Loading...
2010.07.27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2010 INDEX Site Plan No. 17-2010 Angio Dynamics 1. Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10 Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 1. Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11 Site Plan No. 43-2010 Paul Lejuez 2. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-21 Site Plan No. 35-2010 Bob & Dennis Pilarinos 4. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-97 Subdivision No. 10-2010 Maureen Ireland 23. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4 Subdivision No. 11-2010 William J. VanGuilder 24. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 308.11-1-53 Subdivision No. 1-1971 Sherwood Acres Corp. 26. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.8-1-2.1, 29, 20 Subdivision No. 13-2008 Mary C. Sicard 28. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 FWW 1-2010 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, ACTING CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD KREBS STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the Town of Queensbury th Planning Board meeting for the 27. My name is Stephen Traver. I’m actually the Vice Chair. I’m just going to be filling in for Chairman Hunsinger who was unable to be with us tonight. We have two administrative items to look at. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 17-2010: ANGIO DYNAMICS FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. TRAVER-Tabling motion for Angio Dynamics. Do we have any additional information on that tabling? MR. OBORNE-No, sir, we don’t. I do anticipate a plan to be submitted hopefully in the very near future. My recommendation is to table them to a September meeting at this point. MR. TRAVER-September. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Any particular one? stth MR. OBORNE-No. You could go with the 21 or the 28. th MR. JACKOSKI-I’d suggest the 28. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion on that? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2010 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Donald Sipp who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: th Until September 28. th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. TRAVER-Okay, and next we have another Administrative Item. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007: JOHN FEDOROWICZ FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. TRAVER-A request for tabling for Fedorowicz, and again, I think this is another September, I believe. st MR. OBORNE-September 21 is the requested date. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: st Until September 21. th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we’re going to make a couple of rearrangements of our agenda tonight to better accommodate the agenda and our participants. We do have one Expedited Matter for Paul Lejuez. EXPEDITED MATTER: SITE PLAN NO. 43-2010 SEQR TYPE II PAUL LEJUEZ AGENT(S) MORGAN GAZETOS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 223 ASSEMBLY PT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 560 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 10-205; 09-589 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/14/10 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.30 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-21 SECTION 179-5-060 MORGAN GAZETOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. GAZETOS-I’m Morgan Gazetos. I’m the agent of the owner. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. GAZETOS-I represent Mr. Lejuez. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Have a seat and state your name for the record. MR. GAZETOS-For the record, my name is Morgan Gazetos. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Tell us about your project. MR. GAZETOS-Starting probably almost this time last year, I met with Paul. He had a boathouse, non-conforming, original structure. By my guess at least 60, 70 years old. The original crib timbers were whole red pines. I mean, it was, you know, rebarred together. It was filled with old concrete and all sorts of other wonderful things. So when I met with the Building Department, they sort of showed us the light of he could get the better use of his water frontage if we were to change the configuration of the dock a little bit. That would put it 100% in compliance, so it wouldn’t have, he originally did not meet the setbacks. So then upon doing so, Paul figures, well, I’m going to go through all this work, I may as well really maximize it and put a boathouse on top, and so here I am. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I’m trying recall from the application, are there any modifications to the crib, original old crib structure? MR. GAZETOS-The original crib was demo’d, I want say Spring of this year. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. GAZETOS-We were permitted to build a new dock. A new dock was built to specs, to compliance, 20 foot setbacks, 16 from the mean high water mark, so on and so forth. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. GAZETOS-That’s it. So we’re looking to build the standard, you know, skirt roof boathouse, cedar trim, you know, deck over the top, looks like everybody else’s. MR. TRAVER-Sure, okay, and, Keith, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to, Staff comments? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. OBORNE-It’s an Expedited project. It’s located at 223 Assembly Point Road. It’s Waterfront Residential, Type II SEQRA. It’s Expedited Review. It meets all of the zoning issues and he’s obviously on the agenda as an Expedited Review. So, Morgan pretty much stole all my thunder. MR. GAZETOS-And I apologize. I have to mention that Keith was really helpful with the whole process. This is the first time I’ve actually been in front of the Planning Board doing a project, and as far as, you know, this is the forms you need, this is what I need to see. This is everything, because Paul was really big on making sure we did everything right the first time, which I didn’t do exactly, but we worked our way through it. MR. TRAVER-It does make the process smoother for everyone to take advantage of the resources that we have in the Planning Department and follow all the guidelines and so on. So thank you for doing that. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d just say I drive by it every day. It’s already a vast improvement. MR. GAZETOS-Well, thank you, sir. We worked unbelievably hard. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, you did. I watched it. MR. JACKOSKI-I agree it’s a vast improvement, but I still have nostalgia for Woody’s old dock. So, it was a nice little structure there. I just want to clarify. It’s pretty much impossible for you folks not to build this deck structure without a land bridge, so to speak. There’s just no way. If you look at the drawings, there is no other way to do it, and I mean, I know we frown upon it, but I don’t see how they could do anything else. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I will say one of the positives of this is there is natural vegetation along the shoreline existing. It’s one of those few opportunities where you really don’t have to do anything. MR. TRAVER-Right. That’s great. Yes. Nice buffering already. MR. MAGOWAN-Where would that land bridge be coming through, right in that opening? MR. GAZETOS-We were actually going to try to come off the existing, there’s a little deck right there. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Gotcha. MR. GAZETOS-And we could go with just a set of stairs, because Paul was not really a big fan of the land bridge. He likes his buffer zone, privacy, you know, that kind of thing. So we felt that we could probably, I’ll work with the Building Department, but I think a straight set of stairs, maybe the bridge span won’t be more than three feet. MR. MAGOWAN-So maybe go up to a landing and turn and go on the deck, is that what you’re saying? MR. GAZETOS-That’s what we’re going to try to do, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? Everyone seems satisfied with this application. Do we, can someone make a motion and move forward? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2010 PAUL LEJUEZ, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 560 sq. ft. boathouse with sundeck. Boathouses in the WR zone require Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 7/27/10; 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. 43-2010 PAUL LEJUEZ, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan MR. GAZETOS-I’d like to thank you all for your time. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Okay, and next we’d like to next address the Queensbury Diner application, Site Plan No. 35-2010. 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 & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, do you want me to read this into the record, the Staff Notes? MR. TRAVER-Yes, please. MR. OBORNE-This is Site Plan 35-2010. The applicant is Bob and Dennis Pilarinos. Requested action: Food service in the Enclosed Shopping Center zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 518 Aviation Road. Existing zoning is ESC or Enclosed Shopping Center. SEQRA Status will be discussed. 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. We did receive, today, in the afternoon, correspondence from the DOT which is before you, at this point. The tabling motion from last meeting, everything has been addressed, not necessarily completed, but has been addressed. This application, obviously if the Board remembers, we discussed traffic issues, aesthetic issues, and the EIS, and I’m pretty sure the Board’s up to speed on what’s going on at this point, and with that I shall turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and, Keith, having received this communication from Department of Transportation so late in the day today, I suspect you haven’t had time to adequately review and prepare your comments on that? MR. OBORNE-I haven’t prepared any comments on it. I have reviewed it. I really don’t particularly see any issues. I know that Clark has not reviewed it, and I obviously would like for him to do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But I’m sure that the project engineer for the applicant will be more than happy to bring you up to speed on that also. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Bob Pilarinos who wasn’t here at the last meeting. Dennis Pilarinos behind, and Tom Hutchins. We appreciated last time that you allowed us to have a short submission deadline and get back here this month. We made the submission with everything that was required, with the exception of the DOT letter. We requested it, but obviously that was pretty quick timing. So we were, they knew the deadline. They knew the Board was looking for it and we were glad to get it today, and just to jump to that for a second, we had the long discussion last time about traffic and, Steve, you had asked us to give up the left turn out last time, and so we needed DOT to pass on that, because at the end of the day, that’s their road. So the letter today, which we’ll go through in detail, does say that if that’s okay with you, it’s okay with them. So we were really pleased to get that and we, you know, really had to ask them for a favor to get it done so fast. So that was good. We have 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) submitted a number of different color patterns, and what the applicant proposes now is to have the trim color with blue and gold, which are the Queensbury High School colors, and it’s a little bit softer than the red that the Board had seen, that we got the sense you were looking to have that toned down, and we do have an LED sample that we’ll plug in later and show you that, but, you know, obviously there are some policy issues. We hope that at the end of this discussion you’ll see that it’s, or agree that having that site re-developed is really in the best interest of the Town and that this is a good use for that site, and with the left turn restriction, we’ve addressed the traffic issue, but if we could start, Tom will go through the submission, and start with what we’ve given them. Do you need the letter? MR. HUTCHINS-For the record, Tom Hutchins. What was submitted was, as best we could do, precisely what the Board had asked for. We did revise the lighting plan, and we softened it significantly, and I can address that when we get the specifics on that. Landscaping was revised, and I believe, that was revised in accordance with what we had discussed. We did submit four color renderings. As Jon stated, our preferred is the blue and gold. We updated some info on the sign, and I think Keith has concurred that the sign is indeed compliant. I had addressed all of the engineer’s comments, and I believe you should have, or at least I have a letter from the engineer that they were completed, with the exception of one staging area and erosion controls, which I can easily show. That’s a matter of a staging area for soil stockpiles. LED samples Jon has, and we can show you. The SEQRA form we did submit, the SEQRA Long Form, and I imagine SEQRA’s going to be a topic of discussion. We’d turn it over to the Board. There are some photographs in the package of similar units by the same manufacturer. We did reconfigure the entranceway to eliminate the left out and we showed a right only island in there, and that went to DOT. DOT has indicated that that, well, and you see in their letter, if supported by the Town Planning Board, they concur with the concept. They did ask me to tweak the geometry slightly from what I had shown to make the thing a little bit, the island a little bit longer, which can easily be done and worked out. MR. KREBS-Will that then make the island large enough that pedestrians can? MR. LAPPER-It wasn’t that. It was to discourage cars from doing what they’re not supposed to do, a little tighter. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-It made it longer, and I don’t know if you received, with that, they have a standard, and this is DOT’s standard minor, I don’t know if you received this attachment. It made the island a little longer. The width is the same. It made it longer, and what they, and it actually pushed it closer to the travel lane. We had kept it back a little greater distance, but they asked us to move it a little closer, and there’s a little bit of a conflict with what they’re showing for 16 foot lane width. Typically we like 20 foot unobstructed access way, and this is their standard detail. That’s something I’m sure we can work out through DOT, and as far as site utilities and stormwater and wastewater, I believe all those items have been resolved and both the Town’s departments and the Town Engineer has signed off on them. So, with that, I’d turn it over for questions. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess we should look at just the color schemes, because you had asked us to give you a sample, and instead of coming in with, you know, paint chips if you will, we had the designers pick a few that we thought would be some good choices, and at the end of the day, as I mentioned, the applicants would now rather go with the blue and gold rather than the red. You’ve got the larger set, and those are just, those are trim colors. It’s still essentially glass, block and stainless. This is what, this is the blue and gold they’re proposing. This was a teal, which was one of the other choices, and the red is now toned down, and then the different (lost words) brushed aluminum and the stainless. We have both of those. This is what LED looks like. MR. JACKOSKI-How many bars of that are there, Jonathan? MR. LAPPER-How many bars? I think that there’s two. It’s on the full size. BOB PILARINOS MR. PILARINOS-They’re continuous, you know, wrapping around the fascia. MR. KREBS-Are they also on the verticals, or just on the horizontals? MR. LAPPER-Just the horizontal. The vertical is trim. MR. KREBS-Okay. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. JACKOSKI-And there’s only blue lighting? MR. HUTCHINS-There’s blue and gold. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and it’s three of each? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s one blue, two gold, across the top, and one blue and two gold on the bottom. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So there’s six total. MR. LAPPER-There’s no lights on the bottom. MR. PILARINOS-Just on top. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, just the three. MR. LAPPER-They didn’t have a gold sample. I mean, they can make any color you want, but it wasn’t something we had. MR. TRAVER-Right. One of the aspects of the LED that we can’t really duplicate here is the effect of the light reflected on the stainless of the building, but that’s interesting. It is quite a unique sort of frequency of light, isn’t it, coming out of there. MR. LAPPER-Well, from their perspective, they want this to look like a classic diner, and that’s what that’s about, and it’s not as intense as neon. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Members of the Board have questions, comments for the applicant? MR. JACKOSKI-I have one, if you can help me out. If I look at the scaling of the DOT information that was sent to us today, it seems logical to me that in that 16 foot travel lane, I could easily avoid the, being forced to bear right. It seems to me if I hold right there, I could scoot right straight past that throat, as we’ll call it, and trying to guide me to the right. Is this the maximum that they insist on, or can we actually restrict that no left turn throat to even be more direct, more structured, so that you can’t really by-pass it? I mean, we all go to Price Chopper. We all know we come out of there, we can scoot across, right across to Friendly’s if we have to, and that one’s pretty strict. I think this one’s a little bit more lenient than that one. So, we’re all worried about that no left turn. Is there any way we can make this more restrictive than what’s shown on this DOT plan? MR. HUTCHINS-We can adjust the geometry of the island somewhat, to what DOT will concur with. However, we’re still going to have to maintain an access width, and I believe that’s going to be 20 feet in and out. Am I correct, Keith? MR. OBORNE-There’s at least one access is 20 feet, at least one of them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It has to be, doesn’t it, for fire access? MR. HUTCHINS-I mean, this is the detail they sent me today. MR. SIPP-This is consistent with buses and tractor trailers. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Steve, I think what it does, though. I mean, we all know that not everyone’s going to follow the rules, but I think with Burger King, there’s one at Taco Bell, you know, the ones that have been agreed to, CVS, I think most people follow it. Some people are not going to, but it’s pretty effective for most people. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. It’s just that this is the intersection, in my opinion one of the most, I have the most concern here, all those folks exiting off the highway. There’s a lot of traffic right there. I purposely went to The Silo to see how bad it was, and it’s hell when it’s busy there. So I just, I think, you know, as we get closer, I’m just wondering if we can restrict it as much as possible. If this is the maximum they’ll allow, or if we have some flexibility with, in keeping the 20 feet for emergency vehicles and all that, but I mean, emergency vehicles would be coming out, in this scenario, not in, but I think they could use either way. Right? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. They can go out the other way. MR. JACKOSKI-Both ways, right? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’ve got to go in, depending on where the hydrant is. That’s why the Fire Marshal’s got to review this. MR. LAPPER-What you’re really asking for, I think, is the out being narrower and. MR. JACKOSKI-I guarantee you I could scoot past this. MR. LAPPER-But anybody can do that if they want to. I would answer that DOT is satisfied with the condition that we discuss with the Board, and that goes a long way, since they’re the ones that make the ultimate call on the configuration, but we can certainly request, or tell them that the Planning Board asked that it be, that the out lane be as small as DOT will permit, and that’s okay with the applicant. MR. JACKOSKI-Or as angled as DOT would permit. I don’t necessarily care that we have to reduce it in width, but if we can just really force folks to go right. MR. LAPPER-More of a pork chop so it comes over farther. You won’t get any argument from us. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s just community safety, that’s all we’re looking at. MR. HUTCHINS-We’ve got some latitude to adjust that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That was my main question, do we have latitude. So, thank you. MR. TRAVER-You really only need one path to be 20 feet, right, not both? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Incoming has to. MR. TRAVER-Incoming 20, and outgoing could be less. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, but compound vehicles have to be able to get out, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I would think emergency’s going to come from the Mall side. So they’re going to come in the out, right? MR. SCHONEWOLF-It depends what kind of emergency it is, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Let’s hope there aren’t any. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Some of them come down the Northway, will make that turn and go in. Seeing our attorney is here tonight, I had a question that was brought up the last time we discussed this, and I want to bring it up now to make sure that we’re all clear on it. It was my understanding that when Congel owned this property, and he’s selling off two acres to your client. Correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That there was a covenant and restriction that the traffic that went into any addition he had there, as well as the motel, had to go through the Mall, and if he sells the property off, the covenant goes with it. MR. LAPPER-Let’s discuss that. It’s not a covenant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I’m asking our attorney. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MS. RADNER-What it is, is that back in 2001 there was a build out proposed for the whole Mall property, including this parcel, and including where the derelict Howard Johnson’s is now standing, and the Planning Board, back in 2001, and the Town Board also, because the Town Board was Lead Agency then because it included a rezoning, looked at the maximum allowed build out, which did include the eventual demolition of both the old Howard Johnson’s motel and the restaurant that we’re talking about now, and part of the mitigation that was planned for the total Mall build out included connecting roads that would have put what’s called the ring road, the internal road for the Mall, that would have allowed access from these northwest parcels to that ring road. Now what’s happened over the years is that the Mall build out hasn’t happened as planned. They’ve done parts of what were contemplated back in 2001, but they haven’t done 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) all of what was contemplated back in 2001. So what you need to decide tonight, as part of your review, is how you want to deal with that past mitigation. What the applicant agreed to back in 2001 was that when these northwest parcels, which would be the Howard Johnsons and this diner site, were developed, that part of that re-development contemplated this ring road connection, and again, that was part of the total Mall build out and all of the traffic impact studies were based upon a fairly major expansion of the Mall. Now there has been some expansion of the Mall in the intervening years, but there hasn’t been everything that was contemplated. So it’s not a covenant. A covenant would be something that would be written in a deed restriction perhaps or a contractual thing. It’s not that, but it is part of the mitigation measures that were conditions of the original SEQRA approval back in 2001. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that our matter to deal with, or is it the Town Board’s? MS. RADNER-It’s yours. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MS. RADNER-Do you want me to address the bigger issue, which is how you deal with SEQRA? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MS. RADNER-Okay. This is not in your typical SEQRA posture because the SEQRA review’s already been done. Back in 2001 they looked at the eventual build out and included a plan, a modified plan and an eventual plan, and they looked at the entire build out of the Mall property, and what they’re doing now, this little piece, demolishing this restaurant and replacing it with a new one, is part of what was contemplated. It’s consistent with that past SEQRA review. So your charge, as a Planning Board tonight, is to look at what’s now proposed and see if you identify any new or different potential environmental impacts that weren’t identified back in 2001, see if there’s any change of physical characteristics or conditions or anything new that wasn’t known or contemplated back then that you identify now. Ultimately, we would encourage you to pass a resolution, either determining that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is needed or is not needed, and which direction you go on, that depends on your determination of what areas of environmental impacts or environmental concerns there might be, whether those are new or different or were already considered as part of that previous environmental review, take a hard look at that and then make your determination as you do with any other SEQRA. So you would either make a resolution, no, we don’t need a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement because this was already considered, or, yes, we do need a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement because we believe there could be a potential adverse environmental impact. Now, back in 2001, there were Findings Statements, and again, because the Mall build out didn’t happen quite as contemplated, it is appropriate for you to go back now and address those Findings Statements and modify them, and that could include conditions related to development of the eventual connection with the ring road. You could say that the re- development of the motel site would trigger that. You might say any future development on the site would trigger that. You might say that within five years they have to make that connection, but nothing in the original Environmental Impact Statement sort of dated or said when that mitigation would happen, and that’s certainly within your purview to address this evening. Does that make sense? Any questions? MR. TRAVER-So part of the mitigation is the connector road? MS. RADNER-Part of the mitigation back in 2001 was a connector road, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and one of the discussions, as well, is impacts with traffic. MS. RADNER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Whether or not that connector road exists obviously would have an impact on traffic. The 2001 discussion included such a connection. MR. KREBS-Plus, Steve, it also included the fact that there would be a right, east, going east, a ramp, so that you wouldn’t go to that intersection and then turn in. You would go off onto a ramp and then turn in to the property. So that would eliminate the congestion on Aviation Road itself. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I understand what you’re saying. Yes. MR. LAPPER-Can I address that? MR. TRAVER-Please do. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. LAPPER-At the time, that was a much bigger and much different project. I mean, that was hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail space, and Pyramid has been back before you a number of times throughout the, for a decade, this century, with smaller and smaller projects. We know where the retail economy is right now, and there’s nothing on the table, and in fact, as this parcel is under contract to be sold, the hotel parcel is also available for sale. So Pyramid, they did the Target, but nothing, when Cathi said part of that project got done and part didn’t, nothing on the land up by I-87 was ever done. So it’s sitting there fallow, which is obviously a huge issue, because the Planning Board’s mentioned that every time there’s been a Pyramid application in front of you, and the public and the Town Board have mentioned it as well. So if there is a large, at some point in the future, whether it’s, you know, next year or five years from now or ten years from now, there certainly could be a need to put a connector road in for that parcel in the back, the nine acres that has the motel, but what DOT has said, what we discussed last time, about getting rid of that left turn out, what DOT has said now is that for the traffic generated by this project, for the diner project, DOT is satisfied if we give up that left turn out. So I think that you have a decision to make in terms of, do you want to facilitate this project, does this project, can this project go forward without a connection, because this project, as I mentioned last time, cannot justify the cost of that connection, and Pyramid’s not going to put in that connection, because they don’t have a project. They’re just selling. I mean, what they’re going to do is take the proceeds of the sale to the applicants and apply that money towards demolishing the motel. They’ve agreed to do that immediately. So what we would have, if this is acceptable to the Board, the front parcel will be completely re-developed with a brand new diner, new landscaping, new lighting, the restricted left turn access and the land in the back will be demolished and removed from the site, or the debris removed from the site, and it’ll sit there with a For Sale sign until somebody comes along, and at that point the Planning Board will have to decide whether whatever is proposed on the back is significant enough to warrant that connection, but DOT is saying that you don’t need that connection for this use, and what I’m saying, on behalf of the applicant, is that it would kill this project because they can’t pay what’s been estimated to be an $800,000 connector road for this small use, mostly because not only is there a grade issue, but there’s a major Town water line. So that’s not to say that it won’t be warranted in the future, but I believe it’s not warranted for this project, and I’m asking you because this is such an important site in the Town, when you come off and see these abandoned buildings. The hotel has been abandoned for 12 years. I think the restaurant building for six or more. So it could likely, you know, sit there vacant for a long time, but nobody can afford to put in that road, nor is it needed, because that left turn out that we already agreed to restricting, DOT has said that that’s okay. What the Town gets for this is a much more attractive site when you pull into Town at Exit 19, and, you know, we also agreed as a condition that you would look at that in two years, in terms of that, we talked about last time, we can do that, too, in terms of that left turn restriction, but what’s on the table, what we’re offering and we’re glad DOT concurs, is that we’d have three movements, and a newly developed site, and the building in the back will get knocked down, and it’s a lot better than where we are now. I also just want to throw on the table that what’s there now is about 3,000 square foot larger. Somebody could avoid Site Plan Review and open that the way it is now, which would be, you know, a bigger traffic generator, if you will, than the 5500 square foot brand new diner with all the landscaping. Instead you’d just have the existing Seven Steers restaurant fixed up and then it wouldn’t even require review. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that brings up a question, and it depends which newspaper you read, st but I understand that the Town has a date of September 1 that they’ve got to demolish the motel. th MR. LAPPER-September 30. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thirtieth. Okay, but, did it or did it not include the restaurant? MS. RADNER-Not. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It definitely did not. MS. RADNER-Yes, no, I helped draft the agreement that has not been finalized, but I drafted the agreement that was on the table. It did not call for the demolition of the restaurant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’s up to the new owner to demolish it? MS. RADNER-Correct. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and the Pilarinos family is taking that responsibility from Pyramid. They’re buying the site. They will demolish it, and they would like, you know, they want to have this thing ordered and up as fast as possible. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. TRAVER-Question for counsel. With regards to the connector road, obviously we can either, hypothetically we can require the connector road be part of this project. We could say that it’s not needed. You mentioned a, the possibility of having a motion that would indicate that such a connector road would need to be built within a certain period of time, say five years, whatever. How, with this applicant purchasing the property from Pyramid, how can we require this applicant to be responsible for something that’s not on their property? MS. RADNER-Well, at this point Pyramid is still the owner, as I understand it, and the applicant is what’s called a contract vendee. So they’d still have a certain amount of leverage over Pyramid, and if Pyramid wants this deal to go through, might accept the condition. They might not. I mean, it could be a deal kill, but if you want I can go back and read the language from the 2001 mitigation, if that might give you some guidance. MR. TRAVER-Please do. MR. KREBS-While Cathi’s looking for that, I’d just like to say that I’d like to see, even with just the diner, that ramp lane put in now, because we can’t tell now what’s going to be on the rest of that property, and you may have a very high traffic situation. MR. LAPPER-Well, when you say the ramp lane, what do you mean? MR. KREBS-Well, coming, after you make the right hand turn off of 87, my understanding from what John Strough said, was that there was going to be a ramp that was going to be the right, going east, that was going to be on Pyramid’s property, and would allow you to go onto that before you made your right hand turn into the property. MR. LAPPER-That is not something that DOT is saying is necessary for the diner project. That was, again, for hundreds of thousands of square feet. MR. KREBS-Yes, but, Jonathan, I can’t just look at the diner. MR. LAPPER-Well, you can. MR. KREBS-No. On a long term basis, as a planner, I have to look at what that property may be used for some day behind it. MR. LAPPER-Well, but that’s the time that you make that call because we don’t know if it’s going to be big or something small, that’s going to justify it. MR. KREBS-Well, are they going to want, after they’ve gotten their situation all done, are they going to want us to come in and take 16 feet off the front of their property to put a ramp? MR. LAPPER-Well, because of the EIS, you still have control over the Pyramid project or their successors, whoever owns the project in the back. If somebody comes in with a big box development that would, you know, go down to the Mall parking lot by J.C. Penney’s, like Pyramid had once proposed, then it’s going to require all sorts of traffic mitigation, but it won’t be the Pilarinos family. It’ll be whoever’s doing that development, and you have all the teeth you need because it’s still in the EIS that that site would need to be connected. It would have to decide that it didn’t have to be connected if it was a small project, you know, which you might or might not do, that would be something in the future. So we’re not trying to take that away from you. We’re just saying that, for the diner project, if you want the diner to come in and re-develop that parcel, it’s not something that’s necessary. MR. KREBS-Well, I’m just saying to you that, are they going to be very happy if we come in later and say that we’re going to take 16 feet off the front of your property to put a turn lane in? MR. LAPPER-Well, I think that the right of way, the State right of way is pretty wide there. I think the land is already owned by the State. So they wouldn’t, we can show you that. MR. KREBS-Do you think it’s wide enough, Tom, for a turn lane? MRS. STEFFAN-Did we ever get a DOT comment letter, by the way? MR. LAPPER-Yes, we got it today, Gretchen. MR. KREBS-It’s here. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MS. RADNER-Do you want me to review what you had back in 2001? Again, back in 2001, the project contemplated what was called the modified project, and also contemplated the possible future development, and the development of the northwest lands, which is what we’re talking about now, in some smaller part, was part of that possible future development. The possible future development involved the demolition of the hotel and the restaurant and new development on both of those parcels. So, one condition was, Number Six, roadway and interior road improvements, if any, identified in the TIS to be constructed by the applicants for the modified project shall be constructed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Seven, roadway and interior road improvements, if any identified in the TIS, to be constructed by the applicant for the possible future development shall be constructed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, and then also buried in Number Eight is part of the conditions is in addition, the applicant shall develop a signal coordination plan and implement said plan in consultation with NYSDOT. This does not preclude the NYSDOT from requiring additional mitigation. The Traffic Impact Mitigation fee may also be utilized by the Town for traffic improvements at other locations which are reasonably related to the function of the Route 9/254 intersection. So, again, you had different levels of construction being contemplated back in 2001, which haven’t happened. So now it’s reasonable for you to go back and re-address the Findings Statements back in 2001, and discuss how they apply to the development of this diner as opposed to the full development of the northwest parcels. Does that make sense? MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-And it’s 20 to 22 feet from the curb at the, on the east bound travel lane from the curb to the right of way or the parcel line, it’s 20 to 22 feet across. MR. LAPPER-So there’s enough room for a lane. MR. HUTCHINS-It would entirely be within the DOT right of way. MR. OBORNE-An addendum to that is, though, you do have pedestrian walkways through there. So those would have to be re-engineered, too. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there’s a sidewalk there. MR. TRAVER-Right, that was in the DOT letter, too. Okay. So, it sounds as though, with regards to this issue of the connector road, our options, fundamentally, are that we can require the applicant to develop the road. We can require the development of the road at some date in the future. We can require the development of the road, not with this applicant, but with any development on the other parcel which is not included in this original 2001, is not currently being developed? MS. RADNER-I would say that’s a fair statement. Those are all options available to you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Cathi, how are the done? Can they be done with covenants or when they transfer the parcel? MS. RADNER-Again, you would do it with a Findings Statement that this is the required mitigation, just as was done back in 2001. MR. LAPPER-So it would be like conditions of approval. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. RADNER-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So I guess to the members of the Board, with those three basic options, how are people feeling? MRS. STEFFAN-You know, I came in after this started, and I have a lot of issues with this particular project at that particular site, and, you know, I think that certainly the applicant would have to provide a Supplemental EIS on the parcel, because when this was approved in 2001 the intent was that the whole site was going to be developed, and as Don alluded to a little while ago, you know, we have to worry about the segmentation issue, and we do know that we have no idea what will be developed there at some point in the future, but, when it was approved in 2001, it was approved with the intention of using a ring road to circumvent traffic from going to that intersection, which is a major intersection in the Town. When you look at the amount of seats in this particular restaurant, and the, I’m not really sure how many turns the restaurant is 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) planned to do a day, but I’m sure it would be significant at Exit 19, especially during peak seasons. You have to look at the impacts of that utilization, you know, for the restaurant, how many business turns they’re going to do, how many traffic, how many cars are going to be going in there, and then how it will affect the traffic patterns. Last time I was very strident about my belief that we needed to have this traffic study to look at the impacts to that particular intersection, which is very dysfunctional because of the traffic flows, and we’ve got, you know, peak hour traffic volume, but we also have holiday traffic volumes, which need to be considered because the Mall is right there, and so looking at the volume that was generated, I think that it’s important to have an Environmental Impact Statement. The other thing is a revised Environmental Impact Statement. The Warren County Planning Board, in the notes that were in last month’s package, the applicant has not provided a traffic study. The owner of this parcel is still the Pyramid Mall, LLC, and the development of this parcel should not be undertaken without an understanding of how the remaining property will be used, and they ask for a, not a Short EAF but a Long one, which the applicant provided, but the Town should require a comprehensive view of the southern parcels that will use the same ingress and egress points. Therefore, if there is a large project that comes in after this one, we would have to look at that, and they would probably use the access onto Quaker Road, and that’s not how it was approved in 2001, and so, you know, there are some significant issues I believe, and the Warren County Planning Board goes on to say the project drawings indicate parking for 111 cars and 2 buses. The staff feels that this application materials do not address the traffic flow in any measures, and so that’s one of the comments that we got from the Warren County Planning Board. If you go back and review that Environmental Impact Statement, you know, it is based on the development that was projected somewhere in the future. I’m not in favor of having forward looking conditions where we impose a traffic study somewhere down the road because I’m not really sure about the long term enforcement mechanisms in place to make sure that those things occur, and so I’ve got some real issues with that, and the other thing is that, you know, past performance has everything to do, is very indicative of future performance, and the Pyramid Corporation has a very bad history in the Town of Queensbury. We’ve had that unsightly building that’s been at Exit 19 forever, and I understand that this applicant is looking to take a little two acre piece of that and improve it, from their point of view, but, you know, it’s been like this for a long time, and, you know, in my mind the Pyramid Corporation has not lived up to their social responsibility and taken that down. I don’t have a lot of confidence, even though they’ve made an agreement with the Town, that they are going to perform, because they haven’t performed in the past, and the other thing is that that parcel behind this is much larger, and so the traffic impacts for development of the parcel behind this will be much greater than the impacts of this particular one, and so, you know, I’ve got some real concerns with that. I also have some site plan issues regarding this, but the traffic is my biggest hot button. MR. LAPPER-Can I address your concerns, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I know last time you were not in favor of this project, I understand that, but it’s not a segmentation issue because this is a change of circumstances. Obviously, what was proposed in 2001 turned out to be pie in the sky because, you know, nine years have gone by and nothing’s happened and the decrepit motel is there then something’s wrong with the plan, but we’re not asking you to change anything, to lose any teeth in terms of what happens in the back, but we also don’t know what’s going to happen in the back or when it’s going to happen. So if the EIS stands, which it does, you have all of those rights, including forcing the connector road when somebody come in to develop that in the back, but this is a separate subdivided two acre parcel, with an 8,000 square foot existing restaurant that could still be utilized, and as Cathi said there’s no agreement to take it down. It’s about reducing the size of that to a 5500 square foot brand new diner that complies with the Town, no variances, in terms of all of the stormwater, lighting, all of the landscaping which is significant, so I don’t see that you’re losing here, and I think that the Town is gaining a lot because everyone has been mentioning this for so long that they don’t like the way it looks. So if that doesn’t happen, I mean, if you deny this or if you say it has to go back SEQRA I mean that’s not something that these applicants are prepared to handle, and it’s certainly something they can’t put in the road. I mean, that’s not, the economics of this project don’t justify it, and Pyramid’s not going to build a road for a non-use in the back. So what would happen is the motel would be knocked down because that was an agreement. The restaurant in the front will stay vacant. This deal will die and perhaps somebody will come in at some point and try to do something else with the restaurant parcel, but what we’re offering you, instead of that, is this responsible family to come in and re-develop the front, which is a positive improvement. By getting rid of that left turn lane DOT has said they don’t need a traffic study. They’ve said that they will agree with this by getting rid of that left turn out, reconfigure that entrance, and wait, nothing’s lost in the back, but you wait until somebody comes in, whether it’s Pyramid or more likely a purchaser, and then say, hey, that’s a big parcel. That’s probably going to be a big traffic generator, and they may have to make the connection at that time, so what I’m asking is that, you know, I think this is a serious issue for the Town, and 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) important project for the Planning Board, to consider this separate, a change circumstances from what happened in 2001, let this go through. We’ve talked about all the design issues. They’ve agreed to make all the changes you wanted, let this go through and you still have all the power for Pyramid for next time, but it’s going to facilitate cleaning up a really important piece of property in the Town. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But, Jon, you’ve got to look at it, that’s the way you’re looking at it, understandably, but you’ve got to look at it the way we look at it, and what Madame Secretary just said. This whole project reeks of the personality of Pyramid, and it’s very easy to see right through it that he’s selling the building, going to take the money, and pay off the demolition of the hotel and we never see him again. We’ve got more responsibility than that. We’ve got a responsibility to make sure that that corner is improved, and traffic is a big part of it. We also have a responsibility to make sure what we put on that corner, and I’ll say what I said last week, I don’t think a Casper, Wyoming diner is the first thing you want to see when you come into Queensbury. If it had an Adirondack look to it, or Adirondack stone or whatever, maybe, but, you know, the whole thing is a negative. MR. LAPPER-But you’re talking about the back, and what Pyramid does in the back, what’s going to happen now is it would just be plowed, it would be demolished, it would be empty. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which will look better than it is now. MR. LAPPER-Right, but that doesn’t generate traffic. So there won’t be a traffic problem until somebody comes in and develops that, and at that point it’ll get addressed. MR. JACKOSKI-Road frontage is kind, and I think that’s one of the biggest concerns I have here. You’re trying to suggest to us, wait until the back is developed, but that road frontage, that whole section there. MR. LAPPER-No, the place in the back has its own road frontage. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand it does, but we need to plan for the whole area. I want to address something that Mr. Lapper mentioned, and I don’t know if it’s counsel or Community Development. Am I hearing him correct and is he correct in stating that any applicant who comes in to occupy that parcel, that existing parcel, the old Seven Steers building, could easily do so, without Site Plan Review, even though it’s been vacant for so long and in fact it was used for Extreme Sports Retail prior to a restaurant use again? Could they come in and do whatever they quote unquote wanted as Mr. Lapper has suggested they could do? MR. OBORNE-To make it perfectly clear, I cannot make that determination. Only the Zoning Administrator can make that determination, but it is my understanding that if that parcel has not had a site plan in the last seven years, it is required to come back for site plan review for any change. MR. JACKOSKI-And if it did have site plan review in the past seven years, which I think we’re all in agreement it has not, correct? MR. LAPPER-But that’s only if there’s a change that’s proposed. MR. OBORNE-Regardless if there’s been a change or not. MR. JACKOSKI-So that really isn’t a threat to be concerned with at this point. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and if the economic circumstances are what we, you know, talked about through this meeting and the last meeting, it’s unlikely that somebody’s going to want to move in there anyway. This happens to be the application at hand. MR. TRAVER-So to clarify my list again of options, adding what Gretchen pointed out, another option would be we could ask for an updated EIS, correct? MRS. STEFFAN-A Supplemental, yes. MS. RADNER-Yes. Again, you don’t have a segmentation issue because you did look at the total build out back in 2001. What you’re doing, though, is looking back to see if there’s any new or different potential environmental impacts that are different than what was foreseen or addressed back in 2001. If you find that there are, then what you want is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. KREBS-Cathi, when they looked at it in 2001, they had agreed that they would connect to the circular Mall road. MS. RADNER-That’s correct. That was part of the mitigation that was proposed in 2001. MR. KREBS-So that’s different today than it was. MRS. STEFFAN-And the other issue is that, you know, what I talked about last time, I wanted a traffic study, and the rest of the Board wasn’t on side, but how can you make the determination whether you need a Supplemental EIS if you don’t have the traffic information. I don’t think, you know, if this was approved in 2001, our area has grown significantly since that time, and even the projected growth rates have changed. There was a study done a few years ago, I think, Jon, you were at the meeting, that, you know, that particular part of Town has got some significant issues. MR. LAPPER-But DOT has just told us that we don’t need a traffic study. They’re okay with this, for the diner. I mean, they’re exact language was it’s adequate for the anticipated trip generation of the diner proposal alone. So they’re looking at the diner proposal. I mean, I see which way this is going, but this is going to wind up where the. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’re only looking at the diner, Jon. MR. LAPPER-But that’s all that you can look at now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s all they can look at. MR. LAPPER-No, that’s all you can look at. There’s no project for the back. I mean, it’s 2010. Pyramid’s not doing anything. No one’s doing retail in Queensbury. These guys are coming in to clean up this site. This is a solution. There’ll be a brand new use. If they go away, it’s going to, the diner will sit there vacant. I don’t think anyone’s going to be happy with that. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll have exactly what we have now. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think the issue for us is we have an existing EIS. If we hold the existing EIS, we either build a connector road or we don’t. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Or we update the EIS. MR. LAPPER-Well, no, you can leave the EIS the way it is, say that this project doesn’t impact it. MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand that. MR. LAPPER-And then the connector road can be built in the future when someone comes in for the back. MR. TRAVER-Or we can leave it the way it is and say that parcel is now being developed, we build a connector road. MR. LAPPER-Right, but you said last time, Steve, that wasn’t necessary if we gave up the left turn, and, I mean, nobody voted on it, but that was the discussion we had, and DOT’s now said that they concur. So, I mean, I’m asking you to let this project go so we can clean this up and make it possible, or else they’re just going to have to withdraw and, as Gretchen said, it’ll sit there the way it is for however long. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the owner is still responsible for that piece of property. MR. LAPPER-But it’s been there for 12 years and nothing’s happened. So, I mean. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So has the motel and the Town Board took that and made them knock it down. They could make them knock this down if they wanted to. MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s nothing wrong with this building. It’s not, I mean, it’s not falling apart. The reason why the motel is in the condition it’s in is because the fire guys used it for fire 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) training. I’m not threatening. I’m just telling you that these guys cannot build an $800,000 road to do a diner project. I think that there’s a real benefit to the Town to fix this up, and it sounds like you may not concur. In which case. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s not, Jonathan, it’s not that we don’t want to see that corner improved. I think all of us want to see that area improved, I think with landscaping. Maybe a shiny silver, you know, bullet type diner isn’t really the best use for it, as far as many people would be concerned, for the gateway to the Adirondacks, the entrance to Queensbury, but cleaning up that site is going to be fantastic. We all want clean up of that site, but we all have to be responsible for the future of that section of Aviation Road. We all have to pay attention to the traffic. It is traffic there. Look, I’d like it to be a little more Adirondack in style myself. I think there’s a way of balancing some Adirondack with that, you know, that type of logo, that type of look, with landscaping I think you can do it, but traffic is a problem. MR. LAPPER-But that’s not the case, Steve. DOT is fine with this. It’s only a 5500 square foot facility. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think, you know, there are, there’s a lot of complex issues regarding the site plan and the lights and the color, but I think that this issue of the existing EIS is really kind of a turning point with us, with consideration of this application, and I think maybe for tonight, or at this point, we should focus on that, because that’s really going to give direction for how this project moves forward. How are people feeling with regards to the connector road, the Supplemental EIS, the existing EIS, that issue. I think if we can clarify that, then we’ll know which way we’re going and the other issues will be resolved. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I wanted a traffic study the last time the applicant was here. I still want that. The Department of Transportation has provided them with, and we got it tonight. We don’t usually accept things the night of the meeting, and so I really don’t know what it says. I haven’t been able to evaluate that, but the Department of Transportation is making a decision based on the information that the applicant provided. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And so if they’re using information and providing information that is based on old data, then the DOT’s decision is only as good as the information that they’re basing their decision on. I would like current traffic data in order for the Department of Transportation to evaluate whether this will work or not. With that said, that’s because of the discussion we had on the Department of Transportation. I still believe very strongly that this was approved in 2001, and that parcel was supposed to use the ring road, and so, you know, that said, if we don’t have a traffic study to evaluate the application on its merits and how it will affect the traffic on Quaker Road, then I think we have to go back to the Environmental Impact Statement and look at the traffic issues related to that. I think in my mind they’re two separate things, and then I have site plan issues. That’s separate from talking about the EIS. MR. TRAVER-Right. So with the traffic study, essentially we’re doing a Supplemental EIS. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s right. MR. TRAVER-What it amounts to. How are other members feeling about that issue? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Because in order to do the Supplemental, they would have to do a traffic study. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I’d like to see the condition in whatever decision we make that we make sure that that right turn lane space is available for that. MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s apparently already, there’s already a right of way there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he’s saying, yes, but will the State let us use that right of way? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think if we do a Supplemental, an updated EIS, I think whether that lane remains the same proposed design, that may change. MR. KREBS-To me, logically, that right turn lane makes a lot of sense on that road, because you have a tremendous amount of traffic coming off 87 and coming down from the western part of Queensbury. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well, what I’m hearing is Board members are wanting a Supplemental EIS on this project. That’s what I’m hearing. MS. RADNER-Two considerations for you. I believe you have this advertised for a public hearing. You might want to solicit public input before you make that determination. Also I think if you’re leaning towards you want further information, you should clarify whether you’re just looking for the traffic issue or whether there’s other issues that you’ve identified as potential areas of environmental impact. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Would one way of doing that be to have the issues raised in 2001 each re- examined in this context? There were issues that were identified for this parcel at that time. So would one way to do that use that 2001 as sort of a checklist to go through and? MS. RADNER-You could. Whether or not that’s reasonable, given what’s before you, I don’t know because many, many of the things that were discussed back then had to do with the modified plan and the long term plan. I think you would be better served by focusing on the new or different potential environmental impacts that you’ve identified based on this project, which could be the traffic. It could also be the lighting, the aesthetics, the things you’ve mentioned, and give them specific direction what you’re looking for. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Are there members, folks in the audience that want to speak to the Board about this application? Yes. Mr. Strough? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough. Queensbury. I’m in basic agreement with your concerns, and you, you know, and Mr. Lapper’s trying to make it look like we’re picking on the diner. We’re not picking on the diner. We welcome the diner. We’re looking forward to having the diner there, and you’d think that the diner would be equally as passionate about getting a comprehensive flow program going there, for its own benefit, not to mention the other parcels and the other businesses that will eventually go in there as well, and we welcome them, too, but, you know, like some of you have pointed out, we don’t want to be clogging up the Exit 19, because other businesses in Queensbury will be hurt by that, but one of the main concerns I have here, as we go forward, is this will be an independently owned piece of property, and if you look at the 2008 plan, it doesn’t have what we talked about on it, but we talked about having a right hand turning lane go in, so that we would not disturb or hinder the eastern flow of traffic along Aviation Road right there. Traffic that had these businesses, this diner hopefully being one, would shuffle probably off the Interstate right into here, that right in, but in the meantime you would have three or four cars queuing, hoping to come in here, and we hope they do, but it wouldn’t hinder the traffic flow on Aviation Road. Now the problem with that is, this property, once the deal is done, becomes privately owned, it’s no longer Pyramid’s. If you did an overlay, you’d see that this turning lane, at least in part, is going to be on somebody else’s property, not Pyramid’s. Now, if the applicant’s willing, and I would expect they would, but who knows, willing to show on the Site Plan where this turning lane would exist, and they’d be willing to accommodate it and, okay, that would be a big plus in my mind, but the other thing, the connector road. Now we can talk about $800,000 or where the connector road was. I’ve got the 2008 plan right here. That’s one area for the connector road. There’s many areas for the connector road. As a matter of fact, there’s almost a connector road right there if you look at the dirt path that goes behind the two gas stations. I mean, so, you know, putting a connector road is a doable event, and not only would that satisfy, because it just doesn’t make sense for a big bus, and they want buses, and I want buses to go there, for a big bus to go out, take a right hand turn, have to go down the intersection where the Mall is, go into the Mall, turn around, come back out to the intersection, and get back out onto the Interstate. It doesn’t make sense. If there was a connector road, that makes sense, not only for traffic exit, but how about for traffic entering? Because traffic that is in a westward flow, as this restaurant or the other businesses that might be here, as their destination point, how are they going to get in? You’ve got a right in and right out. So, they could get in the connector road, because there would be signage and everything else for these businesses up here. They could go into the main entrance of the Mall, and you know where I’m talking about, Greenway North, Friendly ice cream, that entrance that’s signalized, go up the connector road, visit all the businesses, that would act as a main, you know, thoroughfare for businesses up in this western or upper part, whatever you want to call it, you know what I’m talking about, Howard Johnson’s and all that that’s under discussion now, but also, you know, t there’s a turning lane that Carleton Drive people use, and if, you know, if this turning lane gets congested by people sitting there wondering how they’re going to get into this right in and right out, because it doesn’t allow westward traffic in, I guess you could drive down to the School, turn around, come back over the bridge and then do your right in. I mean, none of this makes sense. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) You’d think that the Queensbury Diner, which we welcome, would want to have a traffic flow that accommodates their business, but you and I, as you’ve been talking in agreement that we’re not only looking at this business. We’re looking at maybe Costco, maybe a Cracker Barrel, maybe 10 other businesses that might be back there, and they keep making a reference to what the State said. Here’s what the State said, and this is a letter dated June 7, 2010 from Mark Kennedy, Regional Traffic Engineer, Item Number Three. Our position that a traffic impact study and our update to previous studies was necessary to determine the best overall access scenario before considering approval of any individual development proposal. That’s what it says, but t that’s what it says. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. DAN KANE MR. KANE-Thank you. My name is Dan Kane from Queensbury. I certainly endorse the things that Mr. Strough said about the cumulative impacts and the traffic impacts. A couple of things that concerned me, the applicant’s attorney, kind of talking about this almost like it’s a variance, you know, proving hardship and dollars and cents. That really isn’t germane to the Site Plan Review aspect that the Board’s charged with looking at. It’s a cumulative impact. One of the impacts of this project, as you have all said, and it’s refreshing to hear that, this meeting. At the first meeting you started to talk about it, but I think you’ve really generated some good discussion here, and I think you need to do that with the Supplemental EIS. Because if you look at a 2001 build out study on this parcel, it was shortly after that bridge was opened. Construction started on the replacement of that bridge, I believe, in 1998, if I’m not mistaken. My memory’s kind of fading as I get older, but I think ’98 was when they first started that, in the Spring. So if you look at the change, significant change that’s happened there since 2001, and having lived here, walked there, biked there, driven there, repeatedly, it’s going to present some real traffic hazards to the traveling public, simply on background traffic, stuff that goes by, not the stuff that’s going to be generated by this parcel, and I think you have to look beyond these applicants, and it’s a good project for them. They’re probably very successful business people, but, we, as people that travel that corridor, have to look at that, too, and what are the impacts going to be on the traveling public, and I think you, as a Board, are charged, in Site Plan, to look at cumulative impacts, and I think doing it through a Supplemental EIS is going to really address those issues, and I think you’re going to see that you really shouldn’t fragment this project, because those other projects are going to come. As the economy changes, and that parcel becomes very viable, what do you do then? And I think the issue of the turning lane, as Mr. Krebs said, DOT’s not going to build it. I don’t care if it’s their road. They’re not, they can’t pave roads, let alone build turning lanes. It’s got to be a separate parcel that this applicant is under contract to purchase, that they’ve got to give up some land, and they’ve got to agree to build that. That’s an additional construction cost. So the turning lane is, to me, a minimal. You have to have that, because of queuing, and people, there’s a restaurant, let me stop, I’m going to go 10 miles an hour on Aviation Road until I turn off into the parking lot, but it’s going to require the applicant, because that’s his frontage, to commit to that. So you have to examine that, I think, in the EIS, you know, those are big points, and that’s it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. DAN STEC MR. STEC-Good evening. Dan Stec, Town Supervisor. In my six and a half years as Town Supervisor, I’ve chosen to appear before the Planning Board on two other occasions. I, and I think most other Town Board members, generally feel that it’s not good practice for a Town Board member to regularly participate or engage in the Planning and Zoning Board process. We appoint you and we let you apply the Code as we author and approve for your care and guidance. However, on two other occasions, and now this will be my third, I felt that there might be a project that was significant enough where at least giving a little more perspective and not necessarily offering to the nitty gritty of Site Plan details might be helpful for the Planning Board, and the two other times that I’ve done that was the Tribune Media project, which of course the Town was a direct participant in the planning of that entire project, from, including acquisition of the property, and Warren County EDC was involved in it. So we were a directly interested party in that case, and then the other one was The Great Escape Lodge, because, again, there’s a major employer in the region and a big draw for our County’s economy. Those two are needle movers, whether it’s on the job front or on the sales tax revenue front, and I think in hindsight, both of those projects were approved, and I think everyone would say they that they both worked out really well and the Planning Board did its job and did it well. The perspective I want to give, at least on this, is that this is the best opportunity that has come along for what has been the eyesore, the Number One eyesore in the Town of Queensbury in the last decade. There’s a lot of public interest in seeing this property improved, and by improving, that means re- development. There’s a demolition schedule that’s being worked on on the neighboring 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) property, you know, I’m familiar with the arguments that there’s multiple properties, as far as parcels go, and yet they’re all owned by the same property owner today. That may not be the case. Certainly the Town Board talked about this actually a little bit last night. I think everyone was in agreement that you do need to track cumulative impacts. You do need to be concerned, to a fair extent, with fragmentation or segmentation. You do have an eight year old EIS to contend with for, some would argue, a significantly different set of circumstances, but this could easily, over time, evolve into, at the end, something similar to what was proposed eight years ago. This isn’t the same project now, but when it’s completely built out, it very well could be. So I think for those reasons, all those questions that you’re kicking around, as far as traffic goes, I think are very valid. One of the, and I didn’t catch all of Councilman’s remarks just a minute ago, and I apologize for trying to paraphrase what I thought I heard him say last night, because he may have said it and I may have missed it, but in addition to being concerned about, hey, in the long term, for this property, if there is going to be a continued build out, demolition of the hotel property and Lord knows what, Costco and all the other, I mean, you know, as he said, I firmly believe that we want to see great things and more use of this property, and at some point you’re going to hit that tripping point where you say we need to do something more for traffic than a single curb cut for a 3,000 square foot restaurant. So I think you do want to consider the cumulative, but I would suggest that one of the options or alternatives that you have in front of you, and I think John kind of alluded to this a little bit in his remarks at last night’s Town Board meeting, is that at some point you’re going to hit that trigger, and I guess then the question might be, is the trigger for insisting on this ring road now with this particular project, or at the, you know, the next expansion of the next property? I mean, at some point, at the end of the day, you don’t want to look back, 10 years and 200,000 square feet later, and say, you know what, at some point we should have required this connector road, but I guess what I would suggest is, where is that trigger, and does that trigger necessarily fall on the first stone in the dominos as opposed to the second or third, and like I said, just bearing that in mind with the opportunity that this may, in fact, be the catalyst that finally turns around, because when I knock on doors, this is one of the things that people talk to me about. They’d like to see the property re-developed, and I think you have an opportunity here to, so I wanted you to bear that in mind as you deliberate the other valid Site Plan questions that are rightly before the Planning Board. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. MR. LAPPER-Can we respond? MR. TRAVER-Yes. BOB PILARINOS MR. PILARINOS-I’m Bob Pilarinos, one of the partners in the venture. First I’d like to say is that that property that we’re developing is going to be an improvement to the Town. Obviously it’s an eyesore right now. Number One we’re going to clean it up. I heard some comments that it’s not Adirondack style, but I’ve driven around the community, and from what I see, you don’t require Dunkin Donuts or Wal-Mart to have Adirondack style. They go by what their aesthetic is, and that’s what we’re trying to do is go by the diner aesthetic, and that’s stainless steel with the neon. Now, you’ve asked us to change the colors. We’ve complied with that, and the road that you’re requiring us or want to require us to build back there doesn’t even border our property. That would be like me asking my neighbor for me to allow him to put a swimming pool in his backyard for my use, which is ridiculous, Number One, and Number Two, the building right now is a lot bigger than what we’re planning on putting up there, and I can understand there’s going o be a traffic flow, but like some of the other people in the community have stated, I don’t see a turn in lane into The Great Escape, and I’ve been there a couple of times with my family, and that has a lot more traffic than we’ll ever have, and they’re not required to have a turning lane. So I don’t see why we should. In the future, if the parcel behind us where the Howard Johnson’s motel currently is gets developed into a big facility, mall, whatever it be, you know, and it requires that, maybe that’s something we could kick into, to allow the turning lane or whatever is required into it, but at the current project of what we’re doing right now, I don’t think the traffic flow is going to be that much of an issue, especially when DOT even said that it’s fine, as is right now for what we’re trying to do. What can come back there? Who knows? Nothing could come back there for 20 years. We’re trying to create jobs in the community. Yes, it’s going to be only 40, 50 jobs, but that’s 40, 50 jobs that don’t exist right now, and how’s a community, I mean, how’s the economy going to get better if you’re not allowing things to come in, if you’re giving businesses hard times. If you gave us a hard time, you’re going to give the next person a hard time. How many times do you guys have to go through this before you say enough’s enough? Let’s let a business get in. MR. TRAVER-Well, I appreciate your remarks. I think one of the things to bear in mind with regards to the idea of updating the EIS would be perhaps that EIS will show that we don’t need a connector road. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. PILARINOS-You’re asking us to do studies that costs thousands of dollars, and again, take more time, and we’re willing to, you know. We’ve already spent too much money on this, and you’re asking is to do stuff that is beyond ridiculous. I mean, studies for what? I mean, DOT, who’s the source, said it’s okay. What else do you need? I mean, a study in time, for what? MRS. STEFFAN-Because this is a very important part of our Town. MR. PILARINOS-I understand it’s a very important part of Town, and we’re trying to do something good for the Town by creating jobs, by cleaning up the area. I mean, we’re not some guy that does, it’s our first time. We’ve been in business 26 years. If you’d like, you’re more than welcome, we’ll buy you lunch, to come down to our two locations down south, and you could see what kind of operation we run. Obviously we know what we’re doing or else we wouldn’t have been in this business for 26 years. Three out of five restaurants close within the first year. MR. TRAVER-I think it’s safe to say that members of the Board and other folks that are concerned about this project and represent the Town are aware of your interest in doing this, and can certainly understand why, from your perspective, you would prefer that we not be concerned with future development on this parcel. MR. PILARINOS-Well, I mean, I can understand your concern with future development, but right now what’s at hand is our little 5,000 square foot restaurant. We’re not developing a 300,000 square foot facility. I wish we were, but we’re not. MR. TRAVER-I understand. I would ask you to consider the context within which we have to consider your application and that we do have an obligation to take a look at that whole, particularly when we have an existing EIS from 2001. We have to evaluate whether we go by, continue to operate under that, in which case we have to decide yes or no on the connector road, or do we need updated information? MR. PILARINOS-Well, I’m telling you right now, if you’re going to require us to do the connector road in the back, that’s going to kill the project. I mean, a road obviously, we paved our parking lot last year at one of our other places. Just to strip it and pave it was $32,000. So obviously it’s going to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to get that road back there up and running, which is not even part of our property, which is totally ridiculous. Anybody you ask is what you’re requiring is nonsense. So if you require that, just tell us now so we could take the project off the table and we could be on our way, if that’s where we are. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think if I’m hearing from other members of the Board, it sounds like the direction that we’re going, at this point, is not to require you to build a connector road, but rather to update the Environmental Impact Statement, to find out, in fact, in the context of this new plan for development, whether or not that’s. MR. PILARINOS-We’re not developing a factory that’s going to spew chemicals into the air. We’re opening up a restaurant. What environmental impact can it possibly have? MR. TRAVER-Right, we understand that. MR. PILARINOS-I mean, there were restaurants prior over there. It’s not something that’s going to come out of nowhere and just get plunked down there for the first time. MR. TRAVER-I understand what you’re saying. MR. PILARINOS-How long was the Howard Johnson’s there, and the Seven Steers? I’m sure it’s been there plenty of years. What environmental impact has it had in the community? MR. KREBS-Could we work out something where we could designate where that right turn lane would be? Because see I feel if we put the right turn lane in now, we don’t need the road to go back in to the Mall. MR. PILARINOS-As Tom said, there’s plenty of space to make that right of way. MR. KREBS-Yes, but, Jonathan, I don’t have anything that says the State will allow you to do that. MR. LAPPER-Well, that would always be the State’s call. It’s their road. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think, Don, if we go in the direction of, and Keith correct me if I’m wrong, but if we go in the direction of updating the EIS, that whole whether or not that’s needed and the connector road and so on would be re-assessed. Correct? In the context of this. MS. RADNER-Correct. You could ask for additional studies of that. MR. TRAVER-So this could end up, in a way, then, this concern about requiring the applicant to build a connector road may be a moot point because the updated EIS might say, in fact, that’s not necessary. MR. LAPPER-But are you talking about an updated traffic study or an updated EIS? That’s a big difference. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I said that, I believe that there are two separate issues here. If we don’t feel strongly or actually one of the causes that you would have to do a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, is if you identified that there is an issue with traffic, for example, and the applicant would have to do a traffic study first to be able to identify that there were significant issues, and that they would have to mitigate those impacts, whatever they happened to be, and then we would ask for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. So it’s not both. MS. RADNER-You might not need both. If you’ve got the traffic study, that alone could tell you, no, there won’t be new or different potential environmental impacts that were not considered in 2001 because again, your charge is to take a hard look at the potential environmental impacts that are different from 2001. 2001 you considered the maximum build out. Then you contemplated. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess I was, perhaps I misunderstood. I was thinking that if we updated the EIS and we specifically identified traffic as the issue, and in fact it would be a traffic study, but it would also bring that EIS up to 2010. If that was the only issue we identified. MR. LAPPER-But that’s a big difference than the whole EIS. MS. RADNER-Right. I think if you identify that the only potential environmental impacts that you, as a Board, identify are to traffic, you could ask for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement limited to traffic impacts. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s what I was thinking. MS. RADNER-I think you could take either approach and it would withstand scrutiny. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So in effect it would be a traffic study, but it would have the effect also of bringing the EIS up to date. MS. RADNER-As to traffic. MR. TRAVER-As to traffic. Gotcha. Okay. MS. RADNER-Right. MR. TRAVER-I mean, that would be a traffic study. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But there’s other concerns, too. There’s whether it fits into the neighborhood and that kind of stuff. MR. TRAVER-Well, those are Site Plan issues, you know, the appearance and so on. Yes, well, that would be, we would resume, my understanding is once we got the updated. MS. RADNER-Those can be SEQRA issues, too, so, you know, I would encourage you not to keep sending the applicant on a ping pong game here. If there are other potential environmental impacts. Now if it’s something like aesthetics and you believe it can be mitigated, then you might want to say, you know, yes, but they’ve already been considered or yes they’re reasonably mitigated by what’s been offered, but I would encourage you not to keep sending the applicant back for one more study, one more study. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely. I agree. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, can I get in on this? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. SIPP-I’ve lived in Queensbury for over 35 years, and I’ve seen it grow and grow and grow, and I think what we’re concerned with here is the impact of more growth in the middle of our Town. As has happened, we’re running out of good land, and we’ve got to be more and more careful as to what we do with what we’ve got left, and I feel that although it is a reasonable project, I don’t like the looks of the outside of the building, with all of the metal, and realizing that this is a pre-designed, pre-built, and everything just comes in pieces and is set up, but I just don’t think it works in connection with what we want this community to look like. MR. TRAVER-Well, the applicant has been quite adamant that they want to preserve that style. Now there’s a couple of different ways I suppose we can go with that. We have landscaping. MR. KREBS-Well, Steve, if you travel around the country, what, I can understand, from a business standpoint, why they want this design, because when I’m traveling and I’m looking for certain type of lunch, I’m not looking for an Adirondack building. I’m looking for a diner. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KREBS-Okay, and that’s what attracts the people to that building. MR. SIPP-Yes, but now we have had pretty good success with the Stewarts, the new Stewarts on Route 9, the looks of it, and the bank on Bay Road, the looks of that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SIPP-So why can’t we have the looks that we want in this community. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there actually was a comment by one of the applicants that, you know, we’ve let this business and that business come into Town without modifying their appearance, and in fact, I think we have. MR. SIPP-We forget about the traffic going west on 254. How does that make a turn into the diner? How does it get into the diner? MR. TRAVER-Right. We heard that in some of the public comment, that it is a concern. MR. SIPP-So there’s more than just looks. We need something there to make the corner look better, that’s not enough. We need some other things. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and, you know, we need to look at this from a couple of points of view, and, yes, I feel pretty strongly about the traffic issue, and the impacts that this development or any development on that corner would have, because any business that goes there will have high volume, and the reason why this application is even in front of us is because the Pyramid Corporation made a decision to subdivide that piece and sell a part out. MR. LAPPER-No, no. It was always a separate parcel. MRS. STEFFAN-But in 2001, they had. MR. LAPPER-No, this has been a separate parcel for 20 years. (lost word) subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-So one of the reasons why you’re here is for Site Plan Review based on a decision that Pyramid Corp. decided to sell the property. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, traffic is an issue, but also design standards are a very big issue, and, yes, we have areas in the Town that are zoned commercial, and there are different standards, but we just went through a process, over the last four years, of re-visiting our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, totally re-written, and then subsequently we re-wrote the Zoning Code. So our Zoning Code has only been adopted for a little over a year now, if only a year. MR. LAPPER-If you’re telling them they can’t build a diner, then they’re just going to leave. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and the design standards are very clear, and it identifies that, for the corridor that you’re looking to build in, the building materials will include, without limitation, brick, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) wood, sand, stone, but then it specifically goes on to say façade colors shall be low reflecting, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. Number the use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colors is prohibited. Number Three, building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary colors, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or accent areas. Absent good cause, predominant exterior building materials, as well as accents, shall not include concrete, tilt up panels, or prefabricated steel panels, and so the brand new Zoning Code tells us that this building design is not acceptable, and, you know, I know that we’ve had some discussions about, you want to go to a diner, you know what they look like, but, according to our Zoning Code that is very specific with these design standards, and very specific for the design standards in that corridor, it’s not okay, and so do we want to go against a brand new Zoning Code that we worked a long time to put together, because we have an opportunity. The other thing the applicant said, and I want to clarify this. You said 40 or 50 jobs, and according to the Long SEQRA form that you provided, it said after the project’s complete there’ll be 10 jobs. MR. PILARINOS-No, no, that’s a mistake. DENNIS PILARINOS MR. PILARINOS-I’m sorry, thank you very much for everything, no. Throw everything in the garbage, and I appreciate you guys. MR. LAPPER-You’re withdrawing? MR. PILARINOS-Yes. That’s it. I’m not going to spend $3 million to be told what to do. I’m sorry. Thank you very much. Everything in the garbage. You guys have got a garbage can back there, throw them in the garbage. MR. TRAVER-Question for Staff. Should we table this application? MR. OBORNE-They withdrew it. MRS. STEFFAN-They withdrew it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s withdrawn. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So we can get rid of our packages? MR. JACKOSKI-You don’t think it’s in the best interest, just, I mean, folks make rash decisions and can’t we just maybe suggest a courtesy to table it, just in case, we certainly don’t want to lose a project, just in case the cool down a little and maybe come back. What does it hurt us to do that? MRS. STEFFAN-We’re going to go through this again? MR. JACKOSKI-I’m saying give them the opportunity, if they can come up with a traffic study, and if they decide that it’s worth it that maybe Pyramid decides to build the ring road, because clearly this message has been sent to Pyramid that for development to happen there, we really want a comprehensive use. MR. OBORNE-I think if they are going to come back, they are, they have the knowledge that t they need to do a traffic study. MR. TRAVER-Right, and I think they got a message with regard to our zoning and our, you know, our looking for design parameters. So, okay, very good, then we’ll consider it withdrawn and perhaps there’ll be further discussion with your office, and we’ll go from there. MR. OBORNE-And we hope so. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we need to vote on that? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MS. RADNER-I believe that’s the only thing you needed me here for. So unless you have any other questions, I will head out the door. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much for your help this evening. Okay. One other item that we would like to adjust, if we can, if we could have the Sherwood Acres Corporation, Subdivision 1-1971. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, there are applicants ahead of that application that we have not reviewed, Ireland and VanGuilder. They’re both Sketch Plans. They should be pretty quick. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And then if you wish, I would suggest you do move Sherwood Acres, and that’s just a suggestion, and knock them out, and then we could focus on the Sicard application and do them right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that suggestion. Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2010 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MAUREEN IRELAND AGENT(S) JON KELLEY COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL OWNER(S) NDC REALTY, INC. ZONING CLI LOCATION 319 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 12.95 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 4 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOTS OF +/- 4.16 AC., 3.94 AC., 2.62 AC., & 2.23 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 6-87 LOT SIZE 12.95 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 JACK KELLEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-I’ll read this into the record. Subdivision 10-2010. Maureen Ireland is the applicant. This is a Sketch Plan subdivision review. Location is 319 Corinth Road. Existing Zoning is Commercial Light Industrial. There’s no SEQRA status at Sketch Plan at this point. Project Description: Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 12.95 +/- acre parcel into four light industrial lots of 4.16, 3.94, 2.62 & 2.23 +/- acres. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to create 4 lots from the existing parcel known as Lot One of Phase I of the Northern Distributing Subdivision. Additional Comments: The applicant will be required to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances associated with the proposed subdivision. The variances appear to mainly deal with side setback issues associated with the existing structures on site. The Planning Board to provide the applicant with general guidance and impart any concerns. I would like to point out that, any cross easements and shared parking should be explored at Preliminary Subdivision review. And with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KELLEY-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, for the record, my name is Jack Kelley and I’m with Coldwell Banker Commercial Prime Properties, and I’m here representing the applicant. Before I go any further, I want to commend your Staff for the help and assistance that they have provided to us, and I welcome this opportunity to be here this evening. This property is an existing parcel of property. Depending on how long you’ve lived in the community, either it’s the Northern Distributing beer warehouse or Saratoga Eagle beer warehouse. Unfortunately they did not leave any of their product behind for me to give samples while I was showing the property, but for a little over a year and a half, the property was on the market with very little interest. It’s basically three separate buildings that have been built over a period of 40 some odd years. We kept on getting requests that could you sell a separate building. So basically the general economy and basic demand for properties of this particular sort, which are the butler style metal buildings, and the owners did keep these buildings in very good repair, fortunately. We do have a contract that has come in on the property on the far western side of the property, and we do have substantial interest on the other two. Basically, the impacts as it relates to traffic, etc. will be less on full utilization of this property from previously, and as Staff has indicated, we do have to go through a myriad of other review processes here before the Town. So there will be a hard look that is taken on this. So with all respect, we request that the Sketch Plan be approved as submitted, and passed on so we can continue the review process, and I’m in a position here this evening to answer any of your questions or take any of your suggestions under review. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and I’ll turn it over to members of the Board for any questions or comments that they may have on this Sketch review? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. KREBS-I just think that subdividing the property is going to get the property into usable form, much quicker than if you hold it as one piece, and I don’t see any real major difference in how it’s going to be used. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and we just recently looked at the site last week and approved one of the. MR. OBORNE-And that is the impetus of this, having talked to Jack about this. It does make it easier to market for his purposes. I mean, he’s already, you know, he’s moving along with that as we speak. MR. KREBS-And it would be nice to have all those buildings filled with active businesses. MR. KELLEY-And also, Mr. Chairman, I believe that under your seven year Site Plan Review, anything that would be coming in here will have to be back before you, and we are anticipating, th if we get our application in on time, to be back September 28 with the person with the firm who has been successful in getting the contract on the property, and they are a fairly substantial entity, good quality, and they will be providing good paying jobs for your community. MR. TRAVER-Good. That’s good to hear. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I thought it was creative and a good idea. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. KELLEY-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2010 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MDR LOCATION 397 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.529 +/- ACRES LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF +/- 2.0 ACRES & 1.529 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. LOT SIZE 3.5 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-53 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 WILLIAM VAN GUILDER, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 11-2010 William VanGuilder. This is a Sketch Plan again, 397 Luzerne Road. Existing zoning is MDR for Moderate Density Residential. There is no parcel history at this point. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to create 2 lots from an existing 3.53 acre parcel that fronts on Luzerne Road. For Lot 1, the applicant proposes to create a 2.0 acre parcel which currently has a mobile home that will be replaced with a single family dwelling fronting on Luzerne Road. For Lot 2, the applicant proposes to create a 1.53 acre parcel to create a residential lot fronting on Luzerne Road. Both lots will be accessed by a shared driveway. Additional Comments: Per §179-4-010B flag lots are not allowed. The applicant will be before the ZBA tomorrow night, I believe. Is that correct? I’ll have to look at that. The applicant has requested a waiver from providing topography for the proposed subdivision. The Zoning Board of Appeals requires a recommendation from the Planning Board prior to Preliminary subdivision review and approval. So right now what is before you is Sketch Plan. Any guidance you may want to give him, please impart, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. VAN GUILDER-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Can you tell us about your project? MR. VAN GUILDER-Absolutely. This is just a 3.5 acre piece of property. It’s dense wood in the back. There’s no productive lumber or anything like that. It’s just a flat, undeveloped parcel. We’re looking at it being very simple. We would like to put a 1400 square foot house on the back lot, with a driveway down the right hand side, which of course we need to ask for relief for. This is going to be our primary residence. We have a residence now in Glens Falls, and even though we have a double lot, it’s not enough space. We just want more room and a little bit more privacy, and hopefully this is going to be the easiest one that’s been in front of you tonight. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s one question I have. Our application protocol, Keith. We’ve got Sketch Plan Review, Open Public Hearing, and SEQRA Review. MR. OBORNE-That’s a mistake. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because we can’t. MR. OBORNE-No. Sketch Plan Review. What should be there under Number Two, would be Preliminary. Once a Preliminary application comes in, then you go through the protocol of opening the public hearing, SEQRA, and then recommendation to the ZBA. That whole process, and Mr. VanGuilder will be meeting in the very near future, that will take a week, Two through Four. So, once we get your indication that you’re okay with the Sketch Plan as is, he’ll move forward with the application and submit those applications. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I was just a little confused. We’ve never done that with Sketch Plan before. Well, certainly the long driveway is a concern, but at the same time when you look at the, you know, the use around it, then I’m not as concerned. It’s definitely a long driveway, but it is a shared access driveway, with the proposed lot in the front. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We had an applicant just recently that sort of mitigated that flag lot issue with the shared driveway concept. MRS. STEFFAN-In the same part of Town, I think. MR. TRAVER-Yes, exactly. You can see the way the lots are out there. Okay. How about other members of the Board, any comments, concerns about the Sketch? MR. KREBS-No, I think it’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-And on the plan, are there 25 foot setbacks in that area? I mean, those are normal setbacks? MR. OBORNE-Thirty front, twenty-five side. Thirty rear. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, twenty-five side. Okay. So then I really don’t have any issues with it myself. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anyone else? Don? MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. VAN GUILDER-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I hope I made it very simple for you. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you again soon. MR. VAN GUILDER-Thank you. MR. STEFFAN-Keith, should we keep these? MR. OBORNE-What are they? MR. TRAVER-Sketch. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would. MRS. STEFFAN-Because they’re stamped. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Did you want to move up Sherwood Acres? MR. TRAVER-Yes, if we could. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. OBORNE-Because that shouldn’t be too long. MR. TRAVER-Yes. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION 8-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SHERWOOD ACRES CORP. AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SHERWOOD ACRES CORP.; SCOTT KUBRICKY, WILLIAM COX ZONING MDR LOCATION 119 & 81 NOTTINGHAM DRIVE, 77-A YORKSHIRE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVERAL BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS IN A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 1- 1971 LOT SIZE 3.29, 2.15 & 0.75 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.8-1-2.1, 29, 20 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Okay. Subdivision 1-1971, Modification. This is for Sherwood Acres Corp. Requested action are modifications to an approved subdivision require Planning Board review and approval. Location or Locations in this case is 81 & 119 Nottingham Drive and 77-A Yorkshire Drive. Existing zoning is MDR. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes several lot line adjustments to the Sherwood Acres Subdivision located east of Tee Hill Road. The requested lot line adjustments are ostensibly to convey lands to existing lot owners for purposes described below, and I’m going to turn it over to the Counsel, here, to describe those, as he has a much better handle on it than I do. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m Michael O’Connor, for the purpose of your record, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicants on this proposal. Basically three property owners who wish to adjust their common boundaries. It has no impact on anyone other than themselves. There’s a lot of swapping going back and th forth. If you look at my letter of April 5, there is A through G of different changes that will take place, but it is all for the benefit of the three property owners, one of whom is Sherwood Acres, Barber. Dan Barber is the principle of Sherwood Acres, or the Kubricky family or the Cox family. It has no impact upon anybody else. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, that seems fairly straightforward. Anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-No. If you have questions, I’ll be glad to answer them. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Mr. Chairman, before we go any further, on the advice of counsel and in the interest of full disclosure, I have used some of the agents, or the agent that this particular applicant has used. I’ve used him in the past. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Members of the Board, do you have questions or comments? MR. KREBS-No. I think the letter was very clear, and it doesn’t impact anybody but the people that are there. I think we should approve it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see there’s a public hearing on this. Are there members of the public hear to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Okay. Hearing none, I’ll close the public hearing. MR. JACKOSKI-We need to take a vote on that. The Chairman said that upon the counsel, they’ve had to do that in the past. MR. TRAVER-To close the public hearing? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that reminder. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUBDIVISION 1-1971 MODIFICATION SHERWOOD ACRES CORP., Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes several boundary line adjustments. Boundary line adjustments in a Planning Board approved subdivision require Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/27/10; and 3)MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUBDIVISION 1-1971 MODIFICATION SHERWOOD ACRES CORP., Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. The public hearing is closed. Any other comments? Let’s see, this is Unlisted SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-And so if we, you know, do we need, it’s a modification. So we can just look at it and if we don’t think that there are any significant environmental impacts, we can just, you know, say that we’ve reconsidered it and don’t have to do a new one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Does someone want to make that motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, we don’t have to make the motion. It can be included in the final. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And since there are no wetlands on the property or anything like that, I think we can be fine with that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1971 MODIFICATION SHERWOOD ACRES CORP., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1)A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes several boundary line adjustments. Boundary line adjustments in a Planning Board approved subdivision require Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/27/10; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1971 MODIFICATION SHERWOOD ACRES CORP., 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 modification and the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been re-considered and the proposed modification does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary. No conditions. 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 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) b)The application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the 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)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 th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you very much. I thank you for moving me up also. My client thanks you for moving me up because then he doesn’t have to pay for me to sit here. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. TABLED ITEM: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008 FWW 1-2010 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE TYPE 1 – REALTY SUBDIVISION MARY C. SICARD AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MARY, MATTHEW, GEORGE, CHARLES, LINDA & MARY L. SICARD ZONING WR, RR LOCATION GLEN LAKE RD. & NACY/JAY RDS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION ON MULTIPLE PARCELS TOTALING 42.38 ACRES ON BOTH THE EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE OF GLEN LAKE ROAD ADJACENT TO GLEN LAKE. FRESHWATER WETLANDS FOR PROPOSED REGULATED ACTIVITY WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. P B TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 20- 09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 16 PARCELS = 42.38 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 SECTION CHAPTER A- 183 TOM JARRETT & DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Quickly, this is, we’re at Preliminary right now. Preliminary subdivision has been submitted. You’re to review this 16 lot subdivision, acknowledge, you’ve already acknowledged the Lead Agency status. Sorry, start over again. Tonight you’re going to acknowledge Lead Agency status, conduct your SEQRA review, and issue a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, if you feel you have the necessary information in front of you. Location is Nacy and Jay Roads, Glen Lake. Existing zoning is bifurcated at Waterfront Residential One Acre and Rural Residential Three Acre. Please be advised that this is subject to the old Cod because this has been in the process prior to the new update. This is a Type I Realty subdivision. A Long Form has been provided. Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide 6 parcels totaling 42.38 acres into 16 lots ranging in size from 0.35 acres to 11 acres in the Waterfront Residential one acre zone adjacent to Glen Lake and the Rural Residential three acre zone to the east of Glen Lake Road. Staff comments: The lots associated with this subdivision vary greatly in topography. On the west side of Glen Lake Road, in the Rural Residential zone, slopes of up to and greater than 25% are prevalent. Although the lands on the east side of Glen Lake Road, within the Waterfront Residential zone, are considerably less steep, slopes of up to and greater than 25% are present. They’re not as common on the east side. Nature of the Variances, I’m certainly not going to go through those. There are quite a few on there. The soils are well drained soils. The vegetative establishment can be difficult. Just real quick, you guys 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) are pretty good on your soils at this point. I do want to just jump down to additional comments and review. For Preliminary subdivision, all scales to be consistent at one to fifty. I believe that the applicant has provided that. Grading and drainage plan should be submitted, and obviously Site Plan Review may, you may want to consider Site Plan Review for the Waterfront lots as a condition of approval. It’s not required, but it may be a wise thing to do, and we do have th Paragon Engineering comments attached, April 15, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and if there are members of the Board who didn’t see your e-mail regarding Lot 10. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. Thank you. Lot 10, Number Two, relief for additional primary dwelling above the one dwelling unit parcel per the Section reference may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. That is not true. I didn’t see that that was actually the changing house or the pool house. I thought it was a primary residence. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thanks. MR. OBORNE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. MANNIX-Good evening. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, and for full disclosure, some of the owners of this particular parcel of property are employees of the Lake George School District which I am a Board member of. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MANNIX-Well, now you’ve saved the best for last. Good evening. My name is Dan Mannix. I’m an attorney with the firm of Muller & Mannix. I represent the Sicard family. With us tonight is Tom Jarrett, I’m sure you’re all familiar with, to my left, and to my right is Mary Sicard, and just behind her is her daughter Lindy and several other members of her family in the audience. By way of a brief review, I know we’ve been here before, some months ago, but for perhaps some of the members that might not have been here. Mary Sicard and her late husband, Charlie, have spent nearly six decades, I think, on Glen Lake. They’ve resided there on the lake and they’ve raised their children there and they’ve made their living there, caring for the property and being good stewards of the land. Well, a few years ago, Mary has gotten up there in her age. She’s decided to do some planning and wants to subdivide the property for a number of different purposes that we’re going to go through tonight, but suffice to say that the plan you have before you is the result of many years of hard work, many meetings with lawyers and engineers and surveyors and neighbors, putting together a responsible plan for this very delicate property. The plan has been worked and re-worked and revised, time and time again, to come up with what you have here, and at a recent family meeting we all sat down to talk about this, and it’s been boiled down so much what you have before you is the maple syrup. It’s as good as it can get, and it really is not, doesn’t make any sense, economically, or to boil it down anymore, and it’s just not feasible for the family. The current proposed subdivision significantly reduces the existing intensity along the lakeshore of Glen Lake. The lakeshore along the Sicard property is currently occupied by a cottage colony with a number of cabins, and upon approval of this subdivision, four of those units will be removed. We’re going to show you some pictures in a little bit, but right now from the lake you can see four cabins. Upon approval of this subdivision, you’ll be able to see two. The lots along the waterfront created as part of this subdivision each contain existing residences, but they may, at some future time, be upgraded with construction of a new residence, and the Town can certainly reserve the right to review the construction through the Site Plan Review process and thus further protect Glen Lake. The subdivision proposed, that you have in front of you along Glen Lake, the Lakeshore Acres section, which is the lakeside, contains seven lots, four of which are going to be transferred to Sicard family members, not to the outside public. The remaining three lots that will be created within the Lakeshore Acres section may be sold outside the family, and the proceeds from those sales are critical to the family. The cost to create the subdivision, pay taxes, and to provide a measure of security for Mary Sicard together dictate that the elimination of a lakeshore lot would be very difficult for them, and actually infeasible. On the flipside, Lot Number Four will generate additional tax revenue for the Town and County, and potentially contribute toward the protection of Glen Lake through those tax dollars, but there’s been some discussion, even in Staff Notes, concerning the number of variances being requested, and we would submit that simply looking at the number of variances that are being requested does not do the project justice. Rather, if you look at the project in its entire scope, the project goes a long ways towards reducing the density along the lake, improving the infrastructure, providing Board oversight of future development, and vastly improving the aesthetics along Glen Lake. A review of the uses along 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) Glen Lake shoreline show that this area is one of the least dense on the lake, and this project, if approved, will further reduce the density. In our submittal of June 16, 2010, we attached a number of photographs, both aerial and shoreline, I’d like to take you through now. Keith can pull them up. MR. JARRETT-These photos that you’re seeing right now are not of the Sicard waterfront. These are elsewhere on Glen Lake. MR. MAGOWAN-Are they still on the same shore, same side of the shore, or are they like on the other side of the lake? MR. JARRETT-They’re scattered all around the lake. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-You’re not painting a very good picture. It’s dense. MR. JARRETT-When you see the Sicard waterfront, it’ll be a stark contrast. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. MR. JARRETT-Now there’s a separate file that shows you, yes. Now these photos will show the waterfront, Sicard waterfront, and you can see from our plans that the trees that show in these photos are to remain. They’re not to be removed. The shoreline setback, in our provisions to the subdivision, call for these trees to remain. MR. MANNIX-Also you note the plan, you’ll see a number of docks. The plan moves some docks and reduces the number of docks. MR. JARRETT-It’s a pretty significant difference in waterfront. MR. MANNIX-Again, further submit that from the shoreline you don’t see the homes back there. If you do, you see four, two of those will be gone upon subdivision approval. So there’ll be one primary residence on each lot on the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-We also received some public comment from a number of individuals, mostly very positive. MR. OBORNE-That was provided by Pam Whiting to help disseminate that for the Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you for that. MR. MANNIX-Also, if we might, Mr. Chairman, one of the members of the family did want to read a letter that Mrs. Sicard, she would admit, has a little bit of trouble hearing, is getting older, so she wanted to have her thoughts put down on paper and have Lindy read it into the record, if that would be appropriate at this time. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MARY SICARD MRS. SICARD-I hated to have him mention my age. MR. TRAVER-Are there any members of the Board who did not get a chance to review the e- mailed public comment? MR. JACKOSKI-I got it. MR. SIPP-I got it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Every one was positive. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We’ve actually not seen them. So I’m glad they’re all positive at least. LINDY SICARD 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MS. SICARD-For the record, my name is Lindy Sicard and I live at Glen Lake. This is a letter that my mom wants me to read. My name is Mary Sicard, and I’m one of the applicant’s before the Town of Queensbury requesting permission for subdivision of my property at Glen Lake. In the 1940’s, and continuously since that time, the property known as Lakeshore Acres, which is adjacent to Glen Lake, has been owned and developed by myself and my late husband Charles O. Sicard. Together my husband Charlie and I acquired a series of parcels of land and well before the creation of any zoning requirements in the Town of Queensbury, we created a cabin colony known as Lakeshore Acres, consisting of independent two bedroom dwellings along the lakeside. Part of the development of Lakeshore Acres included amenities associated with the rental cottages that provided our tenants with lake access, docking, a picnic area, a large indoor recreation building, a large community swimming pool and rowboat rentals. As each of our children who were born and raised at the property attained adulthood, my husband and I were fortunate enough to provide a separate dwelling home for each of our five children to occupy and own independently. In the 1980’s, and pursuant to the requirements of zoning at that time, my husband and I transferred five individual cottages, one to each of our five children. Some of our children, in accordance with the requirements of Town and Building Code, converted their cottage into larger, year round dwellings. Today, although one of our children who resides out of the area occupy Lakeshore Acres as their primary dwelling. Our son Charles son resides out of State, however, he continues to own his single family residence, which he rents to a long term tenant/occupant. Lakeshore Acres was originally designed 59 years ago to rent half of the cottages on a strictly year round basis. The other half was rented on a summer basis to vacationers, followed by rental to school teachers in the Fall to for the school year. The development of Queensbury and the Lake George area after the 1960’s resulted in a business change for our family. Rather than providing some cottages for vacationers, as Glen Lake became more populated with year round dwellings, use of the property as a partial seasonal vacation business became less attractive. Accordingly, my husband and I discontinued weekly rentals and for at least the last three or four decades, we have rented cottages for year round occupancy to long term tenants. Each of the tenants enjoys the amenities of lakefront living, and even since the passing of my husband, I have maintained the property with the amenities for tenants which primarily include lake access, a boat launch, property maintenance and road maintenance. I am now well past the age of most people’s ideal retirement age, and I continue on with the assistance of my adult children as a landlord, with chief responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of multiple cottages to multiple tenants. I provide potable water from private wells, ground maintenance, building maintenance, and because Lakeshore Acres includes a private road, my obligations as a landlord include snowplowing, paving, pothole repair, etc. My plan to subdivide the property has been a longstanding ambition, simply for the intention to make provisions for my grandchildren and my children to continue to live at Lakeshore Acres. I’m advised by my accountant and my attorney that both for reasons of tax planning and estate planning, as well as conformity with the current requirements of individual property ownership which is mandated for bank financing, the remaining original cottages that I own should be described on separate parcels of individual ownership. It would be my intention to create a subdivision for the purpose of ending my obligations as a full time landlord and fulfilling my dream to provide my three grandchildren and my daughter who lives with me separate deeded ownership to an individual parcel with an individual residence. The only way that I may accomplish this is through a combination of individual deeds. I full well realize that the plan for subdivision requires a complete review and thorough understanding by the Town of Queensbury. Through the course of these very long proceedings, it has become apparent that many choices are available for the subdivision of the property, and the best choice would be one that is least offensive to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and properly sensitive to the requirements of the environment, Town Code, and applicable rules and regulations. Over the course of my more than two years, I have been asked to amend my plan, my reduce my plan, do away with several of the cottages, change proposed boundary lines, all in the effort to create the best possible plan worthy of approval. It has been suggested in prior hearings that as an applicant I may be seeking a great deal of zoning relief, and I have not given up enough to be worthy of an approval. I wish to emphasize that I differ with such a remark, and that I have been guided by my attorney and my licensed professional engineer in designing the best possible plan that will encompass the existing cottages and allow the creation of separate ownerships. Within the plan, I have conceded to remove existing structures, including very valuable existing lakefront dwellings, at considerable cost to me, and that their development potential becomes non-existent once they are removed from the property. For each existing dwelling that I’m expected to remove from the property, the actual costs or loss of investment is astronomical. One only need to look at the Town of Queensbury’s assessment records and it is easily ascertainable that there is no lakefront dwelling on the shore of Glen Lake, even in the poorest location and even the least desirable location, that has a fair market value less than $300,000. So when I’m asked to abandon an existing dwelling and remove it in order to gain support for my subdivision proposal, each dwelling at a minimum results in a $300,000 loss. Within reason, I have accepted Board proposals to remove a dwelling, at considerable expense, and each time the Board asked for another, and then another. The question becomes, is this really reasonable 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) and fair to mandate that I lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to merely draw a lawful subdivision lot line between existing residences to achieve the result sought? I truly believe that the plan proposed has given substantial consideration to all feasible alternatives, and within reasons, those structures that are shown in the plan for removal should be considered more than enough to constitute an approvable plan. Much concern has been expressed and considerable speculation has been noted as to how many of the remaining dwellings might be improved in the future. My plan for subdivision clearly provides that any future improvement, expansion or change in the pre-existing, nonconforming structure would require a Site Plan Review and, where appropriate, application for a variance. It seems most reasonable that we not speculate on where a future owner of an existing dwelling might consider expansion or replacement. I would suggest that those issues are more realistically left to a future applicant with real facts and actual figures. For the present, I plan no expansion or addition to any pre- existing nonconforming dwelling. I would like to comment on the point that a large part of the subdivision application includes the creation of conforming residential lots on the opposite side of Glen Lake Road for the construction of single family dwellings. The parcel in question was originally owned by my husband and me and many years ago, for tax planning purposes, we transferred ownerships to our adult children. Again, this is part of an overall plan to develop property in the most conforming manner to the existing Code and it is worthy of approval as presented. I ask that the Board, in consideration of this application, set their minds at ease that I am not insensitive to the requirements of the current Zoning Code in the Town of Queensbury. I’ve lived most of my entire lifetime at Lakeshore Acres. Perhaps it is fair to say that myself and my family have the greatest interests in protecting the future development of Lakeshore Acres, above and beyond any administrative concerns of the Town of Queensbury. I would very much appreciate it if each and every member of the Board would take a very fresh and honest look at this project. This is not a subdivision that will be offensive to the development of the area of Glen Lake. As you are aware, many neighbors have written in support of the project. It will remain consistent, if not better, than what presently surrounds the lake. Taken in the light of which I ask that being a fair and impartial hearing on the merits of the application, I would ask that you approve the relief that I seek as presented by my attorney and my engineer. I thank you for my time and consideration. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MS. SICARD-Mom’s long-winded. MR. JARRETT-I’d like to take the opportunity to clarify something. There’s some misconceptions out there in the press, and maybe even amongst Board members who’ve not been a party to this process all the way along. We are reducing the density of development along the lakeshore. Lakeshore acres right now, or those parcels along the lakeshore have 11 dwelling units as part of this project, and we’re adding, we’re actually subtracting, I’m going to confuse myself here. We’re going to end up with 16 in the end, and we’re increasing five over all, but we’re reducing the density by four on the lakeside. So, the lakeside is actually decreasing in density. We’re ending up with 16 residential units overall between the two sides of the road, and there’s a lot of confusion out there, and the press didn’t help it with some articles that threw out extra numbers. MR. TRAVER-Tom, one of the questions that I had when I looked at this, and I know that one of our chores for this evening is SEQRA review, and I noted that there were quite a number of engineering issues relating to stormwater, various things like that, and I just was concerned about the impact that those outstanding issues might have on our ability to conduct SEQRA. MR. JARRETT-We actually had addressed a number of those, I believe, since that application, and I think if you look at those questions, most of them were pretty minor, to be honest with you. It’s up to the Board. I understand it’s a confusing project, and we certainly don’t want to rush you through anything that you feel uncomfortable with, but we felt we had addressed the major engineering issues with Staff, and I think the questions that might still be outstanding are pretty minor in nature. A number of questions that came up in engineering were, and they were raised by the engineer as well as Staff, were driveways and houses in the, on the western side of the road, that were in steep slope areas, but in reality, there were a few spots where we did encroach with driveways and we’ve moved those since then. So they’re off those steep slope areas, but we’re only showing hypothetical development anyway. It’s only showing that the lot is buildable, and in reality, then, an applicant could come in with whatever plan they feel appropriate to either the Building Department or this Board as you decide. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anything else? MR. JARRETT-I think we would like to open it up to the Board and answer your questions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Members of the Board, do you have questions, comments at this point? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve seen this application lots of times, and we’ve made a lot of comment on it, and it’s changed a lot. MR. OBORNE-And for the record, the applicant has actually only been to one meeting that has been, and that was Sketch Plan. The other meetings that the applicant was before the Boards were for general discussion, which is wise, to get in front of everything. So this is really only the second actual scheduled meeting. MR. JARRETT-We unofficially introduced it to you back many, many months ago, and then we’ve been in front of you with the official meeting since that, as Keith said. MRS. STEFFAN-And you’ve incorporated a lot of the recommendations from those conversations. MR. JARRETT-We believe we have, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. KREBS-And the fact that they’re reducing the density is a very positive thing for the lake. MRS. STEFFAN-Certainly the photo presentation was very compelling. MR. JARRETT-It was actually startling for us to take those photos and look at them. MRS. STEFFAN-Very different. MR. MANNIX-That just brings home the point I was trying to make in our opening is that the, to look at the sheer number of variances just doesn’t, I don’t think is fair to the project or the proposal because the whole scope of the project is an excellent project, and if you look at the variances, I look at the subdivision as really just drawing lot lines where homes already exist and reduce the density as well. I don’t see any downsides to it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We also have, on this application, I believe we have a public hearing as well. Are there folks in the audience that wanted to address this application? Yes, sir. Please go ahead and state your name at the microphone, if you would. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVE DUTRA MR. DUTRA-Just a quick comment. I’m Dave Dutra. I live on Nacy Road, and I’m 100% in favor of this project going on. I just wanted to get that out in the open. I didn’t get my letter in to you, so I came in person to tell you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes, sir. MARK DURANT MR. DURANT-My name is Mark Durant. I’m a neighbor to the Sicards. I’m in favor of the subdivision. You stole my thunder regarding the photos, because I wanted to get up here and say, you know, those pictures are worth a thousand words, and everybody’s talking about reducing the density, and it’s a fantastic area, and in looking at the plan and the changes, it’s just going to be beautiful if they’re allowed to go ahead and do this, and as a neighbor, a resident who lives there, I look forward to the changes that are proposed, and it’s a lovely project and I just wanted to, you know, be here in support and let the Board know that I fully agree, as a resident, that it’s something that should move ahead and it’s a great opportunity for the shoreline in the area. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that comment. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) BILL MANSMANN MR. MANSMANN-Good evening. My name is Bill Mansmann and I live at 19 Chestnut Road, and I’m also a resident of Glen Lake, and my house was on there as one of the one’s that’s on top of another house, and another house on top of ours. I also want to speak in favor of this subdivision. Certainly your reaction to what the Sicard’s property looks like, where the subdivision would take place, and reducing the number of homes that front Glen Lake would certainly be very beneficial. Their subdivision is certainly going to accomplish more than what the acreages were for all those homes, mine is just under a quarter of an acre, and so are the properties all along the western edge of Glen Lake from the Docksider all the way to where the Casino used to be. So, I think that it would be an improvement in terms of what’s there, and I certainly hope that you take that into consideration and see favor upon this application. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. Good evening. CHRISTINE SAWYER MS. SAWYER-Good evening. I’m Christine Sawyer. I don’t live on Glen Lake, but I live in the Town of Queensbury off Tee Hill Road. I have known the Sicard family for many years. I have enjoyed the beauty of Glen Lake because of them, and I am very confident that any development or proposal that they would propose would further the integrity of the lake. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that comment. Anyone else? MR. OBORNE-I have some public comment here. Thirty-eight public comments that we’ve received over time. The vast majority were today. Everything is favorable. I have not found any negative comments from this, and they pretty much all have standing based on the addresses provided. So if you want me to read every single one in, I shall. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, if you’re characterizing them as largely favorable and you didn’t, as you scanned them, you didn’t identify any particularly, you know, any concerns that might be raised with regards to SEQRA or whatever, then I think if they’re just made part of the record. MR. OBORNE-No, they were all positive. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-What a pleasant experience to have a lakefront development, all these positive comments. It’s so different than what we’re used to. MR. TRAVER-Any follow up questions or comments from other members of the Board? MR. SIPP-Only mine would be a little technical. Of the four, you’re going to remove four residences only. Are the septic systems going to be removed? MR. JARRETT-The four we’re talking about are four that are permanently removed. There may be additional replaced in the future, with up to date structures, and I hope that became clear when you looked through the application, but the septics will be removed as those structures a removed, yes. MR. SIPP-And the new buildings will have an up to date? MR. JARRETT-Yes, stormwater and wastewater. MR. SIPP-And there will be buffers on parcels that don’t have them, buffers put in? MR. JARRETT-Well, the lakeside trees are going to remain. So that buffer remains. MR. TRAVER-In addition to that, we can consider Site Plan Review for development on those sites as well. MR. JARRETT-If you wish, that’s right. We anticipated, based on our prior conversations, that you may do that, and we don’t oppose that. We support that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anyone else? Do people feel that we can proceed with the SEQRA? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. TRAVER-Okay. No concerns with regards to that? Very good. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, first I’ll make a resolution acknowledging Lead Agency status. MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 AND SUBDIVISION 13-2008 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2010 MARY C. SICARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, in connection with the Sander project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that the other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury being lead agent; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQR review; and MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 AND SUBDIVISION 13-2008 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-2010 MARY C. SICARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-And I guess at this point it would be appropriate to entertain a motion to close the public hearing? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we’re going to be doing Site Plan Review on this. MR. TRAVER-Not yet? MR. OBORNE-I would keep it open. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-You haven’t completed Preliminary. You’ll either now, after your acknowledgement of Lead Agency, is to do your SEQRA and issue your recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We have to come back and see you again. MR. TRAVER-Right. Of course. We wouldn’t miss it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Mitigated by future Site Plan Review. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Small to moderate impacts, potentially large? MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate. MR. JACKOSKI-Small to moderate. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate. Okay. Number Two, Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. TRAVER-No. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. JACKOSKI-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. TRAVER-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. 13-2008 1-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MARY C. SICARD, 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 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) 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. th Duly adopted this 27 day of, July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So what do we want to say to the Zoning Board? MR. JACKOSKI-Make a positive recommendation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just a positive recommendation. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, perhaps we could summarize it by saying that the relief sought is reasonable in the context of the longstanding ownership of the property, and the general improvements that will be created. Something like that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 MARY C. SICARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 MARY C. SICARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application, as well as the potential impacts of the project on the neighborhood and surrounding community and the Planning Board makes a positive recommendation on this project to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the relief sought. We feel that it’s reasonable. Other factors, the ownership of the property has been longstanding, and the owners have demonstrated stewardship in protecting Glen Lake waterfront vegetation. th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 07/20/2010) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you soon. MR. KREBS-I’ll tell you one thing, this was a very good document. When I reviewed this today, it was excellent. Gave you a real good perspective of what you were looking at. MR. TRAVER-And we very much enjoyed Mrs. Sicard’s letter as well. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Keith, any outstanding issues we need to address? MR. OBORNE-No, not yet. The one thing would be the public comment procedure. You guys may want to deal with that. We’re good for now with the resolution we did last week, but eventually you’re going to want to get your arms around that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, right now we have, we’re approving that as long as it’s in a letter format. That was the concern that I had was that if we, unless we clarify the format, and people are going to say, well, I want to submit a VHS and DVD, and, you know, set all these precedents. So, yes, we need to, but we’re okay for now, restricting it to? Yes, okay. Maybe that’s something that an ad hoc committee could address at some point. If there’s no other business before the Board, I guess we can entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JULY 27, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Acting Chairman 39