Loading...
2010.05.18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 18, 2010 INDEX Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11 Site Plan No. 11-2010 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P. 2. Tax Map No. 288.-1-64 Site Plan No. 19-2010 Sally Strasser 25. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-7 Site Plan No. 24-2010 Jolley Associates 29. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-29 Site Plan 16-2010 Glens Falls Animal Hospital 34. Tax Map No. 296.19-1-16 Subdivision No. 3-2009 Christian & Eustacia Sander 37. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 278.-2-29, 30 Site Plan No. 28-2010 Leslie Grasso 45. Freshwater Wetlands 2-2010 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 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 05/18/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 18, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD DONALD KREBS PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I will call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board th for Tuesday, May 18. Our first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from March 16th, rdth March 23 and March 25, 2010. Would anyone like to move that? MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH THRDTH 16, 23 , AND 25, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf REHEARING: SUBDIV. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE JOHN FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) WILLIAM J. JR. & JUDITH RICHARDS ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.7 AND 6.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. SEE RETURN ON APPEAL DATED 10/9/09 CROSS REFERENCE SUB 8-99, SUB 1-00 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-19.11 SECTION A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-On Item Three, we have a re-hearing on an application Subdivision 13-2007 for John Fedorowicz. The applicant’s counsel has requested that we table that item. I will entertain a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 10.14 acre parcel into 2 residential lots of 3.7 and 6.44 acres. Subdivision of land requires review and approval by the Planning Board. See Return on Appeal dated 10/9/09. 2)A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/19/08, 4/22/08, 6/17/08, 7/22/08, 9/16/08, 12/16/08, 2/19/09, 3/24/09, 5/18/10; and 3)MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Tabled to the July 27 meeting. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s anyone in the audience that’s here for that project, we will take th public comments when we re-open the public hearing on July 27. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SCHEMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. AGENT(S) TOM NACE NACE ENGINEERING JON LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) SAME ZONING O [OFFICE] LOCATION EAST SIDE OF WEST MT. RD., SOUTH OF GURNEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE- STORY 88,608 +/- SQ. FT. 60 UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE OFFICE DISTRICT REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 48-07, PZ 6-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/10/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER RUSH POND CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 16.12 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-64 SECTION 179-9-010, 179-7-060 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize your Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 11-2010, Schermerhorn Residential Holdings. Requested action is residential use in an Office District. Location is east side of West Mountain Road and south of Gurney Lane. Existing zoning is Office. SEQR Status is Unlisted at this point. A Long Form has been submitted. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a three-story 88,608 +/- sq. ft. 55 and older Senior Apartment Building with associated parking, landscaping, lighting, and stormwater infrastructure. Quickly on Staff Comments: The proposed senior apartment project to be situated on a 16.54 acre parcel off of West Mountain Road and to be known as the Westbrook Senior Apartments. The site is accessed by a 340 foot access drive with Boulevard style entrance. The project meets the intent of the Zoning Code with the placement of the residential use 300 feet from the front property line. There is some concern with the proposal in relation to its proximity to the Northway as residential land use adjacent to Interstates may impact respiratory health due to airborne particulates as per EPA’s Air Quality Center studies suggest. What I’m going to do, being that this has already been before the Planning Board, I’m going to quickly go over what Staff feels are Planning Board considerations that have been generated by Site Plan Review. One being that a turning radius plan should be submitted. Snow storage locations should be located on the plan. Sign dimensions should be submitted to assuage any potential dimensional issues that may arise in the future, and bio- retention basins should be considered for the treatment of NPS, non-point source pollution, from parking lot and snow storage drainage path locations, and what follows are additional comments, and I will make the assumption that the Board has read them, and I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening. RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-Evening. Rich Schermerhorn for the record. We, you know, obviously from the last meeting, we got the Staff Notes and stuff, and we have gone through Items One through Ten and completed those, but I did want to address two important things that I did do. One of the concerns was the buffer up against the ramp area, and I went back and I looked hard at how we can maintain more of the natural trees and the vegetation that’s there, and one of the things that I did is I met with Tom, and we met with the Fire Marshal, and then Dave Hatin as well, and what we did is the access road, rather than be able to go around the building 360 degrees, we met the intent of the Code. The Fire Marshal approved it, and you’ll see at the south end, and we’ll call it the east end of the building, there’s fire hydrants that are appropriately placed and meet the requirements for length of distance. What that enabled us to do is to eliminate that road, which took out quite a bit of the natural trees that are there, and I’ve gone up and I’ve walked the site, and it certainly enhances the property. It offers quite a bit more privacy for the building, which is important to me. I know that’s been a concern with everyone is saving the trees, and I can assure you, I’ll do everything I can to save all of them, even if something’s marked where I can clear, I’ll certainly take the extra efforts to save them, because I truly believe it’s in my best interest and the people that are going to live in the particular, in that area. The other thing, we talked about the parking and the blacktop. I certainly followed the intent of the Code, but as always, I’ve always said that I’m always willing to adjust. Just because something’s written a certain way doesn’t mean that, you know, we 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) have to do it that way, and you guys had asked what I could work with for the parking, and we did eliminate 31 of the parking spaces. So we certainly do have those in reserve. I don’t believe that I’ll actually ever need them because I know how these senior projects work, but it’s certainly, it is an area that can be the reserve area for our snow, which was another issue, but those are two major things that I think that wasn’t on the list, but we were able to enhance, I guess, the value of saving the natural trees there, and again, as always, if there’s something else, any other input at the meeting that we want more trees or landscaping, I’m always willing to listen, but as far as any of the engineering stuff, I know Tom can speak on behalf of any questions. We did get signoff from the engineer, but as always, I know there’s always other things that pop up. So, thank you. MR. LAPPER-I guess, for the record, Jon Lapper. We submitted the detailed response to the 10 tabling items that you had raised. The Staff Notes point out that a few of the items are answered in Tom’s letter but not on the plans. We figured it was sufficient because this would be part of the record, but certainly snow storage, you know, if that’s important we can add that, but everything is covered in the letter, and the only one thing that it wasn’t necessary to put the fence in that we had talked about last time because Rich was able to eliminate that drive aisle. He didn’t have to clear close to the Northway. So that was one thing that we didn’t do because it was better to leave the trees. That’s really it. Tom, do you have anything specific? MR. NACE-No. I guess I would add that we also increased the landscaping buffer along West Mountain Road, addition of some pine trees in there to provide low cover. One of the questions that continues to come up is bio-retention, and I will reiterate that on this site it’s really not appropriate. Bio-retention, typically, is used where you’re discharging a point discharge and you want to treat the water quality volume portion of the storm runoff before going to some discharge point back into the storm sewer system or to a stream. In this case, well let me back up. Bio- retention is really a soil treatment, filtering through the soil. In this case we have many, many feet of natural sand that we’re filtering all of the effluent, not just the water quality volume, but all of the stormwater runoff through. So, in this case, bio-retention is really not appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. Everyone okay? MRS. STEFFAN-I was actually looking for a little more landscaping along West Mountain Road. I know you put some pine trees there, but I will looking for like perennial beds and that kind of stuff facing the road, to enhance the look of the property from West Mountain. MR. NACE-Well, we were looking for more of a natural, for that frontage, more of a natural kind of a landscape planted buffer. MRS. STEFFAN-But in my mind there’ll also be lawn. I understand the pine trees will be there, but as they grow up and grow older, then that’ll allow low growing stuff. So that was my suggestion. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, Gretchen, yes, that’s fine. I mean, anything you want to add is fine. As a matter of fact, I know sometimes people drive by and they think a lot of the property is already cleared, but really it isn’t. The County dumps a large portion of their snow, which they thought was my property, but it’s actually their property, and a lot of the clearing that’s done in front of the property is County property, but anything I can do to enhance it is fine, but I think if you saw it flagged, you’d see that there is a great deal that’s already out to my property line. MR. LAPPER-But in terms of perennial bed in the lawn area that Gretchen wants, is that acceptable? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, that’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, along the road. I just, you know, right now it’s all scrubby and I understand it’s green, but it’s not very attractive, and so if you’re putting in your development, I just think that the property, you know, certainly not the part where there will eventually be a proposed office building or whatever, but on the other side, it could be beefed up and it would look a lot nicer. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s more than agreeable. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We probably need to open the public hearing, because there was quite a bit of comment the last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from members of the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. In the back of the room, there is a table with a handout for information on the purpose of the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the audience, neighbors and residents, to provide information to the Board. It’s not intended to be a dialogue between members of the audience and the Board. It’s basically for you to present information. We would ask that you address any comments to the Board, not to the applicant themselves, and I would ask that you limit your comments to three minutes. We do have a timer. When you hear the beep, that means your time is up. Knowing there will be other commentors, I would also ask that you try to provide information that has not yet been presented. Having said that, who would like to be the first person to address the Board? Yes, ma’am. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JANE MACINTOSH MS. MACINTOSH-Jane MacIntosh. I live in Queensbury. I’ll try to keep my comments brief. Queensbury’s Comprehensive Plan states, quote, rural residential areas occupy the western and northern parts of Town, areas that still reflect the rural heritage and natural environment. It goes on to say this portion of the community is highly valued for its rural character, which not only contributes to the high quality of life for Town residents but also makes it economically attractive to visitors. Queensbury’s Open Space Vision Plan, adopted in 2003, states, these scenic roads range from the Adirondack Northway to Gurney Lane. Each has its own character that contributes to the Town’s sense of place. It is only proper that these essential element, the forested edge of the Northway for example, be recognized and protected. All too many communities south of Queensbury are losing or have lost that unique character, that sense of place, and that is not only an aesthetic loss, it is also often represents a loss of economic value. Queensbury describes and promotes itself as being at the foothills of the Adirondacks. The telephone book lists 46 businesses in Queensbury with the word Adirondack in their names. Another 53 are in Glens Falls, many of these owned by Queensbury residents. These companies are trading on the idea that the Adirondacks start here, and the here that these people are suggesting is not at Exit 18 or Exit 19, but the forested foothills which can be found at Exit 20. Rush Pond sets the tone for travelers on the Northway. The next parcel north was purchased by New York State shortly after the Northway was built, specifically for the purpose of, quote, scenic enhancement. At the time, Warren County owned the next lot, Mr. Schermerhorn’s property, and the State felt little concern that the County’s piece was at risk for commercial development. Forty years later, commercial development is knocking at the door in the form of this project, with its two office buildings yet to come. Do Board members realize the apartment building is slightly larger than the insurance building which was proposed in 2007? Because of it’s size and setback requirements, the building can only be sited on the Northway side of the property. The complex will result in clearing eight acres of vegetation, with its three story height and lighted exterior, the building will loom over the landscape when viewed from the east, and light up the entire district at night. Saratoga Associates who helped develop the Town Comprehensive Plan, and planners elsewhere, maintain that it takes, quote, 200 feet of wooded buffering to hide a major development. This project will have an approximate 50 foot vegetative buffer for nearly 400 feet along the Northway. The view from the west is unknown because the two office buildings do not show on the Site Plan. This segmented approach to building on the site is in opposition to SEQR guidelines, and should not be allowed. If the applicant cannot show the offices at this time, he should be required to subdivide the property. In the project application papers there’s a Creighton-Manning letter evaluating traffic impacts for the site with the two future offices factored in. A question important to the applicant, but impact on the character of the neighborhood rings no bells with him, and that is a big problem. The SEQR Handbook spells it out, saying, quote, the legislature has defined, quote, environment to include, among other things, existing patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth and existing community or neighborhood character. Court decisions have held that impacts upon community character must be considered in making determinations in significance, even if there are not other impacts on the physical environment. Because of its size, its placement on the site, its parking needs, its lighting needs, the entire concept, this project will downgrade, damage, destroy, ruin, insult or otherwise negatively impact the character of the neighborhood, but my final concern is whether it will also induce growth and jeopardize the neighborhood even further. Growth inducement and growth related impacts must also be assessed in following SEQR guidelines. It’s my belief that allowing such a large building complex on this site will induce growth, simply by setting precedent. A building of this size will only encourage other commercial size buildings and commercial type uses through more re-zoning and zoning variances. If you don’t agree, please ask the applicant to submit a sewage plan for this project, if he hasn’t already done so. Only with a detailed sewer plan can you assess two things, what 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) will be the capacity of that line and flow regulating equipment, and how much of that capacity will be used by this project. If there is excess capacity in the sewer line, you will know that this project is going to induce growth, then you will have to evaluate future impacts on not just the neighborhood, but on all features of this part of the community, including increased traffic congestion, need for additional services or accelerated loss of open space. Please recognize this project for what it is, an oversized complex of buildings that is too large for this site and will change this part of our Town forever. Please make a finding of negative environmental impacts, based on likelihood to induce growth and irreparable damage to the character of the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. RICHARD LINKE MR. LINKE-Good evening. I’m Richard Linke up on Gurney Lane. I assume that you received the rather comprehensive letter that I sent last week. When did the Board get that letter? MR. OBORNE-The Board did not receive that letter. It was taken in as public comment. MR. LINKE-Well, I highly object to that. This was a 10 page, well thought out, challenging, a challenging letter. MR. OBORNE-It was described to you by Pam Whiting, Administrative Assistant, that that is the protocol that we use in our office. MR. LINKE-I’m not going to argue about this, but I sent in a very comprehensive letter, putting the Town on notice, and to think that it hasn’t, have any of you read it? MR. HUNSINGER-No, we haven’t seen it. MR. LINKE-No. Okay. I just think, all right. Mr. Schermerhorn sat here a couple of years ago saying that he would never do anything to hurt Queensbury, and I would like to say that he’s hurting Queensbury now. Here are 130 some odd letters from area residents, about a 90% return on the residents within a four square mile radius of this property. This is a petition. These are letters to you, and I would like to read a couple comments, 130 some. That is every chair in this room filled, and filled half again, and people are sick of coming to these meetings and signing petitions year after year, and I am sick of turning things into a Board that is supposed to, and promised that they would, that this would reach the Board members, and it needs to be reached to the Board members, and, in lieu of the fact that you haven’t read that letter, I would like to read the petition that these people have signed. You could have saved yourself some trouble, I think, by reading the document first. It’s 11 pages long. It puts the Town on notice for a number of reasons. Let me try to speed this along. All right. These people, these residents, took their own initiative to mail these in. This wasn’t somebody standing on their doorstep, you know, pressuring them to sign some petition. One hundred and thirty some odd area residents in opposition, and strong opposition, to this project because of some very good reasons. All right. Let me read and there’s no way that I can cover the material, and I’m just going to keep on talking. MR. HUNSINGER-So the petitions that you have signed in front of your right hand, are those to be turned in as part of the public record? MR. LINKE-They are to be turned in, yes, and for the public record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LINKE-And I was told by the secretary that my letter that I had turned in last week would be written into the permanent record, and you people haven’t even received it. Well, let me just read the tail end of the part that people signed and returned, and they said, I have read Mr. th Linke’s attached petition dated May 9, and I would like to add my name in opposition. For the reasons, Number One, a certain risk, certain risk, to the health of residents living so close to the interstate highway, and I have documentation, irrefutable, scientific documentation that living close, that close to an interstate highway. MR. HUNSINGER-I was giving you some leeway to read the petition, not to expound. Okay. MR. LINKE-Certain damage, we already have certain risk and it is proven, and I challenge in my document for the Town Board to find one scientific statement that says that it’s okay and healthy to be building residences close to the Northway. Your own Town Code says don’t do it. Certain damage to the out of scale, out of character building on the rural residential neighborhood. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) Certain damage of this out of scale, out of character building on the visual environment, the nexus of three of Queensbury’s designated scenic roads. Would you, the Board right now, since you haven’t read the letter, would you explain to the public your view of the significant health risks that are nationally publicized. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Linke, this is a Planning Board meeting. You are here at our pleasure. We’re not here to serve you. Okay. I’m giving you a lot of leeway. Please respect the Board. MR. LINKE-Well, no one asked any questions about the health risks that your own Staff member mentioned. Nobody even asked for a second opinion. We have irreparable damage to the resident’s health. This is provable. MR. KREBS-Mr. Linke, if that’s so, then how is it that we allowed The Great Escape to build a hotel within 300 feet of the Northway? How is it that the emergency squad in the Town of Queensbury, on Media Drive, built their, now these are medical people, they built their emergency squad headquarters within 300 feet of? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Because they don’t live there. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if you have a study that you want to submit for the Board. MR. LINKE-I did, about 14 of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, then we will take it into consideration. MR. LINKE-I insist that this be tabled tonight if you have not read this document. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s the Board’s decision, not yours. MR. LINKE-All right. Let me read. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll give you one more minute, okay. MR. LINKE-Just three more comments, and these are comments in addition to the petition, and I am asking you to read this petition into the public record, tonight. I won’t do it. You do it. Read this petition into the public record. You have 130 some odd signatures in support of this petition. Here’s one person who says, as former director of the New York State Air Pollution Program, I agree that studies showed that living in close proximity to an interstate highway can pose health risks to residents, and I have documented this in great detail. MR. KREBS-Mr. Linke, can you tell me where those studies were done next to the highways? Were they in a rural area, or were they in New York City, along a major industrial highway? MR. LINKE-Thank you for asking me that question. Here’s Norman H. Eidelman, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, American Lung Association, says the science is rock solid. We know that near highway air pollution can impair lung function of even the healthiest people. Air pollution worsens asthma and direct cause of heart attacks which, blah, blah, blah. Journal of Clinical Cardiology, March 11, 2010, I had hoped that you would have read this. Living near a major roadway is linked with coronary arterial sclerosis. Individuals living within 100 meters or more th are more than three times as likely to have lesions than those further away. February 14, nationally publicized in the Tech School of Medicine, University of Southern California reported living near highways is bad for your health. The study concludes highway pollution speeds artery wall hardening. The Press Enterprise, December 10, 2007, regional air pollution, officials want cities and counties to stop allowing homes to be built next to freeways where harmful pollution from trucks and cars is at its worst. The Journal of American Medical Association says lung cancer and cardiopulmonary mortality is linked to exposure of fine particulate air pollution, a major component of tail pipe emissions. Heart Wire 2007 reports living close to busy roads increases coronary calcification. German researchers in the journal circulation for the Journal of American Heart Association, the most important finding of our study is that traffic is associated, blah, blah, blah, coronary arteries, exposure to air pollution from nearby freeways is associated with a risk of heart disease and stroke. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LINKE-And on, and on, and on. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. LINKE-And all I can say is that if you approve this project, with known health risks, I’ve been trying to get this information to you and you just don’t seem to want to hear it, and I think I know why. All right. We have. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Linke, Mr. Linke, that’s not a fair comment to make at all, first of all. I’ve been more adequate to be lenient with the time requirement. If you have anything else to add, please say it, and I would like to hear from other people as well. MR. LINKE-I’m appalled by the Board’s behavior, all right. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fine. MR. LINKE-We have irreparable damage, and especially in light of you making any kind of decision tonight, not having read this. I will make sure that there is some kind of an appeal, some kind of legal action, because you stand to ruin three of Queensbury’s scenic. You stand to ruin the quality and character of a neighborhood, and, most importantly, you have serious, well documented, known health risks, and why your Staff can’t find this information I don’t understand, and why it hasn’t been given to you, it will be irresponsible for you to act without reading it. I’m appalled. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Thank you. MR. LINKE-Think of 130 some odd people sitting here. They don’t have time to come out time and time again, year after year. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Linke, do you want that incorporated into the record? MR. LINKE-I would like the Board, right now, to read the petition that 130 people signed. MR. HUNSINGER-We will read it into the record, Mr. Linke. We will. MR. LINKE-Read it into the record. Why not now? MR. HUNSINGER-We will. Because we’re in the public hearing part now. When your neighbors get their opportunity to make their comments and we hear everyone’s comments, then we will read it into the record. MR. LINKE-130 neighbors. MR. HUNSINGER-I heard you the first time. MR. LINKE-Have made their comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Who would like to be next? Anyone else? Yes, sir. DENNIS FRANKLIN MR. FRANKLIN-Dennis Franklin. I live on West Mountain Road. I guess what concerns me about the amount of time we’re wasting on this, this particular zone was rezoned at the request of the Town Board, due to the health concerns of people living within 1,000 feet of the Northway. So the Town Board must have known there was a risk. That’s how it was rezoned. That was their justification for the spot rezoning. So why do we keep considering residential spaces here? 135, I think the last time, now we’ve got retirement homes. I mean, it’s a proven fact it shouldn’t be. No one challenged the spot rezoning because the Town Board was on firm ground. MR. KREBS-But the Town Board created. MR. FRANKLIN-I’m sorry, I’m talking. Don’t interrupt me. The Town Board rezoned it because they did not feel it was appropriate for residential. Further, the Professional Office district says, it encompasses areas where professional offices are encouraged. These are located along arterials adjoining residential areas, where compatibility with residential uses is important. The Town desires to see development of high quality offices where structures and facilities are constructed with particular attention to detail including but not limited to architectural lighting, landscaping, streets, blah, blah, pedestrian connections. The PO district can function as a transition zone, protecting residential zones from more intensive commercial uses while providing convenient professional services to residential neighborhoods. Office and residential services should be sited and built to demonstrate compatibility with adjoining areas. All we keep having here are monster buildings. We don’t see what we were told we would see there, is small, professional office buildings. We’re talking now about two 20,000 square foot buildings, 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) and 88,000 square feet of residential, which the area was rezoned to get rid of residential on that site, due to health considerations, by the Town Board. I fail to see why we all keep wasting our time except we have a Town leadership that speaks out of both sides of its mouth. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, can we keep our comments to the project, sir. MR. FRANKLIN-One saying that we’re going to change this for the health of the people. We’re going to have small professional offices, and then we consider everything else that some developer wants to put there, that’s out of character with the area, and I’m reading from the Town notes, what it says this area should be. I’m for the development, but I’m not for this continuous overdevelopment of that piece of property. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Might I just point out that if you continued down the page, from where you were reading. MR. FRANKLIN-I chose to read what I read, and it stands for itself. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. FRANKLIN-Quit interrupting me. You make a mockery of a nice Board with some intelligence. How you got on there is beyond me. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s enough. Anyone else? MR. KREBS-Well, I just want to explain for the rest of the people in the room that the Ordinance says, under A, Section Two, both commercial and residential uses are allowed. AUDIENCE MEMBER-He insists on talking. This is public comment, not a Board comment. MR. LINKE-I would like to speak again. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we bring order to the meeting, please? Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? No other audience members? Yes, ma’am. ANNIE BANG MS. BANG-Okay. My name is Annie Bang. I live on West Mountain Road, just down from where this is going to be built. I wasn’t going to say anything, because the reality is I’m really just sick and tired. I mean, I take care of my property. I make sure that I do plantings where it looks good, and every time I turn around, up at the corner, the first thing that was going to be there, cluster houses, they didn’t bother me at all, but since then, I have these big monstrosity that don’t belong. I mean, that big apartment house for the elderly is three stories tall. I am going to see that sitting on my back deck. Let me tell you, I didn’t plan on that, and I don’t think I should be forced to swallow it, but what I guess bothers me most about tonight and every other meeting we’ve ever had is that nobody is listening to what people are saying on either side. If they were my kids, I’d knock their heads against the wall and tell them to sit down and behave themselves. Nobody’s listening. Why would a town want to put something in a neighborhood that the neighbors hate? What’s the benefit of it? I don’t know why the developer wants to do it either. That’s, I mean, I don’t understand how we always get to this point? Why does this corner have to look like Bay Road? Because if I wanted to live on Bay Road, I would have moved there, but I don’t. I want to live on West Mountain Road, and I don’t care how many trees buffer the Northway to that apartment house. On my deck, or if I have the windows open, I can hear the Jake brakes, and I am all the way across Rush Pond and the land in between. So those people who live there are going to hear it all the time. Because it’s constant. I’m disappointed. Severely disappointed. I sense, which is not a good feeling, that there is no way to stop this. That’s even scarier. However, Queensbury will end up paying the price for bad decisions, because they’re not scot free. I think this is a bad decision. Can I guarantee it? No, but I think it is, but we will pay the price. Hopefully I move out before I have to pay the price. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else who hasn’t spoken? Do we want to entertain additional comments from the same people? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Linke, you had more than your adequate share of time. Do you have something that’s new to add to the record? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. LINKE-Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn this in. I’m not sure that when I turned in the signed pages that you had the actual (lost words). MR. OBORNE-We have copies of that. MR. HUNSINGER-You have copies of this? Okay. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. Did you have something new to add? MS. MACINTOSH-I don’t have anything new, but I am wondering about the segmented aspect of this project. Is that something that any of you can speak about? MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll talk about that when it’s time for the Board to talk, or the applicant can. Okay. I will, we will stop taking public comment this evening. If the applicant wants to come back to the table. We did have written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Again, there’s this from Mr. Linke. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I would like you to read at least one of the petitions that was signed, for the benefit of the Board and the record. MR. OBORNE-One of the petitions? Absolutely. Okay. I’ll start, just from the top, which is the process that he wanted to go through. “Please sign our petition below and return only this page in the addressed, stamped envelope provided (understand that I will present this position at the Town Planning Board meeting on May 25, 2010). I have read Mr. Linke’s attached petition dated May 9, 2010 in opposition to the current Schermerhorn proposal for building a residential complex at Exit 20. I’m adding my name to support this opposition for reasons for: One, the certain risk of health of residents living so close to the interstate highway. Two, the certain damage that this out of scale and out of character building will have on the rural residential neighborhoods, and, Three, the certain damage that this out of scale and out of character building will have on the visual environmental, which is important to me, at the nexus of the three Queensbury’s designated scenic roads.” And what is asked is a name, a date, and an address of the signing of this particular petition, and it basically says there are other comments. Obviously this is open for public review, and it is, they ask the people that this was sent to to th please be put in the mail by this Saturday, May 15. And that is one of one hundred and so, as per the petitioner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This 11 page document that was submitted, how do Board members want to handle it? Do you want to read this into the record, or do we each want to each have a copy to review? MR. TRAVER-I believe it’s already part of the record. Isn’t it? MR. HUNSINGER-No. I don’t think he read the whole thing. He only read parts of it. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the normal protocol is to read it into the record. MR. OBORNE-Well, the normal protocol is if it’s not a, I don’t have a problem reading it, first of all, I don’t have a problem reading it into the record, by your direction. It is a lengthy document. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-That obviously will need to be deciphered by the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Any other public comments, written comments? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments in response to the public hearing? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I just want to respond. Again, obviously it seems like we’ve all spent a lot of time, and, you know, what I’ve learned out of this is I don’t consider any of this a waste of time for any of us. I purchased the property over five years ago, you know, there’s a history to the property. Obviously everyone’s well aware of this property. Some of the main vocal people have been Mrs. MacIntosh, Mr. Linke and Mr. and Mrs. Franklin, and I consider all of them very intelligent. Their comments are well warranted, but one of the things that I think that’s really missing here, and I’m certainly not putting anybody on the spot, but I think Gretchen 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) may have even touched on it with some of our lengthy meetings when we were doing Travelers. There’s plenty of opportunities in this community to get involved, and they have tremendous amount of expertise, way more than I ever imagined. I listened to Mr. Linke speak, and I’ve got to tell you, I’m impressed. I have his documentation that he handed out to everyone last week that you have on file, but I guess what amazes me, though, is the fact that, I’m a developer. This is what I do for a living. I don’t come in to hurt people in Queensbury, in some of the comments that were stated, but the fact of the matter is, I didn’t place the zoning in these particular areas that I go. I go where things are zoned. I always follow the intent of what the zoning is. I even, I’ve stated on the record several times, I’m always willing to flex, even because someone says something doesn’t mean it has to be that way. I always take public input, I do take Town input and Planning Board input. So I feel like here we are, you know, again. Certainly I’ve complied. I consider it to be a complete application, with some pluses to it, but I feel like I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to address anything that I do for the certain individuals. Now I know he had some petitions signed, and I’ve been down that route before with the Travelers thing, and, you know, a 135 names sounds like a lot, but what I found with the Travelers petitions, which I have copies of them all because I spent a great deal of time, as you all did as well. A lot of times they’ll go to a household and you’ll get, I’ll see husband and wife. I’ll see the kids on there. You’ll see a cousin’s name on there, and I’m not saying that they’re not all broken down individually, but again, where’s the community involvement? Especially this particular property seems to be such a hot button for particular individuals, but again, I’m following the rules. I’m following the regulations. I’m abiding by what’s put in front of me. I’m coming back with what’s asked of me. So it’s difficult, I’m sure, for all of us, but I don’t feel anything’s a waste of time, but I would just recommend that with their input may help developers like myself in the future. I mean, rather than always get to this point, where I almost feel like I’m the one that’s ruining, they make it out like I’m the one that’s going to ruin the landscape. I’m going to ruin Queensbury. Well it’s not my intent. It’s never been my intent. I’m following the procedure. So I just hope that this process we can move forward, because I feel we’ve truly addressed the concerns as put forward. MR. LAPPER-Just two points I’d like to address quickly. In terms of the Northway, Tom scaled it out, and the closest point of this building is 360 feet 360 feet from the travel corridor, from the travel lane of the southbound travel lane. The ramp is closer, but in terms of where most of the traffic is, it’s 360 feet, and there’s substantial trees. Obviously a lot of them are on the Northway buffer, but there are also trees on this site. So trees filter carbon dioxide. We’re a great distance. 360 feet is a great distance. So we think that this is appropriate. I want to also address the segmentation issue that was raised. We included the maximum 40,000 two buildings that could fit on that site under the zoning. Rich has no intention to build that. There are no tenants out there now. It is unlikely that there’s ever going to be tenants for that size buildings. He’s not proposing to build it, but just so when we would do the traffic report we would analyze the maximum impact so that you would have that in front of you, we threw that on there, but these are completely independent. Whatever might happen in the future, it could be a bunch of 2,000 square foot buildings if that’s what the market is, but that is completely independent of a senior residential project in the back, and the independent utility test is a test for segmentation. Cathi can tell you about it. The office buildings have nothing to do with the residential. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I just want to point out, and again, at the last meeting we addressed that with the future of the, you know, I had to show the future build out, but again, the Planning Board, the public will have another review of this project, so when I come back, if it is going to be a small office building, large office building or whatever the allowable use is at that time, it will be reviewed again. So this isn’t the end of, once this decision’s made on this particular project. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-Yes. I’d just like to go on with what I tried to say before, and as a Planning Board member, my job is to administer the existing Zoning Ordinance. I happen to believe in property rights. I think all of us have property rights, and in the Ordinance, right after where he got through reading, it says, both commercial and residential uses are allowed beyond 300 feet back from the arterial road. That’s the existing law in the Town of Queensbury, and it goes on to say residential one acre per eight residential units. If he, if Mr. Schermerhorn built to that level, he could put 132 units there. He’s only putting 60 units there. So I think he’s following the Zoning Ordinance, and I think if we’re going to have a Zoning Ordinance, as a community, if you don’t like this Zoning Ordinance, go back to your Town Board members and get them to change the Ordinance, but as a Planning Board member, I have to administer the Ordinance that’s in effect at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. SIPP-In regard to the air pollution statements, I look at Glen Street in Glens Falls and the amount of traffic that comes up Route 9. Has anybody ever taken an air sample on that air? Has there been a study done on streets in cities where the traffic may be just as heavy and moving much slower though, at the type of pollution that is there and that people are breathing in? And lastly, the Town of Queensbury, or the County of Warren, I should say, has a health facility located not too far from there and fairly close to the Northway, which has been there a long time, and I wonder if anybody’s ever done a study on the heart damage and lung damage that could be caused by the people breathing air for a number of years in that situation, all of them being in the elderly class, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We did discuss with the applicant filtration and the air handling of the different units and so on, and, you know, the filter, conventional filters are not going to, you know, filter out carbon monoxide or whatever, certainly the more modern heating and air conditioning equipment that is used is definitely better at particulates than even a few years ago, just to make the efficiency higher, of the heating and cooling. So there’s something to be said for that, but it is significant to note that the nearest point is 360 feet from the travel corridor. MR. NACE-Keith, could you open that single file there that says PDF, no, just back up, the single, that’s it. You may have to rotate it. MR. OBORNE-This one here? MR. NACE-That one. Okay. That shows the proximity that’s between 360 and 395 feet to the southbound lanes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I checked with the West Mount Health Facility this morning, and that facility, which has been there about I think approximately 40 years, currently they have 80 beds in the facility for patients, and they’re mostly full, and there’s 100 plus staff members in the building. So we went out and we actually did a measurement for accuracy, to see how I compared, and they’re 230 feet, in comparison to I think, what, 360 and 395, just to give you an idea. MR. KREBS-Well, and the reason I asked Mr. Linke where that information came from is, if you’re in the middle of San Francisco, and you’re on the highway or if you’re coming in to LA, or if you’re on a highway driving through the middle of New York City, that’s an entirely different traffic volume than you’re going to get on the Northway. I mean, I come home from skiing in the winter sometimes during the week, on the Northway, and I’m one of six cars. You’re not going to create enough pollution with six cars to hurt anybody. AUDIENCE MEMBER-But you’re not coming on Exit 20 southbound. For example. MR. KREBS-Yes, that’s how I get home. I come south and get off Exit 20. AUDIENCE MEMBER-The Town re-zoned this property because of their wisdom. MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me, we finished the public hearing. Any other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I would like to have counsel address the issue of segmentation if you would, please. MS. RADNER-Segmentation applies when a developer has plans for the ultimate build out of a site but deliberately piecemeals it so that they look at only one piece of it at a time. Now the developer has represented to you, and I would suggest that you ask him to re-affirm this on the record, that there are no actual plans in place to develop the rest of the site. That being the case, and assuming the truth of that, then what you need to do is look at the maximum potential build out, which is what they’ve done for you. So you have to look at what could be built hypothetically because there are no plans in place. So that’s how you come around to segmentation. You’re not segmenting something if there isn’t a plan to build it out. MR. FORD-Thank you. MS. RADNER-Does that make sense? MR. FORD-Thank you, and just to reiterate, are there plans to further develop that with additional structures? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not at this time. MR. FORD-There are no plans in existence? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. MS. RADNER-Do you have any tenants lined up, anything under discussion? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. Nothing. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Can you please talk to the out of district user situation with the sewer, please. How will that work and will it be just for this particular site? MR. NACE-Specifically there’s a pump station and a force main that Rich will be constructing. He will actually own those facilities, okay, and they are specifically for this project. They are not for any future growth or any future capacity. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So that would be for the senior complex as proposed and the potential 43,000 square foot office building. MR. NACE-Yes, for this site, potential full build out. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’m assuming it’ll pump down to the Glens Falls sewer? MR. NACE-It pumps to the sewer over on Route 9. No, it crosses the Northway. It’s a boring under the Northway and it will pump to the sewer on Route 9 and the Municipal Center. MR. OBORNE-Just a point of clarification is that out of district user needs to be approved by the Town Board. So, just want to make sure the Planning Board is aware of that, the Town Board of Health. MR. HUNSINGER-What other issues, comments does the Board have? MRS. STEFFAN-Listening to the public comment tonight, there’s just a couple of issues that I guess, certainly by my comments I’ve been in favor of the project with the, you know, with the modifications that have been made so far. I live in that area. That’s no secret. I’m also pretty familiar with senior citizen operations, and I’ve also been to the facility that’s off of Bay Road. It’s quiet and it is all of the things that you had described in prior meetings, and as I’ve looked at some of the uses that have been proposed in the past and certainly the opposition from neighbors, this certainly seems like a much better fit than some of the things that have been proposed previously, but I am concerned about the minutes that Mr. Franklin read about the Town’s rezoning, and I vaguely remember some of that dialogue that went back and forth, and the debate that was in the newspaper, but it’s been a long time since I read that, and I know that there is the petition that Mr. Linke submitted for the record, that the Planning Board has not looked at. There’s a couple of outstanding issues from the notes from the Staff Notes, and I’d like to take a look at those Town Board meeting minutes, just to make sure that we’re on side and we’re doing what we’re supposed to be doing. I would like to read Mr. Linke’s materials. I would just like you to address some of the smaller outstanding issues that are in the Staff Notes. MR. NACE-Okay. As far as Staff Notes, the turning radius we have looked at. In fact, we did prepare a drawing as Staff asked, and if you want to, Keith, could you pull up, on the TIP files, there’s one that says turn, or truck. MR. OBORNE-That one there? MR. NACE-That one there. That shows the turning radiuses for trucks entering the site, leaving the site, and making the acute angle up at the top of the, or at the, up at the building, and they do all work. We have, as the Fire Marshal had asked, we have dropped the curb on the island down at the bull nose, down at West Mountain Road, so that if fire trucks do have any trouble at all they can run up over the grass and not have a problem. Snow storage, we had addressed that in our verbal, or in our written response. It will be stored in the grassed area that’s reserved for future parking if ever required. We can show that on the plan if you would like. MR. HUNSINGER-My question on that, is there enough room between the edge of the pavement and where the trees begin to store snow? MR. NACE-There’s 30 feet in there. Yes. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, before you hit the trees, before you hit the tree line. Yes. That’s the canopy we’re looking at. Yes, there would be room in there. Rich, you can probably talk better about how you manage snow. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Most of these parking lots, Chris, how they’re done is we use rubber tire backhoes with snow pushers. The reason being is when you do these parking lots, you stack, you pile it, and you can actually quite effectively pile it pretty good. So there’s plenty of room, and I do see other areas if needed, if you had a significant snow storm where you could put it in some of the islands safely where it would be addressed adequately. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, there’s certainly a lot of room in that one large island to the south. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And quite honestly, again, as I explained before, not all these parking spots, even as I’ve reduced it, a lot of them remain vacant. You can drive by the Willows and you’ll see where we’ll have eight, nine spots where we push snow in the corner because not all of the people in these buildings have automobiles. MR. LAPPER-And the last one was bio-retention that Tom had already addressed and isn’t necessary on this site because of the sand, and I’d just like to address what Gretchen asked. The real answer with the zoning is just that once you get back 300 feet, residential is permitted. So, you know, the zoning has flip-flopped over the years, but it’s, what’s permitted now is what’s proposed here. We never would have gotten by the Planning Staff to get this submission in if it wasn’t a permitted use. MRS. STEFFAN-But was it rezoned in the first place for Professional Office so that it would curtail the residential development in that, on that property? MR. SCHERMERHORN-It was always zoned, if you remember my first project, it was called Westbrook as well. It was a townhouse project, 120 units, and I brought that in, and it was a permitted use, but the public absolutely did not like it, and I voluntarily backed that out, if you remember. I stood up and I say okay, and I got applauded, and that was the end of it, and then we came back again with the Travelers project. Went through a long process with that one, as we’re all aware, and, you know, I got an answer from you guys and we moved forward, we left that one on the board and I came back with this one, and again, I’ve been very careful to dot my I’s and cross my T’s. MR. LAPPER-It was after that that the Town Board changed it so that the setback for residential was 300 feet from West Mountain Road, and that’s when Rich said, okay, if that’s the new zoning, then I’m going to come in and do a senior project because it’s quiet and low traffic and we should be able to get that through. So that’s what’s changed, and now the 300 foot line, and we’re respecting that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And that was as recent as, it was a year ago, wasn’t it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And again, I think you and I were at a meeting, and again, I wasn’t insulting the public, but I was like that corridor of Town is a very sensitive hot spot, and I encourage people, you know, to get involved, because I don’t write the zoning. I just follow it, and so. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I think one of the other issues is, this is obviously a focal point in this area, people live there, it’s an open space, and we’re losing so much open space in the Town of Queensbury that it’s representative of what’s happening to the Town that everybody wants to live in. So it’s kind of a, I’m believing that it’s a lightning rod for everything that’s going on community wide, not just in this little piece of Queensbury. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I’ve said on the record before, don’t get me wrong, I’m a developer. I’m for growth, but smart growth is always, has always been, I’ve always said smart growth is what’s important, and I mean, some people say how hard Queensbury is, but you know if you follow the laws and you listen to what they say, and here we are. I mean, I feel that I’m appropriately addressing the Board, in the comments that have been made the best that I can. MR. LAPPER-There’s a lot of green space on this site, too. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and again, you know, there is clearing of eight acres, as Ms. Macintosh said, for the property, but it’s also a 17 acre parcel. Does it mean that all of it’s going to be cleared? No. It can’t be under the zoning, but secondly is when I come back some day this Board will have another look, or the future Board that could possibly be in place. MR. KREBS-There are some other advantages, I mean, to the community. You need commercial or residential development like this because it helps pay your school taxes. You have a 55 plus community, 60 units, and very few of those people are going to be sending any students. It’s Lake George school district, but that’s where the taxes are going, but that’s the school district. On the other project, I did some rough calculations on the Traveler’s project, and $90,000 was lost in County and Town taxes. Well, you want to keep paying higher and higher in the Town of Queensbury for your schools, you’ve got to balance commercial development and residential development. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the other outstanding comments was on the proposed bike trail through your property. What’s the latest on that? MR. NACE-Keith, do you want to pull up the one that says trail? MR. OBORNE-Bike trail? MR. NACE-That’s it. We did walk the site with George Hilton and John Strough, actually twice. What we’re proposing now, and they seem to feel is a good solution, is the bike trail comes up from the Rush Pond area over on the east side of the site, comes up to the height of land, to the crest of the rise, and follows around, the old sand pit at West Mountain Road is right in here. This follows up around the rim above the pit, comes back down to West Mountain Road out in front of the project, and then runs along West Mountain Road on up to the north, toward Gurney Lane. It’s, the trail up around the edge of the pit’s kind of nice. It’s a pretty area, and it keeps the trail more in the wild area and away from the buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-Now has that been accepted by the Rec Committee? MR. SCHERMERHORN-My understanding, it’s a Town Board issue before it would go to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s not reflected in any of the plans that we have? MR. LAPPER-No, it is. MR. NACE-That that were submitted. This was just finalized in the last week. MR. LAPPER-Submitted in to the Planning Department to get to John Strough. That’s what it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I didn’t see it. MR. NACE-No, it’s not in what was submitted back in April. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Back in April if you remember I said as a condition that I was working with Mr. Strough for this proposed trail, and we’ve just gotten further along where we’ve been able to put something on it. So all along I’ve been agreeable to it. MR. FORD-Is it proposed to go out to the actual pavement? MR. NACE-No, no it would be back on the shoulder. It’s a fairly wide right of way at that point. MR. FORD-Okay. So it’s not a bike lane at the site of Gurney Lane? MR. NACE-No, that’s correct. MR. FORD-Thank you. I just wanted to make sure of the safety aspect of it. MR. NACE-Correct, no, it’s back off the edge of the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other concerns, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-A couple of mundane things here. What’s the height of the sign? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. NACE-We’ve shown the sign. We haven’t shown any dimensions. We’ve showed the sign to show the concept of what it might look like, but the actual sign dimensions themselves would be submitted with the sign permit, and it would have to follow the sign code. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that would be 25 feet, and I don’t want to see a 25 foot sign. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. MR. LAPPER-It’s a monument sign. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Typically mine are 60 inches off the ground by maybe 60 inches wide, but I certainly, we always get a sign permit and we comply with what the Sign Ordinance is at that location. Signage with this type of project is not as important as say like a fast food restaurant. Usually I put a small one out front, label what the development is, Westbrook, and that’s it. MR. SIPP-Now would there be another sign if the office buildings were put in? Would that be? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, it would be subject to Site Plan Review at the time. I’m sure that whatever someone would want signage either on the building if it was permitted or signage probably in front of their building, but I don’t know at this time. MR. SIPP-And I agree somewhat with whoever said there should be a little more landscaping on the entrance way, Gretchen, I guess. You’ve got three ash, four ash trees there, backed up by some new white pines, I assume, smaller white pines. You’re taking out the old, older trees and planting some new ones in there. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. SIPP-And maybe there needs to be a little ground cover in between them, between the ash trees. MR. NACE-Sure, we can add that. MR. SIPP-And I would wonder if you would consider single office buildings or doctor’s office or lawyer offices and so forth, in placing one of those larger office buildings. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t have any idea at this time, Don, but honestly, if it, knowing the public and where I stand right now, I don’t think that’s going to change in the future. So I will be looking, when that time comes, I’ll certainly be addressing that at that time. MR. SIPP-Two large, well, semi-large office buildings is, I think, too much on the property. MR. LAPPER-He didn’t put that on the plan because he has any intention. It was just to show the maximum, you know, that part of Town there’s certainly not a big office demand. MR. KREBS-And the big determination is going to be, does he find someone who wants to rent or have him develop the property for their use, and if it doesn’t happen, there won’t be anything there. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, you know, I don’t want to set myself up, but I mentioned at the last meeting that there’s a standalone lot to the north. That particular lot, if you look at the zoning right now, is, you could have a Jolley on it, a convenience store with gas pumps, and now again, this is a perfect opportunity for the public so that someone doesn’t come along and, God forbid anything happens to me and my estate is sold and someone wants to put a gas station on the corner. The current zoning allows for a gas station on that corner. Would I attempt it? No way. MRS. STEFFAN-Stewarts probably would. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Stewarts might, but I’m just, this is the public’s opportunity, going forward, to get involved, to work with Town, and to change that zoning. Would I be opposed to it? Probably not, because I wouldn’t want it with the development that I’m putting there now. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I wonder if, I know that the public portion of the meeting is closed, but would it be possible, in a polite and respectful manner, if someone from the public were to ask the applicant a few questions about his development? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s not what the public hearing is intended for, sir. It’s to provide information to the Board, not for a dialogue between the public and the applicant. Would the Board entertain additional comments from the public? MR. FORD-What I would have a better comfort level with is there’s been documentation provided that I’ve, we have not had an opportunity to either hear or review, and I would like that opportunity, for us as individual Board members. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to mention that as well, after members expressed their comments. I mean, it is, it’s an 11 page document. I mean, we do owe the submitter the courtesy of reviewing that. The normal procedure, when written comments are received, is that they’re retained by Staff and then read as part of the public hearing. We could certainly do that. However, there is information that’s in the document, you know, that needs to be digested. So I don’t know if the Board wants to just read the document into the record, or if we want to, well, I mean, if we’re going to table the application, then, you know, you can review it on your own leisure, but if the intent of the Board is to move forward this evening, we do need to take the opportunity to review that document, and I’m open for comments or suggestions. MR. TRAVER-It sounds to me as though, although I also have not seen that document, but it sounds as though there is information of a medical, scientific nature that simply reading it may not be adequate. As you mentioned, it may require some reading and perhaps even a little homework. So it would be my preference, if we’re considering it, to have it to examine at my leisure, actually, before, I know it’s lengthening the process. MR. HUNSINGER-How many copies of the document were submitted, Keith, do you know? MR. OBORNE-I believe at least 12 or 14. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-I think that’s a good suggestion, because I think something taken out of context means one thing, but when it’s in the total picture, you get a better idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for my own curiosity, when was the document submitted? th MR. OBORNE-It was submitted on the 12 of this month? th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because it mentions the 14. So I didn’t know if it was. MS. RADNER-Could I just make one comment? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MS. RADNER-There’ve been a number of things throughout the evening that have been referred to that aren’t part of the application, but either have been submitted by letter later or the applicant tonight has indicated an agreement or willingness to agree to. Be very careful. If you’re inclined to grant the application, I would just caution you to make sure that you specifically condition the things that are important to you. Don’t just assume that because it was said at some point throughout the various hearings that he was agreeable, that it now becomes a condition of Site Plan approval. You want to specifically condition anything that would be a deal breaker for you, so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. What’s the will of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, could we have the gentleman who wanted to speak respectfully on the record, could we give him the opportunity, not to ask questions, but to make a couple of statements that I’m assuming the Planning Board might weigh and consider as we take this new information, because I’m believing that we’re going towards a tabling motion to consider some more information, and I would like to hear what that individual had to say, so that we could weigh and consider it with the other information before we come to a conclusion. MR. FORD-I concur, if you agree, of course. MR. TRAVER-Are we, if we re-open a public hearing, does that re-open the hearing for everyone, or are we just allowing? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we didn’t re-open the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s still held open. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. FORD-It was never closed. MRS. STEFFAN-It was just for somebody who hasn’t spoken already. MR. HUNSINGER-The question is whether or not we want to allow additional comment this evening. No, I didn’t close it. Are other members agreeable? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could give up the table again. Sir, if you could address your questions to the Board, you know, you could certainly address your questions to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, please. MR. HUNSINGER-And again, if you could state your name for the record. NELSON MILLER MR. MILLER-My name’s Nelson Miller. I live on Gurney Lane, and I share the concerns of many of my neighbors about the aesthetics of the project. I understand that the developer has, you know, an investment in his right to have some development and some financial gain in his investment is important to respect as well. Unfortunately, I’ve been traveling and I’ve missed some of the previous informational exchange on this project, and among my questions that I was going to pose, that I hope the Board will ask the applicant about is what are the plans, if any, to do landscaping in the sand or gravel pit portions of this property that are between West Mountain Road and the actual site development that’s being proposed, and, you know, there was some discussion about the 360 foot distance from the southbound lane of the Northway, and I think that, I haven’t personally researched the health issues that have been raised, but I think the Board, when they’re considering those, should, and I imagine the Board is aware of this, that the on ramp gets pretty heavy use. There’s a lot of truck traffic that’s bound east and north, going to Vermont and New England, and coming the other way, from those places, that gets on that ramp, and so I think that the fact that the main southbound lane is 360 feet away may not be the only factor that should be considered there. Again, I’m not going to be living there, at least I don’t have any plans to be living there, so, you know, any health effects aren’t maybe my first concern, but I think the aesthetics of the project are a very real concern, and its impact, and so those are things that I’m very concerned about, and I think, you know, most of the people in the area are concerned about that, and I understand that the developer has not been insensitive to those concerns. I would like to see some renderings, you know, of what this project would look like, not just the footprint, and that was going to be one of my other questions. Have those been made available? Are they available for the public to view, to see what, you know, what the elevation renderings would look like for this project from various angles. I think that’s something that is important. We have a beautiful Town, and I think we all want to keep it that way. So, those are my questions and comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Strough? I didn’t know if you had anything else to add. You heard the discussion on the bike trail. Yes, thank you. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. No, Richard and Tom Nace have been very cooperative in extending the trail through this project over to Gurney Lane, and what Tom had showed you was the approximate location, satisfactory to all, for the bike trail. Now I say approximate because George Hilton went out with us with a GPS, and we got, you know, got it narrowed down pretty much where the trail is going to go, and I don’t know if Tom has that information yet, but he soon will have, and, you know, we’re going to need something along the approximation of a 20 foot right of way for the construction purposes of the trail. The trail is going to wrap around, as Tom Nace had shown, around the sand pit. Now, part of that sand pit, and we had a resident concerned about what is that going to look like. Well part of that has got to be taken down, and the slope extending northward needs to be less steep, because the trail is designed to be handicap accessible and handicap usable. So no grade can exceed five percent. The trail has to be 10 foot width for two way traffic, and if you’re going to allow multi use, which this is being planned to be used, bicycles, in-line skate, walkers, etc., the whole gamut, two way traffic, ten foot’s a minimum. With two foot shoulder minimums on each side. So the width of the trail is 14 feet. So we’re asking for about a 20 foot right of way through there, which, you know, like I said, they’ve been very cooperative. Now, as far as the Park and Rec Commission, the understanding is, John, you do the work, get it done, and we’ll take it from there, and, you know, I’ve taken that burden, and we’re almost completed with that. What’s been holding us up is the archeological study. It wasn’t named Indian Ridge for nothing. Because every time you put a shovel in, we’ve come up with something. Even though most of 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) the trail is going to be on the surface, the Office of Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation, they don’t care. They just want to make sure it’s clear and clean. So we’ve had to re-route the trail several times, around Native American findings, and so we’ve been able to do that, but that’s what’s been taking so long. Now once we get the archeology out of the way, we’ll be able to go to the DEC permits, which, you know, have been done, and once we go through there, then we’ll get the property owner’s permission, the easements, Richard Schermerhorn’s, and then, you know, the rough trail is essentially done, and if you’d like to see a copy of the rough trail, if that would help you out conceptually, I’m sure I could arrange to have George Hilton send that to you, if it would be helpful, but like I said, Richard and Tom Nace have been very helpful on this matter. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. TRAVER-That would be helpful. Since we’re going to have an opportunity to study additional material. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ll have George send it to you. MR. FORD-I’d appreciate that. MR. TRAVER-Does that map note the locations of the archeological? MR. STROUGH-I can have that if you’d like it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be interesting as well. MR. STROUGH-But it’s almost everywhere, but, yes, the very, the spots where it’s specifically, I can have that noted as well, George has that as well. MR. HUNSINGER-A 10 foot wide. MR. STROUGH-It’s a minimum. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, how does that compare to the Glens Falls to Lake George bike trail? MR. STROUGH-Well, it varies. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. MR. STROUGH-It’s 10 foot in the City. It’s 12 foot elsewhere, but it does, it goes from 10 to 12. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it’s basically the same, you know, roughly the same way. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and the standards being developed now, the preferable is 12, but a lot of the neighbors said, you know, 10 foot would be less destruction, and I tried to explain to them there’s going to be very little destruction because we’re following, for the most part, all native trails. Trails are already there, and if you look at the sides of the trails, with just a few exceptions, it’s just saplings and stuff. So, you know, and we’ve routed it around major trees and things like that. We’ve done everything we can to be environmentally sensitive with this trail. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s great. Gretchen? I’m sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-Can you show us where the sand pit is in relation to the bike trail on that map? I don’t know if Tom Nace, Tom Nace probably could do that better. MR. NACE-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the sand pit is actually where the stormwater controls are going to be? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. NACE-That’s correct, and actually there’s a little bit of it that comes back into here. MRS. STEFFAN-So that would have to be excavated anyway. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. STROUGH-Well, the trail follows the ridge. There’s already a trail there that follows the upper ridge for the most part. We’re following the same trail that’s already there, but when you get over towards West Mountain Road, where Tom’s pointing out, it’s too steep for handicap users. So that has to be taken down and pushed northwards. So that’s going to hide some of that sand pit, when we do that, because we have to do that to make the grade of the trail easier. MR. FRANKLIN-What happens to the vegetation that’s there, John? MR. STROUGH-There’s no vegetation there right now. I think that’s what the resident was concerned about was the sand pit’s pretty much exposed, and there is scrub there, and that will probably go. MR. FRANKLIN-How will that be restored. I mean, it’s sand pit, so, when we build the trails, are you going to replant the size of it? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s Dennis Franklin speaking. MR. FRANKLIN-I’m sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. MR. STROUGH-Well, Dennis, that’s something that we can work out, and if there’s preferences, I’ve been very open to ideas, you know, for that, and Dennis knows my phone number. MR. FRANKLIN-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-If I could interject on this issue. I do have a question for Tom. Is this storage that you have planned also including the properties to the north for potential future development? Or would there be separate stormwater controls with that? MR. NACE-You mean for the office? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. NACE-No, the stormwater study takes into account full build out of the entire parcel. MR. OBORNE-Okay. That’s excellent, because if you had to change that, that might change the location of the bike trail. That’s all. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-That was my understanding, that it was based on a 43,000 square foot development there. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that trail doesn’t get in the way of that, and if anybody would like to take a run, just give me a call, Saturday and Sunday morning, I’ll take you for a run on where the trail’s going. We can do the whole 2.2 miles if you want. I’ve done it a lot, but anyway, the Park and Rec Commission do plan on taking this over when I get it to point where they’re happy with it, but I’ve got to get it there first. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, John. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Okay. Where are we at? MR. FORD-Table. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we’re looking at a tabling. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. KREBS-But if we table it, when are we going to be able to table it to? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what I’m looking, perhaps, at a special meeting. We had a conversation earlier about putting together a Special Meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, in fact, I meant to bring it up later in the meeting. I received an e-mail from the Town Supervisor asking us if we would consider a Special Meeting to catch up some of the backlog as well. MRS. STEFFAN-I know that the applicant will be disappointed that he’s getting tabled tonight, but the Board seems to have reached a consensus on doing that, but we’ve got some issues that once they’re addressed, I think that we could probably move it up on the agenda and not make the applicant wait until July to come back. I have to say that as a Planning Board member I really appreciate some of the things that you’re doing, like as John Strough just mentioned, the cooperation regarding the bike trail. That area obviously has been undeveloped for a period of time. You’ve owned it for five years. You walked away from the first project because of public input. I was adamantly opposed to the Travelers project. That was no secret, and so this development, I think, is reasonable for the area, and I think that, you know, we’ve got a couple of things to do. We’ve got a little more work to do, but I think it can be a very good project for that part of Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what new information are we going to need from the applicant? MRS. STEFFAN-The one question that I do have is on the sewer extension, the out of district user, is that done with the Town Board after your approval? MR. LAPPER-Yes. No, they’re an additional approval, separate from the Planning Board. So an outside agency approval. MR. SCHERMERHORN-If I should be granted approval by you, then they’ll, I have to go to the Town Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But you don’t go beforehand. You guys have to approve it first. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Just a quick follow up to that. From my point of view, I’d prefer to have the sewer taken care of first, but what we did is we made sure that the engineer looked at it, and there is enough capacity in the system for it. MR. FORD-Good. MR. OBORNE-So it really wasn’t a concern of mine, at this point in time. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, because we had that question at the last meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because that was an issue on the Bay Road extension but I know some people haven’t hooked up on Route 9 that were supposed to hook up initially. So I was assuming that there was capacity. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, in terms of new information, we talked about some additional landscaping. Certainly showing the bike trail on the site plan, you know, the proposed location. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And again, it would just say proposed in case Town Board decided or Parks and Recreation did change it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Understood. Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But I’m still open to changing it. MR. HUNSINGER-The monument sign, details on the monument sign? MR. TRAVER-Dimensions. MRS. STEFFAN-You showed the sign, but you did not provide dimensions. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-There were no dimensions, yes. MR. LAPPER-The maximum is 50 square feet, under the Code. MR. TRAVER-We’re asking for your proposed, not the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just the dimensions, yes, I saw the sign. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-What else? MRS. STEFFAN-We’re very happy to know how tall they are, because we’ve been burned a couple of times on that particular issue. Is anybody else interested in the Town Board minutes regarding the re-zoning? MR. HUNSINGER-How hard would that be to dig that up, do you have any idea? MR. OBORNE-Not an issue whatsoever, if so directed, and I will make paper copies. I hope. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it would be helpful as well. MR. KREBS-I think it will be helpful, but I don’t think it really changes the situation. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it doesn’t. MR. KREBS-Because the Zoning Ordinance is the Zoning Ordinance. MR. HUNSINGER-The Ordinance is the Ordinance. MR. KREBS-And for whatever reason they made those decisions, they created this Zoning Ordinance. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s correct, but it can make us feel more comfortable with our decision if we read their intent, and it’s congruent with the application in front of us. MR. TRAVER-It’ll give us some context. MRS. STEFFAN-Also we need to read Mr. Linke’s letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s our homework. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but that doesn’t have to be part of the motion. We’ll get that automatically. MR. HUNSINGER-And Keith, you can give us copies of that this evening, right? MR. OBORNE-I shall distribute them once the proceedings are done. MRS. STEFFAN-The applicant also has to address the outstanding Staff Notes. I know that they’ve said that they’ve done some of that. I probably need to identify what those are, because, is the bio-retention issue off the table? MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Nace has rebutted that particular comment a few times. MR. NACE-When we have the appropriate project, we’ll be glad to. MR. OBORNE-We don’t want to get into this now, Mr. Nace. MR. LAPPER-Snow storage is in the letter. That was already submitted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but if you could just label it on the plan. MRS. STEFFAN-On the plan. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Turn radius was submitted. So there’s only two out of the four. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-It was submitted to Staff? MR. OBORNE-It has been submitted to Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Are you satisfied with what was shown? MRS. STEFFAN-As long as it meets the Fire Marshal’s requirements. MR. SCHERMERHORN-We met with the Fire Marshal and Dave Hatin, and this specific turn radius was designed to meet their requirements of the fire trucks. MR. OBORNE-And I can corroborate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m reluctant to acknowledge your question. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-I promise I’ll keep it simple. I’m just wondering if, as you are making up your sort of list of things to address, are you going to address the character of the neighborhood question at all? MS. RADNER-As a part of SEQR review, they’ll have to address it at the appropriate time. If you need any assistance in understanding how to assess the character of the neighborhood or if you would like to talk about how one, where one gets a survey to, a professional survey done to understand the character of the neighborhood, I can help with that. I have information on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, if you have information that you want to forward to Staff, you can, that could become part of the public record, but that is a general SEQR requirement that we have to take into consideration on every single project that we review at this Board. So I mean, that’s just part of our general review that we do on every project, every time we meet, you know, 100 or more times a year. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I guess I’m wondering if the members of the Board, or of Staff, know how the character of the neighborhood is assessed, if it’s not assessed by environmental engineers, for example. If it is assessed by perhaps architects, planners, (lost word). If you need that kind of an assessment, that kind of thing can be funded by the New York State, through grants from the New York State Council on the Arts. They have an architectural division that gives out technical assistance grants fairly readily. It’s not a long application process, and I can give you that information. You’d want to speak to Anne Bennington, who’s the director of the Architectural program for the New York State Council, and she actually has the authority to give out technical assistance grants for exactly this kind of. MR. HUNSINGER-Again, if you have information that you want to present, you can present it, give it to Staff, and they’ll make sure that it’s part of the record. MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, Chris. Feel free to contact me. Unfortunately, what you’re stating right now is not getting on the record, and my memory is. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’d be glad to come to the table. MR. OBORNE-That or submit the information. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, I’m concerned about submitting information and not having it get to the Board members. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Chris, no disrespect, but to me, as an applicant, and all future applicants, I don’t know if we’re starting to sway the other way again, as far as protocol and procedure here, and I mean no disrespect, but where do we control the. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Again, ma’am, if you have information you want to give to Staff, you’re always welcome to provide that information. It’ll be part of the record. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I would gladly give it to Staff, but I’d just like assurance that it doesn’t get ignored and doesn’t get, and that it actually gets to the Board members. MS. RADNER-Ma’am, everything that’s submitted to Staff, while the public hearing process is open, becomes a part of the public record. It’s available by FOIL demand, if you want to see 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) what other people have submitted, you can file a request under FOIL. It all becomes part of the record. This Board reviews everything before they render their decisions. AUDIENCE MEMBER-And they would have reviewed Mr. Linke’s letter if he had (lost words) tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-Ma’am, please. Come on. Ma’am, please. You’re out of order. Please. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I think my question is legitimate. MR. HUNSINGER-Please. Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re trying to move our meeting forward, here, ma’am. You’re out of answer. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’m trying to get an answer. MS. RADNER-Can you please leave the building before we call the police and ask you to be removed. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Go right ahead. You go right ahead. MS. RADNER-Please leave the building now. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Absolutely not. You go right ahead. I think what has happened here tonight is a (lost words) and then he’s going to get it to you, he clearly did not do this. I don’t understand it. MR. KREBS-But, Jane, you’re not looking at the time factor. Mr. Linke did not provide that 30 days in advance. They don’t deliver information to me every day of the week. I get a package every month, and there’s a submittal date. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we move forward here? Let’s move forward with our tabling resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. Keith, I do have to ask you, a special meeting, when would you recommend? MR. OBORNE-Well, obviously into June, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-What is the will of the Board, I mean, we certainly can generate one the first or th second week. It looks like we may be able to tackle it on a Thursday on the 17. thth MRS. STEFFAN-I was looking at either the 17 or the 24. Because that’s, you know, and I don’t know what’s reasonable for you guys, and whether this room is available. That’s a month away. thth MR. OBORNE-Right, and I can get that information, either the 17 or the 24. What is the preference? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Is there any opportunity for a sooner one? thth MR. TRAVER-I will not be here on the 24. I will be away on the 24. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Graduations and everything at the end. th MR. HUNSINGER-June 17? MRS. STEFFAN-That works, but it may not work for the applicant. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’ll work for me, or sooner, but, again, I’m at your. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the bigger question is when do we want to see materials submitted by? MRS. STEFFAN-So next week is one week. The beginning of June. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Our stuff can be submitted tomorrow. Obviously for what we’ve discussed, we could have it tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-Landscaping, the trail. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-My question, is this the only applicant that’s going to be on that meeting? If this is not going to be the only applicant, I strongly recommend that you do not do a meeting anytime soon. I’d do it on those dates I suggested. I’m not going to have time to review other applications on top of this one. Well, what did, Dan requested to move the applications along? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, just because he was aware there was a long backlog, and he encouraged us to hold a Special Meeting to get to the backlog. MR. OBORNE-So if you’re going to do that, if you want to add a fourth meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think the inclination would be to have other items on the agenda. MR. OBORNE-Right. Well, that would be difficult for me to do my reviews at that point. MRS. STEFFAN-And you’re already full for June? MR. OBORNE-We are full for June, absolutely, and July, at this point. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think the intent for this is there’s not much to review left for our submittal. MR. OBORNE-That is true. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Very little, but I think more importantly is to read Mr. Linke’s letter. MR. OBORNE-My concern is if there are five other applications, and let’s say they table you to the third, that gives me a week and a half to do a myriad of reviews that it’s physically impossible. th MR. LAPPER-So the 17 is okay with you? th MR. OBORNE-The 17 works for me, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes. Why don’t we do that, and then we can talk later about what else we put on the meeting. MR. OBORNE-Okay. th MR. TRAVER-The 17? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re looking for the sign dimensions. We’re looking for the Town Board minutes from the re-zoning. We’re looking, well, we don’t have to read that into the record about Mr. Linke’s letter. We’re just going to do that. The proposed bike trail plan from George Hilton, the additional landscaping, well, I mentioned read Mr. Linke’s letter, but that’s in the record that we will get. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we’ll get that this evening. MR. FORD-Right, and any other public documentation that’s been submitted. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we would get copies of that anyway, wouldn’t we, the petition? MR. OBORNE-You want copies of the petition? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s a copy of the draft petition on. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. FORD-If there are any comments that are added to them, we’d like to see them. MR. OBORNE-Well, I would suggest that if you’re interested in seeing comments on the petition, you certainly should come in and look at them. That would be a logistical nightmare. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a better idea. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2010 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: This is tabled to a Special Meeting of the Planning Board on June 17, 2010, with a submission th deadline of May 28, so that the applicant can provide the following documents: 1.That the applicant will provide a turning radius plan that is designed and submitted to meet Fire Marshal comments. 2.That the applicant will identify snow storage locations located on the plan, which he’s identified will be the grassed area for future parking. 3.The applicant will provide sign dimensions, and those should be submitted so that they can be part of the record. He has submitted sign details, but not dimensions. 4.The applicant has also committed to add some landscaping along the West Mountain corridor and so we would like to see an enhanced landscaping plan to include perennial borders and we would also like to receive a copy of the proposed bike trail that Councilman Strough and George Hilton have put together with Tom Nace and Rich Schermerhorn. th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2010, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Keith, how many of those letters had comments on them? MR. OBORNE-I’m not quite sure. MR. FORD-I mean, 10, 15, half of them, two-thirds of them? Okay. You were saying it’s a logistical nightmare. MR. OBORNE-Do you want me to ascertain that now? MR. FORD-No. MS. RADNER-It didn’t look like many. I’m sure Keith could copy any comments and forward them on to the Board members. MR. FORD-Somebody could copy those letters and forward them as a part of our documents. I’m not looking for every single letter. There’s no reason for seven of us to have to go in there and read those, either. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the record, for the members of the audience, the public hearing was th left open. We will take additional public comments on June 17. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 19-2010 SEQR TYPE II SALLY STRASSER AGENT(S) MELISSA LESCAULT, MC PHILLIPS FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) STEVEN & LILLIAN DOBERT ZONING WR LOCATION 64 BARBER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION OF EXISTING 5,407 +/- SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO INCLUDE NEW 36 +/- SQ FT. ENTRY PORCH. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) CEA AND REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS, SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS REQUIRED. CROSS REFERENCE AV 12-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA OTHER NWI WETLANDS, 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-7 SECTION 179-9-010, 179- 6-050 MELISSA LESCAULT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Area Variance 12-2010 and Site Plan 19-2010, Sally Strasser for Steven and Lillian Dobert. Requested action: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 64 Barber Road. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. SEQR Status is a Type II for both the Site Plan and the Area Variance. Project Description: The applicant is renovating, Renovation of an existing 5,407 +/- sq. ft. single family home to include new 36 +/- sq. ft. entry porch. Staff comments: According to the applicant, the main entrance to the house is proposed to be moved to the northeast by approximately 6 feet. The old 24 square foot entrance will be removed and replaced with a 36 square foot entry way. It is this action that necessitates site plan review for hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline and area variances for floor area ratio, shoreline setback and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Further, proposed remodeling to include new windows, structural upgrade, new siding, trim, roof and a new geothermal exchange system. I’ll quickly go over the Area Variances, and again, the Planning Board is looking at a recommendation tonight only. Floor Area Ratio – 12 square feet or 0.1% additional FAR relief as per §179-3-040. The existing FAR is 39.8%, quite frankly the proposed FAR is 39.8. It is a very little increase. Shoreline setback – 11 linear feet of shoreline setback relief for the new entry as per 179-3-040, and relief request for the expansion of a nonconforming structure as per Section 179-13-010. The applicant has counsel here, and counsel and I have had converations recently about some of the numbers, and she’ll expand on that. The bottom line is, is that any Area Variance that is going to be approved will be either less or equal to what has been advertised. It will not be more. So, with that said, I’d turn it over to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, I just have to go on the record to say that my sister and brother- in-law own a camp two doors down from this particular property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. LESCAULT-Good evening. Melissa Lescault. I’m the attorney for the applicant. Here present tonight is Steven Dobert, the property owner, as well as Sally Strasser, who is the contractor involved in this renovation. Basically, as Keith had told you, this property is located on Glen Lake. It is a lawfully nonconforming structure. The applicant has received a building permit, pursuant to all the renovations that they’re doing so far, which is replacement of roof, windows, siding, some trim work and some interior structures, but basically what we are here before you for tonight is the simple relocation of the entryway. The current entryway that exists is setback 28 feet from the shoreline, and we are proposing to relocate that further from the shoreline to 39 feet. So basically we’re bettering the shoreline setback. The square footage of that entryway is being increased by what Keith had mentioned to you, by an additional 12 square feet. So that’s where we have the additional variance for the Floor Area Ratio which is less than one percent. What I would like to do through is, in order to get an Area Variance with the Zoning Board of Appeals, you need to go through the balancing test, and I’d actually like to go through that tonight with you, just so that you can see where we argue that this variance certainly is more beneficial to the landowner, and is outweighed against the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. So the first aspect that must be analyzed with respect to the balancing test is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the variance. As you can see in the written submission that I provided you with, we did an analysis of the immediate neighborhood. We’ve taken a look at the three parcels to the north. That’s tax lot eight, nine, and thirteen, and the three tax lots to the south, which is three, six, five, and four. As you can see, the approximate setback for all of those lots averages about 30 feet from the shoreline. So if you take a look at what the neighborhood is in that area, 30 feet is the average shoreline setback. The shortest setback is actually 18 feet, and the largest is 52 feet. Our setback that we’re requesting is 39 feet. So it’s actually more so than what the average is of that neighborhood. So when you’re taking into consideration of the neighborhood, we certainly are in compliance with what the neighborhood has at this point. The proposed entryway will obviously not have any adverse effect on the neighborhood. In fact, the renovations are 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) improving the appearance. If you look at the back of our written submission, we’ve received three written letters from different neighbors, and they’ve all spoken in favor of our project. Not one of them objects to the project. In fact they actually say that it increases the value of their properties. So they’re in favor of this. The second aspect that needs to be reviewed with respect to an Area Variance is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, if there’s an alternative. Most people, when they have an entranceway to their home, they want to enter into a common area. You want to enter into a living room, into a foyer of some sort. You certainly don’t want to enter into what I categorize as a functional room. You don’t want to enter into an office, a bathroom or a bedroom. We tried to stick to the current layout, so to speak, of the house design, the contractor did, and that’s why we moved the entranceway further back, but we couldn’t go beyond the 50 feet, because then you’d be going into a bathroom, an office or a bedroom. So, again, it is further setback, but it’s still not within that 50 feet, but it is entering into the living room, which we would consider as a common area. One of the things that I did mention is that it would be unreasonable if not impossible to relocate the entire house to be in conformance of the Zoning Ordinance. So obviously there’s no viable alternative than what we are proposing tonight. The third aspect is whether this Area Variance is substantial. I certainly don’t believe that 11 feet, which is calculated at an actually 22% variance, is substantial, nor do we think that less than one percent is substantial for an Area Variance on the Floor Area Ratio. So, I believe that the variances, in total, are nominal. In fact, we are bettering this situation than what the current entranceway is. The fourth aspect is whether the proposed variance will have adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. We’re moving the entranceway further away from the lake. So we are bettering the situation, and again, the aesthetic character of the house is being improved. So if anything, the applicant is actually making a better situation to the neighborhood, as opposed to a detriment to it, and lastly, is whether this alleged difficulty has been self-created. Any variance that is proposed, so to speak, could be said that it’s self- created. However, that, in and of itself, is not the only reason why a variance should be denied. Again, we’re trying to improve this situation. However, we don’t believe that an additional 11 feet is really that much of a self-created hardship. The balance, basically, to the applicant, if granted, outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-What exactly is the Zoning Board looking for us to, what kind of input are they looking for? MR. OBORNE-Well, we have, as you know, generated a stock recommendation list, and it’s not what the Zoning Board is looking for. It’s what the Code is demanding you do, for lack of a. MR. SIPP-Number One would be the shoreline buffer. MR. OBORNE-They have provided, and that’s Site Plan issue, obviously. I can acknowledge the, the Zoning Board will require that also, as a condition of their approval. MR. SIPP-I find this very deficient. MR. OBORNE-But those, again, are Site Plan issues that you’ll get another crack at on Thursday, I believe it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they’re back on Thursday. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-If they get they get approved tomorrow. Right? MS. LESCAULT-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-What did you find deficient, Don? MR. SIPP-Well, there’s no large tree. One small tree. Many of the plant, shrub varieties have ground cover, are native, and there needs to be an enhancement of what is there and the removal of some of the decorative plants, rather than being useful. MR. OBORNE-So I would say you’re putting the applicant on notice that you want larger trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. SIPP-Yes. Removal of some of the non-native species. There’s a Japanese maple in there which is not native. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we’ll certainly talk about those things on Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? MR. FORD-I think it’s an improvement. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No commentors. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Not that I know of, but let me check and make sure. That’s a negative. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It is a Type II action. So we’re not required to take any action on SEQRA unless there’s some specific issue that the Board has identified. MR. OBORNE-Right. You’re specifically here for a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they can’t approve it, though, until we do SEQRA. Well, it’s a Type II. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we just have to make a recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Make a recommendation. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO 12-2010 FOR SALLY STRASSER FOR STEVEN AND LILLIAN DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the applicant proposes renovation of existing 5,407 +/- sq. ft. single family home to include new 36 +/-sq. ft. entry porch. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires and removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. Relief requested from Floor Area Ratio requirements, shoreline setback requirements and side setback requirements. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals as require; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO 12-2010 FOR SALLY STRASSER FOR STEVEN AND LILLIAN DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board opts for Number 1: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you on Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MS. LESCAULT-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 24-2010 SEQR TYPE II JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) SEAN CRUMB OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 777 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A 944 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,288 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE TO INCLUDE NEW GAS ISLAND CANOPY AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-10, SV 18-10, AV 24-08, SP 18-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/14/2010 LOT SIZE 0.81 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-29 SECTION 179-9-010 SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 24-2010, Jolley Associates. This is a modification to an approved Site Plan. This is 777 Glen Street. It’s Commercial Intensive zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. The Project Description: The applicant received approval for replacement of existing 944 sq. ft. convenience store with a 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store and now proposes a modification to remove and replace existing canopy. Staff Comments: The applicant received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning front line and Travel corridor setbacks as well as approval for an additional monument sign for the parcel on April 27, 2010. I do want to just quickly go over some Site Plan issues that I do have, specifically Number One on Page C-1 of Site Layout. The applicant has appeared to place two handicap spaces adjacent to the front entrance. This placement was not approved initially as referenced in revision note 2. Staff has concerns about maneuverability as the drive aisle which once was 38 feet has been reduced to approximately 20 feet. I want to know that the Fire Marshal requires, or the Code requires 24 feet clear in width for two way traffic. Also another note is on the elevation drawings. There’s a building concrete entrance landing that does not correspond to the approved site layout. This appears to be an additional change to the approved Site Plan. Clarification on front entrance landing to include handicap ramps should be forthcoming, and with that said, I’ll turn it over to the Board at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. CRUMB-Good evening. Sean Crumb with Jolley Associates. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. CRUMB-Well, I’d like to address the comments here. I think there was probably a little confusion on our part, not intentionally to mislead you, regarding the two handicap spaces. They’re positioned there. They were moved back there because currently as it exists the two handicap spots are there now. We have no problem with moving those across the parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CRUMB-And furthermore the concrete walkway, in reviewing the original Site Plan that was approved and reviewing the revised plan, we failed to put the concrete on the original plan. So, therefore, I think it was just something we noticed after the fact, that needed to be placed in there. I can certainly point it out to you on the plans. The approved Site Plan, the way the as built is drawn on there, it almost looks like it’s the concrete in front, but it’s actually not. So, that was an oversight on our part. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I’m sorry, where’s the concrete walkway? MR. CRUMB-Right directly in front of the building. Right here, in this area, or, I’m sorry, I’m looking at it upside down. It’s this area here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. MR. CRUMB-And as you can see, in the approved plan, this would appear to be the concrete, but that’s actually the as built plan. So that’s actually the existing concrete now, and these two signs here are the existing handicap spots. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. CRUMB-So, again, no problem with moving those across the parking lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What about the 12 foot one way clarity? I think you need 20 feet for fire apparatus for that. You’ve got 24 feet for two way, 12 feet for one way. MR. CRUMB-Well, I don’t happen to have a ruler in front of me. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It needs to be 20. MR. CRUMB-I think that we can manage that from what I’m seeing here. I don’t think that that’s an issue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. FORD-Good catch. MR. CRUMB-The handicap walkway is marked out in the parking lot. It’s certainly not an issue either. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. CRUMB-And for clarification, I don’t believe, on Item Five, that we ever talked about the right in, right out onto Aviation Road. It was not part of the approval, but again, that’s a no brainer there. I mean, anybody trying to turn left out of there shouldn’t be. MRS. STEFFAN-I think you can only do it on Saturday and Sunday mornings. MR. CRUMB-I think you’re right, or in the middle of the night. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, when I was commuting to Albany, I frequently bought gas there, and it was no problem taking a left out at quarter of seven in the morning. MR. CRUMB-Not anymore. MR. OBORNE-Five lanes of traffic, double yellow line. MR. CRUMB-That’s right. You better have a heavy foot and a fast car. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, at quarter of seven there was no one on the road yet. MR. CRUMB-And as you’re all aware, the real reason we’re here was over the issue of the canopy and the structural steel. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. CRUMB-And I really, I think that my particular opinion is it’s really a, I would hope a non- issue, and just more of a formality to get that approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. CRUMB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, let me clarify that. Building setback calculations will need to be revised for the canopy to include both the Travel Corridor setback, both Travel Corridor setback relief requests. Item Four. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s under Staff Notes. MRS. STEFFAN-In Staff Notes, sorry. MR. CRUMB-Building setback. As far as, what specifically are you asking? MR. OBORNE-Building setback calculations will need to be revised for the canopy to include both Travel Corridor relief requests. What you have gotten approval for is not what was approved previously. It’s, I think, a foot, is it, larger? Something along those lines. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. CRUMB-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It’s just the calculations on the application. I’m a stickler. MR. CRUMB-Okay. So clarify the dimensions is what you’re saying? MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. CRUMB-Okay. Not a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-None. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show that there were no commentors. Is the Board in a frame of mind to move forward? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II action. So no further SEQRA review is required. I will entertain a motion for approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think one of the other questions under Additional Comments, do you guys anticipate any other modifications or changes? MR. CRUMB-I really don’t. I certainly hope not. We’ve had enough delays and add ons with this that I’ve had my fill. I like you folks, but three times down here for this is enough. MRS. STEFFAN-How about snow storage. Did you already talk about that? MR. CRUMB-I think, in looking at this, the appropriate area is to the west, and as that fills in, if we need to truck it out, we do that accordingly. We look at all of our sites that way. We certainly have some that have more room than others, and we deal with it as it becomes an issue. MRS. STEFFAN-Now have you noted that on the plans, or do we need to? MR. OBORNE-Condition it. MR. CRUMB-I can, if you would like that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now we’ve identified that you’re going to remove three spaces north of the northernmost gas island for vehicular and pedestrian safety, and I don’t think we need the rest of the information there. Parking spaces will change. MR. OBORNE-Handicap locations. MR. OBORNE-I’m agreeable with your assessment of that. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’ll have to be labeled on the. MR. CRUMB-That’s fine. We’ll adjust the Site Plan and then certainly forward it on to Keith. MR. HUNSINGER-And then how about, Keith had commented on the handicap ramps. MR. CRUMB-Well, those are there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there should be a detail on the drawing that shows that. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. CRUMB-We can show a clearer detail for that. MR. OBORNE-I don’t have the plan in front of me. Does it show the handicap ramps? MR. CRUMB-It does, but it’s difficult to really, I think we need to make a notation on there for you so that it’s clear. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you’re not going to get a CO without them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, how about the comment at the top of Page Two about the additional space? MRS. STEFFAN-Staff further recommends that an additional space be added near the Route 9 entrance and the closest space to the front entrance be revised to a handicap with loading zone. MR. CRUMB-I think you’re referring to this one here, Keith, right tight to the entrance? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Exactly. MR. CRUMB-You want to add another spot there? MR. OBORNE-I’m just looking for an unloading area. MR. CRUMB-Okay. That’s reasonable. MR. OBORNE-Every handicap space needs to have an eight foot unloading area. MR. CRUMB-Okay. Gotcha. MR. OBORNE-An eight foot by eighteen, per the Building Code of New York. MRS. STEFFAN-And Number Three, the pedestrian crosswalk from the handicap space to the front entrance. MR. OBORNE-That’s if you wish to have that there. It’s just an extra measure. It’s a passive measure. MR. CRUMB-We can paint it across the parking lot, or we could lay in a concrete strip. I think a painted crosswalk would be more appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be fine. MR. CRUMB-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re ready to roll. MRS. STEFFAN-Are we granting waivers for stormwater management and grading? MR. HUNSINGER-No, there weren’t any. MR. CRUMB-That is to be dealt with as we’re doing the excavation. We have to determine appropriate areas for drywells. MR. OBORNE-That was part of your initial approval when you granted waivers earlier on. Yes, you did. MRS. STEFFAN-We granted those. MR. CRUMB-So Tom will be out there at the point that we’re tearing the place up to determine the appropriate location for those, and they’ll go in. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 24-2010 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of a 944 sq. ft. convenience store and construction of a 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store to include new gas island canopy and associated site work. A modification to an approved plan requires Planning Board review and approval. 2)The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 4/20/10 as required; and 3)The Zoning Board approved the variance request on 4/28/10; and 4)A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/18/10; and 5)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 6)MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 24-2010 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Six A complies. Six G, waiver requests are granted for stormwater management and grading. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)SEQR Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading h)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff i)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. j)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. k)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 1.The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES permit prior to the start of any site work. 2.The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and l) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 1.The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) 2.The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. m) This modification is approved with the following conditions. 1.That the applicant will reconfigure the handicap spaces. 2.That the applicant will remove three spaces north of the northern most gas island for vehicular and pedestrian safety purposes. 3.Staff further recommends that an additional space be added near the Route 9 entrance, and the closest space to the front entrance be revised to a handicap with loading zone. 4.That the applicant will add a painted pedestrian crosswalk from the handicap space to the front entrance. 5.That the applicant will revise the building setback calculations for the canopy to include both Travel Corridor setback relief requests. 6.That the applicant will modify the plan for the right in/right out for Aviation Road, and those must be denoted on the plans for initial approval. 7.That the building concrete entrance landing doesn’t correspond to the approved site layout. The applicant will correct this and include handicap ramps. 8.The applicant will identify snow storage for the site, and indicate the snow storage on the plans. th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 16-2010 SEQR TYPE II GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI-HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) ROBERT O’CONNOR ZONING MDR LOCATION 66 GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION AND RENOVATIONS TO EXISTING VETERINARY CLINIC. EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF A VETERINARY CLINIC IN THE MDR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2010-014 [PERC TEST] SB 8-1998M WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/10/2010 LOT SIZE 1.22 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-16 SECTION 179-9-010 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 16-2010, Glens Falls Animal Hospital. This an expansion and renovation of an established building. The location is 66 Glenwood Avenue. It’s in the MDR, Moderate Density Residential zone. It’s a Type II SEQR. Project Description: Applicant proposes expansion and renovation to existing Veterinary Clinic building to include site grading and paving. Further, the applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for permeability purposes. We’re pretty familiar with this project at this point. The applicant has satisfied all but one of Staff’s comments. The one comment, and it’s (lost words) satisfaction, is landscaping appears to be lacking a little bit. Beyond that, Paragon Engineering has signed off on this, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski-Hall Architecture here tonight representing the Glens Falls Animal Hospital. I believe, as Keith stated, I think we’ve satisfied all the requirements from Paragon, and I believe that all the comments that came from Staff, with the exception of that landscaping up front, I think what’s being recommended is that, based on our new parking area that’s in the front of the building, they’d like to see some landscaping between that parking space and Glenwood Avenue. We can certainly accommodate that. Just some low landscape shrubbery. We are locating, re-locating the three crabapple trees that are in that front drive around. Those are all being pulled forward and spaced out as well. So we can put some additional low plantings around the existing sign and up along those two areas as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. HALL-That’ll do. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? You obviously don’t have a problem with the new comment from the Town’s engineer regarding stockpiling of topsoil? MR. HALL-Yes. We’ll throw that, that was just, when I put the stockpile location for the topsoil in there, I just neglected to draw the silt fence around it at the end, and as far as the one comment that he did have regarding the contour lining, I did submit a formal waiver request for that, to Keith, as soon as I got the comment back. As we had discussed before, this is a flat site. If I draw contours on it, there would be a total of one. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HALL-Maybe. MR. OBORNE-I will say I guess I spoke too early about engineering signoff on that. As far as Paragon Engineering, it appears that, I mean, for the most part he doesn’t have any major concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it is a signoff, just saying that one comment. MR. HALL-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-On the contours. Now do we want a 10 foot wide strip? They offered to add additional plantings. Do we want a 10 foot strip according to the Code? MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board on the plantings? MR. KREBS-Personally, I’d just trust him to do what, you don’t want them too high because you want visibility down the street as they go in and out of that location. MR. HALL-Right. MR. KREBS-So low shrubberies are fine. MR. HALL-Yes. We’re thinking something very similar to what they have around the sign, which is an evergreen, a very low, like a Yew or some kind of a juniper that’s a low bush, and we would put several of them on either side of the existing sign. We just don’t want anything that’s going to grow up so high that, you know, it’s a maintenance issue and blocks off the sign. They don’t want to have to relocate the sign. That’s the big thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s nothing else from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board inclined to move forward on this one? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQR. So no further SEQR review is required. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we want to be specific about how many additional? I know that’ll be an inspection issue. MR. HALL-We have approximately, there’s approximately 40 feet between the existing sign and the end of either of the parking strips. If we were to put four of the low Yew type evergreens on either side of the sign, that would be a total of eight additional plantings, four on either side. I would basically put one in front of each parking space along that front buffer strip. MR. HUNSINGER-How wide do they, they grow pretty wide. MR. HALL-The ones that are out there, they get about eight to ten feet in diameter. So by the time they all grow in, they’re going to be, they’re going to basically fill that. It’ll be basically a hedgerow that we would hope wouldn’t be more than two or three feet tall. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-They respond well to salt as well. So being up there along the roadway is not going to be a bad idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable with that? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other conditions of approval that we need to consider? MR. TRAVER-I don’t think so. I think we’ve covered everything. MR. OBORNE-If you could grant the waiver for contours that Clark is talking about. It’s like this. MRS. STEFFAN-It is very flat there. MR. OBORNE-Yes. He is correct that it is part of the requirements for submittal. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2010 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes expansion and renovations to existing Veterinary Clinic. Expansion and Renovation of a Veterinary Clinic in the MDR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/23/2010 & 5/18/2010; 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. 16-2010 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. This is granted with a waiver. The Planning Board is granting your waiver for contours. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)SEQR Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)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 Zoning Administrator. i)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. j)There’s only one condition with this approval. a. That the applicant will add additional low plantings around the signage to improve compliance with our Code, specifically four Yews on each side of the signage. They will be about two or three feet tall. th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE I REALTY SUBDIVISION CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3 LOCATION 572 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 55.65 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.07 +/- ACRES TO 23.53 +/- ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE SKETCH [5/28/09], AV 14-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 55.65 TOTAL ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-2-29, 30 SECTION A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Before the Board, I just want to let you know there is a handout that I gave to the Board concerning the endangered species and the DOT issues regarding the entrances. They are before you. Again, this application was tabled on 4/27/2010, to this meeting, pending the submittal of endangered species documentation and DOT correspondence concerning driveway locations. If the application is deemed complete, the Planning Board is to conduct SEQR and issue a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning Area Variances. Application is Subdivision 3-2009 for Christian and Eustacia Sander. SEQR review and recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 572 State Route 149. Existing zoning is Rural Residential Three Acres. This is a Type II for the Area Variance but it’s a Type I for the subdivision. Project Description: 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) Applicant proposes to Subdivide 55.25 +/- acres into 10 residential lots ranging in size from 3.07 acres to 23.5 acres off of State Route 149 outside of the Adirondack State Park. Staff Comments: The Planning Board conducted a Sketch Plan review on May 28, 2009 and as such it has been determined by staff to be reviewable under the old code. I just wanted to reiterate that for the record. I’m going to jump down to additional comments. Numbers Four and Five I do want to bring to the attention of the Board, as this is going to be an HOA because of the private roads. You’re going to need to see the language of that document for the HOA. That is per the Code, and those two issues under additional comments Number Four and Five speak to that. If the Planning Board deems this application complete with the submittal of the endangered species and DOT correspondence, we’re going to go through SEQR review and issue a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now the recommendation for the Zoning Board of Appeals is particular to the road access relief and road frontage relief for certain lots, which is under the Nature of Variance, and I’ll read that real quickly, to get that into your heads. The nature of the relief is for road access required for Lot Two. This parcel has road frontage but access is not proposed, and road frontage required for Lots Three, Four, Six, Seven, Nine and Ten are required as per Code. These parcels do not front on a public road and do not have the 50 foot required frontage, hence the private road, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I should probably state for the record, I did at Sketch Plan, but on your Site Plan, it does show me as being an adjacent property owner, which I am no longer. I sold that, my wife and I sold that lot over a year ago. I just want that to be on the record. I didn’t mention that at the last meeting, but I did at Sketch Plan. So, with that I will turn the floor over to the applicant. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I’m Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, and with me are owner applicants Christian and Stacia Sander. I’m going to be very brief in a description and turn it back to the Board. As Keith mentioned, we did submit a Sketch Plan, a year ago now, last May, and at the suggestion of the Board, we made some modifications to that Sketch Plan, and we believe it did provide us with a better project, and we’re happier with it. However, with that revised plan, we do need a variance, and that is for the lack of road frontage. I think you’ve seen our project a few times. I know it’s been before the Zoning Board. We’ve had four public hearings in the last couple of months open. So I’m going under the assumption that most of you folks are reasonably familiar with this, and what we’re seeking this evening is a recommendation from this Board in support of the variance request that we have on the agenda with the Zoning Board tomorrow night, and we were here last month seeking a similar recommendation, and we were asked to provide some information from DEC regarding endangered species determination, as well as a letter from DOT with some input on their feelings on our proposed access. I have submitted both of those, and, Keith, they have a copy, correct? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-So with that we’ll happily, we’ll be glad to explain anything about it, but I don’t want to go through the whole thing again because it’s getting late and we have seen it before. So, with that, I’ll turn it back to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions and comments from the Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So they approved two road cuts? MR. HUTCHINS-They have, yes, on a preliminary basis. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Preliminary, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-And in that there is the stipulation that we meet their guidelines, which ultimately we’ll have to be able to do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Of course, but it will be a little tough doing that until they finish building the road. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Any projected timetable when that’s going to occur? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. HUTCHINS-I met with actually their project superintendent today, and, no. He’s, they’re a little unsure about the progress thing. He did indicate that things are moving very slowly right now, because money from the State is moving very slowly. So he was not encouraged with how fast they were progressing at this point, but that changes on a daily basis, I guess. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’re (lost words) small paving areas. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I don’t believe they’ve done anything in this area. Have they? CHRISTIAN SANDER MR. SANDER-Not lately. MR. HUTCHINS-No. Near the big fill. I did hear them describe it at the big fill. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. FORD-Just a thank you for following through on our requests and recommendations for the, for DEC and the other agencies. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s nothing else from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I know we did have several commentors last month. I’m always confused, Keith. Do we leave the public hearing open? MR. OBORNE-Yes, you do. MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t we have to close the public hearing before we move on to SEQR, though? MR. OBORNE-That’s a good question. Hang on a second. MR. HUNSINGER-I think what we’ve done in the past is close the public hearing for SEQR, but then re-open a new hearing on Thursday for Site Plan, for subdivision review, and I’m sorry for putting you on the spot. MR. OBORNE-No, no. Give me a second and I can get you an answer in a second or two. MR. HUNSINGER-I do know that the first action that we need to take is to accept lead agency status. MR. OBORNE-That’s already been accomplished. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Bear with me here. I would recommend to leave it open. MR. HUNSINGER-This is a new procedure. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I think based on that, typically you’d be going right into approval of Preliminary after this, but you can’t. So my recommendation is to leave it open. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then we will leave the public hearing open. We need to do, and I was looking to see if it was a Long Form or a Short Form. My memory says it should be a Long Form. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it’s coordinated review. MR. OBORNE-This is a Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they submitted a Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-So whenever you’re ready. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Folks. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Do any of the examples apply? Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than three feet? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Construction of a paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. MR. KREBS-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of existing ground surface. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that does. MR. FORD-It’s possible. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is it a small to moderate impact, a potentially large impact or can the impact be mitigated by project change? MR. FORD-Small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-It’s going to be mitigated by project change. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s by nature of a subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and then the last piece. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material, rock or soil, per year? MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER- MRS. STEFFAN-Construction in a designated floodway? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Or other impacts? I guess not. Okay. So, will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? It would be yes, and that the construction will continue for more than a year or involve more than one phase or stage, and it was a small to moderate impact. MR. FORD-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. KREBS-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then based on the input, I will make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER, 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 18th day of, February, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and I didn’t hear any issues that the Planning Board had, regarding the road access relief or the road frontage relief required for the lots. The other issues are Site Plan issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Some of the questions that we had last month regarding, you know, access onto 149 and, you know, considering paving a portion of the road, an apron. Those really aren’t related to the relief being requested, are they? MR. OBORNE-Correct. Those would be Site Plan issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’re all Site Plan issues. MR. OBORNE-When is the Site Plan, Tom? You’re coming back next month, I think, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I believe it’s next month. Actually Preliminary Subdivision, right, not Site Plan? MR. OBORNE-It would be Preliminary Subdivision, correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO MAKE A RESOLUTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2010 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, the project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RESOLUTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2010 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option 1. The Planning Board based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. The Planning Board has completed SEQRA review and submitted a Negative SEQRA declaration. th Duly adopted this 18 day of May 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. OBORNE-Now you need to table the Preliminary application to a specific date. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-For them to come back and get them into the queue. They already have their application in. It is deemed complete. Now you want to do that either next month, for Preliminary review, or whatever the will of the Board is at this point. th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know what would be perfect is to have them come back on the 17 of June, since you’ve already done your Staff review. It wouldn’t add any additional work to Staff and helps move them along quicker. MR. OBORNE-Staff appreciates the concerns. MR. HUTCHINS-And we’d like that as well. MR. FORD-They’ve been so helpful and compliant with the requests that have prolonged this. So if we can help to expedite it now, we would like to. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th This will be tabled to a special Planning Board meeting to be held on Thursday, June 17. The th applicant will have until May 28 for a submission deadline of any new materials. th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2010, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-You’ve deemed the application complete, at this point. Unless the applicant wishes to submit additional materials. MR. HUTCHINS-No. We don’t have any additional materials. I mean, our intent would be to come to that meeting prepared to address comments that, we have some Staff comments and we have some engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. OBORNE-I think it’s good to go. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you next month. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. SANDER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2010 SEQR TYPE TYPE II LESLIE GRASSO AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LINDA DE LAURA ZONING WR LOCATION SOUTH END OF FOREST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,085 +/- SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND REQUIRES BOTH SITE PLAN REVIEW AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2010-056 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/12/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.34 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 179-9-010, CHAPTER 94 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 28-2010 and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-2010. Leslie Grasso is the applicant. Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland requires both Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands permit review by the Planning Board. Location is the south end of Forest Lane, Assembly Point. This is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,085 +/- sq. ft. single family dwelling with attached garage on a 0.34 acre parcel. Staff Comments: The disturbance associated with the placement of the well is approximately 21 feet from the edge of the wetland. The map reference concerning the edge of the wetland is from 1962 and as such wetland boundaries may need to be updated with a wetland delineation. The majority of disturbance is upslope from the denoted wetland and according to the plan submitted encompasses 10,048 square feet of the parcel. The applicant is proposing erosion and sedimentation control in the form of silt fencing and stormwater controls in the form of eave/infiltration trenches. I do want to quickly go to Additional Comments: Forest Lane will need to be extended 50 feet along the east property line and turned over to the town in order to avoid an area variance. It is the understanding of staff that the applicant will extend the road to required specifications and dedicate to the Town. The Planning Board may wish to ask the applicant for clarification on this issue. The applicant has consulted with Director of Building and Codes concerning the proposed leach field and separation distances and has presented a compliant wastewater plan, according to the Director of Building and Codes. The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to have final plans sealed by the project engineer. Before you is a letter from Mike Travis concerning the road extension, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Mike Grasso and Tom Nace. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. NACE-No. We’re here to answer questions and Tom Center did interface with Mike Travis and got his approval to go ahead and construct the road to Town specs, and have it serve as a driveway extension, if you will, for this lot, and I believe that’s already a Town right of way. It’s not something that we would have to turn over. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-We would just construct the road on the existing Town right of way. We have added to the plans slope stabilization that requires erosion blanket on any slopes over three to one, and a spec for topsoiling and seeding of all disturbed areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. NACE-That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-You said that road was 50 feet, is that what it is? MR. NACE-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-So what is the protocol for accepting a Town road? Do you go to a Town Board meeting? How does it work? MR. NACE-It’s already a Town right of way. We’re not, there’s a protocol for doing a subdivision and turning over the right of way with the road to the Town. This is a little bit different because the Town already owns the right of way. We’re just getting, the Town has never constructed a road out all the way to the end of the right of way because the property was vacant. So now we want to, in essence, build a driveway extension, but we’re going to build it to Town road specs on the Town land. The Town, the protocol is that Mike will observe the construction of it, and we will certify to him when it’s done. We will also observe it, and certify to him when it’s done that it meets Town specs, but there’s no dedication process the way there is with a subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you describe the septic system? MR. NACE-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you putting in a force pump? MR. NACE-Yes, because of the topography and the soils, the better soils are up on the higher portion of the site, which is back in here. We’re going to put in a septic tank down low where we can get to it by gravity, pump station, and pump up to it with a field with a leach bed up on top that will be constructed partially in fill. It’s an engineered system, and it falls under the purview of an engineered system with DOH. We do have 50% expansion area. The soils, Tom Center did the perc tests here. I think what we’ve got is a little over five minute soils. It’s not too fast. MR. FORD-How many laterals are they going to be on that db? MR. NACE-There’ll be three. There will be three laterals. It’s a 15 foot wide bed. MR. FORD-Could you describe please what is shown here in the way of connection at the end of those laterals? This is pertaining to this particular system and is unique to it, is it? MR. NACE-Well, the pump system, it’s typically the laterals are connected so that it equalizes flow throughout the system. So if the distribution box doesn’t do a good job of distributing flow evenly, that, you know, if one pipe gets, you’re dosing it with a, it’s a gravity system, a gravity feed from the distribution box into the system, but you’re dosing it with a dose from the pump station. If one lateral gets more than the others, it can flow around into the other laterals, and even itself out over the entire bed. It ensures that the bed gets more even distribution, which is what you want. MR. FORD-Exactly. Okay. Good explanation. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? No takers? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I will open the public hearing. Okay. There’s at least a couple of people that want to comment. Do you want to be first? And if you could identify yourself for the record, and try to keep your comments brief. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Sure. Kathy Bozony, office of the Lake George Water Keeper. A couple of questions that I’m proposing to the applicant and to the Board. The absorption bed, per Queensbury Town Code, should not exceed eight percent. It appears to be 16 percent. The absorption bed is 10 feet approximately from the property line, and I’m curious how far it is from the neighbor’s single family dwelling. Looking at the aerial, it looks like it’s pretty close. I believe Code is 20 feet separation. I didn’t see the well marked on the Site Plan, and per Department of Health, the absorption bed should be 200 feet from the well, and this is pretty limiting on this site that’s 150 by 100. I’m curious whether the APA delineated wetland were on 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) this site. I looked at the wetlands on the aerial Warren County GIS, and they look different than what’s there. Granted the layers are always a little off, so I’m not really sure what was on there. I didn’t see a lot of detail about the retaining wall and why it’s being proposed. Stormwater management plans for the driveway and the road don’t appear to be there. It’s a 15,000 square foot lot with well over 10,000 square foot disturbance. I guess one of my questions is are there any buffers on this wetland and how many more of these lots in the wetland area are going to be developed, potentially filled in and developed. I don’t have any idea. I don’t see the delineation of parcels in that area, but just curious. There’s a lot of unanswered questions, I would say, of this application at this point in time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. BOZONY-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sir. DAVE KLEIN MR. KLEIN-Hi. I’m Dave Klein with North Country Engineering. I’m here representing a couple of the neighbors in the neighborhood. I also represented another applicant that tried to develop three other lots adjoining this wetland, one of which is directly across the street from this lot. I’ve got a letter with some documentation I’d like to submit to the Board, if that’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You can just start down at that end and pass it around. MR. KLEIN-I’d like to mention that my clients are not interested in objecting to the project. They’re interested to make sure that the project gets an adequate review, and if it’s a buildable lot, then grant the approval. If it’s deemed not a buildable lot, they would object to having it approved. Of primary concern is the site’s proximity to the wetlands, and the benefit to the water quality of Lake George. We also have concerns with the design of the wastewater system. Chapter 94 of the Town of Queensbury Code defines a freshwater wetlands as depicted on the Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Map, or as delineated in the field. If you take a look at the wetlands map that’s on the website, the wetlands actually go through the corner of the property. It’s approximately 56 foot in this direction and then approximately 40 foot in this direction, where the applicant has used a, I believe a 1962 map of the wetlands to delineate the wetlands, which are way over here, compared to where they’re mapped. So unless they’re delineated in the field, you would have to use the setback that’s on the map, and all other applicants have been requested to actually get the APA out there and delineate the wetlands, and the wetlands had been delineated in 2006. They’re only good for three years, but there’s a flag, wetlands flag by the APA, and there’s a photograph of that. There’s a photograph. This flag has actually been knocked down, but it’s still there, in the general proximity. There’s another flag approximately over in this area here. So what I’ve done, I’ve gone from the overlay on the map and then dashed in where I think the wetlands are, with respect to the flags that have been installed in 2006. There’s no provisions, well, actually the road extension should be designed. You should have that. It’s part of the project. They have to extend the road as part of the project to get onto the property. When we did one of the other properties, we provided the road design, which included stormwater management. There’s no provisions for stormwater management on the road extension, yet the driveway, this shaded red area here, is how the driveway will shed water. It normally runs perpendicular to your contour lines. They’ve put an infiltration ditch on the side of the driveway, but it’s not going to pick up the runoff off the driveway. It’s going to go directly, well, off the roof, but I’m assuming the roof pitches front and back. There’s no garage indicated on the elevation views that were submitted. So you really can’t tell which way the roof pitches on the garage, but I’m assuming it’s pitching front and back because they wouldn’t pitch it towards the house. In any event, all the runoff off the roof is going to fall onto the driveway, and then it’s going to shed, any rain that’s on the driveway is going to sheet flow across the road, and then there’s a rather steep embankment at the edge of the road, and there’s no stormwater mechanisms. The embankment is a one on two. I don’t think that meets Town Code. The grading on the edge of the road I believe is 20% across the cross slope, if I measure from the distance between this contour line at 330 and 329, I calculated it’s got a 20% cross slope on the road, which is, you wouldn’t have longitudinal slope of 20%, you have a cross slope of 20%. If you extend the topography at a reasonable slope, and then you put some provisions for stormwater management alongside the road, you’ll probably have the stormwater ponds in the wetlands. I would like to point out that the Town Code requires that any stormwater management infiltration devices that serve roads or driveways or parking lots have to be 100 foot from the wetlands. So we don’t think that they’ll be able to get any stormwater management devices on the property. The Code also prohibits any removal of vegetation 35 feet from the wetlands and restricts hard surfacing and fill within 50 foot of the wetlands. We noticed in the 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) Staff comments that the Building and Codes officer has verbally, I guess, approved the design of the absorption system. The absorption system is called out on the other drawing that goes with this as a bed system. Bed system, it looks like it’s a gravity system. It’s, from the pump tank it’s pumped up to a distribution box up into the bed, and then it flows by gravity after the distribution box. The topography, natural topography, is 16% slope, and they’re cutting into the embankment on one side and filling on the other side, and then they drop down on a one on three slope, they drop down two feet in a distance of six feet before they have a six and a half foot high retaining wall. Now, also attached in the letter is Appendix 75A of the New York State Public Health Law, the section on absorption beds. Please note that you can’t have an absorption bed on a slope in excess of eight percent. Pressure distribution is required for all absorption beds, and the depth of the bed shall be 18 to 30 inches below the original ground surface. The difference between a bed and a trench, in a trench system, you have side walls that the effluent also infiltrates in. In a bed, you don’t have those side walls. The only side walls you have are on the, up in the, the perimeter of the bed, and having the bed, the side wall in fill, close to a steep slope, is a recipe for disaster. You’re going to have your effluent flowing right out through the side walls, right down the slope, and there’s no details on the retaining wall. You could have a mound system up there, but that would take up different, more room, and normally you have a mound system, you know, running parallel to the contours. This thing is catty wompus to the contours, and if you had absorption trenches in there, you would have them running parallel to the contours, too. They’ve kind of put this in the corner to meet their 10 foot setbacks, but they really haven’t adjusted it for the site. We think there’s a lot of missing information here. I would think you would at least send them back to get the wetlands map accurately depicted on there, see if they can get some stormwater mitigation, some details on the road design. They’re clearing. The disturbed area should go out to the outer limits of where they’re going to have to put their stormwater mitigation for the road, and in proximity to the wetlands, this should be probably classified as a major project. So, we hope you’ll table the application and ask the applicant to submit supporting information, and one other point before I leave. We did design the three other lots that never made it through the process in this area, the one that’s the 7.2 acre lot right across the street. The other one was right down the street, and another one was on the other side of the wetlands. We had a very difficult time finding usable soil for a septic system. On this lot there is no evidence of mottling, accordingly. There was no, we had between 15 and 17 comments from the engineer on our applications. There was one minor comment from this engineer that reviewed it and said that he doesn’t really need to see it again. It’s an administrative thing. So if this does come back, I would think, I would hope, that we have a more thorough review of the application. There’s a lot of holes in this one, and I don’t think it’s been adequately reviewed. So I would hope you would do a more thorough review, and I would also suggest that you have a soil scientist go out and take a look at the soil to see if there’s an evidence of high groundwater, because there was on the other three lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KLEIN-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I have a question. Are you talking about the three lots that came before the Planning Board, are you talking about the lots across the street from that, and the one behind it? MR. OBORNE-Do you want to go with the aerial? MR. KLEIN-These three little triangles up here are where we tried to site a house on this lot, and the septic system and stormwater, and it’s contiguous with that 7.2 acres. Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you were representing Mike Chrys or the Dubins? MR. KLEIN-We were representing another client, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. KLEIN-You need clarification on those other two? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. KLEIN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to address the Board on this application? Yes, ma’am. If you could state your name for the record, please. KATHLEEN MALONEY 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MS. MALONEY-I’m Kathleen Maloney. My mother, Eleanor Maloney, owns the property that’s literally next door to this property. The road ends at the end of our property line right now, and it is correct. There’s wetlands right over towards the end of this undeveloped lot. Our concern is where the septic system is going to be placed and whether it will impact our property, and the potential for us to ever put a well in on our property. Also, the concerns that there’s not enough information concerning the retaining wall, and also the plan that I looked at didn’t show where any garage was going to be, how many rooms were going to be in the house, how many bedrooms there were going to be, anything of that nature, and any real discussion of the design, what the outside was going to look like or anything like that, and in addition, if the road does have, the road would have to be expanded because right now the Town, it used to be unpaved, then they paved it, and after they paved it, they put, because people were dumping at the end, over into the area on the other side of the road, the Town put a fence, a storm fence up. So literally they have to take that down and pave the property. Yes, right there. The pavement ends. It was dirt, for years it was dirt back there, and they finally paved. They literally paved at the end of our property line, maybe even before the end of my mother’s property line, and it was the dirt, and you could turn around at the end there, and there was all woods. People were dumping things. We made a complaint because there was a lot of dumping going on, and then they came up and they closed off, so that no one could even turn around. People would have to back up, I think, from the end, where the street is right now. So that would have to be added, and I believe it’s going to have to come up a fair amount from what the dirt area is to make a road there, and, you know, I can attest there are wetlands on the other side where the road would have to go and end, on the other side. Not on the property where Ms. Grasso wants to build. The wetlands, I believe, were over at the end where the road would have to end, but our biggest concern is where the proposed septic would be, what type of septic and the impact onto our property and whether it would flow into our property, and also what it would do if we wanted to put a well in in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-So you don’t have a well currently? MS. MALONEY-No, we do not. We get Shore Colony water. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. MALONEY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? No other takers? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. MR. KREBS-Was this submitted to the engineers? I didn’t get any engineering comment from our engineer. MRS. STEFFAN-Neither did I. MR. NACE-It was submitted to Paragon Engineering. They were directed to look at the stormwater, and their comment letter was just in regards to stormwater. However, I will also point out that Paragon did observe the test pit in the area of the septic system and the perc test. MR. HUNSINGER-They did, yes. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments based on the? MR. NACE-Well, where do I start? With the wetland delineation, we did use the old wetland delineation from ’62, but if you look at the topography of the site, and if you walk it, it’s fairly obvious that that is really where the wetland is. The slope ends fairly abruptly where it flattens out and starts to get wet. It’s not a delineation that’s going to vary a great deal from one place to another. It’s right at the toe of the slope. We are asking for a wetland permit to get and put a well within, I think it’s, what, 26 feet of the wetland. I don’t have it right here in front of me, but at any rate, we are complying with the 50 foot wetland separation for structures. A lot of questions and comments concerning the septic system. The septic system is designed as an engineered fill system. In those systems the Health Department gives you some latitude on the amount of existing slope that you can deal with. The soils are good. The soils are fairly deep up on the top of the slope here. We are using a retaining wall, simply so that we can get back down to garage level with the proximity to the garage here near the edge of the system. There was some mention about a 200 foot separation from the well. That is true of being directly down gradient. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) Down gradient of the septic system, as I believe Dave pointed out, is this direction. The well sits over here laterally, a respectable distance from what is directly down gradient of the septic field. MR. FORD-What would the actual distance be? MR. NACE-The distance that we have labeled 100 foot well setback is here, and my rule of thumb measurement with my finger gives me about an extra 10 to 12 feet. So it’s about 100, 110 feet from the well to the septic, to the edge of the septic. MR. FORD-Well, to the edge of that lateral. That’s assuming that nothing comes out of that lateral in that direction. MR. NACE-Well, no, that’s to the edge of the expansion area here. If I go to the edge of the lateral, I’m more like 125 feet. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. NACE-Let’s see. The road cross slope that was mentioned is not really accurate because one of the contours that’s being quoted in that is down off the edge of the road, so it’s off the edge and start to go down the slope. The cross slope of the road, I don’t have a scale here to make sure, but it’s going to be somewhere in the realm of about 10%, which is still, it’s more of cross slope than I would ever do for a Town road, if I were serving a large subdivision, but this is really more or less a driveway extension for this lot. MR. TRAVER-What about the stormwater management between the road extension and the wetland? MR. NACE-Quite frankly, we had not dealt with that. That’s something we need to do, we haven’t done. The road extension, first we were thinking it was just going to be a small driveway, and then as we started to deal with the Highway Department, it was obvious that it had to be a full width road. So we have not deal with what comes off this 50 feet of road yet. So we need to do that. Then we do have, as a result of the comments, we have included on the revised plans a road section that shows what the pavement section needs to be for that, but it’s not on the plans that you have. MR. TRAVER-And how long has it been since the APA wetlands have been flagged? MR. NACE-The reference was, I think, in ’06. Is that right, Dave? But again, if you go out, now maybe it varies when you get up here because it looks like it flattens out a little further there, but down along the boundary that we’re dealing with, when you get down to the foot of the slope, it’s quite obvious that that’s where things start. MR. TRAVER-Although the wetlands begin at the bottom of the slope you pointed out before. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Which means they’re approximate to the proposed road extension. Correct? MR. NACE-No. This actual, if you look at the existing grading, there’s still a pretty good slope out to here. MR. TRAVER-So the contour intervals on this map need to be expanded? MR. NACE-No. Well, we only took the contouring a little ways off of the site on the adjacent property. So I don’t have contours over in here. What I’m saying is that from what we do know from the survey, that the slope at least extends out to this last contour line. Here it gets a little broader. So it’s right about in here where we know the slope ends. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that doesn’t match up with the line showing the wetland. MR. NACE-Up here it doesn’t. Down here it does. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. NACE-In the area that we’re concerned with, in proximity to the wetland, it does show up quite distinctly. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that southeast corner of the property, is that marked in the field? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. NACE-Is it marked? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, is there a flag or any other delineation? MR. NACE-There’s an iron pin here. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there? Yes. Is it easy to find? I mean, if we went out there, would we find it? MR. NACE-I don’t know. MIKE GRASSO MR. GRASSO-Could you put that picture back on showing the end of the road slope? MR. OBORNE-Those are the pins right there. MR. GRASSO-No, right there, go back to that one. If you look at the slope here, this is the property here. The road extension would probably be somewhere into here. So then it drops off again, but, I don’t know what you were looking at, Dave, but if you find wetlands on that hill, I’ll buy you dinner. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that property150 feet across? So the property’s 150 feet, and the road is going to extend 50 feet. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. So there’s 100 feet between the end of the new road and the end of the property? MR. GRASSO-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So that’s a long ways. Okay. MR. GRASSO-It’s a long ways away from any wetland. MRS. STEFFAN-Now there’s a piece of property that’s on the location map below this property. It’s 38, I’m assuming in the Shore Colony. If that’s developed, would that road be extended again? Because it’s a 1.34 acre parcel. I’m assuming. MR. NACE-If you look at that location plan, they do not have any frontage on the right of way. The right of way ends at the northeast corner of that property. MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s a landlocked parcel. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that map isn’t accurate because it shows Cherry Tree Lane going all the way through, and it doesn’t. MR. OBORNE-But it’s a paper street, though. That’s why. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You better tell the guy who’s house is at the end of it. MR. GRASSO-It goes through wetland. So that’s never going to happen. MR. OBORNE-That’s true. It’ll not happen, but it is a paper street. That’s all it is is a paper street. When they designed the subdivision, that was part of the subdivision, but it never got put in, for obvious reasons. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right, because there’s a drainage ditch that runs the whole thing, which, it’s just, over the years it’s filled in. It spreads out so you’ve got a little swamp here and there. I’ve walked that area occasionally, and it’s not nice. MR. HUNSINGER-So where are we at this evening? MR. TRAVER-Well, it sounds like we need some more information about the wetland. We have stormwater information we need regarding the road extension, between the road extension and the wetland. We have the cross section of the road that’s been submitted that we haven’t seen. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) I don’t know, are there any wells on any adjacent properties, I guess not. I would like to see the contour intervals expanded to show that slope as it approaches the wetland. MR. NACE-Up here you mean? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And I think we need to reflag the wetland. MR. NACE-That’s quite a ways off our site. Our site begins over here. We’re already 100. MR. TRAVER-Well, you’re right. With the reflagged, a clarification of the wetland delineation, I guess that wouldn’t be necessary. MR. NACE-That’s really what you’re interested in. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have floor plans? Because one of the difficulties I was having, and it was commented by one of the public commentors, too, was understanding where the garage fits into the elevation plans that were presented. MR. NACE-Mike, can you speak to that? MR. GRASSO-It’s on the side of the building. MR. NACE-The garage is right here. MR. HUNSINGER-So when I look at these, where does? MR. NACE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t show the garage. MR. GRASSO-Correct. Originally, we had planned to put the garage under the house, and we could not fit the 28 foot height restriction with the garage under the house, built into the slope. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GRASSO-We tried, and Craig and Keith. MR. OBORNE-Not me. MR. GRASSO-It just didn’t work. We couldn’t get it to work. MR. HUNSINGER-So this north elevation is not your north elevation. Because you walk in, this door would go right into your garage. That’s why I couldn’t understand how this was going to work. MR. GRASSO-Right. The garage is on the side of the house, which would be to the north. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. It’s labeled. So would the garage be here? MR. GRASSO-Yes. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And it’s not shown. Okay. That makes sense, because I was like, I’m looking at the north elevation, well, that’s where the garage is supposed to be. So is the garage underneath this little roof where the roof comes down, you know, and you had mentioned before that you did not provide a stormwater management for the road. MR. NACE-For that section of the road. That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Question on the septic system. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-You have a 16 foot absorption bed. That was a comment that Kathy Bozony provided about your absorption bed being twice as big as the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think it was the slope. MR. NACE-That was the slope. It was a 16, supposed 16% slope, which we will address in detail. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GRASSO-I’d like to address one other comment, too. The Maloney’s next door had made a comment that the septic tank, the septic system as proposed would impinge on them putting anything in here, but I would point out to you that this property right here, there’s a septic field right here, right behind, right off the property line. That was installed probably three years ago. So here or here, I don’t think it’s going to make much difference from a well standpoint. That’s why, we wanted to put the well up there, but there was an existing septic system right here about 20 foot off the property line. MR. SCHONEWOLF-On the other street. MR. GRASSO-Yes, on the other street. MR. SCHONEWOLF-On Lake Parkway. MR. GRASSO-Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Nace, have you consulted with the Town Highway Department regarding the extension of Forest Lane? MR. NACE-Yes, we have a letter from them. Keith, did that get into the file? MR. OBORNE-It’s in front of the Board members, yes. MR. NACE-Okay. You have a letter from the Highway Department. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was handed out tonight. MR. GRASSO-From Mike Travis. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what that. Okay. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So are you going to change the grading in the Town right of way? MR. NACE-We will clarify it to make sure that it’s clear that it’s not a 20% cross slope. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-Put some spot elevations on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have new information, Dave? MR. KLEIN-I want to make sure the public comment period will stay open. MR. HUNSINGER-It will, yes, and I would normally clarify that when we table it, yes. MR. KLEIN-I don’t know if the Board understood my comments on the septic system? MR. HUNSINGER-We did, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2010 LESLIE GRASSO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled to the July 20 Planning Board th meeting with an application or a submission deadline of June 15. So that the applicant can address the following conditions: 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) 1.This is right from Staff Notes, that vegetative slope stabilization’s considered criteria should include seed mixture rates and seed bed preparation and should be denoted on Site Plan Page 49310-1. 2.We would also like the applicant to address the following issues: a.We would like the applicant to provide a stormwater plan. All stormwater must be contained and treated on site and denoted on plan, including sheet flow from roofs. b.That the applicant will provide current wetland delineation. c.The applicant will provide retaining walls details. d.That the applicant will provide road cross sections. e.That the applicant will provide contour intervals for the newly flagged wetland delineations. f.The applicant will provide floor plans for the 3,085 square foot structure. g.The applicant will provide updated house elevation plans. h.That the applicant’s plan should be stamped by a licensed professional engineer. th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2010, by the following vote: MR. NACE-Could I ask you to clarify what you mean by contour intervals? MRS. STEFFAN-I believe Mr. Traver talked about having contours on the land. MR. TRAVER-Extending to the newly flagged wetland delineation. MR. NACE-Okay. Sure. MR. FORD-Gretchen, could I hear, I missed that portion about the flagged wetlands. Are we requesting that it be reflagged? MR. TRAVER-Yes, the APA. MRS. STEFFAN-A current wetland delineation. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So they had one several years ago, but it’s not updated. It’s not current. So I chose the word current. Applicant will provide a current wetland delineation. MR. FORD-Okay, because there was a discrepancy between where it is by recent documentation and in previous documentation. Are we specifically requesting that it be reflagged? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. That’s what I wanted to clarify. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I chose the word current versus updated, because updated would be from the 1962 plan, and so they could provide you with a 2006. So I’m looking for a current. MR. FORD-Basically we want it reflagged. MR. OBORNE-Now I’m totally confused. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. GRASSO-You want APA to go out there and redo the whole thing is what you’re asking for. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, current wetland delineation. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. NACE-Could I get you to go back through the list once more. MR. HUNSINGER-How big of a project is that? MR. NACE-The wetland flagging? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-It depends on the availability of the person from APA. It’s generally only a couple of weeks. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-Could I get you to go through the list one more time so I picked up the ones I missed? I got stormwater plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. From the Staff Notes, the vegetative slope stabilization is to be considered. Criteria to include seed mixture rates and seed bed preparation, which should be denoted on the plan. You need to provide a stormwater plan, where all the stormwater must be contained and treated on site and denoted on plan, including sheet flow from the roofs. To provide a current wetland delineation. Provide retaining walls details. Provide a road cross section. Provide contour intervals for the newly flagged wetland delineations. Provide floor plans for the 3,085 square foot structure. Provide updated house elevation plans, and the last one is the plan should be stamped by a licensed professional engineer. MR. NACE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. We’ll see you later. Is there anything else to be brought before the Board this evening? MR. OBORNE-I have no issues. I just need for you to sign the Sander SEQR document. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We already kind of addressed a Special Meeting in June. I think between now and Thursday we can kind of brainstorm about what else might fit into that Special Meeting. MR. OBORNE-I’ll put in what’s backed up in the queue at this point, after Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So are you thinking that that will take care of some of the backlog, or should we think about a July meeting while we’re here? MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, one more time? MRS. STEFFAN-We have identified an extra meeting in June, should we also look forward to an extra meeting in July? We know we have backlog. MR. OBORNE-And you’re asking my opinion on that? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/18/2010) MR. OBORNE-I would say cross that bridge when we come to it in June. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-On a lighter note, I did forward to everyone by e-mail an invitation to Stewarts Grand Opening on Saturday. Okay. Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-I think that that project came out very nice. I’ve gone by, and I can’t believe how quickly it went up. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s very attractive. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and it’s very nice for that corner. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 18, 2010, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: th Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 56