Loading...
2010.09.21 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 INDEX Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II 1. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. Site Plan No. 14-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson 2. TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23 Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 2. TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11 Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 3. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 61-2010 David & Tanya Bruno 4. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 228.-1-85 Subdivision No. 11-2010 William J. VanGuilder 6. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.11-1-53 Subdivision No. 10-2010 Maureen Ireland 18. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4 Site Plan No. 59-2010 Tom Wessling & Roger Brown 22. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 296.17-1-50 Site Plan No. 60-2010 Stewarts Shops 31. MODIFICATION TO SP 8-07 Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61 Site Plan No. 54-2010 Elizabeth Miller 38. Tax Map No. 290.5-1-48 Site Plan No. 53-2010 Bob Pilarinos; Dennis Pilarinos 43. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-97 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD DONALD KREBS PAUL SCHONEWOLF LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, September 21, 2010. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from July thth 20 and July 27, 2010. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 20, 2010 July 27, 2010 TH MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JULY 20 TH AND JULY 27, 2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 48-2008: NPA II: REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO 10/20/2011 [APPROVED 10/20/09] MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, did you have anything to add to that request? MR. OBORNE-No, I don’t, but counsel is here for NPA if he has anything to add. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-I’ll answer any questions. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the documentation’s pretty straightforward. MR. TRAVER-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-And we spent a lot of time on that Site Plan. So I think we should grant the extension. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to move it? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA, II, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Site Plan 48-2008 NPA II received approved on October 20, 2009; and The approval is good for one year to October 20, 2010; and The applicant’s agent is requesting a one year extension to October 20, 2011; and MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA, II, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SP 14-2010: STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, have they been before the ZBA yet? MR. OBORNE-They have been before the ZBA. They were tabled pending revisions. So at this point we need to table them until December. MR. HUNSINGER-So they need to go back to the ZBA? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. st MRS. STEFFAN-All right. Then we’ll do the 21. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Site Plan 14-2010 was tabled to 9/21/2010; and th The ZBA has tabled Area Variance 9-2010 to their October 27 meeting; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: st According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We’re going to table this to the December 21 Planning Board meeting. st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SUB 13-2007: JOHN FEDOROWICZ: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested a table until October. MR. OBORNE-No. They should be on at the end of the month. th MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. September 30. th MR. HUNSINGER-September 30. Sorry. They’re on the agenda. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought so. MR. HUNSINGER-I was jumping ahead to the next one. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 10.14 acre parcel into 2 residential lots of 3.7 and 6.44 acres. Subdivision of land requires review and approval by the Planning Board. See Return on Appeal dated 10/9/09. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 2/19/08, 4/22/08, 6/17/08, 7/22/08, 9/16/08, 12/16/08, 2/19/09, 3/24/09, 5/18/10; and The application was tabled to 9/21/10 pending a court decision; and A decision was made by Judge Krogmann on 8/17/10; and MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled to the September 30 Planning Board meeting. st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 SEQR TYPE II INWALD ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK ACCESSED BY HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP ABOVE TWO EXISTING DOCKS. AREA VARIANCE: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE > 100 SQUARE FEET WITHIN SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 45-2010, AV 26-10, AV 68-08, SP 38-08, BP 09-384 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION § 179-5-060 MR. HUNSINGER-For all of the next items there are public hearings scheduled. In the back of the room there is an information sheet on how the public hearings are conducted. Anyone wishing to address the Board, I would suggest that you take a look at that if you’re not familiar with the process. Our first item, Inwald Enterprises, has also requested to be tabled until th October 19. MR. OBORNE-Did you want an explanation, ma’am? MRS. STEFFAN-Just exploring alternatives, I’m assuming. MR. OBORNE-That’s the explanation. MRS. STEFFAN-They want to look at other options. So I guess I’ll make a resolution. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with sundeck accessed by handicap access ramp above two existing docks. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th At their request. Tabled to the October 19 Planning Board meeting. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2010 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & TANYA BRUNO OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-5 LOCATION 119 GURNEY LANE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT IS CONDUCTING AN UNAPPROVED AGRICULTURAL USE. SITE PLAN: AGRICULTURAL USE IN THE RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: LOT SIZE & FRONT SETBACK RELIEF. FURTHER RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS A WELL AS MINIMUM PARKING SPACE SIZE AND DRIVE AISLE WIDTHS. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 51- 10, AV 82-03, SB 8-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 2.89 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 228.-1-85 SECTION 179-9 DAVID & TANYA BRUNO, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 61-2010 and Area Variance No. 51-2010 for David and Tanya Bruno. Requested action is recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 119 Gurney Lane. Existing zoning is RR-5, Rural Residential. What follows is parcel history. Project Description: Applicant is conducting an agricultural use, the raising of poultry on a 2.95 acre parcel adjacent to Gurney Lane. Agricultural use in the RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: Relief requested from minimum lot size and property line setback requirements for the raising of poultry. The Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The nature of the variance is and are as follows: Lot Size: Applicant requests 2.05 acres of relief from the 5 acres minimum as per § 179-5-040. Property line setback: Applicant requests 15.3 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum setback requirement as per § 179-5-040. The applicant, you may want to consider this at Site Plan Review, has requested waivers from landscaping, grading, lighting, stormwater and scale requirements. with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MRS. BRUNO-Not really. I mean, as you, I think, all know, we had turned in a challenge to the Zoning Administrator a few months back. The day that I had turned in the letter refuting, thinking that we were in compliance because of a phone call back when we first moved into the house, when I turned that paperwork in to, let me back up a little bit. I turned in a letter to Craig stating that we had already been told that things were in compliance. The day that I brought that down, Bruce Frank showed me the, I think it was 1980 zoning, and we had actually been mislead, but we still went through the process with the Zoning Board a few months back or so. So that’s one thing that I just wanted to add. Also, initially the project came up because it was reported or the question was asked of the Community Development office if we were in compliance. We were told that it had been a phone call, an anonymous phone call from a neighbor. We have since talked to everyone in our area. Most people approached us, and I do have to ask, if we can just have it on the record, since Gretchen is the only person that I didn’t speak with, if you can just offer to the record that you were or were not, because if you were the person who had called, I think we need to be recused. Just for formality. MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. No, I did not make any phone calls. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. That was my suspicion, but I had to do it out of, like I said, out of formality. MRS. STEFFAN-No problem. MR. TRAVER-Hi, Tanya. From your application, it does not appear that this is, in any way, commercial operation, that these are essentially pets that you’ve had for a number of years. I’m sorry, how many chickens are involved? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MRS. BRUNO-How many do we have, around 20 now? Fifteen. Yes. The winter sometimes takes them out. We had one fox come around, that type of thing. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but you’re not selling the eggs. I read in your material that you donate them and obviously eat them yourself. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. As a matter of fact, we’ve had some people offer us money, and we said, no, just take them. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. BRUNO-It’s the same with our apples. MR. TRAVER-So it’s essentially as a pet that happens to lay eggs that you can take advantage of. It’s really an extension of your home, your household. Correct? MRS. BRUNO-But you don’t want to hug them. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Thanks. That’s all I had. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. SIPP-Is there a rooster amongst this? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s what I was going to ask. MRS. BRUNO-We have one rooster. He was part of that, when you buy two dozen you get a free chicken, and then there are a couple of the smaller chickens that cannot be sexed when they’re that small. So we have a couple of smaller ones. MR. SIPP-Nobody has complained about being awakened early? MRS. BRUNO-No. As a matter of fact, our neighbors next door, who are the only ones within hearing distance, have two young girls, and the letter from them is in the packet, but they actually said, Kate actually said that there was one afternoon they were outside playing, and the rooster stopped crowing, and the little girl asked, you know, she was imitating why did it, you know, where’s the cock-a-doodle-do. So they’re enjoying, people stop from the park and sit and watch. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no other questions, I will entertain a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I’ll put forward the resolution. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2010 DAVID AND TANYA BRUNO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Whereas, an application has been submitted for: Applicant is conducting an unapproved agricultural use. Site Plan: Agricultural use in the RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from minimum lot size and property line setback requirements for the raising of poultry. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: 1.The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 21st day of September 2010 by the following vote: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thanks. See you Thursday. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Thursday, right? th MRS. STEFFAN-The 30. th MR. KREBS-The 30. MRS. BRUNO-That’s next week. I’m ahead of myself. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 397 LUZERNE ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.529 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 2 LOTS OF +/- 2.0 ACRES & 1.529 ACRES. SUBDIVISION: SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: SITE SETBACK, LOT SIZE & ROAD FRONTAGE RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 50-10 LOT SIZE 3.5 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-53 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 WILLIAM VAN GUILDER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Subdivision 11-2010 and Area Variance 50-2010 for William Van Guilder. Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding communities. Location is 397 Luzerne Road. This is in the MDR, or Moderate Density Residential district. This is an Unlisted SEQRA status. A Long Form has been submitted. Parcel History follows. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.529 +/- acre lot into 2 lots of +/- 2.0 acres & 1.53 acres. Staff Comments: Planning Board may conduct SEQR review and provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Shared access off of Luzerne Road is proposed. Nature of the Area Variance: Both lots will require Area Variances as follows: Lot size: Request for 0.47 acres of relief from the 2.0 acre minimum lot size requirement per § 179-3-040 for Lot 2. Road frontage: Request for 50 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum road frontage requirement per § 179-3-040 for Lot 2. Note: This proposal calls for a shared access drive. Side setback: Request for 18 feet 4 inches west sideline setback relief for existing frame garage on Lot 1. Relief from the flag lot configuration for both lots as per § 179-4-010B(1)(b). Additional comments were basically stated before. For SEQR purposes, we have a Long Form for this, if you’re ready to do that. With that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. VAN GUILDER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else that you’d like to add? MR. VAN GUILDER-I believe the map that you have, I can see several of you looking at it, is quite detailed. I don’t think that there’s an awful lot that I need to add on there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I should have asked you to identify yourself for the record first. I’m sorry. MR. VAN GUILDER-Okay. William VanGuilder. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? We didn’t see this for Sketch Plan Review did we? MR. VAN GUILDER-Yes, you did. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we’ve seen it before. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It was the meeting I wasn’t here, then. My apologies. MR. VAN GUILDER-Correct. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. KREBS-Well, my only comment is that I think having only one access to the road is very good, and the lot sizes, even though they may be smaller, are very much the same as what else is in the area. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s what I looked at. The two lots, two acre lot in the front of course meets the criteria for the zone. The lot in the back, at an acre and a half, looks a little small proportionately, but it does fit with the existing character. MR. TRAVER-And the shared drive mitigates the flag lot issue to some degree. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. VAN GUILDER-The two acres in the front was intentional so that we didn’t run into a problem. It is two acre zoning now, so this way, and later on in time, if anyone, or myself, want to build on that, then there’s no hang up, or hopefully none. MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t have any other questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. FORD-I have none. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled on this. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We do have a couple of people who want to comment. Yes, sir. Why don’t you come on up. I would ask that anyone wishing to address the Board identify themselves for the record. We do tape the meeting, and then that tape is used to transcribe the minutes. So I would ask that you speak clearly into the microphone. If you have questions of the applicant, direct them to the Board, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SCOTT ROWLAND MR. ROWLAND-My name is Scott Rowland. I’m the brother of the gentleman that owns American Way. I’m kind of concerned about the driveway coming up the west side of the property there. We just put a lot of money into that property on American Way there. We’re concerned with putting a driveway up that side, if it would be right to the back of our property that we have there now, and, you know, like I said, we’ve put a lot of money into that, figuring he couldn’t subdivide that because it is a two acre subdivision, and of course we’re against it. If you have any questions for me. That’s pretty much all I’ve got to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KREBS-I have a question. Is it your intention, though, to keep the tree buffer along the side of the road? I’m saying on your property. There’s a tree buffer that would be right next to that roadway. MR. ROWLAND-No, he owns all the trees. MR. KREBS-He owns all? Okay. I guess I’ve got to look at the drawing again, then. MR. ROWLAND-We own the four properties right there, three properties, one, two, three. This is my brother Dan. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) DANIEL HUNT MR. HUNT-Good evening. I’m Daniel Hunt. I live adjacent to the property that we’re discussing. Where are we at? MR. ROWLAND-I told them we were concerned with the roadway going up the west side of this property? MR. HUNT-Yes. I’m very concerned with the driveway being in that position, based on the fact that my property, and this really isn’t a good picture because there’s another house out back farther. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ROWLAND-Yes, there is another house, that’s not on that map. MR. HUNT-But where they propose to put the driveway is 20 feet off the property line, and my properties basically are now, prior to me buying the property, were cleared back to the property line from the previous owner. So if they’ve cleared the lot that they want to clear, that 20 feet all the way in, it’s going to basically take away any type of privacy I had whatsoever, period. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’re on the parcel that has the indicator on it on the screen, that parcel? MR. HUNT-Yes. That’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s all clear now. MR. ROWLAND-And there’s another house there, yes. MR. HUNT-No, it’s not all clear, but there is a house, if you move the hand up just a little bit, that’s a house, right there, and then the woods have been cleared a little bit further, and then south of there, there is another new house which I live in right now. MR. OBORNE-On this parcel right here? MR. HUNT-That’s correct. MR. OBORNE-These two houses on one parcel? MR. HUNT-No, no, that’s three separate deeds there. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNT-Yes, that’s all separate deeds. Like I said, that map doesn’t, that doesn’t depict the current. MR. OBORNE-It’s an older photo. MR. HUNT-That’s correct, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So that lot must have been subdivided into a couple of. MR. HUNT-No. It was never subdivided. Way back, that’s how it was always, it was always that way. There was three separate deeds, as far back as I know. That’s how I purchased the property 11 years ago. Yes. I’ve never subdivided the property. It was just like that, is how I bought it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUNT-Which is how I was able to put three houses in there, because they were already divided. I didn’t really have to do anything. So, again, my biggest concern is the location of the driveway coming in on the west side of Mr. Van Guilder’s property because it’s just going to take all those woods out of there, and, right next to the 20 feet, the 20 foot strip which he proposes to put the driveway, just east of that, there’s also another probably 15 foot strip of woods that’s missing where they’ve always had a path down through there. So that’s going to open it up even further to like 40 feet, 35 to 40 feet. So that’s really going to take away from any type of privacy that I have now, and my biggest concern on the whole project is, I don’t know if any of you have driven by here, but it’s a very nice property. It’s all blacktop driveways. Sprinkler systems, green grass, beautiful from one end to the other, from Luzerne Road all the way out it’s 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) gorgeous, and right now I’m in the process of trying to sell one of the homes, the second one in, and my thoughts are, if he goes in there and starts cutting a road in there and taking the woods down, that’s going to dramatically reduce the salability of that home, and maybe even the farthest one out as well, and any of them, in fact, all of them. MR. FORD-What is your setback from your line, the property line, to your house? MR. HUNT-Which homes, sir, which ones? MR. FORD-Any of them, all of them. MR. HUNT-The minimum would be like 60 feet. MR. FORD-So you’ve got 60 feet from the back of the house to the property line. MR. HUNT-Correct. MR. FORD-And then an additional 20 feet to the driveway? MR. HUNT-No. No, sir. From my driveway? MR. FORD-No, to the driveway you’re concerned about. MR. ROWLAND-He’s going to put the driveway right on the property line. MR. HUNT-Yes. They want to put the driveway right on the red, the left side of that marking or that spot, they want to put it right on that left side, which is the west side, 20 feet. They want to take a 20 foot swath. MR. FORD-And that would be within 60 feet of the back of at least one of the houses? MR. HUNT-Correct. Absolutely, and closer, probably. MR. ROWLAND-It would be right on top of (lost words). MR. HUNT-Yes, definitely. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNT-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNT-You’re welcome. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wants to address the Board? Yes, ma’am. Good evening. AMY BRADWAY MRS. BRADWAY-Hello. My name’s Amy Bradway. I live off Sanders Road, where he’s proposed, I’m directly behind that, and my husband and I were just concerned about like the privacy and taking down all those trees and there’s a lot of wildlife out there, and that’s going to be completely cleared away if they take down. It’s really quiet and private right now, and that was our primary concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BRADWAY-We live on Sanders Road. My husband owns the property, Jason Bradway, but he’s currently deployed. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BRADWAY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. MELISSA ST. JOHN 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MS. ST. JOHN-I’m Melissa St. John. I live at 405 Luzerne Road. It’s actually right there next to, right there. I’m actually concerned, I’m in the process of selling the property, and I’m concerned that it will put the value, effect the value of the house, having a driveway right next to my driveway. It would come up right along the side of my fencing, and everything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MS. ST. JOHN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. NANCY NICHOLSON MS. NICHOLSON-I live there. My name is Nancy Nicholson, and I live on the house on the other side, and I’ve been a neighbor of Bill’s father for years, since I bought mine, and, to tell you the truth, I can already see lights from American Way. So, you know, as far as keeping it private and stuff, there’s been already some clearings and stuff, and I don’t see what’s wrong with him coming up with a driveway, and if American Way was created just only the past few years, and they were able to build those houses and clear cut all those trees, so why doesn’t Bill have a right to go out and build one house on the back of his property? That’s the point I want to make. As far as the house that’s been up for sale, that’s already pretty close to the driveway that there is right now. There’s not that many trees there and so it’s not, you know, having the driveway go back from there or around there isn’t going to make much of a difference, all right, as far as the person selling the house, the small house next door. I guess my biggest opinion, again, is if American Way can clear out all those trees there and build all those houses, then why can’t Bill put one house on the back of his property for his son? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. NICK NICHOLSON MR. NICHOLSON-I’m Nick Nicholson. I live across the street. They’re both good neighbors, but Billy never complained when he was doing all of his work, and so I just don’t understand it. Billy’s just applying for his son to have a place there. He’s got the land for it. The driveway’s going to be on his property. So it’s just like the big driveway that Danny put in. It’s a nice driveway, like he says, but, you know, he put that in on his property, and nobody up my way that I know of objects. None of us, we all live all around him, objected to it. Do you know what I mean? MS. NICHOLSON-I mean, when I go out back, I can already see the lights on one of those houses on American Way. So it’s not like a ton of trees there that are going to be cleared. Some of them have already been cleared and I can already see the lights on . So it’s, you know, I mean, it’s not that it’s going to be that much private if he doesn’t build it. MR. NICHOLSON-Actually one house behind her house, there’s no trees at all. MS. NICHOLSON-Right. MR. NICHOLSON-None. MS. NICHOLSON-Because more of those trees have been cut down since that photo. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MR. HUNT-Can I come back up? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, if it’s quick. MR. HUNT-Dan Hunt again, 31 American Way. I just want to make it clear. I’m not opposed to Bill building a home out in, on his property. I’m opposed to the location of the driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUNT-So my suggestion is if Mrs. Nicholson is not opposed to Bill building a home out there, then it would make more sense to put the driveway over on the east side of the driveway. So it would be on her side. Because that makes more sense anyway, because if you look at the way the land is configured, the driveway would make more sense on the east side, coming straight in, because he had indicated to me that he wanted to keep the whole home on the east side of this property anyway. So that’s my biggest concern is the driveway. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Can I ask you a question? How long ago did you build the houses on American Way? MR. HUNT-I built the one I currently live in now, I got a CO about a year ago, and the second one in about five years ago, and the first one in was built back in the 70’s, and I want to add to all that, what I did on American Way, again, there was three separate deeds from Day One. I didn’t get a subdivision. I didn’t have to apply for any variances, nothing, and, Number Two, my driveway affects nobody. If you look at it, it runs parallel with the National Grid power lines. It doesn’t reduce anybody’s property values, nothing. It has no effect on anything. MR. KREBS-No. My reason for asking that question is that we would, today, require, on every one of those lots, that you keep a portion of the back of that lot forested so that you would have that privacy. The fact that you’ve completely cleared those lots makes it. MR. HUNT-I need to clarify that as well, then. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNT-They’re not completely cleared in any way, shape or form. If you were to look at a current survey map you would see exactly the way they are. In fact, I have the plot plans at home. I should have brought them. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNT-Yes. Okay. Thanks again. MS. NICHOLSON-Nancy Nicholson again, and which side he puts the driveway really is, you know, it’s up to Bill and how much, financially, he can afford it and where he wants to put the house. I still think he has the right to put the house on his property, as he was able to put all those houses on those separate properties, that’s fine, and as far as the sprinkler systems go, they just went in a few months ago. So it’s not like he’s had them there the whole time. I just saw the sprinkler system go in this summer with the flowers and things like that, but a lot of those trees, I mean, it’s pretty much, you’d have to see an updated map, but a lot of those trees are already gone, especially near the American Way. So, in some ways that would be a better place for the driveway since it would be better to keep the trees consolidated together, especially if the person on Saunders Road wants the trees for the animals and for the natural beauty of it. It would be better to keep the driveway where Bill has it proposed, so that you have all the clearing on one side. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any follow up questions or comments from the Board? MR. VAN GUILDER-I’d like to offer a little bit of clarification if I could, first. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MR. VAN GUILDER-To the first one that’s bordering the property on Saunders Road, if you could bring it up, to the very back, they’re concerned about privacy. I intend to completely leave that wooded back there. I’m clearing as little as possible. I want the buffer as much as anyone. This is the main reason. I mean, we have a house now. We choose to come here now because we want the privacy and we want the buffer. So the one on the property on the back shouldn’t matter at all. In fact, one of the owners in the back clear cut, and you’ll see it on the map, clear cut a good 30 feet of our property, and took care of the, and there’s also no stake in the ground any longer. So, if somebody was concerned about privacy, they would have left the trees that were there, which was on our property. The other, with the driveway, we proposed it on this side the way that it is now. The other side was considered, but it’s not really an option. That has very nice oak trees down to the side. There’s also a septic in the back from the first property. So that would really take some navigating, as far as around the septic. The other thing is we have the line with Nancy. She bought the house as is like that. The current, the previous owner had built over the line. So that’s something that we’ll correct later on, and we’ve talked and discussed about that. So I don’t want to put a driveway there and then have to shift lines later on. The other, and the main reason why we want to put the driveway on the side, is because the trees, they’re just not good. They’re very scrubby pine trees. They look horrible. They kill the grass. They’re very acidic. They offer no value. It’s just a dirty side of the property. By getting rid of all those pine trees and putting an access road there, and, I mean, we can put buffer trees up later on, but that takes care of the front. Now as it gets in back, there’s a garage, and then it 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) starts getting closer to Mr. Hunt’s property. Everything in there is very bad, too. There’s a lot of popals that are just very, very tall and they’re weak. We’ve seen some of them break off in half. Now it could come back onto our garage or it could come down into one of his properties, leaving me liable for that. So I’d rather clean that up and get rid of it as we can. We’re putting a single family home in. It’s not a ridiculous amount of traffic. You’re talking about two cars that’ll be coming in there twice a day, you know, mine and hers. As far as having a buffer in the backyard for them, I didn’t clear cut their property, you know. He talks about having trees there and not wanting to see the driveway. I didn’t remove all of those trees out of his backyard. That wasn’t me. So I don’t feel as where I’m obligated to put the buffer in for him. If you want the privacy, you should have put the house the other way, instead of the backyard using my lot as your privacy. I just, I don’t know how I’m responsible for that. There was one other thing I wanted to address, and now I’ve lost my thought. No, I think that’s about it. I don’t know how much else I can dispute. MR. HUNSINGER-You mentioned, a minute ago, that you’re willing to put in a buffer. Did you have something specific in mind, or what was your proposal? MR. VAN GUILDER-Thank you for that moment. I was able to remember what I was going to address. There’s also a large warehouse style shed that he uses as a garage, and I believe it was there from the previous owner, which he now occupies. He’s got a lot of stuff stocked out back. We talked about this last night, and, you know, he said now you’re going to see all my junk right there. Clean it up, you know. Now, do I want trees in there? Yes. I would like, I talked about it, like a small evergreen type that’ll grow up and maybe create a hedge, maybe make a nice row of them right down through the driveway. So I don’t have to see their property, and because it’s, you know, I’m more concerned about what I’m seeing than someone else, actually, but I can understand coming down through at night you don’t want to see the headlights coming through the back of your house. So, yes, I would fully intend on looking into putting some type of buffer in there, but I also don’t expect to get rid of every single tree to the property line. That’s just not feasible for me. There are some white birches on the line that I’d like to leave. Anything that’s a nice tree I would like to leave in the middle. So, I think there’s, it’ll be aesthetic enough. As far as his property value, I mean, to each their own on that. If they don’t want to buy it because there’s another property next door, I can’t affect anything like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? We have to do SEQRA before we make a recommendation? MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir, and there were no written comments, for the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What’s the feeling of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. VanGuilder, you’ve owned this property for how long? Is it your property or your father’s property? MR. VAN GUILDER-It was my father’s property. Several years ago we did a life estate, which will just transfer it over. My father still lives on the front property, and as much as I’ve tried to entertain the idea of him moving in with us, he says no way. He says for as long as he can he wants to live independently and how do you not respect that? And he’s owned it for, I want to say, almost 40 years. MRS. STEFFAN-Forty years. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would think with a little cooperation between the two parties, you could make it work. MR. VAN GUILDER-I fully agree, and I was a little bit disheartened to know that, you know, he approached me last night and asked the questions about this stuff, and when I originally started all this, it was early in the Spring, and I fully talked to him and explained what I was doing, and he said he would be more than happy to offer a recommendation. Until yesterday he approached me and said, you know, had some concerns about it. At this point, I’m a little bit knee deep into this, and if I wanted to do some changing, I would have done it back then. Again, I don’t see a need to do some changing. I think the way it is is fine. I don’t really have too many options as to where to move my driveway. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable? We’ve got to do SEQRA, the Long Form. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. FORD-I just want to point out that according to the neighbor who indicates that he’s got a 60 foot buffer, that seems to provide ample space for the provision of trees, shrubs, whatever else they would like to have in there to block view. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is an Unlisted Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Small to moderate, potentially large or can it be? MR. TRAVER-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Small to moderate. Can it be mitigated by project change? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, through Site Plan Review. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-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. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then based on the responses I’ll make a motion for a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. st Duly adopted this 21 day of, September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the ZBA? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we’ve got, based on the discussion, you know, I think that, I’m assuming that this is on for tomorrow night, is it, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Yes, ma’am. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So they wouldn’t be able to get our minutes and hear the dialogue that came up, and the neighbors might show up at the Zoning Board meeting, but, you know, I think we should mention that a few of the neighbors expressed concerns regarding the driveway, and then how we feel about it. Obviously we’re going to have Site Plan Review, so we’d be able to deal with those issues, but I think the Zoning Board should have a heads up. MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s not going to be Site Plan Review. It’s going to be subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Subdivision. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry, yes, but we’ll do a subdivision review. So we’ll have the opportunity to talk about, you know, some of those related issues that have come up tonight. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. KREBS-I’m having a problem looking at this drawing. From the edge of your driveway on the west hand side, how much property is there, how many feet is there to the property line? MR. VAN GUILDER-I’m sorry, from the property line to? MR. KREBS-To the edge of the driveway on the west, the side of the driveway on the west side? Closest to the American Way properties, between the driveway and the edge of your property, what’s the dimension? MR. VAN GUILDER-The front is the 50 feet, going across, the very beginning of the driveway. It’ll go from 50, to the property line. MR. KREBS-No, I’m looking at along the edge. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it looks like about five feet. MR. FORD-The edge of the driveway to the property line. MRS. STEFFAN-It looks about five feet, but. MR. KREBS-That’s what I was thinking. MRS. STEFFAN-Because the scale on that drawing is one inch equals 50 feet, and it looks to be like an eighth of an inch, so I was assuming there’s like a five foot buffer, which is. MR. FORD-Is that accurate? MR. VAN GUILDER-You know you’re kind of catching me off guard on that one. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you said you were going to plant, you could plant a tree in there, so you must have at least five or six feet. MR. VAN GUILDER-What my proposal on the driveway is, is to make this. MR. KREBS-I just wanted to point out that this is the dimension we’re interested in. MR. VAN GUILDER-Right. MR. KREBS-Between here, I’m assuming this is the driveway, that’s the property line. What’s the difference between the two? MR. VAN GUILDER-I don’t know if there is a difference there. MR. KREBS-It shows some difference, but I’m not, that’s why I’m asking. MR. VAN GUILDER-Our intention on this, with my surveyor that did the work, was to put everything within the limits that are allowed. Because we are asking for a variance. There’s a garage there. So it had to come in, and it is a narrow spot in between the driveway and the garage. Like I said here, I am looking at creating a buffer, down the line. There is nothing on this map that’s going to tell me that it’s five feet or ten feet. That was something that I kind of wanted to do by feel, but knowing that we do have the 20 feet all the way back allotted for the driveway. Do I need 20 feet cleared for the driveway? No. But that is what’s attached to the back property. My intention is to leave a buffer on the side, whether it be five feet, three feet, four feet, whatever’s necessary to allow the trees. Maybe even more. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Does that answer your question? MR. KREBS-Well, there’s really no answer to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Any other questions from members of the Board? One of the things we might ask you about, assuming you get through the Zoning Board, is clearing limits as well. Clearing limits, so you might want to be thinking about that. MR. VAN GUILDER-Okay, and would that be specifically to the driveway or the actual parcel? MR. HUNSINGER-The actual parcel. I mean, there’s certainly plenty of woods between the back of the house and the neighbors to the south, but to just think about, you know, how much of the lawn you plan to cut. Okay. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MRS. STEFFAN-So the nature of the variance that we’re supposed to be making a recommendation on is the request for .47 acres of relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size. So based on what I’ve heard, it doesn’t seem that the Planning Board has an issue with that. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The second is the road frontage, request for 50 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum road frontage requirement for the second lot. The proposal calls for a shared access driveway which is the tradeoff for that. So I’m also, based on the discussion or lack thereof, I think we’re okay with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and then the side setback request for 18 feet 4 inches of west side line setback relief for the existing frame garage on Lot One. I don’t think that’s an issue either. The last item appears to be an issue, relief from the flag lot configuration for both lots. Now, in the Zoning Code, flag lots are prohibited. We’ve had discussions about this before. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So are we okay with making a recommendation that, you know, we don’t have any significant impacts with that, or do we want to make a statement? MR. KREBS-Part of the problem is the historic situation is that a lot of these lots were created long before this regulation on flag lots was put in place. So it’s very difficult to reconfigure those lots, all right, and certainly there’s adequate property relative to the size of the lots in the area. MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t heard any Planning Board members express any concerns with the four variance requests before us. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a resolution. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2010 WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Whereas, an application has been received for: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.529 +/- acre lot into 2 lots of +/- 2.0 acres & 1.529 acres. Subdivision: Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Site setback, lot size & road frontage relief. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review and provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal, however, for the Zoning Board’s information, during the public hearing portion of the Planning Board meeting, a few neighbors expressed concerns regarding the driveway and the exposure that will come with clearing for the proposed driveway and the resulting small buffer between the driveway and the lot line. Duly adopted this 21st day of September 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just for members of the public that made comments, there will be a public hearing tomorrow evening at the Zoning Board, and then assuming, if the project clears the Zoning Board and comes back here, the public hearing will be held open for the actual subdivision review. MR. VAN GUILDER-I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MAUREEN IRELAND AGENT(S) JON KELLEY COLDWELL BANKER OWNER(S) NDC REALTY, INC. ZONING CLI LOCATION 319 CORINTH ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 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: SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK & TRAVEL CORRIDOR RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 49-10, SUB 6-87, SP 56-10 LOT SIZE 12.95 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 JACK KELLEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-One moment please. Subdivision 10-2010, Area Variance 49-2010 for Maureen Ireland. Requested action: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding communities. 319 Corinth Road is the location. This is Commercial Light Industrial property. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Long Form has been submitted. What follows is Parcel History. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 12.95 acre lot into 4 light industrial lots of 4.16, 3.94, 2.62 & 2.23 acres respectively in the Carey Industrial Park. Nature of the Area Variance: Lot 1: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 30 foot north side setback requirement for the existing warehouse. Also, applicant requests 7 feet 8 inches of relief from the 30 foot south side setback requirement for the existing warehouse. Lot 2: Applicant requests 11 feet 11 inches of relief from the 30 foot south side setback requirement for the existing warehouse. Additional Comments: The applicant has submitted an Assessment of Site Stormwater Conditions accomplished by C.T. Male Associates dated June 28, 2010. According to this report there appear to be no issues in regard to stormwater and erosion and sedimentation control. At the proper time, the applicant is requesting waivers from Landscaping, clearing, grading and E&S plans. Just another note. If subdivision approval is forth coming, the Planning Board will review a submitted site plan on September 30, 2010 for a proposed wholesale electric business to be located in the existing warehouse on proposed Lot 2. I do want to note to the Planning Board that there is a 900 square foot footprint, wooden, single family structure to the north and west. That does not require any setback relief as it is an existing nonconforming structure, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KELLEY-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Jack Kelley. I’m with Coldwell Banker Commercial, and I’m here representing NDC Realty, LLC, more locally known as the former Northern Distributing beer warehouses. We had the property on the market for about a year and a half and did not have many people interested in 70,000 square feet of warehouse and three separate buildings, but we’ve received numerous that people could buy the buildings individually. That’s when we approached C.T. Male and conferred with your Staff about the possibility of subdividing this property and we’ve come up with a plan and a proposal that was somewhat challenging, in light of the fact that you’re using existing facilities, but I think one of the nice things is, as we were going through the process, we did have a company that is interested in purchasing the lot furthest to the west. They plan on bringing, or continuing about eight jobs in the community. They’re currently located on another section of the Town, adding two additional employees and will be the initial kick start have other people interested in purchasing the property. I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments? MRS. STEFFAN-Part of this parcel, the Hudson Headwaters, is interested in part of it, isn’t it? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. KELLEY-No. Actually this is part of Section One of the original Carey Industrial Park. On the other side of the road, a couple of years ago, Hudson Headwaters purchased and built their corporate headquarters, and probably a couple of months ago they purchased an additional section of property for additional medical care. MRS. STEFFAN-Which probably abuts your property, the property that you’re speaking of. MR. KELLEY-It doesn’t bump up to it, but it is part of that whole Carey Industrial Park area. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. If you, yes, it’s where the hand is is where they came in for recent Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-So were you able to split out all the utilities and services for the three buildings? MR. KELLEY-Well, this is something kind of unique that Niagara Mohawk/National Grid only provides a single electrical drop per tax map parcel. This particular building that we have the contract on, there’s two electric services to the property, three natural gas services. I think we have four water meters. So the only major challenge is going to be when we take the existing 10,000 square foot building, which is furthest to the east, and the large 40,000 square foot warehouse building which is in the middle. However, they are sub deeds that come off. So it will be a little bit of a challenge because some of the electrical codes have changed since then. So we’re going to have to change the transformer pad, but probably be able to use most of the underground conduit for that particular item. Actually, just as a, I mean, being a good salesman, I can’t help but giving you a pitch that Jack Carey really kept those buildings in very good shape, and we’re very fortunate to have that kind of facilities that we can put people back to work in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any takers. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and will leave it open. MR. KELLEY-Mr. Chairman, I just want, for the record, to also recognize that I do practice before numerous Planning Boards in the area, and I do have to take and say your Staff is topnotch and provided a lot of help and assistance, and I thank you very much for the courtesies extended by them. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s always good to hear. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Nice job, Keith. MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. They submitted a Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-I think this time we can say no. MRS. STEFFAN-We can say no. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MAUREEN IRELAND, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. st Duly adopted this 21 day of, September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. The only comment that I wanted to make, I have a note here that once we get this application back for subdivision review, the only thing that I can see is that, you know, we need to put some restrictions on, you know, Site Plan Review, once the parcels are sold off, we do Site Plan Review and look at some of the development that’s there. MR. OBORNE-Yes. That’s going to be a requirement. There hasn’t been a Site Plan Review on this parcel, or any of those parcels, in the last seven years. So it’s automatic. MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s automatic. Perfect. All right. Okay. Then I’ll make the resolution. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2010 MAUREEN IRELAND, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Whereas, an application has been submitted for: 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: Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Front and side setback & travel corridor relief. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review and provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: 1.The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 21st day of September 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You’re all set. MR. KELLEY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED TOM WESSLING & ROGER BROWN AGENT(S) JEFFREY R. MEYER, ESQ. FITZGERALD, MORRIS BAKER FIRTH OWNER(S) ESTATE OF CHARLES MOORE ZONING CI LOCATION 10 MONTRAY ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF TWO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR RETAIL BUSINESS, KARATE STUDIO, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND/OR OTHER PERMITTED USES. SITE PLAN: NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: FRONT, REAR & TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK RELIEF. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PARKING SPACE MINIMUM AMOUNTS, SIZE AND ACCESS AISLE WIDTHS. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-10; SV 53-10 WARREN 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 0.52 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-50 SECTION 179-9 JEFF MEYER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FORD-Mr. Hunsinger and members of the Board, on this next application, I will recuse myself because I am the realtor who has brought this transaction to contract. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 59-2010 and Area Variance 52-2010, Sign Variance 53-2010. Applicant is Tom Wessling and Roger Brown. Requested action: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location: 10 Montray Road. Existing zoning is CI, Commercial Intensive. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Parcel History follows. Project Description: Applicant proposes removal of two existing residential structures and construction of a 6,000 square foot building for retail business and karate studio, actually taekwondo studio. Staff Comments: New commercial building in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The applicant is not within a sewer district and as such will have an on-site wastewater system installed. Nature of Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Travel Corridor: Applicant requests 42 feet of Travel Corridor overlay relief per §179-4-030. Front setback: Applicant requests 48.16 feet of West front setback relief and 26.17 feet of North front setback relief. Both setback requests as per §179-3- 040. Rear setback: Applicant requests 9 feet of South rear setback relief per §179-3-040. Parking space Requirement: Applicant requests a reduction of 11 spaces from the 29 space requirement for retail. Parking space size: Applicant requests 2 feet of length relief for all 18 proposed parking spaces. I would like to just go on to the Sign Setback. Sign Setback: Applicant requests 13.35 feet of lot line setback relief per Chapter 140. I did go back and review the parking space size relief, and the one foot of relief, as I’m stating in Number Five of my notes, width relief for 15 of the 18 proposed spaces, is erroneous. The Code does call for a nine foot width, and they are all nine or greater. So, please strike that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Soils follows. Site Plan Review follows, which, if we get to that point you will obviously do, and just quickly additional comments: This is for both the Board and for the applicant. Building colors should be presented and/or discussed. Please note that Fire Marshal comments are attached. Water Department comments are attached, and we’d like to see some test pit information and signage appears compliant in regards to size. The Area Variance is for setback relief only for the sign, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MEYER-Good evening. My name is Jeff Meyer. I’m here on behalf of the applicants, Mr. Wessling and Mr. Brown. With me is Tom Hutchins of Hutchins Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. MEYER-Keith summarized it fairly well. We have a lot that has a permissible building envelope of about a foot that extends just about the length of the property. So essentially any improvement on the property is going to require Planning and Zoning Board approvals. We have what we think is a modest approval that fits the intention of the Code and it’ll fit the property, from both a planning and an economic standpoint. So welcome any and all comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not familiar with the use, so requesting a reduction of 11 spaces from the 29 space requirement, I’m not really sure, you know, with like the Karate, like the taekwondo studio. Do people drop their kids off for lessons? I’m just not really sure whether that’s a great idea. I don’t know how anybody else feels about it, but with a double use in one building. MR. MEYER-The parking numbers are actually based on the whole building being used as retail, I believe. There isn’t really a parking definition for a taekwondo studio. Generally speaking it is a classroom scenario where there’ll be a number of students that’ll get dropped off. Their parents will stay and watch, and it’ll occur, you know, when the business is closed. So it’s, the businesses aren’t going to be operating at the same time, which is why we’re comfortable in asking for the variances that we are, you know, knowing that it’s not going to be 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) two large retail facilities that’ll be competing for parking and competing for business and things of that nature. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Because my only concern, Montray Road is very small, very narrow, and so if they didn’t have enough parking and folks had to park on the road, that would be ugly, and so that’s why I asked the question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. In fact, I drove down there today and there were two cars on the, they were parked on the side of the road, and it is a narrow road. MR. MEYER-As just another point of reference, R & T currently has about four parking spots, in their current location which is right next door, and it works. It’s not ideal, but it works. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-And I was in the furniture business, and when I built my building, they required way too many parking spaces, relative, because you have a large ticket price, and you don’t have volumes of people. So you don’t really need that many parking spaces. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What color is the building? I know it’s painted, but. TOM WESSLING MR. WESSLING-I don’t think we’ve fully designed it. It’s going to be according to the Queensbury Design Standards as we work with building codes on a final architectural design, but any input on colors is more than welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Could we get your name for the record? MR. WESSLING-Yes. It’s Tom Wessling. I apologize. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We like to say we like the Adirondack style, but that’s not in our Zoning Code, so I don’t say that anymore. MR. WESSLING-It’s just outside of the district for Adirondack, which is the north side of Montray Road and up towards Stewarts, and that is the Adirondack design. MR. OBORNE-That’s the Upper Route 9 Design Guidelines is the Adirondack style. MR. WESSLING-Tom Wessling, R & T Antiques. Like I said from over there, we don’t have like the final plan on colors and architectural design according to the design standard, but it will meet the design standards of that zone, which is not the Adirondack zone, which is north of Montray. This is the zone south of Montray, which I believe has another title, which I forget, but we more than welcome any input on colors or designs. I know the design standards are pretty thorough, and of course we’ll adhere to those. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you have a very attractive looking building design. The sketches are really nice. MR. WESSLING-Yes, the sketch, so far, is looking rather nice. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s going to be some contrast to what’s behind it. MR. WESSLING-Yes, to what’s existing it definitely will be a huge improvement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And even when you’re looking back over toward, you know, the shopping plaza. MR. WESSLING-The Home Depot, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The warehouse, yes. MR. WESSLING-So that’ll actually be more shielded with the building and trees and shrubs in place and all that. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. KREBS-And I wouldn’t worry about the traffic. Having lived in Twicwood, most people going onto Montray, for the other end of Montray, do not access it at this point. They go up to the bakery and take a right hand turn. MR. WESSLING-Yes. Part of our thought would be to direct traffic to take a right turn out of our parking lot and then access that traffic light when re-entering Route 9, and we could do that through signage, directing a right turn signs on the exit door kind of showing a little map sketch of the best way to get back to Route 9. MR. KREBS-Right. Having been there today and sat at Montray trying to get onto Route 9, I can tell you that if you say easy way out, it’ll definitely be the easy way out because waiting at that point is very difficult to get back onto Route 9. MR. WESSLING-So we’re certainly willing to accept a condition of helping that traffic flow. I’d point out the cars that were parked were not for our business. They were for the outdoor wood carving, which is on the other side of Montray Road, and like Jeff said, we’ve existed with four parking places for eight years on busy Route 9 without any issue, no accidents, no problems for the past eight years. So now we’re looking at a large increase in a number of parking places and we’ve proved it worked. I mean, the taekwondo studios is an idea, nothing firm, but certainly a use with not heavy parking would go well with our proposed use there. MR. HUNSINGER-The car that was parked there when I drove by, it actually looked like the car had broken down. Somebody was working on it. MR. WESSLING-I did see that. The guy carves stuff outside there, and sometimes they park and walk up that grassy hill to see that stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-I’m a little concerned about the slope that you’ve got here and the stormwater management. Do you have enough, do you think? MR. HUTCHINS-We have this, the site is topographically challenging. There’s a pretty good drop from the Route 9 side to the rear of the site. We have, yes, I believe we have, we’ve done a decent job with stormwater, and the engineer had a few comments, and I was looking at them today and we’re going to probably adjust some things a little bit in response to his comments, and, no, I’m comfortable with we have. What you’ve got, Montray Road is, in that area, it’s roughly at a 10% slope, and we’re building a parking area that is across slope. We’ve got the parking area to just under five percent cross slope, and the way we do that is by retaining wall on the low side, and we put a fair amount of consideration into the best way of doing that, and just what slope we wanted to target at, and that slope, five percent is going to work. It’s not an unreasonable cross slope for a parking area. Ten percent would be. You’d have doors opening up and banging into adjoining cars. Five percent is workable. Yes, you’ve got to be a little careful, but it is workable, and stormwater, the soils are, I was there with the Town’s engineer, and we did, we didn’t do all the test pits we’re going to have to do because obviously some of the lower areas there’s a residence there at the time. The soils are very sandy in nature. They’re very uniform, and we will be able to infiltrate the stormwater. MR. SIPP-Well, I’m concerned between Route 9 and the first building here, you’ve got a five foot drop there and 40 feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Between the sidewalk and the current building there’s, yes, there’s about a five foot drop, and we’re generally working with that. We can’t bring the building, ideally, to resolve that you’d bring the building up more, but that just exacerbates the problem in the back. MR. SIPP-You will have test pit figures, when you get around to it. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It’s not going to be feasible to do a test pit within the confines of the rear stormwater area. We have one that’s reasonably close, and we intend to get one that’s immediately adjacent. There’s also a fair amount of underground utility action in that area, and we were hesitate because there’s some underground telephone that we need to get located, and we did not have it located. We got there to do the pit and we decided not to. MR. SIPP-If you can handle the stormwater, because you’re going to have roof area that’s quite large and you’re going to have a lot of water, and one, all I can see is one drywell and a sump area. Right? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we’ve got, there’s a drywell in the, within the parking area, north of the building, and there’s a drywell back in the, within the stormwater basin. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. SIPP-Yes, down here. MR. HUTCHINS-And as I said, we are looking at your engineer’s comments on that, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I just want to survey the Planning Board. The applicant is requesting a 13.35 foot lot line setback relief for the signs. How’s everybody with that? It seems a little close to the highway to me, but I wanted to know how the rest of the Planning Board felt about it. MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s not ideal, but it’s a difficult situation as far as accommodating all of the. MRS. STEFFAN-Everything that’s going on. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS-And if you look at the house across the street from it, you know, where the wood carver is, it’s almost on the highway. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, do you know, they were going to be doing some roadwork on Route 9 there. MR. TRAVER-I think it’s done. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that all done? All the projects, the sidewalks on the other side of the street have been done, so all that’s completed? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So nothing will change in the foreseeable future? MR. OBORNE-No. They got the granite curbing in. They’re not going anywhere. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. WESSLING-Would you like me to respond to the sign comment? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. WESSLING-Okay. We have shown on here just kind of roughly the location of the sign which has this pink kind of flyer on it, and then it goes in this direction to that pink that kind of fell in the wind, but that was to get an idea. When you look at the map, you’ll notice there’s, the State land cuts in, the State right of way cuts in so the distance from the road is something that maybe Tom can tell us, but there’s distance from the road relative to the setback is kind of confusing in this example. MR. HUTCHINS-The right of way, the other parcel line takes the 45 off toward (lost words) and that’s the reason for the Sign Variance, and were the line continuous a little further, or if it was a bend to Montray Road as opposed to that 45, we wouldn’t be asking for the Sign Variance. It’s that, it’s where the right of way line takes off away from Route 9 that blocks the, or that’s the logical place for a sign, or that’s the place we’d like to have a sign, but it’s where that property line makes that bend that’s kind of causing it. MR. MEYER-And sure the bend, the variance is less than two feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? I guess we do have one commenter. I would just ask that you state your name for the record, ma’am, when you come on up. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN POTENZA MRS. POTENZA-Good evening. My name is Marilyn Potenza. I’m the owner of Miller Hill Mall that is just south of the proposed development. I am concerned about the number of variances they’re requesting, particularly the parking variance. I know the comment has just been made that they have four parking spaces allotted to their building, but the fact is that they have, we have a very large spot, or parking area behind the building that probably parks, my guesstimate would be 50 cars, and they have access to the building through a stairway up to their present 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) building. So we just did a, and I say just, with tongue and check, probably eight years ago, a rehab on our mall, and it was, for nice ways of saying, the tortures of the dam to get it done. We walked the right line. We did the right things. I will preface this by saying that both Tom and Roger are very, very good business people, and I would enjoy them to be my neighbors, business neighbors, but I am concerned about the number of variances, particular the parking variance, the sign setback, and the water runoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. POTENZA-Okay. You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. ROGER BROWN MR. BROWN-I’m Roger Brown, and I’d just like to make a comment to what she said with the parking. Tom and I have been at the location now for eight years, and we do have access to the back parking lot, but nobody uses that. Nobody’s going to walk up those stairs, and if you could see, I don’t know if you can see it, there’s two flights of stairs (lost words). It’s something that’s inconvenient. Nobody does it, and it’s, you know, we’re working off the four parking spots that we have been, and if our parking is full, people go by and they come back when it’s not, but, you know, the added parking in the back is for us, you know, partial of it, but we don’t use any of them because it’s just inconvenient. Nobody’s going to walk from the whole back of the building, come up two flights of stairs and around the side of our building to enter, and the business that we’re running is not really retail because we’re in and out, people are in and out. It’s not like a, they’re going to be in there for an hour shopping. So they don’t need that extended parking, and to go back to the taekwondo studio, which she had commented before, it would be more of an evening classes, and it would be minimal parking with that. Most of the parents do drop their children off, and if it does even go to the fact that we do open up that, it would be more attended to adult classes is what I’m planning on doing, not so much the children schedule. So it would be more of an adult schedule that I am planning on doing, if it goes through with our plans, and that’s all I really wanted to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BROWN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. I mean, come on back to the table. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. A question of Staff. They’re going to have a building with two retail spaces. Only one use has really been identified. Would there be Site Plan Review required for another tenant to go in there? MR. OBORNE-Not at this point. I think we’re looking at it as a taekwondo. If retail comes in, retail comes in. I mean, that’s what they’re getting relief from. They’re not getting relief from parking spaces because of taekwondo, and to add to that, I would be lying to you if I didn’t say it wasn’t a concern because what if that retail spaces changes, you know, that’s what you’re tasked to look at. You’re tasked to plan, and what they’re proposing works, I feel, as your planner, very well, because I do know what taekwondo does. I do know how that operates, and with that it works well at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I guess the ownership, was it Roger? Are you going to run the taekwondo? MR. ROGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it’s going to be two businesses in one, owner occupied kind of thing. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-What if you did make the parking spaces a little narrower? MR. HUTCHINS-They’re nines now. The ones on the side are nines, the ones in the rear are tens. I’m not going to gain a space. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. WESSLING-Just a point of clarification, and no hard feelings or ill will, but just to make this clear, Mrs. Potenza is our current landlord, okay, and we rent the current space from her. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. People comfortable moving forward? Okay. It is an Unlisted action. They submitted a Long Form, right? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Mitigated by, small to moderate, mitigated by Site Plan Review. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me. They had actually submitted a Short Form. Sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-They did? I thought it was a Long Form. MR. OBORNE-There’s an Unlisted Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-Then, Maria, strike that part from the record. Okay. We’ll try the Short Form, then. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to clarify because we talked about groundwater quality. So we did have an engineering report that said that there were some stormwater issues, but based on our discussion we felt that they could be mitigated. MR. KREBS-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I just wanted to challenge that answer. So, okay. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 59-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) TOM WESSLING & ROGER BROWN, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. st Duly adopted this 21 day of, September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MRS. STEFFAN-So it appears, based upon what I’m hearing from the rest of the Planning Board, that we don’t have any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal? MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. KREBS-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. All right. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2010 TOM WESSLING & ROGER BROWN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Whereas an application has been submitted for: Applicant proposes removal of two existing residential structures and construction of a 6,000 +/- square foot building for retail business, karate studio, professional offices and/or other permitted uses. Site Plan: New commercial building in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Front, rear & travel corridor setback relief. Further, relief requested for parking space minimum amounts, size and access aisle widths. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review and provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and 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 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: 1.The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 21st day of September 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re all set. MR. WESSLING-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Just think about colors for a Site Plan Review. MR. WESSLING-When we come back? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. WESSLING-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-And because I’m sitting in this chair, thank you for growing your business in Queensbury. MR. WESSLING-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 MODIFICATION TO SP 8-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 777 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL LIGHT FIXTURES ON EACH LIGHT POLE AROUND THE EXTERIOR OF THE SITE, INCLUDING ENTRANCES. MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE OPS 27-07, SP 59-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/10 LOT SIZE 1.51 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-020 TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 60-2010. This is a modification to Site Plan 8-2007. Stewarts Shops is the applicant. This is a modification to an approved Site Plan. This obviously requires Planning Board review and approval. 777 Quaker Road is the location. Commercial Intensive is the existing zoning. The type is Unlisted for SEQRA. This would be a Short Form also. Parcel History follows. Project Description: Applicant proposes additional light fixtures on each light pole around the exterior of the site, including entrances. Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board approval. Staff Comments: The applicant states that the site lighting is low and the location appears to be closed. Staff has visited the site and noticed that the light poles are relatively short in height and may contribute to the lack of discernable lighting. Existing approved, SP 8-07, lighting has canopy lighting at approximately 10.2 footcandles and soffit lighting at 7.2 footcandles. What follows is review. Proposed site lighting appears excessive relative to the Code. Illuminence exceeding 31 foot candles for locations under soffit and 19 foot candles for pole mounted fixtures; code requirements are 1.0 and 2.5 foot candles respectively. Please see Section 179-6-020C, Standards. Also, per Section 179-6-020D, all lighting fixtures to be directed horizontal to the ground, which they all currently are at this point, for your information. With that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LEWIS-Hi, folks. My name is Tom Lewis. I’m a real estate representative of the Stewarts Shops. We love Adirondack designs. As I get older, I find myself saying what I’m about to say more and more and more. We accept no very gracefully. That having been said, we’re hoping that the Board would consider that if you’ve gone to the site at night, it’s really dark. Now, if you’ll recall when this got approved years ago, we had made the case that these are almost exactly the same lumens and foot candles as the shop that we have at 9L and 149. They’re almost exactly the same numbers. The vast difference is that here, at Quaker and Dix, there’s a 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) Hess opposite, which is just lit city, and just next to the whole intersection it just looks dark, and, I mean, when the shop got built, you know, our Senior V.P. went out there and the President went out there, and the District Manager went out there, and they’re whining at Tom Lewis, you know, what a terrible job you did, you know, you can’t see it, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and I said, live with it for a while, and at some point we could go back and ask. Never hurts to ask. So there are three things here that are being proposed. The sheet that I handed out is exactly what you’ve got on the Site Plan. There’s nothing different. It just makes it really easy to compare, and so you’ll see one side has, you know, all the new so you can match, you know, foot candles and see how horrendous what we’re asking for is, and then on the other side you’ll see the actual individual numbers, and so the three things we’re suggesting are under the canopy go from a 175 bulb up to a 250, and that causes that larger difference. The second thing is, under the soffit lights, we’re going to a metal halide, which makes that much of a difference in the foot candles, and the third thing is that on the perimeter poles, we thought the way to fix it, rather than ask for a lot of new poles, is to double up on the fixtures, so that on the sheet that has all the numbers on it, that you’ll see the poles around the outside are doubles, and then on the one with all the numbers on it, you know, I color coded them so you could see the new green versus the old green, and under the canopy the old yellow versus the new yellow, and so I should listen to what the Board or the public may have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Does it really look dark under the gas pump canopy or at the entrance? MR. LEWIS-All three of them do, and they handed me these things and say, go sell this, Tom. I’m hoping there’s some compromise that might be able to be reached here. So yours is a very good question. I have an opinion, but I should first listen to yours. MR. FORD-The purpose of greater illumination at those pumps is what? MR. LEWIS-Just safety, just to see, I mean, if you’ve ever gone there. MR. FORD-Safety in what regard? MR. LEWIS-Well, just to, you know, see things, you know see the, don’t get hit by other people, other cars. What we’re asking for, if it were to be granted, I’ll bet you is like 90% of all the other sites are like that or more. I mean, what we’re asking for is a lot less than the Mobils and the Hesses outside of Queensbury, which has a more stringent set of rules, but I care less about that than the other two locations, but, so, I mean, have you ever gone there at night? MR. FORD-The other two locations being? MR. LEWIS-The soffit lights or the entrances. I mean, there are three separate areas we’re asking for here. Have you ever gone to the site at night yourself? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. LEWIS-All right. Thank you for the business. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you think it’s more important to have the lighting, increased lighting at the pumps than it is at the entrance? MR. LEWIS-I didn’t say that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m asking you that. MR. LEWIS-No. I think that it’s more important at the entrance way, but. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s the other way around. MR. LEWIS-But I’ve only heard from two of you. The other five may disagree with me. MR. FORD-Well, the reason I raised that is to try to get some handle on why the increase at the pump, and I think I got your answer, but let’s move on. MR. LEWIS-And it’s mostly, you know, just to make it look open. The first time I heard that, I thought, well, that’s, you know, they’ve got to be kind of exaggerating, but then I went out there at night sometimes. Relative to everything else around, it is very dark. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HUNSINGER-How about your new store on Upper Glen? Have you had comments about that? MR. LEWIS-The Adirondack store? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because I assume. MR. LEWIS-That’s LED lighting. That’s the key to. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s different lighting. MR. LEWIS-I don’t have any lighting problems anymore, as long as we do LED, and I asked the question this morning, how much money is it to turn everything over. MR. KREBS-I also think there’s another thing that’s different here, and that’s the configuration of the lot. You’re on a point, and there’s, across the street, yes, there’s Livingston’s Furniture, but there’s no lighting on the end of that building. Binley’s is across the street. There’s no lighting there at night. McDonald’s is behind it, so it’s not affected, but this is relatively a dark corner, except across the street where you have Hess, which has lots of lights. MRS. STEFFAN-I also think if the pumps were sideways. MR. KREBS-It might make a difference. MRS. STEFFAN-The same direction as the signage with the LED lighting in it. MR. LEWIS-I love LED lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-We do not. MR. LEWIS-Really? MR. TRAVER-I was going to say, since we’re looking at modifying the Site Plan, and you brought up LED, are you planning on bringing the sign into compliance? MR. FORD-Aren’t you glad you came tonight? MR. LEWIS-That’s legal nonconforming what’s there now. That wasn’t our plan, no, and, I mean, we beg for LED lighting at all the new stores, you know, and now your Code says you can’t have it. Then it did not say that. MR. SIPP-We were not informed that you were going to put up a sign there. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. That happened after the Site Plan. MR. SIPP-That happened after we. MR. LEWIS-Do you want me to re-visit that from my point of view? Is that needed? I mean, I can. MR. SIPP-I don’t think it’s needed. MR. LEWIS-I mean, I don’t think we did anything wrong. Because we try very hard to be honest with Boards. MR. TRAVER-The question is, I mean, I don’t know that we need to debate whether, and I think there are perhaps points on both sides. There usually are. My question really is, we’re now looking at modifying this Site Plan. Will you consider bringing the sign into compliance, regardless of the history? MR. LEWIS-But just, because I care more about relationships than I do this, was there anything from that that anyone thinks I did anything not 100% above board? Because I can answer that, if there’s any thoughts to that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, there was some concern that after the approval occurred, and then all of a sudden that sign appeared and it wasn’t part of our Site Plan Review, I think all of us were surprised because normally if somebody’s going to, you know, that was a rehab of an existing location, but, you know, usually signage is a very important part of our Site Plan Review. We were all surprised by that. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. LEWIS-All right. So from, you know, my memory, which I think is very clear on this, was that was when those signs first began to pop up everywhere. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. LEWIS-And so we phoned up your Zoning Officer, like we would anytime, and say, are we allowed to do this kind of a sign, and he said sure, and then I found out subsequently, when I talked to him months later, he said I got chastised for telling you that. So, I mean, we, you know, it certainly wasn’t anything we hid. We don’t do that. So MR. TRAVER-Well, you also have an existing lighting plan, and that got approved, and now you’re in here saying, well, might you consider modifying. MR. LEWIS-Yours is a fair question, and so my, I think a reasonable answer would be that this Board has the option to say no to everything, or to say, yes, you know, this may be okay, but this might not be, but if you’re willing to not have that sign, then as a tradeoff we would do so and so. Now I don’t think that’ll fly at the home office, because they love those LED signs. I mean, they drive me crazy, but that’s what I’m paid for. So I’m not whining. I’m just emoting. So if, I don’t think they would do that. If the Board said, sure, Tom, you can have all of this stuff, and then eliminate that, I don’t think she’ll do that. I’d like to do it, but that’s because I appear before you and she doesn’t. MR. TRAVER-And my suggestion would likely not be eliminating the sign. It would be modifying the sign to bring it into compliance. MR. LEWIS-You just want to not have the LED. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. LEWIS-I understand the aesthetics of it, and a site like that, if that’s not there, then in the snow, you know, someone’s got to walk out there, you know, with one of those, you know, 15 foot poles, and they’ve got to change the price, you know, once a day or five times a day or once a week, whatever it is, and it really is a physical hardship on the people. So my hope would be that this Board would consider some compromise as to the three things we’re asking for, and then if they want to go a second step and say, you know, and it doesn’t have to be any decision tonight. It’s not that far away from, you know, from home to here, and you could tell me what you’d like and I’ll go back and then we could come back another time. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, personally I’m willing to concede that the site looks a little dark. My fear is that the new proposal is going to be then too bright. So is there a, is there something in between the two? MR. LEWIS-Yes. My suggestion is let us do the outside lights, the perimeter lights,. Is there a concern that that’ll be too bright? Because I think the outside lights is the least of the three. MR. TRAVER-Well, you’re going from eight to sixteen. You’re doubling. MR. LEWIS-Yes, but it’s only in that one area, and if you look around there and it’s really not very light by the entrances, and, I mean, I don’t think we’ve had any accidents there. So what I hope the Board would do is allow those lights, and then say we’d think about the other two without any promises, which I don’t think she’ll do, but she may surprise them. MR. FORD-I didn’t get that last part of the LED. MR. LEWIS-Yes. My hope is the Board would allow the light poles around the entrances, and then I think that’ll give the whole site more of a sense of it’s open. Then you might say we’ll consider, without any guarantees, any of the other two things you’re asking for, under the canopy and the soffit lights, but you’ve got to bring the site into compliance with the freestanding sign, as a tradeoff. Does that seem reasonable? MR. FORD-And another tradeoff would be to give you the perimeter lighting, bring the sign into conformance and leave the other two lighting systems alone. MR. LEWIS-Yes. That’s, I don’t have a vote. MR. FORD-How does that fly with you? MR. LEWIS-And then I shall accept no very graciously. I’m sure she won’t do that, but. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. FORD-As much as we appreciate you and Stewarts, we’re going to seize every opportunity to correct the LED situation, any opportunity we have. MR. LEWIS-I understand, and I never take these things personally. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my concern with that approach is our old lighting code used to have a max over min ratio of four to one. Our new code doesn’t have it. We just have thresholds and you have to be within those thresholds, but the old code used to have, you know, there’s a balance, and if the entrance ways are a lot brighter than the internal site, your eyes may not be able to adjust quickly enough. You’ll end up getting blinded when you go to enter or leave. If it’s too far out of balance. Now I’m not an expert in, you know, optics and lumination. So I don’t know what that number is or where that balance sets. MR. FORD-Maybe the balance would be best kept if they went to halfway in between the current and what they’re asking for. MR. LEWIS-Well, that’s a reasonable thing to say. MRS. STEFFAN-What about changing the fixtures in the current canopy? MR. LEWIS-That’s what we’re suggesting. Just thinking about all the things the Board might say, I did ask our Senior V.P., who is the one that I answer to, what if we offered to, that, I was thinking about the LED sign, I’m just anticipating, when I asked her the question, what if we offered that if we could have the outside lights, and we change the lights under the canopy, leave the soffit lights the way they are. I don’t know why they’re asking for the soffits except they’re just upgrading the whole thing, and I said, what if we offered to the Board that if they’re unhappy with the lights under the canopy we’ll go back to the old bulb? I think that’s about a $5,000 hit, and we can handle that. She said okay to that. So what I’d suggest, if, well, and if the Board wants me to come back with what I heard Mr. Ford say, which is something in between what we’re asking and something between what’s there, and you’re talking around the perimeter, or just everywhere? Everywhere you’re talking? How about if we do that? What if we table this? Although I’d like to hear from, I think every Board member spoke up. Anymore feedback you could give me as to where you are or aren’t, just so that we could draw this to a conclusion? MRS. STEFFAN-I think when I came in today I was certainly looking for a compromise, somewhere between where we are and what you propose. Because what you proposed was really excessive. When you look at the foot candle comparisons, you know, certainly in the soffits, you’re looking at a, you know, six times the increase that currently exists, and so, and the site is kind of low key. There’s no doubt about it, with all of the other, like the Dunkin Donuts that’s across the way. That’s very bright compared to your site. So I understand, you know, where you are, but I’m just looking for some kind of compromise in the middle. MR. LEWIS-All right. How about if we table this. Does that work? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-We could do that. MR. LEWIS-Well, unless you’d rather not. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we do that, though, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Yes, we do have one person. So we will take the public comment. Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD EDWARDS MR. EDWARDS-Richard Edwards. I was just curious, in terms of listening to the presentation. Has he got a resolution already drawn up? I mean, you know, what do you want to do? The question I had is, would the increase in lighting to the extent that he’s requested be equal to, greater than, or less than Hess? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if any of us know that. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We don’t have the actual numbers. MR. EDWARDS-For Hess? MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Right now, we could get them, but based on the foot candle levels as presented, it would be extremely bright. MR. EDWARDS-Brighter you think? MRS. STEFFAN-Very bright. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be brighter than what’s there. We don’t know if it would be brighter than Hess. MR. EDWARDS-Well, yes, of course it would be brighter than what’s there, but my concern is with Hess because I think that’s their concern, more so than safety. I want to be seen more than Hess wants to be. Stewarts doesn’t have to sell themselves. They’re good anyway. So I’m just curious. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else. MR. LEWIS-I apologize for getting along with you guys. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re going to table this. Are you going to present new information? MR. LEWIS-Yes, that’s what the Board’s asked for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEWIS-I’m going to go back and just give them my assessment of, you know, where I think the Board is, that making the LED light conform was a major issue, and that there’s no way that I could guarantee them that anything will happen unless that was done. There’s some possibility that something might get done on a smaller scale, even if we don’t give up the LED. That’s my assessment of what I think I heard. Thank you. MR. KREBS-And I would like to ask Staff if you could look up and provide us with the information on the Hess. MR. LEWIS-Yes, I’d like to know that, too. MR. OBORNE-Put that in your resolution so it will remind me to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the other thought was to have our engineer take a look at the lighting plan, but if you’re going to present a new one. MR. OBORNE-What concern would you have as far as the engineer’s review? MR. HUNSINGER-You had stepped out for a second. One of the options that was discussed was only upgrading the lights just at the entrance. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I heard that. MR. HUNSINGER-And not throughout the site, so whether or not that would create a, you know, out of balance, you know illumination that would be difficult for the eye to. MR. OBORNE-They’d probably want a lighting engineer to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but, I mean, if they’re going to submit new information anyway, we’d be silly to have the engineer review the old stuff. MR. OBORNE-If I could take this time to just clarify LED lighting. Site lighting is actually something we want to encourage LED lighting, not signage. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I realize that. Yes, the LED lighting on signage was particularly offensive. We have an example of red LED lighting, and I know yours is amber, but that started the debate. MR. LEWIS-We could change the color, if that matters. MRS. STEFFAN-That started the debate on the Planning Board that the red was awful, and it was so bright. It wasn’t your gas station. It was a different gas station in Town. MR. LEWIS-Yes, the one off Exit 19. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. LEWIS-That huge one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and that was obviously a mistake at a prior approval point, but that’s the kind of thing we certainly want to extinguish in the Town. MR. LEWIS-However, you weren’t saying earlier that you don’t like the LED lighting under the canopy? MRS. STEFFAN-No, that, yes, that’s correct. That’s fine. LED lighting in the canopies is appropriate, but it’s the sign LED. MR. LEWIS-Because that eliminates all my lighting issues. Every time I do a new site now, that LED lighting is the best, just, we can meet the Code, and it looks like it’s lit. MR. FORD-But not in signage. MR. LEWIS-Signage, there are way more towns allowing LED than don’t. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-I want to make sure the conditions. Did you want a lighting engineer to look at the plan, or did you want comparisons of other plans? Did you want the Hess plan? Did you want the Jolley station because we just approved three of those in the last year and a half. MR. FORD-Let’s get the Hess. MR. LEWIS-Yes, I’d love to see the Hess plan. MR. SIPP-That’s their competition. MR. LEWIS-I mean, just. MR. FORD-And you will be submitting that light plan prior to the evening of the meeting, right? MR. OBORNE-Give them a deadline date. MR. LEWIS-Yes, we’ll file a week from now and then we’ll be on two months from now. MR. FORD-As opposed to tonight, when it was handed out. MR. LEWIS-Well, but I mean, that was exactly the same thing that you had. There wasn’t any new information. It was just easier to read, I thought. So you’re saying next time I do that I should think ahead and file that. MR. TRAVER-There’s a concern about accepting materials the night of the meeting. That’s really the issue. I understand what you’re saying about, it’s the same information presented in a different format. MR. LEWIS-It makes it easier to read. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Lewis, we’re going to table you to November, and so the meetings are the thth 16 and the 18. That’s a Tuesday or a Thursday. Is one night better for you than the other? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. LEWIS-That’s very nice of you to ask. No. Thursday is good. My wife goes to knitting. MRS. STEFFAN-Thursday it is. Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes additional light fixtures on each light pole around the exterior of the site, including entrances. Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21/2010; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th This is tabled to the November 18 Planning Board meeting, so that the Staff can provide the Planning Board with the Hess gas station, which is on the corner of Quaker and Dix, so that the Staff can provide the Planning Board with the Hess Station’s lighting plan. This is also tabled at the applicant’s request so that they can revise their lighting plan and provide new information. st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LEWIS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 54-2010 SEQR TYPE II ELIZABETH MILLER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 1099 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PRODUCED STAND. SEASONAL PRODUCE STAND IN AN MDR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 09-404, 09-257, 09-256 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 9.47 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-48 SECTION 179-9 ELIZABETH MILLER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 54-2010, Elizabeth Miller is the applicant. Requested action: Seasonal produce stand requires Planning Board review and approval. Location: 1099 Ridge Road. Existing zoning is MDR or Moderate Density Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. No further review needed. Project Description: Applicant proposes produce stand. Seasonal produce stand in an MDR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: The parcel proposed for this use is 9.47 acres in size and has 225 linear feet of road frontage on Ridge Road. There is an existing structure previously used as a seasonal produce stand as well as for the sale of nursery plants. Ingress, egress and sight distances appear adequate. Ample parking is available. The applicant seeks waivers for lighting, grading, stormwater and landscaping. The sign code allows for two signs: one for identification and one for current products for sale, each sign not to exceed 32 square feet. The applicant proposes to utilize existing signage. Review: Grading may need to be accomplished at entry and exit points as the transition is a bit rough. Consideration may be given to on-site parking signage/locations for the purposes of pedestrian safety. The Planning Board, as a condition of approval, may wish to consider the following: The hours of operation as stated in the narrative should be observed. The dates of operation as stated in the narrative should be observed. The granting of waivers for lighting, grading, stormwater and landscaping. The Planning Board may wish to consider a multi year approval, as opposed to every year, with a date agreed to with the applicant. With that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. MILLER-Hello. Good evening. Elizabeth Miller. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MS. MILLER-Not really. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-What are the dates of operation? MS. MILLER-I’m just thinking it’ll be operated when produce comes available, May or June, and go until September/October. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Daytime? MS. MILLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there electricity in the building? MS. MILLER-I believe there was at one time. I don’t believe there is anything. There currently is a rather large refrigerator unit in there that I guess was previously used but is no longer hooked up. MR. HUNSINGER-Because one of the requests was a waiver for lighting. So I was curious if you were going to put any lighting in. MS. MILLER-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I remembered, when I first moved to the area, that was a long time ago, that that used to be a produce stand. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-It was very popular. Everybody went to it, and it’s kind of unusual from other of the recent applications that we’ve looked at, which are having tents kind of canopies, but this is a fixed building, in my mind, and I’ve been here since 1979, that’s always been a produce stand. MS. MILLER-I’ve had a couple of farmers, organic farmers, approach me and want to rent it, and hopefully I can. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a great location and it’s a great spot. MS. MILLER-Sure, I think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan actually encourages farm stands, and I made a comment before you came up, it was just mentioned, most of the seasonal stands that we’ve approved earlier in the year were for tents, but this is a building, and, I mean, my personal feeling is, since you have a building, I don’t even feel a need to limit the season, because since it’s a building, and I don’t know if that would make a difference in how it’s reviewed by the Code Enforcement people, Keith. Because it’s really not a seasonal stand if it’s a permanent structure. MR. OBORNE-Yes, but it is an accessory structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I would feel more comfortable if you did state in the resolution what the timing was, and I would ask you, you’re going to sell pumpkins. So you’d probably want to run that through the end of October, and mums, something along those lines. MS. MILLER-Could be, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there’s no electricity in the building, there’s no heat in the building. They’re not going to stay open too late in the season. MR. FORD-Let’s consider multi-year approval. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I see what Keith means, because then they could sell Christmas Trees. If we didn’t put a time limit on, they could sell Christmas Trees. They could be open all year long. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-You’d definitely want to promote that, being the stickler that the Zoning Administrator is, and myself. It would be encouraged to have time limits. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. stst MR. KREBS-So the 1 of May to October 31? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what they’ve requested, yes. They could always get a special permit, right? MR. OBORNE-Special Use Permit? Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, to do that. MR. OBORNE-That’s true. MS. MILLER-So I wouldn’t have to go through this procedure again? MR. OBORNE-You may have to for that, but actually I’m not quite sure if you can classify Christmas Trees as produce. MRS. STEFFAN-No, it’s an agricultural use. MR. SIPP-Agricultural sales covers a multitude of sins. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I haven’t even thought of that, to be honest with you. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, let’s just go with what we have. Hours of operation. Do you have any in mind? MS. MILLER-I’m just thinking nine to six, something like that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and what about duration? How long? Five years? MR. FORD-Five years. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that would be to 2015. MR. FORD-Sound good? MS. MILLER-Yes. MR. KREBS-I’m going to suggest nine to seven. MS. MILLER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Only because you have a lot of people coming back on Ridge Road from the lake, and you may want to stay open until seven o’clock just to catch those people. MS. MILLER-That’s a good idea. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We do have one commenter. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD EDWARDS MR. EDWARDS-This is the real reason why I’m here. I, Number One, wasn’t sure exactly where 1099 was, but I had a good idea, since I used to hit the stand occasionally, way back in the 50’s. My concern, primarily, dealt with lighting. We have enough lighting going over into 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) Stonehurst where I reside from the emergency squad building that many of you know, if you’ve ever been up in the evening, that light just ruins my sleep in the summer, because I sleep on the screened in porch. In any event, lighting was a concern, and, you know, the building has been there forever, since I can remember as a child growing up in the area, and I’ve been inside of the building. It seems to me it could use a little renovating and a little color, other than what we’re looking at there, simply because it’s not as eye appealing right now the way it sits, and certainly it’s been vacant for years and hasn’t been eye appealing at all. I certainly am happy to have a stand next door where I can walk and pick up my corn, which I dearly love. The other, those are my concerns, lighting and the looks of the building, etc., and I had one other concern. It sounded, from the presentation, that the facility was going to be rented and not owner run. Is that incorrect? MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll clarify that. MR. EDWARDS-Okay. Because if it’s not owner run, I may be a little bit concerned about the character of the individuals operating the facility for some reason or another. In any event, thank you for your time, too. MRS. STEFFAN-Could you just say your name for the record? MR. EDWARDS-I did, before, Richard Edwards. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to address the Board? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Let me check. No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. MILLER-Just for the record, after I bought that piece of property, I think it was about a year and a half ago, the barns came down, the house came down, and I had a gentleman go in and paint that building and they put a new door on it, on the side, and that last year when I started renovating it, more or less, I had flowers underneath that side area. So hopefully in the Spring, that would also be done. So there has been some renovations to the building since I bought it MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s no electricity there, so lighting’s not an issue. Right? MS. MILLER-Correct. MR. FORD-And the person operating it will be? MS. MILLER-Well, I’ve had two, the people that I guess rent the tent, that have the tent areas produce have both approached me, as far as renting. I have pursued the Farmer’s Market personnel to see if they possibly could come and sell their produce there. I’ve also approached, there’s a garden place on Bay Road, upper Bay past 149, down the hill. I’ve already approached him if he was interested in it as well. So it’ll be something along those lines. I’d just as soon not have the two gentlemen that approached me, and have another farmer, maybe a Farmer’s Market organic would be preferable. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you’re going to just sublet it out. MS. MILLER-Well, I’d like to grow some pumpkins, too, but that’s down the road. You never know. MR. FORD-You’re obviously exercising care in who’s going to be in there. MS. MILLER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is everyone comfortable closing the public hearing? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II action. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2010 ELIZABETH MILLER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes produce stand. Seasonal produce stand in an MDR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2010 ELIZABETH MILLER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. 1) Approved with the following statements and conditions: a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and g)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and h)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and i)This is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the sign as presented, which is compliant, will be the sign that will be used. 2. The days of operation will be seven days a week. 3. The hours of operation will be nine a.m. to seven p.m. stst 4. The stand will operate from May 1 until October 31. 5. This approval is granted for five years, through 2015. st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HUNSINGER-So when we say it’s through 2015, that would be through October 31, 2015. Is that the intention? MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MS. MILLER-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Ms. Miller, you may want to grab at least four copies of your applications as you’ll need to present that to the Codes Department. So you don’t have to do a bunch of copying. SITE PLAN 53-2010 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R TOM HUTCHINS, HUTCHINS ENG. OWNER(S) PYRAMID MALL OF GF NEW CO. 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 SP 35-10, AV 63-08, SP 21-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 2 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-97 SECTION § 179-9 JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 53-2010, 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. As mentioned before, the existing zoning is ESC. SEQRA Status, Previous EIS dated July 2001, SEQRA Long Form requested Planning Board for previous proposal has been submitted. Parcel History follows. Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of an 8,800 sq. ft. former Howard Johnson’s restaurant and construction of a 5,400 sq. ft., 210 seat retro diner. The proposal calls for stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation controls as well as landscaping, lighting and associated site work. Staff Comments: The parcel for this proposal is currently owned by The Pyramid Corporation, the owner of the Aviation Mall. The 2.06 acre parcel is bordered on the west by the I-87 northbound exit ramp, to the north by Aviation Road, to the south and east by an existing out-parcel and is considered one of the four existing northwest outparcels of Aviation Mall as denoted n the FEIS associated with this project. The location for the proposal is in the Enclosed Shopping Center (ESC) zoning district and as such is required to follow the development standards in Chapter 4 and 7 as per Section 179-3-040B(1)(c). The applicant has submitted elevation drawings depicting stone detail on the proposed structure. Further, the applicant has agreed to the cessation of a left turn egress action from the property as well as potential language concerning the connection to the mall ring road. Further, a Trip Generation Estimate by Creighton Manning engineering for the proposed use has been submitted. The Planning Board may wish to acknowledge the signoff of Paragon Engineering in regards to Stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation with the inclusion of the requested stockpile and staging area denoted on Page S-4 of the site plan. Please see previous Paragon Engineering comments. Concerning any potential issue with the architectural compatibility, the code specifically states under Section 179-7-040C, Elements of design guidelines….These standards address issues of new building construction or modification of existing buildings to increase potential for compatibility with neighborhoods, surrounding buildings or traditional patterns, styles and textures. Architectural guidelines address general building features such as proportion (mass and height), roof styles, fenestration (window and door openings), awnings and canopies, specialty equipment, materials and broad categories of color. Staff would like to remove any confusion and impart to all involved that the term “Adirondack” style is not cited for this particular commercial district; only compatibility with neighborhoods as stated above. What follows is Site Plan Review. I do assume that the Planning Board has read through these notes. I will say the additional comments, previous Fire Marshal comments are attached, same with DOT, Water Department, Department of Wastewater, and concerning SEQR Town Counsel comments in handout form should have been either previously or given to you this time around, and previous Paragon Engineering comments attached. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Bob Pilarinos and Tom Hutchins. As I stated last time, our goal is to extend an olive branch on behalf of the Greek diner. We have attempted to compromise and to address all of the issues that we are aware of from the Board. The new architectural is a way to be able to keep it as a classic retro diner in some respects, but to make it a little bit more regional by adding the stone, which removes some of the reflective material and just to kind of tone the whole thing down. The accent color, as you know, previously was red, and now it’s the Queensbury High School colors of blue and gold, and the stone is intended to be compatible, both with some grays in it, showing gray mortar, some gray stone, to compliment the diner color and as well as the gold color in the trim, but certainly the applicant’s goal is to try and compromise. As I’ve stated many times, we think that there’s a big community interest here in re-developing this site, this entrance to the Town, and by complying with stormwater, landscaping, completely rebuilding this site, moving everything back from Aviation Road, and adding that grass buffer in the front that doesn’t exist. It’s going to be much softer than the old-fashioned Howard Johnson’s look that’s there now, a substantially smaller building from approximately 8,000 square feet to 5400 square feet, and we think it’s going to be popular and a success in that location near the School complex, near the Northway, and we certainly attempted to address the traffic issue by removing that left turn out as Mr. Traver had originally asked for and we ran that by DOT and we have positive comments in the record from DOT. So, with that, Tom, do you want to go through any site issues? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t really have anything, site wise, site engineering wise. We haven’t done a whole lot of additional work. We have, I would add on the lighting, we did tone that back from an original submission, and we removed two poles and we decreased the wattage in all of the pole mounted fixtures from 250 to 150, and it did reduce the lighting intensity, and it’s really as low as I’m really comfortable with at this point, but that’s something that we can talk about. Other than that, site work, location, grading, stormwater, parking, we haven’t modified that from what (lost word), and we have the signoff letter from the engineer. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, have those changes been made since these Staff Notes were put together? Because I’m just looking at Page S-7, that the lighting is excessive. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’ve changed it since you got the Staff Notes? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No, okay. So. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s subsequent, what happens with lighting, and if you want to look at the lighting plan, it’s a big grid, and the grid calculates an average, and the Code states two and a half foot candles for commercial lighting. Where we’re at is 2.6, and the Code doesn’t say how you apply that 2.5, 2.5 is not very much. The Code doesn’t say how you apply that. You don’t, particularly with keeping fixture heights low, you don’t get a uniform grid. You get, it’s brighter underneath the fixture, the downcast fixture than it is between the fixtures. I guess we’ve done what we feel is a good job in reducing them. I’m uncomfortable going, I’m uncomfortable reducing more. If there are certain fixtures you’d like to see removed, we can talk about taking them out. It’s really pretty low level lighting. We have models, and if you look on the lower corner of the lighting plan, there’s a little isometric there, and the isometric of the building is shown. We modeled those surfaces as reflective surfaces. So reflection from anything on this building is taken into account, and again I said we reduced the fixtures. We moved fixtures from outbound along the Northway right of way to inbound from the original submission. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that why you had the hot spots underneath the building? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, well, there’s canopy lighting, there’s concealed, compact fluorescents underneath the walkway to light the walkway. So that’s part of the reason. MR. HUNSINGER-Because those were the highest readings. There were some 12’s and 13’s. MR. HUTCHINS-On the walkway, yes. Keep in mind, almost everyone is walking around those walkways to get in to the facility. It’s not like they’re parking in front and walking straight in the front door. It’s really going to be, that needs to be well lit. MR. TRAVER-I was, in thinking about the application, it seems that our work in moving forward, at least in my mind, is generally divided into, you know, the issues of Site Plan, in terms of lighting and all that kind of thing, and then the issues of traffic, and I’d like to talk a little bit about 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) the traffic, if I might, for a minute, and we have the, we’ve eliminated the left turn out. I think that that’s commonsense, and we certainly appreciate the applicant understanding that and complying with that. Then we have the issue, the other sort of issue in the room is the whole connector road situation. Recognizing that fortunately it appears that with the sale of this property we hopefully can anticipate some development, and at some point along the road, the connector road is really going to be necessary, and I think, John, you reflected some of that thinking in your comments, and on the one hand I can certainly understand, as I was thinking about this situation in my mind, I can understand how, to the applicant, it’s really not fair to think of them taking on the entire burden of creating this connector road. I know that you had given a figure of $800,000. There’s some dispute about that, but in any case, it’s expensive. On the other hand, I think it’s also unfair to the applicant to not have a connector road, because certainly if I was having a restaurant there, I mean, I would anticipate and really hope for a lot of business from shoppers from the Mall and so on, and right now I picture myself in my mind, you know, if go to, you know, Dick’s Sports or something, and then I come out and I want to go to that Diner to turn up the hill, I really can’t do it, not in a way that is going to be very convenient. So it certainly is going to have, I think, an impact on their business if the connector road is there or not there, and what I was kind of wondering and thinking about, and maybe this is a question for Counsel, because I think that it, again, seems inevitable that at some point this connector road is going to come to be. It’s going to become a requirement, and I’m just wondering if there’s a way that we could have the Pyramid, the landowner, somehow, have something as part of this package, of this property being transferred, because there’s seems to be an understanding, even on their part, that this is necessary, along with all of the other items, that there could be some kind of bonding or something with a time period that, if things go as we all hope, and there is, we don’t necessarily create the connector road right at this point. It’s certainly an option for the Diner project, and hope that there’s going to be a development rapidly following, which would then prompt us to create the connector road, but on the other hand, if these other things don’t happen, and to ensure, as a, literally, I suppose, as a kind of insurance, would it be feasible to have, create some kind of bonding situation where after a period of time, regardless of whether there’s development or not, that connector road is paid for and constructed? Not at the cost of the applicant, but at the cost of the landowner? MR. LAPPER-Let me respond to a number of different points that you raised. What Pyramid is saying is that there’s already an EIS that, as a mitigation, requires that future connection, and that was promised on what was proposed at the time as a large scale commercial development. th What I’ve put in writing, which should be in the record for this new application, with the July 28 letter on behalf of Pyramid, is a statement which I’ll submit it if it’s not in this packet, future driveway connection between motel property and the Aviation Mall ring road. I’ll re-read it and then I’ll discuss it. “Pyramid hereby acknowledges that pursuant to the FEIS Findings statement a large commercial development on that site will require the construction of the connector road. In the future, when a new project is proposed for that parcel, an updated traffic report will need to be prepared and submitted to the Town Planning Board and the New York State Department of Transportation for review. The Planning Board and the DOT will then have the authority to determine what traffic mitigation will be necessary depending upon the size and type of the project. Allowing the diner project to proceed without the construction of the connector road will not affect the ability of the Planning Board and the DOT to require such connection upon future development on the motel parcel, if warranted.” And the only reason that I’m saying if warranted is that in the present economy, it’s unlikely that Pyramid, anytime soon, would propose a project of the magnitude that would require a connection. When we required it, when we proposed it, there was an up and down project that had retail, that was accessible to Penney’s and also at the top. So it was absolutely necessary that you let cars go back and forth without having to go back and forth onto Aviation Road. A more likely scenario, and that still is something that could happen. It could happen five years from now, it could happen ten years from now, but what I think is a more likely scenario is that hopefully the diner gets approved, the restaurant building gets demolished immediately and they start building the diner. Pyramid comes in and demolishes the hotel. The hotel parcel will be for sale, and I think a reasonable expectation of a use for that site would be another hotel, and a 100 room hotel that would be off peak for the road may not require that connector. So, in terms of the issue of bonding, Steve, what I want to put in the record is that Pyramid has committed that whatever they propose, you have the right, under the EIS, to require that, but it may or may not be warranted, depending upon the scale and magnitude of what’s proposed. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. LAPPER-If things turn around in retail, hopefully, you know, they’ll come back with something exciting and there’ll be no problem building that road, but if it’s something like in my example, a 100 room hotel, it may not be required. So I’m leaving you all the leverage you need to require the traffic study, you already have the EIS, but in terms of Bob’s project and this diner, it’s not necessary only because the traffic that’s being generated, and that’s why we submitted the Creighton Manning letter, doesn’t warrant it, that by giving up that left, which was the 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) trickiest movement, we’re talking about 62 cars, without even taking any pass by credits, the A.M. Peak hour, 62 cars; P.M. Peak hour, 60 cars, and what Wendy calculated, from Creighton Manning, that it’s one and a half percent of the total traffic against 26,430 vehicles per day. So, you know, it’s an exciting project in terms of cleaning up that site, but in terms of traffic generation, the diner really isn’t. So we’re asking you to keep all the leverage that you need for the future when either Pyramid or a successor owner proposes a project on the back site, but in terms of the front site, we hope you’ll decide that giving up that left turn out covers it, at this point. MR. TRAVER-I understand your position. I think, in terms of leverage, I mean, we have an existing EIS, and we talked a little bit about the idea of updating that, to reflect not what was proposed and what exists in terms of the plan, which would call for the connector road, but I thought we wanted to avoid that if we could, instead of updating the EIS. So what I’m talking about I think is a bit of a compromise. MR. LAPPER-But we’d do it in the future, because we don’t know what’s going to be proposed. There’s nothing on the table now for that back project. It’s not segmentation. There’s nothing that Pyramid is proposing now. It’s just the idea of getting, I mean, we’ve got an applicant here who’s ready to go, who has their financing in place, with the diner that’s designed, that will accomplish Pyramid knocking down the building in the back, them knocking down the building in the front, and cleaning up the site with you, in my view, having the leverage to require that connector road if it’s warranted, the next time somebody comes along with a project, and I hope that you’ll accept that. MR. FORD-Jon, you have addressed the larger issue, the total site, not just the site for the diner. Can you refresh our memory as to when that current motel is to be demolished? MR. LAPPER-The Town asked Pyramid to submit an agreement that it would be down by the th 30 of September. Pyramid signed that agreement and delivered it to the Town, but the Town did not sign it and send it back because the agreement that was proposed by the Town had a provision that said that Pyramid had to agree that it was a dangerous facility, and they wouldn’t do that. So they agree it’s an eyesore. So they had, they submitted an agreement to the Town this Spring. They got the demolition permit. They did the drawings, the engineering, they got a demolition permit from the Town. They went out and bid the project. They submitted an th agreement to the Town that committed to getting it down by September 30, but the Town didn’t sign that agreement. MR. FORD-Because it lacked the wording of, that it was a dangerous? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Right. MR. TRAVER-So at this point there’s no agreement between the Town? MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s no signed agreement, but there’s a commitment from Pyramid that it has to come down. What I envision is that if we can get this thing approved tonight, which is my hope and request, that Pyramid will immediately get going and marshal its forces and the thing will be down in the next month. That’s what I expect. MR. FORD-Why would that occur? MR. LAPPER-Because Pyramid told the Town they’ll take it down. MR. FORD-Pyramid told the Town to take it down? MR. LAPPER-Pyramid told the Town that Pyramid would take down the motel. MR. SIPP-But now they’re not going to. MR. FORD-But they refuse to do that because of some wording in the contract? MR. LAPPER-No, no, no. The Town didn’t countersign the contract and send it back because the Town wasn’t satisfied with the language in the contract. The issue with Pyramid is that they’re waiting for the closing of this diner sale of this property to accomplish this. MR. FORD-I thought you said that there was wording that couldn’t be agreed upon between the Town and Pyramid Corporation, that was the reason that it didn’t, they didn’t comply with the th September 30 teardown. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. LAPPER-No. That’s the reason, somebody asked if there was an agreement, a written agreement, and there’s an agreement that Pyramid has signed and has submitted to the Town that has been signed and has not been countersigned. It is not a contract until both parties sign th it. So there’s not a contract for September 30, although Pyramid offered one, but the Town didn’t sign it, the Town Board didn’t choose to sign it and send it back. MR. FORD-So the ball is in the court of the Town Board right now, is that what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but at the same time, Pyramid has committed, on the record, that they’re going to take it down. We had a meeting on the site. They submitted the agreement saying that they’re going to take it down. The scenario is the diner parcel gets approved, they have their bank financing, we have a closing, and Pyramid takes down the motel in the back. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Town hasn’t signed the agreement. I know that, okay, but I can tell you, as one of the persons that used that motel back there for fire training three years ago we were told it was going to be torn down, and that’s what the owner said, and I’m not talking about the Town. I’m talking about the owner, okay. The fact of the matter is, it should be down. It should have been down a long time ago, and the guy has not been playing it honest with the Town, and we all know it. We have employees here in the Town that will tell you that, that are in the enforcement end of the business, and we also know that what he really wants to do is sell off the front land to this gentleman so he can use that money to tear the motel down, and he’s got Sandy Jackson ready to do it. That’s well known. So it’s a charade, and I don’t know how you can expect us to trust somebody to put in a connector road when the person you’re talking about doesn’t have any trust. MR. LAPPER-The answer is because you’re not going to approve a project in the back without a connector road. I’m just asking you to approve a project in the front. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t think there should be a project in the front without a connector road because it sets up a very dangerous scenario. MR. LAPPER-But it’s not needed for the diner. It’s just not needed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s your opinion. I have a different opinion. Okay. You have people come into that diner. At least a third of them don’t live here. They’re going up the Northway. If they can get into that diner and then look out and there’s a way that, there’s an exit road, even though they’re supposed to go right, they look across the street and they see the entrance to the Northway and that’s where they’re going, and it’s 10 o’clock at night and there’s nobody around so a guy takes his 18-wheeler, shoots across the road, a student’s coming up from Queensbury High School, and what have you got? And that’s what’ll happen. MR. LAPPER-It’s not going to get built. I mean, the connector road, this project will die. This project, these guys cannot build a connector road. It requires. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, the owner, the guy that owns the Mall should build it. MR. LAPPER-They’re not going to do it either. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He’s going to put a hotel there. MR. LAPPER-No. They’re going to put it up for sale and hopefully somebody will offer to buy it for either retail or hotel or whatever a permitted use is, but building that road requires relocation of the major Town water main that runs through the property, that’s at the wrong elevation. That’s why I threw out the $800,000 figure. It is just not financially feasible. I think that, based upon the Creighton Manning letter and DOT’s correspondence in the file for this project, it’s not necessary for the traffic generation of this motel, but it is not financially feasible. They will have to say no to their bank commitment, say no to this project and walk away. They can’t build a connector road, and Pyramid’s not going to build a connector road for a little 5400 square foot diner project. They just can’t. So it could sit there for another 10 years with nothing on it, as it has been, because there isn’t the economic justification for doing that kind of a mitigation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It may or it may not. If he builds the hotel, it’ll probably have to be built. MR. LAPPER-Well, I’m not telling you that anyone’s building a hotel. I’m saying that in my mind I could envision that as a realistic possibility. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He’s telling other people he’s going to build a hotel. MR. LAPPER-Who he? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. SCHONEWOLF-The owner, Congel, Bob Congel, the owner of the Mall. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I don’t know that. I just know that that’s a use that seems reasonable. MR. TRAVER-In any case, that was the reason behind my thinking of saying rather than try to deal with it, the whole package right now, can we have some kind of back up that let’s the applicant, in a sense, off the hook for the obligation of getting involved with building a connector road, and it gives us some confidence that at some point it’s being acknowledged it’s going to be a bonding or some type of device that would call, that would make a commitment that this road be built at some future date with a interim period to allow development on the rear part of this site which may call for it anyway. MR. LAPPER-But, Steve, in terms of that date, if nothing gets built in the back for 20 years, it wouldn’t need to get built for 20 years. If that motel gets knocked down and it’s a grass lawn, you know, I mean, so what you’re asking for is that somebody would have to finance, in order to put up a bond, they’d have to put up security for an $800,000 obligation for something that may or may not ever have to be built, depending upon what’s there, and what I’m saying to you is that, when somebody comes in to you, be it Pyramid or their successor on that parcel, with a project, whether it’s a motel or a Kosko or whatever you could do on that site, I don’t think a Kosko would fit, but at that point you would say, in order to build X, Y Z project, you need to do a connector road because you’re going to be generating, you know, 250 cars an hour, but this diner is not nearly at that level, and what I’m offering you is the solution to most of our problems, with a real applicant with a real bank commitment and a real project. MR. TRAVER-I understand, but in my thinking about the disparate opinions about your position that you just stated, not everyone is in agreement that the connector road isn’t needed right now. We just have to accept that. There’s a lot of feeling that we should build the connector road now, even though we’re just going with the front parcel with this diner project. I mean, that’s simply the reality. So my thought was we can come up with a compromise that’s going to perhaps mitigate some concern out there that, on the one hand, let’s see the project go through without immediately building the connector road, and that large commitment of funding, and yet have some reassurance that the issue itself is being addressed, if you will, in the background. MR. LAPPER-Well, first of all, I appreciate you trying to be, to compromise and trying to come up with a solution, because that’s certainly the right direction. In terms of this project, I just know that it’s not going to happen, and that in 2010, in this mediocre economy, we’ve got parcels sitting there, not collecting a lot of property tax. Certainly not generating any sales tax, and this is a real project with what I hope you’ll agree is a real nice compromise in terms of the architecture, and I think that there’s a lot of people in the community that are looking for us to work this out, and this Board to approve it so that we can clean up an eyesore at the entrance to the Town. You’ve got Hess across the street. You’ve got gas stations next door. I mean, this is, this’ll be really positive with landscaping and what’s proposed, and I’m asking you to approve it. MR. HUNSINGER-Just following along Mr. Traver’s thought process, is there any vehicle at our disposal where we could, you know, commit any future development without hamstringing the current applicant, with respect to a connector road and/or potential traffic mitigation? MR. HILL-You’re asking me as far as what you can require of this applicant? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, just following the comments that Mr. Traver started to lay out for us. If a bond isn’t the right vehicle, is there some other vehicle that you might be aware of that we could impose on future development without hamstringing the current applicant? MR. HILL-I think generally speaking, what you’re looking to do is to impose a condition on the applicant with regard to the adjacent parcel and the development of the connector road. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILL-In general, case law with respect to conditions requires that the condition be reasonably related to the application that you have in front of you, and that the condition be intended to address some type of a deleterious or negative condition that is going to result from the proposed project, and so I think that, in terms of where the case law would come down on this, that it looks like it would be a tenuous relationship between the proposed project, that is to say the diner, and this connector road, although I have to say, I’m speaking without benefit of examining any traffic reports or anything else. MR. TRAVER-And we have an existing EIS. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HILL-Right, and there is an existing EIS, and the existing EIS, as I understand it, was premised on a proposed retail development of approximately 150,000 square feet or so. So it was a project of significant magnitude. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILL-And the project that you have before you seems as though it’s on a different scale with respect to the potential traffic impacts, and it seems like it would be of lesser impact from a traffic impact. So, I mean, you may want to get advice from a traffic engineer, you know, looking over what’s being proposed as compared to the traffic impacts that were considered for the proposed EIS, but with regard to the proposed condition, on the face of it, I think you would, before imposing a condition for construction of the road or a bond or something else related to the construction of the new road, I think you would want to establish a greater relationship between the project that’s being proposed, that is to say the diner, and the need for the road. MR. TRAVER-Unless, of course, it was something that was offered by the, by Pyramid. MR. HILL-Absolutely. If Pyramid offers, that’s a completely different thing, and, it should be noted, that I believe, if my understanding’s correct, Mr. Lapper represents Pyramid. So you can certainly take this opportunity, if the project moves forward, to ask Mr. Lapper to formally inform Pyramid that, in the event that the adjacent parcel is developed at some point in the future, with a substantial development that’s going to have substantial traffic impacts, that this Board will be looking, in the future, to have the road constructed, as a condition of any approval for, you know, such a future development. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you’ve heard that message, right, Jon? th MR. LAPPER-Yes, and I’ve committed to that in a letter dated July 28 on behalf of Pyramid. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t, I mean, personally I didn’t see a copy of that letter. Is that in the file? MR. OBORNE-It should have been with your application. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I saw it. MR. HUNSINGER-There were two other letters, I’m sorry, I had two copies of the same letter, th dated July 28. th MR. LAPPER-July 28, addressed to you, Chris. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the condition of the approval, the condition of this approval, safety isn’t enough to require them to build the road, unless we have a traffic engineer come in and tell us. MR. HILL-I think if there’s a safety concern, that very definitely would be, but I think that our recommendation as Counsel to the Board would be, if you believe there’s a safety concern that would warrant the construction of the road at this time, and such a condition be placed on this applicant for this application, that you engage the appropriate experts to factually establish that there’s a safety concern. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I think when we started this, that was one of the recommendations of several people on this Board that we do that. Because what I’m really saying is, although there are other businesses further up the road, that let people come out and make a right turn, this business is right on the corner where people come off the Northway. Some of them don’t even stop. They just make the right turn, and I don’t think, personally, to me, there is a safety issue with, especially with the type of people that go to a diner. They go in, they go out at all hours of the night, a lot of them with big trucks. You only need one mistake, and you’ve got a problem on your hands, and I think that that’s a huge issue. Now I understand we can’t attach the demolition of the building behind it to this application, even though they’re tied together. I mean, that wouldn’t probably hold up, would it? MR. HILL-I think that you’re, I believe that you’re right, that at least on the face of it, it doesn’t seem that requiring the demolition of the building in back could be, or would be a condition that, under the law, would be supportable. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, even though we know that that’s why he’s selling the lot. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HILL-Okay, but to go back to your initial point, if safety is a concern, then engaging the appropriate experts to establish that would be, I think your, the course of action that we, as Counsel, would recommend that you pursue. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m not a traffic engineer, but I certainly know an unsafe situation when I see it, and that’s one. I think that would become one, and I think there’d be accidents there and the people that are in the accidents are probably going to be kids. MR. LAPPER-That’s called anecdotal evidence, and that’s ridiculous. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s not evidence, it’s my opinion, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Well, with all due respect, a right turn in and a right turn out are not any kind of dangerous movements. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right turn in, I’m not arguing about, if DOT builds the lane and says okay. MR. LAPPER-DOT closed off the curb cuts on this site that were closest to the Northway, and placed the curb cut in the location where it is now. This is DOT’s location for a curb cut. We have DOT, this is DOT’s road, and they’ve reviewed this and they’ve said that this is acceptable. So it’s a right in, a right out. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They said right in is acceptable. They didn’t go right out. MR. LAPPER-No, right in, right out. They have approved this three way movement, and the left in, you’re sitting there in front of the Hess station, on the median, waiting until there’s a gap to make a left in. I mean, it’s not a safety issue. So if you want to engage an engineer, I have Creighton Manning. If you want to engage another engineer to review this, they’re not going to say that this is a safety issue for a diner. You’ve got gas stations. The Silo has full movement. Everyone has full movement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I just explained that. That’s a different situation. You’ve got people going into a diner, going to come out at all hours of the night and somebody’s going to cut across that road because they want to continue their journey up the Northway. MR. LAPPER-You could say that to any of these, you could say that to the gas stations that are there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I could, but they’re down the road a little, they’re down the road a ways and there’s a little time for people to stop. MR. LAPPER-But the result of what you’re saying is that you’re going to make this go away, and nothing’s going to be there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I’m not saying that. Stop saying that, because you’re just trying to scare us into doing the development because it’s going to be only one. MR. LAPPER-No, I’m not. I don’t have a client, well then you’re going to wait. It’s been 12 years that it’s been sitting there vacant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-(Lost words) been waiting for the building to be knocked down. MR. FORD-May I? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. FORD-Jon, you’re in a unique position because you are the attorney representing the current clients, the applicants, which also are the attorney for Pyramid Corporation. If we can move forward with the Queensbury Diner, can you authoritatively speak on behalf of Pyramid Corporation, giving us a date specific when the demolition will be started and completed on that motel in the back? MR. LAPPER-The demolition project, as I understand it, is only about a three week project, and what I can commit, from what I’ve been told, is that it will happen before winter. If we get this approved, it will happen before winter. It will happen in this building season. MR. FORD-You cannot authoritatively speak? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. LAPPER-I don’t have the authority to give you a date. Everyone’s been waiting to see if this project would get approved, Pyramid. MR. FORD-We’ve been waiting for a long time for a lot of things. MR. LAPPER-And I know that, and we all have, but it’s still a good result. If the diner gets approved, the buildings get knocked down, we have a new project and a clean site in the back. MR. FORD-But we have no assurance that the latter will occur? MR. LAPPER-Well, the Town Board has said they’re going to sue them if it doesn’t get done very quickly. Nobody wants a fight. They want to work this out. MR. HUNSINGER-Just to go back to my earlier comment, where I was trying to lead us, I wasn’t here at the last meeting, so I wasn’t part of the discussion and the debate, and I guess I have some different feelings than some of my colleagues, with respect to the right in/right out, and also with respect to traffic mitigation required for the diner specifically, and I was thinking that if we could separate, find some kind of an assurance for a connector road, that we could then move forward with this project, because this project seems to be kind of hamstrung because of the connector road discussion and debate. If you go down to Exit 15 off the Northway, most of the property to the east of Exit 15, left hand turns aren’t allowed coming out. I mean, it’s unusual in Queensbury. There’s only a few pieces of property where we don’t allow a left hand turn coming out, but it’s not an unusual situation, and I think, you know, DOT’s looked at it. The Town Engineer has looked at it, not specific traffic engineer, but has looked at it, and then the other thing that I’m going back to is, there was a restaurant there, and if that restaurant had been allowed to continue, and I might be sounding like the applicant a little bit, you know, we wouldn’t be having a debate as to whether or not a connector road was needed for that restaurant to continue. So you have similar kinds of uses, even though that use has been discontinued. So personally I feel comfortable with the traffic mitigation that’s been proposed. So, in my mind, if we could have separated the need for the connector road from this project and found some assurance that that connector road would be built later if it’s needed, then I was hoping we could move forward, but I know at least a couple of the Board members aren’t comfortable with just the diner project without a connector road. MR. SIPP-Right. I feel that the diner project could go forward if there were some assurances, and we’ve been taken by Pyramid Mall more times than they’ve done anything, and I don’t think they’re conduct is going to change. Not when it comes to dollars. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, I think the ultimate, you know, solution for this Board and for this Town is, as Jon suggested, not approve another Site Plan, you know, I mean, I think we’ve gone on record as saying, you know, any future use is going to require some traffic mitigation. Maybe at that point it’s not a connector road. Maybe it’s something different. I don’t know. MR. SIPP-I think they’d sign anything and say, yes, we’ll do that, we’ll do that next year, year after, maybe two years, maybe 10. MR. FORD-If there is a real motivation, as Jon has indicated, for the Pyramid Corporation to, if they’re waiting on this approval, but perhaps Jon needs to come back with the assurance that I was requesting before, with a date specific for demolition. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, I think that there are a lot of issues, you know, regarding the project, and it comes down to three things for me, design standards, traffic, and then that connector road. Now the design standards are an issue I talked about the last time, and I’ll get back to that. The traffic issue, it is of concern for me, and since the first time the applicant came in front of us, I was in favor of a traffic study. I, personally, don’t believe that the applicant should have to do the traffic study. I think the Pyramid Corporation should do the traffic study, because it is to update the EIS, and I do believe that a Supplemental EIS is necessary. There are several conditions that have changed since that 2001 SEQRA and Findings Statement were issued by the Town Board and by the Planning Board. The bridge over the Northway has expanded. The Queensbury School has expanded, and you know that some of the students will be walking across if this diner is approved. You know they’ll be walking across to that area. So we’ve got the bridge expansion. We’ve got the Queensbury School expansion. The traffic patterns have increased significantly since 2001. The Town ‘s grown significantly since 2001, and so those, I think those are all very key issues. The other thing is that the applicant has provided Creighton Manning’s trip numbers, which I have some questions about, but the other thing that I don’t think that takes into consideration is the seasonal variations that occur in our Town during the summer and during the holidays because we have Aviation Mall right there, and, so, you know, when it comes to traffic, I still don’t believe we have enough current information in order to make the best decision, and I think that our responsibility, as Planning 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) Board members, is to make sure that the impact of this particular development does not create a hazard, and that can be a driving hazard. It can be a safety hazard, but it can also be an inconvenience, you know, hazard or standard. We know that that’s a dysfunctional intersection in our Town. Anybody who’s driven up that road anywhere between 3:30 in the afternoon and 6:00 o’clock knows what it’s like to be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic, and I understand that there’s been a traffic mitigation suggestion that there’s no left hand turns. Folks will try to deviate from the standard. I get that, but we also live in a tourist area. A lot of our business base is tourism, and so folks getting off the Northway to come to the diner are going to go and have a nice meal, and then they’re going to go out and they’re going to have to make a right hand turn. Where do they go if they’ve never been here before? MR. LAPPER-They go to the traffic light at the Friendly’s and they can go into the Mall and turn around. MRS. STEFFAN-But, Jon, do they know that? If they’ve never been here before. MR. LAPPER-People know how to drive, Gretchen. They make a right at the traffic light. MRS. STEFFAN-I understand that, but what we’ve done to entrance to the Aviation Mall is we’ve got turns and is it reasonable to expect that someone will go into the Aviation Mall in Friendly’s, take a right in, and then do a U turn to come back out? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s reasonable to expect? I’m not, as a Planning Board member, I’m not so sure of that. MR. LAPPER-Gretchen, I appeal to you. I always view you as very reasonable. I look at my project very seriously when you’re opposed to it, and I’ve had a hard time understanding why you’ve been so opposed to this, because there are so many positives for the Town in cleaning up this site, but in terms of traffic, some of what you just said, the fact that the five lane bridge is there is a traffic mitigation measure. That’s a positive in terms of being able to handle the volume of traffic that’s here. The Queensbury School enrollment has gone down since 2000. It’s gone down one percent a year for at least the last five years that I’m aware of. In terms of the traffic on that road, it’s a DOT road, and they’re saying that it’s fine. So, I mean, again, these are anecdotal, but making a right turn in, a right turn out with no left turn with a pork chop, I mean, we’ve really done what we need to do, and we can do all sorts of studies. These guys can go away and hopefully somebody else will come back and do something else, but I think that, in the interest of the community, getting this done and cleaning up the entrance to our Town, what I’m offering on the table is all good, and I wish you were looking at it differently. MRS. STEFFAN-But I’m trying to look at it from my point of view, from my experience on the Board, and also after spending time with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and what we’re trying to accomplish. So I’m just, you know, I’ve looked at this a lot of ways, and I still feel pretty strongly that the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement that was put together was based on information that was presented in 2001. 2010, we have a much different Town than we did back then, and so the whole issue with the ring road, you know, maybe it’s not necessary for this, these applicants to make sure that there’s a ring road, but some of the things that you said a little bit earlier in your introduction was that, what happens if the parcel behind is a smaller hotel, and it is the Pyramid’s intention that they will never put a ring road in, according to the original EIS? I don’t know that, and that may not even be relevant, but what is relevant is what’s happening with that traffic pattern at Exit 19, and, you know, for me, I don’t want to approve a project that’s going to cause a lot of problems, and we’re going to look back in 10 years and say, what were we thinking. MR. LAPPER-Exit 19 functions fine right now, with the new bridge. Sure there’s congestion a couple of times a day, but it functions fine. People go slowly when there’s congestion. MR. KREBS-Can I ask Counsel a question? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead. MR. KREBS-I’m looking at this e-mail from the DOT that says they agree that actually you could have access going out both ways, but their preference was the left hand turn exiting, I mean, no left hand turn exiting, which you have agreed to, but if we were to reject this, based on this traffic concern, and DOT has said they agree that it’s an acceptable pattern, are we not backed into the same thing that we did with the other restaurant that’s now being built, after it went through? MR. TRAVER-Well, the applicant has already stipulated to those conditions. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. KREBS-Yes, I know, that’s what I’m saying, but if you’re rejecting this application based on traffic, and DOT has said they feel that the traffic pattern is acceptable. MR. TRAVER-They were only addressing the issue of the curb cut. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s all that we asked. MR. TRAVER-And we have an EIS in place for the issue of the connector road. That’s the problem. The curb cut the applicant has graciously said, fine, we will, you know, no left turn. That issue really is, at least in my mind, and maybe I’m alone on that, but that, the issue of the curb cut I think is resolved. They’ve also offered to accept the concept that at some point there might need to be a connection with the exit ramp on the Northway. So that chunk of that whole traffic issue is, you know, we’ve already sort of dealt with that. What’s left is the existing plan that calls for the connector road with development on this property that belongs to Pyramid, which includes the property that the applicant wants to purchase from Pyramid. So we either, and this is the same discussion we had the first time we looked at the application, you know, we either don’t require the connector road. We require the connector road, or we update the EIS information, which is what Gretchen is talking about, to find out that, you know, maybe the, as the applicant has stated, the connector road isn’t needed, but that’s not really based on an EIS. It’s based on, you know, their proposal. So that’s kind of where we’re at. I was hoping that we could, I and I think Chris had mentioned the idea that perhaps a compromise might be to stipulate that the connector road is part of some future development, and because of concerns about agreements and, you know, sort of holding Pyramid to the fire, that there be some kind of bonding or some mechanism, not that we would do as a condition, as advised by Counsel, but perhaps in an effort to try to move this forward, that it would be offered by Pyramid, which is really just sort of adding, I think, a paragraph to what Jon has already said, that at some point this is going to be, but it doesn’t sound like that’s going to work either. So, you know, we’re kind of caught in a (lost words) loop, I guess. MR. FORD-Jon, you’re good at reading us and looking for solutions. Don’t you see a way to proceed with this, at a future meeting, after you have made some additional contacts and so forth with your clients? th MR. LAPPER-What I gave you on the 28 was I sent this to Syracuse and Pyramid reviewed it and authorized me to provide this which says they would submit the traffic supplement when a project is proposed in the back, and that if the DOT and the Town decided that the connection was warranted by that project, that they understand they have to do it. So that is something that didn’t just come from me. Pyramid reviewed it and they agreed to it, because I felt that you needed that commitment in the record to try and get the diner project through. So they’re aware of it, and they’ve agreed to that. So I feel that you have all the leverage that you need. It was said on the record that the next time a project comes in, you know, the only qualification is if the project is a small traffic generator. Then, you know, because it’s not the 150,000 square feet that was originally proposed, because life has changed unfortunately since the early part of the last decade. Hopefully retail comes back. Hopefully it’s a big project and it does require the connector road and there’s jobs and sales tax, but if it doesn’t, so it’s a qualification only because I can’t tell what the future’s going to be, and I only gave the example of the hotel as an example of something that would be, you know, a sizeable project but a low traffic generator. If it’s retail, it is most likely going to require the connector road, and I’m not saying that it won’t be, and Pyramid’s saying that it will be, but I can’t say absolutely that they’re going to do it on a date, because I don’t know what that project’s going to be, because nobody expected, when they bought this property, in 1997 or 1998, that we were going to be sitting here, 12 or 13 years later, and it was going to be sitting there abandoned. That’s not a good thing, and I can’t read the future, but everyone understands that if there’s a sizeable retail project, that connection’s going to be required, and you have all the leverage because you’re not going to approve that project. It just happens that we’re coming to you now with a 5400 square foot diner that’s a small traffic generator, but it accomplishes knocking down all the buildings, cleaning up the site, and making the entrance to the Town look better. So I’m hoping you’ll take this as a compromise with that commitment in the record. That’s all I can offer you because we don’t know what the next project is going to be, or when it’s going to be, and I’d certainly like to work this out. MR. FORD-I think the ball’s in your court. MR. LAPPER-If that’s the case, then I’ll, you have two meetings next week. I’ll ask that, I’ll go back to Pyramid and see if I can get any more definitive. I don’t know how much more definitive it’s going to be than that, but I’ll try to come back in a week, if you table it, with a, with some statement from Pyramid and hope that it’s sufficient. Again, I’ve got Bob with his lender ready to go on this project, and we’d really like to accomplish this. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. FORD-So would I. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think we’re all in agreement this is definitely a positive for everyone concerned, but I think we need to, and again, not just in terms of, you know, I was looking at numbers of traffic. I think for the applicant, in trying to make a success of this business, I think it’s hard to imagine that in your discussions with the applicant about the issue of the connector road, at some point, wouldn’t you have said, boy, wouldn’t it be great if that connector road was there and all those people that are going shopping could just zip right up to the diner? I mean, it’s got to have a huge impact on the potential business of the diner. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, certainly the DOT in their, in the correspondence that’s here, identify in th their Tuesday, July 27 correspondence, they have several points, actually they have eight of them, but one of the points, we suggest that the Planning Board consider including a condition as part of the Site Plan approval that ensures that if and when future development warrants, the envisioned connection to the Aviation Mall ring road, that at that road the current proposed direct connection to Route 254 be re-evaluated and any necessary additional turn restrictions that may be deemed appropriate are implemented by the applicant. So, you know, the DOT did give us some direction. I mean, they’re not giving it a thumbs up and anything goes. They provided direction. MR. LAPPER-And they’ll agree to that. They can’t build it, if Pyramid builds it, they’ll agree to look at that, look at those movements. I don’t think we’d ever give up a right in or right out, but we’d look at it at the time, and DOT would require that anyway. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, before we leave this, I think that we need to talk about design standards, and I know that the applicant has added some stone facade on the front, but it’s still, the design does not meet the intent or the description of the Zoning Code. Now, you know, I hope I’m not the only voice on the Planning Board that has issues with this. I mentioned during the last meeting, we spent many years putting together the Comp Plan and the Zoning Code, and this design does not meet the standards, and there are times when the Zoning Code can be a little bit gray, but in this particular situation, the Zoning Code is very specific on what’s acceptable and what is not, and so if we approve the design as it has been presented, we will be in defiance of the Zoning Code, on many counts. Has anybody looked at that and evaluated it? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. We discussed that last meeting. I think you brought it up, and nothing’s change. MRS. STEFFAN-I did, but folk have talked about traffic tonight, not about design. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, it’s definitely an issue, and we have discussed it, and I think in view of, you know, I mean, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is this whole issue of traffic. I think if we could get through that, these other issues can be addressed, and the applicant, I think that they have already, in their submission of the new architecture, I think have made a significant progress toward where they were at. I mean, I know that not everyone agrees with that, but it certainly is movement, and I really think that those issues, though significant, are much easier to deal with in the context of not having to deal with the traffic. I mean, if we can just get past the darn traffic issue. I think all of this other stuff, I mean, we have landscaping that can address some of this and so on. I think that we can vary, because we’re all on the same page and we want to see this move forward, and I think that those issues can be dealt with. The real problem is the issue of this big piece of property, a chunk of which is now going to have this diner and how we deal with, you know, the connector road, not only in terms of safety that’s been discussed here, but again, my concern remains with the applicant who’s coming in to Town and trying to make a go of a business, and I’m thinking of, you know, my own personal, if I want to go to a diner, am I going to want to deal with getting in and out of there, as opposed to, you know, maybe J.D. says, well, let’s go to the Mall and go shopping and I can say, hey, great, we can go to that new diner. We won’t have to deal with, you know, battling on Aviation Road. It’s just going to have a huge impact, economically, on their chances of being successful in the restaurant business, which, from what I understand, is one of the toughest that there is. So if we could do it somehow, and yet, on the other hand, it’s not really fair for them to be burdened. It’s not feasible for this project, for them to be burdened with the entire expense of building this connector road. So, I mean, I just remain hopeful that somehow we can come up with something that will make us all feel comfortable that, you know, maybe we don’t need it right now, but when the time comes, we’ve got a plan in place that’s already been prior approved and agreed to, that it will happen. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MRS. STEFFAN-And traffic is an issue, and that’s been brought up, but what I don’t want to do is send the applicant away with false expectations that once we get through the traffic that, you know, we’re okay on the design standards. Every time they come back here the cash register rings, and so, you know, if we’ve got issues, they better be out on the table so that the applicant can try to deal with them. Otherwise. MR. SIPP-I have one. Let’s have a color put into the sign. What color are these letters in Queensbury? MR. HUTCHINS-Blue. MR. SIPP-Blue? All right. What color is the neon border on it? MR. LAPPER-On the sign, on the freestanding? Would be blue or gold. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry, are you referring to the letters on the building? MR. LAPPER-No, the freestanding sign. It’s not neon. I have that somewhere, if you don’t have it. MR. SIPP-Well, let’s not worry about it tonight, but I would definitely need the. MRS. STEFFAN-You know, Don, you’re talking about tubing, but the Zoning Code specifically talks about the exterior of the buildings, and façade colors shall be low reflectant, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. B. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colors is prohibited. C. 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, and, I mean, that’s printed right in the Zoning Code. MR. LAPPER-There’s no neon tubing. It’s LED. It’s not neon. MRS. STEFFAN-LED and neon, are they synonymous? MR. LAPPER-No. They’re totally different technologies. MRS. STEFFAN-It is the same application. It’s just a different, it’s a different word. MR. LAPPER-They chose LED to comply with the Code. This is only supposed to look like a diner. MRS. STEFFAN-But, in my mind, the Zoning Code, when I’m reading it, is telling us that they didn’t want, the intent of the Zoning Code is that we didn’t want a metallic building in the area. Now, if I’m misinterpreting this, if I’m totally off base, you’ve got to let me know. I spent three years on this process. Some of you were involved with it, too. So I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m just trying to apply my responsibility as a Planning Board member to support the Zoning Code, and you guys are here, too. MR. LAPPER-I could go through the general design guidelines and tell you that, in terms of complimenting what’s there, and again, four gas stations, one on the other side of the Northway, the rooftops, to avoid attention to the mechanicals, upgrade street scapes, unified site, pedestrian activity, street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, I mean, I can go through the list, too, and tell you everything that complies. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and the landscape, you know, I don’t have any issues with the landscaping. The lighting has to be tweaked. We talked about that before, and, you know, as far as ingress, egress, we’ve been talking about that, but for example, if this was proposed on Exit 18 on Main Street, it would be an absolute no, because the design standards are very specific. Here, at Exit 19, they’re talking about, there are specific things, Townwide, that are acceptable and are not. MR. LAPPER-The design standards don’t really apply to the Enclosed Shopping Center district because in the Commercial districts, the following list includes all commercial districts within the Town of Queensbury, Commercial Intensive, Commercial Moderate, Office and Neighborhood Commercial. It doesn’t say Enclosed Shopping Center. I’m looking on Page 116. It’s not on the list, but again, we’re still trying to compromise to come up with something. MRS. STEFFAN-Are you talking about design standards? 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. LAPPER-Yes. I mean, the Design Standards section, Article Seven, Specific Design Standards, Districts, and there’s nothing in the Commercial district that is for an Enclosed Shopping Center. Regardless, we heard you last time and came back with the stone as a way to soften the look. The colors have been changed. These guys, they want to build a Greek diner so when you get off the Northway you don’t think it’s another Adirondack restaurant, because that’s what they do, and they’re successful with it, but at the same time, they’re, you know, everything that you’ve asked us we’ve come back with to soften this and to make it look more acceptable. MRS. STEFFAN-And based on what I’m reading from the Zoning Code, I mean, I know the restaurant will be great, but it’s just, according to the design standards in the Zoning Code, I’m not seeing that that’s an acceptable design. MR. KREBS-And it says architectural elements, this is Section C-1 Districts, South Route 9, West Route 254, East 254. Couldn’t be more specific. MR. LAPPER-But if you look at the beginning, where it says Specific Design Standards, Districts, Commercial District, and it doesn’t say ESC, on Page 116. MR. KREBS-Yes, but if you go on to Page 119, Section C. MR. TRAVER-I don’t know if it would be instructive perhaps to even poll the Board with regards to the very general design of the building, but we are talking about a diner. I mean, with all due respect to the Zoning and everything that’s intended, I think we all understand, the reason for that, and I think we understand the reason that they have this particular design in mind. My feeling with regard to the architecture, with the modifications that they’ve made with the exception of relatively minor things like landscaping, possibly some lighting issues, I’m not uncomfortable with what they’re proposing generally. MRS. STEFFAN-Even though it doesn’t fit the Zoning Code? MR. TRAVER-Even though it doesn’t fit the Zoning Code. Yes. My concern is I think that this can, with relatively, relatively small adjustments, not a total re-design of the building, but relatively small adjustments, that can be easily worked out, can be a workable project. It can be, again, landscaping can help, screen it a little bit, and yet make it enough visible to be clear what it is to the traveling public and that kind of thing. I really think that, even though it’s an issue and even though it’s in, you know, it contradicts the Code and what we would perhaps have preferred to be at this particular location, I think that that pales in comparison to the issues of the connector road and the traffic. I think if we can just get through that, they’ve clearly indicated that they will work with us on lighting and these various other things, and we can work, I’m confident we can work all that out, but maybe polling the other Board members, maybe other Board members disagree. MR. SIPP-Steve, we don’t even know what the lighting is, what color it is, how much of it there is. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and we’d be holding this applicant to a different standard than others, and I understand that there’s gas stations there. We know they’re ugly. That’s why some of the Sign Code has been changed in our Town, because of the red LED lighting in that one gas station, but we’ve got, you know, the Silo on a diagonal. We’ve got the motel that’s next to that, that just went through a whole Site Plan Review over a two year period, and their colors were selected based on the Code, and so here, right on the same corridor, we’ve got people we’re holding to the standard, and then we have a new application, and you don’t want to hold them to the standard. So what goes? I mean, we can’t go back and change the ugly stuff that’s there. We know that. That’s the reason why we went through this process for three years to change the Zoning Code and the Comp Plan. So if we did that for nothing than, we’ve wasted a lot of time and a lot of money. MR. TRAVER-I understand. I understand you have a valid point. My position is not that I don’t want to hold them to the standards. I would love to have it be, you know, this big log cabin thing would be great. I think that would be fine, but on the other hand, I think that this is something that is worthy of our effort to try to move it forward in some fashion, and it’s my, and I’m certainly no artist, I mean, my wife J.D. can tell you that in terms of colors and all that stuff I don’t have a clue, but the new rendering that’s been submitted, to me, is a big improvement over what they initially came with, and it might be tweaked a little better without giving them the message that they’ve got to completely come up with a totally new design. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not disagreeing with anything that you’re saying, Gretchen, I agree that the zoning is what the zoning is, but I think that this is a special circumstance, in a variety of ways, and I’m open to trying to be open-minded and trying to try to extend a hand to try to accept the elements here, 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) and I’m hoping that Pyramid will do likewise by understanding our deep concern about the long- term commitment of this connector road, and just hope that we can move forward in that context, but again, that’s just. MR. LAPPER-Well, we really appreciate hearing that, and we just want to work it out, and we’re willing to compromise. I just want to point out, and again, the architecture, we’re willing to continue to compromise, but 7.4, 179-7-040, 7.4, that Page 119 that I was being referred to, is Subsection C, Architectural Elements that design district Route 9 South, but the heading that that’s under is Commercial Intensive and Commercial Moderate zones, and we’re not in either of those zones. We’re in the ESC zone here. So I don’t believe that those guidelines apply, but nevertheless, we’re still willing to do what we’ve proposed and to keep talking about it. MRS. STEFFAN-But under Design Standards Architectural Elements, there are very specific design standards, and that starts the Chapter. MR. LAPPER-No, but it doesn’t. It starts, if you look, the page before, 7.4, that is under, that’s a C. Architectural Elements is C. B is design objectives, and A is design districts, but those are all under 7.4 Commercial Intensive and Commercial Moderate zones, and we’re not in one of those zones. MR. HUNSINGER-And I’m not trying to make your argument, but if you go to Page 115, it says the following general design standards shall be integrated to all Commercial districts. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s what I read before. MR. HUNSINGER-We even go on to define what all Commercial districts are defined as, and it doesn’t include yours. MR. LAPPER-Right, and it doesn’t include, right. So I don’t believe they apply. MRS. STEFFAN-Are you talking the Route 9 North district? MR. LAPPER-Yes, because it’s Commercial. It’s CI and CM zones. It’s not ESC. MR. HUNSINGER-See, I guess in my mind, and I sat on the Comp Plan with Gretchen when we talked about design standards, and, you know, we spent a lot of time talking about design standards, and I’m struggling with this one, partly because my personal feeling is I like the design, I really do, and I think I said that at the very first meeting. There’s a lot of things about your site plan that I really like that I think are very well done. I think the landscaping is well done. The green space that’s out in front of the property, you’re removing some paving, you’re putting the parking on the side and out back. I mean, those are all great things that, you know, we do have in the Comp Plan that, you know, we try to strive for. In my mind, design standards, we do have the preamble for design standards, and the preamble talks about, you know, supermarkets, fast food franchises and gas stations, with their, you know, monotone designs, where, you know, the corporate design walks in and says, boom, here’s our standard corporate design, we’re not going to deviate from it, and in my mind, that’s why we had the design standards was to move away from that. We talk about community character. To me, community character is providing something that’s unique, and that’s why I like this because I think, to me, this is unique. Now, you know, we can debate whether or not it fits into that neighborhood, you know, for hours, but to me why this meets the design standards is because it is unique. It’s not a standard corporate identity. It’s different. It certainly is more than, it’s more attractive than the gas stations that are right adjacent to it, and I’m not picking on gas stations, you know, we work hard to try to make those attractive, too, but I am still struggling with some of the elements along the lines of what Steve was saying. I think there are some things that we could do to tweak the design. MR. LAPPER-We’re here to tweak. We just need to get this thing approved. MR. HUNSINGER-But, personally, I don’t think we need to throw the design out. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-But I think, you know, that’s the kind of analysis and thought process that we all need to go through, and, you know, we all come from different perspectives, and that’s what makes this Board good is because we don’t think the same, you know, we can think differently, we start from different prepositions, and that’s what makes this Board good is that we do have differences of opinion. MR. OBORNE-Can I make a comment? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Keith. MR. OBORNE-If I could. One thing I would suggest is, Jon is right, there is an inconsistency in the Code, but there is no inconsistency with the use table. It does state that Commercial allowed uses in Commercial districts, and it breaks down the zones, and Enclosed Shopping Center is in that zone, and it does not state Enclosed Shopping Centers are in the Commercial Intensive or Commercial Moderate zones. I totally want to agree, and, you know, there’s an inconsistency there. One person can make that clear, and that can go away, and that would be Craig, Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, but regardless of that, the Board still has to be comfortable with the design, regardless. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and even the Route 9 North district, timber frame structures, unique, and by the way, I wasn’t the one who said the Adirondack theme. I never said that, and I think that things can be unique, but even a silver diner, that can be, you know, silver diner option six that you can buy, and it’s great in a metro area, but it doesn’t fit with our, you know, the intro to our Comp Plan and what we were trying to create. So that’s why I’m focusing on the Zoning Code. MR. LAPPER-That’s Montray, that’s north of Montray, Route 9 North, under 7.4A. I’m sorry, Montray Road, it’s Route 9 starting at Montray and going north. So that’s north of this site. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you said 115. Is it 116? MR. OBORNE-What you want to do is you want to go to 179-7-050, which is Page 111, because it distinctly states Route 254 Quaker Road West District located between Northway Exit 19 and Ridge Road. That’s all of Quaker Road to Ridge Road, are subject to these design guidelines. It does not state, as Jon succinctly stated, MDR, Enclosed Shopping Center, and he’s got a valid point there. MR. LAPPER-But we’re still willing to work this out and make this better and satisfy you. MRS. STEFFAN-Even at the back of the Zoning Code, it’s still talking about natural expressions, you know, meticulous craftsmanship, natural finishes, large windows, you’ve got that, natural exterior elements. MR. LAPPER-I’ve got some of that. MRS. STEFFAN-You’ve got some of it, but it’s just, it’s very metro, and I understand that that’s the purpose of a diner, of a silver diner, but it’s not congruent, in my mind, with what the Zoning Code requires. I didn’t write the Zoning Code. I was just, I was one little person in part of a very big process, but part of my role is to assure that applications adhere to the Zoning Code. So I’m only one member of seven, but I also, I think that that’s a big issue, that and the traffic issue are the two big issues to overcome. MR. OBORNE-I do want to remind the Board that there is a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. MR. FORD-Jon, do you have a sense of what it’s going to take to get the required yeses? You do, don’t you? MR. LAPPER-I certainly study this and try hard, as you’ve said, to get the Board what it needs so I can get an approval, and I’m a little bit, I will go back to Pyramid. I don’t know, I mean, I’ve heard what you heard, I know, in some ways it’ll be easier to get a date certain on the demolition, because that’s going to happen immediately, and the issue about the back really is related to what’s going to be proposed there, but I hope I can at least come back and say that if X is built there, we know we have to do the connector road, you know, just something, tell me. Tell me what I’m missing. MR. FORD-Either date specific or make it contingent upon the approval of this project. MR. LAPPER-But what if nothing’s built back there for 20 years? You can’t expect them to build the road without a project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he controls that. We don’t. MR. LAPPER-But it’s the economy. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, he’s told people he’s going to build the hotel, Jon. MR. LAPPER-But then again, if there’s a hotel project that’s right in front of you for site plan and you can decide whether it needs a connector road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think we need the connector road for this project more than we do for the hotel. MR. LAPPER-I think that if you got a traffic engineer, they wouldn’t agree with that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, get a traffic engineer. MR. LAPPER-I will if I have to, if there’s time. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, if the Planning Board is feeling that traffic is an issue, then they’re going to have to specifically tell the applicant what they’re looking for regarding traffic. Cathi Radner had advised us last time that if there are any new or different potential environmental concerns or impact not identified, then we have to identify what they are, and anything that may have been known or wasn’t contemplated back then, that we can identify now, and that would be the trigger for a newer, revised Environmental Impact Statement, but if we can’t identify those, then we don’t go there. She did recommend that we pass a resolution determining that a Supplemental EIS is needed or not needed, and suggested that we look at the Findings Statements from the Town Board and the Planning Board and modify them. That’s what was specifically in her recommendations. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I read that letter. It’s what we’ve got to do. MR. LAPPER-This is a tiny project compared to what we were talking about. I mean, an Environmental Impact Statement is a 12 month process. It’s certainly not something that this applicant can do. MRS. STEFFAN-We have direction. We just have to decide what to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. TRAVER-I’m recalling, Jon, that when we first talked about the no right turn, as I recall the original proposal with the curb cut was that we would allow a left hand turn for two years, I believe, and then we would take another look at it. Right? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. TRAVER-And we ended up, rather than going through all that, we ended up saying, well, okay, we’ll, the applicant I should say, said, fine, we won’t deal with the left hand turns, we’ll be right only. Can we do something similar, and I know I’m stuck on this bonding or whatever it is issue again, but could we do something similar with the bonding of the connector road? Could we say that, you know, we will set up a mechanism where such a road is, well, not paid for, and I’d leave it up to you and Counsel to come up with the language, but could we have something in there that says, you know, we’re going to set aside some capital or some assets that will cover the construction of that connector road, if in two years after this project is completed, there’s no development, no sales, I don’t believe that’s going to happen, but if that were to happen, then that commitment would go away, pending some new project coming along? Am I making any sense with that? MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-That way we have something, some commitment, some bonding to cover that connector road, should it be needed, and at least I would see some comfort in seeing that out there. On the other hand, it’s not an open-ended commitment on Pyramid’s part. MR. LAPPER-So a two year bond for something like $800,000. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. LAPPER-And if there was no project proposed in two years, the bond. MR. TRAVER-It goes away. MR. LAPPER-That’s possible. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. TRAVER-I guess I would ask Counsel and other Board members what they think of yet proposal number twenty-seven. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that would certainly motivate Pyramid not to do anything for two years. MR. FORD-Exactly. It puts them on the back burner. MR. TRAVER-I think it would be the opposite. I think that once, I can envision that when this diner goes up, they’re going to be in a big hurry to sell that and get something moving. MR. LAPPER-Pyramid hasn’t sat there for 12 years because they wanted to leave it vacant. I mean, we’ve been back here three times with projects, and the economy’s stalled, and they paid whatever the County Clerk records show, five and a half million for those parcels. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. LAPPER-They’re paying interest on the financing. It’s not that they want to leave it vacant. They saw it as valuable property. They’d like to do a project if there’s a project to be done. MR. TRAVER-Right, and if in two years this goes away and in three years they come back with a big project, we haven’t given up anything. We can still evaluate the connector road. This is just a stop gap. MR. LAPPER-That’s constructive. MR. TRAVER-This is a stop gap. I’m just trying to come up with some way that we can move this damn thing forward, you know, and I know the sign issues and so on, but this connector road just seems to be a big issue, and if we can just somehow set that aside with some comfort that it’s being addressed in some fashion, without making unreasonable demands on either the applicant or perhaps Pyramid, maybe this is yet another way that we could do that, that we’ll take a look at it for a two year window. They put some assets aside and say, okay, we acknowledge, we hope we build it because we want development there, I’m sure they’re going to want to do that. If they say, well, you know, we’re going to, you know, not utilize that money for two years just to try to get something by the Planning Board, I don’t think so. In two years and one month, we’re right back where we started. They bring in a project, we still can take a look at that impact, but this gives us some, a two year insurance policy. I hope. I mean, I’m sorry, does that make any sense at all? Is that something that is feasible? MR. HILL-Well, it seems like you’re offering a potential way for the project to move forward, and certainly if Pyramid wants to agree to that and wants to offer that, in connection with its application, that certainly would be appropriate for Pyramid to offer that. If, on the other hand, you’re asking me whether or not, as a Board, you can require it as a condition? MR. TRAVER-No, I’m not asking that. No. MR. HILL-That would be a different question, but Pyramid can certainly offer it, and there’s absolutely no problem with that at all. MR. LAPPER-So I think a letter of credit would be what we would be talking about, $800,000 letter of credit, and I will quickly discuss that and see if I can get authorization for that. I think it’s intended as a constructive way to move this along, and I appreciate it. MR. TRAVER-I hope. MR. FORD-And? MR. LAPPER-And you still have all the other stuff that you’re going to. MR. FORD-The demolition. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the demolition, that’s the other question. MR. FORD-Must be addressed. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. FORD-Specifically. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. LAPPER-I was waiting to have that discussion tomorrow. In any event, so. MR. TRAVER-I mean, this has been such an issue, I can see us all with hard hats watching some of these buildings come down the day that this starts. MR. LAPPER-Yes, all of us. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’ve already talked to Sandy Jackson about taking it down, they just haven’t done it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things we haven’t done is there is a public hearing this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Board on this project? We have at least one member. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRED TROELSTRA MR. TROELSTRA-Good evening. Fred Troelstra, partner at The Silo, and thanks for the great dialogue. I want to state that it definitely is very informative, and I won’t take a lot of time. I know it’s getting, the hours are waning here. I just want to share my opinion about the emphasis on cleaning up this site. There’s a lot of discussion. I know Mr. Lapper has expressed this vividly, that this is an opportunity for the Town to go forward and clean up an eyesore. My opinion, I’m just going on record, is that building that is the former Seven Steers really doesn’t appear to be that big of an eyesore, as a neighboring property owner. Now if it’s going to go to a silver diner, I have mixed emotions about that. So, again, I mean, with all due respect, Mr. Lapper, the big part is the motel. I didn’t hear much from the Board members whether they found that Seven Steers building to be an eyesore. Separately, I find it difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that this diner can go in. There’s big dollars being considered here, I think. I don’t know the full amounts, but Desantis’ sold that for two mil. I think it’s on the books for a million and a half, it’s assessed that. I don’t know what it’s getting sold for, but to raze a building, put a new one up, 5400 square feet of restaurant, or diner, there’s some pretty significant numbers there. I can also share with the Board, if they want, as there’s some discussion about the traffic. From our experience, I am a licensed engineer, not traffic, but I can tell you as a neighboring property owner, I feel, now I’m open for any discussion on this. We’ve all been in this situation. If you’re forced to make a right hand turn out, the first thing you’re going to do it, as a newbie to the area, you’re going to say, how quick can I get myself turned back around? My feeling is if they’re like me, my wife would be in the right hand seat kind of expressing her concern, I’m going to get to the left hand lane as soon as I’m out of that parking lot. Now I’ve got to get myself to turn left, into The Silo. Someday I might have Jon on my team, because we’ve had some discussions about The Silo, and I’m all for, I want to go on the record, I’m all for healthy competition. I stated that at one of the previous meetings. I think this is a good opportunity to do something with that property. I honestly do. Mr. Hunsinger brought up a good point. If it was still the Desantis Enterprises, what would we be talking about tonight? Traffic wouldn’t be considered, necessarily. Desantis would continue to operate the way they were doing, with left hand turns out. So, it’s a difficult situation, the discussion. I can see where all the sides are concerned here, but that person, again, coming back to my scenario, is either going to dip into The Silo, or they’re going to dip into The Econolodge. They’re not going to know enough to go into the Mall and make a U turn to come out of there. That’s my opinion. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Strough? JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. Well, I like Steve’s idea. I had an idea, too, that, you know, if nothing else, this is the minimum of what we should do, having you put together a letter clearly expressing the determination of this Board that any further development on this parcel will necessitate the development of a connector road from this parcel to their ring road, and the condition would be that the appropriate officials of the Pyramid Company have received and acknowledged this letter. So that, you know, you sent them a message with an expectation that the connect road is expected to occur with further development, and you get a receipt that the officials of Pyramid have received this, so the message clearly got to the appropriate people and it was sent, but I like Steve’s idea better. If, you know, we can do that route. As far as demolishing the buildings, and in discussions with other Town Board members, if it’s not done soon, we are going to be considering pursuing more aggressive options. The other item that was of concern to me, and it deals with traffic flow as well, was the right hand turning lane, and I 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) did read a memorandum from Mr. Lapper that says, and this was good news, that the applicants are willing to accommodate an eastward bound right hand turning lane, should traffic necessitate, because our concern was that once this property is sold, and no longer is Pyramid’s, that the plans that we’ve had all along for this right hand turning lane would be very difficult to pursue, and so, you know, I felt better knowing that the applicant is willing to accommodate, and if we could put that in a condition, that, you know, the applicant’s willing to accommodate this right hand turning lane, should traffic conditions in the future necessitate that, that would be good. So, those are the three things. I wanted to tell you that the Town Board has discussed demolition and appreciate the support from the Planning Board on that matter, and the other one was, as an option for this connector road, I make my offer, not as good as Steve’s, and the other part was to condition the approval, if you’re inclined to do so, acknowledging the applicant’s willingness to accommodate this right hand turning lane. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Jon, I’m just going to say, with regard to your letter suggestion, with the representatives of Pyramid, I think Mr. Lapper is going to be returning to meet with us, and he will be talking about his conversations with them on the record. So, I think we’ll have on the record that they’re informed of our position. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, my idea was back there before you came up with your idea, Steve, and I’m trying to, you know, reach a consensus, so we can move forward. MR. TRAVER-Exactly. MR. KREBS-John, one of my concerns was that right hand, and I thought, in the documentation that I got, that they’ve already agreed that they will comply. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I thought that that was a big plus. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? No one else? Okay. We will leave the public hearing open. MR. LAPPER-Just like 30 seconds of response. First of all, I’m a big fan of The Silo, and I can’t even tell you how much my wife spent at Gardentime this summer, but they run a great business, and I think that they’re going to continue to do great, and the diner should do great, but when Fred was talking, it made me think that I believe that you could still, you know, not a bus or a truck, but if you’re in a car, I think you could still make a U turn at Greenway North when you’ve got the traffic light instead of making a left to Greenway, as the quickest way to turn around and you wouldn’t have to go through the Mall. Obviously if you’re a motor home that’s not going to work, but I think that that is permissible. That’s not a sign that says no U turns. So I just want to through that out there. People will have to turn around at some point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the other thing that I wanted to add about that, and I’m sorry to cut you off, Jon, but I mean, the applicant can put direction signs up. I mean, there used to be some down at Exit 15, you know, to make a left hand turn, you know, use whatever road. I don’t know the name of it, and there used to be direction signs down there to direct you to do that. So, I mean, you could put up a direction sign at the exit saying, you know, to make a left, you know, go use the red light at the Mall or whatever. MR. LAPPER-Yes, go to the Mall, left turns at Mall traffic light, and, you know, just, John, too, trying to find a constructive way. I mean, I really appreciated the, we don’t have a major corporate applicant here. So the time and the expense and the engineering and the lawyering, they’ve got a bank commitment and they really want to get this in the ground. I’m not holding that out as a threat. It’s as an opportunity to just try and work this out. So, you know, if it’s possible to be as quick as possible and perhaps throw me on at the end of the meeting on Tuesday and we’ll come back with an answer from Pyramid and hopefully we can work this out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything from the Board? I don’t have the agendas right in front of me. Which night is heavier, Tuesday or Thursday? MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, I believe I may have a copy of the agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-For both evenings? MR. TRAVER-Yes. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. OBORNE-I would say Tuesday would be the lighter one, and if I could, you’re definitely working towards the traffic issues. I’m seeing that. What about the aesthetic issues? They could put all the money into the traffic, get it all mitigated, but if you folks don’t like the way it looks at this point, you may want to give them direction as to what you’re looking for to get you over that hump. MR. SIPP-I think I’m concerned about the colors. When we get the colors, we can match them up and see how they look, and the types of lighting that you’re going to be using. There may be other considerations, if it doesn’t meet design standards, or if it does. MR. KREBS-Wasn’t the horizontal lighting in a yellow tone? MR. LAPPER-Gold and blue. MR. KREBS-Gold and blue. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Queensbury colors. We also have the actual stone, which is more interesting and more detailed than what’s on the plan. We can show you. MR. KREBS-Well, as a Board member, my major concern was the traffic. So if we can resolve the traffic situation, which we have mitigated part of it already, with the right hand turn lane, I can live with the design, even though it doesn’t necessarily meet our Code. MR. SIPP-I think everybody should read that traffic report of 2001 and 2005, it’s available in the office, and I just copied down the latest one which is in June 2005. There are 21,560 vehicles per day that go Route 9 up 254, and that was the highest figure done in June of ’05. It also gave a list of the types of accidents, and property damage, which did not refer to anything on the way of fatalities or injuries, just the number of crashes, which averaged somewhere in the neighborhood of three to four a day. Now, this is before 254 was widened, and we have no further traffic reports since then, and I’m sure that the number 21,560 has gone up in that time, five years. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but DOT is okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Any other comments? I guess what we’re going to do is table this until next Tuesday. th MR. TRAVER-The 28. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, are you thinking of tabling this in anticipation of a response from Pyramid or are you tabling this to be heard again as a full application? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a good clarification. I think the intention is to gain a response from Pyramid. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay, and at that point if a further tabling is anticipated, then we can do. MR. FORD-My sense when I said the ball’s in your court, Jon, was he’s got it, and we will react to whatever he comes back with on Tuesday. MR. OBORNE-Okay. So we’re not looking for anything to be given to Staff? You want it given to you at the point of the meeting? Because there’s no turnaround time, to be honest with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, exactly. MR. LAPPER-What I’m looking for is a demolition date, and whether they will agree to a letter of credit of $800,000 for the next two years to cover. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just tell them to demolish it. MR. LAPPER-I understand. MR. FORD-No, no, no. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. LAPPER-No, no, no what? MR. FORD-I want date specific. MR. LAPPER-You’re saying no to him, not to me. MR. FORD-Yes. Twelve years from now demolished? No. MR. HUNSINGER-No, if they brought in the wrecking ball tomorrow and took it down but never gave you a date, you’d be okay. MR. TRAVER-So a tabling resolution for this evening does not have to deal with the architectural issues, just those two issues, the Pyramid response issues? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we still have some concerns and comments about. MR. TRAVER-Well, all right, because I, when Gretchen suggested that I work on some draft language, I had, let me read the three conditions that I had on there, too. The applicant to re- evaluate lighting in the context of color and intensity. Applicant’s representative to discuss with Pyramid the offering of a letter of credit to fund the estimated construction cost of the quote connector road unquote, letter of credit to be held for two years after the diner opens. Number Three, applicant’s representative to discuss with Pyramid the establishment of a date certain for the commencement of the demolition of the abandoned structures on the property. Those were the conditions for tabling. MR. FORD-The completion date of demolition, not a start date. They could start tomorrow, and eight years from now it’s still going. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I can amend that. My thought was that, you know, they’re not going to start it and stop because that’s going to be, I mean, the sooner they get it done, the less, but a completion date is fine. Let me change that, for the completion. Okay. Does that sound generally, those three items good for tabling for this evening? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Can you have this item on next week without a public hearing? Without notice? MR. OBORNE-The public hearing would stay open. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the public hearing would stay open. MRS. STEFFAN-Does it have to be noticed? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was noticed for this evening. MR. TRAVER-And Mr. Lapper will let us know if there’s no response, or the response is negative, then I guess we’ll have a different issue. MR. OBORNE-If I could, with that terminology, instead of conditioning it, how about will Pyramid offer it? Because you’re asking them to demo something that has. MR. TRAVER-No, no. I’m just asking the applicant’s representative to discuss with Pyramid these issues. I haven’t said. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Not a condition? MR. TRAVER-No. Well, a condition is that he discuss it with them. That’s the condition. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-And then if they have something to offer, fine. If they don’t. MR. FORD-We’ll react to what is presented. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, all, we’re asking him to do, and he’s already agreed to do it, is to discuss these concerns that we’ve raised this evening. So I don’t know how we can condition anything else, really. I mean, we can’t, if we could, I would have done it already. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. TRAVER-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Still confused? MR. OBORNE-No, no, I’m not confused. I’m crystal clear on that. You still have one issue out there that really has not been discussed in this tabling resolution, and that is the design guidelines. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Because that is another 800 pound gorilla in the room, and I just want to just bring that up again. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We’ll address that after we get rid of the other. MR. OBORNE-Well, if that’s the process you want to go through, absolutely. I mean, that’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-But the applicant’s expecting that if they answer this information, that they’ll potentially get an approval quickly, and so they need to have your feedback on what you think about the design guidelines so they have something to go on. MR. LAPPER-Let me throw on the table the Virginia Ledgestone color that they picked, so that you can just see the stone. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we’ve got copies of that. You provided copies for us. MR. LAPPER-It’s the top right, and I don’t think that was ever specified. MR. FORD-Do you have actual samples of that? MR. LAPPER-No. Just that. MR. TRAVER-The only draft condition for this evening that I had proposed is applicant to re- evaluate lighting in the context of color and intensity. Those were specifically raised, the intensity of the lighting, and there’s some concern about the, I know Don raised the question of the color, I guess, blue or whatever. So, you know, if you want to take a look and see if there’s anything there. The intensity we discussed with Tom already the concern about intensity, whether or not they want to come back with something different there. That’s all I had specifically on those items. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We talked about whether it’s the silver shiny building or not. MR. LAPPER-It’s partially silver shiny building. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Would you like another condition that they re-evaluate the siding? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you can’t see much from that. MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s not something that’s on the table because it has to be a diner, but they’ve done what they could do. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, that was kind of my. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it’s on my table. It’s something that’s in our (lost word). MR. FORD-Is there an actual photograph of a? MR. LAPPER-We submitted last time a whole bunch of photos of a bunch of different diners that this company had done, that designs this. You should have that. MR. OBORNE-You probably threw them out. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Right, yes, that evening. The other thing I think is, with regards to conditions for the tabling this evening, I mean, I think we’ve been talking with the applicant enough, and the applicant’s, I should say the applicant’s representatives, to know that simply because we don’t have a condition here, they know what our concerns are and hopefully they’ll come back and 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) perhaps be prepared to discuss them, but I think that the issues, the discussions with Pyramid are the main things, at this point, I think that we’re looking for, to move forward, but if you want to pass this down, if anyone has additional specific conditions they would like added to the list. MR. FORD-Jon, what I was trying to get at, when I asked about the photographs, with this stonework, how close can you come to showing us a photograph of what it is that we’re describing? MR. LAPPER-Well, that is a computer generated artist rendering, what you have there, and that, the only difference is that, you know, the stone is not as, it’s not photographic like it is here, but this is the actual stone, which has some gray in it to match the stainless steel, or to compliment it. MR. KREBS-You’re saying it’s the Virginia Ledgestone? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And that was a real attempt to soften it. MRS. STEFFAN-Make sure you envision that LED lighting up on that stainless steel. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I already know what I think about all that. MR. LAPPER-We may be able to come back with less LED lighting. It still has to look like a diner, but we may be able to remove some of it. So we hear you and we’ll come back with some compromise. MR. TRAVER-All right. Are we ready for me to give this a shot? MR. HUNSINGER-We’re ready. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2010 BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes demolition of the 8,800 sq. ft. former Howard Johnson’s 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. A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21/2010; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2010 BOB PILARINOS; DENNIS PILARINOS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th The application is tabled to the evening of September 28. Tabling is with the following conditions: 1.The applicant to re-evaluate lighting in the context of color and intensity. 2.The applicant’s representative to discuss with Pyramid the offering of a letter of credit to fund the estimated construction cost of the connector road. Letter of credit to be held for two years after the diner opens. 3.Applicant’s representative to discuss with Pyramid the establishment of a date certain for the completion of the demolition of the abandoned structures on the adjoining property. st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you next week. MR. LAPPER-We really, really appreciate you helping us. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Before we adjourn, we had one additional item to discuss. The final item I had, unless other members have items as well, is there was some e-mail discussion about whether or not we wanted to have Counsel have a workshop with us before our next Thursday meeting to discuss the Fedorowicz lawsuit, because they’re back before the Board for Site Plan Review. I mean, my personal preference would be to do that, have a short workshop at 6:30, right before the meeting, but I did want to pose it to the rest of the Board. MR. HILL-I think that Cathi Radner will probably be attending that. She has more familiarity with that. I think that if you want to discuss the matter ahead of time, prior to the regular start time for the meeting, then what you would be looking to have would be an attorney/client privilege session. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. HILL-And so are you all wanting to do that at 6:30, prior to a seven o’clock meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Yes, we’d do it in the Supervisor’s Conference Room. MR. HILL-Okay. All right. I can certainly let Cathi know that that’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m posing the question to the Board. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I think that’s an excellent idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I will not be here next week. Steve Jackoski’s going to take my place both nights, Tuesday and Thursday. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You also changed the dates for the November meetings, right? MR. HUNSINGER-We did. It’s the Tuesday/Thursday. Yes. Okay. Anything else? MR. FORD-Is it Tuesday or Thursday at 6:30? MR. HUNSINGER-For this workshop it would be the Thursday at 6:30. MR. FORD-Thursday. MR. OBORNE-I would like to state that there are updated Zoning Code maps in the back over by the cafeteria window there. Please pick them up and study them judiciously. There have been quite a few changes on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s some recent changes. Are those on the map as well? MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s been updated. I’ll get you another one in a couple of weeks, to make sure that nothing else will change. MRS. STEFFAN-Do you guys think that a half an hour is enough time to go over Fedorowicz? I mean, the last time we talked about it, it went an hour. So I just thought that I’d bring that up. MR. OBORNE-Are you familiar with it, to a certain extent? Because it has been since May. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but I thought I would just throw that out. MR. TRAVER-Good point. MRS. STEFFAN-There was a lot more conversation the last time, and clarification, and I just don’t want them to be cut short. I want to be sure that there’s enough time. MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. Maybe we should do it at six o’clock. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/10) MR. FORD-How about 6:15? MR. KREBS-I’ll be here whatever time. MR. HUNSINGER-Six o’clock. MR. KREBS-Yes, six is fine. MR. TRAVER-That’s a good suggestion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILL-So 6 p.m. for your start time, and just not to put too fine a point on it, but, again, I think you want to characterize this as an attorney/client privileged session. It’s not a workshop meeting. It’s an attorney/client privileged session. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I said workshop, didn’t I? MR. HILL-Well, I’m not sure that it was you, Chris, but I know that workshop is kind of the generic term, but in this particular circumstance I think you do want to be on your record as characterizing it as an attorney/client privileged session with Counsel. MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to make that motion so that it’s on the record? All right. I’ll make the motion. TH MOTION THAT THE BOARD CONVENE AT 6 P.M. ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30 FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE FEDOROWICZ PROJECT IN ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2010, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: st Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 68