that we should bring it to the Board. Personally, I think it's a total waste of your time and our time going through 9,000 sets of drawings and doing the same thing for a Site Plan that's already been approved. MR. TRAVER-Well, we do have a process. MR. MACRI-I understand the process, but I also understand we've been through the process. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess just to, I mean, to speed it along, why don't we just quickly go through what you're proposed changes are. MR. MACRI-I would appreciate it if we would at least go through it and see how insignificant it is, and then you can look at the drawings, nothing's going to change. MR. PETROSKI-This is the Site Plan as it was approved, and actually last time when we came back, during the Sketch Plan process, we were just on the verge of going to see the Zoning Board about the signs, and I actually showed this elevation to you. This is the same elevation that, with the color change, which I think we all agree, there was some of those yellowish, orange kind of panels that were eliminated, and this was the more earth tone appearance, and I thought that we got a good reaction from this Board, and we also got a good reaction from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Those colors are what we submitted in our Site Plan modification. That's not changing. This is going to stay the same, even with this latest thing we're talking about, okay. So that's going to be consistent throughout. This drawing was in your packet. This is the pylon sign issue that we were talking about. This is Quaker Ridge Boulevard. This is Quaker Road. There's our Site Plan up here. This kind of greenish color is the wetland mitigation areas. This tan right here is the limit of the grading for the road widening to put the right turn in at that intersection, and what we wanted to show you is that here at this location here, this is where the pylon sign would be, and this is at that 25 foot setback from the property line, so that you can make it the 25 foot high. This here is the line of sight coming from the east, and looking from this curve, you wouldn't be able to see the sign through the trees. We actually located all the trees in this line of sight area, so that you can see what will be impacted, and what we're trying to show you is that by the time we deal with the wetland mitigation and the road widening, there's only maybe a half a dozen trees that are left in that area, and so we're asking that we can take out the rest of those trees, so that we get that minimum visibility of the pylon sign. MR. FORD-The minimum visibility? MR. PETROSKI-Right. That's the least that we need to do to be able to see the sign coming from the east. From the west, this is all lawn area here. You've got that frontage road. So you've got a good visibility coming from this direction, but with the trees that are there now, especially once they're in full leaf, you wouldn't be able to see anything coming from the east. MR. SIPP-Are those trees on the County right of way? They must be on the County right of way if that's the property line. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. PETROSKI-Yes. This black line, that's the right of way line. So everything below that is in the County right of way. MR. SIPP-So that's on County property theoretically. MR. PETROSKI-There's probably, there's four trees right here that are actually on the site, that are right in front of the sign, that are the only trees that wouldn't really be impacted by either the County right of way or the wetlands mitigation. MR. SIPP-Would you consider, if this were feasible, to remove those trees to lower the sign? Twenty-five feet is the maximum. I would like to see it lower. MR. PETROSKI-Well, we actually took kind of a reverse approach. The grade on the side of this road here, around this intersection here, it drops right down in, drops off about five or six feet, and so with this application we were asking that the base of the sign be brought up to be at the same elevation as the adjacent road. So we effectively have a sign that's 20 feet high, and we're trying to get it up so that we can get the full advantage of the 25 feet. MR. SIPP-They're going to have to put a lane in, a turn lane in there, right, the County is going to have to put a turn lane? MR. PETROSKI-WaI-Mart would build that. All the traffic improvements here would be built by WaI-Mart. So there would be a right turn lane to turn up Quaker Ridge Boulevard. MR. SIPP-I don't think the difference between 25 and 18, seven feet is going to make a difference to the line of sight. MR. PETROSKI-Well, I know that certainly the visibility of the sign is a problem. I mean, you can't see the sign whether it's 18 feet or 25 feet tall, if it's at that location coming from the east. MR. SIPP-Yes, but if the trees are out of there, you certainly can see it. MR. PETROSKI-Yes, if the trees weren't there, you could see it. MR. SEGULJIC-So those little notations on the map, are those the trees that you're going to cut down? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and no other place you can put the sign? MR. PETROSKI-When we start talking about where should signs go, there should be some, you know, just putting a sign anywhere just to have a sign doesn't really make the most sense. I mean, the sign being here is basically indicating a point of access to the project. This road is basically acting as, if you will, the driveway to the WaI-Mart store. If you don't put the sign near the driveway, there's some confusion as to where you get into the property, okay, and realizing, of course, that this whole frontage is all the trees that we've agreed to leave, you know, in this whole zone. You've got to drive across the whole frontage before you find out where you're going. Now, yes, people will recognize, after a time, that that's where the site is, people who shop there normally, but, you know, part of our concern is that this is a seasonal community where you've got a lot of summer visitors, and just not always the same people. So you do want to make sure that it's in a logical place for people to know where they're going. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I had to ask a logical question. MR. PETROSKI-I mean, it's a fair question. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So you're looking for that sign to be 25 feet tall? MR. PETROSKI-Right, as the Code allows for 25 feet, provided you're 25 feet back from the property line. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MRS. STEFFAN-And is that 25 feet from the ground or from the pylon, somewhere in the plan you were going to build up? MR. PETROSKI-Well, once you're 25 feet away, like I said, I don't know what the numbers are, but say the grade here is at 100. The grade where the sign is right now is at 95. It's five feet below the road. So we're asking to bring the sign base backup to be the same elevation as the road, and then have the sign be 25 feet tall from that location. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-I don't know if you had a chance to go out and look, and maybe you'll have a chance, after this, to go out and take a look at it. It drops off in there. It's like a little pocket. It's hard to see down into that pocket, and it'll be hard to pick it out. So I think it's something that we'd really like you to consider. MR. FORD-Why? MR. PETROSKI-Just because of the position of it. You're coming around a curve in the road. You're looking at this mass of trees, and then you've got to pick this sign out, which is going to be right at the edge of the tree line. MR. FORD-And so the higher you put it, the better the visibility? More so than if it's at eye level, or closer to eye level? MR. PETROSKI-We're asking for what the Code allows. The Code allows for up to 25 feet when you're 25 feet setback from the property line. Normally, Wal-Mart likes to have their signs, I think it's at least 30 feet high is their standard detail. So they obviously want to comply with the Town's requirements, so I haven't asked for a variance. MR. TRAVER-Well, you're actually asking for the sign itself to be 30 feet high, if I understand your explanation. So there would be 25 feet above the relief of the driveway. Correct? MR. PETROSKI-From the grade of the road up 25, that's what we're trying to achieve. MR. TRAVER-Right. So in order to do that, you need to make the sign 30 feet high, is what you're saying, because it's a five feet drop. MR. PETROSKI-Well, what we propose to do is to grade this area off, put a small, like a stack block retaining wall, it would be on the east side, to raise the grade up, and then build the base from there. MR. FORD-Build the grade up five. MR. PETROSKI-Right, but it brings it up flush with the adjacent road. So it's not like we're building a mound. We're just bringing it up flush with the existing ground surface. MR. FORD-That grading of the five feet won't, in any way, impact that mitigation area? MR. PETROSKI-No. MR. FORD-How close will it get to it? MR. PETROSKI-This is 40 scale. It's about an inch. So you're about 40 feet away. Your sign is here. The mitigation area is right. MR. FORD-But your taper will cease prior to getting to that mitigation area? MR. PETROSKI-Well, we show this retaining wall wrapped around it, this way. So there's no taper on that side. It's a vertical line along that alignment. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So it's like a pedestal? MR. PETROSKI-Basically, if you want to, it's all dirt. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, I mean obviously everyone's going to want see the details on that sign, what that area's going to look like back there. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. PETROSKI-Actually, there's a detail right on the side of the drawing. MRS. STEFFAN-Does Wal-Mart have a sign up on Route 9. I know that they're much closer to the road, but do they have a sign at the road? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. It's a pylon sign. MRS. STEFFAN-It is? Okay. MR. PETROSKI-That's a little different sign. That has a lower panel, two panels, the Wal-Mart, and then there's one below it. MR. SIPP-Is this one going to say just Wal-Mart or is it going to say Wal-Mart Super Center? MR. PETROSKI-No, just like it says there, Wal-Mart with the, what they call a spark, Wal-Mart spark. MR. SIPP-I'd still like to cut down the height. I don't think we need that kind of height. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we'll talk about that when they come back. MR. PETROSKI-Moving ahead to, that was basically the essence of what we had submitted to you. I don't know if you can see that, but this is the revised plan. I mean, at first blush there isn't a whole lot different, and once you start studying it, this whole line of the parking lot here, we've basically held that or brought it further away from the wetlands. So there's no impact to the wetlands at all, okay. So we've preserved that part of our application without causing any further. MR. FORD-No change in the number of spaces? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, there is plus 39. MR. PETROSKI-Well, the store grew in size from here to here by about 6300 square feet. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-And with the 6300 square feet, we have to add more parking to meet the minimum Town Code requirement. So this plan had 751 parking spaces. This one has 779. So we went up by, I think, 28 spaces. MRS. STEFFAN-It says 39. MR. PETROSKI-The application that we submitted was showing 790. So we're actually, we're back, we've lost a few more parking spaces to fit this, this project on the same piece of property. Now, I think Keith had pointed out in his comments, there's some obvious, other obvious things, like this building has actually shifted to the west. It's about, I'd say, 60 feet, but it's, that's about 60 feet moved to the west, and reason why we did that is because the appendage for the Garden Center sticks out farther on this side, and it was getting too close to the pond, and it was causing us some grading problems. So we just moved the whole thing over one parking row. So that loading dock circle you can see is shifted from where it is here, it's farther to the center of this peak here, as opposed to, you know, you can see it's been shifted. There's a little shift there. In order to get the parking to fit at the density that we need, the five per thousand, per Code, you can see that we used to have just a ring road on the outside. Well, this one we have perimeter parking. So it makes that parking a little bit more dense, for the same amount of pavement. It's actually a more efficient parking layout. So that's how we're able to get the cars in without increasing the amount of pavement area. I know the ponds look a little different, graphically, in the rendering, but they're the same ponds. We had originally proposed making this one a little bit bigger with the current application that you have, but we're going to keep it that way when we come back. There is a slight increase in impervious surface in total. So your permeability percentage changes. We're still above the 10% requirement, I think it's 10%. MR. STEFFAN-And your landscaping is less because you've taken the, you put the parking on the edge. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. PETROSKI-But the landscaping had to be 10%. So we're still okay with the 10% landscaping, and I forget what the permeability factor was, but we're still above all the thresholds, but to make up for a slight increase in impervious surface, we did bump the pond size up just a little bit. So that's the way we would keep it for the extension of our application. So, I mean, you can see there are small, subtle differences that are happening, but essentially, the same project's attacked. We haven't made any major changes. The entrance drives, circulation pattern, the position of the loading docks behind the building, it's all the same kind of thing. MR. FORD-Everything is the same, but the ponds are different, and the parking is different and the size of the building is different? MR. MACRI-The ponds are basically the same, it's just that they've colored in (lost words). MR. PETROSKI-He was making a joke, Vic. It's the same but different. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-One of the things that we did do, which I think is a benefit, these islands that we have going through the parking lot, we actually widened them, and we put a concrete edge on both sides, because when people pull in to those spaces, their bumpers overhang, and, from a maintenance standpoint, it's easier to maintain that landscaped area without having to dodge in and around cars, but it makes these spaces wider, so they're more noticeable in the parking field, and when we widen those, we had to lose a few parking spaces over on the far right side which were relatively inefficient parking spaces, but I think it works a little bit better. We've shifted these main islands right to be opposite the entrance ways, and so we're able to reconfigure the handicap parking spaces so that there's no sideways spaces. They're all head in spaces. So, we gained a few more parking spaces back for doing that. I mean, I understand there's subtle changes here that are made, but we're trying to, we've preserved all the engineering of the project substantially the way we had it approved. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if I'm hearing you correctly, the big thing is you haven't gotten any closer to the wetlands. MR. PETROSKI-That's exactly correct. MR. SEGULJIC-That's one of the big things to me. All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Why, on the landscaping, why are there trees denoted on the new plan and they're not noted on the other plan? MR. PETROSKI-That's, we actually transferred the mitigation, the landscaping mitigation for the wetlands onto this rendering. That's what that is. It's easier to pick it out now that you know where it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Anyone have any questions, then? Because I guess what we have to do is table this for submission of plans. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Does anyone have any questions or any issues with that? Okay. MR. SIPP-Just a comment. On the landscaping plan, you've got a Norway Maple, which is about this far from being classified as an invasive species. So maybe it would be a good idea, there's a bunch of them, I don't know how many. I'm looking for the landscaping. It's probably not a biggie in the world of Wal-Mart, but it is very close to being classified as invasive. MR. PETROSKI-Well, I know that we did go back and double check to make sure that everything we picked was from your permitted list in the Code. MR. SIPP-Well, it hasn't been (lost words). Nothing grows under it. The roots tend to kill whatever grows underneath it. That's what they've found. MR. PETROSKI-Are you asking us to substitute the Norway Maple with something else? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess that's something they can consider, then, right? All right. Why don't we make a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2009 WAL-MART STORES, 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 modifications to their approved site plan to include changes to fagade colors, pylon signage location, and building and parking lot configuration. Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/28/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2009 WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: To the June 23rd Planning Board meeting. Submission deadline for materials for that meeting will be May 15t". This is so that the applicant can submit revised plans for this project. Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: MR. PETROSKI-Could it be May? MRS. STEFFAN-No, because the deadline for that was April 15t". The application for submission of materials for May's meetings would be April 15tH which was two weeks ago. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2008 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGES SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WAL-MART STORES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT, INC. ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION QUAKER RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 39.65 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 33.28 & 6.37 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 61-07, FW 1-08, SV 1-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER ACOE/NWI LOT SIZE 39.65 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25 SECTION A-183 MARK PETROSKI & VIC MACRI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have Staff comments? MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 11-2008, Preliminary and Final Stage review has been requested. Wal-Mart stores is the applicant. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Location: Quaker Ridge Road. Existing Zoning: Highway Commercial Intensive. SEQRA Status: This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 39.65 acre parcel into two lots of 33.28 & 6.37 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. I'll assume that the Planning Board has gone through the Staff comments. I would like to add that the following will need to be accomplished by the applicant: An easement agreement for the pending Quaker Ridge Road extension and the north entrance to the Wal-Mart parking lot from Parcel 1 onto Parcel 2. Obtain ACOE sign-off on the disturbed wetlands associated with Site Plan 61- 2007, and Site Plan modification for S.P. 7-2009 in conjunction with this subdivision request. I'd turn it over to the Planning Board. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. If you could identify yourself and tell us about your project. MR. PETROSKI-Yes. Again, Mark Petroski with Bergmann Associates, representing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Also with me are Vic Macri, the owner of the property, and Mary Beth Sleven, attorney with Stockley, Green, Sleven and Peters. Is this a public hearing? MR. SEGULJIC-There is one scheduled I believe. Correct? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-Is this automatically a hearing, or do you have to call it a hearing? MR. OBORNE-It's a Preliminary Subdivision, Preliminary and/or Final. So it would be, they would open up a public hearing, sure. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-It was noticed in the newspaper, and so there is. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. All right. Some Boards actually open up by saying we're having a hearing. Some Boards, I'm just making sure. MR. SEGULJIC-He has to remind me, sometimes, to open it. MR. PETROSKI-All right. We came in and talked about our Sketch for the subdivision, two lots. Nothing has changed. We met with Staff. They had questions. We re- submitted based on their questions. We came in asking for Preliminary and Final. Those are the same two lots that were there before. The blue one would be the Wal- Mart parcel and the tan one would be the remaining lands. From the comments, VISION Engineering had two comments. One was that they wanted to have the easement described on the plan. There is an area right here, a rectangular space, which is the extension of Quaker Ridge Boulevard, which is needed for the access into the Lot One parcel. That was on the previous Sketch Plan. The Town Engineer asked for that to be described, and actually I brought with me a mylar with that metes and bounds description on it. So we already took care of that particular item. So that wasn't a problem, and then the other comment that VISION Engineering had was about the buffer, the wetland buffer. We had presented a plan, which I don't have a board of, but there's a plan, it's a development plan for Lot Two, which was a representation of what was the developable area of the property, and what were some of the constraints. There is no plan for development. There's no Site Plan. There's no proposed use. There's nothing that we have to show you other than conceivably what are the constraints on the property. So that's a drawing that you have, and the Town Engineer was saying we should show, we should exclude the buffer area from what would be the developable area of the site. In reading the Code, the Code doesn't say that you can't develop in the buffer. It says that the buffer area is regulated. So, whether we show that line or not, it's still there. It's still regulated by the Planning Board and by any future applications. So I understand and appreciate the request, but I don't think it has any material value to this application. We don't have anything that we're proposing to build there. It's going to be an empty, vacant piece of property, and somebody has to come before this Board in the future if they want to do anything. At which point in time you're going to want to look at the wetlands, the wetland buffers, and any other constraints, any wetlands impacts, traffic, drainage, all the same things you look at. MRS. STEFFAN-And, you know, one of the concerns I have about this particular subdivision, and the development, is when we looked at this initially, we were looking at one parcel, and now you want to subdivide it into two parcels, and Forest Enterprises also owns three other lots. So we're looking at potentially five lots that were or are owned by Forest Enterprises, and when we did our SEQRA determination, we did it on one lot. My concern here is that we're looking at a segmentation situation, and you may not have a potential buyer or a plan right now, but I don't know that for sure, and so, and there's an awful lot of wetlands here, and so I've got some concerns, and I'm not really sure whether we're at the Environmental Impact Statement for this area or not. You came to us with a Site Plan Review for one parcel, and during that time there was this veil of secrecy over the project, and we weren't supposed to know what it was and you got an approval, and now there are all these changes, and now we've got a subdivision, and so, I've been on the Planning Board long enough to be suspicious, and so I'm putting that out on the table, as far as the SEQRA review on a subdivision that, you 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) know, I have to do some research on the segmentation issue because I've got some concerns. I don't know if anybody else feels that way, but I'm just throwing it out there. MARY BETH SLEVEN MS. SLEVEN-Mary Beth Sleven. We had talked about those issues before, and the reason for the sequence of application to the Board is at one point it was contemplated that the additional six acre parcel, which is proposed now, might actually be required for mitigation for wetlands purposes, because as you'll recall, the original impact to wetlands was significantly higher than the ultimate project was proposed, and also was approved, and so in the evolution of that project, as the impacts on wetlands went down, the need for additional lands to potentially mitigate wetlands impacts was also decreased, so that it freed up some of the acreage that was expected to be needed for the project, once the project really coalesced and a final plan was available. So at the time that the original application was submitted until the wetlands mitigation was really developed to a final stage, it was absolutely unclear what lands, what the scope of lands, full scope of lands, would be required. That's not a situation where there's segmentation. Segmentation is when there's actually either sequential actions or separate actions that could be considered simultaneously because it's clear that they're going to go forward and they're not going to be considered. Here it just wasn't clear whether those lands were going to be needed or not. Originally it was expected that they would be needed, but as the plan developed, and as it evolved, it became apparent that they were needed. Since they're not needed for the Wal-Mart project, Wal-Mart is proposing, with Mr. Macri, to subdivide them, leave those remaining lands to Mr. Macri to use in whatever his future plans may be. Certainly Wal-Mart doesn't have any plans for those properties. They're not planning on buying them from Mr. Macri, and whatever his plans may be, I'm sure that he's going to be back before this Board with whatever the proposal might be. Our understanding is there is not currently a proposal, and there really can't be a proposal until he knows what the scope of the subdivision is going to look like, and it has been an evolution, and it's only really, if you think about it, relatively recently that we've known what the final footprint of the project could be. MR. MACRI-Additionally, let's not forget that originally this was going to be a tenant project, at the time when it was 225,000 square feet. It was shrunk to almost 75,000 square feet where it didn't make economic sense, and therefore there was a sale of land to Wal-Mart and we're retaining the remaining property. I mean, that's obviously an evolution, but it's an evolution that was basically forced by our inability to build what we wanted to build on this site. MRS. STEFFAN-Because of the limitations, because of the wetland limitations and things like that, and the Code limitations. MR. MACRI-Right. MR. PETROSKI-Right. I guess the other thing I would add to this discussion is that, is there anything that we haven't already considered that would be somehow linked to this other property? Because if there was some kind of linkage, like if we needed to build something to support this other property, then that would be a question about whether or not it should be considered at this time, but all that property can stand alone, relatively to what kind of infrastructure needs to be built. Drainage could be handled by itself, and if you remember, the traffic study that we did was actually for the 225,000 square feet. So you've already got more capacity than we even need built into the highway system, and we did that just to keep the project on track, and make sure it was more than what's necessary to satisfy the environmental review, but there's nothing else on that property that we need to do to make those properties function. They can get their own utilities. They can handle their own drainage. They can stand alone on their own merits when they come in for a future application. MRS. STEFFAN-So Wal-Mart will be owning that property, will be owning Lot One? MR. MACRI-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-Lot One only, yes. MR. MACRI-And that's the reason for the subdivision, is they will take ownership of the property. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you'll be left with three buildable, no, you'll be left with Lot Two, plus three, or four buildable lots in front of it. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. MACRI-There's four buildable lots, currently, plus Lot Two, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who owns the back lot? MR. MACRI-The bank owns the corner lot, Glens Falls National. MRS. STEFFAN-Glens Falls National owns that land. MR. MACRI-But that's all wetlands. It's not a buildable lot. So we're hoping to, you know, at some point in time come before the Board with some plan, combining those lots into a development that will service our planned commercial industrial park to the rear. MR. SEGULJIC-Combining what lots? MR. MACRI-The remaining lots that we own. MR. FORD-Four plus two? MR. MACRI-Basically this would probably, in the future, be developed as one. MR. FORD-As one. MR. MACRI-Probably. MR. FORD-So it would be four plus Lot Two. MR. MACRI-Yes. It would be this lot, this lot, this lot, this lot, which were all, this was all a single lot at one time and was subdivided. MR. SIPP-What about to the north? MR. MACRI-To the north? MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-On the other side of that NiMo right of way. MR. MACRI-That's all industrial commercial property, and the ultimate plan, as you know, and we've been here before to try to develop a commercial industrial planned unit development, to have them combine the whole thing and do that during the Comprehensive Plan and process. That didn't happen. The Comprehensive Plan still stalled, and so we're forced to basically go in this direction. I mean, we can put a concept on it, it doesn't mean anything at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-But at this time there are no plans for any of those lots. MR. MACRI-I have no plans, immediately, for those lots. Now it could change tomorrow. Obviously once the Wal-Mart's there, the land does become a little more valuable, as far as development. MR. SEGULJIC-What do you envision, let me ask the question this way. What do you envision on Lot Two? MR. MACRI-I mean, and we've discussed this with the Board, providing services that would help compliment the future development of the back lots. As everybody knows on this Board, we have a Build Now New York grant to get the back lots, the commercial industrial lands, shovel ready. That's the next plan to start doing that. Once we get this project off the ground. We want to have services for that future development, assuming that that moves forward, and those services would include, hopefully, banking, dry cleaning, restaurants, and those kind of services that will help promote the future development of the back lots. MR. SEGULJIC-When you said this project off the ground, I assume you mean Lot One? MR. MACRI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now how are you going to, in the future, get access to the back lots, then? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. MACRI-We have right of way through the NiMo. MR. SEGULJIC-So, how would you get there, though? MR. PETROSKI-There actually is an easement on. MR. MACRI-There's an easement. MR. PETROSKI-That's been filed, that allows a crossing through that NiMo right of way. MR. MACRI-We have several crossings. In fact, we have five crossings, I believe, on those right of ways. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MACRI-That's at a future planning phase, and the next step is to work with the Planning Board some time in the future to get the shovel ready designation for the back property, and that's what we'll be doing some time in the near future. MR. SEGULJIC-And the shovel ready designation is like light industrial, then, I would assume? MR. MACRI-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-That's the use it's zoned for. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-When you talk about shovel ready, you're talking about basically installing the infrastructure. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. PETROSKI-So that you shorten the lead time for when some industry wants to move in. MR. MACRI-Shorten the lead time, shorten the planning process. MR. SEGULJIC-Hopefully, right? MR. MACRI-Unless you want to chase people away. Shorten the planning process, and that's, in order to do that, we have to do certain things like get SHPO approval, get Army Corps and DEC approval, getting the road layout, get infrastructure layout. MRS. STEFFAN-Speaking of which, did you get your extension on the Army Corps permit? MR. PETROSKI-I think Keith attached the last correspondence we had with the Corps. MRS. STEFFAN-March 20tH MR. PETROSKI-Basically they had done their public comment period and it ended, and they had sent us the public comments, and they gave us 30 days to respond. Two of the items hadn't been reconciled. So we decided to put a letter on record as to where we were at. One of the items has to do with getting SHPO to sign off on the archeology. We had a small section along Quaker Road that we still had to do some field work on. So we just completed that about a week and a half ago, and nothing was found. So the report's going to say that on the entire 39 acres, there's nothing discovered, and then we have to send that to SHPO to get them to provide their concurrence on that. The other item was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had some questions about the mitigation area, and the discussion has been going back and forth about the quality of the mitigation and making sure that we weren't displacing some other functions and values of adjacent property that might have some usefulness. So I recently sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the same PowerPoint presentation that we showed to the Board, which talked about the drainage areas and the soil conditions and the history of the property, the aerial photographs, and because of a change in personnel at the Army Corps, the person that we were working with was, he took a, what do you call that, a tour, I think either in Iraq or Afghanistan. So he's left the country, but the person that's replacing him was on 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) vacation, and then the Fish and Wildlife person was on vacation. So they're all back in the office as of now. So we need to schedule a field meeting to go out there and actually look at it together and make some decisions on, if any changes need to be made to the mitigation. So, it's a process. We're working through that. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Any other comments from the Board? I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wish to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. With that, we'll leave it open. It looks like we have some unresolved issues here, mainly the wetlands. Any other issues with the Board? MR. PETROSKI-I just want to make sure we understand on the wetlands that one of the comments that Staff had had to do with whether or not the wetlands had been determined. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. PETROSKI-They have been determined. That actually is in the packet that was provided. Chazen Companies did a full delineation, and that delineation was actually signed off by the Corps of Engineers. MR. SEGULJIC-And the earlier one, then? MR. PETROSKI-That's the same wetland delineation that we've been using since we made application to the Town. All those wetlands have been delineated and agreed to by the Corps of Engineers. There's a map in the plans that you have. It's Drawing X-1.0. MR. SEGULJIC-That was submitted earlier, then, correct? MR. PETROSKI-This was the basis of the original Site Plan application. MR. SEGULJIC-But that was a while ago then, right? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. There's nothing, nothing's different. It's all been agreed to by the Corps, both for the whole 39 acres. So what's on Lot One and Lot Two is all determined. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and, I guess, Keith, your comment about undetermined amount of wetlands, then. MR. OBORNE-You have a subdivision proposed here, and there's a change in the amount of wetlands on Lot One which there, let's say this is one whole lot. You're having a subdivision. There's a change on the wetlands for the Wal-Mart side, and there's a change on the amount of wetlands for the proposed new lot. I couldn't find that. I couldn't find that number, how many acres of wetlands or square feet of wetland is on Lot One and how much is on Lot Two. So the wetlands are being bifurcated, as a result of this subdivision. How much remains on each? MR. PETROSKI-Well, I guess the way we read the comment was that it wasn't clear that the wetlands have been determined, and the wetlands have been determined. It's in a delineation report that has been signed off by that Corps of Engineers. It's a matter of record. We know exactly where the wetlands are, and I understand what you're saying is that we're not saying that there's 11 acres on Lot One and four acres on Lot Two. MR. OBORNE-Right. That's my question, and that can be taken care of at Final. MR. PETROSKI-It doesn't change anything. The wetlands are what they are. It's been surveyed, it's on the maps. There's no question, an official record. So whether we call it four acres or three acres, it doesn't change anything. It's what's out there. MR. MACRI-Is there actually a need to put a square footage on it? Is there some requirement that we have to put a square footage? I mean, it's mapped. It's done. It's been approved by the Corps and flagged. It's delineated. It's what it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I would imagine if you're going to have an approved subdivision map in the Town, that it has to be denoted what is on that particular lot. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. MACRI-It is denoted. It is on the map. It is there. If you look at X-1, it's in the packet. It's there. MR. TRAVER-I have the map that he's talking about. MR. MACRI-Anybody could physically measure it if they needed to. MR. OBORNE-You can qualify it. I'm looking for it to be quantified. MR. MACRI-We could quantify it, but why would that stop the approval? MR. OBORNE-I'm not saying it's going to stop your approval. I'm simply pointing that out. MR. MACRI-Okay. You could add the notes to the drawing. MR. SEGULJIC-When we go through the SEQRA process, this is an Unlisted action. When we go through the SEQRA process, but we have to look at it from the maximum potential on this, on that site. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-And, okay. MR. MACRI-The cumulative site has been SEQRA'd, SEQRA, when we did the commercial change from, if you recall early on this was industrial and commercial property. We went through the SEQRA process to have it rezoned, okay. So the entire site's been SEQRA'd. We've also done a SEQRA process on Lot Number One, okay. So that's been done. I mean, we can do it again. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we have to. It's an Unlisted action. MR. MACRI-I don't understand what's changing. MR. SEGULJIC-The fact that you're splitting, you're subdividing the land now. That's changed. MR. MACRI-Yes. We're drawing a line where the road's going. That's all. There's an existing road there, and we're drawing a line. MR. SEGULJIC-Which makes it a subdivision. MR. MACRI-It's a, and subdivision is a matter. So we're going to have a land sale. It's not going to change the property. It's not going to change anything. It's a line. It's a line on a map. That's all it is. You're taking, we're adding a line, putting coordinates in there, and selling it off, and it'll be a separate tax map number. MR. SEGULJIC-And it's an Unlisted action. So that means we have to go through the SEQRA process, which means we have to look at the maximum potential impacts. MR. MACRI-We've done that. We did that when we did the. MR. SEGULJIC-You can potentially have two stores of light industrial, or whatever it might be. If we had known all this was going to occur, one of the things, we should have a. MR. MACRI-There's no impact until we develop it. Zero impact. MR. SEGULJIC-But that's what we need to anticipate. MR. MACRI-You will anticipate it when we bring the project forward. MR. SEGULJIC-No, we have to anticipate it now under SEQRA. MS. SLEVEN-And we understand that. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MS. SLEVEN-With the Board's review, but to a certain extent that has been done. As you recall, the original store that was proposed for the 39 acre site, which really would have been a maximum development for all that acreage, is significantly larger than what's currently proposed, which is, I believe, approximately 158,000 square feet. So if you look at the difference between the analysis that was done for that full build out that was originally proposed, what's there now, and take the delta, you actually have an opportunity to take a look at those cumulative differences. Additionally, there was a SEQRA review that was done when the re-zoning was completed, which also would have looked at cumulative impacts. So what we're asking the Board to do is understand that there isn't a current plan, that to the extent that you can look at those potential, you know, worst case impacts, such as, you know, usually, typically the largest one is your traffic. You've had an opportunity to take a look at what most likely those impacts would be, and there's not going to be any more that additional analysis could provide that would be different than the analysis that you've already looked at. Just to look at building footprints, you know, it's going to be whatever the Code permits, and to start looking at concepts of putting a building here or looking at impervious surfaces, it's going to be what the site can support. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess that's the question. What could the site support as a retail space, for example? Square footage wise? MR. MACRI-Why is that exercise necessary now? It's all hypothetical. MR. SEGULJIC-Exactly. What is the maximum square footage that that Lot Two could support? MR. MACRI-What's the difference? MR. PETROSKI-I don't know. We have no interest in (lost words), because it's not germane to this project. MR. SEGULJIC-100,000 square feet? Well, that's what we have to look at. MR. MACRI-Why? You looked at it when we converted, when we changed the property zoning, it was looked at of what it could support. Okay. It could support a lot more retail development. It would allow for 225,000 square feet of building, which we downsized. MR. SEGULJIC-So you're saying, if you go retail, the maximum size building you'd put on Lot Two is 75,000 square feet? MR. MACRI-Possibly, I don't know, maybe less. MR. SEGULJIC-Would it be more? Could it support more? MR. MACRI-I don't know. If it can, it'll be proven at the time that it gets brought to the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Because what we have to do under SEQRA is look at the maximum potential impacts, and for example. MR. MACRI-But there's no impact. It's raw land. MS. SLEVEN-If I can say something to address that. MR. SEGULJIC-So, for example, if Lot Two can support 200,000 square feet, that would mean that you have a traffic study that supported 225,000 square feet. We don't, if it was 200, that would mean we'd have an extra 125,000 square feet, and the additional traffic that we haven't looked at yet. MS. SLEVEN-To a certain extent, no matter what exercise we engage in, certain assumptions have to be made. So at some point, because there isn't a plan, there's going to have to be assumptions about what's the maximum footprint, what's the maximum parking that would be required, what's the maximum traffic. The Board has the discretion to say, we believe that 75,000 square feet is most likely the maximum, and make determinations. If a project would come before this Board which was more than that, certainly the SEQRA for that site would have to be completely revisited. It's going to be re-visited anyway. One way or another, you're going to make some assumptions. You can include whatever your assumptions are with respect to Lot Two, and any findings that you make. What we're saying to go through the exercise of actually 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) developing a concept for Lot Two that is likely never going to be developed is not particularly useful, and there's enough data that's available to the Board to at least evaluate potential impacts. You can incorporate what those assumptions are in your findings, and use that as a predicate for thresholds for any projects that would come before you in the future. MR. TRAVER-Could I ask, just to, thank you for those comments, and I wondered if I could ask, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the process that we're doing, among other things, it would involve, for example, taking a hypothetical building size, perhaps a hypothetical traffic component, and making a determination based on that, and if an actual plan, down the road, were to come, and exceed those numbers, then a reevaluation of SEQRA would then be triggered. MS. SLEVEN-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Is that your understanding, Keith? MR. OBORNE-That is my understanding. Absolutely. I think that what you're running into here is, there's a basic test that you have to go through to avoid segmentation at this point, and if one of those answers in that basic test is yes, then it's considered segmentation. Segmentation review can be reviewed by the Planning Board. It's not the end of the world. With this, if you are going to subdivide this property, it is my recommendation that when you do SEQRA, you do it to the maximum potential. That is what it states in the statutes. It is, again, your responsibility under SEQRA to do that. It is also up to you, as Lead Agency for this project, to decide if you want to do that. You certainly can subdivide this, and do it the way that they want to do it. It's perfectly legal. How comfortable are you with that? MR. TRAVER-Keith, could I ask a hypothetical? If we were, let's say, for example, this evening we were to do a SEQRA review on Lot Two, assuming that the largest building would be a 10 by 10 foot shed and no increase in traffic, almost any plan that would be presented to us at some later point would then need a SEQRA review. MR. OBORNE-I would avoid putting numbers on it. I think what you need to do is do it by the most intensive use, not necessarily by particulars, how big is this parking lot or how close is this to the wetland. That is an exercise in futility. Absolutely, because the plan's going to change. You know it's going to change. My recommendation is to do SEQRA based on use, and the most intensive use. MR. TRAVER-And we don't know, right now, what the most intensive use is. MR. OBORNE-Well, we know what the most intensive use on that property would be, based on, would it be an automotive store, would it be, you know, more retail. It's what is an allowable use, what is the most intensive allowable use on that lot. My suggestion is t to do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-So how does the Board feel about that, asking the applicant to outline what the most intensive use would be? MR. SCHONEWOLF-How do you know what the most intensive use is going to be? MR. OBORNE-Well, you have to decide that. MR. SEGULJIC-It's by what's maximized in the Code. MRS. STEFFAN-It's in the use table. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's a guess. MR. OBORNE-No, it's in the use tables. It's an allowable use. MR. MACRI-Let me just throw a hypothetical back. You give me SEQRA approval on the most intensive use, and we're under that and we bring the plans next to the Board, you don't have a say in SEQRA. You understand that. MR. SEGULJIC-I don't agree with that comment. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. MACRI-Well, I mean, you can't re-review it for SEQRA if you've already given them SEQRA approval for the most intensive use (lost words) something less than the most intensive use. MR. TRAVER-That's why I was thinking about doing the other extreme, which was to say. MR. MACRI-Why would you do it? If I was sitting on your side, I wouldn't do it. No, I wouldn't do it, as a Planning Board member I wouldn't do it. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you're saying as a Planning Board member you wouldn't do that. MR. MACRI-I wouldn't take the chance. MR. OBORNE-You're doing SEQRA review on this subdivision. You're not doing SEQRA review on a Site Plan Review. You're doing it on the subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, one of the ways to look at it is to look at the most intensive use of that subdivision. MR. OBORNE-That's my recommendation. MR. SEGULJIC-So you'd look at like the permeability requirements and figure how big a building you could have. Based on that, you could determine how much parking you would need. Then you could look at traffic. MR. KREBS-Which is part of the reason I think that Keith was looking for how much wetland is on that Lot Two, because if we don't know how much wetland it is from a quantity standpoint, how do we determine how many square feet that are available for development, and therefore how large a building can be put on, or, so that's part of the problem. MR. MACRI-I don't, I mean, I don't know if I have it with me, but all these wetlands on the original map were quantified. So I think it's around three or four acres. MR. TRAVER-I think would like to get some more information before we. MR. KREBS-You're right, Vic, I'm sorry. It says Wetland Area B, C, and F. MR. MACRI-Don't they give you the quantity of those? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. MACRI-Yes, the quantity's there. MR. KREBS-2.08 acres. You're right. MR. MACRI-Okay. So the wetland quantity is there. MR. KREBS-Okay. So now we have to take that and subtract it from the six. MR. MACRI-The way we did it. MR. SEGULJIC-So what's the will of the Board, go forward with SEQRA at this point? Personally I don't think we have enough information. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would like to have more information. I would like something, perhaps with the assistance of Staff, that would outline for us more specifically what maximum possible use could be, so that we could begin to quantify that a little bit, and I think that would give us some, you know, I mean, there's so many factors involved, obviously, in SEQRA, that we have to have some hypothetical use in mind. MR. MACRI-You do. You do have a hypothetical use because you've zoned it for a hypothetical use. So you know what the hypothetical use is, and you have proved it, and you've done a SEQRA on the hypothetical use, and all I'm doing is drawing a line on the map. MR. TRAVER-Which is another point. The applicant has raised that their previous SEQRA determination has been made on the property. I'd like to look at those as well. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. MACRI-During the rezoning process, SEQRA was done. MR. TRAVER-Well, that should be very helpful information, I would think. MS. SLEVEN-It's not clear to me what information we need to provide the Board. I understand that you're looking at evaluating the most intense use for the property. In order to do that, what information are you looking for to do that analysis? MR. SEGULJIC-What would be the most intensive use? What would be the highest traffic? What would be the highest permeability? Things of that nature. MS. SLEVEN-So you're asking us to actually develop a concept plan for the property, do all the analysis. MR. SEGULJIC-I'm confident you can do it pretty quickly. MRS. STEFFAN-I'm not sure that the applicant needs to do that. I think that we need to do that. MR. OBORNE-You need to. MR. TRAVER-We need to give them a list. MR. OBORNE-Let me reiterate and you have summary of allowable uses in commercial districts chart. Go down that chart, find out what the most intensive use is, and do your SEQRA based on that. That would be my recommendation. MR. SEGULJIC-But how would we be able to look at traffic then without a natural idea of what traffic would potentially be generated? MR. OBORNE-Well, you know, you've already had a traffic report. You know what the capabilities of this road is. You know that there's a light there. MR. SEGULJIC-But we wouldn't know what, potentially, that site could generate. MR. OBORNE-Again, those are Site Plan issues. Those aren't subdivision issues. MR. PETROSKI-If you remember, actually, that question came up during the SEQRA review for the original project, and we did a sensitivity analysis, which was included in our traffic report, which talked about increased development impacts on that traffic signal, and what could possibly happen. So there is a graduated impact evaluation in our traffic report already, which is what you had asked for during the original project. MR. KREBS-Looking at the wetlands, though, on Lot Two, and if you're going to use Quaker Ridge Boulevard, how are you going to get access to Lot Two, unless you use one of the other lots? MR. SCHONEWOLF-He's got four lots in front of it. MR. PETROSKI-Lot Two has access. MR. KREBS-Yes, but we're not approving the use of that and that. We're only. MR. MACRI-But we're not landlocking it either. I mean, it's an adjacent owner who owns the same lot. I mean, you know. MR. PETROSKI-This is the actual map. This is an easement right here, which is used for access to that lot, but it's also used for access to this lot. MR. TRAVER-I think what Don's point is, if you're pulling in here, you're going right through the wetland. MR. KREBS-Right. There's your wetland. MR. PETROSKI-(lost words) which will be addressed on this, which is a potential development restrictions plan, if you will, and there's a space right here which has the least amount of impact on the wetland. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. KREBS-Yes, but it does have an effect. MR. TRAVER-It does have an impact, yes, and that's what we have to determine. MR. MACRI-But you can't determine that until something's developed, as far as a plan. MR. TRAVER-But we have to do it in a hypothetical way, I guess you'd say, in this. MR. PETROSKI-But I guess the question is, is there anything that you don't already have in front of you that we need to provide, to help you with your? MR. TRAVER-Well, yes, I would be interested in the prior SEQRA reviews that the applicant referred to. That could save us a lot of time. If this analysis is already. MR. MACRI-The Town Board did the SEQRA review at the new zoning. MR. TRAVER-I don't have that in front of me. MR. KREBS-We could get that. So we can't make a decision, is what you're saying, until we get that information. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's my feeling. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And when did they do that, a couple of years ago? MR. MACRI-It was October of. MR. PETROSKI-2007. MR. MACRI-2007. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I think what we're going to need to help us with our decision is information on the total amount of wetlands on this site. MR. MACRI-It's on the map. MR. SEGULJIC-I don't have it with me. MR. PETROSKI-2.08 acres. MR. MACRI-You had it right there. We just talked about it. MR. SEGULJIC-2.08. MR. PETROSKI-2.08. MR. SEGULJIC-Where? MR. FORD-I personally would like. MR. MACRI-Every one of those wetlands delineated areas have acreage on them. MR. PETROSKI-It's Drawing X1.0. The left side it says Wetlands Area B, C, and F. Area 2.08 acres. MR. SEGULJIC-So is that, but then where is the map of the proposed subdivision, then? MR. PETROSKI-I just handed it to you, the gentlemen. MR. TRAVER-No, that's not the subdivision. I have that, too. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that information on the proposed subdivision? MR. TRAVER-Let me check my records here. Here you go. This is the one I looked at. MR. SEGULJIC-And proposed subdivision doesn't have the wetlands on it. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. PETROSKI-Well, the subdivision map, that's the map we would file for property transfer purposes. It's a map that's prepared by a licensed land surveyor. I mean, that's the minimum requirements you need filing a subdivision map. MR. SEGULJIC-It doesn't have the wetlands on it, though. MR. MACRI-It wouldn't normally. MR. SEGULJIC-You'd have to transfer them over onto this map. MR. PETROSKI-Well, normally we wouldn't. MR. MACRI-What's the purpose? MR. PETROSKI-Your question is all centering around SEQRA, and whether or not, you know, SEQRA is complete or needs to be, you know, updated or what have you. Putting that amount of acreage on a map that's filed with the County, it doesn't have any bearing on the subdivision itself. You're talking about future impacts if somebody goes out there and develops that property and taking that into consideration. That's your concern, as I understand it. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and so I have to know the amount of wetlands, but it's not on my subdivision map. MR. MACRI-Well, they aren't supposed to be. MR. PETROSKI-Just so you know, a Federal wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-I'm asking for it. MR. MACRI-We can put it on there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MR. MACRI-But it's not required. It's not part of the Ordinance. It's not required to file a subdivision. You have all the information in the packet. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but, I mean, I'd like to move this thing along. You're asking for stuff you already have. MR. FORD-There's something that we don't have, and for my comfort level, and other Board members can speak for themselves, but we do not have legal counsel available to us this evening, and I would like to go to a, I would like to secure that to address a more basic issue, and that is to help us determine whether or not segmentation is occurring. MR. MACRI-This issue was addressed with Town Counsel. A letter was written by our attorney, Bob Sweeney. It's been reviewed by Town Counsel, and it was accepted. That issue has already been, we've been through the mill on that. Once we determined we were going to split the property, it was addressed. MR. TRAVER-That should be easily resolved. MR. MACRI-It's all part of the record. I mean, you know, this was supposed to be just coming in and getting a subdivision approval and we're making a major issue out of it. You've got all the information. It's just, I've been going at this for two and a half years now, and I'm just looking to get this approved. We're being, you know, if you needed to do all this stuff, you guys should do it between the months and months you delay us from coming to meet with you, you know, and it should be done and ready the night we show up. Because the information is all there. MR. KREBS-The answer is that we can just say no. MR. MACRI-I understand that. MR. KREBS-Okay, because as far as I'm concerned, this piece of property was part of the project that we approved. It was not a separate piece at that time, and when we looked at the wetlands, and when I look at the wetlands, I don't want to give you access through those wetlands to Lot Number Two. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. MACRI-But if it all remained the same property, we could still continue to develop it. Correct? Based on the approval you gave us, we could continue to develop it. MR. KREBS-Well, based on the fact that we gave you approval through access through the wetlands. MR. MACRI-We could continue to develop it. MR. KREBS-Not without our approval. MR. MACRI-True, for which we will be back again. We're just talking about drawing a lot line. MR. KREBS-Because we approved this as part of the original project, and this was part of the original project, and you came to us with an original project, which was not developing this land. MR. MACRI-We never said we weren't going to develop that land. That was never in discussion. That was never in the discussion. It was always known that that land would be developed. MR. KREBS-Vic, it wasn't even a consideration, because it was part of the other parcel. MR. MACRI-It was never in the discussion that that land would not be developed. Never. MR. KREBS-No, never said it wasn't developed, but it was part of the other parcel. MS. SLEVEN-It was part of the other parcel, but remember as well that that project evolved. It was, at one point, (lost words) that property for mitigation purpose or otherwise, through the evolution, it was no longer necessary. That's what allows us to come before the Board now. We understand that there's issues that we need to look at. We're just asking to find out what it is we need to do, what information. MR. TRAVER-That's what we're working on. MS. SLEVEN-And we appreciate that, and to the extent that there's concerns about future wetland impacts on that parcel, that's something that would be addressed when there's an actual application for development of that parcel, because there's a lot of options on how that can be handled, but at this point what we really need is just to understand what we need to come back to you with, and hopefully we can finish this. MR. TRAVER-Right. We're going to get that together. We're working on that. MRS. STEFFAN-But I don't know if we can. I mean, I've got people all over the place here, and. MR. TRAVER-I may stand corrected. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, but my feeling on this is we've got people all over the page on this, and we're not making any headway, and it's late. MR. TRAVER-Well, we know we need more information. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and it's twenty minutes after eleven, but we can't, I can't seem to find anyone articulating exactly what they want, but I know that we're not going to come to any kind of consensus tonight because we're all over the place, and so. MR. MACRI-Right, but let's just go through the issues. One is the segmentation, which I think has already been addressed, okay, and it's on the record, and the Town Attorney's approved it. MRS. STEFFAN-But we haven't seen that, and so. MR. MACRI-Well, you have. I mean, you don't have it in front of you tonight. MRS. STEFFAN-But that's one of the difficulties with this particular project. It's been many months since we've had. MR. MACRI-I understand that, but that's why you have Staff. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MRS. STEFFAN-I understand that, but that's one of the reasons we've had many months from the time we've reviewed those materials until now. Some of the people who are sitting on this Board right now were not here through that process. MR. MACRI-I understand. MRS. STEFFAN-And so some of the things you're telling us, we just have to take your word for it, but we don't have the documents or the data or Staff hasn't reviewed it for us, to provide us with the, whether it's acceptable or not acceptable. MR. FORD-Thank you, Gretchen. MS. SLEVEN-And we'll get copies of that information and get it to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-And so, you know, because I'm not hearing anyone articulate, specifically, what we're needing, I do know that we certainly need to have counsel here when we talk about this, just so that we can be, we can come to consensus and make a decision, and I also would like the Senior Planner to weigh in on this, you know, no offense, Keith, but I just want the Senior Planner to weigh in, because the Senior Planner was the one who evaluated, who did the review of this project from the very beginning, and so he has the greatest amount of knowledge in the Community Development Department. MR. PETROSKI-With all due respect, we're trying to find out what you need, and I understand there's some confusion. We came into the Town and we shared a Sketch Plan. We sat down with Staff. We did apre-application meeting for Preliminary and Final. We listed all the information out that was needed to be provided. We provided all that information. Now we're at this meeting, and you're, we have no idea when we'll be able to get onto another agenda, because if you can't determine what we need to do, then we have to wait until you figure that out, then figure out an application date, and then wait two months before we get on an agenda. I mean, I think it's important. I realize it's a late hour, but we should be able to figure out what we need so we can move the process forward. MR. TRAVER-Well, part of the problem we've been going through in the last few minutes is as we're trying to discuss and get a list together, you keep interrupting and arguing that we don't need that information or that we should have it or we already have it. So maybe we should just table this. We could meet in a workshop and come up with a list which we could supply to the applicant, and then they could give us what we can come up with in a constructive, more quiet forum. MR. SEGULJIC-I don't think we need to go to that stretch. MR. FORD-That makes sense to me. MR. SEGULJIC-The subdivision code clearly says you have to have wetlands on your subdivision map. MS. SLEVEN-And we'll make that modification. MR. SEGULJIC-So at a minimum you have to provide us a plan that meets our code, which you clearly have not done yet. It's supposed to have contours. There's a list of other things. So we're asking, at a minimum, for you to comply with the code for a subdivision, first of all. MR. TRAVER-So there's one item. MR. SEGULJIC-And Number Two we've got the segmentation issue, and we're, once again, we don't have an attorney here. We're kind of at a loss, which is really what I'm struggling with. MS. SLEVEN-And I think on the segmentation issue what we can do is we can provide the Board with copies of the materials that were previously provided. I know that that was reviewed with your counsel previously, so we can refresh his recollection on the discussion we had before, and then provide a forum to have kind of an update of that information, because it sounds to me that that's what you really need is an update of the previous discussion that happened on that issue. That's not a difficult thing to provide. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. TRAVER-That would be really helpful. I mean, if this process is, there were several references to prior SEQRA reviews and so on. If there are such reports, I would think that could expedite any review that we're needing. There was also a letter from the Town that was referenced, with regards to the SEQRA with regards to the subdivision or something. That was another. MR. KREBS-The Town Attorney. MR. TRAVER-The Town Attorney, yes, there was some documentation provided to the applicant by the Town of Queensbury Attorney, stating that SEQRA was not an issue, or something. MR. SEGULJIC-You're saying the applicant stated that? MR. TRAVER-Well, that's my recollection. Again, it's getting confusing because of the lateness of the hour and all the comments that have been made, but I thought that there was a comment made that this has already been addressed. MR. PETROSKI-There is. MR. TRAVER-They already got a letter from the attorney. MR. PETROSKI-There's a letter from Bob Sweeney that was written to the Town, which was reviewed by the Town Attorney. So we'll provide you that letter. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you have the review from, the response from the attorney. MS. SLEVEN-And that was the segmentation issue. MR. TRAVER-Okay, which you've already said you would provide. Okay. MR. FORD-And you have our attorney's response to that? MS. SLEVEN-Our understanding was that he provided his response directly to the Board. MR. MACRI-Yes, he reviewed it and responded to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-Then when we review the minutes, if that's where it is, then. MR. SEGULJIC-Keith, could you weigh in on that? MR. OBORNE-Was this at the original Site Plan? MR. MACRI-We never received the response. MS. SLEVEN-Site Plan, right. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Okay. So we could certainly research that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. That should be, that would be very helpful to have that. MR. OBORNE-Sure. MS. SLEVEN-And then as far as SEQRA is concerned, we still need to understand what you're looking for for that. So if you could just give us some guidance on that. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think we do, too. Yes. MR. OBORNE-If I could just weigh in. In my Staff Notes, what I'm asking you to do is to add, I want the Planning Board to review this subdivision under the Long Form, or re- affirm previous SEQRA Findings when making a determination. Staff recommends that SEQRA for this subdivision either, include either a use for the 6.37 acre lot described by the applicant. In lieu of that, if the applicant does not supply that, I am requesting or recommending that you do this to the most intensive and best use of the parcel. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Could, would it be possible for your Department to provide us with a hypothetical maximum development scenario that we could, I mean, I know it's in the Code in various places and so on, but if you could kind of coalesce something that we could. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think that you may want to direct the applicant to supply that, and if the applicant does not, then I certainly can recommend one, sure. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I'm thinking it would save a step, because if the applicant supplies something, we'd want you to make sure that in fact you agree that that's the maximum. MR. OBORNE-Well, the problem with that, I feel, is that what I say isn't binding. It's what you say that's binding. MR. TRAVER-Right. Ultimately it's our, right. Right, you would just be assisting us. MR. OBORNE-And I don't have a level of comfort doing that, but if you direct me to do that, I'll do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes. What you would provide us would not be the basis for a decision. It would simply be a tool for us to use to evaluate a hypothetical maximum use. MR. OBORNE-I certainly can send you down a path where you can make an informed decision on your own. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Great. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. KREBS-Mr. Chairman, I think he wants to speak. MR. SEGULJIC-Pardon, sorry. MR. PETROSKI-A clarification. My understanding was earlier Staff said that they're not looking for a numerical evaluation. They're looking for a use, right? Is that what I? MR. OBORNE-Correct, use, an allowable use that is spelled out in our Code. MRS. STEFFAN-But that's something that we will do. That's not something that we, do we want them? MR. PETROSKI-Well, once we identify the use, there's nothing to quantify. MR. OBORNE-I'm looking for a qualifier for SEQRA purposes. That's all I'm looking for. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but the applicant can't provide it, because they don't know what's going to be there. We have to come up with it based on the code table. That's not their job. That's ours. All right. Okay, folks. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2008 WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 39.65 acre parcel into two lots of 33.28 & 6.37 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/28/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11- 2008 WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/28/09) Tabled to the June 23rd meeting, with an application deadline of May 15t". So that the applicant can: a) Satisfy VISION Engineering comments, b) Provide wetlands delineation map. c) Provide contours of land, and both the wetland delineation and the contours are part of Town of Queensbury Subdivision of Land Code Chapter A-183, and we would direct the applicant to that Chapter. d) To provide segmentation information previously provided under earlier Site Plan Review, and Condition Five, to resolve issues in the March 20, 2009 letter to Kevin Bruce. Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-We will see you in June. MR. SEGULJIC-And, Keith, in the meantime, can we get an opinion from our attorney as to the segmentation issue? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. MR. PETROSKI-Would we be able to meet with the Town Attorney? MRS. STEFFAN-And again, just to reiterate, Counsel, at the June 23rd meeting, and to also have, Stu, the Senior Planner who's been involved with this the whole time. MR. PETROSKI-Would it be okay with the Board if we actually met with the Town Attorney and actually discussed this? MRS. STEFFAN-You have to go through Staff to do that. The Town Attorney is a subcontractor of the Town, so our Community Development Department would arrange for that. So if you wanted to arrange a meeting, it would have to go through Keith. MR. PETROSKI-All right. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. All right. Are there any other issues at all? MRS. STEFFAN-And we kept the public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-And the public hearing was kept open. Any other issues we have tonight? No? So is there a motion to adjourn, then? MR. FORD-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 28, 2009, Introduced by the Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Duly adopted this 28t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Thomas Seguljic, Acting Chairman 71