Loading...
2009.07.07 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 7, 2009 INDEX Subdivision No. 8-2008 Christine Mozal 1. PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 289.14-1-27 Site Plan No. 39-2009 Redbud Development 7. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-10 Site Plan No. 40-2009 Scott Smith 14. Freshwater Wetlands 6-2009 Tax Map No. 266-3-1-8 Subdivision No. 5-2009 Michael & Christina Breda 22. SKETCH/PRELIM/FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30 Site Plan No. 41-2009 Michael & Christina Breda 29. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30 Subdivision No. 6-2009 Linda Dator 36. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 240.5-1-30 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 07/07/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 7, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ACTING CHAIRMAN THOMAS SEGULJIC, VICE-CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, MEMBER STEPHEN TRAVER, MEMBER DONALD SIPP, MEMBER PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN ENGINEER-VISION ENGINEERING-DAN RYAN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY th MRS. STEFFAN: Good evening folks. I’d like to call to order the July 7 special meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board. I’d like to remind everybody if you have a cell phone it needs to be on vibrate please and if you have to take a call please do so out in the lobby. The first item on the agenda is Christine Mozal Subdivision 8-2008 Preliminary and Final stage review. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGES SEQR UNLISTED CHRISTINE MOZAL AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; M. O’CONNOR ZONING WR-1A, WR-3A LOCATION 99 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.42 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.0 & 2.42 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 77-98, SP 34-91, AV 70-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA/NWI GLEN LK CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 3.42 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-27 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. O’CONNOR: Good evening, for purpose of your record I’m Michael O’Connor representing the applicant and with me is Tom Hutchins who is the applicant’s project engineer and also with me at the table is Christine Mozal. We have seen the latest letter from Vision Engineering and believe the only issue that they left open was the question of the location of the well and we have had the site visited by Rosick well drillers and they have sent an e-mail saying they can access that site and that they can put a well in on where we show it on our mapping. There was a question I think also whether or not we had filed the letter from DEC as to protected habitat and we have filed it now so it is in the file I believe so there should be no issue on that. MRS. STEFFAN: Keith you have a copy of that. MR. OBORNE: Yes. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay. MR. O’CONNOR: The other question I had a question not necessarily from what the engineering comment was more as to the staff comments and that had to do with the resolution that tabled this and I would even before refer to that comment again thank you on behalf of the applicant for convening a special meeting not necessarily just for her but it certainly was a great convenience to her to have you do this. The language that you had in your tabling resolution I think needs to be clarified so that we all understand what we were attempting to do and the language I’m referring to is No. 1 that the applicant can add a plat notation that site plan review will be required for any exterior alteration to the existing structure and/or the building of a single family dwelling. My comments as to that were related to whether we would add some deck or something of that nature to the building. Obviously we are going to change the exterior of the building on one side I think there a three car garage doors and we convert this to a single family home we’re not going to leave those doors as that so there is going to be some filling in, there may some changing of windows, there will no expansion and that’s what I meant is that we would not expand the footprint of the existing building unless we came back for site plan 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) review. I just wanted to see if that was what you understood me to say and I suppose even since I thought of that I’m not sure the elevation of the door step and if it’s over a certain number of inches you now have to have a 3 foot by 3 foot stoop or step to step on. So that’s a possibility. But I think its pretty well level with the ground, isn’t it? So we may not have to do that but I know I’ve run in to that before remember with the cabins at Takundewide we got area variances and site plan approval and everything else and then when they went to get building permits they were told unless they were ground level they had to have a stoop by building code. So that stoop is the only exterior thing that we believe that we would be talking about and the second part of the language was and/or the building of a single family dwelling. If you meant in addition to this existing building certainly there’s no plans on doing that. But I didn’t know if you were saying we needed that to convert the inside of the building to single family and we don’t think that would have any site plan impacts so I just wanted to be clear and I would suggest this language site plan review will be required for any exterior expansion of the existing structure or the building of a separate single family dwelling. We haven’t given you copies of that but I’ll give you copies if you want to pass it so you can read it as well as hear me say it and see if you have a problem with it. MRS. STEFFAN: My recollection on this I think we were trying to accomplish a couple of things there and so I understand the clarification on the language because it is a little muddy from my point of view. MR. O’CONNOR: I just don’t want to get into the position with staff where we go to do something and staff says you have to come back. MRS. STEFFAN: Right and I don’t have the minutes here but one of the things I was thinking about is that I recollect that the discussion was that if you did interior changes we didn’t want you to have to come back for site plan review but if you did things on the exterior yes but. MR. O’CONNOR: But when you say on the exterior you mean in addition to the exterior that’s what my point is. MRS. STEFFAN: Right if you change the configuration of the building. MR. O’CONNOR: We have no problem with that. MR. OBORNE: If I may I think expansion is what you’re looking at. If you’re going to add a deck you’re probably going to want to come in for site plan review. If you’re going to change. MR. O’CONNOR: I’d challenge your language we would want to come in, we will come in. MR. OBORNE: And I can appreciate that but if you’re going to change your siding you don’t need to that. If you do anything on the interior well no unless you’re going to add another bedroom that is you know doesn’t make the wastewater system compliant. That a whole other issue, that is a building code issue. MR. O’CONNOR: That’s the whole purpose of my request to clarify. MR. OBORNE: Any expansion, yes. MR. O’CONNOR. The only exception I would have is if they make us do this 2 foot by 3 foot stoop, if we have to put a step to get into the building to make it code compliant I would ask that that be considered not an expansion of the building. MR. OBORNE: The Planning Board can’t do that. MR. O’CONNOR: Okay but the Planning Board can make their resolution of approval not conditioned upon us coming for site plan review for that, there is no other requirement for site plan if we. MR. OBORNE: Is there an issue with that do you believe? MR. O’CONNOR: I haven’t been to the building in awhile and I’ve, it’s not a big issue. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MRS. STEFFAN: Any other comments from the Planning Board or any comments from the Planning Board or any questions from the PB. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this application? I guess not, okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. STEFFAN: And I believe this is a SEQR long form? MR. OBORNE. This is a SEQR for, this is the subdivision, so, yes, the long form. Excuse me, ma’am, it’s an unlisted SEQR. MRS. STEFFAN: Right, Unlisted. Excuse me, I forgot the other hat that I was wearing. MR. OBORNE: A point of clarification, it is an unlisted SEQR but it is under the auspicious of the long form. Does that make sense? MRS. STEFFAN: Yes MR. O’CONNOR: Because it’s in the CEA, because part of it’s in the CEA? MR. OBORNE: Yes MRS. STEFFAN: Yes, a long form was submitted according to my notes. Okay since there is no one to speak to this application I will close the public hearing. And we will commence SEQR. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-2008, Introduced Gretchen Steffan by who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp : WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CHRISTINE MOZAL, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 7 day of July, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MRS. STEFFAN : Then I will make a motion to approve preliminary stage subdivision 8- 2008 for Christine Mozal according to the resolution as prepared by staff RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION 8-2008 CHRISTINE MOZAL 1.A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.42 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 & 2.42 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2.A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/28/09; and 3.This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4.MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION 8-2008 CHRISTINE MOZAL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Donald According to the resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MRS. STEFFAN: I’ll make a motion to approve final stage subdivision 8-2008 for Christine Mozal according to the resolution as prepared by staff. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 8-2008 CHRISTINE MOZAL 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.42 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 & 2.42 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 5/28/09; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) 4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008, CHRISTINE MOZAL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf Paragraph 4A complies, 4B Negative, Paragraph 4E & F do not apply. This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the plat notation that was noted in our previous resolution [read into the record]. That language will be replaced with Site Plan will be required for any exterior expansion of the existing structure or the building of a separate single family dwelling. 2.Also, the applicant will need to submit the letter from Rosick Well Drillers that can access the site and can put in a well on the site and that will be submitted to our staff. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that each lot in the subdivision 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)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 h)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. O’CONNOR: We thank you very much. MS. MOZAL: Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN: Good luck with your project. MR. O’CONNOR: If you’re not going to use the maps we’d like to collect them. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay folks the next item on the agenda is Redbud Development Site Plan 39-2009. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) SITE PLAN NO. 39-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED REDBUD DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) GEFF REDICK OWNER(S) DONNA SUTTON ZONING HC-MOD [NOW CM] LOCATION 1066 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,187 SQUARE FEET PATIO RETAIL AREA. EXPANSION OF A RETAIL UES IN THE HC-MOD ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SUBJECT TO 2009 ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE SP 42-07, SP 15-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/10/09 LOT SIZE 6.98, 1.02 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-10 SECTION 179-9-010 GEFF REDICK & ERIC ROSETTI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE: Ma’am, I’ll read this into the record. MRS. STEFFAN: This is the first time we’ve seen this so Keith can you preview this for us? MR. OBORNE: Site Plan 39-2009, Red Bud Development for Suttons. Requested Action, expansion of a retail use in the HC Mod zone requires Planning Board review, subject to the 2009 Ordinance. Location 1066 Route 9. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of 1,187 square feet of patio retail area. Expansion of a Retail Use in the HC-Mod zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: Site Plan 42-2007, which is similar to this proposal, was approved with conditions on August 21, 2007 (see attached). The removal of a fire pit and a change to storm water controls appear to be the differences. The applicant did not begin the project within the one year required time frame and as such the approval has lapsed. The current proposal calls for the addition of approximately 1,190 square feet of patio to the front of the furniture store to be used for outdoor retail display. The patio, according to the applicant, will utilize porous pavers to collect runoff to infiltration trenches installed below grade. Patio details to include infiltration trenches are located in the Engineering Report for Storm Water Management dated April 13, 2009 and revised May 12, 2009. Plan review follows, and I’ll just go over those real quick. Utility locations not noted on plan. Please clarify location of gas, electric, water and sewer on plot plan. The proposal appears to remove a portion of the existing landscaping. Please clarify any proposed replacement landscaping, and I’d turn it over to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN: Can you please introduce yourselves? MR. ROSETTI: I’m Eric Rosetti, I’m with Redbud Development and along with me is Geff Reddick from Redbud Development also. MRS. STEFFAN: And could you explain your project in a little more detail? MR. ROSETTI: Essentially what we’re trying to do is create a project for Sutton’s to expand their retail space so they can have some a display area for outdoor furniture and things of that nature. The initial approval was based on stormwater controls utilizing dry wells and subsurface drainage to those dry wells. We were trying to figure out alternative routes and alternative methods to decrease costs to our client. We came up with the use of permeable pavers which utilize underground infiltration trenches which is specified in our engineering report. MRS. STEFFAN: Planning Board members what questions do you have for the applicant? MR. TRAVER: Can you clarify the issue of the landscaping, how the landscaping has been altered from your original proposal in 2007. MR. ROSETTI: Yes, I’ve actually got plans if you’d all like a copy to see the new landscaping that got left off of the submitted drawing, if that helps. MRS. STEFFAN: Is the purpose of this new area to replace the outdoor patio area that exists, they’re currently at the furniture building right now if you’re standing in front of the building over to the right there are a lot of patio furniture. MR. ROSETTI: No this is actually in addition and we’re trying to also enhance the appearance of the front of the building because right now it’s, that area is just grass and there is minor landscaping along the foundation of the building. The area to the left where is says existing concrete walk, just to the right of that there are existing plantings 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) and there is a vacant spot, we weren’t planning on replacing any of the plantings there. Only the additional plantings on the plan that you see here. MR. SIPP: When you say existing maples are these red maple or sugar maple or MR. ROSETTI: I believe they are sugar maples and what they are for the project they have to be shifted forward approximately three to five feet just to get outside of our patio area so we’re essentially just going to dig a trench, pull them forward, and then reinstall them. MR. SIPP: If they are sugar maple are affected by salt so, if salt is going to be used on the parking lot you’re going to have some problems, red maple is not MR. ROSETTI: I believe we’ve got a decent distance between the parking lot and where the trees MR. SCHONEWOLF : You’re a ways from the road aren’t you? MR. ROSETTI: Yes, I think he’s referring to the parking lot itself, but I think we’ve got approximately 10 or 12 feet off the parking lot. MR. SIPP: Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF: So the gravel parking stays where it is? MR. ROSETTI: Yes, we are not doing anything with the gravel parking. MR. SCHONEWOLF: Any runoff from the clothing store? MR. ROSETTI: I don’t believe we, we’re not touching any of the parking lots so I’m not actually sure exactly what you’re referring to. MR. KREBS: How high are those timbers? It says existing timbers along the parking lot? MR. ROSETTI: I believe there is just one timber bordering the parking lot. MR. KREBS: I was just thinking about water from parking lot to go into the lawn area. MR. ROSETTI: Yes, I’ve got a catalog here with the permeable pavers in it if anyone is interested in seeing those as well. MRS. STEFFAN: I think fortunately we’re familiar with the pavers because we just had a project come through with using pavers. MR. ROSETTI: Okay. MR. JACKOSKI: Now is that pavers or permeable pavers? MRS. STEFFAN: They were permeable pavers cause we were in an area where there was a lot of sheet flow runoff and so we were dissecting them actually, not just evaluating, but dissecting the project. Any other questions from the Planning Board? MR. SIPP: You’re going to remove the barbecue, that’s going to be removed. MR. ROSETTI: The outdoor barbecue is going to remain, that is actually a feature that they are retailing. MR. OBORNE: It’s a fire pit, that’s being removed. MR. SCHONEWOLF: The fire pit’s being removed, the barbecue is stays. MR. OBORNE: Yes. MR. SIPP: In the original 2007 site plan review there was a question of light spillage or excess light. Has this been taken care of? MR. ROSETTI: That has been resolved, yes. I guess I didn’t touch on the utility location. The utility locations currently run if you’re facing the plan there on the left side 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) and they run behind the store and restaurant portion of the building and then they cut around and tie in to the left side of the sales building on the plan. MR. OBORNE: Are they on the plans? MR. ROSETTI: I believe the water line is on there, I added the gas line on to my. MR. OBORNE: On the final submission, if I may speak here, just make sure you get those on there, locate them on the final plans. MR. ROSETTI: Okay, no problem. MR. OBORNE: Along with the landscaping you’re proposing. MR. ROSETTI: Yes, okay. MRS. STEFFAN: Any further questions from the board at this time? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. STEFFAN: Could you give up the table, we’d like to open up the public hearing. Ma'am, and if you could introduce yourself, your name and address. LISA FARNUM MS. FARNUM: My name is Lisa Farnum and I live at 18 Twicwood Lane which is beeline right behind this project. I love Sutton’s, great people, class A company, however, as far as being a neighbor is concerned I have had issues in the past and I’m wondering how the new activity there and the building there is going to affect the buffer zone behind the building. I know a lot of those trees have already come down. There is still a buffer between my property and this property I’d like to see it remain intact. I’ve also had problems in the past because of trucks being parked overnight with the headlights on pointing into my bedroom window. Dumpsters being emptied out at 5- 6 in the morning, you know they lift up the dumpsters and bang them against the truck. So I’m concerned about those sorts of issues, but also anything that might affect my property value. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, any questions? There is a driveway that goes up beyond behind that building. Oh gosh I can’t see that. The reason I’m asking that question is if you have lights that are coming into your home are they from the parking lot in front of the furniture store? MS. FARNUM: No, they’re on the side of well the last photo that was up there shows sort of the end of the building there where the, right behind that so there have been 18 wheelers parked over there like overnight I guess the drivers are sleeping or whatever. It hasn’t been for a few months now but if there is going to be increased activity there then I would have those same concerns again, but I, okay you see the trees to the right of the building there, if you go straight back, oh wait, is that the Toy Cottage? MRS. STEFFAN: Behind the furniture store toward Cottage MS. FARNUM: So I’m looking at it this the wrong way. I’m talking about if you’re looking at Sutton’s, my property is right behind the space there between the Toy Cottage and where this patio is. I’m right back there. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, so the truck is pulled in with their lights at the bank but that shoots at your house. MS. FARNUM: There is somewhat of a buffer now, there’s still trees there, there is somewhat of a visual buffer that serves also to buffer noise, but I’ve noticed that some of that has come down next door to me and I’m concerned that that all will be taken down. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, thank you very much, Mrs. Farnum. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? LINDA MCNULTY 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MRS. MC NULTY: Twicwood Lane, um, we’re also behind Sutton’s Marketplace and we have experienced over the last several years an immense amount of vegetation being taken down, I know that when the Town went through in 1987 and rezoned the property behind us which at that time was residential to Highway Commercial they left us with a 50 foot buffer. That’s totally inadequate, I really hate to see anymore of the trees come down. There is more than 50 feet behind us but they did go ahead and they did extreme clearing behind two neighbors down from us, they did have to replant, however, the plantings I think were about 4 foot tall cedars which doesn’t make a hoot of difference. I really would like to see more supervision I guess on the project. I’m not really in favor of it seeing as how they’ve gone ahead and done some clearing but there is not too much we can. MR. KREBS: Linda, have they cleared anything in that 50 foot buffer? MRS. MC NULTY: Yes they did, two doors down, well actually three doors down from where our house is. MRS. STEFFAN : And I’m assuming the town made them MRS. MC NULTY; Replant, however, like I said, they’re about three to four foot tall cedars from the looks, from what we can see. MRS. STEFFAN : Okay, any questions? Thank you Mrs. McNulty. Is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak to this application? Okay Geoff and Erik, if you’d like to come back up to the table please. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN: Perhaps you could address the buffer situation and tell us a little bit about the history and bring us up to date. MR. ROSETTI: The buffer area really is not been anything that we’ve been involved with. We’ve really just focused on the front of the building. If you have a frontal shot I can maybe show a little bit better where our project is, but we do not intend to do any work out behind Sutton’s. Essentially if you see where the two pillars come down that area of grass there is where we intend to build this patio and in all actuality when you think about how big the furniture is the amount of volume that I think they’re going to be setting there is not tremendous. And that’s really the extent of our project. We don’t intend to do anymore clear cutting or cutting in the back behind the building. Our project will not affect any of the buffer area. MR. OBORNE: Ma’am, I did have a conversation with Bruce Frank, Code Compliance Officer, and we did discuss those buffer clearing that took place and Ms. McNulty had touched on that and the trees were planted at his request or his demand actually so they will grow eventually obviously, not large enough probably but the issue seems to have been not necessarily resolved but at least mitigated at this point. Code Compliance is aware of that, these guys, and again, I’m not, you know, on anybody’s side here are doing work in the front that really does not affect anybody. MRS. STEFFAN: Thank you for that input, that at least clears up the Town’s oversight, obviously. MR. OBORNE: And I will say Code Compliance will be out to make sure that it’s done correctly once and if its approved. MRS. STEFFAN: How would the Board like to proceed? Mr. Traver? MR. TRAVER: I think they’ve addressed my concerns. MRS. STEFFAN: Mr. Krebs? MR. KREBS: Yes, I’ve, you know, I understand their concern in the back but this is something that is being done totally in front of the building and doesn’t affect that buffer at all. MRS. STEFFAN: Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP: If the lighting is sufficient , taken care of and the landscaping looks good. I’d proceed, I think. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MRS. STEFFAN: Okay. Mr. Schonewolf? MR. SCHONEWOLF: I have no problems with it. MRS. STEFFAN: Mr. Jackoski? MR. JACKOSKI: I have no questions. MRS. STEFFAN: Then I will close the public hearing. And this is an Unlisted Short. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. KREBS-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 39-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: REDBUD DEVELOPMENT FOR SUTTONS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 7th day of, July, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MRS. STEFFAN: Now we need a motion for this. Mr. Krebs and Mr. Traver could you put together a motion, just take a few minutes and put together a motion on this one. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. KREBS: Sure. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN 39-2009 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT FOR SUTTON’S RESOLUTION: SP 39-2009 INTRODUCED BY: Stephen Traver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Steven Jackoski 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of 1,187 square feet of patio retail area. Expansion of a Retail Use in the HC-Mod zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Subject to 2009 Ordinance. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/7/09; 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. 39-2009 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT FOR SUTTON’S, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: According to the resolution prepared by staff. Paragraph 4a complies. Paragraph 4b is a negative declaration. This approval is made with the following conditions: 1.That as part of the final submission that the landscaping details be added 2.The location of the utilities be placed on the final drawing. b)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 c)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and d)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 e)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 f)NOT APPLICABLE. If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and g)NOT APPLICABLE. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and h)Waiver requests granted / denied: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans] 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) i)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 j)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. k)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NOI [Notice of Intent] SWPPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan] & NOT [Notice of Termination] - see staff l)The applicant shall submit a copy of a NYS SPDES [State Pollution Discharge Elimination System] th Duly adopted this 7 day of July 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MRS. STEFFAN: And I just to note for the record that we appreciate Bruce Frank following up on this project and we would encourage his follow up on the site plan review and development of plan. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay the next item on the agenda is Scott Smith, Site Plan 40-2009. & Freshwater Wetlands Permit 6-2009 for the Queensbury Country Club. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCOTT SMITH AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY COUNTRY CLUB ZONING NC-1A LOCATION 907 ROUTE 197 APPLICANT PROPOSES PARKING LOT ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO DOT ROUTE 149 RECONSTRUCTION. FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF WETLANDS IN AN NC ZONE REQUIRES BOTH SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT. SUBJECT TO 2009 ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE NONE APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 209.76 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-8 SECTION 179-4-040, 179-9-010 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE: Site Plan 40-2009 Freshwater Wetlands 6-2009, Scott Smith, Queensbury Country Club. This is Site Plan Review for parking lot reconfiguration and filling within 50 feet of a wetland. This is a Neighborhood Commercial zone. The Type is Unlisted SEQRA status. The Project Description: Applicant proposes a Parking lot reconfiguration due to DOT Route 149 reconstruction. Filling within 50 feet of wetlands in a NC zone requires both Site Plan Review and a Freshwater Wetlands permit. Staff Comments. The applicant appears to be losing a portion of an existing parking lot due to a DOT taking associated with the Route 149 road project currently underway. The loss of 26 parking spaces are anticipated as a result of the road project and the applicant proposes to replace those spaces in kind by developing lands directly to the west of the remaining spaces by filling, grading and re-surfacing with gravel. Total area of disturbance, according to the applicant, equals 0.37 acres or 16,200 square feet. What follows is Plan Review, and I turn it over to the Board MRS. STEFFAN: Thank you. Could you please introduce yourselves for the record MR. JARRETT: Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and Scott Smith the owner of Queensbury Country Club. MRS. STEFFAN. Tell us a little bit about your situation. MR. JARRETT: I’ll let Scott introduce the background history and then I’ll tell you what we are intending to do to resolve it. SCOTT SMITH MR. SMITH: Hi, the golf course has been in my family since 1970. My father bought in as a partner and bought out his partner in 1976. I’m currently married and my wife and I, I bought out my parents 10 years ago and my wife has become partners with me. It’s 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) been a family run business, we employ 42 people, we’ve been around here a long time. So DOT has come through with this project and they are taking all of our front parking so we’re trying to recoup some parking to stay in business I guess is the bottom line. MR. JARRETT: Some of it is right-of-way that was technically owned by the DOT originally but it’s been used for 60 years and no one made an issue and the remainder of it is actually land that Scott owned and they’re taking a portion of that to expand and widen and redesign the road. A minimum of 26 spaces are being lost as we document on the plan and the easiest way to recoup or recover some of that parking or all of the parking, the 26 spaces, is to expand into a brushy swale immediately west of the parking on the north side of the road. For those of you who have visited the site you can see there is a depression, there is a swale, its drainage from Rout 149 that flows north. There is also a spring that breaks the hillside that we’ve identified on our plan and that leads to a little wetland finger that starts more than 100 feet north of 149 and then leads into a jurisdictional wetland that is further to the west. We’ve designed the project to stay south and away from that spring and from the wetland. It will not impact that. What we’ve done is added back to back parking with an aisle between spaces to give us 26 spaces and we’ve intended, we’re planning to build a very shallow swale at the edge of the parking area to the north edge of the parking area to divert all of the runoff from this parking into an existing swale on the golf course. Any of you who have played golf there know there is a swale between the parking lot and first fairway. What we plan to do is block that off and use it as retention to treat stormwater from not only the new parking but a pretty sizable chunk of existing parking lot so really this project ends up being an environmental benefit, in our opinion, because not only do we not get direct discharge of road runoff into the wetland but we’re infiltrating runoff from the parking area before it gets to the wetland and treating it. So we think there’s a double benefit here. Our focus tonight is really not to get into the engineering comments that were issued. I’d really like to focus more on where what the Board would like to see from us. We’ve asked for several waivers, and primarily topographic information and detailed stormwater calculations are the waivers that we feel we need to expedite this project and keep it affordable. Dan’s office has recommended that the waivers not be granted but I’d like to throw that to the Board and see what the Board’s feelings are on those waivers. MR. SCHONEWOLF: So you’re losing all of the south side? MR. JARRETT: Essentially, everything to the west of the club house right on the shoulder of the road. MR. SCHONEWOLF: The driving range is going to remain. MR. JARRETT: The driving range on the other side of the road is going will remain. MRS. STEFFAN: So that part of road is untouched, pretty much. MR. SMITH: Basically they are going to widen it. MR. JARRETT: It’s going to widen it, but it’s not going to lose, we’re not going to lose the driving range MR. SMITH: Because that’s back farther from the road. MR. JARRETT: But as you know crossing that road to use that parking over there is very hazardous. I don’t like to do it. MRS. STEFFAN: Especially after they widen the road it’ll be even more challenging. th MR. SCHONEWOLF: Does the road come right up against the 18 green? MR. SMITH: The upper green there is a sand trap in the berm and I think they are going to leave most of that berm there, they’re going get into the berm a little bit but mostly it’s going to stay there. MR. SCHONEWOLF: The road is going to be below it. MR. SMITH: Yes. MR. JARRETT: I don’t think they’re modifying the road elevation much in that location 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. SMITH: In front of the club house they are dropping it a meter so the line of sight will improve. MR. JARRETT: Good for the road. Good for travel. MRS. STEFFAN: I know we had another actually it was a sketch plan that came in front of us a month or two ago and they weren’t so lucky. They lost a quite a bit of property to the change in grade on Route 149. MR. JARRETT: In discussing this with the APA I understand there are other properties that are before them for projects and applications and I think you’ll see more too. MRS. STEFFAN: Yes. MR. JARRETT: You’ll note that I’ve handed out a letter that was sent to me via fax today and a copy was sent to your Planning Office. Essentially the APA has approved this project but you can read the letter yourself. MRS. STEFFAN: What is the cost associated with a topographic survey and I don’t need to know exact amounts just ballpark. One of the things that you mentioned Mr. Jarrett was the cost of some of these requirements. MR. JARRETT: I didn’t get a quote specific to this but typically you’re looking $1000 to $2000 for something of this nature. And then there is detailed engineering to go through the stormwater calculations which you know, frankly, I have no problem doing but I just didn’t think it was warranted for this project and I was trying to save Scott some money. MR. SIPP: What is the soil type in this area? MR. JARRETT: It’s mixed, it’s a loamy, it’s not a highly permeable soil but it’s not clay either, so it’s a loamy mixture I think MR. SIPP: How deep to water? MR. JARRETT: In the area where our swale is it’s relatively deep because the wetland actually drains quite a bit lower in elevation away from our swale so we have some depth to groundwater there. MR. SEGULJIC : So if I’m understanding this you propose to build additional parking to the west, it that going to be paved or is that going to be the bluestone MR. JARRETT: No its going to be similar to what’s there now basically a gravel. MR. SEGULJIC : But what you’re going to have to do is essentially going to fill in a part of an existing swale then, because when I look at your drawings essentially that’s what you’re going to be doing, you’re going to be MR. JARRRETT: It’s a brushy swale right now I don’t know if Keith has a photo, you’re looking almost directly west now and the brush beyond the lawn is the swale that we’d be filling in. That’s looking more toward 149 a little bit southwest MR. SEGULJIC : Is that the area you’ll be filling in then. MR. JARRETT: That’s the edge. MR. SEGULJIC : Where the trees are coming back. MR. JARRETT: Those trees are coming down by DOT actually, those are within the DOT ROW, they’ll be coming down by them. Our fill would probably start approximately there and go across the swale through here. MR. SEGULJIC : And then the next picture you have on your drawing, is that like your check dam? MR. JARRETT: Right that is. MR. SEGULJIC : You’re going to build that across an existing depression to 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. JARRETT: Right. That swale right there, actually that’s, yes, that’s the swale right there, we’re going to put check dams across that. This parking area will drain into that and we’ll use, we’ll retain water there and infiltrate it in that swale. MR. SEGULJIC : So you’re contending is that it is going to be more treatment than what’s existing now. MR. JARRETT: Right, all this water right now just runs straight out of the swale into the wetland, so what we’re going to do is retain it and infiltrate it. MR. SEGULJIC : Okay, then I guess the question is, if I may ask Mr. Ryan, then. Mr. Jarrett had eluded that had recommended against granting the waivers, for the topographical and stormwater? MR. RYAN: Yes, for the stormwater and topographical grading information. MR. SEGULJIC: Can you shed some light on that for me? MR. RYAN: Yes, I’m familiar with the site, I actually had the pleasure to golf there Thursday so being that the conditions have been pretty rainy I would I guess there were a couple of things that we’re concerned about. There is relatively shallow bedrock scattered throughout that property. There is also a lot of shallow water table in particular in this area. I know fairway 1 was extremely wet last week with standing water. Some areas with one foot of water on them, so I seriously doubt we’ll get too much infiltration but certainly in terms of the amount of stormwater I’m concerned about runoff from DOT’s highway, what are they doing for modifications and drainage patterns, are they altering them? There is no reference here to what DOT is actually doing as part of their changes that they’re proposing there. There is a lot of coordination I think that needs to go into this project to make it enforceable number one by the town and number 2 to ensure that DOT knows how much fill can come in and what their limits of the proposed project are. MR. SEGULJIC: Not to put you on the spot, conceptually does it sound good we’ve got to just work on the details. MR. RYAN: I think conceptually this project has got merit, there is no question about that. I think that we just need to be careful on what we’re proposing in proximity to the wetlands. We have a wetland delineation, of course, I don’t know how that was depicted on this particular map if’s not tied to a survey so I have no idea really spatially where it is and what type of buffer that they’re providing so I think there’s merit here to the extent that it’s being proposed I don’t know until we have additional information. MR. SEGULJIC: So let’s make sure we do it right then. MR. RYAN: Yes. MR. SIPP: I’ll like to see a map with the wetlands, at least approximately where they are. MR. JARRETT: Well the map we gave you has the wetlands delineated by a wetlands biologist and I measured off Rt. 149 myself to locate those flags for the delineation so I would say its within six inches to a foot. I’m not a surveyor but I think I was pretty close. Okay. I’m being told by Scott that DOT went out with their wetlands specialist and marked the same areas that we did. MR. RYAN: Is there any DOT drawings available for their project for this particular area? MR. JARRETT: We were sent some drawings actually today for more consideration by Scott in another area and I think there is some overlap and I might be able to provide the board will some topo here now that we weren’t told of before but now they’ve provide to us. MR. RYAN: Yes, I would presume they have all the topo within their right of way, and any grading changes they’re making beyond those. MR. JARRETT: Originally we were told they didn’t go anything north of the right of way with their topo now I’ve seen some as of today and it does go somewhat north. I have to evaluate it yet. MR. RYAN: And you said their dropping the road one meter in front of the clubhouse? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. SMITH: That area I’m not exactly sure of it, directly in front of the clubhouse it will be dropping a meter. MR. RYAN: Okay. MR. SMITH: I imagine they’re a little bit. MR. JARRETT: Now I hope we don’t have to take responsibility for the DOT drainage but I was told that they’re going to drain the road now directly west create a ditch going into the main wetland at the bottom of the hill west of the club which off the record I’m not so sure is a great idea but that’s their plan. MRS. STEFFAN: Do you know Mr. Jarrett is the Whalen property next to the golf course, I’m just asking that because we did a site plan review for, 6 months ago and it was right in that area. MR. SEGULJIC : It was west of there down by the curve. I guess on of my concerns would also be in this is the Lake George CEA? MR. SCHONEWOLF: There going to drain the whole road down to the bottom of the hill. MR. JARRETT: That’s was I was told, only orally so please do not quote me on that. MR. RYAN: They are, actually construction wise they are up to this project just about MR. JARRETT: What they told Scott they’re not going to really work in this area for possibly later this summer, possibly not to the fall. MR. SMITH: It’s changed a little bit because they’re getting held up by National Grid moving all the utilities. So they are doing what they can in the areas between the poles. They may have to start on my section earlier. MRS. STEFFAN: When the applicant has requested waivers for lighting, stormwater calculations and the topographic information I have to admit when I read the package, its difficult, I’m looking at the costs being inflicted on this business owner because of a DOT project and I understand we have needs and in my mind I was just trying to reconcile you know how can we come to a happy medium between those two places. It seems unfair in some respects you know to make this applicant jump through hoops to meet our codes and I’m not saying our codes are not important but at the same time the applicant is having this project inflicted on them, the DOT is not held to any of our town standards, they do what they please. They are not subject to site plan review, they can call there own shots and chart their own destiny. So in my mind I thought we needed to come to some kind of happy medium between the two places. MR. JARRETT: And that’s what I was hoping to discuss tonight. MRS. STEFFAN: Comments from the Planning Board, questions. MR. SCHONEWOLF: Doesn’t DOT have to provide the homeowner with their final drawings so they know what’s going to go on in front of their own property. MR. RYAN: They should be available. MR. JARRETT: They’ve given Scott final drawings for the highway itself. MR. SCHONEWOLF: No, I’m talking about the drainage and. MR. JARRETT: I’ve not seen those drawings, we have not, I’ve been told that they’re draining their highway to the west, not through his property, in the ditch line to the west. MR. SCHONEWOLF: So that why they won’t give them to you. MR. JARRETT: Right now that portion of his property drains onto his property, excuse me, that portion adjacent is probably drains through his property to the wetland. They’re now going to divert it via a ditch to the main segment of wetland further to the west. MR. SCHONEWOLF: So your concern is draining the parking lot. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. JARRETT: We’ve provided for drainage from our parking lot, I’m not so sure from the big picture standpoint that I like draining the highway directly into the main wetland. That’s not part of this project. It’s a different animal altogether. That’s wearing a different hat at a different time. MR. SCHONEWOLF: You’re not sure its going to go there either, no matter what we say. MR. SEGULJIC: I understand what you’re saying Gretchen but whatever engineering is recommending, if its not done right it could cost them a lot more money. I can’t say it’s a minimal amount of money but I think I want to make sure its designed right. I think engineering recommending we should have that information to make sure its done correctly. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, How does the rest of the board feel? MR. TRAVER: I agree. MR. SIPP: I’d like to see some contours lines of the wetlands delineated on there. MR. JARRETT: We’ve got a timing issue that we need to discuss as well. As Scott alluded to we’re not sure when DOT is going to try and start through this area and work on this project. If we need to address these comments in detail and come back to the board which we obviously will we’d like to almost phase this now. We’d like to talk to the board about the ability to place the fill from DOT on the site and iron out the parking details and not start parking on it, not actually construct it and park on it until we iron out the details with the board. Would you entertain that concept? MR. SEGULJIC: You’re saying you want to place the fill for the parking area. MR. JARRETT: At least in that area or in some area on the site. MR. SEGULJIC: I would turn to our engineer and see what his opinion was on that. MR. JARRETT: I expected you would. MR. RYAN: I’m certainly not going to make that recommendation, I mean, I have projects that the town, we’re still waiting to approve and they are under construction and I certainly wouldn’t recommend that, but I would disagree that that is an acceptable way to move forward on this project. DOT has been under design probably for two years here, this project could have been incorporated in that had they known that they would looking for places to dump fill, but I don’t think that’s any reason to rush this. The timeframe of DOT, they really don’t care much about this project except that they need to dump their fill, the contractor needs to dump his fill somewhere that’s working for him. MR. JARRETT: I don’t think I would characterize it that way but I understand his comment. MR. SCHONEWOLF: You’re trying to get it done between the end of this golf season and the start of next year. MR. JARRETT: Absolutely, that’s right. MRS. STEFFAN: Keith, what do our agendas look like going forward. I didn’t check on that before the meeting today, what do our August and September’s agendas look like? MR. OBORNE: The August agenda, the first meeting is full, I believe we have 10 in the queue right now for August The agenda obviously has not been made up, there have nd been I think 4 tabled to August, obviously July is full, so it would be the 2 meeting in August, you do have a couple of slots in August. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, certainly it seems like the Planning Board is leaning toward having the Vision Engineering comments as well as the staff comments. Now we are at the, this is a special meeting, so we’re a little bit earlier in the month than usual. The th application for deadline for August is the 15 of July. We could give you a little more room on your application deadline in order to make that August meeting if you think you could turn the comments around in a two week period. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. JARRETT: I believe I can, it depends on how much of the topo information I’ve got from DOT as of today, if I’ve gotten most of what I need then I’m probably in pretty good shape. If I have to supplement that with additional topo information from a detailed field survey then I’m going to be in trouble time wise. MRS. STEFFAN; Well in that situation if we tabled you to August and you knew that you weren’t going to have the information you obviously would go on to the next agenda and you would end up in September anyway. MR. JARRETT: Right. MRS. STEFFAN; Right Keith? My logic sequenced. MR. JARRETT: I’m willing to give Keith a head’s up as to where we stand and if we need to move it forward in September we’ll do that. thth MR. OBORNE: Were you looking for a 15 or possibly the 24 or someone around there? nd MRS. STEFFAN: The 22 . nd MR. OBORNE: The 22 , the Wednesday afterwards. That’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN: It gives the applicant a little more time to address the issues but enough time for you to handle the administrative review. MR. JARRETT: That’s the submission deadline? MRS. STEFFAN: Yes, and we’re just trying to accommodate because of the, because it’s a DOT project and they are a lot of variables here. MR. JARRETT: We understand and we appreciate that. MRS. STEFFAN: And how does the Planning Board feel? The applicant has requested waivers for lighting, stormwater and topographic, obviously the Vision Engineering has made other recommendations, how does the Planning Board feel? MR. SEGULJIC : I have no problem with the lighting, you’re not doing anything with lighting correct? MR. JARRETT: No. MR. SEGULJIC: Okay. MRS. STEFFAN: And there was a comment in Vision Engineering which actually was a comment that I had, talked about the lights being an issue but yet the narrative was. MR. JARRETT: It was good comment from Dan’s office. That was my fault and we weren’t really, any of you who have played golf there know that you don’t play golf in the dark. I have to at times, but typically if you stop for a drink afterward or a sandwich you might end up in at dusk and you might turn your lights on and it is a Town standard to provide landscaping along the front. We thought it would dovetail with the DOT work but I described it wrong in the application. It was fault. MRS. STEFFAN: All right then, because there are so many comments I’m make the motion but I’m not going to specifically identify what issues because you’re going have to satisfy most of the staff comments as well as Vision Engineering comments so I won’t be specific with those. I will make a motion to table Site Plan 40-2009. Oh excuse I had a misstep here, this is only my second time being a chairman, so is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? There is a public hearing. Could you give up the table please? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. STEFFAN: Mr. Ryan. GEORGE RYAN 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. RYAN: George Ryan, 955 State Route 149. I’m right east to Scott. I think this is a good project. I think he needs some parking in there. But what needs to be looked at and you guys have to take advantage of this, there’s no parking entrance and exits on this road. It’s, to drive by this place is a nightmare if you have kids that drive, so while you have him here you should try to get some interest in some entrances and exits to make the road more safer. As far as his parking lot I think he deserves to have a nice parking lot and if you could fit it in, you know, he should have it. But you should take a look at the entrance and the exits. Myself I drive by there 4 or 5 times a day, it’s dangerous. It’s going to be better, there are going to cut the grade from my land to in front of his place three feet and its going to be better. As far as his parking lot I think he deserves a nice parking lot there, a little work, he should have it. I mean I think it’ll just make a better neighborhood and nice road. The cars are going to go by a lot faster, this is going to be like a highway, you know, and uh those are my concerns. But as far as the parking lot I think he deserves to have a nice parking lot where the cars could all go and I think you should work with him and try to get it done as fast as possible. Topographical map I mean that’s not a hard thing, you today they’ve got this eye in the sky. That guy could come back AND did his homework, he could have had it tonight. So that’s all I have to say, thank you. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, thanks Mr. Ryan. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? The public hearing will remain open. MR. JARRETT: I’d like to comment on that. The DOT has designated driveway entrances for the golf course now as part of the reconstruction so that the continuous quote end quote curb cut will be modified, it will be much more controlled than it is now. MR. SMITH: They’re actually installing island curbs all across the whole front of the property so there going to be one entrance and one exit. MR. JARRETT: Much better. MR. SMITH: They are going to be eight feet wide and they are taking all the front parking in the whole place so MR. RYAN: I’m sure you’re not against that, that its dangerous MR. JARRETT: Other than losing parking it will be an improvement MR. SMITH: That’s a whole other, what this project is addressing is the 26 spots on the western parking lot, then I still have to take care of all the spots I’m losing in the front so I’m going to have a hard time. I’m going to need parking to stay in business. I don’t want to build a building, I love that land, I want to keep working that land, I want to keep doing what I’m doing. MRS. STEFFAN: Well it’s an asset to that side of town, there’s no doubt about it. And it’s always beautiful to drive by. MR. SMITH: Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI : Mr. Smith, can I just clarify for the record I just want to make sure there is no conflict of interest. The previous owners were your parents and I believe they have ownership in the Takundewide HOA in Cleverdale? MR. SMITH: Yes they do. MR. JACKOSKI: But your parents no longer have ownership in the golf course? MR. SMITH: No, I bought them out 10 years ago. MR. JACKOSKI: Okay thank you. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, all right. MR. JARRETT: Should I have started this off by asking who plays golf at the course? MRS. STEFFAN: You don’t have to worry about me. Okay. I will make a motion to table RESOLUTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 40-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2009 SCOTT SMITH QUEENSBURY COUNTRY CLUB 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2009 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6- 2009 SCOTT SMITH QUEENSBURY COUNTRY CLUB, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th This will tabled to the August 25 Planning Board meeting. We will extend the nd application deadline for submissions to July 22 so the applicant can address the th staff comments of July 7 and can also address the substantial commentary by nd Vision Engineering in their letter dated July 2. th Duly adopted this 7 day of July 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan NOES: None MR. JARRETT: Thank you we’ll be back to you in some manner. MRS. STEFFAN: We’ll see you next month. The next item on the agenda is Subdivision 5-2009 sketch, preliminary and final stage for Michael & Christine Breda. SUBDIVISION 5-2009 SKETCH/PRELIMINARY/FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) ESTATE OF HELEN SLEIGHT ZONING NC-10 LOCATION 369 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.13 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.07 & 1.06 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 41-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.13 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30 SECTION A- 183 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE: Subdivision 5-2009, Michael & Christina Breda. Applicant requests Sketch, Preliminary and Final Stage subdivision review accomplished in one meeting. Location: 369 Aviation Road. Existing Zoning is Neighborhood Commercial. All lots to be a minimum of one acre. Neighborhood Residential, all lots to be a minimum of 0.5 acre per dwelling unit, if not connected to public sewer and water, or 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit if connected to public sewer and water. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.13 acre parcel into two lots of 1.07 and 1.06 acres. Clarification will be needed as Town of Queensbury records show the lot size to be 2.93 acres. Please note that the lot extends to the north side of Manor Drive. The subdivision proposal is in response to a potential traffic circle located at Aviation Ave, Dixon Ave and Farr Lane and a proposed Daycare facility to be built by the applicant. Please see applicant’s narrative for further explanation. Staff Comments: The parcel currently has a single family dwelling located on-site. The structure is to remain pending the construction of the traffic circle. The northern lot will be used as the site for a 6,500 square foot daycare center, fronting on Manor drive. The applicant has developed the subdivision layout based on conceptual plans for the traffic circle. According to the applicant, if the plans change and will require additional land, a future lot line change could be accomplished. What follows is Staff review. I do want one, under additional comments. Clarification of the parcel boundary must be forth coming. It appears that the dimensional requirements for both zones associated with this proposal can be met. The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to clarify the intentions of the northern portion of the lot north of Manor Drive. MRS. STEFFAN: Thank you. Would you like to introduce yourself for the record? MICHAEL BREDA MR. BREDA: Michael Breda owner of World Class Kids. MR. JARRETT: Tom Jarrett, Jarrett Engineers. This project comes about as a result of Mike trying to relocate his daycare facility, and I’ll let him elaborate on that, but we are also trying to accommodate Town needs with the potential for a traffic circle or round about at the intersection of Farr Lane and Aviation Road. This plan accommodates Mike’s needs for the day care facility along with the potential for the Town locating a round about on the southern portion of the property. We don’t know the status of that, Mike you can fill us in on that if you know anything further, but we don’t know the status 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) of that at this time whether it’s actually going to go or not. We’re leaving room for it, if it does not go then Mike will leave the existing structure in place and then eventually it may be replaced by another commercial use. If it is purchased by the town for a round about then we believe we’ve accommodated that appropriately. It leaves some issues up in the air and staff has enumerated those for you but frankly we don’t have anymore detail than that at this point. Do you want to add anything right now Mike? MR. BREDA: No MR. JARRETT: Again we received a list of comments from Vision Engineering and from staff. We don’t wish to get into the minor details of all those comments tonight but I would like to discuss some of the planning issues with you including ingress and egress to the site, sidewalks, landscaping, buffers that kind of thing. To see what the Board’s wishes are and how you feel about the overall plan. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay on the issue of the subdivision. It identifies in the project description that the records regarding the lot sizes, there is a discrepancy there and that has to be cleared up before this can move forward to approval. MR. JARRETT: We understand that. Mike had felt it had been wrapped up but apparently the paperwork is not in place to document that so the subdivision. MR. BREDA: What’s that? MR. JARRETT: The subdivision and the portion of the parcel north of Manor Drive. MR. BREDA: As far as I know Virginia Sleight, they have separated those, that lot north of on Manor, from this. When I had to contract to purchase this property over a year ago June that had been separated from this. I believe it has its own tax number now but that was not part of the purchase of this property here contract. MR. JARRETT: And I think that Keith will probably tell you that he didn’t find documentation of that so that’s why the question right? MR. OBORNE: There is no documentation, if you were to remove that that would have had to come through our office. You know, Craig could have done an administrative two lot subdivision but this is treated as one lot at least on GIS and in our records. MR. TRAVER: So we’ll clear that up. The question I had was with regard to the, and you brought up the issue Tom of the entrances and exits to the proposed project and I see in the comments there is a recommendation that it’s again it’s tied to the traffic circle proposal that the exit / entrance on to Farr Lane be eliminated from the plan and I’m wondering if since we don’t know definitively if this round about is to be created if the plan could call for Manor Drive only at this point and then if the circle were not to be come to fruition you could add the second entrance onto Farr Lane. MR. BREDA: We discussed that earlier and the whole reason when I first put a contract in on this property, this whole project was going to be up on Aviation Road frontage and I heard about the round about proposal talked to Dan Stec numerous times throughout this process, said okay, I’ll help you guys out, I’ll put everything I need on the back. But I would not only have preferred to be on Aviation Road frontage and had the front of the building facing Aviation but right now the front of the building faces Farr Lane. As far as removing the Farr Lane entrance exit I have a problem with but I would, and I talked to Tom about this, wouldn’t mind it being an entrance only which would eliminate that question that we just got. If it was entrance only and then Manor Drive have an exit that would be fine for me. But eliminating it is most of my traffic will be coming off of Aviation, so to have an entrance off of Farr is pretty important. Now it doesn’t have to exit there. Entrance would be fine. We could make it a one way with posted signs. MR. JARRETT: And I believe the biggest conflict would be due to exiting so. MR. BREDA: Yes, exiting is where the conflict is. MR. JARRETT: So that would resolve the question in my mind, you can could refer to Dan. MR. TRAVER: That would be a big improvement. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MRS. STEFFAN: Well and I think that that’s the best recommendation, I go over there several times a week because my mom lives in the Solomon Heights development complex behind this and so Farr Lane especially during the busier times of the day, if there is not a round about that section of Farr Lane queues up right there so that would be a problem for people getting out. With an entrance there and then an exit on Manor Drive which virtually has no traffic it would also encourage people to go to the end of Manor Drive and then exit on to Aviation Road above this intersection, this problematic intersection. MR. JARRETT: Right it might split the traffic better. MRS. STEFFAN: So I think that that’s probably the best solution for the lot. MR. JARRETT: So we’re willing to do that if that meets with the approval of the Board. MR. TRAVER: Yes that would actually work with Gretchen’s comments and observations about the traffic on Farr Lane, that the entrance only on Farr Lane actually work whether the traffic circle went in or not. MR. JARRETT: Right, it would give Mike the visibility and the access and yet avoid any conflict MRS. STEFFAN: Right. MR. JARRETT: Now along that same vein I think there was discussion in the comments, and I don’t remember if it was staff or engineering regarding screening and landscaping. I think Mike would to keep a high visibility for the building and the facility from Aviation as much as he can since he’s accommodating the town by moving it to the north. So hiding it with landscaping is really contraindicated here or contradictory to his goals. So we’re hoping that the Board will understand that issue and work with us on that. There is one issue that was raised, I think by Keith, regarding the sign location. And frankly that’s a little glitch in communication because we had located the sign on the plans and then we worked with Keith to modify the limits of the lot to better accommodate the round about and we never moved the sign so it became non-compliant and we will move that to a compliant location and Mike will put on the record right now that that will be a monument sign with landscaping around it. We threw in our proposal to the board, as you can see from the plan that much of the lot needs to be cleared, disturbed to make this project work and anybody that has been to the lot knows that there is some landscape quality species out there but a lot of it is scrub. And what Mike would like to be able to do in the areas where we don’t have to disturb the site in some of the corners we’d like to be able to thin that out and get rid of some of the scrub and leave the nice, the better looking tree species. Dan raised that as an issue and he correctly identified that if we get a little bit too crazy with clearing we could trip the SPDES threshold for DEC permit which would we obviously don’t want to do. But we’d like the board’s concurrence that as long as we are under control we could thin out some of that vegetation and make it more attractive. MRS. STEFFAN. There isn’t a lot of green trees on that particular property. MR. JARRETT: A few not many. MRS. STEFFAN: I understand what you mean. MR. JARRETT: There are a couple of trees that we’d actually like to save that we can’t, we just couldn’t design the project around them. MR. SIPP: You’re planning on sidewalks? MR. JARRETT: Around the building. MR. BREDA: The perimeter of the building, front and side. MR. JARRETT: This type of facility of necessity doesn’t invite children walking to it, it’s drop off so sidewalks around the building are really what’s needed. MR. SEGULJIC: There’s an engineering comment about the play area being over the septic field, do you see that as an issue at all? MR. JARRETT: Right I don’t see that as an issue, I understand why Dan brought it up. Frankly you know play areas are around septic systems all the time and we’re blessed 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) here to have great soil conditions, very deep sand and I don’t expect a problem and obviously Mike’s going to have to be very cognizant of any situation that would you know that would make his day care facility not function and if he had a failure of that septic system he’d have to deal with it right away. And he could close up the play area if he needed to. So I don’t see a problem, every backyard basically has a septic system and you’ve got kids playing on them all the time. MRS. STEFFAN: No elephant rides? MR. BREDA: No farm animals coming to. MR. JARRETT: The issue of installing fence posts foundations within the septic system was also brought up. Which was a good comment and we put a note on the plans that they need to be coordinated, we need to stagger those foundations in between the infiltrator units. So that we don’t have that problem but other than that I don’t see an issue with it. And that note is already on the plan. We had a discussion with the Board earlier this year, comment was brought up about landscaping and you asked us to enhance the landscaping which we have done. And that came up in comments to some degree and I’m wondering if we can get that on the table right now and see what your thoughts are. MR. BREDA: At April’s meeting that was really the only comment we had to address. MR. SEGULJIC: The only thing I see is it looks like some of your, if you can clarify for me your landscaping along the existing Manor Drive is in the swale area? MR. JARRETT: Right. MR. SEGULJIC: What kind of vegetation is that? MR. BREDA: Those are basically wing euonymous about three to four feet tall. MR. SEGULJIC: Okay so that’s going to have some height to it. MR. JARRETT: We also called for some rhododendrons as I recall, and I don’t see them here MR. BREDA: Junipers and euonymus, I don’t think there were any rhododendrons in there. We staggered different species, alternated them. MR. JARRETT: Tried not to be all one species, we tried to give it a little bit of variety. We understand the, it’s a little unconventional to plant them in the stormwater basin but we’ve mounded up around it to the plants and we think it will work well. We’re constrained by space but Mike plans on planting a height that will give the town and give him the screening and yet conserve space. MR. SEGULJIC: Do you have the planting list on here? MR. JARRETT: Yes. MR. SIPP: Where is the sign going? MR. JARRETT: If you look at the bottom left corner near that existing cedar tree, it’s kind of buried under the cedar branches. We have to move that now to be compliant. I think we’re going to move it a little bit to the east. More or less directly in front of the play area. MR. BREDA: And they’ll be one on the front of the building too. MR. JARRETT: Yes that’s the freestanding sign, that will be the monument sign. Question was brought up regarding size and Mike plans on relocating the sign, it’s already at his building across the street, so presumably that’s. MR. BREDA: Mike Baird just made that last year and put it up in front of Sokol’s when they did their renovations there. MR. SIPP: So there will be two signs? One on the outside and one on the north side. MR. JARRETT: One on the front and one monument sign. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. BREDA: One on the west facing Farr and one facing Aviation on the south. MR. SIPP: All right. So why can’t you on the Manor Drive side instead of all the low growing shrubs put in one or two trees on either side of the driveway. I mean, you’ve got. MR. BREDA: I’m sure we could but we didn’t want to effect any visibility pulling out or in with Manor Drive. MR. SIPP: No, I mean if they are hardwood trees they’re not going to lower branches you trim off and. MR. BREDA: I’ve got no problem putting two maples there similar to the Farr Lane. MR. JACKOSKI: I think in regard to what Mr. Sipp is saying I’m wondering where does the snow go? Are we going to be burying these shrubs and everything with snow? Because I just don’t see where you place the snow to this property. MR. JARRETT: Frankly we angled off the ends of the parking lot especially on the east end, we’ve allowed for snow, we moved the swale out from the parking area purposely to accommodate snow and let it drain into the stormwater basin. And then likewise on the south end along Farr Lane pushing snow into those corners. MR. OBORNE: If I could interject I think what’s before you now is the subdivision and not necessarily the site plan, not to say that you can’t talk about it. MR. JARRETT: We’re doing it all at once. MRS. STEFFAN; We’re crossing the stream. MR. OBORNE: What I suggest is to go ahead and finish up subdivision and see what you like and then move onto the site plan. MR. JARRETT: So we don’t to do any landscaping for the subdivision so that’s on the record. Keith you raised a question early on regarding the boundary of the subdivision, the boundary between the two lots, trying to accommodate the round about. Do you see any issues from your perspective. MR. OBORNE: I don’t see any issues, maybe with utilities is my understanding from Chazen, having had correspondence with them. I think Dan would probably be more of an expert on that than I would. But from a planning point of view the way its drawn on there it seems to work. My only issue is with the entrance off of Farr Lane and that is a concern. MR. JARRETT: It still is? MR. OBORNE: Oh, yes. MR. BREDA: Entrance or entrance/exit. MR. OBORNE: Well I have an issue with the people coming south on Farr Lane making a left into there. Now how many people are doing that, probably not too many so I think that’s mitigated to a certain extent but certainly coming out of there, exiting is definitely not going to work. MR. JARRETT: I think if you see people stacked up on Farr lane you’re going to turn into Manor and enter there right? MRS. STEFFAN: Right. MR. JARRETT: I don’t think, we’re not providing just one entrance so think we’ve probably given them an option. MR. RYAN; How do people turn around if it’s enter only or exit only on Manor once you enter the facility? Dropping of kids. I presume you really need to drop kids off and keep the flow of traffic going and it seems to me that an enter only and exit only would be better for that particular incidence. MR. JARRETT: Exit only on Manor and enter only on Farr? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. RYAN: Yes, only to prevent people from coming in both entrances and having no ability to turn around. MR. SCHONEWOLF: You have somebody coming in from Manor would have to turn around to get out. MR. RYAN: Yes, how do they turn around with traffic coming in off Farr as well? It’s nearly impossible. MR. JARRETT: What they do now in his South Glens Falls facility in just turn around in a parking spot. We can look at that, we’ll take a look. MRS. STEFFAN; So Dan what you’re saying that the Manor Drive should be an entrance and an exit. MR. RYAN: It’s just a suggestion not having looked at it thoroughly. It seems to me if you have people entering from both directions there’s not that much space on that property to maneuver around each other in particular if there’s cars already parked there and I assume everyone is dropping their kids off around the same time. MR. TRAVER: On the other hand if we don’t give them the option to enter on Manor Drive we are forcing into the Farr Lane which is going to exacerbate that situation problem Mr. RYAN: It will, that’s. MR. TRAVER: I don’t have kids but I’m thinking that if I were dropping somebody off , if I were dropping a child off and had to walk them into the entrance I would probably pull up to a parking lot, stop the vehicle and get out and escort the child in and then back out and take off again. MR. JARRETT: That’s what happens at your Moreau facility right? MRS. STEFFAN: And the other issue is the front door is on Farr Lane so folks are going to want to pull into Farr Lane to drop the kids off. MR. JARRETT: We’ll flush it out a little further and discuss it with Dan. MRS. STEFFAN: So Keith the staff notes are pretty clear that we can’t go any further until that issue is resolved, the parcel boundary. MR. OBORNE: Unless the Planning Board feels comfortable going forward. MRS. STEFFAN: I’m not willing to take that one on. MR. JARRETT: Subdivision doesn’t matter to us without site plan anyway. MRS. STEFFAN: Exactly. MR. JARRETT: He needs the site plan first anyways so or concurrently so let’s just resolve them all at once. MR. OBRONE: Would you care to give the applicant an indication on how you’re feeling about this, let’s say that area up to the north of Manor is in fact part of your property. MR. BREDA: It’s not in my contract that way. MR. OBORNE: So then let’s just stop there and let’s get that clarified. MR. JARRETT: He didn’t buy it so we’ve got a problem. MR. BREDA: It’s not part of my purchase, I will it was. MR. OBORNE: That’s opening up a can of worms so let’s get everything clarified before we entertain any more discussion on it. MRS. STEFFAN; Okay then I’ll make a motion to table. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. JARRETT: I’ll defer to Mike here to talk about schedule because I’m not sure what his constraints are. MRS. STEFFA: Let’s pull back that motion because we want to discuss where we are. MR. BREDA: Well I originally came in front of you guys in April as a discussion, wishful thinking put me into May, June I figured we were going to be on, we weren’t. I appreciate you guys making a special meeting in early July. Once again I’ve had a contract on this property since June of last year. I understand the north parcel should be subdivided legally on paper. I don’t know why Virginia Sleight who is an attorney didn’t have that done properly. It’s not part of my purchase contract, but if I don’t get on a meeting until September it’s going to be a problem for my construction and my lease with Sokol’s is up in March 2010. I have to be out, which I’m already pushing the envelope my scheduling, my contractors, my. MRS. STEFFAN : How quickly do you anticipate that this boundary issue could be resolved? MR. BREDA: Quick. Virginia told me, I don’t know if you guys know Virginia Sleight but, I don’t know why it’s not recorded as subdivided or like how she could sell that parcel without the north side being separated is a question. I’m a real estate agent, that was a question for me. MR. OBORNE: I agree. MR. BREDA: I wish it was part of my purchase, I’d love to have it but it wasn’t so how she got, whether she has separate tax map numbers which I guess she doesn’t, why it wasn’t subdivided correctly, whether it was a separate parcel, it’s not showing up as a separate parcel. I don’t know the answers but I don’t. MR. TRAVER: Well, I guess another way of putting it would be do you think it’s likely that litigation is going to be required or is it just a matter of paperwork? MR. BREDA: Paperwork, absolutely. MR. OBORNE: I would think it would able to be resolved at least get some answer in 24 hours to be honest with you. It’s a trip up to the municipal center and see what the file says, our file and our GIS says its one parcel. So with that said. MR. JARRETT: So optimistically what would be the first meeting we could get on? th MRS. STEFFAN: August 25. MR. JARRETT: Why don’t we leave it the same way we did with the prior project. That I’ll give you notice if we have a problem and we’ll table it ourselves to September if we need to. MRS. STEFFAN: We are of like mind, okay. Then I will make a motion to table Subdivision 5-2009: RESOLUTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE / FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 5-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINE BREDA MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 5-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINE BREDA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption seconded by Thomas Seguljic th Tabled to the August 25 Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline of th July 15 so the applicant can clarify the parcel boundary discrepancy specifically. th And also to address the July 7 staff notes. Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan NOES: None 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. JARRETT: No that’s on the subdivision only? MRS. STEFFAN: On the subdivision only MR. JARRETT: When we get to the site plan I might ask for a little more leeway on submission deadline. MRS. STEFFAN: That’s what I thought, Okay MR. OBORNE: If you could, could you open the public hearing so we don’t have to re- advertise it? MRS. STEFFAN: I apologize, is there anybody here who would like to speak to the application? There is no one here to speak to this application so the public hearing will remain open PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AND WILL REMAIN OPEN MRS. STEFFAN: Thank you for the reminder. SITE PLAN NO. 41-2009 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) ESTATE OF HELEN SLEIGHT ZONING NC-10 LOCATION 369 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,500 SQUARE FOOT DAY CARE CENTER. DAY CARE CENTERS IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SUBJECT TO 2009 ZONING CODE. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 5-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.06 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30 SECTION 179-9-010 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. STEFFAN: We are on to the Site Plan issues. Some of the things we talked about a while ago were the entrance and exit issue, an entrance on Farr Lane, a potential only on Manor Drive. The applicant talked about enhancing the landscaping plan and keeping some of the trees that are existing. And wanted the Planning Board support on that plan. There are extensive Vision engineering comments that the applicant would love to address. What other discussion do we need to have on the site plan. MR. TRAVER : We have to clarify the location of the sign, the type of sign. MRS. STEFFAN: Yes. MR. JARRETT: I think we resolved the sign issue but we left off at landscaping if I recall, so MR. SIPP: You’re going to have a freestanding sign on the south side facing Aviation Road, how tall? MR. JARRETT: Monument sign. MR. SIPP: Monument sign on both of them? MR. JARRETT: Well there’s one mounted on the building itself and then a monument sign facing Aviation MRS. STEFFAN: And the one mounted that will be mounted on the building will be the one that currently exists in the Sokol’s plaza. MR. BREDA; Actually that one is going get double-sided and put on the monument. The one I took off the plaza to put the new one on is going on the building. They both were existing at one point. MR. JARRETT: Good thing you asked. MR. OBORNE: If I may add please make sure that that sign is compliant, because it’s 50 square feet, 15 feet from your property line. MR. JARRETT: We’ll stipulate right now that both signs will be compliant. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. OBORNE: Well if you’re to take one that’s currently existing I mean is that a 10 x 5 sign? That’s not even a 10 x 5. MR. BREDA: I think it’s 8 feet long. They were both on the building before so I’m sure they were. MR. OBORNE: But there are different requirements for wall signs and monument signs. There are certain thresholds that you can meet. A wall sign can be 100 square feet and a monument can be 50 or 64. MR. BREDA: Yes it will be compliant. MR. SIPP: On number 30 on the engineer’s comments the discrepancy in the amount of water per person. MR. JARRETT: I reviewed the DEC standards again today and I don’t see where 15 gallons per day per student or child is required. We designed this same facility for Mike in Moreau and used this same waste generation rate and it worked out fine and he’s had no problem with that facility so I wasn’t proposing to change our design. I don’t know how Dan will react to that but I wasn’t proposing to change it. MR. RYAN: We were looking for clarification on how you came up with the 12.5, because the 2.5 is not referenced there. It’s 5 gallons with a kitchenette would be added. MR. JARRETT: Actually what, there is a typo on our drawing, we list 1.25 for a kitchenette, it’s actually snacks kind of thing, it’s not a full cafeteria. And then we listed, duplicated again, said 1.25 per cafeteria again, it’s supposed to be for washing for miscellaneous, if kids get sick or whatever. Washing miscellaneous things so we added some flow for that and we’ll clarify that MR. RYAN: I think if you just clarify the type of service you have there with the kitchenettes or whatever you’re doing with lunch. MR. JARRETT: It’s not a full kitchen service, not full meals, that type of thing, we just allowed the water use for snacks MR. BREDA: And we calculated it off 99 people. MR. SIPP: Percolation test, No. 3 which shows a percolation rate of 30 seconds. Is that going to be a concern in that field there? MR. JARRETT: Actually we show for wastewater system we show a what’s called a cut and fill system under DOH guidelines, accommodating that rapid soil percolation. We don’t foresee a problem, it’s adds a little headache to us, it’s the same kind of problem he had in Moreau. MR. BREDA: Too fast. MR. SIPP : You’re going to add something. MR. JARRETT: We had to replace the soil and amend it right. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay we had quite a bit of discussion about landscaping. Where are we on that? MR. TRAVER: We’re adding two trees as I recall on the Manor Lane entrance on each side. We need to clarify the language on the thinning that’s proposed where the existing structure is. I know we’ve used that language in other applications. MR. KREBS: I’m sorry, I missed you said Steve. MR. TRAVER: You’re talking about doing some thinning of the brush area. MR. JARRETT: Outside the areas that we have to disturb for construction we want to thin some of the less attractive brush. MR. TRAVER: I don’t know how can we word that, by caliper? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. JARRETT: We can review it with Bruce later if you’d like. Once we get construction well underway Bruce Frank we can review it with him if you like. Once we get construction well underway Bruce Frank we can review with him or flag it for review or whatever. We just wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention that we think it makes sense. MR. KREBS: I think it’s reasonable, but is it reasonable for staff to be? MR. JARRETT: Why don’t we leave it at that we’ll flag what we’d like to remove and we’ll have Bruce Frank review it with us. MR. OBORNE-What? MR JARRETT: This is the extraneous foliage that’s not, the underbrush. The underbrush outside of the disturbance limits that we want to get rid of to thin the side out and make it more attractive. We’ll just flag it and review it with Bruce. MR. OBORNE-And then put it on the plan for submission? MR JARRETT: Well, that kind of detail is very tough to do. MR. OBORNE-Are you planning on keeping any of the trees? MR. JARRETT: Yeah, we’re planning on keeping the large trees outside the areas we have to disturb, but some of the underbrush we want to get rid of we can flag it for to Bruce to review. MR. KREBS: What if they just put on the plan, those trees that they are going to keep. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. KREBS: And then everything else they can do whatever they want with. MR. JARRETT: We can try to approximate that. When we had the survey done, Van Dusen and Steves did not located trees, we’ll have to get out and try to locate trees. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you want try to make it as user friendly as possible and not make it cumbersome, so if you just slap the trees, for lack of a better term, on the plan that you’re planning on keeping and that is easily enforceable. MR. KREBS: And, I don’t think it’s so much that we need to know the exact location but we need to know that there is a maple. MR. JARRETT: We’ll flag the approximate location. MR. KREBS: Yes, the approximate location. MR. JARRETT: We’ll flag the approximate location of the trees and flag them in the field that we want to save. MR. BREDA: Well, the one’s on there already, and then there’s just another little birch in the other corner and that’s about it. We’re just missing a birch tree in the northeast corner. MR. TRAVER: I think we’re okay with that. MR. JARRETT-All right. So Mike has agreed to the two trees at the entrance to Manor. MR. KREBS: Okay. MRS. STEFFAN: And where are we on the access to, on Manor Drive, is that exit only? MR. JARRETT: Personally, I’m leaning toward entrance only off Farr and entrance and exit off Manor but I will review it and we could come back with something else, but I am leaning towards that right now. MRS. STEFFAN: What’s the Planning Board think? MR. TRAVER: That’s my preferred layout. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. STEFFAN: Entrance and Exit on Manor? MR. TRAVER: Correct and entrance only on Farr. MRS. STEFFAN-On Farr. MR. KREBS: Yes, I agree. MR. KREB: Just for clarification, we’re talking about clearing the brush on the other lot, correct? MR. JARRETT: I’m sorry? MR. KREBS: We’re talking about clearing the brush on the other lot. Correct? MR. TRAVER: North? MR. KREBS: No, no not the north lot, the south lot after you subdivide. MR. OBORNE: You’re talking about the north lot? MRS. STEFFAN: There are no trees. MR. TRAVER: There aren’t that many on the south lot. MR. BREDA-Where the brown house is? There’s like one, yes, a birch, a big birch and then a huge white pine, but no brush at all on that lot. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, it’s flat. MR. JARRETT: What I’m talking about is the brush outside the area that we have to disturb for construction and it would not constitute ground disturbance because we don’t really plan to grub it per se, because we’re cutting it at ground line. MRS. STEFFAN: The language that I was putting in and preparing for the motion is that the Planning Board discussed and agrees with the applicant on thinning site underbrush and identifying larger trees that will remain on the plan. MR. JARRETT: Yes, okay. That’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN: Okay, other issues that are not covered, a couple of things: I’ve addressed Staff Comments, Vision Engineering Comments, Identify Sign locations, type and size; ensure that they are Code Compliant, add two maple trees to the Manor Drive exit. And, then the issue on the remaining trees and then change the Farr Lane access to entrance only and identify Manor Drive access as both entrance and exit. MR. OBORNE: Does the Planning Board wish to discuss parking that applicant is asking for. We’re going to have to grant approval for what they are asking for. MRS. STEFFAN: For less parking? MR. OBORNE: For more parking. MR. TRAVER: More Parking MR. OBORNE: Also, the new Code, the dimensions of the parking spaces appear to have changed, they are a little bit longer. MR. JARRETT: Mike and I discussed this after we saw the Staff Comments and we would prefer to go through whatever review process we have to go through to try to keep the design the way it is. We would rather not add the extra asphalt for increased width of the parking lot, really, the spaced are lengthened. And this site is already constrained. If we had the whole property, we wouldn’t have any problem, but trying to leave room for the round-about – we’re constrained. We prefer to try to get the Boards approval to leave the spaces the way they are. MR. OBORNE: The problem with that is those are dimensional requirements and the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to approve those. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. KREBS: But wasn’t this on the 2000 , the prior ? MRS. STEFFAN: It’s not the old zoning? It’s the new Zoning ? MR. KREBS: I thought that when this originally brought up. MR. JARRETT: It came up for a discussion item. MR. OBORNE: It was on for a discussion item, it wasn’t a submitted. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The cars are getting smaller, so they made the parking spaces bigger. MR. OBORNE: I was pretty dropped jaw at that when I saw it. I was not aware of that in the Code, but it is in the Code. MR. JARRETT: Now can we circumvent an extra meeting if we ask the Board now to render a recommendation to the ZBA? If we have to file an application to the ZBA. MRS. STEFFAN: What is the ZBA’s schedule? How booked are they? th MR. OBORNE: Their deadline day is the 15, next week, I do have many pre-application meetings, I can’t quite get a handle; pre-applications meetings don’t always correlate into an actual application coming in on deadline day. I can’t speak to that. I would say that they are going to be full meetings; but I have to assume that. I would say they are going to be full meetings I have to assume that. MRS. STEFFAN: Because, you know, I’m recalling, I don’t have the minutes of the meeting but I recall a conversation that we had that you needed, I think, eight spaces for employees, and so you need a little additional parking. MR. BREDA-Well, I have 16, 17 employees. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. So there were more employees. So you needed employee parking in addition to the pick up and drop off. MR. BREDA-Correct. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you enlighten me as to what the difference is in Code per parking spaces? MR. OBORNE-They have been lengthened by two feet. They’re to 20 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-SO the width remains the same, it’s just the length? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Yes, they were nine by eighteen. Now they’re nine by twenty. MR. SEGULJIC-You have nine by eighteens down here. So what impact is that extra two feet going to have on? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s why he wants to go to the ZBA. MR. JARRETT-Fairly significant, because it widens the whole site disturbance out and constrains, it actually pushes the boundary limit. We’d have to probably encroach on the roundabout lot to some degree, and I don’t think we can do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It just would impact the western strip? MR. JARRETT-Yes, it would. Everything is going to be squeezed. It would widen everything by four feet, or two feet on the north and four feet on the west. That much more asphalt. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. SIPP-Did the handicap increase, too? MR. OBORNE-The handicap has always been that. That hasn’t changed. MR. SIPP-That hasn’t changed. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s a New York State Code. It’s actually a Building and Codes issue. MRS. STEFFAN-Mike, how long have you been working with the Town on this roundabout issue? I mean, you’d have a contract on the property for a year? MR. BREDA-Over a year now. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’ve been having discussions with the Town Board? MR. BREDA-With Dan Stec mostly. Like I said, originally I was going to knock down the brown house in front, put everything towards the south side, facing Aviation. Then it came to my attention, I don’t know how I originally found out, but it came to my attention about a proposed roundabout, and I had gone to Dan Stec, and questioned it, he’s like yes, yes, you know, this is all proposed right now, but, you know, if you’ll work with me, this will be great. So really everything that’s designed here is to try to help out the Town and the traffic issues and the roundabout. I would certainly much rather have Aviation Road frontage, and to be honest with you, a lot of these issues that are coming up are mostly because of the roundabout and trying to design around it. So I’m a little frustrated with that, and I understand the codes and rules and everything that has to be followed, but I still technically could design my project up front, and be like, well, there’s not going to be a roundabout because I own it and now my building’s in the way. I don’t know. I don’t want to get, we’re trying to accommodate, that’s all. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess what he’s saying is anything this Board can do to help the process would be welcomed. MR. BREDA-Now is this, this line here, where did we get that from, the accuracy? MR. JARRETT-That came off the plans that, the conceptual plan. MR. BREDA-From Chazen? MR. JARRETT-Yes, and it may yet be that way. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Based on the discussions here, my understanding is that the applicant is going to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance on parking space dimensions, and so, in light of that, I’ve prepared a recommendation for the Zoning Board of Appeals, but before we deal with that, we have to deal with the Site Plan issue. MR. OBORNE-If I may. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-If you could open the public hearing for the Site Plan, and leave it open, then we can move forward. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thanks. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this application? Based on the fact there are no takers, we will keep the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. STEFFAN-Is the Planning Board in favor of going forward and tabling this application to the last meeting in August, extending the submission deadline one week, based on the conditions that we discussed about 15 minutes ago, regarding the thinning, changing the landscaping to add two trees, the signs, addressing Staff comments and VISION Engineering comments, and the access management on Farr Lane and Manor Drive? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think with the applicant’s offer to keep in contact with the Planning Staff to let them know if they’re going to be able to accommodate that, I guess that’s reasonable. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then I will make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th This is tabled to the August 25 Planning Board meeting. We are extending the nd submission deadline for this applicant to Wednesday, July 22 so they have a one week extension of the submission deadline so that the applicant can satisfy the following conditions of the tabling motion: 1.So the applicant can address all of the Staff comments and Vision Engineering comments 2.So they can identify the sign locations, type and size to ensure that they are code compliant. 3.That they will add two maple trees to the Manor Drive access point. 4.The Planning Board discussed and agrees with the applicant on thinning site underbrush and identifying larger trees that will remain on site on their landscaping plan or on their plan, it doesn’t have to be just on the landscaping plan. 5.The applicant will change the Farr Lane access to an entrance only. 6.That the applicant will identify the Manor Drive access as both an entrance and an exit. Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and it is our understanding that the applicant will be submitting an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance regarding this Site Plan 41- 2009 for Michael and Christina Breda. THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD WHEN THEY REVIEW THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION FOR WORLD CLASS KIDS REGARDING PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS. THE APPLICANT APPEARED BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SKETCH PLAN REVIEW A FEW MONTHS AGO-PRE ZONING CHANGE. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR PLANS TO THE PLANNING BOARD BASED UPON THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AT THAT MEETING. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO WORKING COOPERATIVELY WITH THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY REGARDING THE PROPOSED AND POSSIBLE ROUNDABOUT ON AVIATION ROAD AND FARR LANE. AS A RESULT OF THE NUMEROUS DISCUSSIONS AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THIS APPLICANT AND THE EFFECT OF THE ROUNDABOUT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS COMMERCIAL SITE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS THAT MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE PRIOR ZONING CODE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote: MR. JARRETT-Any chance of getting on an August Zoning Board meeting? MR. OBORNE-Well, you’ve got your ZBA, you’ve got your Planning Board th recommendation right now. You need to get something in by the 15 for a recommendation for an AV. MR. JARRETT-Is there an opening for an agenda slot? MR. OBORNE-See me tomorrow. Give me a call in the morning. I’m extremely busy. I have at least five applications and I have a debriefing meeting I need to do in the morning. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) MR. JARRETT-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Thank you for all of those. I have one last question for the Board. The comments that came up on Dan’s list, on both these last two projects, regarding full sized plans. We have attempted to try and downsize our submission size and minimize paper and handling behind the desk for you. So we’ve tried to go to 11 by 17 drawings. We can go to full size drawings for the full Board, and certainly for Dan’s office, if you wish. We’re open to whatever size you want. We were trying to downsize our submissions. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there a conflict, and I want to ask Dan Ryan and Keith this. Is there a problem with the Town and our engineer consultant getting full sized plans and getting smaller plans for the Planning Board to review? Is there a conflict? MR. OBORNE-I would prefer larger plans. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-For the Board or for you? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-For me. MR. RYAN-Yes, I think the half sized plans are normally sufficient for the Planning Board members. We need them just, a lot of times we’re using the scales on these plans and we can’t do it. We still can, but it’s difficult to be legible in some instances, but I don’t have a problem. MR. JARRETT-I’d prefer to give them full size, and if it’s easier for you to handle these, then it works great. So I just wanted to clarify that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Good. I just wanted to clarify that. I thought that’s what I said, but maybe not. So if the Community Development and the engineering professionals get the full size plans, that’s great for the Planning Board. If we get the compact plans, it’s better for us and more manageable. MR. JARRETT-And then it’s very expensive for him to send full size to everybody. So this is a good compromise. I think it works great. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We would be completely satisfied with that. MR. JARRETT-Thank you for that clarification. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-All right. We’ll see you soon. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. Good luck, and I know you guys have a lot of work to do, but our Community Development Department will work with you. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. We appreciate that. MR. BREDA-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and we’ll see you in August. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 SKETCH SEQR TYPE N/A LINDA DATOR AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 2583 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.66 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.67 & 1.99 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 30-09 WARREN CO. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/07/09) PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS L G CEA LOT SIZE 3.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-30 SECTION A-183 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. STEFFAN-And according to the notes from our Staff, the review has been moved th to the July 28 meeting. Mr. Jarrett is here to talk about this application. MR. JARRETT-No, it’s just going to be tabled, I believe. Right? MR. OBORNE-It is going to be tabled, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-If you have any questions, I’m glad to answer them, but you’ve already looked at it once. MR. OBORNE-Yes. You’ve given a positive recommendation to the ZBA. It has to go to the ZBA, and then it will be back before you. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SKETCH PLAN STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 LINDA DATOR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: th Tabled to July 28 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 7 day of July 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Great. Have a good night. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there any other issues that the Board would like to discuss? Then I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 7, 2009, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 7 day of July, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Jackowski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-And I’d just like, for the record, that it’s twelve minutes after nine, and we’re out of here. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Gretchen Steffan, Acting Chairperson 37