Loading...
2010.09.28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 INDEX Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow HOA 1. FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. Site Plan No. 28-2010 Leslie Grasso 2. FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 2. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 53-2010 Bob Pilarinos; Dennis Pilarinos 3. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-97 Site Plan No. 17-2010 Angio Dynamics 17. Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10 Subdivision No. 3-2009 Christian & Eustacia Sander 22. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 278.2-29, 30 Site Plan No. 52-2010 John & Sandy Lambrechts 25. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-4 Site Plan No. 51-2010 Lori F. Britton 32. Tax Map No. 289.7-2-15, 10; 16, 24 Subdivision No. 10-2010 Maureen Ireland 39. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 55-2010 Crescent LLC Dennis Fredette 42. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-55 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 09/28/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD DONALD KREBS STEPHEN TRAVER PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, September 28, 2010. We have a couple of administrative items on the agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SUBDIVISION 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to move that? MR. KREBS-Do we know when they want to do it? MR. HUNSINGER-They asked for a meeting in October. MR. KREBS-Okay. th MR. HUNSINGER-The 26? MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t think October is going to work, because the deadline is over for October. MR. HUNSINGER-Have they submitted new materials? MR. OBORNE-They have not submitted anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks, Keith. We would have made a big mistake. MR. OBORNE-It would have been huge. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-November. MR. HUNSINGER-November. MR. KREBS-November. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Either one? thth MR. OBORNE-Yes. 16 or the 18. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW HOA, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Tabled to November 16. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 28-2010 LESLIE GRASSO: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-And we have a similar consideration with Site Plan 28-2010 for Leslie thth Grasso. They’ve asked for that to be tabled to November, either the 16 or the 18. Is there a preference, Keith? MR. OBORNE-None whatsoever. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to move that? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2010 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2010 LESLIE GRASSO, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Tabled to November 16. th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE TABLED ITEMS: 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-They’ve also asked to be tabled to October. Did they submit new materials, Keith? MR. OBORNE-They have not. MR. HUNSINGER-So they’re going to November also? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on that project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll leave the public hearing open. Would someone like to make a motion? th MR. OBORNE-If I could request the 18 on that one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. th MR. TRAVER-November 18? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) 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 Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Tabled to November 18. th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If it pleases the Board, I would like to modify the agenda slightly. I’d like to move up the diner discussion to the next item, unless there’s any objections? Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 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-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-There’s no real update at this point. I think counsel is going to give you that. Obviously, it was last week that you guys tabled it to this date, for a status check, basically, and whatever the Board may wish to do at this point, with this project. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. Tom Hutchins is about to walk in with a new lighting plan. Bob is picking up his father at the airport coming in from Greece. So he’s not here tonight, and I have a letter from Pyramid which I hope gives you the commitment that you were looking for. While it doesn’t include a letter of credit, it basically acknowledges that you have the right to require the connection, coming from them, on their letterhead, and after we read it and talk about it, I hope that it will be sufficient. MR. HUNSINGER-Are these copies for everybody? MR. LAPPER-These are copies, for Cathi as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It’s short and I might as well just read it into the record, and it’s signed by Jim Soos, the Director of Development, who’s my main contact, and who’s the gentleman who met with the Town Board out on the site last winter when we first started seriously talking about taking down the motel. “Dear Chairman Hunsinger: Thank you for the feedback regarding the site plan approval for the proposed diner. I am encouraged by the comments and happy the matter is moving along. With respect to the two issues raised, I offer the following response: Issue #1 ‘The Planning Board seeks a definitive written commitment regarding the timing of completion for the hotel demolition.’ Response #1: We have every intention of following through with the demolition of the hotel. The hazardous materials report was completed early last spring and the demolition permit was issued by the town of April 15, 2010. Once the diner applicant receives site plan approval, we expect to close on the sale of the property within 30 – 45 days. Demolition of the hotel will then begin within two weeks following the closing.” I see Tom shaking his head. You had asked 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) them to give a date for when it would be completed, but they said that that that would depend upon whether and just what happened on the site, but it’s not going to start and stop. It’s going to continue. So I’m told it’ll be about a three week job. The diner applicants have their loan commitment, 30 to 45 day closing, if we can accomplish Site Plan approval is realistic, and they’re committing here to begin demolition within two weeks after that closing. So that would be November. “Issue #2: ‘The Planning Board seeks a response from Pyramid on the proposal that Pyramid post an $800,000 letter of credit which will expire in two years to cover the cost of construction of the connector road in the event that a project is proposed within two years for the hotel property which generates sufficient traffic to necessitate the connector road.’ Response #2: Granting Site Plan Approval for the diner project to proceed without the connector road with Aviation Mall does not affect the ability of the Planning Board and/or the NYS Department of Transportation from requiring the connector road as mitigation for any proposed future development of the land that remains in the northwest quadrant of Aviation Mall. Should the remainder of the project be developed in the future, the connector road only benefits Aviation Mall. The determining factor regarding construction of the connector road will be based upon the estimated vehicular trip generations associated with the use and size of the proposed development. The Planning Board in its power does not need a bond or letter of credit under SEQRA to mitigate impacts to the environment. As a result, it is not necessary for us to pledge assets for a bond or letter of credit. Should you have additional questions, I can be contacted. Very truly yours, Pyramid Management Group, Inc. James L. Soos Director of Development” I hope that this will be viewed as an acknowledgement that the Planning Board has the right to require the connector road and the commitment that the hotel will be demolished within a set number of days after Site Plan approval for the diner. In this environment, with financings, an $800,000 letter of credit is a big deal, even for a company like Pyramid, because you have to pledge assets, but I sense that one of the things that you wanted last week was to have them acknowledge this on their letterhead from the officer of the company, and I was able to accomplish that. So, the goal is to take down the hotel, and that’s true, and that’s real. The other item that you’d asked for was to change the lighting, and Tom Hutchins has been effective in doing that. Why don’t you explain what you’ve done. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. On the site lighting there remained a concern with regard to over illuminence, and we have, again, reduced the wattages of the fixtures and reduced the number of fixtures under the canopy, near the entry. We’ve taken the average horizontal foot candle from 2.6, where your Code is 2.5. We were at 2.6. We’re down to 1.5, and the maximums have dropped correspondingly. The maximum is now nine, and that will, again, at a point directly beneath one of the fixtures on the grid, right at the entrance, and I’m not comfortable, I think right now it’s lower than it should be in the parking area, but we’ve brought it down again, and we can work with this, and hopefully it’ll be acceptable to the Board. I have not submitted that plan. I do have some copies of that revised plan that I can leave with Keith, and he can get through it and review it, or if the Board wants to look at it, it’s just a grided lighting plan, but I do have some copies of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MS. RADNER-I just want to make one thing perfectly clear. While it’s very nice that the commitment’s being made to bring down the hotel, as a representation to this Board, the timetable does not coincide with what the Town Board previously indicated was acceptable to the Pyramid Mall folks, and I just want to make sure it’s perfectly clear on the record that any approvals that you might be giving the applicant tonight certainly don’t bind the Town to be saying that that’s an acceptable time limit. You don’t have the power to trump the Town Board in that regard. The Town Board’s indication, and I think this was made public last night, is to proceed with a separate lawsuit to require that that go down, and nothing that happens tonight will impact that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. RADNER-Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all right. MR. FORD-In expressing my concern at our last meeting regarding the demolition of the old hotel, I specifically requested a date specific when it would be down, and we discussed a start date for demolition, which doesn’t, in any way, determine when it would be completed. I appreciate the response, but I don’t find it satisfactory, or acceptable. MR. LAPPER-It’s real. They’ll have the closing, and they’ll get paid. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. FORD-So’s my response, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Well, approving the diner facilitates this whole thing. It will accomplish having the motel down. You have it in writing. The schedule that they have is that they will have the closing. They will sell the parcel. They will apply the money for that, and they have a contractor ready to go. MR. TRAVER-I guess my concern, just generally, if I could for a moment, is when last we discussed these two issues, we, I think, as a Planning Board, were really trying to reach out and demonstrate our willingness to try to move this project forward with the understanding that we would get a similar response from Pyramid to what we felt were two very reasonable issues, and although, again, I just received this letter this evening, but it basically seems like we’re getting a no on both issues. On Issue Number One, I’m dismayed that they would state basically in writing that they’re not going to comply with what they had already agreed to. That brings up a big red flag for me with regards to any development on this site. Issue Number Two, I actually kind of resent the fact that they’re stating that the determining factor regarding construction of the connector road will be based upon the estimated vehicular trip generations. With all due respect, I think there’s a planning process that will determine the connector road, and although the estimated vehicular trip generations might be considered, there are other factors, including an existing EIS. So, I just, I mean, I don’t want to personalize this, but I felt as though we kind of reached out to the applicant and Pyramid and all we really were looking for was an indication that, yes, we want to move forward, and instead we’re getting basically a big no back. MR. LAPPER-I don’t want you to view it that way. In the first instance, demolition of the hotel will then begin within two weeks following the closing. That is a commitment. In terms of what you said about the agreement with the Town, Pyramid had signed and delivered to the Town Board a contract which said that it would be down by. th MS. RADNER-It was never signed. The Town wanted it by September 30, and you wanted th October 30, and it was never signed. MR. LAPPER-What was it to commence or to complete construction by that date? MS. RADNER-Complete. th MR. LAPPER-Pyramid did sign it and did submit it to the Town, with a date of September 30, but it was never counter-signed by the Town Board, because of other disagreements in the language. So there was no contract. So they’re not defaulting on the contract. The Town Board was basically waiting to see what would happen with the diner project, I think understanding what’s going on here, but in this letter that I’ve submitted, demolition of the hotel will then begin within two weeks following the closing. That is a commitment. MR. TRAVER-But we have a commitment already that they’re stating in their letter is, they’re acknowledging they’re not going to follow the commitment they’ve already made. So why should this new commitment be any more meaningful than the commitment that’s already on the table? Likewise with the connector road, you know, their unwillingness to pledge the cost of the connector road, you know, I mean, it certainly raises the suspicion that we’ll run into the same issue, that they’ll say, we’ll build the connector road, not with the diner, and then when the next development comes in, they’ll say, we’re not going to build it during this development either, but we’ll build it with the next development, and the next development, and the next development. That’s why we wanted the letter of credit, that would give us some assurance that we could feel comfortable moving forward, and now they have, and I certainly understand and respect your comment that the letter of credit does involve assigning some assets to the potential construction of the connector road, but that’s exactly what we were asking for in attempting to reach out to Pyramid to see if we could work together and move it forward, and we’re getting a big NO, to both of our requests. MR. LAPPER-But what you’ll get is this brand new diner project that cleans up the site. The restaurant will be knocked down immediately, because it has to be for the diner project, and there’s a commitment from Pyramid, in this letter, that they’ll take down the hotel, and if they don’t take down the hotel, the Town’s going to sue them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why would we believe that? We’ve been waiting three years, he’s been saying the same thing. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there’s commitment already on the table. I think that the victim here is really the applicant, the diner applicant. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. FORD-No question about that. MR. TRAVER-I mean, they are basically in a position where they’re subject to Pyramid not cooperating with the Town on moving forward to resolve the issues on this parcel, and I think that that’s very unfair and very unfortunate, and it’s put us, this letter has really put, I feel, in a very difficult position, with regards to the Town and with regards to the applicant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree. MR. TRAVER-And I resent it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I do, too, and he’s, what he’s got here, and I don’t know if this guy’s even got the power to commit it, because it’s really, Congel’s the only guy that’s been carrying the ball on this, but you’re putting your other client into a situation where he’s at the mercy of Bob Congel, and that’s not fair, and this is blackmail. This is saying to the Planning Board, hey, you either approve the diner, or I’m not going to tear it down. That’s basically what it says, because we’ve been asking them for three years, we, the Town Board, myself, personally when he was using it for fire training, to tear it down. Every time he said he would do it. Has he done it, no. th The Town Board gave him a deadline of September 30. Do you see any equipment out there? No. So now we get a letter saying, well, you do what I tell you, and I’ll tear it down. I don’t want to be in that spot, and I feel sorry for one of your clients, but I don’t feel very sorry for your other one. MR. LAPPER-In terms of the diner, guys, they have a bank commitment, they are ready to go. The diner’s been designed. So nothing bad happens to the Town if you let that go forward. I mean, we’re a lot better off than we are, if the hotel never came down, and that’s not going to happen, I promise you, but if the hotel never came down, we’d have a brand new diner, new entrance, new landscaping, a site that’s alive, paying taxes, in front of the hotel. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why don’t we do it the other way around? Why don’t we table this until he tears the hotel down? MR. LAPPER-Well, my response to that would be that Mike Hill, from, Cathi’s firm, last time, said that you shouldn’t be tying that to this. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He’s doing just the same thing to us. He’s saying you approve the diner and I’ll tear it down. MR. LAPPER-I mean, the simple truth is just that they’re going to apply the proceeds from the sale to pay for the extreme cost of taking down the diner. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ll believe that when I see it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I understand the history. I understand it’s been there for 12 years, but I would like you to look at this as a way to facilitate that, and it certainly cleans up the front of the site. MR. FORD-We were hoping that your other applicant would feel the same way. MR. LAPPER-I know, but the problem is that $800,000 is a big deal to tie up assets, and you don’t get a letter of credit without pledging assets, and so it’s a big deal. MR. FORD-It’s a big deal, no doubt about it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And let me ask you, he owns five malls. Is he in bankruptcy on a couple of those malls? I’ve heard that, but I don’t know whether it’s true. MR. LAPPER-I have no knowledge of what their financial statement looks like. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But I know he’s had problems with the towns in every place he’s operated. MR. LAPPER-I can’t comment because I don’t have knowledge of it, but it’s a lousy retail market right now. There’s vacancies in Aviation Mall, and they’ve got real guys on the hook for the diner that want to come forward. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Crossgates, Carousel, they’re all in trouble. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. LAPPER-The diner guys want to spend money in our Town, and fix up the site, and they’ve certainly come back and tried to give you everything that you wanted in terms of the diner site to satisfy the Board. MR. FORD-We’re not blaming the diner people, Jon. You understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-Would they offer a letter of credit to tear down the hotel? MR. LAPPER-Would who? MR. HUNSINGER-Pyramid. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean the diner people? MR. HUNSINGER-No, Pyramid. What we talked about last week was a letter of credit for the connector road, but, you know, the concern that is being expressed here is the willingness to tear down the hotel. MR. LAPPER-I think that could be accomplished. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why doesn’t he just tear it down? I mean, he can’t float the cost of tearing it down for 30 days? MR. LAPPER-I’m not privileged to that information. So I can’t comment on that. I don’t know what their finances are. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I resent the fact that he’s playing games, not so much with us, but with the Town Board. MR. LAPPER-What Chris asked for was a letter of credit to cover the cost of demolition of the hotel. I think that, I’m told that’s around $300,000, probably a little more than that. I think that, I mean, as a condition of approval of the diner, I think that might be possible. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just thinking out loud, you know. MR. FORD-I haven’t changed my opinion from a date specific for when that old hotel is going to be demolished. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I want to see it down. MR. TRAVER-I believe the whole issue is complicated by the fact that this letter states they’re not going to comply with their current agreement with the Town, and I really don’t see how we can make any progress on this until that’s resolved. MR. LAPPER-There isn’t an agreement with the Town. There’s no agreement. The Town didn’t accept it. Pyramid offered it, and the Town didn’t accept it. So, you don’t have an agreement unless you have an offer and acceptance. The contract was signed by Pyramid and delivered to the Town Board. th MR. SCHONEWOLF-They made an oral agreement to tear it down by the 30, and the Town didn’t send it back because of insurance concerns. MR. LAPPER-No, this was a written agreement that was negotiated. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I know. Excuse me written agreement. MS. RADNER-My memory’s a little different than Jon’s, that it went more the opposite way, that the Town was willing to sign off on the agreement. That we presented it to Pyramid, and the conditions and terms set forth were not acceptable. It may be that a version was presented to the Town Board. If that happened, I never saw it. MR. LAPPER-A contract was edited by Pyramid with its terms and signed and delivered to the Town Board. MS. RADNER-But those aren’t the terms that were dictated by the Town Board. So there was never a meeting of the minds. What was agreed to on the site was never commuted to paper. There’s been no progress. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. FORD-Counsel has made it clear that this Board cannot trump the Town Board, and that is such a significant issue, I believe that needs to be resolved before we proceed. That’s just my opinion. MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t have to be resolved. If the Town Board is going to take care of getting the hotel down, then that’ll be taken care of. The Town Board has said that they’re going to pursue that. I’m asking you to let the diner guys go. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They have pursued that. MR. LAPPER-No. They’ve said they’re going to start litigation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if the Town has to sue to have it taken down, that tells you something about who we’re dealing with. MR. LAPPER-Well, I think the hotel’s going to be taken down before, I expect that the hotel’s going to be demolished, if you approve this, it’ll be demolished before there’s any litigation, but if you approve this, you’re still doing a good thing for the Town and the entrance and, I mean, the diner guys, if this doesn’t get approved, maybe someone else will come along some time, but they could go away. They could lose their bank commitment. They’ve got to go. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we regret that they’re mixed up in this. MR. LAPPER-But it’s a good project. MR. TRAVER-Well, the other concern is that, if they’re unable to come up with the $800,000 letter of credit for the connector road, which we’ve already discussed, we know needs to be developed for that property to be developed, it could very well be that essentially the only assets they have is the property itself. So if we end up in a lawsuit, you know, they may, who knows, I mean, this property may go away in order for the Town to demolish the hotel, because Pyramid doesn’t have the assets. I mean, if they can’t come up with a letter of credit to cover the connector road that we know is going to be needed at some point, you know, I don’t know how we can move forward on the diner project when the property that the diner’s proposed to be built on might be an asset that’s involved in a potential lawsuit with Pyramid to pay for the motel to come down. So it’s just a very, I mean, this letter, rather than help us move forward, seems like it’s just complicated things tremendously. Acknowledging in writing that they’re not going to start work on September 30 or whatever, and not being willing to put up a letter of credit is just, it’s a very unfortunate. MR. LAPPER-A letter of credit ties up assets that could otherwise be used for their facilities, and if there’s no project on the back, what they’ve said here is you have every legal right to require the connection when somebody comes along with a project, whether it’s them or somebody else. MR. TRAVER-They’ve also stated that the determining factor is estimated vehicular trip generation. What if we don’t agree with that? I don’t. MR. LAPPER-Well, that was my example at the last meeting last week, that if somebody came in and bought the site to put up a hotel, that may not require a connection. It may be a small project that doesn’t require a connection. MR. TRAVER-But wouldn’t you agree that more information is involved in that assessment than trip generation? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, and likely this Board is going to require that connection, and they understand that, and that’s why they said that in this letter. MR. TRAVER-But the implication in this letter is that they’re saying, in fact, in so many words, the determining factor regarding construction of the connector road will be based upon estimated vehicular trip generations. That severely limits their understanding and their indicating to us in advance what they will, what conditions they will be willing to agree to build a connector road. MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s already an EIS out there. MR. TRAVER-Exactly. MR. LAPPER-That talks about the connector road. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. TRAVER-I think that’s how we started. MR. LAPPER-What we’re trying to just accomplish, no one is saying that the diner, you’re not saying that the diner requires the connector road for traffic safety. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We don’t know. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’ve submitted information. DOT has signed off on it without it. I mean, that’s my best argument. DOT has signed off on it without a connector for the diner. The diner was 62 cars peak hour generated, without left turns out, and DOT has said that’s acceptable. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that was a while back. MR. LAPPER-No, that was in July. We just got a letter from DOT, for this project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I didn’t see that. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So DOT is not requiring that. MR. TRAVER-The hotel buildings, that is an associated issue, but it’s obviously a separate issue from the diner project. I would ask that you raise the issue again with them of the letter of credit on the connector road. I think this, I think we’re further away from moving forward now than we were last week. I think that there’s still the case that if they acknowledge the likely need for the connector road, we don’t need language telling us what we need to consider for a determining factor but if you can get them to acknowledge the need for a letter of credit, I think we could still move forward, but without that, and in the context of the other language in this letter, I think we have a very difficult time, I personally have a difficult time moving forward on this, especially with pending litigation on the very land that we’re discussing. MR. FORD-So, Steve, I want clarification. Are you suggesting that we take the demolition of the old hotel off the table with this issue? MR. TRAVER-No, I think it’s a related issue. There’s no question. I think that your request of asking them when the date certain of that completion will be done is certainly appropriate. The reason that I think, in terms of the diner, it’s on a parallel track and some degrees is separate is because it’s obvious now, with this letter, that there’s going to be litigation moving forward to address that, and that may very well impact on whatever is planned for that property, particularly if they’re unable to come up with a letter of credit, and their assets, perhaps, are only that property. I don’t know, but what I’m saying is, in my own mind, I think that the hotel issue is going to be resolved one way or another. I think that in the context of the development of this parcel, it’s very appropriate, and I think they should give us a date certain for the completion of that. Of that I have no doubt, but I think that as we move forward with this project, that information will be clarified over time, as we look at, you know, what’s going to happen with the diner and how likely it is for that to be finally approved, and Pyramid understands whether or not this is going to be developed and that property is going to be sold, but I think at this point, before we move forward at all, the letter of credit, the connector road has become more important, particularly when they make these declarative statements that exactly what would be considered for any future connector road. I mean, they’re putting conditions on the Planning Board, which of course they cannot, but they are making it clear that their willingness to agree to a need for a connector road is based on this estimated vehicular trip generation. So we might have another litigation, at some point down the road, with regards to the connector road. So I think, at the very least, I think Chris’ idea is excellent, of, you know, having a letter of credit to cover the demolition of the hotel. I don’t know, I doubt that they would be able to do both, it sounds as though their ability to generate a letter of credit is limited, and in that case I would say, with regards to this applicant, not the parcel in total, but with regards to this application before us, the letter of credit with regards to the connector road is a higher priority than the old hotel buildings, which we know are going to be subject to litigation and is on a separate track to resolution. That’s just my assessment. MR. FORD-We offered the opportunity to spend a week for clarification, and I don’t believe that the issue has been clarified. If anything, it’s cloudier. We did not get what we, well, we got the letter back, which we specifically addressed. However, it didn’t address to our satisfaction the issues that we raised. I say it should be tabled and we move on. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree. I’m also amazed. If you really read through this, and I’ve discounted what I’ve heard about the financial condition of this company. Maybe I shouldn’t have, but what they’re really saying to us is we haven’t got the money to demolish the hotel unless we sell the property in front of it. This is a big company with malls in five or six cities in 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) this State, and if they’re in that kind of financial condition, then there’s no sense even talking to them about the connector road because it’s, you know where that’s going. MR. LAPPER-Unless there’s a project, there’s no need for a connector road, but there is a need to demolish the hotel. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And has been for three years. MR. LAPPER-But what I’ve presented you with is a plan to move forward, I mean, let’s say we were just talking about the motel. If you guys settle this tonight, so that the motel has to come down, the Town Board doesn’t have to spend all of our taxpayer money and sue anybody. For example, if you were to take this letter and say, as a condition of Site Plan approval for the diner, the motel demolition has to start within 20 days after the closing of the sale of the property, it has to be. MR. TRAVER-We were advised by counsel that. MR. FORD-Jon, starting it doesn’t end it. MR. LAPPER-No, no, starting it on that date, and it has to be completed, you know, then that can’t stop it. MR. FORD-That’s what we were asking for. They didn’t, and they had the opportunity to commit to exactly that, and they chose wording which obviously skirted that issue. MR. LAPPER-But nobody can tell how many days it’s going to take. I mean, you can’t give a date certain. MR. FORD-You sure can. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Maybe what we should do is just table it until the motel’s down. That would settle that, once and for all. That would be a non-issue. MR. LAPPER-A constructive way for the Board to do this and to take responsibility for having something good happen is to approve the diner, and require the hotel to be demolished within a date certain. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We probably would if we had somebody that we thought was going to do what he says, but after three years of this nonsense, he has no credibility. MR. FORD-We opened that door, Jon. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know what the three year reference is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Three years is when the fire training stopped, and at that time, I personally asked that it be demolished so that we didn’t bear the responsibility, the Association of Chiefs. MR. LAPPER-There wasn’t a discussion, a formal discussion with any Town official until last week. MR. TRAVER-We were also advised by Counsel, when last we discussed this, that it would not be appropriate for us to link approval with the requirement that Pyramid do something on another parcel. We indicated, Counsel had indicated, Mike, I believe it was, indicated that they could offer, which was how we ended up with, you know, will they offer to give us a date by which the building will be down? The answer is no. Will they give us an $800,000 letter of credit? We got our answer. The answer is no. So that’s essentially where we’re at. MR. LAPPER-Well, they gave you a road map for when it’s going to come down. They gave you a timeframe. That’s a commitment, 20 days after the closing. That’s a commitment, but tying up assets for a road that doesn’t have to be built because there’s no project, that’s a lot to ask in this economy, in this retail economy. MR. TRAVER-Which is why, instead of the road, we were only asking for the letter of credit, in case it needed to be. MR. LAPPER-But it’s the same, they have to tie up the same assets to a lender to get a letter of credit, they have to pledge the assets. It’s just like paying for it. I mean, that’s a lot of assets that are sitting in a bank somewhere that can’t be utilized, but taking the motel down is much 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) more direct. They’re saying a date certain is 20 days after the closing it’ll start. There has to be a closing. If you’re going to have a diner, they’re going to have to sell the property to the diner. MR. TRAVER-I understand, and, you know, with all due respect, Jon, when we discussed this last time, you seemed to think that the letter of credit was a good idea. MR. LAPPER-Well, I said that I would present it, and obviously I always want the easiest way to make the Board happy, but that, it turned out, was a lot to ask, because of the financial commitment. MR. TRAVER-I understand that, and I would just ask that you discuss it with them further. Maybe they would be willing to reconsider. I think that’s our best course of action. MR. LAPPER-I know you were trying to be constructive, and I appreciate it. I’m just trying to get this done and get the building down. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have an idea of what the market rate is in cost for an $800,000 line of credit? MR. LAPPER-There’s two components of that. You have to pledge $800,000 in assets, and you have to pay a fee. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are you thinking that the land that remains there in the Town of Queensbury is not worth $800,000. MR. LAPPER-No. I’m sure that that’s already pledged to the lender from when the purchased it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So that’s the complicating factor there? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that they’ve already. MR. JACKOSKI-And the second part of that letter of credit fee, what is the average cost of that letter of credit? MR. LAPPER-Two to three percent. MR. JACKOSKI-Sixteen thousand. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s not the problem. The problem is that you have to have assets. A lot of times it has to be, you know, cash that has to be in an account. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I think the next thing that I’m. MR. KREBS-Unencumbered assets. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I think what I’m most frustrated with is that the Pyramid Corp. could have come back and said a date certain, whether it was agreeable or not, to this Board, I don’t know, but they could have established a date certain of nine months. I mean, the Duke team built the whole media center off of on Media Drive in nine months. The whole building was built in nine months. I’m just frustrated that there was no date at all. MR. LAPPER-This is how it’s scheduled. MR. JACKOSKI-Jon, we all know you can start a project and may never finish, and in my opinion this is what’s happening here. Not even a general commitment. MR. LAPPER-Well, my suggestion a few moments ago, since the intention is not to skirt that and to say we’ll start it the first day and move the trucks off the site, is if you were to condition the diner to say demolition of the hotel has to be accomplished, has to start within 20 days and has to continuously proceed until the diner is done. That’s a condition of approval that, you know, the diner guys would have to, would be tied into. MR. JACKOSKI-To me it would have been so nice for you folks to come back and just offer us a date certain, and I don’t know why you wouldn’t have done that. MR. LAPPER-Because it’s going to be paid for by the closing on the, and that’s something that we’ll. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. JACKOSKI-So you’re thinking the closing might not happen in 20 to 30 days? MR. LAPPER-No, no, no. What they said in here is 30 to 45 days. I mean, just accomplishing that closing will, all the things that it usually takes to do a real estate closing. MR. FORD-If he already has a contractor in place, they must have some idea of how long it’s going to take. So I don’t know why they’re skirting the issue of a date certain for completion of the demolition. I think we’re just talking in the wind here and we’re going nowhere. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t mean to put you on the spot, Cathi, but you know I always do, or often do. I believe Mike Hill had mentioned last week that we couldn’t condition Site Plan approval to the diner on some third party action that they can’t control. I assume that that is still a valid concern. MS. RADNER-Well, here you’re in sort of an unusual situation. The general rule that we don’t condition Site Plan approval on a third party action is typically in a situation where we say, you know, we’re going to make this approval contingent upon you getting the neighbor to grant an easement. They can’t control a neighbor. Here, right now, we’re just dealing with a contract vendee. The contract vendee is related to Pyramid. So it is one in the same entity. There’s also the question of, it’s two different parcels. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. RADNER-While they are contiguous parcels, while for the moment they’re both owned by Pyramid, the intention here is to subdivide and have the diner on its own parcel, and I think that’s why the suggestion was made by Mr. Hill that the applicant agree to this and seek Pyramid’s agreements, because they’re not the ones sitting here at the table. Does that clarify it? MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. Yes. MR. LAPPER-It’s not a subdivision. They’re already separate parcels. MS. RADNER-Right, but it would be sold off. It would no longer be in the same ownership. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s correct. MR. RADNER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have the public hearing this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. What’s the will of the Board? We’ve heard from at least a few members that said they would want to table this, that we’re actually further apart than we were last week. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Table it to another date, without a condition on it, and therefore we’ll see what happens. MR. OBORNE-Could I offer also to the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-If you want to also present to the applicant, through a tabling motion, any other concerns that you may have, and I know I hit upon this last week, a couple of times. Are there any other issues that the Board would like to convey to the applicant that would potentially speed up the process? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Besides the road and the hotel. MR. OBORNE-Correct. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t know. We didn’t talk about any others that I know of, did we? MR. HUNSINGER-The lighting plan. MR. KREBS-I just wanted to reinforce what Jonathan said earlier, and that is that DOT, in an e- th mail from Kevin Novack from DOT to Tom Hutchins on the 27 of July did very specifically say the proposed driveway configuration allowing right in/right out, and left in movements is adequate for the anticipated trip generation for the diner proposal alone. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Okay. So if we’re worried about that, that’s what DOT said. MR. TRAVER-I think they’ve already agreed to design it in that fashion. MR. KREBS-Yes, and they have. MR. FORD-I would like to just raise a question in response to that, Keith. I guess as much on behalf of the Secretary of our Planning Board, because as I believe she was the Vice Chair of the Land Use Plan Committee that you Chaired, Chris, and at the last meeting she certainly raised a concern about the lack of compliance with the standards and I wondered if that is an issue that, what you had an opportunity last week. I didn’t know if you had any further comments you wanted to make about the lack of compliance with those guidelines. I’d like to hear your opinion on it. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re asking the applicant, right? MR. FORD-No, you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re asking my opinion? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I think I articulated my opinion last week. When you read the preamble of the section of the Code, it talks about, you know, corporate designs, and, you know, the intention, the discussion with the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, was about, you know, the common practice of the chains coming into Town and saying this is our standard corporate design, we can’t deviate it, and sort of forcing a bad design on the Town, and obviously that’s not the case here, and my feeling is, even though I personally struggle with it, in terms of, you know, whether or not I think it meets the Code, I mean, there are components of the design that do not meet the Code, as we had read last week, but, you know, I think on balance, you know, although I don’t love it, I could live with it, and, I mean, that’s just my opinion. I think each of us, as Board members, have to kind of struggle through that. MR. FORD-Right, but you and Gretchen struggled with this for not months but years, and so that’s why I value your opinion. You were so close to this project, and you as well. MR. KREBS-Yes, and the problem, Tom, is we were trying, when we were doing the Comprehensive Plan suggestion to the Town Board, what we were trying to do is take the input from the public and come up with Code that the Town could live with. We didn’t always agree that that was the correct Code, but that’s the way it ended up. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course you can’t anticipate every single project that’s going to come in. I don’t think we ever thought that we would have a diner project like this. I mean, the nearest similar building is Saratoga, Clifton Park, maybe. Certainly a ways away. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Lake George has got a diner. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but that’s a car, and this is a fixture. It’s a building. It’s a lot bigger. It’s different. MR. LAPPER-I also pointed out last week that the Code states that it applies to these four commercial districts. It doesn’t include the Enclosed Shopping Center zone. MR. KREBS-But this isn’t really part of the Enclosed. MR. LAPPER-No, but that’s the zone that this property is located in. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. KREBS-I know, but once you separate that property, it’s really not part of. MR. LAPPER-No, it’s still in the ESC zone. MR. KREBS-Well, then, Jonathan, if you want to use that logic, then you should say okay, then they have to enclose it in the Mall. That was the object of that zone. MR. LAPPER-If I used that logic, I wouldn’t have come back with a revised plan, and we did because we’re trying to satisfy the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, at the time we approved the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, this was commercial zone. It wasn’t in the Mall zone. MR. LAPPER-That’s a point, too, but it is now. MR. HUNSINGER-Again, we could not have anticipated this, otherwise there might have been a different discussion. MR. FORD-Thank you, Chris and others. MR. OBORNE-If I may. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Concerning the design guidelines, Jon is correct. It’s in the Enclosed Shopping Center. There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-It is an inconsistency in the Code, but I want to make sure that the applicant knows of any Planning Board issues concerning designs, and make sure that that’s imparted to the applicant. MR. FORD-That’s why I wanted to raise that issue. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. FORD-To kind of check the pulse of the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-And we had said last week, you know, if they want to try to soften it or modify it to be something that’s more compliant, you know, we certainly welcome that. MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. LAPPER-And after the land, the architectural changes, we now come back with lighting changes. MR. KREBS-And they have made a change that certainly helps the looks, you know. MR. JACKOSKI-Jonathan, just so that you can report back to your client, I mean, in anticipation of tonight’s meeting, I actually drove down to Latham Circle. I went down to Exit Two, headed west. There’s a few miscellaneous diners around in the areas, and what I think this project has over those is the landscaping. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I agree. MR. JACKOSKI-I think that, including the Lake George diner that has no landscaping, at least if it does, it has very minimal landscaping. I didn’t notice it. So I was feeling much more comfortable with it, with the addition of the stone, the landscaping, the way it was situated on the lot, it was making me feel more comfortable with it, that it is a viable project in my eyes. I appreciate that you’ve toned it down. The neon lighting, when you plugged that in, it was really intense, and I think that toning that down, or minimizing the number of tubes, I understand it’s not neon lighting. I know the Code says neon, but the technology has advanced so far that it’s actually LED now, but the intent of the Code was not to have that kind of lighting. MR. LAPPER-And we’ve minimized that, as you’ve said. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. JACKOSKI-And you minimized it, so I’m feeling much better about the building itself and the site itself. I think the Board is just struggling with these other factors. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and again, Jon, my comment would be urge your client, Pyramid, not to give up on the idea of the letter of credit with regards to the connector road. I think that that really could have an impact in our moving forward. MR. LAPPER-In an attempt to keep the diner deal alive, I would ask if you could put this on for your next meeting. Hopefully it would be a quick presentation. MR. TRAVER-The next meeting is day after tomorrow. MR. OBORNE-You want to go through to October. MR. KREBS-So you’re saying maybe the first meeting that we have in October. MR. LAPPER-How big is your agenda on Thursday? MR. HUNSINGER-Big. MR. OBORNE-Big. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why we put you on this evening. MR. FORD-It’s the third meeting this month. The second this week. MR. LAPPER-Well, I don’t know what Pyramid’s answer is going to be, because obviously my intent and their intent was to come back and hope that this would be satisfied, but if you gave me five minutes on Thursday, maybe I would have a different answer. MR. SIPP-Yes, but, Jon, the reason this is occurring is because they have not kept their promises in the past, and that’s all we have to judge them by, and what they’re doing here is. MR. LAPPER-This will get the building down. That’s what this is about. This will really get the building down, get the diner approved and get the building down. I guess I would ask if you give me five minutes on Thursday, perhaps there would be another way to deal with this. MR. FORD-But five minutes on Thursday wouldn’t give us an opportunity to hear another response from them. MR. LAPPER-That’s what I mean. MR. FORD-But we’re not going to have time, on Thursday to go through everything that needs to, that we need to go through in order to proceed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’ve had three meetings in a row, or something like that. I mean, we’ve got to be fair to the other people. MR. LAPPER-The problem is that these guys lose their commitment, the financing, there’s not going to be a project, and then we’ll have an empty site. MR. FORD-The door was opened last week. MR. LAPPER-The intention was that this would be satisfaction. th MR. HUNSINGER-The first meeting in October is the 19. th MR. OBORNE-The first meeting is the 19. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that’s full? MR. OBORNE-It hasn’t been built yet. MR. HUNSINGER-We haven’t done the agenda yet. MR. OBORNE-Yes. It hasn’t been approved yet. MR. FORD-I just heard two others pushed into November. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, that’s because they haven’t submitted materials yet. MR. OBORNE-We certainly can accommodate October, that’s not a problem. MR. FORD-Okay. Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Then let’s do it. MR. LAPPER-Well, then can you give it the first meeting in October in the hope that it’ll still get done this year? MR. FORD-The first meeting in October. MR. TRAVER-Jon, why don’t we wait and see what, when you discuss these issues with them further, if you can report, if you have something to report on Thursday, then we can certainly try to accommodate, you know, doing something. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I mean, we’re anxious to get this off the table, too. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So what are you suggesting, Steve? MR. LAPPER-So we’ll talk about it briefly on Thursday. MR. TRAVER-Just whether or not there’s any change. If there’s a positive response to these issues, then maybe we could do something in October or something. MR. FORD-Well, we’re already scheduling it for the first meeting in October. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FORD-Regardless of what he comes in with Thursday. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And just one more time, making sure that, coming to October, any other issues that may present itself, please put it in this tabling motion, and I don’t mean to keep hitting that drum. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I know. I understand, but we’ll certainly want to see the revised lighting plan that you’ve already prepared, and do you have enough copies this evening? Do you have enough for the Board and Staff? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t have enough for the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you by the end of the month? MR. HUTCHINS-I can just bring them over later in the week, if that’s all right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s fine. MR. KREBS-Then you can put it in our packets for October. MR. OBORNE-And get it to you before Monday, prior to the meeting. You’ve got it. MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to put forward a tabling motion? 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 This application is tabled to the October 19 Planning Board meeting. The applicant to further discuss issues one and two regarding the hotel and the letter of credit on the connector road, th and to report back to the Planning Board on Thursday, September 30. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We’ll see you Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2010 SEQR TYPE TYPE I REAFFIRM ANGIO DYNAMICS AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) IDA OF WARREN/WASHINGTON COUNTIES ZONING CLI LOCATION CORNER HICKS ROAD & QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO EXISTING APPROVED PLAN TO INCLUDE CHANGES TO LIGHTING, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING APPROVED PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-08, SP 33-07, SP 37-06, SP 20-06, AV 52-06, SP 19-02, AV 26-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/14/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 12.97 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-10 SECTION 179-9-010 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’ll quickly go through the notes. Site Plan 17-2010, Angio Dynamics. This is the action is a modification to an approved Site Plan. This is the corner of Hicks Road and Queensbury Avenue, and this is in the CLI existing zoning. SEQRA Status is a Reaffirmation Type I. Project Description: Applicant proposes modification to existing approved site plan to include changes to lighting parking and landscaping. Staff Comments: The applicant is responding to deficiencies raised by a Site Plan Inspection Report generated by Code Compliance Officer Bruce Frank. The applicant requests an as-built approval for existing conditions (see Nace Engineering letter dated February 11, 2010 and August 13, 2010). Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval for a reconfiguration of the parking lot adjacent to building 5, parking lot lighting changes, enhanced landscaping and the installation of a new corporate sign. What follows is Site Plan Review. I do want to drop on down to my last comments concerning the as built issues. The following will need to be approved by this Board in order to close out the Site Plan Inspection Report, and I go through and asphalt wing curb in place of the approved concrete curb. Pole mounted lighting fixtures not cut-off and parallel to the ground. Truck entrance pole lighting, and location of wall-pacs. Please note that in the Site Plan Inspection Report, Items 1, 6, and 8 have been addressed and Item 2 has been completed, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, and Randy Bodkin of Angio Dynamics. What we’re trying to do is wrap up stuff that was started back with the construction of the warehouse Building Five. With that original Site Plan we had graveled a parking area, which was future parking lot at that time. We’re now coming back to be able to pave that parking lot, put in landscaping around the parking lot, and lighting for the parking lot. We’re also addressing issues that were raised by Bruce Frank, in the way of lighting and the other items that were just mentioned. The existing lighting, what we’ve done is shown the light levels generated by the existing heads, which were rounded on structures higher than Code requires, or Code permitted, and you’ll see the light distribution from those. The reason it was done is to get better light distribution in the parking area, large parking area and truck turn around area that didn’t require a whole field of light poles. Also, should note, with the new parking lot, that we have made the lighting fixtures in the conforming with your existing Code, and pole heights of 20 feet or light head heights of 20 feet. Full cut-off fixtures and downcast, 100% downcast lighting. RANDY BODKIN MR. BODKIN-It also includes modification of two existing light poles, bringing them back down to that 20 foot, on that approach coming in the truck entrance. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I’m sorry. I’m a little confused. The ones that are out of compliance are going to be corrected? MR. BODKIN-No, only two of them. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BODKIN-Along that main truck entrance coming in, because they adjoin the future parking lot where we’re proposing the new lighting. So those two that are currently on the edge of that parking area would be modified to bring them down. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-The rest of them we really needed the increased height to get distribution in that truck turnaround area and loading dock area. MR. HUNSINGER-And what about the landscaping? MR. NACE-The landscaping we’re essentially doing the landscaping that was originally proposed in front of the gravel parking lot, and we’re adding landscaping in the islands. We’ve reconfigured that parking lot a little bit to conform with your new Code for the parking space size, the aisle width and the need for interior landscaped islands. So we’re increasing the landscaping by landscaping those interior islands. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BODKIN-The original parking lot was laid out for 18 foot spaces, now the new Code is 20. We thought we had some foresight to do our layout initially, you know, and cut the cost. So we had to adjust things, made some jut outs in the islands to accommodate the new parking space and lighting. On the light poles that are in excess of 20 feet, I understand that is complicated and expensive to replace those, but what about modifying or replacing the fixtures so that at least they’re cut off? MR. NACE-They are cut off fixtures. They’re already cut off fixtures. They’re just angled up a little bit to get better distribution. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So they’re just not parallel to the ground. MR. NACE-Exactly, but they are cut off, and if you’ve driven by the site at night, there really is no glare. The reason for zero or perfectly horizontal fixtures, it’s to cut out glare to adjoining properties. If you drive by that at night, there really is no glare. They’re all aimed back in on the site, and the advantage to that is you don’t have hot spots directly under the poles and get better distribution throughout the area that you’re trying to light. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That lighting is not downcast, correct? MR. NACE-What do you mean? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That pole right there. MR. OBORNE-No, it’s not downcast, but they are cut off fixtures. MR. BODKIN-They’re facing back toward the building. They’re not, you know, out. MR. SIPP-All right. How many new signs are you asking for? MR. BODKIN-There’d be a separate sign permit application filed by the people that are doing the signs, but there’s one monument sign on the corner of Hicks and County Line, and then there’s a smaller truck entrance sign at the truck entrance on Hicks, and then replace existing wood sign that’s on County Line with one that matches them, smaller footprint than the one that’s there now. So there’s a total of three signs, one on County Line, one on Hicks and one at that junction. The one on the junction would match what’s at our corporate headquarters. MR. SIPP-How big is the one on the truck entrance? MR. BODKIN-The dimensions are right on the plan. MR. KREBS-It’s four feet by twelve feet, four feet by twelve inches, I’m sorry. MR. BODKIN-Twelve inches by four foot long. Again, trying to be mindful of the entrance and exits, so we’re not blocking anything there. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. FORD-The line of sight. MR. SIPP-Is the old sign going to stay? MR. BODKIN-No. MR. SIPP-On the corner of Hicks and County Line? MR. BODKIN-There is no sign on the corner of Hicks. There’s one at the entrance off of Queensbury Avenue. MR. SIPP-Well, I’ve got two marked on here. One new sign. MR. BODKIN-That’s probably a stop sign. MR. NACE-There’s a road sign there, maybe. There’s a road sign that the survey picked up that shows. MR. SIPP-The new sign is the one that’s pictured. MR. BODKIN-The sign’s at the angle. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. BODKIN-The other sign’s a road sign. MR. SIPP-That’s a road sign. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Any questions, comments? Personally I like the new signs. They’re very attractive. I mean, you know, we encourage the monument sign. MR. BODKIN-Yes. I mean, it’s LED back lit, you know, at night, but if you’ve seen the one down there, it does, it comes out nice. It’s professional. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Unobtrusive and professional. MR. BODKIN-So they’ll be coming back. Saxton Sign is going to be the one manufacturing, doing the install. So they’ll be coming back to do the sign permit application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll open the public hearing, and, unless there’s any objection from the Board, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? MR. BODKIN-Since those drawings were submitted, we changed a couple of the trees from, there was some of the trees along the road’s edge were originally a Summit Ash. We’re changing them to an Autumn Flame Maple, and then there was some pear trees on the in board by the islands. We want to change them to a Flowering Crab, and then there was some additional pear trees at the ends by the entrance to a Honey Locust. So just changing some around, give it more color, and so on. So I just want to be up front about that. MR. KREBS-And they want the color to match the sign. MR. BODKIN-There you go. Our CFO has certain likes and dislikes. So they’re trying to satisfy everybody. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. OBORNE-If you could have, as part of any resolution, that, you know, the applicant submit revised landscaping plans. It would be greatly appreciated. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BODKIN-The drawing also says, there’s a statement on there that the curb may not be added, due to budget constraints. We will not be putting the curb in right now. I would like to, we’ll budget it for it in the coming years and hopefully get that approved. It was calling for a concrete curb around the islands. So on the drawing there’s a statement that we may not be able to do it. Looking at budget numbers, I’m not going to be able to do it. MR. OBORNE-Well, make sure that that’s, again, revised, on your final plans. MR. NACE-There’s a note already on the drawing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He’s got an asphalt wing curb in there now, right? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was just going to say, I thought you were asking for asphalt wing curbs now. MR. NACE-No, that’s separate. MR. OBORNE-We’re talking the landscape, the islands in the parking lot. MR. NACE-In the original construction, down along the back side where the retaining wall is, it calls for a concrete curb. It turned out we were (lost words) to put in a wing, asphalt curb. So that’s already there. What we’re talking about now is curbing around the islands and around the (lost words) parking lot. If you’ll note on the drawing it says use of concrete curbing as shown may be deleted at the owner’s discretion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. MR. BODKIN-There’s a large cost to that. I just want to be up front that I can’t afford to do it at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-So, would there be any kind of curb between the asphalt and the islands? MR. NACE-There’s no need for a curb because the drainage comes in to the center of the site, of the parking lot. MR. FORD-Into the islands themselves? MR. NACE-Into, actually in between the islands. MR. BODKIN-There’s catch basins in the center line. So everything pitches in with. MR. OBORNE-Is it similar to what’s shown up there, is what you’re proposing? MR. NACE-No, we’re proposing no curb at all at this point. MR. BODKIN-Everything pitches back to the center. MR. OBORNE-I’m thinking about these islands here. MR. BODKIN-Yes, no curb around them, same as existing. I was looking to improve it, to make it a sharper, cleaner look, but the cost was a little more than I anticipated. So we’ll table it at this go around. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and the reason I ask is we’d like to close this out, from a Site Plan Inspection Report point of view, and I know my compatriot and colleague, Bruce Frank, he’s very particular. I just want to make sure all the I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed. MR. FORD-Thank you. Would there be any advantage to, would it be costly to wing that asphalt at those sites? MR. NACE-To put in the wing curbs? There’s no point in it, because you’re not trying to detain water. The wing curb is to form a flow line where water concentrates, and since the drainage comes to the interior of the parking lot, there’s no need for that, plus if they want to go in in the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) future and put in a concrete curb when funding allows, it’s easier to do it without the wing, without that thick wing asphalt there. MR. FORD-That makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess there’s a couple of changes from what was on the revised drawing, the landscaping and then the curbing. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-The only condition we had on it was the revised landscape plan, right? MR. HUNSINGER-And the curbing. MR. OBORNE-I just want to remind the Board that you need to, and you can do this in the body of the resolution, that you’re going to reaffirm the previous SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Reaffirm SEQRA, yes. Unless of course there’s some SEQRA issue that someone would like to raise. Boy, everyone’s quiet tonight. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we’re just going to agree that the concrete curbing is going to be placed at a later date, right? MR. OBORNE-I think it’s eliminated from the plan at this point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And on the landscaping, I would just say the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan as discussed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it sounds like there’s just a few little changes. MR. NACE-Just change the schedule, that’s all. MR. SCHONEWOLF-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2010 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf 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 modification to existing approved plan to include changes to lighting, parking and landscaping, and new corporate sign. Modifications to an existing approved plan require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/27 & 9/28/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2010 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Approved with the following conditions: 1.A revised landscaping will be submitted. 2.The concrete curbing will be dropped from the requirement at the present time. 3.And we reaffirm the previous SEQRA. th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. BODKIN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE I REALTY SUBDIVISION CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3 LOCATION 572 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 55.65 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.07 +/- ACRES TO 23.53 +/- ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE SKETCH [5/28/09], AV 14-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 55.65 TOTAL ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.- 2-29, 30 SECTION A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 3-2009, this is Preliminary Stage, Christian and Eustacia Sander is the applicant. The location is 572 State Route 149. This is in the RR-3A. This is not on the, let’s say, it is not in the APA. This is a Type I subdivision. Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide 55.25 acres into 10 individual residential lots ranging in size from 3.07 to 23.5 acres off of State Route 149. Instead of going through everything here, I think that the applicant has submitted a revised subdivision plan, specifically access is now, it’s still, but only one lot is accessed by one curb cut, and there seems to be a primary for the other nine lots, or eight lots, I believe. So those are any issues up front for the Board, I definitely would discuss that, and obviously there’s engineering issues along with that, and then I’ll turn it over to the Board at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. For the record, I’m Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. With me is Christian Sander, owner/applicant. I believe most of you are familiar with the project. We have been here before. We started with a family subdivision on their 54 acres that involved four shared access points onto Route 149, and at the suggestion of this Board we consolidated that, went to a private driveway, shared driveway type of arrangement with multiple lots sharing one driveway, and we went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, at the suggestion of this Board, seeking necessary variances for that concept. We came back to this Board looking for a recommendation to the Zoning Board and looking for those variances, and we’ve been to the Zoning Board. We have secured those variances for, there are a number of them involving access on a public right of way, and access from that public right of way and also frontage on the public right of way. While all this was going on, DOT was re-building 149 through this section, and w were always somewhat uncertain as to how good our access was going to be when their project was completed. You’ll recall the last time we were here we had a loop drive concept with two access points onto 149, and we had a letter from DOT approving that concept, provided that their sight distances could be maintained. When they were done completing the highway project, there were one of those access points that we could not maintain their sight distance, and that was to the east from the easterly most of the two access points. Right now I’m showing one which essentially hasn’t changed. This access point onto 149 today is right about at the high point as you’re driving over. As you drive it now, they put, there’s a pretty good vertical curve there, and in order to see, in order to get their sight distance, which is 650 feet, for intersection sight distance for a passenger car at 60 miles an hour, this is where we had the other loop. We had a loop concept like this. From this point, we cannot get that sight distance over that curve. We cannot get that sight distance until we’re all the way down here. To the west is okay, from both points, and I would note that along this stretch from Sanders parcel line to Sanders parcel line, there are 11 cuts off 149 on the other side of, to the north. They’re all private driveway cuts, but there are 11 of them. So we’re a little bit constrained by what DOT has approved, and the conditions by which they approved it, and we have been back with our surveyors, and we have, the high point at that curve is obviously the best place to access. It has the best sight distance in either direction if you stand there and walk the whole length of it. One could argue that the other access point we had has much better sight distance than a number of the 11 that are across the street, but we have chosen not to take that argument to the State, and we’re back here before this Board seeking, really what we seek tonight is Preliminary approval for the subdivision. The SEQRA process has been completed. With Preliminary approval, we have more credibility with the Health Department and we can make a submission this is a realty subdivision, by the New York State Department of Health. So we still have to go to them. They’ve been on the site. They watched all the test holes. They’re aware of it, but there still has 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) to be a submission made to them. They generally don’t like to look at submissions until they have Preliminary approval at the local level. We have to put in a test well in cooperation with the Health Department to make sure that we’re going to be able to provide good water to the subdivision. All these things we would like to have at least Preliminary approval from this Board before we proceed on that, and with that, we’ll turn it over for questions. Do you have anything to add, Chris? CHRISTIAN SANDER MR. SANDER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-Could you explain the rationale for not tying in Lot Eight driveway with the rest of your main thoroughfare? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, because it really does a number on Lot Eight, if there is significant traffic through. Can I do it by pointing? MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. HUTCHINS-You’re saying connect this in here, or access Lot Eight from here? MR. FORD-Connect Lot Eight over towards Six, with a much shorter driveway, just tying it in and eliminating that access. MR. HUTCHINS-This gives us one lot with direct access off 149 that’s not part of the Homeowners Association. It makes the Association smaller, and allows them access directly off 149. It allows it to not be part of the, it allows us one lot that’s not part of the Association. That’s the rationale, and there’s a driveway location that works there, but it doesn’t work for that to be the common drive, because it ruins Lot Eight. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The last time you were here on the common drive, it was gravel, right? MR. HUTCHINS-It was gravel, but we had agreed to pave a portion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, because that’s what I was going to bring up. I think we said something like 20, just enough in so that you’re not dragging gravel out on 149. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course one of the other issues was, you know, one of the other concerns was, you know, having a spot on the driveway where two cars could pass, but with so many of the driveways coming off the main drive, there’s always going to be a place to pull over. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, and we’ve got a 20 foot common drive section. So it’s not just a shared driveway. It’s a 20 foot wide shared driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, concerns from the Board? Hearing none, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-There are a few engineering comments. Is it your intention to address those in the Final? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. That would be my, I’d like to do it that way, yes. I have been through them. I don’t think there are any there that are concept changes. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. OBORNE-I do want to point out to the Board that there is language in the Code concerning the Homeowners Association, and you may want to review that. That’s Number Five, and it’s up to the Planning Board at this point. You may want to see the language in the Homeowners Association with the conditions, is what I’m hearing, is you want a certain amount of paving coming off of 149 to make sure the gravel does not get on to that. You may want to see some type of snow removal. Whatever the Board wishes at this point. Keep in mind that Counsel, Town Counsel does eventually look at this and vets it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Are there any new SEQRA issues as a result of the, you know, from the concerns from the Board as a result of the change in the design? MR. TRAVER-It doesn’t look like it. MR. HUNSINGER-Because the SEQRA was approved on a different design than us. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So we would need to take that into consideration. Okay. Well, if there’s no additional questions or concerns, would anyone like to move for Preliminary approval? MR. OBORNE-Did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry, Keith. Before we vote on the motion, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 PRELIMINARY STAGE CHRISTIAN AND EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph B, we have reviewed the existing SEQRA review and have not found any significant changes to require that to be re-examined. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)We have reviewed the existing SEQRA review and have not found any significant changes to require that to be re-examined. and th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So, how do we deal with Final? They’re only scheduled this evening for Preliminary. MR. OBORNE-That’s correct, and that’s all that they’re getting at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. th MR. OBORNE-For Final he’ll have to submit following regular guidelines, right, by the 15. I would suggest that, prior to that happening, that you have your engineering taken care of at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and we’ll also want to see the language on the homeowners association. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else we want to see for Final? Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. You’re all set. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 52-2010 SEQR TYPE II JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHTS AGENT(S) D. MAC ELROY, EDP OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 32 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 692 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 44-10, BOH 18-10 [7/26/10] WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/11/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.28 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-4 SECTION 179-9 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 52-2010, John and Sandy Lambrechts is the applicant. Requested action is Site Plan Review. Location is 21 Russell Harris Road. Existing zoning is WR. This is a Type II SEQRA. I do want to point out to the Board that I did give a revised Staff Notes, is what you received in the mail is the actual recommendation from the previous meeting. It was in handout form. There is really not much of a change, with the exception of taking off the Area Variance and Nature of Variance wording, and just to make sure that the Board is aware that the Area Variance approval is also part of your Staff Notes, and I shall continue. Applicant proposes a 692 square foot second floor residential addition on an existing 1,819 square foot single family home located adjacent to Harris Bay. Staff Comments: Proposal to include the retro-fit of existing wastewater system to accommodate an additional bedroom and an enhancement to existing infiltrator trenches on site. This property was before this Board in March of 2009 for shoreline stabilization and was subsequently approved. Two Board of Health variances have been approved and both dealt with minimum property line setback relief for the wastewater system, and what follows is Site Plan Review. Just, again, Board of Health, 18-2010, approval resolution is before you as well as Area Variance 44-2010, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the owners, John and Sandy Lambrechts, who unfortunately can’t be here tonight. So I’ll go it on my own. This, as you may remember last month we were here for a recommendation because this project also involved a variance. We did obtain the variance from the ZBA, and this application now moves on for Site Plan Review. The comments that were provided, I have addressed, not back to you because of the timing of submittal dates and what not, but again, this project is an addition, a second floor addition of a single family residence. It really doesn’t involve any expansion of ground area. The footprint is all the same, but in addition to the additional floor space, which does meet all the Floor Area Ratio requirements and what not, we have addressed somewhat the infiltration of stormwater from the existing impervious areas. We’ve supplemented, slightly, some buffering in the front area. I think if you’ve been to this property, you’ll see that there’s relatively slight slope from house to shoreline of established vegetation of grass and some mature vegetation. The owners, in conjunction with the previous shoreline improvement plan, have some plantings along the shoreline and up the northerly boundary. We have shown to supplement that slightly in the spirit of the regulation. I don’t know that it necessarily is essential, but the owners certainly are willing to add to that buffering, and again, the drip edge infiltration has been enhanced to provide additional capacity than what currently exists. The comments that were part of either Staff comments or the Town Engineer made a couple of comments about this. Staff comments about, regarding the additional plantings should be qualified and quantified. We’ve got notes that indicate that it would be low growth, native species. I would add to that by just saying that the quality are qualified and quantified. It would come from the approved list, either the LGA list or the Water Keeper’s list of native species for this type of application. Regarding the enhanced infiltrator trench, current conditions requiring enhancement. Well, it’s the same footprint area of the house. With the second floor addition, it’s still the same amount of impervious area, but we’ve, we will supplement or enhance the existing drip edge conditions and add an infiltration trench which is shown on the detail. A simple way of capturing the runoff from the roofs, and that would be increased, and the comment about the silt fence. That’s, you know, down gradient of the property, it’s intended to capture things. As it wrapped around the property lines, it really serves more as a barrier to keep on our own project property. So I don’t think that’s much of an issue. In the Town Engineer’s comments, same comment about the silt fence. Another comment about 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) the staging or storage areas. That would be the gravel driveway that exists would be used for staging and storage for the contractor. I have talked to the contractor about his plans for construction here and that would be, you know, part of it, and so I think they’re in adequate shape there. Comment Three was about, again, stormwater management computations. I didn’t add that to the plan. We certainly can, to show that we’re providing for additional stormwater management by this enhancement of the infiltration trenches, and then, Number Four, an opportunity to provide management for the existing garage and drive presents itself on this site as well, which is what he’s saying is that there’s not really a formal stormwater management for the garage structure. Maybe you could do something there. So certainly along the northerly drip edge of that structure, we could also provide the same type of infiltration trench, which would capture that. That’s not shown on your plan to date, but certainly we would make those additions to handle that. On the front side, or the entry side of the garage, that’s a stone, it’s a gravel, it’s about a foot of crushed stone gravel, which serves the purpose of infiltration and captures that stores and infiltrates from there. So that’s pretty much ready made. So that’s how I would have addressed the particular comments that came in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-I’d like to see a list of the landscaping plants, and how many of each, and where they’re going to be located. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the area where they’re located is on there. The list can be added to the, if you want the specific planting, I only hesitate. We can do that. I’d hesitate to do that because typically the engineer and landscape architect will put the listing on there, and then the local contractor will, under the guidance of the owner, might select something different. So, I don’t want wasted effort for something that may not be. MR. SIPP-The buffer strip is to be 15 foot wide. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there is buffering along there. I don’t know if, again, you’ve been to the property. MR. SIPP-Well, there’s some black-eyed Susans, yes, but there’s a need for more buffering in there with small shrubs. MR. MAC ELROY-And why is that? MR. SIPP-Because that’s what the Code says. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I guess I’d still say and why is that? I don’t mean to be flip, but if you’ve seen the property, it’s a relatively mild slope. MR. SIPP-Yes, I’ve been there. MR. MAC ELROY-Is the buffering to serve as a visual barrier or a water quality issue? MR. SIPP-Well, it’s water quality that we’re looking at, and grass and a few little plants are not going to do the work. MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t understand that. MR. KREBS-Well, there’s some major trees there, though, too, Don. MR. MAC ELROY-There’s some mature vegetation there. I ran into this before on another property, and again, I don’t want to be flip or argumentative. Should we be digging up the established front yard of an area to meet some standard that somebody came up with that is a general standard? MR. SIPP-That’s not what it’s intended to be. It’s intended to have a series of plants in the right place at the right time. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, we’ve supplemented what exists there. MR. SIPP-Yes. You have no small shrubs, as I can see it, or even, you don’t have to block your view. There are many plants that are useful, that do not grow that high, two feet high in a lot of cases. There isn’t much of a slope there, but there’s still a slope, and the grass has obviously been fertilized, by the looks of it. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. MAC ELROY-I disagree with that. I don’t know how you can say that. It’s an established grass area, but it doesn’t mean that it’s been fertilized, and even if it’s been fertilized, if they’ve used Zero P, then that’s fine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Then it’s fine. Yes. This no fertilizer is a lot of baloney. MR. SIPP-Yes, but there’s also no weeds in that lawn, and that gives me a clue that there’s been fertilizer. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Maybe a weed kill, not fertilized. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the Lambrechts have been certainly interested in doing a good job on the property that they own. MR. SIPP-I think he is. I talked to him, but I think you should go back and read that Code. MR. KREBS-Don, I agree with you, but I think that the Town of Queensbury ought to stop dumping water off Assembly Point into the lake, and I was up there today, when I went to visit this property, and the water was sheeting cross those roads on Assembly Point right into the lake. MR. SIPP-I’ll agree with you. I’ll agree with you. MR. KREBS-Okay. So let’s not bang these people to death about a few shrubs when the Town, the State and the County are unwilling to control their own water. That contributes significantly more pollution to Lake George than any individual property. MR. SIPP-Well, that may be true, but until somebody takes them to task. MR. KREBS-Well, how can the Town Board create a legislation, piece of legislation like this, when they’re not willing to assume the responsibilities of their pollution? MR. SIPP-Ask the Town Board. MR. KREBS-Okay. I will. MR. HUNSINGER-Let’s stick with the Site Plan that we’re reviewing this evening. Anything else, any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Thank you. Kathy Bozony, office of the Lake George Water Keeper. A couple of things that I wanted to just share before I actually talk about what I submitted to the Board. The use of phosphorus free fertilizers or not is definitely an issue, and I don’t have any idea, on this property. I saw the property, just as you saw it, with the back of the house and looking at the trees into the lake, and that’s all I was able to see. So I do know that in 2008 they requested stabilization of the shoreline. Stabilization of the shoreline is necessary when you don’t have vegetation, a lot of vegetation on your shoreline. If you look at the native, the areas where there’s no development, and you look at the shoreline, there are no riprap seawalls. There are no, there’s no need for that because the actual roots of the plants hold the soils. So it appears to me that there may not be enough roots of the plants if, in fact, we had to stabilize the shoreline, which is a done deal, and I’m fine with that. I looked at plans that had indicated that there was a berm beyond that riprap seawall or stabilization. I don’t think it was an actual seawall, and I don’t know what that berm entailed. It looked like some plantings, but I don’t know what that was, and I don’t know if that was the proposed, or if that was existing. I just wanted to share that Sandy did come in to the office seeking some information. She wanted to know what would grow nicely under the hemlocks, and we gave her listings and there’s a lot of available information for her, but I do look at this with the lawn. I do agree with Mr. Krebs about the issues with all stormwater being poured into the lake around the lake through drainages, but I do look at this as the responsibility of each property owner, individually, to take on their own property, to infiltrate their stormwater, and one of the issues with grass is grass is very small root system, and so rain waters that come down, that hit that lawn, that may not have the trees as the canopy, generally may sheet off and not infiltrate down into the water, recharge the groundwater. The other issue with larger vegetation is the fact that the nutrients are uptake from this. Yes, there are some large trees there and there are some deep roots there, and that’s excellent, but you’ve also got a lot of soils that are not covered with vegetation that may, in fact, 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) also help infiltrate and treat that stormwater. I did submit a letter. It will be on file, and I do look at this as this expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure within the Lake George watershed. This is an opportunity to construct stormwater management systems during the Site Plan approval, and I would say that the property should be brought into compliance with what Town of Queensbury and Lake George Park Commission recommend for stormwater management on the site. I did not see the details on the enhanced infiltration drip ledges. So I’m not sure whether or not that is adequate for what’s on the property. I also am one that would love to see a condition, well, actually, if there is renovation on this property, you do have conditions in your regulations that would apply that say no fertilizer. Phosphorus free fertilizers with a pesticide such as Seven or Merit are more scary to me than any phosphorus fertilizer. Most of these applications that are done are in combination, and so a phosphorus free fertilizer doesn’t necessarily mean that we aren’t polluting our lake. I’ve got a lot of evidence of properties that have, are using only phosphorus free fertilizer, and the algae blooms are massive. So, although I know that some of the towns recently have promoted and passed laws for phosphorus free only fertilizers, it’s a great start, but phosphorus or no, fertilizers and pesticides are very harmful to the lake. So I’m hoping that the Lambrechts are willing to do what they need to to make sure that their shoreline is properly buffered and they have stormwater management. Sandy was very, wanting more and more information. So I’m hoping that we see this in a plan submitted to the Planning Board. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. OBORNE-We have a public comment. September 28, 2010, The Town of Queensbury Planning Board, “As neighbors and adjacent property owners of Lori Britton”, wait, let me back up, that isn’t on this project. I’m sorry. Never mind. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SIPP-Well, Chris, I see no problem outside of the buffer strip, and as to cost, this is not a rich man’s piece of legislation. You can buy a lot of this stuff locally. I purchased two red dogwood shrubs that grow to a height of four feet, and that’s the maximum. I got them for $12 a piece. There are many sales this time of year because the nurseries want to unload their stock, and actually this is the best time of the year to plant some of this material. So, it is not anything that is going to break somebody financially. It just doesn’t have to, you can do that 15 by 50 foot for as little as $200 to $300, and it does so much good. The Town of Queensbury has an obligation, I think, to take care of some of that drainage up there. That’s going to take somebody besides us to do it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-An act of Congress. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. TRAVER-I was just going to say, if we’re going to require additional buffering, we ought to be specific to the applicant about numbers and locations. MR. SIPP-Well, I will not specifically add a type, a name. Just read the 179-8-040(4) and it tells you there that you need one tree, large tree for every 50 feet, two shrubs and some ground cover. So, work on it from there. There is a large tree right in the southwest corner. MR. MAC ELROY-There’s six mature trees that are involved with the property, three of them are clearly on the property. Three others that may overhang and provide coverage on their, Lambrechts. MR. SIPP-We don’t worry about the overhang. It’s the root system. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, but effectively, well, then where the overhang is, the root system is. So, you know, I think the Lambrechts are model owners, from my own experience with dealing with them. They certainly are interested in doing a good job for the lake. In the supplemental planting areas, whether it’s low growth or medium growth, you know, that can be added, the different species, to satisfy that requirement. I guess from my own standpoint, on a site specific basis. I understand the generalities of a requirement. It’s supposed to cover everything. Site specific, do we dig up portions of the front yard to put in a certain shrub when we’ve got an established, mature, stabilized area, but certainly, you know, our plan does indicate that they would supplement the planting, and we can be specific that it would include low growth and some medium growth shrub, whatever, to meet that requirement. The Lambrechts certainly would be willing and cooperative in meeting the spirit of the regulation. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. HUNSINGER-You understand the dilemma that we have is, you know, you have these labels on your map. When the project’s done and the Code Enforcement people go out to the site, you know, they want to be able to look at a plan that says we’re going to have five bushes, and all we have are these general areas. So that’s the dilemma for Staff. They can’t make sure that it’s built to the palm if it’s not on the plan, or in the resolution. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, ideally, with an approval, we would be submitting the plan back for Craig’s signature, and that plan would identify numbers and species, if necessary, on there. MR. TRAVER-You also have some stormwater controls that you’re adding, which would be on a final plan, right, for the garage area? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That’s right. There are some tweaking of this plan that would be the one that hits Craig’s desk. MR. FORD-Why don’t you just do the tweaking, including the garage issue and the buffer issue, and come back to us with that right on the plan? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I guess my response to that is if it was another month away, there is hopes to initiate this work, and I’m not suggesting that you do anything out of the ordinary. Here’s an example of a project that could be approved. A contractor who could use work at this time in our economy, he could go to work on this in a project that could work into the, you know, before the winter season hits. So, I guess that’s my suggestion. If there’s some condition that is placed, this plan still goes back to Craig for his final signature that meets the wording of any resolution that you are requiring. MR. FORD-It is our responsibility, however, to approve the plans. MR. MAC ELROY-Understood. MR. OBORNE-I would add that, as far as the engineering goes, I don’t think that’s an issue. It’s pretty easy, and as far as any buffering, I think that’s pretty easy also, to be honest with you, especially at the Staff level. I’ll be vetting that. Clark will be vetting the stormwater. The only thing I would ask, if you are to give approval tonight, would be the dimensions, be dimensionally specific concerning any landscaping. As far as what it is, that’s not an issue. We can take care of that. Where do you want it? MR. MAC ELROY-And that is shown on the plans. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-I mean, there’s a four by eight area shown, and a four by sixteen foot area. MR. OBORNE-Right. Is that satisfactory for the Board? MR. MAC ELROY-That supplements what’s already there. MR. SIPP-Yes, but you’ve got to have a 15 foot wide strip the whole width of the lot. MR. KREBS-I can’t go along with that. Keith, you know I’ve told you a couple of times and I’ve written to Craig Brown, and just down the road from this particular home, somebody, and I can’t get Craig to do anything about it, has built a stone wall, has a backhoe in there, has been moving dirt. It’s about 15 feet from the water, and we’re not doing anything about this person. So I can’t get excited, if this has sufficient, I think, green right now. MR. OBORNE-I hear you. I hear you. MR. KREBS-A few more shrubs. MR. OBORNE-No. I just want to make sure that we are clear to the applicant what is needed, and I think stormwater is not an issue, and I think landscaping is not an issue. I think it can be taken care of, as opposed to it being tabled. That’s just me. MR. SIPP-As long as you list the type and the name of the planting that you’re going to put in. I mean, we don’t want Timothy and. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it comes from the list. The list is provided right on the plan, and it’s a selection from that list. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. FORD-If it’s Code compliant and their selection comes from the list. MR. OBORNE-That’s why I asked for the dimensional aspect of it, what do you want. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, would anyone like to put forward a resolution? One of the items that the applicant did offer is an infiltration trench along the north side of the garage, and he agreed to add the stormwater management computation on the plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And he agreed to specify the plants. So, with that said, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. KREBS-If you’re wondering why it takes us so long, usually our Secretary does all our motions for us. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re lost without her. MR. OBORNE-I think you guys are doing a great job, though, I really do. MR. HUNSINGER-Anybody? I mean, we do have the model resolution. Were there any waivers requested? MR. OBORNE-I believe there’s a grading. MR. HUNSINGER-Grading and lighting? MR. OBORNE-Yes, grading and lighting. It’s just typical boilerplate site plan. You are offering stormwater management and landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll run with it here. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2010 JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHTS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger whom 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 a 692 sq. ft. second story addition to existing single story residence. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 8/2410; The ZBA approved the variance request on 8/25/10; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/28/10; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2010 JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHTS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. With the following: Item A, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies. Item B, it’s a Type II SEQRA, Item C applies. Item F, waiver requests are granted for grading and lighting. 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 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) 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: grading, lighting plans g)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff h)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. i)It’s approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant will add an infiltration trench, as shown on the plans, on the north side of the garage. 2.That the applicant will add the stormwater management computations to the plans. 3.That the applicant will provide a Code compliant landscaping plan. 4.That the applicant will agree to no further use of fertilizers or pesticides on the lawn. th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Keith had recommended the dimension aspect. Have we addressed that sufficiently to meet your request? MR. OBORNE-The way that you have it now, what the applicant is offering is what I would run with, as far as the dimensional and locations of where they’re offering it. That’s it. I also do want to mention that you need to close the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we did. I’m sorry. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-I’m sorry. I’m a little concerned about no pesticides when, should there be a ground hornet’s nest or should there be something of that effect near the lake, I just worry that they wouldn’t, then, be able to treat that. So I don’t know how the water people would be expected to handle something like that, but that worries me, to say no pesticides. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I should have specified on the lawn. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that’s where that could be, is on the lawn. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I understand grub control is one thing, but, living on the lake I know there are ground, there are bees there all the time. So I don’t know how we deal with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t think the Code Compliance Officer will be out there when a nest is to be sprayed. Typically you would be doing that at night, not because the applicant would be under the cover of darkness, so they could skirt anything. It’s just they all come back to the nest at that time, and that’s when you get them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the fertilizer police are not up and working at that time. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we have fertilizer police? MR. SCHONEWOLF-They’re not over on this side of the lake. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Jackoski MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Before I introduce the next item on the agenda. I live next door to the applicants, so I’m going to recuse myself for discussion on this project, and Mr. Traver is going to Chair the meeting. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LORI F. BRITTON AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LORI BRITTON/DAVE FLORIAN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION EAST SIDE TEE HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RE-GRADE SITE CONTAINING ABANDONED GRAVEL PITS. CLEARING AND GRADING OF GREATER THAN ONE- QUARTER ACRE IN THE RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 1.96, 1.34, 6.39, 0.7 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-2-15, 10, 16, 24 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-010 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-All right. Site Plan 51-2010, Lori Britton. Requested action is clearing and grading of greater than one-quarter acre in an RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is east side of Tee Hill Road. Existing zoning is RR-3A. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes to re-grade site containing abandoned gravel pits for the purpose of “reclaiming” these areas. The plan proposed is to disturb approximately 5.7 acres of which 4 acres are to be cleared of vegetation. The proposal encompasses 5 parcels totaling 15.64 acres. What follows is soils information. Staff Comments: The Planning Board may wish to ascertain the proposed use of the land after the grading is complete. If the land is proposed for a subdivision, this may need to be clarified for SEQR purposes. The applicant is requesting waivers for landscaping and lighting. What follows is Site Plan Review. I’ll quickly go over that, being that it’s short. Paragon Engineering comments are attached. A soil test to determine amendment requirements should be performed prior to vegetative stabilization, and any stump and organic debris as noted during site visit are not acceptable fill material. Staff recommends removal or shredding of stumps, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening. MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, excuse me. In as much as Chris has recused himself, we do have an alternate sitting here. Do you want to invite him to join us for this discussion? MR. TRAVER-Sure. BRAD MAGOWAN MR. MAGOWAN-Sure. MR. TRAVER-By all means. Thank you, Tom. Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record and tell us about your project. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. My name is Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering in Queensbury. Here on behalf of Lori Britton and Dave Florian. Mr. Florian is with me. They’re co-owners of the property, and I guess I would summarize with the property does have a history. Lori has owned it for, or you guys have owned it for? DAVE FLORIAN MR. FLORIAN-Between 25 and 30 years. MR. HUTCHINS-Prior to that time it was utilized as a gravel extraction site. I hope you had a chance to walk it. There are a number of old pit areas. It’s generally a, it’s somewhat of a bowl now, in that it’s high to the south. It’s high to the north, and it’s low in the middle. It’s made up of five parcels that are all contiguous in an RR-3 zone. Again, no activity has occurred here for many years. They have had some issues with off road vehicles and motor bikes and that sort of thing. What their intent is is to take the first step toward getting the best reasonable use out of this property. In the condition it’s in right now, the first thing that needs to be done is it needs to be re-graded, and the pit areas need to be filled, and what we’ve put together is a grading plan to show the site being re-graded. I have taken some liberties and indicated what finished grade would be in red on this markup as well as what areas would be cut from present condition and what areas would be filled from present condition. Generally, we would be cutting on the southerly portion of the property and pushing towards the north. There is a berm of sorts around the northern boundary of the property, and I want to point, I’m sorry. Here’s Tee Hill Road. Here is the Glen Lake outlet brook. There is a, this is a steep slope up from the brook up to the 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) parcel, and then there’s a bowl that drops back down into the parcel. That’s all natural, original material here, and until you get to where it has been cut out. We’re not going to touch anything on the natural slope going down toward the brook. Everything is going to be within the low area. MR. FORD-And interior to that orange line? MR. HUTCHINS-Interior to the orange line, yes. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Now, the existing disturbance goes all the way back. As I said, there are five parcels. We’ve shown them here in blue, Parcel One, Parcel Two, Three, Four, and Five. They’re all contiguous, all common ownership. Our work is, almost all of our work will be on the front four parcels, and not Parcel Five. Generally, we will be cutting from here and pushing generally in this direction, to re-grade it. The intent is to re-grade it in a balanced condition that is not be trucking vast quantities of material off the site or trucking vast quantities of material into the site. We want to move around the material that is on the site such that we can get it to a more reasonable finished condition. That will require cutting of some vegetation. It’s, I mean, the vegetation that has grown within the pit area is not the greatest vegetation in the world. It’s first growth stuff. MR. FORD-Scrub. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, scrubby, but it will involve cutting some of that, and, I don’t know, with that, I guess I’d turn it over to the Board. Dave, do you want to add anything? MR. FLORIAN-No. Only to just say that I was feeling sorry for myself because I live in Connecticut, and I’m here to support the application, partly because I own half of it with my daughter Lori, she’s my daughter, and she couldn’t be here because she’s in Upstate, but after watching how busy you folks are, I’m not feeling sorry for myself anymore. I want to thank you for hearing the application. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Once you restore this property, what are you going to do with it? MR. FLORIAN-Well, having owned it all that time and realizing, suffering nothing but tax bills, trespass, gun fire, fires and motorcycles, we decided it’s time to do something with it, and we probably would build a few homes there if we can get through this portion of it. That would be our hope. Lori doesn’t need it and I don’t need it. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Questions from the Board? MR. FORD-I just want to clarify that there are no plans to supplement, you mentioned that by bringing in fill or anything of that sort onto this site, Tom. Is that correct? MR. HUTCHINS-No, there are no plans to do that. MR. FORD-It wouldn’t be needed. You can use what is there and rearrange it without supplementing it? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that’s our plan. Now, that’s completely the intent, and we feel that what we’ve shown is a reasonably balanced grading plan. That will not make the site flat, okay. There’s going to be a low area to the north, and there’s going to be a higher area to the south, which is just fine. MR. FORD-I just want to make sure that this doesn’t become a dumping area for a number of our sites where they’re pulling everything from concrete to blacktop to trees and other debris out to fill in pits. MR. MAGOWAN-Non-clean fill. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I mean, concrete’s generally considered clean fill, but, no, we have no intention of doing that. Dave, do you want to follow up on that? MR. FLORIAN-I’m death on dumping and burying on land, and I’m offended that has happened on our land now, and as long as I have anything to do with that, that’s not going to happen there. MR. FORD-Thank you. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. OBORNE-I will say, if they were planning on doing that and it disturbed more than a quarter acre, they would have to be back for Site Plan Review also. MR. FORD-I just wanted to get it on the record and set it straight. MR. TRAVER-There’s some engineering comments that talk about the DEC being involved. The total land clearing exceeds five acres. Number Two under general comments from Paragon. Did you see those? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I did. It says total clearing area exceeds five acres. It does, 5.7. Which means if we do it all at once, we have to have written permission from DEC if we stage it, which I probably should have shown staging to separate that, then it’s done under a normal SWPPP. It also means that a SWPPP narrative technically is required, although we aren’t proposing any hard area, no hard area. So a stormwater model is going to be, is not going to say a whole lot, okay. It’s like with that, and I may have missed this one, frankly. It could be, if a SWPPP narrative is required, we can do that. It’s a very short document. I didn’t catch that, frankly, the five acre deal, but if we split it into disturbance areas of less than five acres, I would argue that the full blown SWPPP is not required, but if we need one, we can certainly do one. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-I’d be willing to work that out with him if it would work for you guys. MR. TRAVER-I was going to say, you might want to be thinking about that, because we are going to need a signoff, obviously. MR. FORD-What’s the timeline for completion of the plan? Not the building of the houses, obviously, but the site itself? MR. FLORIAN-Lori’s busy now, thank goodness, and I don’t think that we would get to that. I think winter’s coming and we probably would get to it and start working on it next year. She’s in the construction business, in that she does blasting, and so she has a lot of connections there, and I think that she’ll work with her people and customers of hers to try to do it in slow times, because she’s had plenty of slow times in the last two years, and it’s not like we have to rush and do this tomorrow night. We’d like to get it done in a hurry, but if we can do it with downtime, it would be more economical. MR. FORD-Are we talking a year, a year and a half, two years? MR. FLORIAN-Easily a year, but we don’t want to drag it on, but I don’t see us getting started this year because we, you know, she’s busy, right up through the end of the year, and I think probably in the Spring probably we could get going on it. MR. TRAVER-Are there any, and you mentioned the trespassing, the various activities that have gone on here. Is there any evidence of anything that’s been dumped on the property that might be of environmental concern? MR. FLORIAN-No, I don’t see anything. I see some rocks. I see some timber. I see ashes from some fires and things of that nature, but I don’t see anything that would look like that. MR. FORD-Anything growing there that might be considered a controlled substance? People do that on other people’s property. MR. FLORIAN-I know they do. I don’t think it grows very well on sand, though. MR. FORD-I wouldn’t know. MR. TRAVER-Do you have anything that you’d like to add before we open up the public hearing? MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don’t believe so. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and with that, there is a public hearing this evening on this application. Is there anyone here who’d like to address it? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. HUTCHINS-We also have some letters, on that note, that I’ll show Keith, with the Chair’s permission, and if he doesn’t have them, then. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Good evening, sir. RICHARD KUBRICKY MR. KUBRICKY-Good evening. I’m Richard Kubricky. I live at 133 Tee Hill Road, which is diagonally across the road from the property in question. I firmly support this application. I think it’s a good use of that land. As I think back, I think my father’s company was responsible for some of those holes back there over the years, but I think it’s good use, and anything you can do to make it so that the motorcycles have no desire to go over there is a good thing. I lived over on Hewitt Road for many years with the noise and motorcycles. So anything that can be done to eliminate that, I’m in full support of that, and with that said, I would just say that I think it’s a good project. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Sir, may I ask you a question? MR. KUBRICKY-Sure. MR. TRAVER-You mentioned that you support this use of this land. What’s your understanding of what the land is going to be used for after it’s modified? MR. KUBRICKY-Well, I understand eventually probably it will be valuable to put houses on. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MARGARET WALLACE MS. WALLACE-Margaret Wallace. I also live on Tee Hill Road. I just have a question about how the vegetation is going to be removed. I mean, there are some big trees back there going to be trucked out, the vegetation, all the trees and the shrubs and stuff. Are they going to be taken away? MR. FORD-We’ll have the applicant address that when they return to the table. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WALLACE-Okay, but I support the project, and hope that there won’t be too many houses built back there. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. JO ANN CURCIO MS. CURCIO-Good evening. My name is Jo Ann Curcio, and I live at 137 Tee Hill Road. I know Lori Britton and her father Dave, and I am in support of their application for this property clearing and grading, in an effort to make the lots more conducive for, in the future, if there was any sale. Living on Tee Hill Road over the last quite a few years and in that vicinity, there have been numerous uses as far as snowmobiling, dirt bikes, and with me living right on Tee Hill Road, I can hear the continuous sound, and also there’ve been children, when there were children, teenagers in the neighborhood would go in there and party and it was a big risk to know and hear that there were people using this land for not a very good purpose. So I just hope that you would approve for this. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. MR. OBORNE-We do have one public comment. Town of Queensbury Planning Board, I got this right this time, September 28, 2010. “As neighbors and adjacent property owners of Lori Britton and Dave Florian, we have received applicant’s proposal for Tax ID 289.7-2-15, 10; 16, 24. We are in favor of the said proposal. We feel it would be an asset to the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. James DiCiccio and Jackie Brown, 648 Moon Hill Road” Also today, when I did get into the office, which was about 5:30 this afternoon, I did receive an e-mail from George Sicard in support of this application also, and that will be placed in the record tomorrow. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. There was one question about vegetation, specifically some of the large trees and so on. Can you tell us what you expect to do? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. Most of the small growth vegetation which is within the internals of what was the pit would most likely be chipped, okay, chipped on site. Anything large that had to be removed, I don’t believe there are very many, but there’s likely a few trees particularly to the south would be removed from the site. So chipped or removed from the site. We wouldn’t bury anything on site. MR. TRAVER-Anything else you’d like to add? MR. SIPP-Has anybody ever thought of posting the land? MR. FLORIAN-We have, but it doesn’t work. MR. OBORNE-It’s posted. MR. FLORIAN-Kids tear them down. MR. TRAVER-Okay. This is an Unlisted SEQRA action. Would that be a Short Form, Long Form? MR. OBORNE-I believe the applicant submitted a Short Form. Is that correct, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Do members of the Board feel comfortable going ahead with the Short Form SEQRA review at this point? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Please close the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. I’ll close the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-We’ll start with the SEQRA Short Form. I’ll read the questions. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 New York CRR Part 617.4?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-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. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. FORD-No. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. TRAVER-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-“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. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. KREBS-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. TRAVER-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-Then I will make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 51-2010, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LORI F. BRITTON, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of, September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have taken care of SEQRA. We have closed the public hearing. Do any Board members have any concerns regarding conditions that we might place on this application? Are we ready to discuss a motion? Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2010 LORI F. BRITTON, 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 to re-grade site containing abandoned gravel pits. Clearing and grading of greater than one-quarter acre in the RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/28/10; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2010 LORI F. BRITTON, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph B, we have reviewed SEQRA and found a Negative Declaration. Waivers are granted for landscaping and lighting. A requirement that the applicant obtain an engineering signoff from the Town Engineer. a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]. The Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)Waiver requests granted; landscaping & lighting plans; and 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) 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)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and i)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and k) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 1. The NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. 2. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and l) The applicant must maintain on their project site for review by staff: 1. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and 2. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. FLORIAN-Thank you very much. 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 OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 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 JON KELLEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 10-2010 for Maureen Ireland. This is Preliminary and Final Subdivision Review, 319 Corinth Road is the location. CLI is the zone, which is Commercial Light Industrial. This is an Unlisted. A Long Form has been submitted. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 12.95 acre lot into 4 light industrial lots of 4.16, 3.95, 2.62 & 2.23 acres respectively in the Carey Industrial Park. Staff 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. The applicant is requesting waivers from Landscaping, clearing grading and E&S plans, ostensibly because the site is stabilized and existing. I do want to inform the Board, if subdivision approval is forth coming, you’ll be reviewing a Site Plan this coming Thursday for an electrical wholesaler, and the applicant has received his ZBA review and has been given approval for that, as far as any area variances, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. KELLEY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. For purposes of the record, my name is Jack Kelley, Coldwell Banker Commercial. None of the conditions have changed since the previous two times I’ve been here, and we basically are in a situation whereby 12.95 acres with three buildings and 70,000 square feet of warehouse is not a popular item, but the smaller warehouses, the 12,000, the 40,000, and the 10,000, separately do have an interest. They’re currently vacant, and as Staff had indicated, we do have a contract for sale on the westernmost building that will maintain 10 jobs in the Town of Queensbury, with the possibility of some additional jobs for the future, and if successful this evening, we’ll be back to see you Thursday evening, with the perspective purchaser to go into details as to what they plan to provide improvements to the project. With that, Mr. Chairman, I’d be happy to answer any questions that this body has this evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-We asked them all last week. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Do you want to be put on the Planning Board payroll, you’re here so much. MR. KELLEY-Actually, I was Chairman of my hometown Planning Board for several years, and I do have to compliment you on the work that you do, for such a high salary. MR. HUNSINGER-Why thank you. MR. KELLEY-However, I think my limit was one o’clock in the morning when I got out of one of my meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-No questions or comments? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board on the project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, we don’t. I do want to add, we’ve already accomplished SEQRA for this. We did that at the recommendation stage. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Okay. So since there are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I’ll entertain a motion to approve, and again, with subdivision, we do have separate approvals for Preliminary and Final. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2010 MAUREEN IRELAND, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 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. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9/21/ & 9/30/2010 and The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 9/21/10; and The ZBA approved the variance on 9/22/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2010 MAUREEN IRELAND, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Waiver requests are granted for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff f)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and g)If applicable, Item g to be combined with a letter of credit; 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 th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2010 MAUREEN IRELAND, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 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. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 9/21/ & 9/30/2010 and The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 9/21/10; and The ZBA the variance on 9/22/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2010 MAUREEN IRELAND, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff f)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and g)If applicable, Item g to be combined with a letter of credit; 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 th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER- MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. KELLEY-We’ll see you Thursday night. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you Thursday. SITE PLAN 55-2010 SEQR TYPE II CRESCENT LLC DENNIS FREDETTE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 69 BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A LAKESIDE PATIO [APPROX. 10’ X 22’]. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-07; BP’S WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.42 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-55 SECTION 179-9 DENNIS FREDETTE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. Site Plan 55-2010, Crescent LLC, Dennis Fredette. Requested is hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, that does require Planning Board review and approval. Location is 69 Birch Road. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. No SEQRA review is necessary. Project Description: Applicant has constructed a 220 square foot lakeside patio adjacent to the shoreline of Glen Lake. Additionally, a three foot high retaining wall has been constructed approximately 10 to 12 feet from the shoreline according to the applicant and subsequently witnessed by staff. Further, the applicant has armored approximately 100 linear feet of shoreline with glacial stone. Finally, the natural grade of the parcel adjacent to the shoreline was altered by reducing the grade of the slope for purposes not quite clear. Staff Comments: The above stated projects and actions were installed or performed without site plan review. Staff has no mechanism by which to ascertain if proper Erosion and Sediment Control was used during these projects nor does it seem reasonable to pursue the issue at this time. Staff has reviewed the building permit file and there is a plan to grade approximately 18 feet from the shoreline. The scope of the grading was obviously expanded as evidenced by the flat nature of the lands adjacent to the shoreline. Plan review, quickly, Paragon Engineering comments attached. He has basically said the site is stabilized 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) and there appears to be no issues, and again, the ubiquitous shoreline plantings is being offered by the applicant. However, it is not Code compliant at this point, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FREDETTE-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yo8urself for the record. MR. FREDETTE-Yes. My name is Dennis Fredette, and I own the property at 69 Birch Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. FREDETTE-Well, yes. I wanted to say a few things. I’m not sure about, now, the grading, all of the grading that is in back of that wall, that was all on the Site Plan, and there’s a comment here that the grading was somehow changed, but it wasn’t, because this grading right here, at least my understanding is that it wasn’t changed, because the grading right here flows all back toward the house, and that’s on the Site Plan, and this was the natural slope of the land, before we ever started. It was all this high. All of it was this high, and there was a very steep hill on the entire property, all the way down toward the lake. So I don’t understand the comment that the grading has been changed. Here, the only grading that would have been changed is where we built the wall, and we went straight down, and then leveled this, which means we took off the natural slant towards the lake. MR. FORD-Is the grade the same as it was before you did any work there? MR. FREDETTE-The grade is exactly the same here, before we did any work, because it was already coming down this direction. The grade, wherever we, we only did what was on the approved site Plan, what you have, and that was graded back toward the house, and we put in pits back there, so all the water from the point, the crest of the hill, runs back toward the house, and then this grade was much higher, of course, because the hill was way up here, and when we graded it down to here, then that bottom part is what’s left of the hill, what was originally there, and you can tell that by looking here. This is where, well, you can’t see the tree here, but there’s a great big tree here on this side of the property, and nothing was touched there. We just put, all we did was put sod on it, that’s all. So I don’t understand that part of it, but we did do this. We just went straight down with the walls, and then made this area flat, and there already was a patio here. It was made out of one foot square red concrete pavers. What we did was we just put that in there instead of, we removed the concrete pavers and put that in there. Now, we hired a company to do this, Gould Landscaping, and it was our understanding t hat we were going to, that whatever we did there we would have approval for, and we discussed the patio and how there would be sand joints and so forth, and it would be permeable, so that, my understanding was that met the requirements, that it wasn’t non-permeable area, that it was permeable area, and I saw patios just like this right on the edge of Lake George. So, now, having said all that, I understand I didn’t meet the requirements, and I understand I’m responsible for meeting the requirements. So I’m offering to do whatever is necessary here to, I know the issue is stormwater. So I’m offering whatever plantings or other things are necessary to allay any, fix any problems with stormwater. However, that patio was built so that it slants back toward the wall, and the water runs back toward the wall and underneath the wall, and that’s the only thing that I can see, besides we put in the retaining walls, but that just makes the land flat, so it should make it less water running into the lake, rather than more water running into the lake, since you don’t have that slant toward the lake any longer. So I think what we did, and we planted a whole bunch of stuff. I think what we did, you’ve got way less water running into the lake now than there was before. MR. HUNSINGER-So did your landscaper represent that he had, that he’d received permits to do the work? MR. FREDETTE-No. I should have come up here and asked. I said let’s make sure we do everything according to the way things are supposed to be done, according to the rules, and that’s as far as it went. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. FREDETTE-So I’m responsible. I’m responsible, okay. MR. JACKOSKI-When you saw the Gould properties on Lake George, were they in the Town of Queensbury, do you recall? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. FREDETTE-No. They were right up, the one that I saw, where the patio was right on the lake, is you know where like the big mansion is where Alfred Siglettes used to live, with Georgia O’Keefe, that big mansion right, just outside of Lake George. MR. JACKOSKI-That’s on the west side of the lake? MR. KREBS-West side. MR. FREDETTE-Yes, right. There’s a property right beside that, just a little, the one toward Bolton Landing, and there’s one just like this there. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, the Gould Landscaping company is probably on 70% of the projects that are high end projects on Lake George. I’m surprised they put this in, myself. MR. FREDETTE-This patio right here, you mean? MR. JACKOSKI-This whole concept. MR. FREDETTE-Well, that’s who I hired. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It looks nice. MR. FREDETTE-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-If I could add, just to clarify Dennis’ issue with my notes. Those notes were taken, or those views are taken after the fact, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And the only thing I can go back to was the existing topography that was on the Site Plan, and that’s how I generated those comments. MR. FREDETTE-Sure. MR. OBORNE-I mean, it certainly was grading down to the shoreline. How much? Not a ton, but it certainly was disturbed. MR. JACKOSKI-Can you tell me what was on the property before you built the house? MR. FREDETTE-It was the property owned by Art Brown, and he had apartments in there. Before that I think it had been, a long time ago, had been some kind of an inn, and he had. MR. JACKOSKI-That was that big two story building with porches across the front? MR. FREDETTE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, you certainly cleaned it up a lot. MR. FREDETTE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-It was, I think, the worst piece. MR. FREDETTE-We had a lot of people on the lake that keep coming by and saying we’re so glad you’re. MR. JACKOSKI-I think that was the worst piece on the lake. It was pretty bad. MR. KREBS-I don’t know how much property, when I look at this picture, that you own to the left of your patio? MR. FREDETTE-Over, well, you can kind of look at this one. MR. KREBS-But I was going to just say that, you know, right along the edge, next to the rock, if you were to put in some high absorption plants, that would certainly help any potential runoff that’s coming down around that. MR. FREDETTE-That’s what we had proposed on our Site Plan thing there where we have the survey. We’ve proposed to put planting all along here. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. KREBS-That would certainly help. MR. FREDETTE-And from the list. I think, I talked to Gould’s again, and they said bunchberry and low growth sumac and like that. I’d b perfectly willing to plant that. MR. JACKOSKI-Are those good, Don? MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got low growing stuff that would fit in. Black-eyed Susans are a wonderful plant. MR. FREDETTE-Yes, we’ve got a bunch of those up here, above this. We put in a whole lot of blue rug. We’ve put in a lot of plants. You can’t see them all here, but there’s a lot of plants all through there that weren’t there. We planted all along those retaining walls and so forth. MR. SIPP-Well, you’d have to be 15 foot wide now. That buffer has to be 15 foot wide, measured from the lake upward. MR. FREDETTE-Yes, and we didn’t remove any of the existing stuff. All that stuff is in there, see all those that were right along the lake? We left all that. We didn’t take that out. MR. SIPP-In this picture, this one, there’s nothing here. MR. FREDETTE-Are you talking about? MR. SIPP-On this side of the patio. MR. FREDETTE-Yes, there wasn’t anything there before. It was just, as a matter of fact, he had put his boat in and out there. There were big ruts where he would put his boat down into the lake there and pull it out. MR. SIPP-You’re pretty close on these two oak trees that you have on either side. So I’m not going to worry about that. MR. FREDETTE-There’s a big one in the middle, too. MR. SIPP-Yes, well that’s further away from the 15 foot strip, but you need some shrubs, low growing types, if you can find them on that list. MR. FREDETTE-Are you saying put some shrubs here? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. FREDETTE-Okay. MR. SIPP-And ground cover, small plants. That’s why I say black-eyed Susans are nice to look at. MR. FREDETTE-Okay, that’s fine. MR. SIPP-And they do have a good filtering process. Outside of that, I think if you follow what the statute says, you can’t go wrong. MR. FREDETTE-Okay. Well, we’re certainly willing to plant more plants. There’s no problem with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there were no comments received. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. HUNSINGER-So what’s the will of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m okay with it, as long as he does his plantings. MR. SIPP-One more question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead, Don. MR. SIPP-On this patio, what did you do to make it permeable? MR. FREDETTE-Well, it’s put together with what’s called sand joints, and it’s a kind of a, it’s a little bit of a, I don’t know exactly how the compound works, but it’s kind of like a concrete, but it’s permeable. It’ll hold, it’s barely strong enough to hold the stones in place where they are. As a matter of fact, my little granddaughter started digging it out with a spoon. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It’s a silicon sand. MR. FREDETTE-Is that what it is? Silicon sand? Okay. Anyway, the water just percolates right through it. MR. HUNSINGER-And it is pitched away from the lake. MR. FREDETTE-It’s pitched back toward the wall, so that the water runs back and underneath the wall. MR. HUNSINGER-How much rain do we need to get in order for it to not pitch towards the wall? MR. FREDETTE-Well, I was looking at it today when it was pouring. MR. HUNSINGER-Today would be a good test, yes. MR. FREDETTE-Yes, it was pouring, and pretty much it was all running back there. I didn’t see, of course there was some going off the front edge, right where the front edge was, because of the spatter and everything, but it pretty much was mostly running back toward the back of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FREDETTE-I know that it is pitched back, and you could come and take a look at it some time when it was raining or whatever, but we were careful about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I think the only condition that we’re talking about is the one buffering area where the lawn comes right down to the seawall. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. TRAVER-If you did something there maybe three foot wide. MR. FREDETTE-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So basically a row of bushes. MR. KREBS-Right, a row of bushes, and actually it wouldn’t hurt to have a row of bushes right along the rocks here also. MR. OBORNE-Whatever the Board wishes. MR. FREDETTE-Now are you saying on this side over here? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. FREDETTE-These come all the way from the dock over. There’s not a very long strip of land there. MR. KREBS-Okay. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) MR. FREDETTE-It’s not very long, and then there are, there are quite a few, right in the back of this, right here, right here there’s bushes and stuff, and trees and everything. So I could plant some there. I don’t mind doing it, but I think it’s small enough there that. MR. KREBS-I think this is more important in this area. MR. FREDETTE-Yes. Okay. MR. SIPP-Either side of the patio, 15 foot wide on either side of the patio. You need some of that plant growth that you’ve gotten already established there, which I can’t tell what it is, but you can get color and you can get nice looking plants and also get filtration. MR. FREDETTE-Yes, we do understand about the lake and the runoff, and we intend to be very, very careful about it. We do use the Zero P fertilizer, and apparently we need to be really, really careful about pesticides. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Herbicides, too. MR. FREDETTE-And we will do the plantings. Do I need to submit a plan, then, to you, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, final plans. You’ll need to submit four final plans for final signoff. MR. FREDETTE-Okay. All right. MR. KREBS-And, by the way, the Water Keeper has put out an excellent book for individuals to control runoff. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s copies out there, actually. MR. FREDETTE-There are? Okay. Great. I’ll get one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2010 CRESCENT LLC DENNIS FREDETTE, Introduced by Stephen Traver 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 has constructed a lakeside patio [approx. 10’ x 22’]. Hard surfacing with 50 feet of a shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/28/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2010 CRESCENT LLC DENNIS FREDETTE, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Paragraph A complies. Paragraph B, it’s a Type II SEQRA. Waiver requests are granted for stormwater management, grading, landscaping, and lighting. 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 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/28/10) 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)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and i)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and j)Approved with the following conditions: that a three foot wide buffer be identified on the final plans, consisting of low bushes on the approved and recommended list in the Town. The buffer to be three feet wide, and extending across the width of the area on the plan where currently the lawn reaches to the sea wall area. th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. FREDETTE-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-And the house really does look great. MR. FREDETTE-Okay. Well, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? We do have a meeting Thursday. I just want to remind everybody that we’re meeting at six o’clock in the conference room, in advance of the meeting. Okay. If there’s no more business, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2010, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Jackoski: th Duly adopted this 28 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 48