Loading...
2009.06.16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2009 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-2009 Linda Dator 1. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-30 Site Plan No. 32-2009 W.W. Allerdice 5. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-47 Subdivision No. 3-2008 Ronald & Linda Ball 7. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 295.10-1-31.1 Site Plan No. 28-2009 Eugene Timpano 9. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14 Site Plan No. 33-2009 NCE Building Corp. 20. Tax Map No. 288.8-1-6 Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC 24. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Site Plan No. 29-2009 Pyramid Co. of G F/NEWCO 29. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.4, 92.11, 93.1 Site Plan No. 31-2009 CES Holdings 34. Tax Map No. 290-1-21.3, 21.4 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 06/16/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD DONALD KREBS STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN ENGINEER-VISION ENGINEERING-DAN RYAN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for thstth June 16. Our item on the agenda is approval of minutes from April 21 and April 28, 2009. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 21, 2009 April 21, 2009 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF APRIL 21 & APRIL 28, 2009, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA LINDA DATOR: REQUESTING AN AREA VARIANCE FOR ROAD FRONTAGE FOR A SUBDIVISION TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you want to summarize the Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-This is, I’ll just summarize the Area Variance Staff Notes, because that’s what you’re going to be making your recommendation on. It’s Area Variance 30-2009, Linda Dator. The project location is 2583 State Route 9L. The description of proposed project. Just a note, this application must be tabled pending a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning this Area Variance associated with Subdivision 6-2009. This application to be reviewed under the new Zoning Code, and as such will require an additional variance associated with lot size. With this knowledge, the Zoning Board of th Appeals may consider tabling this application to July 15. Of course you’re the Planning Board. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.66 acre parcel into two parcels of 1.99 and 1.67 acres on Route 9L near Warner Bay. Lot Two is proposing access to a public highway through Lot One. The relief required is for frontage on a public or private street, specifically the requirement that frontage for one principal building shall be at least 50 feet and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be upon. Further, the applicant is requesting relief from the minimum lot size requirement of 2 acres per §179-4-030 of the new zoning ordinance enacted on May 12, 2009. The following five questions that follow are the balancing test. I will not go through them. At this point, this application was received on May 14, 2009, and must be reviewed under the new zoning code adopted on May 12, 2009. As stated above, the applicant is 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) proposing accessing Lot 2 through Lot 1. This aspect of the proposal appears logical given the potential safety concerns due to sight line issues associated with Route 9L in the vicinity. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. I’m here representing the Dators, Bill and Linda Dator, who have a residence on Route 9L, just opposite Castaway Marina. They have, for a long time, owned a parcel containing the residence, and that parcel size was about one and a third acres. Several years ago, they bought a little over two acres from the adjoining property owner, and it was merged with their existing lot. Their ultimate intention was to subdivide the properties into two lots. One for themselves, the existing residence, and a second one for their son to construct a home. This application has been in the works for some time, and it was initiated under the old Code, and now that we’re being reviewed under the new Code, unfortunately one of the variances I need is relief from the two acre lot size, .01 acres. We inadvertently created a 1.99 acre lot. It could have been two acres, had we realized it was going to be under the new Code, and what the ramifications were. So we will defer that, defer to this Board on the recommendation on whether we make it a two acre lot or leave it at 1.99, but more importantly, the access to both lots, I recommended be via the existing driveway and shared between the two lots. As Keith read, there is a sight distance issue. I don’t feel it’s safe to provide a driveway, along the frontage of the new lot, and as well, there is a rock ridge there. It would be quite expensive, but certainly feasible. I just feel it’s a safety issue not to provide the driveway, a new driveway and a separate driveway. We plan to, or propose to use the existing driveway and share it via easement, and that is, in my opinion, the best, or one of the best spots along that frontage, total frontage, to provide a driveway. That summarizes where I stand, and I’ll open it up to questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. FORD-Has that shared drive been agreed upon by the parties? MR. JARRETT-Well, right now they own both lots, and they’re planning on giving the one lot to their son. So it certainly would be agreed upon by both owners and it would be built into the deeds. MR. HUNSINGER-What year did they combine the lots? MR. JARRETT-The lots were purchased, I think, three years ago, and at the time I believe, I was told the Town required them to merge them. It may have been for ease of purchase, just to do a lot line adjustment between the two lots. I don’t know the exact reasoning. I’m surmising it may have been ease for the attorneys, but I don’t know that, but it was about three years ago. I may have the date in the file. MR. KREBS-Well, certainly viewing that site and knowing that part of the road where you’re going around a curve up a hill, to come out between two stone cuts is a very unsafe situation. I personally think it makes a lot of sense to limit the number of cuts into that road at that particular area. So I would agree with them 100% that having one driveway makes much more sense than two. MR. JARRETT-I stand corrected on the date. It was two years ago June. MR. HUNSINGER-So is the subdivision, or is the subdivision line the same as what was? MR. JARRETT-No. Actually the subdivision, the original parcel was 1.33 acres, and they bought approximately 2.33 acres and we’re switching it around. The parent lot is now going to have roughly two acres, and the new lot will have about 1.7. MR. HUNSINGER-So if they hadn’t combined the lots, we’d just be looking at a lot line adjustment. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Possibly that, yes. There would have been, under the new Code, there would be one non compliant lot either way. It’s just a matter of which one. MR. FORD-And now there are two. MR. JARRETT-Now there technically are two, you’re right. If this Board wishes and recommends to the ZBA, we will change that, but we meet the intent of the Code, if not 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) the language of the Code, we meet the spirit but not the language, the exact language or exact configuration. MR. SEGULJIC-Is it going to be easy enough for you to make it two acres as opposed to 1.99? MR. JARRETT-I’ve got to come back to this Board for subdivision anyway. So as part of those changes, I could do it. It’s just a matter of going back to the surveyor and getting a new plat developed. MR. SEGULJIC-It makes sense. It would neaten it up. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, somehow it makes it feel better. Doesn’t it? MR. FORD-Yes, it would. MR. JARRETT-I expected this Board to ask for that. It’s not a big leap. It’s not a problem. MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re essentially proposing is the existing driveway is going to extend into Lot 2, then? MR. JARRETT-If you look at SK-1, which is our Sketch Plan and variance plan, you’ll see the existing driveway is being extended, and it would go into Lot Two, if that’s your question to me. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that was the question. Just so I also understand, you come here for a recommendation, back to the Zoning Board, hopefully to get their approval. MR. JARRETT-And then back to you. That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-For subdivision? MR. JARRETT-Two lot subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-It makes sense, given the circumstances. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since this is just a recommendation, if they’re approved, they’ll come back, they’ll be re-warned for a public hearing. So if I close the public hearing, okay. I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess, I just looked at the notes that are here, and on the issues regarding making a determination, you know, you’ve got minor, minor, one was severe, then the other was a moderate impact, and so it just didn’t seem like this was, even though it’s being evaluated under the new Code, it just didn’t seem like it was a big deal. So I certainly think that we could work with you to get a compliant lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? Again, it’s a recommendation to the Zoning Board, and there is a sample, at least the body of a resolution in the package. Anybody? MR. KREBS-Move that we recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that they allow the applicant to have two lots with one driveway. MR. TRAVER-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second, any discussion? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. SIPP-I think we should nail that down a little tighter with one lot being two acres. I think there needs to be some change in the language there, to make sure that we’re waiving the right thing here. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to make an amendment to the resolution, then, that they make one of the lots compliant? MR. SIPP-Yes. I would move that we amend the motion to read at least one lot will be of two acre size. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Isn’t what the Zoning Board asking us for a recommendation? I mean, our project description is relief requested from the minimum public road frontage requirement for principle buildings. So that’s what the ZBA is looking for a recommendation on. MR. OBORNE-They’re looking for a recommendation on the cumulative Area Variances. So, the one is obviously the road frontage issue, and the other is the lot size issue. MR. JARRETT-I think the misunderstanding is that the application for the lot size was not in at the same time as the first variance, and then we discussed it, and the application was amended. It didn’t get listed clearly, both variances, though, that I seek. MR. KREBS-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to re-state your motion, perhaps, Mr. Krebs? Start over. MR. KREBS-Move that we approve the applicant’s request for two variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, that we recommend that they give these variances to the applicant for multiple lot entrance at one roadway, and that one of the lots be at least two acres. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a new motion. Is there a second? MR. FORD-Yes. Second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second, any discussion on this motion? MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re recommending that they have two driveways? MR. FORD-No, one. MR. OBORNE-For multiple lots. MR. KREBS-Access through one. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. It sounded to me like there was two. I might have misunderstood. MR. KREBS-Did I say that? MR. JARRETT-As long as the ZBA understands, that’s all I care. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? Everyone understand what we’re voting on? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I’m not clear. I’m sorry. It just sounded like we were recommending. MR. OBORNE-Well, I would suggest that you do it again, and make sure that it’s to everybody’s liking. If there’s any ambiguity, then I suggest you make it non ambiguous. MR. KREBS-Move that we recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the applicant be allowed to use one driveway to access the two lots, and that one lot be a minimum of two acres. MR. FORD-That I will second. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, call the vote, please. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THE APPLICANT, LINDA DATOR, BE ALLOWED TO USE ONE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS THE TWO LOTS, AND THAT ONE LOT BE A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE HAS BEEN REQUESTED: Applicant(s): Linda Dator Area Variance No.: 30-2009 Owner(s): Linda Dator SEQRA Type: II Agent(s): Jarrett-Martin Engineers Lot size: 3.66 acres Location: 2583 State Route 9L Zoning: WR-1A Tax Id No.: 240.5-1-30 Section: §179-4-090 Warren County June 10, Cross Ref.: Subdivision No. 6 - 2009 Planning: 2009 Public Adirondack Park June 17, 2009 Yes Hearing: Agency: Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of 3.66 acres into two lots of 1.67 acres and 1.99 acres. Relief requested from the minimum public road frontage requirement for principle buildings. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THE APPLICANT, LINDA DATOR, BE ALLOWED TO USE ONE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS THE TWO LOTS, AND THAT ONE LOT BE A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-We’ll get through it. See you again. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. See you soon. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 32-2009 SEQR TYPE TYPE II W.W. ALLERDICE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 345 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 338 SQUARE FOOT BOATHOUSE/DECK. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK IN A WR ZONE IS AN ALLOWED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-06 4/26/06; BP 06- 194 1/23/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/10/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.37 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-47 SECTION 179-5-050 VIC CINQUINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-And as the Board knows, the purpose of Expedited Review is typically we don’t read the Staff Notes or go into any lengthy discussion on the item. If there’s anyone that feels uncomfortable reviewing this as Expedited Review, then we would then take a vote and kick it into a full review, but, having said that, I’ll just ask the Board if there’s any questions or comments on the application. MRS. STEFFAN-It seemed very straightforward, based on the Staff. It’s in compliance and the Zoning Administrator obviously looked at it, and qualified it for Expedited Review. So I don’t have any issues. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. KREBS-And the Lake George Park Commission gave them a permit. MRS. STEFFAN-Signed off. MR. SEGULJIC-I have one question. With regards to the ramp, there’s no indication as to what that’s attached to. MR. CINQUINO-Okay. First of, I’m Vic Cinquino. I’m the architect for the project, and this is Mr. Allerdice. The ramp basically goes from the sundeck basically into the hill as you go up the hill to the house, adjacent to a patio. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s going to be some excavation where the ramp goes into that? MR. CINQUINO-Only to the extent that we would need to put in a small footing to support the (lost word). MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s going to go onto a patio that’s there? MR. CINQUINO-Yes, sir. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re just going to put a little footing to have the lam next to the patio? MR. CINQUINO-Yes, sir. The ramp is four foot wide. The footing, I believe, is called (lost words) 12 inches deep. So it’s about a four foot by twelve inches by one foot pier sunk into the ground. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And since there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-And I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2009 W.W. ALLERDICE, 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 construction of a 338 square foot boathouse / deck. Boathouse / Sundeck in a WR zone is an allowed use subject to Site Plan Review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2009 W.W. ALLERDICE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. This is a Type II action, and Paragraph Four B, E, F, G, J and K do not apply, and it is approved without condition. a.Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b.Not applicable. This is a Type II action, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) 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; and d.As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e.Not applicable. If applicable, Item d 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.Not applicable. Waiver requests granted / denied: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans] h.The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff i.Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. j.Not applicable. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff k.Not applicable. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. CINQUINO-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED RONALD & LINDA BALL AGENT(S) CHARLES SCUDDER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR- 1A/RR-5A LOCATION WEST MT. RD. OPPOSITE LEHLAND ESTATES APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1 ACRE & 7.05 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNNG BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 8.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10-1-31.1 SECTION A-183 CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-And whenever you’re ready to summarize the Staff Notes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. Subdivision 3-2008. Final Stage, Ronald and Linda Ball. It’s a two lot residential subdivision, West Mountain Road opposite Lehland Estates. Existing zoning, although it’s not existing, but at the time it was existing, is SFR-1A and RR-5A. It’s a Unlisted. SEQRA Neg Dec was already accomplished on May 19, 2009. Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of an 8.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1 and 7.05 acres. Staff Comments. There is an existing house on lot one (1) with a paved driveway. I believe I’ll skip over this because I believe everybody’s pretty familiar with the project, and I shall, at this point, turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. SCUDDER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Charlie Scudder, Scudder Engineering, for Ron Ball, the applicant, and last time the Board laid down three stipulations which we have provided and met. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-It looks like we’re ready for Final Stage approval. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it’s been a long journey. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-I was most impressed when you brought the paver stone in. I think that’s what really sold us on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-No public hearing is required because we closed it. MRS. STEFFAN-No, but it’s posted on the agenda. Keith, it says on the agenda that the public hearing is open. Is it? MR. OBORNE-It should not. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except, do you know if it was noticed in the paper? MR. OBORNE-Well, I’ll tell you, if it’s on there, then I’m sure it was noticed. MR. HUNSINGER-Let’s be safe. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the application before us? Hearing none, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD & LINDA BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of an 8.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1 acre & 7.05 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 11/18/08, 1/20/09, 3/17/09 & 5/19/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD & LINDA BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. FORD-Good luck. Thank you for your patience and your response. MR. HUNSINGER-I was remiss in not recognizing our engineer. Mr. Ryan is with us this evening. SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 SEQR TYPE II EUGENE TIMPANO OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-MOD LOCATION 928 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL TO USE AS AN ICE CREAM SHOP. PROPOSAL INCLUDES NEW PARKING CONFIGURATION AND NEW ACCESS DECK WITH HANDICAP LIFT. NEW RESTAURANTS IN AN HC-MOD ZONE AREA AN ALLOWED USE SUBJECT TO PLANNIG BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 30-05, AV 18-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/13/09 LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-14 SECTION 179-9-010, 179-7-050 EUGENE TIMPANO, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 28-2009, applicant Eugene Timpano. Site Plan Review for a restaurant in the HC-MOD zone. 928 State Route 9. Highway Commercial Moderate is the zoning. A project description. Applicant proposes conversion of a residential rental to use as an Ice Cream Shop. Proposal includes new parking configuration and new access deck with handicap lift. The total retail space proposed for the ice cream shop is 580 square feet. Seating for 12 is planned inside with no provisions for outside seating. There is a handicap accessible unisex bathroom available. New Restaurants in an HC- MOD zone are an allowed use subject to Planning Board review and approval. I’ll just quickly go through the Staff Notes. The applicant has stated that no business will be conducted through the take out window mentioned in narrative. The Planning Board may wish to make this a condition of approval as site parking does not support this type of retail activity. All parking spaces must be drawn to scale to ensure compatibility with existing conditions. All parking and loading zones must be 18 feet by 9 feet. There are traffic issues associated with the corner of Sweet Road and State Route 9, and I go on to explain why those issues are present. Two wall signs are proposed for the business. One 5’x 4’ wall sign is proposed for the business. You may wish to ascertain the materials, colors and mode of attachment to be used for these signs. A landscaping plan should be considered for this site as existing landscaping will either be eliminated by the proposed lift and deck or is generally lacking in nature. Concerning stormwater, the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to denote off site drainage on the plan. All lighting to be downcast, cutoff fixtures. Snow storage location will need to be explored. The applicant has requested waivers for stormwater, grading, and landscaping, however, there appears to be a few outstanding issues in these areas. I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. TIMPANO-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. TIMPANO-My name’s Eugene Timpano. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else that you wanted to add about your project? MR. TIMPANO-No, there’s nothing else I wanted to add. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will open it up for questions, comments from the Board. Before I do that, did you have an opportunity to review the comments that were just summarized into the record? MR. TIMPANO-I received this letter last night. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have any comments on either the letter or the, did you get the engineering comments as well? MR. TIMPANO-I got the engineering comments, also. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and did you have anything else that you wanted to add, based on that? MR. TIMPANO-I had nothing I wanted to add, but if you have questions regarding those statements, I’m here to answer them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from the Board members, then. MR. FORD-Just for clarification. You received the Staff Notes last evening? MR. TIMPANO-They came in the mail yesterday. MR. FORD-And VISION Engineering accompanied those? That’s when you received those? MR. TIMPANO-That letter also came in the mail yesterday. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-And just to clarify, it was in the Staff Notes, that there is no take out proposed? MR. TIMPANO-There is not going to be any take out. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a sit down ice cream parlor kind of thing. That’s what you’re looking for? MR. TIMPANO-Yes, but that isn’t to stop people from coming inside purchasing and then leaving with the ice cream. MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. MR. SIPP-Is the Laundromat going to continue operation? MR. TIMPANO-The Laundromat will stay in operation as it is today. MR. SIPP-So that has a separate parking lot? MR. TIMPANO-It has its own parking lot and it faces Route 9. MR. SIPP-Now, on this handicapped elevator, this is a standard type approval for such an application? MR. TIMPANO-I have considered a number of manufacturers, but I haven’t decided on a particular manufacturer. I expect to review this with the Building Department so that I’m compliant with whatever demands that they make. MR. SIPP-Have you considered a ramp rather than? MR. TIMPANO-The rise from the ground level to the door sill is 32 inches. The ADA has recommended that there be one foot of ramp for every inch. That would be 32 foot of ramp, which would have to wrap around twice. It would be three separate ramps, and it would extend in front of the building 12 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s not going to work. Yes. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. TIMPANO-And chances are the cost would be equal to and possibly more than an elevator. MRS. STEFFAN-What kind of market research have you done? I guess, where did the idea come from to have an ice cream stand and what kind of market research did you do? MR. TIMPANO-I have the Laundromat. I have no room in the Laundromat for any additional vending machines. I often get requests for various snacks and different items. Official marketing, I’ll admit, I have done none, but the intention is to run the ice cream store for the neighborhood year round during the periods of time that school is out of session, which means that when school’s out of session, I plan to open up the ice cream store at three o’clock in the afternoon, and run it until eight o’clock in the evening during the winter, and then extend the hours during the summer. I have no intent, and I have no belief that I could ever compete with the other ice cream businesses in the area, and I thoroughly believe that 95% of my patronage will be from the residential areas surrounding the store. MR. SEGULJIC-So the store that you’re going to put in is going to be in the two story wood framed house, then? MR. TIMPANO-It’s going to be the main floor of the main portion of the house. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then what are you going to do with the garage? MR. TIMPANO-I have cars in the garage. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s going to stay the garage. So, if I’m hearing you also, you expect a lot of people to walk to your store, this ice cream store? MR. TIMPANO-I would imagine so. I’m on the corner of Sweet Road. I’ve been approached by my neighbors, the neighbors of 928 State Route 9, and they’re asking when is the ice cream store going to open, because I’ve spoken to them about it. I’ve spoken, I’ve asked them what they think of the idea and whether they would have any objections, and they’re just waiting. MR. FORD-They’re waiting? MR. TIMPANO-They’re waiting for me to open, to go into business. They’re interested in buying ice cream. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So really it’s just going to be alterations inside the building is what you’re going to be doing? MR. TIMPANO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Outside is going to be pretty limited. MR. TIMPANO-There’s nothing going on outside. I’ll have two park benches in front of the Laundromat, which I have available for the present patrons of the Laundromat. So I’m not going to be able to prevent them, people who are buying ice cream, from sitting out in front of the Laundromat. MR. FORD-How frequently do your four parking spaces get occupied simultaneously? MR. TIMPANO-Excuse me? MR. FORD-How frequently do all four parking spaces get used simultaneously? MR. TIMPANO-Well, there’s 68 foot of frontage, presently. A macadam slab in front of the house. That slab has been there since the 70’s. Since the requirements state that each parking spot should be nine foot wide, that gives me the possibility of six parking spots, plus ample space for a handicap easement for unloading and loading. Do I believe that all eight spots will be occupied full time? I could only hope. I really don’t think that there’s going to be that tremendous amount of activity from drive up. Of course probably some more during the cold days, but during the summer, I would imagine that 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) 75% of the business will be walk up, and a portion of that business would be people who are in the Laundromat, who are already parked in the Laundromat. MR. KREBS-And I would imagine some will be from the motel next door and from the motel across the street and behind the motel across the street there’s a relatively large apartment complex, and behind Wal-Mart there’s another relatively large apartment complex, all of which are easily walkable to your store. I had a question, Keith. The engineer, as his third comment here, he’s looking for a more recent survey with topographic. I didn’t understand that request. MR. OBORNE-Well, the engineer’s here. So maybe. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. RYAN-The purpose of that comment was basically to verify the existing conditions. Without a survey that’s been accurate, I didn’t know if there were additions on the property, if asphalt had changed in the last 10 years. That’s basically the idea was to verify what was on site now. MR. KREBS-Okay. Well, it’s really only four years since March of 2005, then basically the property hasn’t changed in years. I’ve lived near by, and I know that it hasn’t changed at all. MR. TIMPANO-Nothing’s changed on the property, which is why I asked for the waiver for sewage and drainage, because none of the commercial properties in that area have any sewage, drainage, and that asphalt has been there since the 70’s. So I’m not adding any asphalt. I’m not changing the slab that is there. The water that has drained from that, from that lot, has drained that way for 30 years now, and as far as snow removal’s concerned, again, for the last 30 years, the residents have moved the snow off of that property, and the majority of the snow that I move I move towards Route 9 onto the plot of grass, and then the balance of it I try and move to the west, the east side of the building. So I don’t see an issue. I’ve been moving that snow for six years now, without a problem. MR. SEGULJIC-If I could ask Mr. Ryan a question. Are there any issues with stormwater in that area that you’re aware of? MR. RYAN-I’m not aware of any, because I don’t live there. Perhaps the applicant could verify the drainage. Again, with the survey being requested with topography we could certainly depict the existing drainage more accurately. Nothing’s been presented, in terms of existing conditions related to stormwater. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. One of my issues would be with regard to landscaping, because they are in the, is this under the New regs? MR. OBORNE-No, this is under the old Code. MR. SEGULJIC-Old Code, okay. Because they are in the Upper Route 9 Travel Corridor, and that requires a tree every, what, 35 feet or something? MR. OBORNE-Or as proposed by the Planning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, because you really don’t have any street scape there, do you? You don’t have any trees along. MR. TIMPANO-The entire front of the building has got asphalt on it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. TIMPANO-Directly in front of the building, behind those steps, are two badly in need of removal rhododendrons. That is where the access is going to be for the handicap ramp. The only plan I have to provide more, there is a small tree that I had planted years ago, right there behind the fence. The only additional landscaping I can foresee is, I’ve been looking at purchasing those half wooden barrels and dotting the driveway with them in order to provide some more greenery in front of the building, but there’s, to use that wrap around the Laundromat, and then there’s a backyard, because it was a residence. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I have no problem with the project overall, but I think one of the things, you know, the Code does direct us towards some type of street scape in this 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) area. So I would ask the applicant to propose some type of landscaping, enhanced landscaping for this site. MR. TIMPANO-Excuse me? MR. SEGULJIC-Enhanced landscaping for the site, some type of street trees, something to break up all the asphalt in front of the building. Imagine if everyone had all asphalt? MR. KREBS-The problem is, the only place that isn’t asphalt, if you put trees on that corner, you’re going to decrease the visibility of people coming south on Route 9 making a left hand turn into Sweet Road. So I think that would be a dangerous addition, if you were to put any trees in that particular area. MR. SIPP-There’s a light there. MR. SEGULJIC-If I said trees, I said, or some other type of landscaping. MR. KREBS-Other type of landscaping, I agree. Fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Something. I would leave it to the applicant to come back to us with something. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there room to put a tree in the backyard on Route 9? MR. TIMPANO-There are trees in the backyard. MR. HUNSINGER-But on Route 9? MR. TIMPANO-There’s a tree, there’s a pear tree, that isn’t on that. I don’t think it’s on that picture, but it’s visible from Route 9. MRS. STEFFAN-Unfortunately, there’s a tremendous amount of blacktop there, not just on this site, but you’ve got Route 9 and you’ve got Sweet Road, and there’s really no place, when the plows are going through, there’s no place to put snow, so if we ask them to put trees near the. MR. TIMPANO-This is the side of Gambles. This is Winchip, which is all blacktop. This is, used to be the satellite company, I think this is the kitchen. It is all blacktop. This is the building that does (lost words) repairs. That is all blacktop. No one has any trees. No one has any drainage. MR. SEGULJIC-But those applications are not before us. MR. TIMPANO-Yes, right. MR. SEGULJIC-And also that doesn’t mean that we can’t request landscaping on this site. Once again, I didn’t say trees, I said some type of landscaping, just to improve the look of the area. You had mention whiskey barrels with plantings. MR. TIMPANO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe that’s a possibility, but you’d have to put them on the plan. MR. TIMPANO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, that’s just my opinion. I mean, the Code says for landscaping. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, yes, and I would like to see annual plantings and probably the nicest thing for that house would be window boxes in the front, you know, because then you’re not adding to the footprint, but you’re sprucing up the building, but the trees are enhanced landscaping. I just don’t know whether that’s practical for this site, and you are hooked up to sewer on this site. MR. TIMPANO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-My only thought with the tree was on the Route 9 corridor, on the Route 9 side of the back. Is there room there for a tree, or no? MR. TIMPANO-Excuse me? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Is there room between your, on the? MR. TIMPANO-I have a pear tree on the north side of the Laundromat that is visible from Route 9. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Did you get any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the feeling of the Board? This is one of those where, and I’m sure you can appreciate the Town Code is fairly extensive. We understand that most of what you’re proposing to do will not change the site itself, you know, the outside of your facility, but there are issues with the Code, and I’ve always been an advocate where, you know, we shouldn’t require every applicant, no offense to our engineers, to have to have full engineering plans and specifications drawn up, or, you know, should we have to have an architect sign off on every Site Plan, but there is some tradeoff between, you know, what’s required of the Code and then what has been proposed by the applicant, and I think that’s the balance we’re trying to strike here. What are the issues that the Board has? I mean, we do have a number of engineering comments as well as Staff comments to consider. MR. TRAVER-Well, I agree with the issue of landscaping, and it is a difficult site, but I think that something could be done and perhaps what the applicant is proposing, in the form of large planters or something, but really anything would be helpful to improve the appearance of the neighborhood now. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the comments in engineering about concerns over pedestrian and vehicle safety? Where’s the Board fall on that one? MR. SIPP-Well, there’s a traffic signal right there, that works pretty well. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-And I don’t think that there’s been any big problems since they put that signal in, with the Outback across the street, and the bakery across the street from there, and so forth. There’s a lot of traffic, but I think that light controls pretty much everything. MR. KREBS-And I went in there. I have a Toyota Sequoia, which is a relatively large car, and I pulled in and stopped a foot and a half from the building, and I was able to back and turn on the property, because I was going out onto the road. So, depending on how tightly people put themselves in, I might have had to back out a little farther, but I was able to do the turn on his property. MR. TIMPANO-And that is not the case with the people who park on the side of Gambles. MR. HUNSINGER-They just park anywhere. MR. TIMPANO-When they’re busy over there, they’re parking perpendicular to the building, and they’re backing directly onto Sweet Road, and to date there has been no collisions that I know of. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as lighting, are you proposing any new lights? MR. TIMPANO-It was suggested by Mr. Oborne that I put the lighting, include lighting in the plan, but I certainly will comply with whatever lighting requirements there are, but I’m still up in the air whether I’m going to go forward with that, but I just assumed that those requirements would have to be passed on through the Building Department. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, I mean, so you haven’t decided if you’re going to put any new lighting on yet? MR. TIMPANO-Any new? No, I haven’t. I’m leaning not to do it. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I’m coming from, if you’re proposing not to put any new lighting, I’m fine with granting the waiver, but if you’re proposing new lighting, I’d like to at least discuss what you’re proposing, before I grant the waiver. MR. TIMPANO-Well, it is my belief that I will just enhance the light that is under the front door. I really don’t think that I’ll be putting any lighting under the eaves of the building. MR. FORD-How do you intend to enhance the light? MR. TIMPANO-I’m going to replace the bulb probably with a sodium bulb that’ll throw more light, because right now it’s a fixture that was put in 1948, and it’s fogged over and it produces very little light. I’d like to replace the fixture. MR. FORD-Higher wattage, in other words. Higher wattage. MR. TIMPANO-No, I’ll replace the fixture, yes with higher wattage. MR. HUNSINGER-Where is the light now? Is it a ceiling light over that? MR. TIMPANO-It’s a ceiling light, yes, underneath that little overhang. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. TRAVER-From the way you project your business profile, it doesn’t sound like you would be conducting much business after dark? MR. TIMPANO-I don’t expect to be conducting much business, no. I expect to be closing this thing up by eight o’clock at night during the winter, and we’ll see what the summer’s demand, but, again, I really don’t even think I’m going to be doing that much business during the summer because of the competition. MR. SEGULJIC-Just clarify for me. You have the lighting plan. You have three lights depicted on it. Are those lights existing now? MR. TIMPANO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Those are lights you want to put on. Okay. Now, I’m okay with the lighting, but I think we should look for some type of landscaping plan. I’m going to leave it up to the applicant to see what he can come up with. Just something. MR. TIMPANO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Ideally some bushes, but see what you can come up with. MR. FORD-We really need more detail then we have been provided today. MR. TIMPANO-In regards to the landscaping. MR. FORD-In regards to several of the items that have been brought up. I may have missed it in here, but when you start talking about stockade fencing and gating and that sort of enclosure, and additional cement for the dumpster, these are issues that, and details that we need to have specified. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of questions with regard to the engineering letter. You bring up a couple of things like the detail specifications for proposed water service line. Are you proposing a water service line? MR. TIMPANO-The water service is existing. It was put in for the Laundromat. MR. RYAN-Does he have plans submitted that show the water line to clarify if it’s existing or proposed? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. SEGULJIC-What you would like to see is where that line is, it would be helpful to have that water line. MR. RYAN-Yes. Basically he submitted a plan that had water, sewer, gas lines all shown, but didn’t indicate whether they were existing or proposed. So clarify they’re existing and that satisfies that issue. MR. TIMPANO-They’re all existing. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Is the garage, are the garages going to be used for storage? MR. TIMPANO-There are two cars in there. There will be two cars in there. They’re my cars. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and so how will deliveries to the ice cream shop be made, just through the front door? MR. TIMPANO-Just through the front door. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there a rear exit to the house? MR. TIMPANO-There’s a sliding door off of a, off the den in the rear of the house, and there is a door from the kitchen area into the garage. MRS. STEFFAN-That becomes a building permit issue, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Building Code, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I’m just saying, it becomes a Building Code issue, I think it goes over the line, because you have to have ingress, you have to have an entrance and exit. You have to have a fire exit. You have to have lighting, but those are Building Code issues, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I think it’s based on a certain square footage also, where that actually kicks in, but I could not vet that, to be honest with you. I know that the Fire Marshal has reviewed this and made no mention of that. MR. HUNSINGER-So is it the inclination of the Board to table this? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, we need to see the landscaping. MR. FORD-That’s the way I feel. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Is there anything else that we absolutely want to see, other than the landscaping? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just trying to look at the engineering letter. I just see some details that have got to be ironed out. I guess a lot of these things, I mean, I struggle, like you do, Mr. Chairman, you know, we have this Code, but, no disrespect intended, but it’s a minor project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And so we have to integrate all of this. I really, I just think some details on the engineering letter have to get ironed out. The lift, you know, just stating that those are existing lines and not proposed, for future reference. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Timpano, how long were you estimating that it would take you to, you know, turn this site around to get it open? MR. TIMPANO-Three months. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So under ideal conditions it wouldn’t be opening until August. MR. TIMPANO-I have no intentions of opening before the end of September. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Could I just ask the engineer a question? With regards to the lift and the ADA compliance, is that really a Building Department issue? MR. RYAN-I was more concerned with the grades, not knowing what the grades were, how he was going to approach the ADA compliant. I think you’re putting in an elevator or a lift, sidewalk widths to that. I mean, he’s basically showing nothing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, in a lot of ways it almost favors the applicant to say you’ve got to do this to make sure it works. MR. RYAN-I would rather make sure it works now while you’re approving it and have the Building Department whether it works or not after the fact. I mean, it seems to me appropriate to layout what he’s doing on the site, dimension it. It doesn’t take much to do that, and show to us that it’s compliant with Code. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. So really, as I see it, out of the engineering letter, it’s really 17 and 22 we need to address. MR. FORD-And 10. I would like more on 10. MR. RYAN-Which one, 10? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the dumpster. MR. RYAN-And what about setbacks? There’s a 75 foot setback that he could be constructing an entrance in, off the Route 9 corridor. There’s also a front setback off Sweet Road. Do we know where those fall? MR. OBORNE-Those have been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. So those issues have been taken care of. MR. TRAVER-May 20. MR. RYAN-The only other concern was the lighting that you discussed briefly, but he is going to be open until 8 p.m. In the winter it’s dark out at 4 p.m. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s all downcast, though. MR. RYAN-I’m more concerned about having adequate lighting for pedestrian safety provided in accordance with the Code, rather than worrying about what the entrance has. I’m more concerned about the parking lot, people pulling in and out of this area, with no lighting other than at the front door. MR. TIMPANO-But down lighting does not answer that. MR. KREBS-Are there any lights on the corner? I mean, you know, Route 9 lighting? MR. HUNSINGER-There’s street lights on Route 9. Are there street lights on Sweet Road, too? MR. TIMPANO-Yes. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TIMPANO-There’s one at the, this picture I took here. There’s one on the Route 9. Here’s the street light. It’s on Sweet Road. It’s on the corner. MR. SEGULJIC-Someone made a comment, I think it was about Number 20 in the engineering letter, I think it was. Number 22 has been taken care of. MR. KREBS-I think if you do 10, 17 and 22, you’ve got it covered. MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t we need Item 11 addressed, too, the lift from the sidewalk and the location? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Which also kind of relates to 7, which is the dimensions for the handicap parking space. What other items, are there anything from Staff Notes that we want to make sure he addresses? So the runoff that comes off your current driveway, where does it go? MR. TIMPANO-Right there on Sweet Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a drainage ditch or anything on Sweet Road? MR. TIMPANO-No, there’s no, there’s drainage, but it’s further down Sweet Road. It’s not in front of my house, and it’s not front of any of the buildings for the first couple of blocks. I think it’s down, with the residential areas, past Montray. MR. FORD-The location of the lift. MR. TIMPANO-The lift will be on the left side of the front door. MR. FORD-Okay, and what type of covering will you have over that? MR. TIMPANO-There’ll be no covering over the lift. MR. FORD-So it will be fully exposed to the elements? MR. TIMPANO-Yes. MR. FORD-Do you not have concerns about that? MR. TIMPANO-I don’t have concerns about that. MR. FORD-And would it, how will that operate? MR. TIMPANO-There’ll be a single button with a bell inside so that someone will go out and help them get into the lift and operate the lift. MR. FORD-Operate the lift manually or electrically? MR. TIMPANO-Electrically. MR. FORD-Okay, and the manufacturer does not specify any type of coverage, this is an approved external lift mechanism, electrically operated without any coverage? MR. TIMPANO-Without, there is no covering for it, no. You get out of your car. You’re in the parking lot. Is there a cover there until you get into the building? When you go to Hannaford, is there a covering until you went to the building? MR. FORD-Is there something electrical that you’re, that is going to be rained upon or snowed upon when you’re at Hannaford? MR. TIMPANO-It is compliant with all electrical requirement for outside electricals. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Mr. Ford, I would think that’s more of like a, I’m trying to think of the electrical codes. That’s not, I mean. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, he wants to make sure the lift’s going to work if it’s exposed to the elements. That’s all. MR. TIMPANO-It’s built for use outdoors. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TIMPANO-It’s not an indoor elevator. It’s an elevator that is built for use outdoors. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Mr. Timpano, we’ve got, obviously, some things that we need to table you for, and so I’m just going to go through and identify the items that were in the 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) VISION Engineering comments that you’ll need to address, and also some of the Staff comments, but I think it’s kind of all lumped together. So what I’d like to do is make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 EUGENE TIMPANO, 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 conversion of a residential rental to use as an Ice Cream Shop. Proposal includes new parking configuration and new access deck with handicap lift. New Restaurants in an HC-MOD zone are an allowed use subject to Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2009 EUGENE TIMPANO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Tabled to the August 18 Planning Board meeting. The application for th submission of materials will be July 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can satisfy VISION Engineering comments, specifically Number 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15, a more detailed lighting plan should be provided. The lighting plan should contain downcast and Code compliant lighting. Also in VISION Engineering comments you need to address Item 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. The Planning Board will grant waivers for stormwater management and grading. However, it will not grant a waiver for landscaping. The applicant will need to propose an enhanced landscaping plan. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-If I could break in. I know, just to remind the Board in the past, that there were issues with signage after the fact. So I just wanted to. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, one of the VISION Engineering comments asked for. MR. HUNSINGER-And he shows the dimensions. MR. OBORNE-And I apologize for breaking in. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. We considered that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. MR. KREBS-I still don’t understand. You said three. I don’t understand why, since there’s a survey map from March 2005, there hasn’t been a physical change in the landscape in 25 years, why we’re requiring this man to get another survey done. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think, I can’t speak for the Board, but I guess my thought was just to make a note that it hasn’t changed since then. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. TIMPANO-But by virtue of the Zoning Board, Van Dusen signed off that there has been no change. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s addressing the comment. Okay. Yes, just label that on the plan, then. Everyone else comfortable with that? I think that was my thinking. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS-I’m comfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we’re asking him to address the comment, not to specifically say, you know. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. FORD-Have a new survey done. MR. HUNSINGER-I think even Mr. Ryan had said a lot of this is just, you know, putting a label here and giving us the information and knowing what we’re looking at. MRS. STEFFAN-And giving us the information, and knowing that it’s 2009 versus 2005. So that’s why I included three. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. We’ll see you in a couple of months. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you in August. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2009 SEQR TYPE NCE BUILDING CORP. AGENT(S) NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1557 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,600 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR OVER A PORTION OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING. COMMERCIAL ALTERATIONS REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 6-07, SV 64-07, BP 07-536, BP 08-020, 021, 022; BP 07-133 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/10/09 LOT SIZE 1.16 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-6 SECTION 179-9-010 DAVE KLEIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 33-2009, NCE Building Corp. Site Plan review for commercial alterations requiring a building permit. Location is 1557 State Route 9. Existing zoning is HC-Intensive. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,600 square foot, second floor office over a portion of an existing office building. Commercial alterations requiring a building permit require Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments. The current building is situated on a 1.16 acre lot. The building has an ‘H’ shaped configuration to the north and the proposed second story is to be centered on the northern portion of the building. The applicant states that there will be no change to the impervious courtyard as the area below the proposed addition has existing impermeable pavers. Parking appears to be adequate as the proposal will increase parking by 6 spaces to a total of 21 spaces required. There currently exist 24 parking spaces on site. Concerning handicap accessibility, the Director of Building and Codes has stated that the expansion is less than 3,000 square feet and is not a requirement. Plan Review. The Planning Board may wish to verify the existing capacity of the wastewater system for this proposed expansion. The proposed light associated with the garage may need clarification. Is this light a wall pack or freestanding light? Additional comments. The Planning Board may consider granting waivers for stormwater, landscaping, lighting and grading as requested by the applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. KLEIN-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. KLEIN-Yes. I’m Dave Klein with North Country Engineering, and my partner John Goldy, also with North Country Engineering, and we’re both owners of this property. NCE Building Corp. owns the property. Thank you for getting us on the agenda so quickly. It’s a fairly simple project. We have an “H” shape building. The insulation is at the ceiling level, and we have six HVAC units that are up in the attic space above the insulation, and the attic heats up a little bit in the wintertime, due to the HVAC system and the heat loss through that. It melts the snow up on the roof, and it comes down and collects in the valleys, the four valleys that form the “H” shape section, and gets to the eaves. It’s colder at the eaves, and then at the roof surface, and it freezes up. We end up with, over the winter we were raking the snow off the roof at the courtyards all winter long. Then we have a problem of getting the snow out of the courtyards, and we weren’t quick enough through the winter. We had a hard winter this year, and we got back up 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) inside the building, and we had damage inside the building and we’ve got a significant insurance claim. So, in any event, we had roofing contractors on the roof this winter trying to get the ice off and hitting it with heavy tools and done some damage to the roof, and so one thought was to eliminate those valleys by putting a second floor over the north courtyard, and we’d have a single sloped roof front and back. It would be a little bit higher than the existing building, and it would provide another 1600 square feet of office space for us. In this market, we’d have second thoughts of building it on spec. So, we’re going through the approval process now so we have it. We’ll probably just put a new roof on with this market. We’ve got it listed, you know, with a realtor to rent it out. We have had no interest whatsoever, and so. We’ll probably get a new roof instead of this project. MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s still a good idea. MR. KLEIN-It was a good idea, yes. In a better market, it would be a great idea. I saw there were a couple of Staff comments. The septic system was put in the 80’s. It’s got, there was a Site Plan submitted, and I believe it’s got three 50 foot absorption trenches, and the soil in the area is a sandy, bouldery material with a fairly quick perc rate. Before we purchased the property, it was occupied by Barton Mines. They had 36 people in the building, you know, long hours, and there’s been never any problem with the septic system. Right now we’ve got a dozen people in the building, and don’t anticipate that the septic system’s going to be an issue. There was another comment about lighting. We have, we inherited a light. JOHN GOLDY MR. GOLDY-It’s a light mast. It’s sort of a floodlight on a mast. MR. KLEIN-Hydrogen or sodium halogen. MR. GOLDY-I think it’s a metal halide. MR. KLEIN-Maybe it’s metal halide, and it sticks up on top of the building in one corner of the parking lot. I think it’s got a short-circuit in it. MR. GOLDY-It’s hard to access. It’s in the back of the lot. We feel that if we took that light, or a light, took that off and put a light on the garage, a wall pack, for example, that we’d do a good job of just lighting the parking lot, the back of the building, that would be a better application for a lot. MR. KLEIN-And again it would be motion activated. It’s not going to be on all the time. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you know what the wattage would be? Have you selected a fixture yet? MR. GOLDY-No, we have not. I would say 150 watt. MR. KLEIN-We have a stair going up the side of the garage, to enter the attic space. The garage was in front of this Board a couple, few years ago, and, you know, having a light right next to the door going into the attic space is easily accessible, and we can maintain it, and it’s located in the center of the property, facing the office building. So, you know, light should stay on the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? I’ll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. MR. SIPP-On C-1, you have trees on the Route 9 side of the building. Are these existing trees or are these new trees you’re going to put in? MR. KLEIN-Yes. They’re existing. MR. SIPP-They’re existing. MR. KLEIN-It’s a fairly well landscaped property. You’ve got a sign out front that’s all landscaped around. MR. SIPP-And the sign is going to be the same sign? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. KLEIN-The same sign. There is an application to put a tenants name on that sign in front of the, submitted to the Building Department right now. We have our engineering company sign, and the tenant wants to put his sign underneath, on the same structure. That’s a separate application. That’s his application. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’ll see you again. MR. KLEIN-No. MR. OBORNE-Just a sign permit. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a sign permit. It all seems straightforward. Just one question, and this is a question for Staff. In your notes, you say, the parking appears to be adequate as the proposal will increase parking by six spaces, a total of 21 spaces required. There currently exists 24 parking spaces on site. And then plans says there are existing 24, proposed 24. MR. OBORNE-That’s because he’s not changing the existing amount. What I’m stating there is that what is currently existing meets the needs for the expansion. Twenty-one is total. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Expansion will increase the requirement by six. They already have enough for it. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Gotcha. Okay. MR. KLEIN-With the expansion we’ll need 21 parking spots. We have 24. No impervious area. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m all set with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-It sounds like a good way of accommodating an ongoing problem. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and let the record show there were no takers. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Type II SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-And we’re ready to go. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only issue is to make sure that the proposed new light fixture is Code compliant. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2009 NCE BUILDING CORP., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,600 square foot second floor over a portion of an existing office building. Commercial alterations requiring a building permit require Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009; and 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2009 NCE BUILDING CORP., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, it’s a Type II action. Paragraph Four E, J, and K do not apply. This is approved with the following condition: That the proposed wall pack light on the garage must be downcast and Code compliant. Please revise and submit to Staff. a.Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b.Type II Action-no further review is necessary. 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; and d.As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e.Not applicable. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f.The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g.Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans h.The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff i.Not applicable. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. j.Not applicable. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff k.Not applicable. The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. KLEIN-Thank you. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NPA II, LLC AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14,500 SQUARE FOOT WALGREENS PHARMACY AND A 4,642 SQUARE FOOT CHILI’S RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 21-09, AV 77-08; SV 74, 75, 76-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/12/08 LOT SIZE 22.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 48-2008, Northway Plaza Associates, site plan for construction of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy, 4,642 square foot Chili’s restaurant, reconfiguration of existing office space to retail space and associated site work. Location Northway Plaza, 802 State Route 9, Highway Commercial Intensive. This is an Unlisted. The Planning Board is required to make a SEQRA determination on this. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy, a 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant, reconfiguration of existing office space to retail use, parking reconfiguration and associated site work. New commercial buildings require Planning Board Site Plan Review and approval. Staff comments: The proposal will require the removal of the existing vacant Monroe Muffler building prior to the commencement of construction. Stormwater treatment units will be installed as part of the stormwater management for the project. The locations of the stormwater treatment units appear to be below the Walgreens parking lot facing Route 9 and to the rear of the Retail ‘A’ building (see figure 4 of SWPPP). The soils associated with this site are classified as Udorthents. These soils are comprised of gravel and sand with little loam and as such are very well drained. Any vegetative establishment, including shrubs and trees, will require amendments to the soil. What follows is Site Plan Review, and I do want to state that the applicant has received Area Variances for permeability, has received an Area Variance for parking lot aisle width, and at this point, we are now before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Amy Franco from Clough Harbor and Associates, Project Engineers, and Jim Hagen is behind us, who’s been the Project Architect for many years. Bill Dutch, who’s the managing principle, couldn’t be here because of a back problem, but he’ll certainly make it when we’re back here next time. We’ve been working on this project for months now. It’s extremely urgent for the owners of the Plaza to re-tenant it after they lost their major tenant last year, Travelers, and this project has been in the works for a number of years to replace the old Monroe Muffler building, which has been vacant since they left. That was the old tire battery for the Montgomery Wards which was here many years ago, and when we did the Home Depot project, which was probably four or five years ago at this point, the north side of the Plaza was re-developed. The old Department store, I think 90,000 square feet of buildings were removed, replaced with Home Depot, and then they were able to re-tenant the area on the west side of the Plaza where Panera Bread is, and this was supposed to be, the southern part was supposed to be the end of the development and then they lost Travelers and now they’re in a position where they have to find a new retail tenant for that space in a difficult retail climate. So, it’s very important for the viability of the center that this project moves forward. That they clean up what’s there now, get rid of the Monroe building, and re-develop it with two attractive and well landscaped buildings at the southern end. At the same time, they have an office tenant in the rear of the site, up behind where the Post Office is, and that tenant required more parking in the back for their employees, and that’s what required us to go to the Zoning Board to deal with that green space buffer issue along the cemetery and ultimately to add the parking spaces. We were here, probably in February, and this Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board to grant the variance that was requested for the cemetery buffer area. At that time, we were talking about a small buffer of just five feet. The justification for that was that it was not near the area where there was the grave sites where the public was going to be. It was near primarily the administration buildings. We went to the Zoning Board and we were able to work a compromise, to change the parking configuration in the back to diagonal parking with one way, so that it wouldn’t require as much width, and then we were able to go to approximately 32 feet from the cemetery, and also extensively plant that, and to install a fence. So that was all the compromise that was worked out with the Zoning Board. That also required us to go 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) back twice because we had the two single lane aisles at 18 feet wide, but under the Fire Code, one has to be 20, for fire apparatus, a minimum of 20. So we had to go back and work that out, and that’s all set, and we also had to get Sign Variances, we started out with for the tenants. When we were at the Zoning Board last month, the Director of Development for Chili’s was there, and he put on the record for the Zoning Board that Chili’s corporate had planned on building 150 restaurants this year, and now this is the only one that’s going on. This is a franchise deal rather than corporate, but he’s from corporate and they were overseeing this for the franchisee, but just an indication of how difficult restaurant deals are in this current climate, but Chili’s is ready to get in the ground as soon as we get through the planning process, which is a good thing. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess before we go much further, this evening, you know, there were extensive engineering comments and Staff comments and, I mean, it really seems like there’s a lot of homework, still, that has to be done before we can really go much further. MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly right. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess I was just thinking in the effort of moving this a little forward this evening if we could kind of just open it up for any other items that the Board might have that aren’t either in the engineering comments or Staff Notes, again, which are very extensive, because obviously we’re going to table this tonight, and bring you back. MR. LAPPER-Right, and of course we would be asking this tonight, so we can make a submittal with all those answers. There were just a couple of conceptual level issues that I want to raise, in those Staff and engineering comments for the Board to consider. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-One is the buffer along Route 9. We had to address this when we came in with Home Depot because there wasn’t 10 feet available because of the taking by DOT when the road was widened, also just the issue of all the snow that gets piled up on Route 9. So at that point the Board had approved what’s there. We’re seeking to continue that, because the land doesn’t exist, but at the same time, as a compromise, the applicant understands that they can add landscaped islands that don’t exist now in front of that vacant area. So we can, you know, we’ll come back with a proposal that’ll address it in that way. Part of it is because we have a pre-existing center that’s being re- developed. Some stuff is already there, but other stuff can be improved. So that’s one issue, just in terms of, we don’t have that strip available along Route 9, but it’s really not a great place to do a lot of major planting because of the snow and salt from the parking. One of the major issues that I think you’re aware of is that there’s a component of this project where the owner is purchasing property from DOT and from Warren County at the corner to do this underground stormwater project. There’s a, and I know that I’ve discussed this with the Board before. This has been a few years in the design, but there’s the issue of all of the stormwater coming down Route 9, untreated, and going directly into Halfway Brook. This is the Number One project of importance on the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District agenda, and they’ve reviewed and approved the plan and DOT has reviewed and approved the plan. That facility is going to be constructed on DOT lands at the corner of Route 9 and Quaker Road, but it’s because of that that the trees that are there now are going to have to be removed, because we can’t have, mostly physically because this is a very large structure. It was, at one point, proposed to be a surface basin, which would have been less expensive, but it was viewed that, because of all the traffic, that it would be better not to have a pond at that location, if there was accident. It would just be safer to have a subsurface facility, and so the applicant agreed to that, but as a result of that, the trees that are there have to be removed, both because of the roots and because it’s going to take this whole area to construct this basin, but obviously the applicant understands that that’s an important visual issue. So what’s proposed is plantings that are shrubs, but nice shrubs in front of that, and then the commercial sites will be well landscaped, and obviously that’s stuff that will add to what’s been proposed and we’ll come back and talk about that in response to the notes, so we know that that’s an issue. MRS. STEFFAN-And I, you know, while you’re on that subject, Jon, I just want to bring up, those trees, I’ve looked at them several times since I’ve gone through the intersection. It’s the only green thing there, and, yes the Olive Garden put some trees in, but it’s taken forever for those to grow to even, what I’ll call a medium sized tree. So I’m still not thrilled with taking those trees down. I would like it if there was another plan, but the other thing is if the rest of the Planning Board agrees that those trees have to go, the 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) landscaping that needs to replace that needs to be substantial, and I think there needs to be some large trees put in their place or something that can, you’re certainly never going to be able to keep even with what was taken out, but there has to be something substantial there to add green to that intersection, and aesthetic beauty, because there’s nothing beautiful about that four way intersection. MR. LAPPER-We certainly understand that that’s an important issue ad that we’re not going to get through this process without that looking green and looking nice. There are some constraints because of the stormwater project, but obviously it’ll have to be something that looks good, that you’re satisfied with, and so we’ll come back with that. MR. SIPP-I definitely agree with that statement. MR. FORD-So do, I. MR. SIPP-That those trees were originally planted there, I assume, when this mall went in. Now you’ve got seven nice looking locust trees that make that corner, and they’re going to tear them out and put in six foot high pear trees. MR. LAPPER-They can’t remain because the area where they are now, the grade’s going to be changed. That’s going to be part of the parking lot, but we will do some quality landscaping that will satisfy you. It’s the only answer. MR. SIPP-Well, I would more like to have you change your stormwater plan. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, if I could just get back to, correct me I’m wrong, but you said Warren County would approve the stormwater plan? MR. LAPPER-Yes, because that’s on the State property. th MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess I’m just, because we got this letter from June 15, yesterday. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was here. We got it this evening, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I sense from this letter they’re not satisfied. MR. HUNSINGER-From Dave Wick? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Did you see this letter? MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t read it yet. MR. LAPPER-I didn’t. I have a letter from Dave Wick to DOT. th MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve got a letter dated June 15. Do you want to see it? MRS. STEFFAN-That was yesterday. It’s here, but I haven’t even read it. MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t read it. We just got it today. MR. TRAVER-It’s basically concerned with consolidating the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-So it sounds like there’s still some issues on the stormwater. So are those the two issues, Jon, that you wanted to? MR. LAPPER-There’s a third one, but let me just take a second. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I think that the answer is that there has to be a small retaining wall to deal with that grade issue, but that was designed not by Clough Harbor, but by Bohler. So I will have them at the next meeting, and this doesn’t look like a major issue. AMY FRANCO MS. FRANCO-There’s just a discrepancy in the grading, but the structure and elements of the stormwater retention itself will be, I guess, in the same location and the same design as it’s shown on the plan. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. LAPPER-The third issue is the intersection that exists now when you come down to go to Panera and you make a left. That’s the same place where the interior ring road that goes in front of the retail space on the south side of the Plaza, it’s a four way intersection, and the problem with that, from the owner’s perspective, is that there’s not enough parking in front of the retail. So they’re trying to re-route that to create, to make this, there’s a lot of vacant space there that has to be re-rented. They’re having a problem re-renting it, and they believe that it’s because there’s not enough parking in front of those retailers. So what’s proposed is to relocate that internal driveway connection to the main driveway, and the engineering notes raise the question about stacking distance. We have a traffic report that hasn’t been submitted, and what that called for as a solution to address the engineering comment is to make it a double left turn out, which could handle the stacking, and we’ve submitted that to DOT. It’s their traffic light. It’s their road. So we’d have to get a pass from them before we can come back and talk to you about that to see if that’s going to work for them, but that’s what we’re talking about at this point, to address it. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I’m confused. What’s the proposal? MS. FRANCO-I’ll go over here and use the colored plan. Basically, what we have here is this road access here is a full access onto Route 9, and the way the traffic turning is now is we’re doing a left turn out, and a right turn and a straight through. So what we would like to do, because this is a new proposed curb cut, to create more of a parking area field to differentiate this building from this parking field and this building. Currently the way the parking field goes, with the drive aisle, is this way, with the curb cut down here, and there’s no curb cut at this point. So the concern is, as people are making this left turn, they’re not going to be able to do it because of the amount of cars that’ll be backing up. Our proposal is to do two left turns out of here, to utilize both of these southbound lanes on Route 9, to accommodate any traffic that potentially could back up here. So that’s, basically we sent that to the DOT preliminary, and then we’ll follow up after our meeting tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that’s a good idea. I mean, I don’t go in there that often, but if you, I don’t know, I shouldn’t say that. I probably go in there once a month or more. Traffic does back up at the light, though. MR. KREBS-So now then the right lane is going to be for going straight across and going right? MS. FRANCO-And right. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So those are the conceptual issues. We know that we have to get back to you with a detailed response to the Staff and Engineering comments. I just wanted to discuss those three, just to put them on the table, and we plan on making the submission th before the July 15 deadline, and hopefully being back here in August to work these things out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else that the Board wants to raise that wasn’t either in Staff Notes or in engineering comments? MR. FORD-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Just reiterate landscaping. MR. LAPPER-We know we have to make you happy on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-The color of these buildings, is this a representation of the color? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-That doesn’t match what’s in the rest of the mall. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. SIPP-So it’s going to be different? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Is Chili’s going to look like this, too? MR. LAPPER-No. I don’t know if I brought, Chili’s is very interesting. MR. OBORNE-Well, you’ve received a sign variance for those both buildings. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And they should be the ones that were submitted. MR. LAPPER-I did bring the whole, voluminous file. So I just don’t know if I have Chili’s. Keith, do you have? MR. OBORNE-I should. MR. HUNSINGER-It hasn’t changed. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know what the old Traveler’s space is ultimately going to look like, because, that’s it, that’s exactly, that’s right. Keith, Chris has it. Don wanted to see it. MR. SIPP-Yes, colorful. How about a little toning down. MRS. STEFFAN-And the trees will be gone, so you’ll really be able to see that. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-We will leave the public hearing open, and there will be additional opportunity to comment in August. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then I will make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC, 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 construction of a 14,500 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy and a 4,642 square foot Chili’s Restaurant with associated site work. New commercial buildings require Planning Board Site Plan review and approval 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/25/08, 1/27/09, 3/3/09, 3/24/09, 5/19/09, 6/16/2009; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th This is tabled to the August 18 Planning Board meeting with a submission th deadline of July 15. So that the applicant can address the approximately 38 items listed in Staff Notes, and approximately 23 items listed in the VISION Engineering comments, as well as to address some of the issues discussed tonight with the Planning Board. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a couple of months. Thank you. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. FORD-I’d like to make a comment. I’d like to compliment our Chairman and the applicants representatives for the way this was handled this evening. I think it was very appropriate under the conditions. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Tom. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 SEQR TYPE I – PREVIOUS EIS ADOPTED BY TB 8/6/01, ADOPTED BY PB 9/4/01 THE PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, NEWCO, LLC AGENT(S) PETER ROMANO, CHAZEN CO.; JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) SAME ZONING ESC-25A LOCATION 578 AVIATION ROAD AND OUT PARCELS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,950 SQ. FT. MIXED USE BUILDING. NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE ESC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 40-08, 400 PERMITS SINCE 1979 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/13/09 LOT SIZE 3.14 AC., 37.49 AC., 1.74 AC. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-92.4, 92.11, 93.1 SECTION 179-9-010 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Application, Site Plan 29-2009 Pyramid Company of Glens Falls, NEWCO. New commercial construction in the Enclosed Shopping Center zone is the requested action. Aviation Mall and outparcels are the location, and Enclosed Shopping Center 25 Acres is the existing zoning. SEQRA Status is the previous EIS. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 10,950 sq. ft. mixed use building. New Commercial construction in the ESC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments. The applicant was before this board last year with a more aggressive plan to develop the outparcels and expand the movie theater in the mall. The applicant has modified this plan to now include the mixed use portion only. The building proposed is approximately 550 square feet smaller and is now in a different location, eliminating the need for the approved area variance (A.V. 63-2008) associated with the previous proposal. A condition of approval for A.V. 63-2008 was the removal of the derelict buildings to the west. As this proposal appears to incorporate a portion of these western outparcels to facilitate water and sewer relocation, the Planning Board may wish to consider the removal of vacant building as a condition of approval. Further, Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes has issued a letter referencing this issue (see attached). The project includes potential additional parking to the west for the proposed restaurant component of the project. The parking currently proposed is for the retail use only. The applicant is seeking approval for both scenarios in order to avoid appearing before this board for a parking modification in the future. The Planning Board may wish to consider this potential parking modification as a condition of approval. I do want to add some additional comments. Pedestrian crosswalk from north side of Aviation Road to Pyramid property should be explored. Bio retention parking islands and swales should be explored, as should the interconnect between the overflow parking and Burger King. That should also be explored, and what follows is Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Jim Soose, the Director of Development for Pyramid, and Pete Romano from Chazen Companies, the project engineer. Before we get started, this is essentially the same as the last application where we have Staff comments and engineering comments that’ll require a written submission. So we wanted to just introduce you to the project, have Pete walk you through what we’re proposing, talk about the conceptual issues, and then resubmit. We hope this is not as complex or involved as the last one, and we’re hoping to get back here as soon as possible, but we recognize that we’re going to have to address these and get back. The Staff comments started out talking about the previous project, and we were here last Fall, before the economy changed. We had a much more ambitious project to finally finish this northwest side of the property, and of course that involved replacing the old Howard Johnson’s restaurant and the motel. There was a really nice restaurant, that’s a really good location for a restaurant in front and retail in the back, and a small component, which was the 11,000, approximately, square foot building near the Friendly’s entrance. At this point, tenant leases are different than they were in November. Pyramid expects to come back and finish the project as soon as market conditions permit that. We’re here just to do this small component. So, everybody recognizes that the motel building has to come down at some point, as part of the other 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) project. We had stated on the record that before the building permit was issued for the first component of it, that that would come down. Unfortunately right now, for an 11,000 square foot project, it’s not possible to spend close to half a million dollars to do the demolition of what’s there. I mean, we realize that that’s an important issue. We have the letter from Dave Hatin. That’s just unfortunately reality, and Jim can talk about that more than me, but to that end, we’ve designed this so that the connector road is shown, so that this project is not precluding the future development. This is just a component of something that we’ll come back for later. Let me just have Pete walk you through the plan to start with, and then we can talk more about those issues. PETE ROMANO MR. ROMANO-Good evening. As Jon said, my name is Pete Romano with the Chazen Companies, and we’ve been working with Aviation Mall for quite some time now, and the project did reduce substantially in scale to a 10,000 square foot, a little over 10,000 square foot building, located on the, we’ll call it the west side of the main Aviation Mall entrance. They’re still going to maintain the entrance as it is, with a slight modification that we propose with respect to an existing hatched island in this area, right at the “T”, when you come to Aviation. That was proposed to be now curbed with a center crosswalk for pedestrians across from one side of Aviation to the other side where Friendly’s is. The reason why it’s curbed, and I know there’s Staff Notes that quote the 20 foot minimum aisle, is it was curbed with a (lost words) curb for emergency vehicles, and it is a little bit less than the 20 foot as required, or as preferred by the Fire Marshal. We feel that, by curbing this, if pedestrians were coming across and do get caught in this area, the curbing would provide a little bit more protection from cars, and give the cars a little bit more of an understanding of where to travel. So we feel that it’s a very safe thing to do, to actually have that curb in this area. So that’s the only modification that’s being done to the Mall entrance road. Off the Aviation Mall loop road, inner loop road, we actually have our connection for the proposed development. This connection is a little bit further south than what their current, there’s an existing curb cut on the Mall loop road, a little bit further south, and the reason why we pushed it further south was due to the grade change from down here at Aviation to the grading where the final floor elevation will be for the building, there’s a substantial change, as you all know. So we had to lengthen that road as much as possible, in order to get the grade of the road, so that it wasn’t too extreme. We tried to maintain 10% maximum, which is pretty, you know, it’s not too bad, but we felt it’s pretty safe. So we kept this at 10%. We actually did level out towards the bottom with a low point to actually kind of help that transition back into the loop road. We also have a, start to level out towards the top once we get over, get up around the corner, and it kind of helps with some sight distance coming around the corner and once you get into this area. You can see that there’s three tenants currently proposed. There’s a total of 76 spaces currently proposed as is planned. In your packets, you’ll also notice that we provided an alternative site layout for a restaurant use if that goes in. The restaurant layout was primarily to show the use, if there’s more of a demand for cars. We showed an expansion of a parking lot out this way behind the gas station, proving that it can be graded out with this current Site Plan we have. So there wouldn’t be any modifications for Site Plan. We could come, if you approved it, and that does happen and they do find a tenant that’s a restaurant, that can be done very easily without any disruption to the adjacent properties or even any modification to the engineering that’s been done. That being said, the other thing that you’ll in your Site Plans is that we made a future connection feasible from the proposed access drive up to the top parcel here. That’s in your Site Plans also, and it’s also profiled and it’s graded out. So that we know that it is feasible, if they ever did do a connection in the future, that that can be done also. Both those additional pavements that would be put in place, if it did get put in place in the future, have been accommodated in the stormwater management design, as part of this plan that’s in the stormwater management report and the SWPPP that you have in front of you. Accommodation’s already been made for that. The other significant issue with this is relocation of the water line. There’s a 20 inch main, water main, primary source for the City, or, excuse me, for the Town, which traverses the site, currently, pretty much at the top of the hill that currently exists out there. It runs pretty much in a north/south direction on the top of the hill, like I said, and then eventually by J.C. Penneys it actually cuts down a slope and gets into the parking lot further beyond the Mall. Due to the cut arrangement that we have up here, we actually have to lower this site a little bit, which would impact the water line, and also, too, this cut of this road being cut into the hillside would actually expose that water line. So what we did was our initial thought was to relocate the line, pretty much in an area behind the gas station, and also in an area of the pavement of the existing hotel, which would then put it out of the way. We had some discussion with VISION Engineering and the Water Superintendent. They felt this is a very workable alignment for the water main, no problems with it. Actually it was almost a better alignment than what currently exists, 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) because from a maintenance standpoint, we got it off the slope of the hill. So that could help them facilitate it, if it was necessary, and also it was in more of a flat area. In talking with the Superintendent and VISION Engineering, we came up with another solution that is also very workable, and that is to keep the main, relocate it into the main entrance of the Mall and into the loop road. That is an alignment that is, from what I was just talking with VISION is a little bit more preferable, but it’s something that certainly we can work out with the Superintendent, and either way, it’s very feasible. So that was another big component to this. That’s, as far as the engineering in a nutshell, that’s pretty much it with the Site Plan, and I guess I’ll turn it back over to Jon or Jim. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? I’m sorry. JIM SOOSE MR. SOOSE-My name is Jim Soose. I’m the Director of Development for Pyramid, and what we have prepared are some elevations of the building showing some renderings. So this would be a front on. This would be kind of in southeast direction here, showing the front of the building with the two smaller retail spaces, the storefronts, and then this one being the larger space which is 5,250 square feet. It could end up being a restaurant, as Pete pointed out, and it shows the grading change from the road down below up to the parking lot up above. This elevation here would show the main entrance to the Mall. The Mall is not rendered into the artists piece here, but it does show the north and then the east elevation of the building, and you can barely see it in the photo here, but the pedestrian access that’s being added would come up on the east side of the drive over here, closest to Friendly’s, and then lastly this would be the south elevation, and what we did here is we rendered in a potential patio, in the event that this ended up being a restaurant, to show how it would be designed with a railing, and then access from the front parking area. MR. ROMANO-Real quick, I just want to also note one thing that the Planning Board probably noticed, is that we did end up putting a sidewalk from Aviation Road, right on the road. We connected the sidewalk that currently exists. There’s a sidewalk that we actually have coming through the property to the front of the buildings. So you would not have to walk all the way around and up the access road. So if you were on Aviation Road, you can easily come in the sidewalk here, and access this building, too, and then go back out. So I just wanted to point that out to the Planning Board, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-At this point, we’ll answer your questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-I know you’ve expressed some concern about the demolition of the derelict buildings. I think, and again, I’m only speaking for myself, and not the entire Board, obviously, but I think at this point with the amount of time that’s gone by, waiting for development of that area, it really becomes more than a development issue. It becomes almost a maintenance issue for the community. The buildings have really become a problem for the Town, and I would say that it appears that the applicant recognizes that it’s something that needs to be addressed, sooner or later. I guess my feeling is why not address is sooner rather than later? It may be, it could be significantly more expensive to do it later. We know there’s asbestos in those buildings, for example. Again, I realize the financial obligation that’s involved in removing those structures. I would just like the applicant to reevaluate the timing of doing that. MR. LAPPER-Jim, do you want to address that? MR. FORD-He is speaking for himself, but let me echo that concern. It is very genuine, and speaking not only as a citizen, but representing a lot of citizens in Queensbury, that eyesore needs to be removed. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think there was a time window when, during the, if you will, the life cycle of those abandoned buildings, where, you know, they could kind of await site renewal and redevelopment and so on. I think, quite honestly, it appears to many that that time has now past, and it really becomes more of almost a maintenance clean up issue for the Town, than it does a kind of wait until there’s a further development of the site, and I would just ask that you consider that, because we certainly will have to, as this moves forward. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. FORD-I believe it’s hazardous. MR. SOOSE-I understand the concern, and it is something that we certainly want to see happen. It is something that I’ll bring back to the ownership for them to revisit again. We fully intended to take it down with the first application that was made last Fall. However, due to circumstances of not moving that application forward, and just focusing on the smaller piece right now, it was our intention to hold off on that, but I can’t sit here and disagree with any of the comments related to those structures, just because of the time that they’ve been sitting vacant. So I will bring that back to the ownership. MR. SIPP-We’ve been waiting since 2001, which I read the minutes of the meeting in which you were restructuring a plan to demolish these buildings in 2001. Now we’re in 2009 and nothing much has happened except the fire department has burned it down three or four times, and everybody else has smashed windows and doors and the roof is caving in. I also would like to see some action take place on the hook up or the joining of Burger King onto the property with an access road, which was promised back when Bed, Bath, and Beyond went in to existence. MR. SOOSE-I am aware of that. I recently saw the minutes from that Planning Board meeting some years back, and most recently I sent a letter to the Town that stated the position of the owners based on the issues that are in front of them with respect to covenants with the anchor stores and with the permanent lender on the project, that prohibit items like that from taking place. Now, I don’t have the documents with me, but it is something that I can demonstrate to the Board, that those concerns and those issues that are raised in my letter are real, and we are certainly able to show proof of evidence of that. MR. FORD-We would like to see that documentation. MRS. STEFFAN-And I know that when I was reviewing this application, and you don’t have a specified tenant for this particular development, but it’s a mixed use, which is desirable for the Town, but you’re also proposing some professional office, which we do have a lot of excess capacity in Town at this point, and that also doesn’t add sales tax revenue. So that’s a consideration for the Planning Board, but, you know, you’ll have three buildings here, and you’re looking for a parking waiver for it, and we don’t know what it’s going to be developed for, and so as I was looking at the plan, I thought, okay, well Pyramid Corp is really asking the Planning Board for a leap of faith, and, you know, for all of us here, I mean, we live here. It’s our Town, and from my point of view, the Pyramid Corp is a for profit organization, and you can understand that you’ve allowed an eyesore to be maintained at Exit 19, which is our premier entrance to our Town. When folks come into our Town for any reason, to visit here, for economic development purposes, they get off at Exit 19 and it’s not a pretty entrance to our Town, as a result of that building being there, and I guess, as a resident, it’s not okay with me. It’s hard for me to support further development without the Pyramid Corp remedying the problems that exist at that site. Again, you’re asking us to take a leap of faith, and I would like Pyramid Corp to live up to what I believe is your social responsibility to make sure that that eyesore is remedied, and, you know, sometimes businesses need to do the right thing, and sometimes it costs them money, but I think that it’s important for Pyramid Corp to invest in removing that Howard Johnson’s appearance and improve the appearance of that particular site, and as a result of that, improve the appearance of the Town. Then I think that that kind of activity will demonstrate to us that you have the best interests of our Town in mind, and that’s important to me, as one Planning Board member. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, just to, I would say the same thing. I’ve had many, many residents come to me and say you’re on the Planning Board. You should be able to do something about that mess, and, so this is our opportunity to do something about that mess. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? Well, we do have one taker, if you could give up the table, please. On the back table, there is an information sheet that talks about the process of the public hearings on items that are scheduled to have public hearings. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to give information to the Planning Board, and so any comments should be addressed to the Planning Board. If you do have a question, you can ask the questions of the Planning Board and then we will give the applicant the opportunity, later, to respond to your question. If you could come on up, sir. We do tape the minutes and we do make a literal transcription of the minutes available for the public information. So I 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) would ask that anyone who wants to address the Board to speak their name for the record and to make sure they use the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL LENOWITZ MR. LENOWITZ-Okay. My name is Paul Lenowitz. I’m construction manager for Carrolls Corporation and Burger King, and I just want to say that myself and Tom Brunschmidt, he’s our District Supervisor of Operations, we’re just here in support of the connection from our Burger King property onto Aviation Mall. We know it’s been going on for some time. I believe since 1995 this originally started, and it’s been just an ongoing question or situation that we’ve always been in favor of and always been, I believe, lead to believe was going to happen, someday, one of these days, and we’re here to support that connection. I can’t speak on what, on behalf on what they just said, that it has to do with covenants and restrictions of their tenants. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it would seem to me that if somebody is in the Mall and they, they’re hungry, they’re going to eat, they would eat in the Mall. If they’re going to go to Burger King, then they’re going to go to Burger King. I don’t think we’re taking anything away from them now, or we would by, take additional revenues away from them if we did make this connection. So, that’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. LENOWITZ-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. If you could come back to the table. We will leave the public hearing open, and we will take additional public comment when we reconvene on this project. Are there any items, other than what’s on Staff comments and engineering comments, that we need to make sure they address? MR. SEGULJIC-I think they cover everything. MR. FORD-That plus the ones we have addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, already. MR. LAPPER-Is there any possibility that your agenda would allow us to make a submission to address all these items quickly and to get back in July, or is July booked? MR. HUNSINGER-July is booked. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually with three meetings already. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We already scheduled three meetings in July. MR. LAPPER-But that should help, going forward, having three meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-So that will mean we’ll be able to hear you in August, because if we didn’t have three meetings in July, you’d be looking at September. Do you have a thth preference on either the 18 or the 25? th MR. LAPPER-The 18 probably. th MR. HUNSINGER-The 18 it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 PYRAMID CO. OF G F/NEWCO, 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 construction of a 10,950 sq. ft. mixed use building. New Commercial construction in the ESC zone require Planning Board review and approval; and 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 29-2009 PYRAMID CO. OF G F/NEWCO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th This is tabled to the August 18 Planning Board meeting with a submission th deadline for materials of July 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can address the substantial VISION Engineering comments as well as Staff Notes, and so that the applicant can come back and give us an update on the demolition status of the Howard Johnson’s project, and the Burger King interconnection. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: MR. FORD-I just want to make sure that VISION Engineering, Staff Notes, and those items that have been raised in addition by Planning Board members. Or was there anything that wasn’t covered, by the Staff Notes or the? MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I could amend the motion so that it would include Staff Notes, VISION Engineering comments, and so that the applicant could come back and give us an update on the demolition status of the Howard Johnson’s project, and the Burger King interconnection. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a couple of months. MR. SOOSE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CES HOLDINGS AGENT(S) J. LAPPER BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; VISION ENG. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING, PAVED PARKING AREA, PRIVATE ROADWAY EXTENSION AND ASSOCIATED STORMWATER EVICES AND LANDSCAPING. MULTIFAMILY IN AN SR-1A ZONE IS AN ALLOWED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND BOUNDARY. CROSS REFERENCE SB 4-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/13/09 APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE ACOE WETLANDS LOT SIZE 18.05 & 13.39 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290-1-21.3, 21.4 SECTION 179-0-010 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 31-2009, Freshwater Wetlands 3-2009 CES Holdings multifamily dwellings in the SR zone require review and approval. That is the requested action. Freshwater Wetlands for construction within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. Location is Ridge Road. Existing zoning is SR-1A. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant proposes one multifamily town house unit, paved parking area, private roadway extension and associated stormwater devices and landscaping. Multifamily in a SR-1A zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater wetlands permit needed for construction within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. Staff comments. The proposed project is what appears to be the final phase for the complex. Site limitations appear to preclude further development. The 4 unit structure (4-plex) is to be built on fill material already on site. Additional grading and site work will be required. Additional comments. Concerning SEQR, the Planning Board must review this proposal and its potential environmental impacts. Options include re-affirmation of previous SEQR findings if applicable. See attached minutes, SEQR resolution and approval resolution for S.P. 20-2001M. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Mickey Hayes, on behalf of the applicant, and Mike Farrell, project engineer. Very simply, this project was approved as it exists now, and the land was available for this additional four units, but because there was not Town water available when it was constructed, there was an issue of separation distance between wells and septic which precluded the development. The Town water now runs this far up Ridge Road, and the project is now serviced by Town water, which provided the land for the additional four plex. So it’s obviously an existing complex, and they would like to just add this final building. There’s nothing else that would be able to be put on this site because of the wetlands, but the only interesting thing about this is that there’s a slight encroachment into the wetland buffer, nothing into the wetlands themselves. So we’re here for a freshwater wetlands permit and a Site Plan. Not to repeat myself, for the third time tonight, but we just got these engineering comments, which we’ll have to respond to. Mike, do you want to go through anything at this point to discuss any of the engineering issues, or do you feel? MIKE FARRELL MR. FARRELL-We’ve reviewed the engineering comments, and minimal in nature associated with what needs to be done on the site. We’ve anticipated this. This is a preliminary set of plans for the Planning Board to review for the project. The project is a four plex unit that will be established at the end of Moose Hollow Way. We’re planning on building a turnaround at the end of the road that doesn’t presently exist for emergency vehicles, and the encroachment into the buffer for the wetland would be a small piece of pavement for the road itself, and the stormwater pond that would be a wet pond controlling runoff from the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? I guess I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. FORD-Can we open a public hearing and then hear the concerns of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Any objections? MR. KREBS-I don’t have any. MRS. STEFFAN-No, that’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing, then. I know we have at least one person that wants to comment. So if you could give up the table, please. I think you were present a few minutes ago when I referenced the information sheet and the purpose of the public hearing. I guess I would just ask that you make sure you state your name for the record and address your comments to the Board. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD TRAZSKA MR. TRAZSKA-Good evening. My name is Richard Trazska, and my property is adjacent to the Hayes development, and what I’d like to do is present some information that the Board may not be aware of, as far as past precedent that was applied to one side of the wetlands and Halfway Brook, that seems not to be applied in the case of the project that’s on the other side of Halfway Brook, and so what I did is, out of the Town files and maps, I’ve made a copy for the Board, and I’d like to walk you through it, just so that you have all the information. The Hayes property is clearly marked. That’s the west side of Halfway Brook. The Brook is highlighted in blue. My property is on the east side of the Brook, and my property was developed prior to this development by the Hayes Group, and when I approached the Board at that time, there was great concern about any type of development along Halfway Brook and the wetlands that are surrounding the Brook. So when I came to the Board, I was asked to return to the Board several times with updated plans. I was asked to contact the Department of Environmental Conservation so they could flag the wetlands that were on the east side of the Brook, which adjoin my property. So that was done, and then we came back to the Board again, and the Board finally did give approval for construction of my single family residence and an adjoining lot that was to be left vacant, but in approving my single family residence, and the adjoining lot, the stipulations were made that are listed on the map, which I’d like to highlight. Stipulation Number One would be that we would 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) maintain the 100 foot, you know, normal buffer away from the wetlands, which is marked, but in addition to that, the Board was very clear that because this was such a critical area in the Town of Queensbury, you know, with the Brook going through and runoff and everything else, they stipulated that there should be no clearing near Halfway Brook. So as you can see, per the Town, that we had to maintain a no clear zone of 400 feet from the boundary of the wetland. So not only is there a 100 foot buffer, but there’s also a 400 foot no clear zone. Now, again, this project happened before the Hayes development. Now my question to the Board, and something the Board should consider, if it’s good enough for the east side of the Brook and the east side of the wetlands, why isn’t it good enough for the west side of the Brook and the west side of the wetlands. When you stand on Ridge, where you look at the new bridge that was constructed, and you look at the development that’s been done, the two duplexes, you know, the joke in the neighborhood is that, you know, one of the duplexes should be reclassified as Waterfront property because it’s that close, and there’s been complete, you know, cutting of the trees, duplexes were put in, and nobody says anything, and it’s not fair, and it’s like very arbitrary that I jump through hoops, that I had to do all this, you know, I respected the wetlands and no clear cutting, and then I turn around a couple years later, and, you know, there’s 20, there’s 20 families living next to that Brook, and now we’re looking at adding 24, I mean, four more to make that 24 families. Now, on top of that, you know, there are no provisions made for those 24 families to respect the wetlands, to respect the Brook. When the weather gets warm, the people that are in Chestnut Ridge that maintain the buffers, all we hear is dirt bikes that come from the 20 families that live there, ripping through the wetlands, ripping through the Brook area, no supervision, no monitoring on the part of the owners of the property. We don’t think it’s fair to sit there and hear dirt bikes going through the wetland areas, when we’re looking at our property saying, hey, we couldn’t cut a tree within 400 feet of that wetland. Now, you know, you’re the Town. You approved it. What’s fair is fair. It’s got to be fair on both sides of the Brook. So, you know, what I’m looking at is, this proposal this evening is just a further pushing of the envelope, a further encroachment on the area that I think has been abused beyond all intent of the original Board when that property and that area was to be developed. I was the first person that came before the Board, with a single family residence, and this is what I was asked to do, and it’s right there in front of you. It’s right in, it’s in the Town Hall, it’s in your files, but nobody’s ever talked about it. So it’s the type of thing where, again, I think you should take a real long, hard look when, you know, if you look at the area that’s already been cleared, take a drive over there. Now this project pushes that road and that whole development further and further east, further toward the Brook, and I think it’s not right, because there’s way more than 400 feet of clearing already been done in that area. So it’s the type of thing where you can drive over there yourself. Go to the end of the road, take a look, and then I would love to see DEC flag where that wetland area is on their side because I know it’s being pushed and it’s being pushed hard. That’s not even to mention the no clear zone. So why do I have a no clear zone? Why wasn’t there one that was requested on the other side? Something to think about. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? You can come back up. I will leave the public hearing open. Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. LAPPER-Mickey doesn’t know what he’s talking about in terms of motor vehicles. They don’t allow any of their tenants to ride motor bikes on the property. I mean, it could be anywhere that that’s coming from, but certainly not something that’s permitted on the property, and they’re not allowed to store them on the grounds or to have them, and I don’t know what he’s talking about in terms of the 400 foot. That might have been something, there might have been some reason on his property, but that’s certainly not the rule. The Town requires a variety of housing, and it’s not all single family lots for rich people. Multifamily is important, and that’s a nice complex. That’s why the zoning was done that way to permit nice townhouse apartments. Those have been fully leased since you built them, I believe. So it’s a desirable location. MR. SEGULJIC-Does Halfway Brook run through your property? MR. FARRELL-Halfway Brook does not run through the property. No. The floodplain does, from Halfway Brook. It’s to the east of the property line, Halfway Brook. MR. SEGULJIC-And then on the site we have the Federal wetlands and we have the DEC wetlands, right, is what I’m saying? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. FARRELL-Correct. There are Federal wetlands and there is DEC wetlands. There’s a large wetland toward the back end of the parcel, the undeveloped that will be forever wild, north of the site. That’s DEC wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because you’re potentially impacting the Federal wetlands, correct, the edge of the hammerhead on the road there? MR. FARRELL-No, we’re not disturbing any wetlands on site. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re in the buffer? MR. FARRELL-We’re in the buffer, yes, for the Federal wetland, and we’ve submitted an application for the wetlands disturbance permit with the stormwater retention facility for water quality from the new development and roadway. MR. FORD-The current structures, where are they relative to the buffer zone or the wetland designated area? MR. FARRELL-The current structures are in the buffer zone of the Federal wetland along the northern side of the parcel, and there’s a small finger of wetland on the southern side of the parcel that encompasses the first unit on the left side of the road. So, three of the four units that are on the ground today are inside the buffer. MR. LAPPER-But the proposed unit is not. MR. FARRELL-But the new proposed unit is not. Correct. MR. FORD-And could you address, please, the current structures relative to the impact of water on those structures? MR. FARRELL-I would ask my client in regards to any previous. MICKIE HAYES MR. HAYES-What was that, Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-How has the water and the high water table there impacted the current structures? MR. HAYES-It has had no impact. Probably if you, because the structures weren’t really built into the ground, they were built basically on the surface, they’re walkout basements, so the basements really are not sunk into, as you know, the water table is only a couple of feet below, two three below the ground in some spots. So mainly the buildings are constructed upwardly instead of inwardly. So really the water’s been a non issue at all. Because all the basements in the units are all finished, because they’re walkouts. They’re sliders out into their backyards. They all can walk into their backyards. MR. FORD-It’s interesting that I’ve had reports from individuals who have lived there that water has definitely been an issue with the structures. MR. HAYES-Well, I don’t know what water issues they would be. MR. LAPPER-Are you talking about drinking water issues before they were hooked up? MR. HAYES-That’s why we hooked onto the Town water, because there was issues with turbidity, because they were actually, there were wells, actually artesian wells, 200 gallons a minutes, we had to tree it and have a disaster plan, filtration, which was, and what happened is then we had to do turbidity tests, metals tests, you have to treat it just like almost a level like the Town, to be honest with you. It was a nightmare, and then if you had any turbidity, you had to have boil water orders. You have to, so basically that’s when the Town ran the water to create the loop for the airport. We were very excited to hook up to Town water because it was a nightmare. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess in the spirit of full disclosure, I should disclose that I did live in one of the units for a little over a year. I moved out. I can’t remember if it was 2004 or 2005. MR. HAYES-I think 2005. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So it was at least four years ago, and the unit that I leased is on the same side of the road as the proposed units. I mean, we certainly didn’t have any problems with water in our unit. There were periods of time during the year when, you know, it’s a little, I don’t want to use the word swampy, but it was, you know, you could tell the water table was high in the area, but, you know, the backyard was always mowed, you know, so you could always get a mower in there and mow the lawn, but in the Spring, you know, it was a little wet, but that was about it, and I’m certainly not aware of any neighbors complaining when I was there. MR. HAYES-It is a clay area. So there are areas that are damp for, you know, there really is dense soils. MR. HUNSINGER-But because of the clay, that’s why you were able to build the pond. MR. HAYES-Yes, exactly, and, you know, we’ve had a, we’ve had the place for seven years, I believe, at this point, and we’ve had, we’ve missed four months of rent in those years. So as far as satisfaction of the tenants, there’s still, as you probably know, there’s still, 40% of the original people are still there from the original move in. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess just to finish my train of thought, though, in terms of disclosure, I did speak with Counsel about a potential conflict of interest, and they said, you know, it’s not a conflict because you did business with somebody years ago, and I’m not a tenant there now. If I was a tenant there now, it would certainly be a conflict, but I didn’t feel that my knowledge or information on the project site would put me in any conflict of interest. MR. LAPPER-I just wanted to point out that the primary construction within the buffer is the pond, which is a water quality treatment pond. I mean, so that, obviously, the water’s going to ultimately end up in the wetland, and that’s not a bad thing in terms of typical design, and again, that’s a buffer, not within the wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-Some had said something about an existing pond. Is that the one that’s? MR. LAPPER-That’s on the north side. MR. SEGULJIC-On the north side. MR. HAYES-The land actually runs up to the back of Stonehurst. MR. LAPPER-You can see it’s just an odd shaped parcel. MR. SEGULJIC-It would seem to me, though, I mean, because you’re going to, if I’m reading this C-3 drawing correctly, you have those two bushes, two bushes, trees, whatever, labeled CR, and they’re out in back of the new construction. Correct? After, I’m working down the left side of the road. After the third unit, you have the, I’m sorry, after the second unit, you have the tree labeled CR. MR. FARRELL-Yes, right above that it has tie in to existing pavement. That’s the tie in point of where the existing pavement is now. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So all of that to the east is the new construction? MR. FARRELL-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I mean, it would seem to me, couldn’t you just take that small, I’ll refer to it as a hammerhead, and get that out of the wetland buffer? MR. FARRELL-We could get that out of the wetland buffer, but that would not allow turnarounds for emergency vehicles at the end of the road, which we feel is good design for this project. It does allow us to bend that pavement towards that stormwater management device so all of the pavement will be treated in that stormwater wet pond. It’s going to be to the north of the hammerhead. MR. SEGULJIC-So how deep is this pond going to be, then? MR. FARRELL-Four feet. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’ll have standing water in it, and then it’ll rain? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. FARRELL-Yes. Approximately 16 inches below the ground surface in that area is mottling, which would be the groundwater. We do have to conduct test pits out there, at the location, to determine the exact location of the groundwater at that point, and it’ll be designed as a wet pond. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s a wet pond. So it’s going to have standing water in it? MR. FARRELL-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Which is preferable, right? MR. FARRELL-It’s a wet pond that’ll meet DEC’s requirements, yes. MR. FORD-And there is designated wetlands, correct, between the western boundary of the project site and Ridge Road? MR. LAPPER-Ridge Road? MR. FARRELL-The westerly boundary of the property line and Ridge Road? MR. KREBS-There’s two raised septic systems right there. MR. LAPPER-The wetland is along the north side. Is that what you’re looking at, Tom? MR. FORD-Let’s look at Lot 290.1-83. MR. LAPPER-290.1. This is us. That’s not part of the project. That’s up north on Ridge Road. 1-83? MR. FORD-Yes. They’re not flagged wetlands on that property? MR. HAYES-That’s not our property. MR. FORD-I understand that. That’s not the question. MR. FARRELL-The wetlands would logically continue for some distance onto that property. The wetlands that are shown on C-2 are wetlands within the parcel that we’re working on. So that the wetlands do move through that area, so that there may be wetlands up there. We don’t put wetland maps. MR. FORD-This Board has prevented, in the past, some construction along Ridge Road, north of this project, because of designated wetlands. MR. LAPPER-We’re not disturbing any wetlands. MR. FORD-Pardon? MR. LAPPER-We’re not proposing to disturb any wetlands. MR. FORD-Just the buffer? MR. LAPPER-Just a slight amount into the buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think, you know, in my mind, there were so many Paragon Engineering comments that we really need to see how this works. Like, you know, certainly a property like this, it has so much wetland in it, that as proposed, to have a septic and those kinds of things raises some questions, and then Paragon Engineering does have some questions about perc rates for the septic and whether it will work or not, and I certainly think that the applicant needs to go back and address those. I know you just got the letters. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And so you need to come back and identify or satisfy those questions, and I think as a result, then we’ll have our questions satisfied. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. LAPPER-We certainly came here tonight recognizing we just got the letter. There’s a lot of additional items we have to address. So no issue. It’s just, we feel that it just has to be designed right to the satisfaction of the Board and the engineer. MRS. STEFFAN-And we’ve always had lots of questions when you’ve got a site like this where there’s wetlands and obviously the water table’s fairly high, and then, you know, now you’ve brought in public water, and you’ve got a septic that is supposed to work, and you have a lot of flushing homes there. It just needs to, we just need to be satisfied that it can work and it won’t fail. MR. FARRELL-There are four existing septic systems out there today that operate the four units that are there now, and the septic system will be built as a fill system that will require Town Board approval for a fill system. There is not two feet of usable natural soil in this area. So that will require a variance from the, or waiver from the Board of Health. MR. LAPPER-Because soil will have to be imported. MR. FARRELL-Because soil will have to be imported. The imported soil will be sand, and the design of the system is an Eljen system, which is a three form treatment system. That system has biological treatment. It has a sand filter, and then it treats through the soil. So that type of system is better than a standard trench system which would have two forms of treatment, which would be your biological in the stone, and then just the soil itself. So placing a system like this close to wetlands and close to environmentally sensitive areas is a three form treatment system, and we are fully confident that the system will design and operate just fine. MR. KREBS-Is there any requirement to maintain that if you’re filtering through the sand and the thing. Do you eventually have to, does it ever get clogged? MR. FARRELL-There are effluent filters that are put on the septic tanks themselves to make sure that the mats stay clean and the system operates properly. So there are a couple of things that the Department of Health requires for this specific system. It is an approved system by the New York State Department of Health, and it’s an environmentally sensitive design. MR. HUNSINGER-Are they existing septic systems out there, Eljen systems, too? MR. FARRELL-No. None of the existing systems are Eljen systems. They are standard absorption trench systems. MR. FORD-Are they functioning the way they are designed to function? MR. FARRELL-They do function the way they’re designed to function. MR. FORD-No problems? MR. FARRELL-And they have two forms of treatment. At this point, no, I don’t believe there’s any problems with those systems. MRS. STEFFAN-And were those systems, was the clay replaced with? MR. FORD-No problems? MR. HAYES-We’ve had no problems and they have alarms on them in case the pumps, because they’re a loaded system for the size, to create the proper the pressure, and there’s alarms that go off if that doesn’t work, and so we have had no problems whatsoever. With the newer, a lot of these are designed to have with these newer units with the toilets and the faucets and stuff like that, actually our water bills are actually, we use half of the water that they’re designed to take. So because there’s no, when they take the whole (lost words) with all the new fixtures and such, we really don’t use that much water. So the septic systems are really only giving half of what they’re designed to get. So they’re really no problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Mickey, do you know that when the other septic tanks were put in, were they, or the septic systems, did you have to take out some of the clay and put in fill? MR. HAYES-No. I think they’re raised up pretty good. If you go up there, you can see that there’s quite a bit of sand. They’re up in the air pretty good. You can tell that they’ve been lifted. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. HAYES-Yes. The ground’s been picked up about five to six feet throughout, from Ridge Road into this complex. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and it is kind of, it’s obviously not flat. MR. KREBS-You can see that when you look at the back of the buildings, they’re significantly lower than the front. MR. HAYES-That’s where the natural ground (lost words). MR. OBORNE-Can I get a clarification? Are you stating that you need a Board of Health variance for your septic system? MR. FARRELL-Variance or waiver, because the fill systems are required to have two feet of natural soil, and two feet of natural soil does not exist out here. So that would e an application to the Board of Health. MR. OBORNE-Which would be the Town Board. MR. FARRELL-Which would be the Town Board, for a waiver from that requirement. MR. OBORNE-Well, I personally think that should be, not personally think. It needs to be ascertained if that is in fact that case, and if that is the case, you have to get through your variance before you even go to Site Plan Review, and I was not apprised of that. So you have to get all your variances before you can go before the Planning Board. MR. FARRELL-Well, the Code specifically states that natural soil, but natural soil from the Department of Health’s perspective is soil that has sat on a site for a year. If you come in and you put the soil in, and then you come back in a year, you have two feet of natural soil under the Department of Health regulations, New York State, but there’s no definition that we can find in the Code. So a Code clarification associated with what natural soil is, if it’s the existing ground that has to perc, a fill system is specifically designed for sites that don’t have usable soil. So we’re not sure whether it’s a, that it has to sit through a freeze/thaw cycle and then become natural, because that’s the way DEC and the Department of Health clarify, or classify natural soil when you’re building a system such as this, or the Department of Health. MR. OBORNE-And that’s well and fine. My only issue is that it needs to be ascertained if you need a BOH variance. That’s all I’m saying. MR. FARRELL-Right. I mean, with that statement, natural soil, if it’s the natural soil that’s the ground that has mottling at 16 inches, then there’s of course not two feet of usable soil. So who would we get a clarification on the Zoning Code? MR. OBORNE-Well, that would be Dave Hatin. MR. FARRELL-Dave Hatin, okay. MR. LAPPER-With that said, we’re expecting to be tabled and come back to you with answers. MR. FORD-I’ve got to tell you, personally, my initial reaction is this is pushing the envelope. MR. SEGULJIC-I think I’d ask Keith, what (lost words)? MR. OBORNE-That’s just fill that’s been brought in. That’s from, it’s this area, looking this way, shooting it away from the houses. This is early in the season. The leaves aren’t on the trees. It’s been pretty wet, but the location is obviously to the left of that building there. Is it in between, is it where the Eljen system’s going? MR. HAYES-No, that’s in between the current septic systems. That’s to the left and right of the septic system there was a valley in between, and that’s been filled in. MR. OBORNE-That’s right. MR. LAPPER-Just to address Tom’s comment, there’s really a sliver of pavement that’s being proposed within the buffer, and all of that, as Mike said, is being treated in this wet 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) basin. So, I mean, in terms of, this won’t impact the buffer of the wetland, and it’s being constructed above the water table, the way, what Mickey said about not having subsurface basements, having surface basements, and the septic system is built up, too. So we’re confident that, at the end of the review, you’ll see that this can be done on this site, even though it’s in proximity to wetlands, but that’s our job to convince you. MR. FORD-The process isn’t over. I just felt obligated to tip my hand at this juncture, but I’m open to whatever you present. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So if we table this to a date specific, and they have to go to the Board of Health. MR. OBORNE-It would be an Admin item on the agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-How long is the Board of Health review typically, and how quickly do they get on the? MR. OBORNE-Well, first they have to go through the process, fill out the application, and then they have to go to a Board of Health meeting, which is a Town Board meeting, and then they set the agenda for that meeting. So usually it can be as quick as three weeks, and it can be as long as six weeks, depending on how the cycle hits. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So if we were to table this to an August meeting and they do require a Board of Health review, is it logical to assume that that could occur? MR. OBORNE-I think that that would depend on the applicant, how quickly they can get an answer. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay, well, and if they don’t, and we have it on the agenda for that evening, we’ll just have it, as you mentioned, have an administrative item. MR. OBORNE-Right. If you were to table them until August, my perception that they would be able to ascertain it in time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And potentially get their variance. MR. KREBS-I have one other question. Is this the end of the building for this site? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. FARRELL-Yes. The density allowed on the site is 22 units. MR. KREBS-Because directly across from the site there’s room for another building. I just wanted to make sure we weren’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 FRESHWATER WETLAND 3-2009 CES HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a four unit apartment building, paved parking area, private roadway extension and associated stormwater devices and landscaping. Multifamily in a SR-1A zone is an allowed use subject to Site Plan Review and approval. Freshwater wetlands permit needed for construction within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/16/2009; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) 4)MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2009 FRESHWATER WETLAND 3- 2009 CES HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th This is tabled to the August 25 Planning Board meeting with a submission th deadline for materials of July 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can address the 13 comments within Staff Notes and also to address the approximately 42 items outstanding in the Paragon Engineering notes. The applicant should also come back and provide clarification on septic system status and Board of Health approval. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just let the record show that we did leave the public hearing open. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a question, sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER AUDIENCE MEMBER-I live on Haviland Road, and the picture you had up here shows a plot plan, but I couldn’t tell where the Brook was. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think our maps show. AUDIENCE MEMBER-The location. MR. HUNSINGER-No, because it’s off site. It’s not on this site. MR. OBORNE-What’s you’re question? MRS. STEFFAN-The plot plan didn’t show Halfway Brook. MR. OBORNE-It looks like it’s on the site. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’d like to know where the Brook is located according to the development plans. MR. HUNSINGER-He can show you on this overhead. MR. OBORNE-This Brook, it looks like the Brook is going through the northern reaches of the property. It shows where it crosses the road. MR. LAPPER-Halfway Brook crosses the road where the new bridge is. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, which is south of your. MR. FORD-South of the project. MR. OBORNE-South of Haviland. MR. HUNSINGER-Does it touch your property on the north, or don’t you know? MR. HAYES-Stonehurst? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. HAYES-I’ve never even been back there. It could be. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Do we have any other business before the Board this evening? MR. OBORNE-Not from the Department of Community Development, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone have anything to bring up? MR. KREBS-Well, while we still have our engineer here. MR. HUNSINGER-Dan left. MR. OBORNE-He’s gone. MR. KREBS-I’d still like to know if we can’t somehow expedite getting the engineering comments to us and to the client, as the applicant, earlier than the Friday or Monday before the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you typically get them in digital format? MR. OBORNE-Yes, and we typically e-mail them to each Board member. MR. HUNSINGER-That would save a few days, a couple of days. th MR. KREBS-Yes, but the date is the 12, on the report. MR. OBORNE-That’s the Friday before the meeting. MR. KREBS-That’s the Friday before the meeting. Why can’t we do it so that they have it the Friday before that Friday? MR. OBORNE-We’ve already gone through this in our workshop. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did look at it at the workshop. MR. OBORNE-And previously before. The reason is, is that there’s a certain amount of time that you have to take to review these, and I’m not just looking at one or two or three. I’m looking at 17 to 20 to 25 Site Plans a month, and I think that’s the only issue. If you look at it myopically, with the ones that we send or I refer to Dan, he reviews probably about a third of what I review, but his review is much more technical, so, with that said, I can get, and I can’t really commit to this, but I get my Staff Notes, depending on my workload, to you a few days early, even that Monday, possibly, but my Staff Notes are not really what the issue is, for the most part, it’s the engineering notes. MR. KREBS-Right, and when I was down at the training in Fort Edward, I talked to Dan, and Dan said, if you get me the information soon enough, we can get it there earlier. MR. OBORNE-The e-mail that I appreciate and the reply and everything. I mean, that’s something that has to come from the Board. Direct me and I will satisfy it to the best of my ability. I mean, the protocol states what it is now, is that they get it by Friday and it gets out to you. MR. KREBS-Because it really doesn’t save anybody any time. MR. OBORNE-It doesn’t. MR. KREBS-Because even if we didn’t schedule them for another 30 days, 99% of these people who have long lists of engineering questions end up getting tabled anyway. MR. OBORNE-Well, part of the problem is that they request waivers, which is allowed, and many times they shouldn’t have waivers, or those waivers the Planning Board is not willing to grant. Thus they’d have to go back through their engineering. It is their right to ask for those waivers. So sometimes they hurt themselves. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. KREBS-I agree with you, and I think that a waiver is a judgment factor that is exactly why we have a Planning Board, because we need to make that decision. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. KREBS-Okay, but what I’m talking about is the long list of things about, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we had three good examples tonight. We had to table all three projects. We had, you know, 20 plus comments. MR. KREBS-And, I just think if we could somehow get that to them earlier, that the applicant wants to satisfy those questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. KREBS-They would like to come, and only have those where maybe they have a disagreement with the engineer, so they’re not willing to accept that, but so many times it’s the electrical is not on the drawing. It doesn’t say whether it’s existing or proposed. Little things like that that could be changed and could speed up our meeting. MR. OBORNE-That certainly shouldn’t preclude you from giving them a conditional approval based on something as minor as that. MR. KREBS-No, no, no, but when there’s 13 or 15 of those minors, I don’t think the Board generally feels good giving approval with all of that long list of requirements. Because that then throws that entire decision on the Staff. It’s up to you to make sure they comply with those 15. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Even if we had a threshold, somehow, of, you know, beyond an X number of comments they would some how automatically be tabled, we still wouldn’t know until the last minute. MR. OBORNE-Yes, because you can’t quantify it. You have to qualify it. You have to. I mean, understand that. This a battle I have with applicants all the time is to even get them to submit information after they’ve, like this past deadline day, I’m going through the applications now. I have three phone calls in to people that owe me stuff. I’m giving them a break because it’s so minor. It’s a signature or it’s something that’s just minor, get it to me. If they don’t get it to me, they’re either going to go before the Board and have those comments on my notes, and/or Dan’s notes, or they’re going to get bumped off the agenda. So that’s not helping them either. MR. TRAVER-Well, if it’s incomplete, they probably should be bumped off the agenda. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, well, that’s what I’m saying, they will get bumped off the agenda. I give them usually 12 hours. If you don’t give it to me, you’re gone. They know that. MR. TRAVER-That’s generous. There is a deadline. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I mean, I could be real hard on them and say, that’s it, but I mean you have to have some form of, you’ve got to give them a chance if it’s something that’s minor. If it’s something that’s major, they’re gone. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I hear you. As a representative for the Department of Community Development, and I don’t mean this tongue and cheek at all, I like to see permits being issued. I want to see permits being issued. That’s, you know, part of my job. It’s part of my job satisfaction. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, part of my thought when I saw your e-mail, Don, and other comments about it, is, you know, this is an issue that we’ve struggled with for a long time, and with the new Code coming out, I don’t know if that’s going to make it easier or 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) worse. I guess my thought was that hopefully the new Code is, there’s a lot of things that we made clearer. So I’m hoping that we’ll start getting better applications, if you will. MR. TRAVER-Yes. There’ll be a transition, though, where it’ll be a real. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s going to be a mess. MR. OBORNE-You’ll start seeing those, this cycle coming around. Because of, especially Site Plan Review. Site Plan Review applications are very tight now because of the new application. MR. HUNSINGER-Now is it still, all of the projects that we’re going to be reviewing in July, they’re all under the new Code, right? MR. OBORNE-They’re all under the new, and the ones, there’s a few next week, I believe there are a couple next week that are going to be under the new Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Will we be getting a formal copy of the new Ordinance? MR. OBORNE-You should have, you did, we sent it out to you. MR. HUNSINGER-I just got it. It was Saturday I think it came in the mail, or Friday. MR. KREBS-Yes, but it doesn’t have a table of contents. MR. OBORNE-The formal, I see what you mean. That has not come back from Code Publishers yet. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So that was our working draft, our final draft, albeit, our working draft. MR. HUNSINGER-The other thing is there is one on line that you can download as a PDF file, and if you do that, then you can do search, so if there’s something you’re looking for you can search. MR. KREBS-How big is that file? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. Do you know, Keith? MR. OBORNE-How big is the file? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not that big. I didn’t think it was that bad. MR. KREBS-The reason I ask the question, very simply, was that I was thinking about, if I could, if I could put it on a four gig stick. MR. HUNSINGER-I bet you could, yes. MR. KREBS-Which would then allow me to take it from my desktop computer to my laptop computer, and always have it available. MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to request, I’m trying to remember what we got. We got 147, but there was another thing that we just got last week that was quite thick. MR. OBORNE-179. You should have gotten the Zoning Ordinance. MR. KREBS-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just when you guys, when the Community Development Department sends us something that big, I would appreciate it in a binder. MR. FORD-Please. MRS. STEFFAN-Because it’s unruly to just have it that way. I mean, I have so much paper on my workstation for Planning Board. So it would just be helpful, anything that thick, please put it in a binder. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. OBORNE-Well, I will say that when you do get the Code, the intent was to give you a document by which you could use, and then discard in the next couple of weeks. I debated that, to be honest with you, and decided not to do that because it wouldn’t fit in the envelope. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And with that said, when the new one does come in, obviously. MR. FORD-It will be bound. MR. OBORNE-It’ll be bound, table of contents, and then, you know, what I do with mine is I have, I break it out per Chapter, and put the dividers in there, with tabs on them, and it’s just easy access that way. MR. STEFFAN-Don’t plant those seeds in our mind, Keith. MR. OBORNE-You’re going to have to do that. I would be more than happy to supply the dividers for you. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. KREBS-No, that really makes it easier. MR. OBORNE-Sixty-nine cents. MR. KREBS-The reason I was aware of that is I went to the new Code today because you had mentioned something in one of your Staff Notes, and when I went to the paragraph, it was different, it was talking about shoreline, and when I went to the old thing, then I was in the right location. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I see what you mean. MR. KREBS-So we’re going to have to make sure we say old or new Code. MR. OBORNE-Right now you’re all under old. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And then when the Staff Notes come out, it’ll specifically say new or old. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, I’m sorry, because I left, I went out. When an applicant has to th have their materials in by the 15 of the month, prior to their Planning Board appointment, how long does it take before you submit the materials to the engineering firm. MR. OBORNE-I have to go through, the Final agenda meeting is the Thursday after our last meeting for the month. That’s when we have our Final agenda meeting. Right there, right after that Final agenda meeting, they go out on Friday, typically, that Friday, everything goes out, to you, to the applicant, well, not the applicant because, but to you, you get your packages, that’s when you get yours. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Maybe I wasn’t clear. We just tabled a couple of items for th August, and they have a submission deadline of July 15. When will that information be forwarded to VISION Engineering or Paragon Engineering or whatever? MR. OBORNE-First thing I do is I check, and to answer, I’m not going to be circuitous here, is I check for completeness on, against the resolution, and make sure that it’s a full, it’s been addressed fully. Once it’s been addressed fully, I send it out. Usually that Friday, or that day or the next day. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So roughly VISION Engineering has three weeks to review and turn that around. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that I usually fast track. Things that are tabled to a specific date and we get that application in, I always say to the applicant, get it in as soon as possible, 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) th because then we can send it out to VISION Engineering, but invariably it’s the 15 that they submit. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I have my answer. MR. FORD-A suggestion, and if it’s unworkable, I know you’ll let me know. What if we th were to transition from this 15 deadline for submission, over a six month period, th dropping it back a day, each month, like next month it would be the 14, and the month th after that would be the 13. The whole thrust of this being to try to give, get the material to VISION Engineering earlier so that we can not have this 35 items on a list going to an applicant and coming to us. Could something like that, that kind of a transition, work? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that’s going to help in regards to the time it takes to do reviews. That’s the issue, is there’s not enough days in the month to. MR. KREBS-Yes, but what he’s saying is move it back 15 days eventually, which gives you an additional window of 15 days. MR. OBORNE-But the Planning Board meetings are on the same dates. That doesn’t change the fact that we still have to do the review in the same amount of time. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and at some point it would make it impossible for us to table something, two months out, it would end up being. MR. KREBS-I think what Tom was saying is that you’d eventually end up with a deadline stth being the 1 of the month rather than the 15. Right? MRS. STEFFAN-But it may only give an applicant. MR. SEGULJIC-The applicants are submitting poor plans. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s part of it, but I think that there’s many issues here, and I certainly things that were covered in our workshop about having a more complete intake process is going to help. I think the new form is excellent, and that will make some changes. MR. TRAVER-And making the resolutions clearer. MRS. STEFFAN-But if we make some changes to the engineering scenario, maybe we can improve process, because we’ve obviously got a systemic problem. MR. OBORNE-There are other Town Boards, Town Planning Boards, and I sit on one. The way they do it is they’ll get the application and they’ll review the application and then they’ll make a resolution to open, not open a public hearing, but set a date for a public hearing, because they feel that they have enough information, but those are usually, that’s a Board that doesn’t have Staff either. MR. HUNSINGER-Or a lot of work. MR. OBORNE-Or a lot of work. Exactly, but that’s one thing, a lot of Boards have completion reviews at the meetings. They look over and they say to the applicant, or amongst yourselves, is this application complete. Well that onus is on Staff in this Town. So just to tell you that a lot of applicants go through the same thing everywhere else. It’s not a perfect process, I mean, there’s no, ifs, ands or buts about that. I can’t catch every little thing in every application, either. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely. MR. FORD-So because there are a certain number of days in a month, starting to move it back at a transition wouldn’t help, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I think you’re going to find that it’s going to, well, I know I’m going to find that it’s going to put a lot of pressure on me, you know, after a few days have been put back, to getting my notes out on time. Because now you’re starting to get an overlap from the month before. I mean, not only do I deal with the Planning Board, I deal with the Zoning Board also. MR. TRAVER-Yes, bottom line is, no matter what day the applicant submits, there’s still only X number of days in a month and Y number of applications to be reviewed. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. OBORNE-You’ve got to add two weeks to the month. MR. FORD-One of the things that we’re not addressing is we can’t change the number of days in the month, but we can address the issue of personnel, and if we have insufficient personnel to address these issues, then it’s a personnel issue. If we need more than one VISION Engineering engineer, addressing these issues, so that we get a quicker turnaround, then that’s another personnel issue. MR. OBORNE-VISION Engineering does have Staff. I mean, Mike Farrell is a principal of VISION Engineering. MR. TRAVER-But that’s not going to be budgeted until applicants start getting pushed out further on the agenda and they have to wait longer to get on the agenda. If we limited how many reviews we did, it would become an issue for development for the Town, and the only way to answer it would be to increase the support to enable us to process more applications per month, let’s say, and that would then compel the powers that be to say we need to bring more resources to bear, so that applicants don’t have to wait as long. MR. OBORNE-I have a saying that I say around the office is that Staff needs Staff, and it’s very true, Staff does need Staff, but I’m telling you, Staff is not going to get Staff. MR. SIPP-Yes, but you’re understaffed now. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think we are. We’re understaffed by a Senior Planner. MR. SIPP-You have been understaffed for two or three years, and why doesn’t the Town Board bring the Staff up to where it should be? MR. OBORNE-That would be a question for the Town Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Because they don’t want the overhead, which I don’t agree with, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they don’t ant to spend the money. MR. TRAVER-And also because we are, bottom line is because we’re handling the applications that we’re getting. MR. OBORNE-And you are. MR. TRAVER-If that didn’t happen, then you watch and see how many more Staff we would get. MR. SIPP-There’s got to be more people in here. MR. KREBS-Well, you know, in Dan’s e-mail back to me, he said it’s up to the Board to tell us what you need. MR. SIPP-Then they should hire more people. Tell them they should hire more people in the Planning Department. MR. KREBS-Well, if we had a resolution from the Planning Board. MR. SIPP-I’ll make a resolution. MOTION THAT WE ASK THE TOWN BOARD AND THE TOWN SUPERVISOR TO ADD MORE EMPLOYEES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, Introduced by Donald Sipp who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-That’s a pretty broad motion. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan ABSTAINED: Mr. Seguljic 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/16/09) MR. SIPP-I mean, this, to me, is the same as what happened with the alternates. We were two years, or almost two years, without any alternates. Why? Because the Town Board wouldn’t do it. Then all of a sudden they sprung for all kinds of alternates? Why was there a drought in between? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think certainly we’re dealing with issues that are actually bigger than the Planning Board, and the reason why I just voted no on that is that I’m a Human Resource professional, and I certainly wouldn’t make a recommendation like that without an assessment. We used to have an Executive Director of Community Development. We no longer have that. So certainly I believe that there needs to be some kind of a systemic review of the Community Development Department to see where their performance shortfalls lie, and what the needs really are. So I just wanted to put that on the record. Do I believe that the Community Development Department needs more horsepower, yes, but I also believe that they need an infrastructure review. MR. KREBS-But I also think that you could sit down with Craig, Stu, and Keith and find out where the holes are and as Town Supervisor, he’s the boss, okay. MR. TRAVER-I think we’re a victim of our own success. I think we’re able to have the occasional third meeting. We’re able, the applicants are getting their needs met. The Town is getting its needs met. If that stops happening and things start backing up, then it will become a squeaky wheel, but as it is right now, thanks to the effort of our Staff and our having an occasional third meeting, there isn’t really a problem, or at least it’s not a problem that people outside this community are really aware of. When I say community, I mean the Planning Staff and the Planning Board. Because it works. We’re making it work, as best we can, and if the system starts breaking down, then all of a sudden people are going to so, we’ve got to do something about this. MR. OBORNE-It’s not broken. Is it perfect? No, but it’s not broken. I think that there’s room for improvement. There’s always room for improvement, absolutely. MR. FORD-We’ve moaned enough about this, so it’s time that something needs to get done about it. This whole issue of the engineering comments, you know. How many times do we address this without addressing it? MR. OBORNE-I mean, you certainly could, and, for the record, I’m stopping that thought. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I guess I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 16, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 50