Loading...
2010.06.22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 2010 INDEX Site Plan No. 31-2010 Karen Hausler 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-59 Subdivision No. 4-2010 Robert Wing 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 279.17-1-60 Site Plan No. 36-2010 Sean & Karen Flanagan 5. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-7 Site Plan No. 32-2010 Howard Carr, Managing Agent for 8. Ilene Flaum Tax Map No. 302.6-1-51 Site Plan No. 33-2010 Parker & Hammond Construction, LLC 12. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-18.3 Site Plan No. 35-2010 Bob & Dennis Pilarinos 20. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-97 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’d like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting. I’ll call the meeting to order, Tuesday, June 22, 2010. Members of the audience, there are handouts on the back table that have copies of the agenda, and also information on public hearing. There are several public hearings scheduled this evening for various items. The first item on the agenda is under Expedited Review. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 31-2010 SEQR TYPE II KAREN HAUSLER AGENT(S) BRENT WITHERELL OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 143 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING NON-COMPLIANT 464 +/- SQ. FT. DOCK AND REPLACE IN A COMPLIANT LOCATION A 558 SQ. FT. DOCK AND 312 +/- SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. DOCK/BOATHOUSE IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2000-75, BP 94- 019 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.43 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-59 SECTION § 179-5-060 KAREN HAUSLER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-And if the applicant and/or their agent could come forward to the table. MR. OBORNE-As mentioned, this is an Expedited Review for Site Plan 31-2010 for Karen Hausler. This is a dock and a boathouse in the WR zone, and as such requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 143 Seelye Road. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolition of existing non- compliant 464 +/- sq. ft. dock and place in a compliant location a 588 +/- sq. ft. dock and 312 +/- sq. ft. boathouse with sundeck. This application is eligible for expedited review per the Town of Queensbury Planning Board Bylaws and Policies & Procedures. Quick review. The boat house does not exceed the maximum 16 foot height requirement, and as designed, appears to show no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities. I will say that the shoreline has existing natural vegetation along it and staff recommends that this existing site condition remain (with the exception of clearing associated with the new dock) as a condition of approval, and just a quick opinion, which I know I probably shouldn’t say, but I believe the navigation with adjoining parcels will be greatly improved by the placement of this dock. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-With that, I’d turn it over. MR. HUNSINGER-Since this is for Expedited Review, I’ll just ask the Board if there’s any questions or comments. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I have none. MR. KREBS-I have none. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Any concerns, other than what was mentioned by Staff? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MRS. HAUSLER-No, we just would really appreciate having it done. It will definitely help. We are next door to Castaway Marina, and what we’re planning on doing is moving our dock further away from theirs, so that it will help them be able to get their boats in and out more easily as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I should have asked if you could identify yourself for the record. MRS. HAUSLER-I’m sorry. I’m Karen Hausler. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2010 KAREN HAUSLER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Project Description: Applicant proposes to demo existing non-compliant 464 +/- sq. ft. dock and replace in a compliant location a 558 sq. ft. dock and 312 +/- sq. ft. boathouse with sundeck. Dock/Boathouse in the WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/22/2010; 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. 31-2010 KAREN HAUSLER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. There are no waivers requested on this application. 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. This is a Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 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. 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. g. This is approved with the following condition: That the applicant will maintain the existing natural vegetation shoreline buffer with permission to clear the area associated with the new dock construction. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. HAUSLER-Okay. Wonderful. Thanks very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2010 PRELIMINARY STG. & SITE PLAN NO. 41-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT WING AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 145 & 159 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 19.9 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 0.66, 1.86 & 17.38 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN [REDUCTION OF ACREAGE ASSOCIATED WITH APPROVED NURSERY] ALSO REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 52-03; AV 21-10, SKETCH PLAN 3/23/10 LOT SIZE 19.9 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.17-1-60 SECTION CHAPTER A-183, § 179-9-010 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. The Planning Board had seen this previously as a recommendation item last week. The ZBA has issued their approvals for the zoning setbacks and Area Variances this past Wednesday. Quickly, I’ll read this into the record, that this is Subdivision 4-2010 and tonight we’re here for Preliminary subdivision only. We’ve already accomplished SEQR review, okay. The Planning Board will, again, review for Preliminary. Location is 145 and 159 Sunnyside Road. Existing zoning is RR-3A. This is an Unlisted for both subdivision and Site Plan at this point. SEQR has already been accomplished. Quick description. Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 19.9 +/- acre parcel into three lots of 0.66, 1.86 & 17.38 acres, and at this point, I really have nothing else to add. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Robert Wing. Real brief, we were here last Tuesday night. We discussed the project in detail so we could go through the SEQRA, obviously, and Wednesday night we obtained our variances at the Zoning Board, and we’re back here for the Preliminary approval. I won’t go over it again unless the Board has any particular questions regarding anything that they had on the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? No? MRS. STEFFAN-The only question I have is a procedural issue. They asked for, requested waivers for Sketch, grading and drainage. Since they’re already here, do we have to grant the waiver for Sketch? MR. OBORNE-You’ve already granted that waiver, just by issuing the SEQRA determination. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. STEVES-We were actually here for Sketch Plan. MR. OBORNE-I correct that. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I thought you were. MR. STEVES-Yes, that was on another application maybe Staff was confused with. I submitted a waiver for Sketch on a two lot. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. STEVES-But since I went through Sketch, if you want to go ahead and go to Final tonight. MR. FORD-Thank you for the opportunity. MR. HUNSINGER-You haven’t submitted Final yet. MR. STEVES-I believe we did. Didn’t we? MR. HUNSINGER-Have they? Yes, I didn’t think so. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) rd MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Sketch Plan was on March 23. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So procedurally we would do the subdivision first, and then Site Plan. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s all you’re doing tonight because you can’t approve the Site Plan until the subdivision is complete. You’ve got to do them in tandem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So the Site Plan modification will come back on another date? MR. OBORNE-Correct, and it will be under the auspices of the Final subdivision and Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Just a point of clarification to you, you did the SEQRA on both of those already. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we did that before we initiated the recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. OBORNE-Yes, ma’am. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Before we consider any resolution, 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-We will open the public hearing. Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I do not believe so. There are none, no. MR. HUNSINGER-And this would be just on the subdivision obviously. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since there are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And will entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2010 ROBERT WING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1 . A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 19.9 +/- acre parcel into three lots of 0.66, 1.86 & 17.38 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Modification to an approved site plan [reduction of acreage associated with approved nursery] also requires Planning Board review and approval. Planning Board to conduct SEQR review and provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 6/15 & 6/22/2010; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2010 ROBERT WING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) considered, and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Paragraph Four D, waiver requests have been granted regarding drainage and grading. a.Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b.The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c.Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d. Waiver requests granted: drainage & grading; and e.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 f.As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and g. If applicable, Item f to be combined with a letter of credit; and h.This is approved with the following condition: That the applicant will provide a formal access easement between Tax Map No. 290.05-1-47 and proposed Lot Number One. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-So what we’re saying is that that easement would be submitted with Final. Okay. Any concerns with that from Board members? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-All set. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 36-2010 SEQR TYPE II SEAN & KAREN FLANAGAN AGENT(S) MELISSA LESCAULT, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 150 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF DOCK WITH PITCHED ROOF TO A DOCK WITH A 700 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. DOCK/BOATHOUSE IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 5-94, AV 22-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.4 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-7 SECTION § 179-5-060 MELISSA LESCAULT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 37-2010, Sean and Karen Flanagan. Requested action is dock and a boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. This is at 150 Lake Parkway. Existing zoning, as mentioned, is Waterfront Residential, again, a SEQRA Type II. Project Description: Applicant proposes to modify a pre-existing, non-conforming dock with pitched roof to a pre-existing, non-conforming dock with a 700 sq. ft. sundeck. Staff comments: This application is not eligible for expedited review per the Town of Queensbury Planning Board Bylaws and Policies & Procedures due to the non-conforming nature of the project. The dock/boathouse currently does not meet the 20 foot north side setback requirement and the 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) modification from a pitched roof superstructure to a sundeck will require side setback relief from the ZBA. Okay. The boat house as proposed is to be 14’-3” above the mean high water mark and as such does not exceed the maximum 16 foot height requirement. As designed, there’s no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities, and the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to enhance shoreline planting as per §179-8-040, Landscaping and Buffering standards. Attached is the ZBA resolution that granted their relief last week, and as such, they’re here for Site Plan Review, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. LESCAULT-Good evening. Melissa Lescault from McPhillips, Fitzgerald and Cullum. I’m here on behalf of Sean and Karen Flanagan, as well as Frank DeNardo from Elite Dock. I apologize that we’re just passing out the landscaping plan, but per the Staff Notes we wanted to make sure that we did such plan pursuant to your Code. As you can see in the plan, there are some existing large trees that are already on the property. There’s actually four large maple trees that are over 18 inches. The other requirement per your Code is that there be a 15 foot minimum width buffer, shoreline buffer, which we’ve also done per Jim Girard’s designs. We have approximately 118 feet of shoreline frontage. So aside from the requirement of the two large trees, which we have four, we also need to have two small trees or shrubs, and we have proposed to plant two black chokeberry trees, and one additional small tree, which I believe one of the extra large trees would suffice for that, and the other item that we needed was at least 110 herbaceous plants, and we have 294 herbaceous plants. That’s basically it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MS. LESCAULT-No, not at this moment. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-My only comment, in prepping was tell us about your plans for enhancing the shoreline plantings, and so I guess that base is covered. MR. SIPP-The only thing I see is I’d put in a few more shrubs. What you’ve got in there is kind of low growing. Maybe you need something that has a bigger root system to suck up more water. I mean, you’ve got some good stuff in there. There’s no doubt about it, but maybe a couple of more shrubs, like a dogwood or, which is what I would put in. MS. LESCAULT-Okay. MR. SIPP-It gives you nice red stems in the middle of the winter, so looking out you’d get a good view. Outside of that, I think it’s very good. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That fountain is the one that’s there, right? MS. LESCAULT-Yes, that’s existing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. There also happens to be one on the other side of the property, not that it matters, but it shows the intent of the owner to control stormwater. They’ve done a good job. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments 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 OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board generally comfortable with the planting schedule? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It looks good. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Just in reference to Mr. Sipp’s comments, regarding a couple of additional shrubs, do you have any thoughts on that? MS. LESCAULT-Certainly if that’s something that the Board, as a whole, would request that we do is to, you know, plant a dogwood of some sort, I certainly don’t feel the applicant would object to such shrubs. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to propose a location? MR. KREBS-Well, I was just going to say I think, personally, the job they did was excellent, and I don’t think it really needs anything more, but that’s a personal opinion, but you all know that I don’t think we should require this 15 feet at all, but that’s beside the point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is the Code. MR. KREBS-Yes, it’s in the Code, but the State, the Town, and the County dump water directly into Lake George with no filtration. Why are we going after individual land owners to be responsible when the State, the County and the Town refuse to be responsible for the stormwater coming off their roads? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So there’s three new trees, other than, plus the ones that are on the lot? MS. LESCAULT-There’s going to be two black chokeberry, and then 110 herbaceous plants. Now there’s already four large maple. It’s hard for you to see those. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m familiar with the lot. So I know that. I wouldn’t want to be the one that required them to plant trees so it blocks their view of the lake. That isn’t why you buy a house up there. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment on the planting schedule? MRS. STEFFAN-Certainly they have fortified the landscaping and done what we asked them to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did I close the public hearing? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-So they’ve submitted the landscaping plan tonight. Keith, did you get a copy of this? MR. OBORNE-I just, I put it in the file. MR. KREBS-There were extras, too, do you want those, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I don’t necessarily need them, no. The applicant probably would like them for final submittal. MS. LESCAULT-Yes, thank you. Thanks, Keith. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2010 SEAN & KAREN FLANAGAN, 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 conversion of dock with pitched roof to a dock with a 700 sq. ft. sundeck. Dock/Boathouse in the WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/22/2010; and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) 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. 36-2010 SEAN & KAREN FLANAGAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph E & G do not apply [removed, new Item E added]; and 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. This is a Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 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.The Planning Board approves this application, accepting the revised landscaping plan that was submitted this evening by Jim Girard Landscape Maintenance Corporation dated June 21, 2010. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MS. LESCAULT-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-2010 SEQR TYPE II HOWARD CARR, MANAGING AGENT FOR ILENE FLAUM AGENT(S) S. BITTER, B P S R OWNER(S) ILENE FLAUM ZONING CI LOCATION 756 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LEASE AND RETROFIT 2,800 SQ. FT. RETAIL SPACE IN THE QUEENSBURY PLAZA FOR A MOE’S SOUTHWESTERN GRILL. CHANGE OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT HAS NOT HAD SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE PAST 7 YEARS REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 35-92; SV 3-03, 81-95, 44-95, 30-94, 16-94, 42-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 LOT SIZE 12.47 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-51 SECTION § 179-9-010 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-You’ve got it. Site Plan 32-2010 for Howard Carr, Managing Agent for Ilene Flaum. The requested action is Site Plan Review for a change of commercial use in a commercial site that has not had Site Plan Review in the last seven years. Location is 756 Glen Street. Existing zoning is Commercial Intensive. SEQR Status is Type II. The Project Description: Applicant proposes to lease and retrofit 2,800 +/- sq. ft. of retail space in the Queensbury Plaza for a Moe’s Southwestern Grill. Staff comments: The proposed location for the restaurant is in a portion of space associated with the vacant Rex Appliance Center in Queensbury Plaza. The proposal calls for a 74 seat restaurant with new façade and signage. A rear access is proposed for deliveries and waste removal. Typically this proposal would require a building permit only; however, I do want to clarify, per §179-9-020B of the Queensbury Zoning Code, No permit shall be issued for a change of commercial use in a commercial building on any lot or tract of land except in compliance with a site plan for such lot or plot duly approved by 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) the Town Planning Board within the prior seven years in accordance with the following procedure. The applicant is seeking waivers for lighting, landscaping, land use district boundaries, and contours. I did ask Tom to, Tom Hutchins the project engineer, to vet the stormwater. He has, and has included that in his submittal, in the applicant’s submittal. No real major issues here. I do maybe want to know where the dumpster is and loading areas. The Fire Marshall has no issues. I don’t believe the Director of Wastewater has, although there will need to be some language on the final plans for wastewater, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. I’m sure that everybody knows the history of this Plaza, what this was. I think this was one of my first Site Plans in Queensbury in around 1989, when there was the old Kentucky Fried Chicken, before the Olive Garden and Staples and Red Lobster, and along the way a lot of site changes were made, a lot of positive changes. It was all asphalt, and now when you drive by you see all of the trees. This is, I mean, it’s so successful in terms of masking the Plaza, but you still can see the buildings. I mean, just, it’s so much softer than this used to be 20 or so years ago, but part of my theme tonight, which will end with the Queensbury Diner later on, is re-tenanting existing spaces, and unfortunately in this retail economy, this center has a bunch of vacant spaces. So they were very happy to get a strong tenant, Moe’s Southwestern Grill. They didn’t take the entire Rex space, but they’re taking a lot of it, and that should be good for the Plaza. We’re not proposing any changes. One of the Staff comments was, do they have any designated easement for parking, and the answer is no. Just like everybody else, you come and find a place to park. So that’s not going to interfere with anybody else, and, you know, when you drive by and you see how crowded Olive Garden and Red Lobster are at various times, but that’s when it’s sort of off peak for the retailers. So it works pretty well between the restaurant and the retail uses, but with the landscaping, lighting, stormwater, I mean, everything is really in place, and it’s just a case of, because we haven’t been here in seven years, it does trigger that new provision to come in before the Board, but I’m not aware of any issues that require any changes to the Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m assuming, based on the Staff Notes, there won’t be any problems with the dumpster corral and then identifying loading from behind the building. MR. LAPPER-Everything, you know the way it works in that section of the Plaza in the back, there’s no traffic other than loading and trash really, because there’s no parking. So there’s that whole corridor for using the rear for entrance and taking out the trash. So I don’t see any issues there. All of the, they’re all, all of the waste receptacles have the screens, you know, the way they’re supposed to be in Queensbury. MRS. STEFFAN-Do they share them, or will this one have their own? MR. LAPPER-They’ll have their own. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If I could get that location on the final map, that would be greatly appreciated. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-If the Planning Board so. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question of Staff, Keith. The letter from Tom Hutchins, was he, did the Town engage him or did the applicant engage him? MR. OBORNE-The applicant did. He’s the project engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-He’s the one that brought the application to me. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I assumed when I reviewed this, but I got confused from some of your comments. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. OBORNE-Right, and just in effort to move this forward in one meeting, and to allay any fears with stormwater on the project, I did request that. They didn’t necessarily have to do it, but I did request it of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Keith called us and said he’d like to see it, so we engaged Tom Hutchins and provided that as part of the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Then the other question I had is the new Code has that clause in there that if a project hasn’t been reviewed for seven years it has to come back for Site Plan Review. My question is this, this is a pretty small storefront. If another tenant were to come in and take up a larger storefront, would they come back to the Planning Board, or by virtue of this Site Plan, are we then blanketing the entire parcel for the next seven years? MR. OBORNE-The latter, what you just said. MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s a qualification, though. If they wanted to change the façade, if they were doing something, and when we came in with Five Guys, they were changing the door location. If you modify the building, you’ve got to come in. It’s only if you take it exactly the way it is, leave everything alone, then that would be an approved Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Thank you, Jon, appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well said, yes. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But not façade improvements, just structural changes. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SIPP-Is there some place where the size of this wall sign, how big is that wall sign? MR. LAPPER-It is, should be all specified in here. You have the photo. MR. SIPP-Yes, I don’t think it’s oversized. MR. LAPPER-But certainly I’ll stipulate that it’s not, once require a variance. MR. SIPP-You’re not going to put any further signage on the front? MR. LAPPER-No, that’s it, just what you see, and I think it is specified here, I just can’t read it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments 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 OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-And seeing that are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any issues that the Board has that you want to see as part of the record? MR. KREBS-No, you answered my only question was about, does this approve everything from then on. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes, but if they make any changes, then they have to come back. MR. OBORNE-That requires Site Plan Review, exactly. This will re-set this Plaza for seven years. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Now, I heard, I was doing something else, so I don’t know what, the question Don asked about the signage. The signage that is being proposed, is there lighting on that signage? MR. OBORNE-There is not. That’s not my understanding. I know not as proposed, and it’s less than 100 square feet. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. I just want to make sure there’s no neon strips or anything like that. MR. OBORNE-Yes. That may be an issue down the road if they want to come in for lighting. MR. LAPPER-I can’t tell, and I don’t know, but I think that it would probably be internally lit so you could see Moe’s at night. The letters, I think the letters are lit. I’m trying to think what’s at Exit 15. MR. OBORNE-You may want to condition this, just as a recommendation, that it is a compliant. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. OBORNE-In size and lighting. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. OBORNE-To cover yourself. MRS. STEFFAN-And I did notice one thing, Keith. In your Notes, you know, they’ve asked for waivers, and on the application for Site Plan Review, they ask for a scale waiver. Is that appropriate? They ask for a scale waiver, but it’s not in the Notes. So should I grant the scale waiver? MR. OBORNE-Yes, if they’re asking for it, absolutely. I didn’t put it in my notes? MRS. STEFFAN-No. Lighting, landscaping, contours, and land use district boundaries. MR. OBORNE-If you don’t have any issues, I would grant that also, if they’re asking for it. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I understand. Okay. MR. OBORNE-And I will say I believe the scale that was submitted was one to sixty, and the requirement is a minimum of one to fifty. This is the scale that was submitted. I don’t know why he’s asking for a scale, because I have a one to fifty here. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and the application for Site Plan Review, it’s a waiver. The Site Plan shall be drawn at a scale of forty feet to one inch. MR. OBORNE-Okay. So they submitted a one to fifty and not a one to forty, then. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’ll grant that waiver. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2010 HOWARD CARR, MANAGING AGENT FOR ILENE FLAUM, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1.A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to lease and retrofit 2,800 sq. ft. retail space in the Queensbury Plaza for a Moe’s Southwestern Grill. Change of commercial use in a commercial building that has not had site plan review in the past 7 years requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/22/2010; and 3.This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) 4. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2010 HOWARD CARR, MANAGING AGENT FOR ILENE FLAUM, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 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. This is a Type II, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 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 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: landscaping, lighting, contours, land use district boundaries and scale. h. This is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan should be updated at final submittal to indicate existing conditions and not proposed conditions from 1997 as noted on the sheet heading. 2. The location of dumpster corral to include enclosure details should be noted on the final plan. 3. Loading areas should be denoted on the final plan. 4. Signage must be Code compliant. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-For the record, this was Howard Carr, late arriving, who’s been the manager for all these changes at the Plaza over all these years. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PARKER & HAMMOND CONSTRUCTION, LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SILVER SPRINGVILLE LTD PARTNERSHIP ZONING CLI LOCATION SILVER CIRCLE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 8,400 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE FACILITY WITH A 3,600 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL OFFICE. NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 20-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 LOT SIZE 2.48 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-18.3 SECTION § 179-9-010 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 33-2010, applicant is Parker & Hammond Construction, LLC. It’s a Site Plan Review for new commercial construction in the Commercial Light Industrial zone. Silver Circle is the location. Again, it’s CLI. It’s an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of an 8,400 sq. ft. warehouse facility with an attached 3,600 sq. ft. commercial office. Further, parking, signage, stormwater and erosion and sedimentation controls are planned. The parcel proposed for this use is currently a vacant 2.29 acre parcel in the Silver Circle Industrial Park off of Big Bay Road. The ubiquitous Oakville loamy fine sands are on the site, as far as the soils go, and just a note, those are general descriptions. What 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) follows is Site Plan Review. I’m going to drop down to what may be a potential issue, and that is the Warren County Planning Board has recommended a denial without prejudice due to an interpretation on truck traffic. The Queensbury Planning Board, in order to approve this application, will need to have a supermajority, which is a four plus one vote, in the affirmative to override the County Planning Board’s actions. See attached referral form. Fire Marshal comments and Water Department comments are attached. Water Department might not be attached. I’m not sure. Just to expand on what the County Planning Board has done, is they did not interpret the radius turnings for emergency vehicles, and that’s why that is on the plan. They didn’t give me a call for clarification. They didn’t call the applicant for clarification, and as such, they thought it was a trucking depot, or something along those lines, and they were concerned about traffic on Corinth Road. Rightly so, but with that, that is not the case with this, and I’ll let Tom explain what the nature of the business is, but I just want to make sure that that’s up in front of the Board, and with that I’d turn it over. MR. FORD-Thank you, Keith. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. My name is Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering, Queensbury. I’m here tonight on behalf of Parker and Hammond Construction Company, who is a Queensbury business presently located at 715 Upper Glen, which is in the building behind Dunkin Donuts, and their building looks like that, if that rings a bell. They are commercial interior contractors, commercial industrial institutional large construction project, interior contractors. They have upwards of 100 employees right now, and they are looking to re- locate from Glen Street to an industrial park. The nature of their business there would be three to four people in this office on a daily basis, and there would be three to six people in the warehouse area. It’s not like all their employees, they’re a construction company, all their employees report to the job site. I’ve shown, as Keith indicated, there’s a truck template shown on there. We always put a truck template on. They anticipate two to four deliveries a week at this facility. There’s no loading docks here. It’s not a depot. They unload most of their deliveries by fork truck, which is the reason for the concrete around the building, and as far as the Warren County, probably part of the reason for that denial is we weren’t represented at the meeting because I didn’t trigger that it was subject to County review, and I didn’t see the notice, if I received one. So we weren’t at the meeting where the County reviewed it. So if they had questions, there was nobody there to answer it, but this is the small industrial use, in an industrial park, and we believe our design is completely compliant with Town Codes for that area, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board for comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Tom, I have a question on, do you know the size of the vehicles that will be making deliveries on a regular basis there? Are they 18 wheelers or smaller delivery vehicles? MR. HUTCHINS-They do get some trailer deliveries, but most of them are in closed truck. Most of them are box truck, but they do get some deliveries on flatbed, and I expect Kevin Hammond here tonight that could better answer those questions. MR. HUNSINGER-So you said that there’s no loading docks? MR. HUTCHINS-There is not a depressed loading dock. Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, because I saw the big drive in doors. I just assumed that, especially looking at. MR. HUTCHINS-They’re at grade doors so that they can back a vehicle within the building. They’re big doors, but they unload by lift truck. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-That doesn’t, they offload the trailer by lift truck. They don’t drive on the trailer with a lift truck. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. TRAVER-What about the Glen Street location? Are they going to continue to occupy that as well, or? MR. HUTCHINS-Their business, I don’t know their plans for the building, and I don’t even know if they are owners of the building or not. The business is going to re-locate to this facility from 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) Glens Falls, and I don’t know their plans for that building, but they’ve outgrown it, is their problem. MR. SIPP-What’s the width of the road coming in? MR. HUTCHINS-Of off Silver Circle? I believe it’s 24 foot. MR. SIPP-Twenty-four foot. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s a previously approved subdivision. It certainly is up to standards. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, the fire department didn’t take any issue with it, so there’s no problem with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments on either the Staff Notes or the engineering comments? I mean, there’s quite a few engineering comments. I don’t think they’re of any great significance. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I’ll make some comments on them, and this will explain probably a couple of them. This started out to be a project to be located on Lot Two in Silver Circle, and we did a bunch of the preliminary soils work on Lot Two of Silver Circle. At a very late point in time, a decision was made to build upon Lot Three. I didn’t get all of the soils information on Lot Three before the submission was made, and it was submitted with some soils info from Lot Two. I have subsequently gathered that data and I’ve discussed it with the Town Engineer, and it’s very similar, it’s a similar, soils are uniform in that whole area. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s mostly sand, right? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s sand. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s the reason for the lack of test pits. I don’t know, I don’t see any of them as being significant. Yes, I should specify washed stone. Infiltration trench and eaves trench require an observation well. I want to look at that requirement. I’ve never used one before, but I have no problem putting an observation well in. To answer the questions, I have no problem with any of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, the biggest concern I had was the test pit or perc test to make sure that the groundwater is not too high. MR. HUTCHINS-And those tests have subsequently been done. It was a couple of hundred feet down the road, same elevation. The materials are the same. With regard to the soils, it is an area that’s a very fast percolating soil, and we’ve amended for the septic system because they are, it’s under a minute. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-As far as Staff comments, I don’t believe I have, sign detail, we showed a freestanding sign. We did not show details of a freestanding sign. They haven’t made a decision whether they’re going to use this building mounted sign, or whether they’re going to put a freestanding sign out. We showed a freestanding sign. We don’t have a design for that sign, but at any rate, it would be compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Building colors? MR. HUTCHINS-Colors are to be, he’s bringing color charts, but it’s a, the metal building is a beige, tan/beige with a metal roof, and the front office building is an efface, it’s a tan efface with a brick façade below it, and I believe there’s an elevation in there. MR. HUNSINGER-There is an elevation, yes. MR. TRAVER-It’s actually a nice looking building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-It’ll be a nice, I’m sure they’ll do a nice looking job. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-And then the only other real comment from Staff was the natural vegetation comment. It appeared as though there was excessive clearing. MR. HUTCHINS-I mean, we’ll agree to maintain natural vegetation wherever feasible. There’s a fair amount of asphalt going into this site, and the building’s, I mean, there’s a fair amount of coverage by the time we’re done, and we do need to do stormwater. This particular lot lends itself to sending of stormwater to the rear, and the soils lend themselves to infiltration, but that takes a fair area to accomplish. We’re okay with maintaining natural vegetation where feasible, but I think if we take our clearing line on the grading plan, can’t do a whole lot of grading without removing vegetation, either cut and fill, and I’m not sure how much natural vegetation we could save, at least up in that area where Keith had indicated, which was around our stormwater basin. There may be an area to the rear that we can save some. We’re okay agreeing to save it where we can. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I’m sorry if you’ve covered this before, but what are the hours of operation? MR. HUTCHINS-For the office, 7:30 to 4:30. Most of their people go direct to job sites. This is basically an area where they store tools, equipment and materials, and run their office operation. They have a few people that bid jobs and review jobs and that sort of thing. MR. FORD-So deliveries would occur only during those hours. MR. HUTCHINS-I believe that to be the case, and I can certainly agree to clarify that, or if we want to stipulate based upon that, I’d like to say 7:30 to 5:30, or 7:00 to 5:30, if we could do that, for delivery time. It is an industrial park. There’s not a whole lot of residential occupancy around there. MR. OBORNE-If I could comment on the vegetation issue. It’s a consideration. It’s not something that’s a mandatory, and I’m looking at the plans again, obviously he has a shallow basin in the rear. Obviously it is quite a bit of storage with it. So you would need that obviously to grade. It’s going to be lawn in the back. I just want to get that in the front, you know, maybe for future plans that when you’re doing your E & S and stormwater, the more trees we can save the better. MR. HUTCHINS-Absolutely, and that’s fine, but it’s also hard from a design standpoint where we’ve got a clearing limit to dictate which is the nice trees and which would be the trees that would be the trees that want to be worth saving, at the design level. MR. OBORNE-You also come to (lost words) also happens. I mean, I understand that, but we can mitigate that. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just wondering how we put that in a motion so it’s enforceable. I mean, it’s not, you can’t, it’s too vague. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s already in the Code anyway. Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. Is there any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the will of the Board? Are we ready to move forward on this? MR. KREBS-Sure. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I know we haven’t seen the color samples, but what you describe sounds okay to me. I’m just one person. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. FORD-Agreed. MR. KREBS-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, earth tones. We like the design. Any outstanding concerns? I mean, you’ll need to satisfy the engineering comments, obviously. MR. OBORNE-I would say, if I could add to, put something as a condition, that the signage is Code compliant also, just like the previous one. I’m sure Madame Secretary has that down. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I do. I have four things, to satisfy engineering comments and then obtain a signoff. Number Two, any building signage must be Code compliant. Number Three, delivery times to the building, seven a.m. to six p.m. Four, earth tone color scheme is acceptable to the Board. MR. KREBS-Read that one on the signage again? MRS. STEFFAN-Any building signage must be Code compliant. MR. KREBS-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Should I put signage? MR. KREBS-Yes, I would say signage, because I was thinking that you might only be looking at that that was on the building. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He might have a freestanding signage (lost word) use that. MR. KREBS-Just signage. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry, what was the fourth one? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, just the earth tone color scheme is acceptable to the Board. Because that was a question that we asked. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is an Unlisted action. They submitted a Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 33-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PARKER & HAMMOND CONSTRUCTION, LLC, 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 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) 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. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of, June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-If I could add, Kevin Hammond, co-owner. So if you have any specific questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Welcome. We were told you brought the color samples. If you could just maybe hold those up or pass them out. KEVIN HAMMOND MR. HAMMOND-Sure. That’s the only one I have right now. That’s our walls, and the roof would be the (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HAMMOND-On the warehouse building, and then on the main office building we were going to do three foot high brick, and then an efface with the walls matching the metal building, and the (lost words) would be the color of the (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Nice. I don’t know if we want to reference the colors, since we have them now. Is this your only copy? MR. HAMMOND-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’ll give it to Keith. MR. OBORNE-Please. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. FORD-Could we address the lighting, please. I know you’ve got some spec sheets here. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We have shown a lighting plan. There’s one freestanding light near the, on the east side of the entrance coming off the road, and there is building mounted, the remainder of it is building mounted lighting. There’s some off the front of the office building, and there is some off the west side, and the rear of the main building. MR. FORD-All downcast? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s all downcast, yes. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that came up before you arrived was delivery times when truck deliveries come to the building. MR. HAMMOND-We really don’t, I mean, most of our employees are all out in the field, you know, as on site construction workers. So 90% of our delivers we get through distribution centers like the drywall center or Camco and the deliver it right to this site, but any of our stuff 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) that would come to the shop, we’re open from like, I’m there at seven, but we don’t technically open until eight o’clock and we’re out at four. MR. HUNSINGER-So the deliveries come during business hours. MR. HAMMOND-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what Mr. Hutchins thought. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then I will make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2010 PARKER & HAMMOND CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 8,400 sq. ft. warehouse facility with a 3,600 sq. ft. commercial office. New commercial construction in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/22/2010; 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. 33-2010 PARKER & HAMMOND CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, a Negative Declaration. 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. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c. Final approved plans, in compliance with the 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 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 g. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. h. 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. i. 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 j. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) 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 2. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. k. This is approved with the following conditions: 1.The applicant will satisfy engineering comments and obtain engineering signoff. 2.Any signage must be Code compliant. 3.Delivery times to the building will be between the hours of eight a.m. and five p.m. 4.The earth tone color scheme is acceptable to the Board, specifically the sheet that has been submitted to Staff of a medium bronze roof and almond wall colors. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HAMMOND-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2010 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS BOB & DENNIS PILARINOS AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PYRAMID CO. OF GF ZONING ESC LOCATION 518 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE 8,800 SQ. FT. FORMER HOWARD JOHNSON’S RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,400 SQ. FT. DINER WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. FOOD SERVICE IN THE ESC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 63-08, SP 21-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 LOT SIZE 2 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-97 SECTION § 179-9-010 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 35-2010, Bob and Dennis Pilarinos. Requested action is Site Plan Review for food service in the Enclosed Shopping Center zone. Location is 518 Aviation Road. Existing zoning is ESC or Enclosed Shopping Center. SEQRA Status is Previous EIS dated July 2001. Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of an 8,800 sq. ft. former Howard Johnson’s restaurant and construction of a 5,400 sq. ft., 210 seat retro diner. The proposal calls for stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation controls as well as landscaping, lighting and associated site work. Staff comments: The parcel for this proposal is currently owned by The Pyramid Corporation, the owner of Aviation Mall. The 2.06 acre parcel is bordered on the west by the I-87 northbound exit ramp, to the north by Aviation Road, to the south and east by an existing out-parcel and is considered one of the four existing northwest outparcels of Aviation Mall as denoted in the FEIS associated with this project. The location for the proposal is in the Enclosed Shopping Center zoning district and as such is required to follow the development standards in Chapter 4 and 7 as per §179-3-040B(1)(c). What follows is Site Plan Review. Suffice it to say Staff has identified what I consider two main issues, one obviously being traffic, and the other is compatibility with the surrounding areas. Other issues as far as the internal site, there’s some lighting issues. You might want to discuss LED lighting, and what the effects of that is or are, and what we also have is some information from New York State Department of Transportation. I’m sure we’ll get into that conversation, and the Board has read those notes. Those were provided to both myself and the applicant’s project engineer and counsel. I did receive something today at 3:02, exactly, from Kevin Novak, who is the traffic safety and mobility engineer for Department of Transportation. I hope that you all have read that. What you also have is a SEQRA letter that you may want to discuss also, and with that, I shall turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Hutchins is the project engineer, and Tommy Revo is the project architect. Tommy has designed many similar diners over the last 36 years. So I think that traffic is a lot of what we have to talk about, but perhaps we’ll just start talking about the simpler site issues, and then get to traffic, if that’s okay with you. The way we view this, the re-development of this site is important for Queensbury. Getting off at Exit 19 the gateway to Queensbury, and seeing those vacant buildings for all these years has obviously elicited comments from the public, the politicians, and everyone else, and for all this time, Pyramid had amssed the property, and it was their goal to do a large retail development and in the present economy, they’ve elected, instead, to sell this existing separate two acre parcel that contained the, what, 8800 square foot restaurant. We view this that that restaurant is an existing facility that could be operated if somebody wanted to do that, and in fact when the Pilarinos contracted they had the option to do that, but when they went in and looked at it, they realized that sometimes it’s less efficient and more expensive to renovate than it is to start fresh, and this allowed us to retain Hutchins Engineering and start fresh on the site, in terms of stormwater, landscaping, lighting. One of the biggest issues on the Site Plan is just adding the compliant green space to the front. I mean, most of the time you’d see a diner comes in with all sorts of parking in front, but when, you know, we sat down with the applicants, looked at the Queensbury Code and said, here are the options. So rather than try and ask for a variance, I mean, a lot of decisions were made before we got here to try and simplify this. It’s compliant in the front. There’s all that green space. There’s, you know, what the applicants consider a pretty substantial amount of landscaping, and we hope the Board will see this retro period diner as, you know, something pretty fancy for what it is, stainless steel and glass block. Obviously it’s a good location for a diner at Exit 19 of the Northway, and because that’s the building right in front, that taking down that Howard Johnson’s that’s been there vacant for probably six or seven years since the last tenant left, it’s going to clean up the entrance to the Town. So, with that, let me hand it over to Tom Hutchins to just walk you through the Site Plan. TOM HUTCHINS MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board, Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I’ll be relatively brief, but in general what we’ve done here is we’ve held, the front of the proposed building is just about at the same location as the front of the existing building. Proposed building is smaller in footprint than the existing building, and we have taken out the parking that, we’ve reduced the amount of asphalt between the road and the building substantially by about half. There’s a good sized green area now. Part of it’s in the right of way, but we’ve essentially doubled the size of that, and eliminated any of the parking in front. We’ve shown parking to the west and the primary parking is behind the building. Utilities. The site’s served by public sewer, public water, natural gas and that’ll remain the case, and that’s relatively straightforward in the design of those. Stormwater, we have incorporated stormwater treatment controls in accordance with today’s regulations, and we’ve taken the stormwater, the majority of the stormwater is going from north to south to an infiltration basin out in the rear that will be essentially out of sight. There’s a shallow swale in the green area to the front, but that won’t look like a stormwater control. That’ll look like landscaping. Anything else? We’ve maintained, this is set up, this was set up by DOT, when they came in and did the bridge project, to be a shared entrance between these two parcels, the one that the existing restaurant is on and the adjoining parcel, and we’ve basically set it up to work in that manner as best we can, not knowing what’s going to happen on the adjoining parcel. The curb cut is there. We’re working with the existing curb cut to the greatest extent possible, and we are showing three lanes in and out, one in, two out, at that existing curb cut. There’s plenty of width to enable us to do that. It’s certainly feasible. It’s not, it’s certainly feasible to left turn out of here. It depends on what time of the day it is. In the morning during traffic hour, in the evening, it may not be a reasonable movement at that time, but most times of the day, or other times of the day, I have been watching it, and it’s a reasonable movement to turn left out of there. There is actually a double left turn lane at this location that goes to a hatched lane, in the median, there’s a double left turn lane in the median to turn left into Hess, and there’s a, I’m not sure the name of the street that’s just east of Hess, but there’s a turn lane to allow that movement, and there’s also a left turn in arrow in that lane, directing right into this site. It’s difficult to see on the photo, but, other than that, we have shown a landscaping plan that we felt was a pretty good landscaping plan. We’re certainly able to discuss it and make modifications. Lighting. Keith had made a comment about the lighting being intense, and I’m fine with looking at that and trying to back off on that. I will say that the problem in commercial lighting, with 20 foot high fixtures, is getting uniform distribution without hot spots because the fixtures are low. You always get, particularly with a downcast fixture, only 20 feet high, you always get a hot spot underneath that fixture, if you’re going to get any distribute out 30, 40 feet from that. I have no problem trying to go back and look at that and try to back off that a little bit, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board. MR. LAPPER-Since Tom started on the traffic discussion, I want to just follow up some more details about that. You’ve seen the correspondence from DOT, my letter to DOT, and then 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) Tom’s letter to DOT today and then the DOT response that Keith mentioned just came in at three o’clock today, and what that’s all about is that after we’d submitted, Keith forwarded to the DOT regional office a copy of the Master Plan from Pyramid from 2008, and that plan, the last time we were here talking about the Mall, showed a much more significant retail development on that site, and in order to facilitate that, it had a connector road between the two parcels. In order to get a whole bunch of square footage, that would be required, but it’s not feasible for a diner parcel for this project. I don’t know what ultimately will go on the back of the nine acres where the Howard Johnson’s motel is. Another hotel is a suitable use, or it could be retail. Certainly that parcel is connected to the Mall, so depending upon the intensity of what might be proposed in the future, a connector road may or may not be possible, but it’s not possible now, and it’s also not necessary now for this diner parcel, and ultimately that’s what DOT came back with was just that they recognized that this is a separate project and that what they propose is that they would allow all movements, but that they would like to look at this in two years and have the right to basically eliminate the left turn out movement if that’s necessary and we think that that’s a pretty reasonable position for DOT to take, and the applicant can live with that. As Tom had said, there’s, the left turn in, there’s a place, there’s a cross hatched median. There’s a place to wait while the traffic coming from the west passes. You can wait and make a left turn like elsewhere on Aviation and Quaker Road. There’s gaps because of the traffic light. You wait your turn and make that left in. For a restaurant, just like a retailer, the most important movements are that cars can come to your site, but at the same time I had a discussion with Mark Kennedy, who’s the head of the regional office after we got the first letter, and asked him if he was looking to put in a pork chop and to eliminate the left turns out, and he said, you know, when you have a five lane road, people are going to do it anyway because it’s so wide you can just make a “U”, and if you don’t allow the left turns out, where are they going to go, you know, how’s that going to mess up traffic when they go and try and make a “U” turn somewhere else. So for that reason, and because of, you know, this is a major traffic generator in terms of that road, although it is approximately 100 cars peak hour. You’ve seen the letter today where DOT’s saying that they’ll allow the four movements and they’ll look at it in two years and see if it has to be changed, but that the applicant has to agree to that, and they will. So what we’re hoping, after this discussion, is that this Board will see fit to agree that it’s DOT’s road and let them make that call. I’ll just point out that the road was improved when the bridge came in and widened any additional lanes and this worked when it was a busy Howard Johnson’s, obviously, you know, that was a few years ago, but it worked with the full movement, and at that point the curb cut was much closer to the Northway. What Tom mentioned, DOT did an acquisition. There used to be two curb cuts on that parcel, one in the center of the parcel. Now the only curb cut is all the way at the eastern end. So as far as possible from the Northway, and, you know, as Tom admitted, there are times in the day when, you know, you’re going to wait too long to make a left turn so people will make a right turn, but that’s how most of the businesses work there. They’re not restricted. So we’re asking you to, after talking about it, to conclude that DOT’s proposal gets the project done, and if there’s an issue in two years, DOT will come and fix it. So that’s where we are on traffic. Tommy’s here to answer any questions about architecture, and we’re at your mercy. MR. OBORNE-Can I respond? Is that okay? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. OBORNE-Just some things are inconsistent, and the one being that the Master Plan was on file with DOT. I didn’t send them the Master Plan. That was from the previous out parcel build out. He had sent that to me, Jon, and it’s my interpretation that the applicant wants the unrestricted access. DOT does not want an unrestricted access. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And if Mark Kennedy’s saying something, I’m hoping that it’s documented that he’s saying it. I’m not saying that he’s not, trust, but verify, and that’s my only response. MRS. STEFFAN-I just, I have some serious concerns about traffic, and I would certainly like to see a traffic study, and the reason for that is that we have a lot going on. We’ve got the commuter traffic. It is an impossible intersection, any time after four o’clock, and that’s Monday through Friday, and then you’ve got the weekend situation, and then from May to August we have the seasonal fluctuations in volume for the tourist season. Then we’ve got festivals and things like the Balloon Festival which are, you know, you can’t build a road for one event a year, but that’s an October issue outside of what I would call tourist season, and then you’ve got the November/December situation at Aviation Mall. It’s the biggest shopping center in the area, and that particular stretch of road is jammed up. I’m not sure who did the study. I don’t know whether it was Barton & Loguidice or, there was a study done of that corridor between there and the Route 9 Aviation intersection. So I know that there’s data to look at. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. LAPPER-Barton & Loguidice, they did a study. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and so, you know, some of the data may be able to be, you know, gleaned and synthesized into this study, but I really need to see, you know, volumes, seasonal fluctuations because I’m not convinced that a left hand turn out of there, except for on Saturday morning, is a good idea. MR. LAPPER-I guess I would just ask that you would consider, let DOT make that call rather than the Planning Board because it’s a State road. MR. KREBS-Not only that, there are two adjacent businesses, two gas stations with efficiency stores, I don’t know what you would call those stores. MRS. STEFFAN-Convenience stores. MR. KREBS-Convenience stores, and those people come out of there and go left all the time. I see it. I’ve stopped, in fact, and bought gas and gone left, coming out. I don’t see accidents there. MRS. STEFFAN-I would love to see the traffic data on accidents. I would like to see that. MR. KREBS-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I have seen accidents there, and I’ve also seen, you know, folks trying to get across, and it’s like they’re running a gauntlet ad there are people, you know, dodging accidents and it’s chaos, especially during rush hour. MR. TRAVER-We also just approved a plan to renovate the gas station at the bottom of that road, and one of the changes that’s being made is no left out, for that reason. MR. LAPPER-But the difference there is that that’s near that intersection with all those lanes at Route 9. MR. TRAVER-Well, if you look at the aerial photograph, you’ll see this is near an intersection with an increase, a bump out in lanes as well. MR. LAPPER-The difference here is that everyone’s getting onto and off of the Northway. A lot of people are turning onto the Northway. It’s just nowhere near as busy as the intersection of Route 9 and Aviation and Quaker. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I’d like to discuss further the communication that we received today between project engineer Hutchins and Mr. Novak. I read this correspondence again, as we arrived for the meeting this evening, and my interpretation is different than yours, Jon. MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry to interrupt. The last sentence was what I was referring to. The DOT would also be willing to consider an unrestricted access, part of the conditions you’ve outlined, should the Town support this approach, and so that’s referring to Tom’s, the two year, which he didn’t make up. That came from Kevin. MR. HUTCHINS-That came from the discussion we had. MR. LAPPER-Today. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, they, you know, they might be willing to consider something else, but what we have before us is a letter from them, and a confirmation statement at the beginning of this communication from today, that they would like to see an overall access plan. They go on to say, our preference would be for shared access with left turn exiting movements prohibited. Now, I don’t think that we have, with an absence of updated traffic information, I don’t know that we necessarily can say that this location cannot accommodate a left exit. I mean, it certainly seems counterintuitive that it would, again since we’ve looked at other projects on this same stretch of road, but without updated traffic information, and DOT has made that same comment, they’re clearly, and I understand you’re pointing out that they would consider something else, but they’re very clearly, and I think quite strongly indicating, that they do not want a left turn exiting movement, and I think that we have to give that some great weight. I can certainly understand the applicant, you know, wanting the option of obviously being able to exit both ways. I think if we want to pursue that further, and perhaps in any case, we need some updated traffic information. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess, you know, at some point, it’s only a two acre parcel, and this is not a lot of square feet for that parcel, but as a traffic generator, you know, it’s a moderate traffic generator, and I think that the community has an interest in getting that building knocked down and cleaning up the site, and the applicants have an interest in that. So, whatever you propose here, I mean, if this deal falls apart because they can’t get their traffic access, you know, somebody else would come along at some point and it would be similar because, you know, you have that site. It’s obviously a busy part of Town, that road, part of that is the draw for this tenant because they want to have the visibility, but I think that, you know, this can’t be tied, at this point, to an overall access plan because whatever’s happening, the Pilarinos can’t control what Pyramid is going to do, and there is no plan, because, you know, it’s likely that someone’s going to buy the piece in the back. So the time for master planning was during a better economy. Right now whoever buys it’ll, you know, that’ll be a much larger project because of the acres, and he’ll have to satisfy this Board and DOT. MR. TRAVER-And I understand that the possibility exists that perhaps within two years the other parcel will be sold and at that point there will be perhaps a more comprehensive traffic plan, and I’d like to suggest that another way of looking at this is really the opposite of what your engineer is suggesting, that we have unlimited access for two years. Why not restrict left turn access for two years, and then take a look at an overall plan, once the other sites are developed? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Jon, take a step back. Has the property been sold? MR. LAPPER-There’s a contract. It’s under contract to purchase it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it’s not been sold. MR. LAPPER-No, because it’s subject to approval. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought Pyramid couldn’t sell it until they knocked the? MR. LAPPER-No. There are two separate parcels. That’s the distinction. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I understand, right. MR. LAPPER-And it is the applicant here, it is their responsibility, under the contract with Pyramid, to demolish the building in the front. So Pyramid, so they’re taking that responsibility from Pyramid by buying re-developing this site. So they’ll take care of the front, and the motel building, which is on a separate parcel, is the responsibility of Pyramid, and they’ve contracted with the Town, or they’ve agreed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Pyramid’s track record is less than stellar, and I know they’ve met with the Town about this, but I’m not exactly sure where we stand on that, but I don’t even think that they should be selling that land until the motel is down. MR. LAPPER-I think you should look at it the opposite, that, having these guys come in with this brand new building, I mean, they’ll get this thing in the ground. They’d like to be open by the end of the year. What’s in front is what you see. So that even if the motel is knocked down and it’s a vacant parcel in the back with grass growing, at least you’ll have a viable landscaped new diner in front. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But I don’t think Pyramid should be allowed to sell it until they knock the motel down. I mean, it’s been there forever. They told us they were going to do it. They didn’t do it. MR. LAPPER-Well, you know, if you will, I’ve been involved in all these projects for all these years, and they certainly spent all this money to get these approvals because they were trying to do retail projects. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I understand that. MR. LAPPER-And the last time was 2008, and the economy fell apart and here we are, but the Pilarinos family has a contract to buy what’s a separate subdivided parcel. If we were in here asking you for subdivision approval, that would be a different story, perhaps, but this, the restaurant was always on its own parcel. So I look at it that it’s good that they’re here with a contract and they’re going to take over the responsibility along the road, and Pyramid has agreed with the Town that it’ll be down by the end of September in the back, but it’s still a positive thing for the Town to get this site re-developed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’ll probably be down before they close on this property? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. LAPPER-I would expect that, depending upon how quick we can get the approval, but that this thing will close as soon as we have the approvals, and I think I’ve explained, I don’t know if I did in the cover letter, that this gets built in pieces and assembled here, and Tommy can explain that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, I understand how it works. MR. LAPPER-So what is it about a three month construction process? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it’s more of an assembly job than a construction. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it’s still a lot of equipment. So it’s about three months to get it up and ready. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just don’t want to let Pyramid off the hook because they’re not happy with what they’ve done. MR. LAPPER-And they have a contract that they’ve delivered to the Town saying that they’ll get th it down by October 30. MR. FORD-So we’re anticipating both construction and destruction simultaneously? MR. LAPPER-On this site? MR. FORD-On the large site. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Pyramid being responsible for the back, and the Pilarinos family being responsible for the front. MR. FORD-And that is going to occur during the height of our tourist season. That ought to be a ball. MR. LAPPER-Well, I would say that, leaving that there for all these years, that the sooner the better, you know, to the community to get that down. MR. FORD-We said that years ago. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but now the Town has pushed it and Pyramid’s agreed, in writing, to take it th down by September 30. MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the repercussion to Pyramid if they don’t do it? MR. LAPPER-The Town’s going to litigate. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And they’ve made that clear. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but it could litigate and it could be a couple of years before it’s gone. MR. LAPPER-I’ve been assured that it’s going to come down, and part of it is it’s a good time in the economy to pay for demolition. Everything’s a little bit less expensive. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why can’t they do it now, then? MR. LAPPER-They’ve sent out a bid package. They got bids in, and they’re negotiating. So, that’s my most recent information. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The other thing on the traffic, you mentioned Howard Johnson’s, yes Howard Johnson’s was there, but that was like 10 years or more ago. There’s a lot more traffic at that intersection now with the high school on the other side and the middle school and everything has expanded. The church is much bigger because the other church has closed, the parish is bigger. You’ve got a lot more traffic just going up and down. MR. LAPPER-But that was a two lane bridge at that point, remember. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I understand. I understand. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. LAPPER-The infrastructure has been added to handle the traffic. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But I think a left turn is suicide. MR. LAPPER-Well, the applicant is willing, and I understand what Steve said, but they’re willing to say, to the DOT condition, that DOT will study it and see what happens in two years, and they’d be willing to give it up. They’d like to get it because they want their restaurant to be viable, to justify this investment. So they would like to be able to have full movement for two years and then let the DOT make the call, and it is a State road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I like my colleague’s idea, we do it the other way around. MR. LAPPER-I understand. MR. SIPP-Right across the road you’ve got a Silo restaurant and gift shop, which make left turns out of there. So we’ve got left turns from the north side and the south side, both crossing in order to get into the traffic lane. MR. LAPPER-I go to the Silo all the time. I love the Silo, and the way that works is that at different times of the day you make a left, it’s no problem. During the peak hour you don’t. MR. SIPP-What do you do, go across the bridge and turn around? MR. LAPPER-Well, you know, sometimes I’ve gone through that neighborhood in the back if I have to. Yes, you could go across the bridge, but that’s, you do what you’ve got to do. MRS. STEFFAN-But part of the problem with that is that, you know, that’s okay for the locals, but we have a lot of tourist traffic, and they don’t really know the lay of the land, and they’ll try to do things that the traffic flow allows them to do, and that’s when they get into trouble. MR. LAPPER-But to tell the new guy that they can’t have what everybody else has when they’re making a brand new investment of millions of dollars, I mean, everybody else in that stretch has full movement, and it works. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I don’t know if it works. The history of this site is just very difficult, and the believability that Pyramid Corp. is going to live up to their commitments, because they haven’t done it in the past. I mean, past performance is the best indicator of future performance, and they’ve been disappointing. So now we have this application in front of us, and I think all of us would like to believe that, you know, everything’s going to be fine, but. MR. LAPPER-Well, no matter what, you’ve got this family here that will be absolutely responsible. They’re buying this site for a lot of money, to take down that building, and they want to get this new building up. So that’s a good thing. That’s going to happen. They’re here tonight. They’ll put that on the record, but their goal is to do that as soon as possible, and re- develop the site, and that’s good for all of us. MR. TRAVER-And hopefully the presence of this new business in the area, combined with the knock down of the derelict buildings nearby, will cause some further development in this next door parcel that will cause a re-evaluation of the whole traffic pattern around that area. That’s why I think that, rather than necessarily worry about an elaborate traffic study at this point, if we can just keep the left out eliminated for now, and be confident that there’ll be some development, and perhaps within two years, but certainly as part of a condition that in two years that that be re-evaluated, and it may very well be that, you know, that can be something that can be provided for, or it may be that, you know, there’ll be a light or some other control in there that will manage traffic better, but I think right now, with what we’re looking at, we have to, between that and the statements that we have from DOT, I don’t see how I can be comfortable with approving a left out. MR. KREBS-Yes, but you’re misinterpreting what DOT said. DOT said very specifically that they would approve the site if Town of Queensbury would be willing to consider the access as proposed. That’s what DOT says. MR. TRAVER-And we’re about to find out if the Town of Queensbury would consider that. MR. KREBS-But it goes on to say that our preference would be for a shared access with left turn exiting movements prohibited. Well, there is no shared access, and there won’t be any shared access until one of those pieces of property are sold, and you can go down into Aviation Mall. So at the existing time, there is no potential for shared access. You couldn’t even do it because you don’t even own the properties that you’d have to cross. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. LAPPER-But what I didn’t mention, and it’s a small fact, but the, when we were looking at doing that, the price was $800,000, and because there’s a main Town water line going down that hill toward Friendly’s, that there’s a huge grade change, and then there’s this big Town water line that comes from Cole’s Woods, I guess, feeding North Queensbury. That’s why relocating that line and putting it, that’s why, that’s how we get to that $800,000 price for building that road, re-locating the water line and dealing with the grade issue. It’s just way beyond this project. I mean, as a condition, too, and I understand what Steve’s saying, and we’re trying get this approved, and I understand you’re making the reasonable offer as a way to deal with this, to get this through. Another thing that we’re, you know, if at some point there was an access road in the back, of course then they could lose a left turn out because there’d be another place for people to lose a left turn, but in order to answer Steve’s question, we’d have to ask Dennis Pilarinos if that’s something that he could live with. He’s here, about the two year period without the left hand turn, and then evaluate it at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-What other issues do Board members have, other than traffic? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is this a 24 hour diner? MR. LAPPER-What they’ve told me is that it would not be a 24 hour diner. MR. TRAVER-One other issue that I had, and I’m the first to admit, I am not, I don’t have a lot of artistic ability, but just looking at the, I think it’s S-9 of the plan that showed the general colors and the lighting, the façade, if you will, of the front of the restaurant, it strikes me that it’s going to be rather loud. MR. LAPPER-Is that this? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And what’s not shown there in that rendering is, I think on top of the front entrance there’s like an orange and red, an additional sign, and certainly I could be wrong about this, but just looking at the information on the sheet, it seems as though it’s visually going to be a bit loud. So maybe a visual rendering or something that could aid us in interpreting what this looks like. I’m also a little bit concerned when I see some of the, and I think this was in Staff comments as well, about the LED lights. My experience has been is that, not that their intensity, I know we’ve discussed this with other projects, not that the lumens, if you will, or the amount of brightness, is essentially different, but the, I think it has to do with the frequency or the spectrum of the light that’s coming out of the LED is a much more, it has much more visual impact for a given amount of power, and I understand also that it’s, these are power saving fixtures, which we also want to utilize, but if you see them in the environment, you see like a red LED as opposed to, or next to a red incandescent or red fluorescent, the red LED, even at the same brightness level, it has a much more striking visual impact, and I think for this type of facility, with the amount of lighting that’s on the front of the building, I think it could end up being, I’m just concerned that the visual impact of it could be an issue. TOMMY REVO MR. REVO-The LED has only got three lines across, what you see up and down, that’s the lumens. It’s just three lines of LED and it’s on the top going horizontal. MR. TRAVER-Well, okay, as I say, I’m not sure how other members of the Board feel, but I know for me, if I had seen like a color rendering of what this would actually look like. I mean not, that really reflected the whole. MR. SIPP-Jon, where does this connector road go to? MR. LAPPER-That’s just a future, I’m sorry, what is that that you’re pointing to? MR. SIPP-Right here, it says connector road. MR. LAPPER-That was the old plan. That was to go down to the front of this. MR. SIPP-It’s not going to be there? MR. LAPPER-Right, DOT, this was from 2008. That’s not part of this plan. That was the former plan. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. SIPP-All right. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s what DOT sent back to us, what they had in their file. MR. SIPP-Jon, where else, you say that they’ve had two sites south of Albany already. MR. LAPPER-Dennis is here, Hudson and Catskill. MR. SIPP-All right. What type of road are those restaurants on? Route 9, 9? MR. LAPPER-Major roads. We can have, Tommy can talk about that, after we get through the architectural discussion. MR. FORD-It’s very intense. MR. LAPPER-It’s just supposed to look like a classic diner, basically. MR. HUNSINGER-We were just commenting and passing around the color rendering of the façade, and looking at this Section A-1 detail, I thought that was the vertical, the three vertical stripes where it shows LED lights, the center one. MR. REVO-Yes, the center one, the three vertical stripes. MR. OBORNE-They say red lighted panels. MR. REVO-Yes, it’s red lighted panels, that’s what they are. MRS. STEFFAN-I just, I’m very concerned about the design and I understand this is the gateway to Exit 19, and I understand the whole concept of diners and the history of diners, but I think everybody on the Planning Board has to understand that this is going to be a stainless steel building, and they’re proposing to have red LED lights highlighting it. We’ve all talked about the hideous gas station sign, just one lot away, that’s got the red numbers in the front, and it’s absolutely hideous and one of the reason why the signage code has been changed, and so, you know, this is what’s proposed here, so we have to make sure that this is what we want. The design standards for the Town are looking for something that fits with the region, and I understand that this is a business that wants to come to Queensbury and wants to do business, but at the same time, this is a very high profile spot in our Town. It is the gateway, and is this what we want there? It’s the decision for the Planning Board. That’s our job. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments, concerns from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I just, one of the other issues that we have to discuss is the EIS. MR. REVO-It doesn’t have to be red LED. It could be, the aluminum doesn’t have to be red either. It could be any color. MR. LAPPER-Okay. (lost words) it doesn’t have to be red, it can be another color. MR. REVO-It can be whatever color they want. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, when I looked at this plan, and I opened it up and I saw the cover sheet and I saw this, what I would consider to be kind of a classic looking diner, I thought, you know, I mean, this is a nice design, and then my first thought was, but I don’t think it’s going to fit with all the asphalt that’s in front of that site. So then I flipped the page, and I see that you’re taking out a lot of the front parking and putting in a lot of green space. I’m like, this is going to look nice, and then I get to the last sheet, that talks about the color scheme, and, you know, I didn’t have any way to really judge it, you know, because it was black and white. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that was my, I didn’t realize. MR. HUNSINGER-So, you know, I was excited when I saw the design, further excited when I saw you were taking out a lot of the pavement in the front, you know, and I think it could be a great project, you know, and I think, you know, the design itself I think you’ve accomplished what you’re trying to do, which is to make it highly visible. I mean, it is a visible location to begin with, you know, I mean, it could look really good there. So, you know, following along the comments that my fellow Planning Board members are expressing their concerns, you know, I think we need to get a better rendering and get a better handle on the color scheme and the brightness of 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) it and what it’s really going to look like visually, other than just, you know, some black and white with some red lines drawn on it. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think as we know, it seems that we’re really at the beginning of this analysis of this proposal, it, again, gets back to the traffic issue, and I think with the, you know, really wanting this left out, we basically what we can do is study now and find out if it’s appropriate, or we can say, well, we won’t do the left out now, but we’ll re-evaluate it in a couple of years and do the study later, but I think it’s got to be one of the two. I don’t see how we can just, and again, I’m just speaking for myself, but I don’t see how we can, you know, approve the left out with the information that we have before us at this point. MR. FORD-I want to address the color and intensity, because this structure, more than any of our signage, is going to say welcome to Queensbury, more than any other structure or any other signage. It’s going to be this very, at this point, very intense aluminum structure. I want to make sure that we try to visualize that and the impact that that has as a welcome statement to our Town. MR. KREBS-Look at what the Town has allowed up until now, Tom. If you get off at Exit 18, you have the McDonalds on one side. You have a gas station on the other. You go under the thing, you have. MR. FORD-Has history not taught us anything? MR. KREBS-Well, I’m just saying, you’re asking an applicant to do something totally different than what the Town has allowed consistently, not too long ago, that the gas station at Exit 19 was renovated and put in, and that’s your entrance way. MR. FORD-I think that’s what planning is all about, improving. MR. KREBS-I agree with you, but I think there’s got to be some reason in the improvement, okay, you just can’t say, this particular piece is going to have to live by these rules and regulations, and everybody that came before didn’t have to live by those rules and regulations. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think what the Board’s trying to tell you, but they’re doing it so subtle, let me make it not so subtle. I think, this is a good place for a diner. There’s no doubt about it, but I think what people have been working for for years up here is, if it’s going to be a diner, and you probably would say it won’t be a diner when you hear what I’m going to say, they’d rather see an Adirondack diner than a diner from Cheyenne, Wyoming, and this one looks like it would be at home out west, and up here everybody likes to, or is trying to improve a lot of our buildings toward the Adirondack approach. Is it a good place for a diner? It’s an outstanding place, and will it do well? I’d bet a lot of money on it. I just think, I think the aesthetics of it, I have trouble with that, and I have trouble with the left turn, but that’s a minor point that I would just try a couple of years without it. MR. FORD-That’s a nice interpretation of what I was thinking. I like those words. MR. TRAVER-Are the other properties of similar design? I think they are, are they not, similar in structure to what’s being proposed here, in terms of the aluminum and the lighting and so on? MR. REVO-The diner’s usually stainless steel and aluminum, yes. That’s what they have to be. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-Would it be possible to get maybe photographs of what some of those other sites look like in the daytime and the nighttime. MR. REVO-You can. MRS. STEFFAN-All you have to do is jump on the Internet and you can get any picture of a diner you want, but they’re all stainless steel, that is the nature of, or railroad car. MR. TRAVER-Although the applicant might object if that’s not what their diner looks like. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the LED lights, have you used the LED lights? MR. REVO-Well, we’re starting to get involved in them because they’re so energy saving, and you can’t ruin them. You could smack it against the building, you could drop it, you could step 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) on it, you could tie it in a knot, where anything else just breaks, and it gets very low light. That’s not a lot of light. It’s not like neon. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. REVO-It’s very low. It’s the perfect light. It’s going to put a lot of lighting out of business on the outside of a building. You’ll see, everything is going to be LED. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, do you have pictures? MR. REVO-We can, though, we can bring. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I think that would be helpful, and with the LED’s, you know, maybe, I’m thinking back on my experiences in viewing the LED lights, and it’s basically been direct lighting, in other words, you’re looking at the, literally at the light emitting diode yourself. You’re seeing direct output. Maybe if it was indirect in some way it would soften it a little bit. I mean, I think that we do. MR. REVO-I can indirect it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, I think that the energy efficient nature of them means that they’re something that we’re going to be seeing increasingly of in the future, and I think that my sort of bad memory of LED is of direct and not indirect lighting. So that might make a difference. I think, again, if we had some visual support for that idea, that it might give a better perspective of what you’re talking about. MR. REVO-Well, you could change the color. We don’t have to have red aluminum. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. MR. LAPPER-Before we go to the public hearing, I just want to address Steve’s comment, because I did talk to the Pilarinos family. They’re goal is to get to an approval and get this under construction, and for everything that they heard, they would be willing to give up the left out, I mean, the left in is the more important movement, and if that would make the Planning Board satisfied, I mean, we’d still take the look at it in two years and see what DOT says, but they would be willing to give it up, unless DOT said it was okay, you know, rather than get into months of traffic reports and just delay, they’d like to get this thing done and in the ground. So, based upon that, that suggestion is acceptable as a condition, and I would hope, of course we’ll have the public hearing, but if it really comes down to a color issue, that, you know, maybe we could come back quickly with some choices and let the Board look at that, and you’ve got photographs of diners that you’ve done. So we could do that relatively quickly, hopefully. MR. TRAVER-That’s good, and thank you for that discussion, Jon. I would just, the only other thing I would say, we have to also bear in mind that they’re still calling for a traffic study, but I think by eliminating the left out, you know, that addresses much of that. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I discussed it with him, and this is our discussion. That his initial request for a traffic study was based on the fact that the, all the parcels were together under one ownership, and when we went through, if this one was to be as a separate ownership, he backed off the requirement, or the request for a traffic study. MR. LAPPER-And obviously if we agree to eliminate that left out, DOT’s not going to be upset with that. MR. HUTCHINS-And we talked at length about the best way to access this parcel, and what we could do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Okay. We have a few people. If you could give up the table, please. I would ask that you state your name for the record and try to limit your comments to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAN KANE 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. KANE-Hi. My name is Dan Kane. I live at 21 Linden Avenue in Queensbury. I’m going to go through the letter. I apologize. I put this together after work today, and as I looked at it there’s some typos and different things, but it’s a letter addressed to Chris. After reviewing the above mentioned Site Plan Review 35-2010 and taking into consideration having reviewed hundreds of traffic and planning and zoning site plans as a community planner at the county and regional levels for over 20 years and as a former member of the Warren County Traffic Safety Board, I would like to present some concerns with the proposal as it is being presented, and I know some of these things have already been talked about and they’ve been hashed among the Board members. The proposal appears to be segmented from an earlier, and I think Mr. Lapper addressed an FEIS that was done in 2001, if I’m not mistaken. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. KANE-Okay. So there is some updating here, submitted by Pyramid to connect this parcel and others with a master site plan and connect the existing mall parking lot and access road which would allow ingress and egress at existing traffic signals along Aviation Road. I’m concerned that this appears to circumvent SEQRA review by selling a portion of the Pyramid Corporation’s property along Aviation Road. Has the town and town attorney reviewed this issue? What is the status of SEQRA review at the time on this project as it relates to either the whole parcel or just this project? Number Two, the proposed project appears according to plans on file with the Planning Department that I looked at about three weeks ago to have access to Aviation Road only via an existing access point/curb cut at the westernmost part of the parcel. This could potentially lead to major conflicts with east and westbound traffic due to high volumes and speed of through traffic on Aviation Road and Exit 19 bridge and ramps along with pedestrian and bicycle traffic in that area. A recent Post Star story chronicled some problems there with Exit 19, and with pedestrians. I know there was a handicap person that specifically has some problems trying to get across some of those intersections. A casual review of the drawings appears to show no consideration for any improvements to the existing curb cuts to address the volume of traffic or the nature of the types of vehicles that may patronize and use such as proposed, such as buses and large trucks and trailers. The ingress and egress points don’t appear to be wide enough nor do they look to have the proper geometry to handle wide- turning vehicles such as the ones mentioned above. Additionally, this parking proposal appears to have minimal consideration for on-site parking of those type of vehicles. The parcel has not been used consistently since 1999 and Aviation Road has been redesigned and the I-87 bridge has been replaced with a much different and greater volume of traffic travelling in front of this parcel. There’s the discussion of the right turn in and out. If that’s the case, please require that it meet DOT design standards and it’s an enforceable restriction for left turn and out turn by whatever applicable codes under New York State DOT and whatever else is required. There’s no indication of a traffic study being conducted by the applicant. I really kind of take exception to a statement made that said, well, I’ve stood there and I think you can turn left. Well you have no clearing distances, if you look at the map, to try to get to the northbound ramp. How are going to get out of there with a tractor trailer truck if a guy stops for dinner, or anybody else? Comments about other parcels, those don’t have 110 seats where people are coming and going all the time. So I think that’s a real concern. The traffic study will allow you take a reasoned look at what’s on there. I think if you were to allow this applicant, I think the issue about a traffic study is you’re going to allow project to go forward, then look at a problem that may have been created by this project and try to go back and rectify it when you’re dealing with a nine plus acre parcel that is also going to attract commercial activity and then how do you deal with it then? I think that’s a major concern that I see is you’ve got a cumulative impact there that’s going to have a major impact on ingress and egress. Comments that I had from the traffic engineer at DOT, this is the staff, Kevin Novak I think is his name. He said, keep in mind, there is no jurisdiction by DOT once it goes to individual ownership. Their only jurisdiction is if you keep it in a single owner, because this parcel does not front where those curb cuts go. So they’re only getting easements out to that point. So the issue of DOT is not going to object to it is because he said the Town has to worry about land use issues. We can only deal with right of way issues and what’s going on out in the road. So please keep that in mind is that when you fragment this project, and all of a sudden DOT has no jurisdiction there. What are they going to go and ask them for? They’re not asking for access on their property, the parcel that’s being sold. So when you look at the cumulative impacts and some of the other issues that, I’m out of time, if you read from the letter, I think you really need to take a reasonable look at what’s going on on that corridor, and when you look at what’s going to happen to the rest of that parcel, because to say, to come back in two years and say, you know, we’re going to change things now puts the new owner at a disadvantage, too. So they’re dealing with those issues up front. Looking at and taking a reasonable look under SEQRA and under a traffic study, to say, hey, this is what we’re going to do for this whole project, this whole parcel, not just this one parcel that’s being taken out, and I really take exception to a comment that said, well, a master plan’s good in a good economy, but a master plan is not good in a bad economy? That kind of is a challenge for you as a Planning Board and people that need to look at what’s going to happen so that you don’t have a problem 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) that’s going to be cumulative there. So, as I said, I appreciate the opportunity. There’s some summaries that I know my time is up. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Strough? JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury, and I know a lot of people in Town are looking forward to this diner, and so am I. There’s not too many diners I drive by, you know, you can tell by appearances, but beyond that, I want to thank the Board for recognizing the fact that this Exit 19 area is the gateway to the Town, so aesthetics and traffic is of the utmost importance. The burden, in my opinion, shouldn’t be on this particular applicant. The burden should be on the Pyramid Company that owns the property. I mean, I was here, and even part of the Mega, I was on the Planning Board. I was sitting where you are when they did the Mega store, and this was a right in, right out, and they had an access. So anybody in this upper portion would be able to access the traffic light down below. It all made sense. It was comprehensive. We agreed to it. Now they came up with a more modest proposal a couple of years ago of having a mix of restaurants and retail opportunities in this area, and then as well was a lane, independent lane, right in, right out. Remember that? What’s different? I mean, this is the start of the development of this area, and that’s good. That’s good. We want to see it develop and we want to see Pyramid be successful. We like the business in Queensbury, but there’s going to be others to follow. I think Steve pointed that out that once this comes in, this might be the catalyst to other things, and that’s good, but we have to look at the picture in the comprehensive total picture. I mean, yes, sure there are people leaving the Hess station and taking lefts, but we’ve got to look at the cumulative impact. One, it’s a gas station, and there are gas stations on the other side. So, you know, there’s a minimizing of conflicts there because people that are proceeding east have got gas stations, proceeding west have got gas stations. So there’s a little cross traffic there, or a minimum of cross traffic because of that, and with the sports place, look at the character of the traffic. It was kind of an even flow, a rather minimum flow, during the day. Unfortunately for this proposal, and I’m in favor of the restaurant idea, but unfortunately their a.m. and p.m. bursts will coincide with the traffic at its worst at this very same time as it’s going to be busy. That’s another reason why we should go back to Pyramid’s plan of having an access down to the lower part, so that people can use (lost word). It’s not fair for us to plan our community and people can’t get out of this restaurant and take a turn and head eastward. It’s not fair to them. They should be able to have an access to a traffic signal and be able to get out. So, I’m just saying, let’s do our comprehensive planning now, and do it right the first time, and not later, and thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. FRED TROELSTRA MR. TROELSTRA-Good evening, Fred Troelstra, licensed engineer, Queensbury. I appreciate, first of all, what the Board has considered here. I think it’s a great job. I also think it’s a great area and opportunity for a diner. I do feel, a couple of issues that I take issue with, that I think when the Town commented that they wanted to enhance that corridor, they meant primarily to remove the old motel. I think the Seven Steers building, as I remember it, Howard Johnson’s building, that doesn’t affect the Townspeople as much as the old motel. I agree with some of the comments tonight about something that’s going to be chrome and neon, in essence. Is that going to be the right look that wants to be achieved here? My comment as well on the traffic, it’s not so much passenger vehicle. You’re going to get that bus. You’re going to get that service truck that’s going to try to bang a left out of there. That’s going to happen. I think that there was no real comments, except for the one previous gentleman, about commercial traffic through there. There wasn’t any discussion here tonight from the Board on that. So maybe something for concern there. The retro look, it has been accomplished, correct me if I’m wrong, I haven’t been in there myself, Johnnie Rockets, there is an example of a building where they retrofitted a log, I don’t know if you can get it anymore rustic than that building, and made a retro diner out of it, without the effects of chrome and neon, and, you know, if the Town is having issues taking down, you know, or changing to chrome and, taking down the Seven Steers building and putting up a chrome and neon building, I just hope they don’t have any issues with taking down old barns. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. TOM BRUNSWICK 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. BRUNSWICK-Hi. My name is Tom Brunswick. I’m the District Supervisor of the Burger King down the road, and I think it’s good competition to have a restaurant take over that area. What I’m looking more at is the traffic pattern, and I agree with the gentleman earlier. I think it’s Pyramid’s issue to take care of the traffic pattern with possibly an entrance way down to the Mall area, and then also getting rid of the Howard Johnson’s hotels in the back. One thing that we discussed a couple of years ago when they were doing the expansion of the upper level and then the restaurants or whatever they were going to put in, was that, at the Burger King we were going to be allowed to put a back entrance in to eliminate some of the traffic patterns, and then basically it was agreed upon, yes, we could do that. We got a lot of, some blueprints and we agreed to pay for everything. It was going forward. We submitted it to Pyramid, and they denied it. So I’m just talking the reliability of Pyramid to go through with the demolition of the Howard Johnson’s and also the other traffic patterns that are on Aviation Road, and that’s all I have to say, and as far as the restaurant coming in, I think that’s good for competition and I think it’ll do well there. So, that’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? No other takers? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Give me a second. I do not believe. No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Can we address those comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. LAPPER-First off, the segmentation issue, that does not apply here, because the Pyramid project was withdrawn, and there’s nothing, there was no plan for developing the back nine acres. The Pilarinos family are buying an existing two acre site, and there’s just no possibility, as I’ve mentioned, that this project can justify or requires that connection in the back, and at some point in the future, Pyramid’s other site will get sold or developed, and at that point, this Board will look at whether or not it’s appropriate, but in terms of this diner project, we had a healthy discussion about the traffic, and I think that the condition of giving up the left turn out is a lot for them to have agreed to, but they are willing to do that to make this Board feel comfortable, but you’ve got an existing site, all these other sites, all these other businesses at the entrance to Town. We need to knock down what’s there and start fresh. I think this Board recognizes that, and there’s certainly the flexibility, in terms of the design and the colors, and, you know, the applicant’s willing to come back and let the Board pick what the color scheme should be, but there’s a real public interest in getting this replaced, and we’re asking you to help, to make this happen, and any reasonable conditions are fine, but we’re asking you to help us get this through and get these guys in the ground, but it just can’t be an $800,000 connector road for a project that may never get built and certainly isn’t going to get built now, and that’s just a reality. You just can’t do that for this diner, and these people can’t do it, and Pyramid’s not going to do it to sell this parcel either. So, on that issue, which is the matter of they would have to just withdraw and go away and let the contract fail because they didn’t get approval. That’s not a threat. I mean, it’s just that that’s just not something that this, it’s just the reality. It’s not something that this project can justify, but I think that the left turn out was a big concern of the Board, and that’s a big condition for the applicant, but they will live with that. MRS. STEFFAN-How long has this lot been for sale? MR. LAPPER-I only was contacted by Pyramid and then the Pilarinos family about three months ago. We submitted this in April to get on in May, and the agenda was packed. So we got on in June. So it was, so they were under contract in March, as far as I know, and it’s ironic because in the heyday of the economy, there were people looking to do major development and asked Pyramid if they could buy the whole 11 acre site, and at that point Pyramid had its own plans, and in this day and age, they were approached by the applicant, and they struck a deal and signed a contract and here it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So before this it wasn’t marketed as, you know, a separate parcel? MR. LAPPER-I’m not aware, I mean, it’s always been a separate parcel. MRS. STEFFAN-The two acres. MR. LAPPER-The two acre piece, and that gives them the ability to sell it because it’s a separate parcel, and some of the comments, too, about changes to the curb cut and stuff, what Tom Hutchins mentioned, when DOT did the bridge, they designed this curb cut. So this was nothing. We’re not changing it. The curb cut, it’s at the most eastern entrance of this site, which is farthest from the Northway access on purpose. So DOT did that, acquired the other closer 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) curb cut. So this is using what DOT has designed for the road, including that, the median and everything as it is, and we’re not proposing changing that. We did provide bus parking in the back. Tom did have templates. He talked to Keith about it, but truck turning movements on the site, that’s all set. So this’ll work fine for buses and tractor trailers. That’s really the, there’s no master plan issue here because there’s no plan for the back. Whether it gets sold or developed in the future, it’s certainly not going to be the Pilarinos family. This is a real farm’s length sale and an application for this two acres, but it doesn’t mean that whoever comes in, Pyramid or somebody else won’t be scrutinized for some project at some point in the future, but it’s not connected. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s an anticipation and an expectation that there will be bus traffic to the site, how would a bus then come out of the site and get back onto the Northway? MR. LAPPER-A simple answer might be to go through the Mall. MRS. STEFFAN-They’d have to, yes. MR. LAPPER-To use the Mall entrance by Friendly’s and use the ring road. MRS. STEFFAN-I looked at it a couple of ways. It’s the only thing that I could think of that’s reasonable, and it would have to be in cooperation with Pyramid Corp., making sure that. MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s open to the public. So anybody can use that. MR. KREBS-If there were some way for us to get everybody to have no left out and run an access road behind the two convenience stores, and then down to Aviation Mall, so they could come out by the light, but, you know, you’d have to get Aviation Mall’s approval first to go over their land and the other two people that could be a year or so before you get approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with that. There’s another procedural question that I have, and it’s regarding the Environmental Impact Statement that was presented on, for Pyramid Corporation on this whole thing, you know, how do we deal with that, Keith? I don’t know if you’ve got a recommendation. I mean, if it was a separate parcel that’s going to be under contract for a different person, we would do SEQRA, but then what is the status of the Environmental Impact Statement in the Mall? MR. OBORNE-That question was posed to counsel, and they have replied in a handout, and there are a few issues. The main thing is if the Board feels that there is significant adverse impacts as a result of this project, then a Supplemental EIS should be presented to the Board. My initial thrust with counsel was, does this need a consistency review with the Town Board? Which is what we’ve done with other projects, especially with PUD’s that have EIS. They were the approving Board. In this case for this project, Mike Hill believes and feels strongly that the Planning Board has to make that decision, that is it consistent with the FEIS of July of 2001 for the Mall, and that’s the long and the short of it, on the SEIS end of it, the Supplementary EIS. What is also stated that if the Planning Board finds that there is not likely to result any new or different significant adverse environmental impacts than those covered in the EIS, it would be appropriate for the Board to adopt a resolution to that effect, stating that there is not Supplemental EIS. That is the position of Town Counsel. MRS. STEFFAN-So in this situation, Pyramid is trying to sell this land to someone else, but Pyramid would have to amend or provide the Supplemental EIS. It would not be this client. That’s where I. MR. OBORNE-I can’t answer that question. MR. LAPPER-That’s only if this Board felt that there was a significant Environmental Impact Statement that required a Supplemental EIS. I don’t think that’s the case here. This is a separate, small project. MR. OBORNE-And that is the Board’s decision. MRS. STEFFAN-Traffic is a SEQRA issue, though. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Absolutely. MR. LAPPER-But I think we’ve addressed that with the left turn. MR. FORD-It has the potential for having a visual impact, because this structure is going to be smaller than the current structure that is there. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. LAPPER-It is smaller, yes. MR. FORD-Therefore there is going to be greater visibility for the existing buildings in the back. MR. OBORNE-There is an aesthetic portion to SEQRA obviously. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-But the building in the back will be knocked down. MR. HUNSINGER-So where are we this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-Which actually brings me to the landscape issue, because the plan that was presented wants to utilize the existing greens that are, that border the Northway exit ramp, and that’s pretty much just scrub brush. MR. LAPPER-That’s on the Northway property, that’s why. Can you talk about that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we haven’t really talked about landscaping. MR. HUTCHINS-That (lost words) shown along the Northway. In other words, if you were exiting, if you were getting off Exit 19 going north. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, going up the ramp. MR. HUTCHINS-And we’ve shown it because it’s on the Northway property, and you can’t see through it. We can’t remove it. I drive it every day, and I look at it, obviously since I’ve been working on this I’ve been looking at it frequently, and it’s reasonably thick. Anything we put back there wouldn’t be seen by anyone, and it’s on the Northway property. So there’s nothing we can do with it. So that’s why we showed that staying there and didn’t (lost word) that part of the corridor. Once you get in front of that brush, which is, or once you get toward the, about even with where the building is going to be, that stops distinctly and we have landscaped in front of that. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing I would like to know on that is when you’re coming up the exit ramp you’ve got that existing brush or scrubby stuff that’s there. We’ve got a lighting plan that’s a little bit intense and you talked about the spill from those lights and the poles are 20 feet tall, something like that. What’s happening when you’re coming up the ramp? Is that spilling on to the entrance in any way? I’m thinking about The Great Escape project. I mean, they were, you know, that project was dissected. They wanted to make sure, the Planning Board wanted to make sure the lighting levels were appropriate so that it wasn’t blinding the people on the Northway. I want the same thing for the folks coming off the exit ramp. I want to make sure that the perimeter lighting on the parking lots is not spilling onto the Northway and exit. MR. LAPPER-These are down lights. MR. HUTCHINS-These are down lights, and actually we have very little spill in that direction, but, I mean, the problem I’m having with lighting is the intensity directly underneath the fixture. MRS. STEFFAN-Directly underneath. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s not spill, but I will, I mean, that’s something we can look at. I’ve already committed to looking at the lighting, there’s very little spill. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just because if you’re at a lower level, and if the parking lot is up here, and even if the, and they’re on the perimeter, then when you’re coming up the ramp, if that’s hitting you in the eye, then that’s got a negative impact, and it’s a safety issue. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s also street lights right there, too. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Which, of course, wouldn’t be shown on your lighting plan. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. LAPPER-Those gooseneck street lights. The Environmental Impact Statement that was done in 2001 was for something like a million square feet of new retail space. I mean, that was for a huge project to do multi-level connection where the hill would be removed and this would be incorporated into the Mall, and all of that is now withdrawn, I mean, that doesn’t apply to this. This is, we submitted a new SEQRA for this project because this is really a purchase. This isn’t Pyramid trying to develop this. It has nothing to do with that project. I can’t tell you what Pyramid may do in the future with their site. We’ll find out. So I disagree with counsel that this is part of that, but I certainly can’t see how this could ever require a Supplemental EIS for a 5500 square foot diner replacing an 8800 square foot restaurant, with a lot more landscaping, and we’re certainly willing to talk about the aesthetic issues that the Board’s interested in, but I would hope that you would be able to find a way to get this approved so that this site can get cleaned up. MR. SIPP-Yes. I think, Jon, our past history with the Mall has not been good. What was brought up tonight about the connection between them and the Burger King, yes, we’ll do it, and it never happened. MR. LAPPER-But they’re not here tonight. I mean, this is not a Pyramid application. MR. SIPP-Yes, but. MR. LAPPER-They don’t have to do anything here. It’s the Pilarinos family that’s going to do all the development. MR. SIPP-I’m not in the frame of mind of voting for this until Pyramid shows a little responsibility. MR. LAPPER-But the result of that may be that this project goes away. MR. SIPP-Well, it may. It may, but I’m not here to vote for them, if they don’t follow through on their commitments. MR. LAPPER-I think you’re just mixing up the they, because the applicant here is certainly going to follow through with their commitment and knock down the building. MR. SIPP-If they don’t knock down the building, and we pass this, what’s it going to look like on the back end of this restaurant? MR. LAPPER-Well, the answer is that they’ve committed in writing to take it down, and the Town’s going to enforce that. I mean, that’s a Town Board issue, but you shouldn’t be blaming the applicant here. They’re coming to Town and they’re willing to clean up a problem that we’ve all had as residents for a long time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Jon, we do have to give some, you know, you say the EIS isn’t an issue. We do have to make a decision, because, you know, our counsel says to us, if there’s no new impacts from the 2001 study that you’re talking about, well, okay, then you don’t need an SEIS, but we’ve got to make that decision. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. I just don’t see how this little project could affect that million square foot EIS. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I understand where you’re coming from, but we’re (lost words), we have to listen to him, what he says. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the will of the Board this evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s a lot of open issues, unfortunately. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a few open issues, yes. MR. TRAVER-Are we, with regards to SEQRA, is that, do we need to address that tonight? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if we want to move forward on a, you know, approval we would have to address it tonight. We do need to address it at some point. MR. TRAVER-I know at some point, but I mean we’re going to be, and we know the applicant’s going to be coming back with the building design and some more detail. When we see that 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) information would that then be appropriate to look at the aesthetic aspects of it, with regard to SEQRA? MR. FORD-As part of the SEQRA. That’s what I had in mind. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, yes, because that’s what it’s about. MR. FORD-Because otherwise we won’t know the aesthetic impact until we have it. MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s why I’m asking, so we don’t necessarily have to move on this issue tonight, because we’re going to be getting more information from the applicant anyway. MR. FORD-We’ve got to have more. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because you’ve got get that information before you know whether it has any impact. MR. TRAVER-I was hoping you would say that. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m a little confused, Keith, with the discussion about whether or not this project is part of the previous Environmental Impact Statement that was conducted. That was a very different project than what’s being proposed. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it was, in fact, the EIS from 2001 did not anticipate the outparcels being developed at that time. What the EIS states is that if you are to develop those northwest parcels, you have to take consideration into having access to the ring road for traffic safety purposes, and that’s what it’s held by at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-But that was not a 5500 square foot diner. That was a huge project they were talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood, but it’s a different project. That’s why I’m asking for the clarification. It’s a different project. MR. OBORNE-And it is one parcel of four, of the northwest parcels. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So, you know, it’s one portion of it. They were anticipating that those four parcels, well, I don’t know what they were anticipating. I wasn’t on the Town Board, obviously, but my understanding is that those four parcels could potentially be developed as one large development. MR. LAPPER-And that’s exactly correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s what was anticipated. MR. OBORNE-So, but at the same time, it’s not stated as that. It’s still one of the four parcels. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And just remember that this parcel has an access and it has a building, and it could be used the way it is if somebody wanted to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Part of the reason why I wanted to get clarification, and this is partly in response to Steve’s question, is one of the recommendations that counsel made is that we require the applicant to submit a completed Long Form. They submitted a Short Form. MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-Because this wouldn’t require a Long Form. MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board can require a Long Form, but under SEQRA, this would be an Unlisted. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-And certainly if there’s going to be some concern about visual impacts and some of the other issues that we’ve discussed this evening, a Long Form would be more appropriate than the Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-I cannot disagree with you. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that it’s a SEQRA, and I understand that visual is certainly a SEQRA issue, but I think what you’re really talking about with the visual issue is much simpler of us coming in with photographs. I mean, the SEQRA form wouldn’t address that, to come in with a color palate and let the Board choose, if you don’t want red, what you’d like to see, and some photographs of some other diners, and I guess I just think this is a lot simpler. MR. TRAVER-I know one of the things that’s, and obviously we just got the information from the attorney this evening , but, you know, in thinking about it in my own mind and listening to the applicant tonight normally we think of SEQRA and renewing our examination of the SEQRA situation in terms of, you know, is this project going to add anything , and I think, you know, what I keep thinking in my mind is that really what we’re dealing with is that we’re not taking something away, and that’s the old buildings that now we know that Pyramid has said they have an agreement with the Town to remove them, but I think even in terms of SEQRA, really in this case it’s more, not what we’re adding, but what we’re not removing, in terms of moving forward and, you know, we know that there’s this agreement, but on the other hand, as the applicant has pointed out, they’re not associated with Pyramid. So it’s just kind of an odd, you know, on the one hand we’re dependent upon them to carry out that obligation, but on the other hand, we also have to separate this applicant from Pyramid and yet look at the whole context of this. MR. OBORNE-If I could offer maybe not necessarily an avenue, but maybe some grist for the mill, would be how does this project change what the previous FEIS had stated. That’s the question that the Board has to come up with, is there a change. MR. KREBS-No because the previous EIS didn’t even cover this property. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it did. Under the Findings Statement itself it did. MR. KREBS-It wasn’t defined what they were going to use the property for, right? MR. TRAVER-But it did include the removal of the old derelict building. MR. OBORNE-And it did include the word development. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it didn’t state specifically what would go there, but it was based upon the maximum build out of that, of the out parcel. MR. TRAVER-Right, and actually part of, I think, the 2008 plan was a restaurant. MR. LAPPER-It was, but in conjunction with five, or three big boxes and two smaller boxes. MR. OBORNE-And the key is access to the ring road. That is the key to the EIS for these northwest parcels. MR. LAPPER-I can’t say this any clearer. There can’t be access to the ring road for a 5500 square foot diner. So if the Board, if that’s what you want, then we’ll just withdraw the application and there’s no project. I mean, that just is not possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We heard that. MR. OBORNE-But to go on, I think that there are avenues that could mitigate some of the traffic issues. I think you have to think out of the box on this one a little bit, move that access down a little bit farther to the east, if you’re going to do that. I’m not a proponent of that, but again, you’re not asking for my opinion, and at this point we’re looking at the EIS as our guiding mantra for lack of a better term. MR. KREBS-You were saying move the access farther east? MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, if you’re going to approve this with a left turn or approve it with a no left turn, that access needs to be kicked down to the east. MR. KREBS-I didn’t think there was any more property from looking at this. MR. LAPPER-There’s not. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. OBORNE-There’s not, so you get an easement. MR. LAPPER-No, you can’t because it would conflict wit the gas station. It can’t be close to the gas station. That’s not the answer. If that was the answer, DOT would have asked for it. MR. OBORNE-Well, I’m offering a potential discussion. MR. TRAVER-And that’s your feeling, even with a no left exit? MR. OBORNE-No. If you’re going to make a left, you have to kick it down, but that’s obviously a moot point because they’re offering a right only. MR. FORD-Well, left is off the table now. MR. TRAVER-At least for two years. MR. HUNSINGER-How do members feel about a left in? We haven’t talked about that specifically. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s a good point. Boy, and that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There is a left turning lane there. MR. HUNSINGER-There is. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn’t concerns about that, you know, before we got off the traffic issue. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, I mean, I think it’s a concern, but first of all I don’t see how we could control it anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So, I mean, if it becomes an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-And the road design doesn’t accommodate a left turn. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if anything, it adds to the idea of not having left out, because then if you’ve got somebody trying to turn in left and somebody trying to turn out left at the same time, now youv’e got a real mess on your hands. MR. KREBS-Actually one car shields the other that way. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just go back to the Short vs. Long Form issue. Part of where my thinking was coming from is, you know, there has been a lot of discussion about traffic. There’s been a lot of discussion about visual impacts. If there is an item that the Board feels there may be a large or significant adverse impact, then that triggers a full EAF. So, part of my thinking was, if we’re likely going to end up there anyway, it might be worth your while to just submit it. MR. LAPPER-And I guess I think it’s really architectural that you’re talking about, not visual impact. You’re not talking about the size and the shape of the building. You’re talking about the skin, you’re talking about architectural issues. So I’m not sure that that’s really the same thing as a SEQRA visual impact. I think you’re just talking about design. MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. MR. LAPPER-You’re not saying move the building to the back of the site or something like that. MR. FORD-Well, the total project really is the visual impact, and I know there’s the promise of the destruction of the old buildings, but what happens on this site will directly impact the visual impact of those other buildings. MR. LAPPER-And I would ask you to treat that separately, only because it’s not this applicant’s responsibility to take it down. MR. FORD-No, but it’s our responsibility to determine the visual impact. MR. LAPPER-By the time this building is built, which will hopefully be by the end of the year, the buildings in the back have been committed to be taken down, and the Town Board has said they’re going to make sure that that happens. Pyramid said they’ll take it down. So I’m just, 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) you know, I understand your concern. I mean, we all drive by it every day. No one likes the way it looks, but these guys are going to take down the building in the front, and the Town will take care of the back. MR. FORD-Driving by it is one thing. Driving back there is something entirely different. MR. LAPPER-They’ve assured the Town that they’re taking care of it, and I know that they’ve done the asbestos report. They’ve sent out bid packages. They’ve gotten bids. They’re working on it. All that is just beyond what these guys can be responsible for, but they want to work with you to get the front site looking good. MR. TRAVER-With the architectural elements again, and I know this is a, as I understand what I’ve learned this is a, basically a prefabricated sort of building? MR. LAPPER-It’s designed by an architect, and it gets built off site and brought in in pieces. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-You won’t be able to tell the difference. This isn’t like the Prospect Diner, a really simple, small. I mean, this is a significant building that’s just going to come in in pieces, and then it gets fixtured. MR. TRAVER-How committed in those design elements are they, if you know, to the stainless, you know, versus something more similar to a surrounding? MR. LAPPER-Well, I think that’s, in terms of the diner, that that’s really significant, that they want this to be a deco, you know, it’s glass box and stainless, that that’s really important, but all the trim elements, the colors are stuff that are on the table for this Board to help them decide. MR. FORD-So there would be no consideration to something that, for lack of a better term, that would be more of an Adirondack style diner? MR. LAPPER-Dennis, correct me if I’m wrong, you’re not interested in? MR. FORD-Well, the owners should really be, not the architect, should be answering the question. MR. LAPPER-Dennis, you want this to be a stainless steel diner? DENNIS PILARINOS MR. PILARINOS-Yes. MR. LAPPER-To look like a classic diner. MR. PILARINOS-Yes, like a diner, like all over New York State, New York State, Connecticut, Long Island, Maryland. You guys don’t see the diners all over? MR. HUNSINGER-If we could get your name for the record, sir? MR. PILARINOS-The diners, like all over. MR. LAPPER-Give them your name for the record. MR. PILARINOS-My name is Dennis Pilarinos. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. PILARINOS-I’d like to put a business around here. I’d like to put a diner like the diners all over New York State, you know, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, like steel, you know. I don’t want to put a big building. I like stainless steel, a regular diner, like old fashion diners. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MR. KREBS-It’s an attraction. I mean, when you drive by a diner, why you go to that diner is because it looks like this, okay, and, you know, would you go to a McDonalds that looked like an alpine home? Probably not. Okay. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. TRAVER-Well, as a matter of fact, McDonalds, they’ve been remarkably flexible in their restaurants around the world in terms of adopting to local design, but your point is well taken. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I don’t know, what does the rest of the Board feel about this traffic study? I mean, we’ve been all over the map with it. Some folks are for it. Some folks are not. I’m for it. I know others are not, but I’m writing the motion. MR. KREBS-My feeling on that is that if you do a traffic study for this one individual property, you’re still going to have to do another traffic study if they develop the rest of that property, and I don’t see that this one adds any significant change to the traffic pattern that’s there. MRS. STEFFAN-One hundred cars? MR. KREBS-But it, well, if you put, what do you think used to be in that motel and the Howard Johnson’s restaurant? MRS. STEFFAN-At least 10 years ago. This was a very different community 10 years ago. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS-And the road was very different 10 years ago. MR. TRAVER-It’s my feeling that with the left out off the table for now, I think that, you know, we can forgo, for the two year period that we talked about, a re-visiting of the traffic study and wait and see what happens with that other development. If there is no further development, then we’re left with what they’re proposing which is one diner with this large parcel, and no left turn out. If there is any development, then we’re going to be taking a look at this whole original, although segmented, this whole package, and we’ll really have a traffic study, and it may very well lead to an interconnect with the circle and some of the other things that we’re talking about, but I think to, you know, to give it a few years, with not changing the use of the exit. MR. FORD-It seems almost premature, realizing the anticipated expansion of that enlarged site, to do a traffic study now. I would rather see it done in two years or whatever, whenever we have the anticipation of how the rest of that development. I think that’s the time for the traffic study. MRS. STEFFAN-Who’s going to do the traffic study at that point, in two years? MR. TRAVER-Well, perhaps no one, but if in two years they want to come back and get a left turn out, then we’re going to need to do a traffic study, if there’s no further development. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I’d go along with that, at this time. MR. TRAVER-Yes, so, you know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-In two years, or maybe sooner, depending on what happens, then I would. MR. TRAVER-Then it would be up to them to say, okay, it’s been two years, now we want to reconsider the left out. MR. OBORNE-If you’re going to go down that avenue, I would say right turn only, in consultation with New York State Department of Transportation, and the Town of Queensbury Department of Community Development. Because I’d like to be privy to some of those conversations, if at all possible, and not saying that the applicant has, it’s been full disclosure, but, I mean, three o’clock today. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FORD-If we’re going to require right only? MR. OBORNE-Correct. Because they want mitigation on that left. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who does? MR. OBORNE-DOT. They want. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes I read it, but I didn’t get that, that it was a sticking point for them at the moment. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. OBORNE-It was certainly a recommendation or something that they wished to see. I don’t know what the exact verbiage is. MR. FORD-If it was approved for left. MR. OBORNE-No. MR. KREBS-No, they said our preference would be a shared access with left turn exiting movements prohibited. MR. OBORNE-Prohibited, right, and the prohibited, how are you going to do that? MR. KREBS-There is no shared access. MR. OBORNE-I would still advise the Board to have DOT involved in that. MR. KREBS-I mean, the one above says that they’ll go along, New York State Department of Transportation will be willing to consider the access as proposed, assuming that we approve it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Let me throw this scenario out, because somebody else is going to have to write the motion, because I just can’t move this forward saying that they shouldn’t have a traffic study. I feel that strongly about it. You’re talking about one of the busiest intersections in our community. We asked the development up at Exit 20, we wanted a full blown traffic study when they wanted to put an office complex in there. There was a hotel going down at Exit 18 and we looked at the traffic patterns that were over there, and so you’re looking at a development that’s going to add 100 cars, but Pyramid has decided that they’re going to sell pieces of this piece of property away, this 11 acre spot. So if this diner goes in, and we approve it, okay, that’s 100 cars. Potentially 100 cars going out into that busiest intersection in our community, and then what if three other lots get sold there, and, one at a time. MR. LAPPER-There’s only one other lot. MRS. STEFFAN-One other lot? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The other lot comes in and they’re going to put a hotel in, and then who pays for the traffic study, the hotel? MR. LAPPER-The applicant. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the new applicant. MR. KREBS-Otherwise it won’t get approved. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So this Planning Board is going to say, okay, now we want the hotel to do a study, and we want that study to demonstrate the cumulative impacts of the diner. MR. HUNSINGER-No, the diner would already be there. MR. LAPPER-We wouldn’t get the left turn unless there’s some reason. I mean, they’re giving up the left turn. They may never get a left turn. MRS. STEFFAN-But you’re still adding all of that movement to the intersection. MR. TRAVER-The other context that we’re looking at the traffic in is that we have an existing 2001 traffic study. So the question is not whether or not we want a traffic study at all. The question is whether or not the existing traffic study needs to be updated to reflect this new project, which is a somewhat different thing. I mean, your concern is well warranted, but we’re not acting in the absence of any traffic study at all. We’re just saying that, has this, does this project present sufficient change to traffic, as we’re now looking at it, with the consideration of the access as the applicant has agreed with no left out, that we have them update the existing most recent traffic study for this area, and my feeling is that, unless there’s a change in the development in this area by this sale of this other piece of property or they come back and say, well, we want to have an analysis done because we really want that left out, then we do a traffic study, but for this, since they’ve given up the left out, I think we’re probably okay, but that’s just me. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-I just, with the traffic counts coming off of Exit 19 during peak times, I just, I can’t be okay with not having a traffic study to identify the impact. MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s certainly an argument to be made for that point of view, no question about it. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s usually three lanes of traffic coming off the Northway Monday through Friday, and hat doesn’t take into account November and December during the holidays, peak times, and it doesn’t take into account right now. I mean, you can go to any intersection in this Town, right now that school’s out, summer vacation, and they’re all jammed up. MR. LAPPER-But we’re giving up the left. I mean, that was the crucial movement. MRS. STEFFAN-I understand the left. That was a major issue, but we’re still looking at adding a lot of traffic, and. MR. LAPPER-It’s existing traffic. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But that’s what’s going to happen anyhow. If you build something that, you’re going to add traffic. That’s just a given, unless you’re going to plant hay or something and leave it as a farm field. If you build a building there, there’s going to be traffic. It’s got to be safe. MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to just remind the Board of what we went through when we okayed the Golden Corral, and the debate and the argument we had about traffic turning out onto that road, and it didn’t matter what direction it was going, we were very concerned that we were adding traffic to Quaker Road. MR. LAPPER-But here we’re giving it up. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to say. I mean, the purpose of the traffic study is to determine whether or not there’s mitigation required, and the applicant gave up the single biggest mitigation that would be necessary, no left hand turn out of the property. MR. TRAVER-And it’s inevitable that there will be an update to the traffic study in this area. MRS. STEFFAN-So where’s the traffic going to go, if you can’t make a left turn out? Where is the traffic going to go to turn around? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I had asked earlier. MR. FORD-The same place that they suggested for the buses. MRS. STEFFAN-To go to the Mall parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And so we’ll be adding traffic to the Mall parking scenario that was under the old Environmental Impact Statement. I’m just, this is too complicated. MR. LAPPER-The old Environmental Impact Statement was for so many more cars than we’re talking about here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know. I’ll give it up. If somebody wants to go with a motion, go ahead. I just, I still feel very strongly about this. MR. LAPPER-Is it possible that we could get back here in a few weeks to talk about architecture? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what are the other issues? Lighting? MRS. STEFFAN-Corrections to landscaping plan. They need to have Code compliant lighting. Sign details. MR. LAPPER-We have sign details. MR. OBORNE-And as drawn, they’re going to need a variance. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Keith? MR. OBORNE-That sign details, as presented they will need a variance. MR. LAPPER-Why? MR. OBORNE-Because it’s oversized. It’s greater than 50 square feet. DINER is considered part of the sign. MR. LAPPER-We reduced it. There’s no intention of a Sign Variance here. It’s going to comply. MRS. STEFFAN-And then there’s the color palate design, with LED. MR. LAPPER-Does the Board have anything in mind, or should we just come in with all of them and you can pick? MRS. STEFFAN-LED intensity. MR. FORD-SEQRA Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else in Staff comments or engineering comments? MRS. STEFFAN-And regarding the LED lighting, Staff Notes Page S-7 is any of the LED lighting flashing. MR. LAPPER-None of it’s flashing. Queensbury doesn’t allow it. There’s no flashing. MRS. STEFFAN-And then there’s the engineering comments. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do we have a date that we can table this to? MR. OBORNE-August would be preferable. MR. LAPPER-We really need to be in in July. They missed May, not through anyone’s fault, but because the agenda. If there’s any way to get in July. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s the first meeting in August? th MR. OBORNE-The 17. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So there’s only three meetings between now and then, not counting the Special Meeting Thursday night. Is that right? stththstththth MR. OBORNE-Yes, the 21, the 28, and the 17. The 21 and 28 of July or the 17 or 24 of August. MR. FORD-And July is jammed right now. th MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, then it’ll have to be the 17 of August, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, does someone want to take a crack at the resolution? If not, I will. MR. TRAVER-We talked about taking turns drafting resolutions. As I recall a few meetings ago, I. MR. HUNSINGER-And you did well, Steve. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, I cheated. She had already written most of it. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I’ll take a stab at it and see what I’ve got. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2010 BOB & DENNIS PILARINOS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of the 8,800 sq. ft. former Howard Johnson’s 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) restaurant and construction of a 5,400 sq. ft. diner with associated site work. Food Service in the ESC zone requires Planning Board review and approval 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/22/2010 tabled to 7/27/2010; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2010 BOB & DENNIS PILARINOS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Tabled to the July 27 Planning Board meeting, with a submittal date of July 6, 2010, so that the applicant can submit the following: 1.Revised lighting plan 2.Revised landscaping plan 3.Submission of color schemes and/or additional design details 4.Revised sign details. 5.So the applicant can address engineering comments 6.So the applicant can further detail the LED lighting information. 7.So that they can submit a SEQRA Long Form 8.Provide photographs of similar diners in both daylight and night shots 9.To remove the left out on their plans 10.So that DOT can review the revised ingress/egress and comment nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-I think they also, although the applicant’s attorney was not at the table, but I think the architect agreed to give us some photographic information from some other facilities, both day and nighttime? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And the next set of plans, do they need to reflect the absence of a left out, so you can modify the plan to reflect that? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. I just have a suggestion on the date. Everybody’s least favorite th application, Fedorowicz, is not going to be heard. That was supposed to be on on the 28, but the Town Counsel didn’t get papers in, so that’s not going to go back to the judge. So that might be available. It’s just really important to Dennis to get this on in July, in the hope that he could have it constructed in the Fall. th MR. TRAVER-You mean the 27? th MR. LAPPER-The 27, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, my concern is having an extensive list of information, providing you enough time to prepare it all, and then having enough time for it to be submitted and reviewed. That’s really, you know, the main concern there. MR. TRAVER-Would this be a situation where having Special Meeting with counsel present? I mean, I know, you know, just what we need is another meeting, but, I mean, we have some issues relating to SEQRA, the landowners of the buildings that are to be removed, you know, I don’t know, I mean, and they want to move forward quickly. So would it be worth scheduling another meeting to hash this stuff out, with counsel present? MR. HUNSINGER-You mean in July? MR. TRAVER-Yes. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think it’s an unrealistic expectation to have an extra meeting in July because we’re down a couple of people , with, you know, absences already, and so we’re not going to have enough alternates to go around for the meetings. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Which is a problem. If we can fit it on that other meeting, we could just have it, because it’s old business, it could be the first item on the agenda, or one of the first items on the agenda, so that counsel could be present early in the meeting, and just do it that way. MR. LAPPER-It would be great if we could have counsel here, so we could just get this settled. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll have it early in the meeting. MR. OBORNE-If I could just mention that right turn out only, if you could have the DOT weigh in on that also, as part of your resolution, even though it’s part of my discussion to you. MR. TRAVER-In other words, get a review opinion from DOT. MR. OBORNE-On the updated traffic plan. MR. TRAVER-Updated left out. MR. KREBS-Can we ask you to get that for us? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think the applicant. MR. OBORNE-The applicant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s the applicant has to do it. MR. TRAVER-That’s a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-So, are we saying July then? I’m confused. th MR. FORD-27. th MR. HUNSINGER-July 27. Okay. I will revise the motion. MR. FORD-Do you want to give them a submittal date? MR. OBORNE-And if you could be so kind as to say this is a firm committal date. That would be greatly appreciated. nd MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can’t see us going any later than July 2. MR. LAPPER-But it doesn’t have to go to the County Planning Board or anything. MR. HUNSINGER-No. You’ve already done that. ndth MR. LAPPER-So do you really need it that quick, July 2 for the 28? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a holiday weekend. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s a holiday weekend. th MRS. STEFFAN-So they’re not going to get to it until the 6. MR. HUNSINGER-And there’s a meeting between then and. MR. OBORNE-The engineer has to review. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think we have to rely on Town Staff to tell us what their window is. th MR. HUNSINGER-July 6? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) thth MR. OBORNE-I’d prefer August 17, for the record, but with that said, the 6 is a holiday. No, th the 6 is not a holiday. th MR. HUNSINGER-The 5’s the holiday. ndth MR. OBORNE-Well, what’s the difference between the 2 or the 6? It’s only four days. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I’m saying, yes. th MR. OBORNE-And to turn it around to Clark, and you’re talking, what did you say, is it the 27? th MR. HUNSINGER-The 27. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s the meeting date? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can’t make that, because I’m going to be out of town. nd MR. OBORNE-I’d say the 2 is really where you should be going with this, in order for Clark to turn it around and Staff to review. th MR. LAPPER-The best we could do would be next Friday, the 8. th MR. OBORNE-Next Friday would be the 9. th MR. LAPPER-Okay. Friday the 9. That would be the best we could do. MR. OBORNE-That wouldn’t work for me. MR. LAPPER-It wouldn’t work? MR. OBORNE-No, I don’t think I could turn it around. th MR. LAPPER-To the 27? That’s still 16 days. MR. OBORNE-Yes, but I mean, that, we also have a full docket. MR. HUNSINGER-You’ve got all the other projects. You’ve got a meeting in between. th MR. OBORNE-We could split it and say the 6. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Somebody’s working over Independence Day. MR. LAPPER-Well, the DOT comment letter we can’t control. That would be a one pager. rd MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that can come in on the 23. I mean, we don’t expect you to have that th by the, but we expect you to submit all of your materials by the 6. MRS. STEFFAN-But at the same time, as the Secretary of the Planning Board, if we got something at the night of the Planning Board meeting, would we accept it? Would you weigh and consider it? rd MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what I’m saying is, if you get it on the 23, it can go out with Staff Notes, and we would then have time to consider it. MR. LAPPER-That’s just for DOT. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s just a one letter. I mean, we got a memo tonight from DOT. MRS. STEFFAN-Which we all interpreted differently. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, I shouldn’t say, we didn’t all, but some of us. MR. TRAVER-Well, we presented it differently anyway. MR. LAPPER-We’ll try and get a simpler one for next time. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-We’ll do our best. th MR. HUNSINGER-We’re tabling this to July 27. We had a motion and a second. We’re on discussion about submittal date. th MR. TRAVER-And it looks as though the 6 is the outside. th MR. LAPPER-Tom is saying he can’t do it before Friday the 9 of that week. MR. FORD-It looks like August. th MR. LAPPER-The 9 is the earliest you can do. I guess it’s an important three days. thth MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the 15 is the submittal date for August. You look at the 9, you know, you’re almost at the submittal date for August. MR. LAPPER-But it’s only on specific issues. It’s not like a whole new project. MR. TRAVER-But it has to be looked at by the engineer and by Staff. th MR. LAPPER-Can we take the 6 and see how we do? th MR. HUTCHINS-We can take the 6, and if we miss it, we miss it. MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind, if they miss it, you just bumped off somebody from, somebody who’s on the agenda right now. MR. TRAVER-We’re replacing an existing vacancy anyway. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, in theory. I mean, we haven’t set the agenda for July yet. So, I mean, it’s only in theory. MR. TRAVER-You do what you can do. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion and a second and the additional amendment is that th the submittal date shall be July 6. So that would be an amendment to the motion. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan MR. HUNSINGER-And just for the record, the public hearing was held open. We will take, you th know, any additional comments on July 27, and if anyone in the audience wants to submit written comments between now and then we’d accept them as well. MR. LAPPER-Thanks for working with us and we’ll try and get a submittal in that addresses all these issues, and you guys like better. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Even Gretchen, hopefully. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business? I was informed, after we had all left the room at our last meeting, that we had never formally adjourned. So, is there any additional business to be brought before the Board? If not, I will entertain a motion to adjourned. MR. FORD-Both meetings? MR. HUNSINGER-Both meetings, yes. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2010 AND JUNE 15, 2010, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/22/2010) nd Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-See everybody Thursday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 49