Loading...
2010.09.30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 INDEX Site Plan No. 57-2010 Paul Kasselman 1. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-8 Site Plan No. 53-2010 Bob Pilarinos; Dennis Pilarinos 2. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-97 Subdivision No. 11-2010 William VanGuilder 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.11-1-53 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 7-2009 Ernest Burnell 6. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 271.-1-21 Site Plan No. 61-2010 David & Tanya Bruno 10. Tax Map No. 228.-1-85 Site Plan No. 56-2010 Gregg Laber 11. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4 Site Plan No. 59-2010 Tom Wessling & Roger Brown 16. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-50 Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 26. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11 DISCUSSION ITEM Queensbury Partners 29. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISION. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD DONALD KREBS 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 Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Thursday, September 30, 2010. Our first item on the agenda is an Item of Expedited Review. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 57-2010 SEQR TYPE II PAUL KASSELMAN AGENT(S) DOUGLAS MC CALL OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR LOCATION 25 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. DOCKS WITH BOATHOUSES IN A WR ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 29-03, AV 133-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.93 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-8 SECTION 179-5-060, 179-9 DOUGLAS MC CALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t usually do Staff Notes on Expedited Review. MR. OBORNE-Yes. This one, unfortunately, is kind of a thorn in my side. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Due to Staff oversight, this was not physically referred to the County Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. OBORNE-And as such the Board cannot do action, cannot take action on this until they come back with any referral, any action on that. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. OBORNE-The applicant’s agent is here, and he, I’m sure, would like to speak about it. This is, again, an expedited boathouse. Typically it would be done like that, but because of a Staff oversight, it cannot be approved tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add to that? MR. MC CALL-Not really. Just looking to build a boathouse on an existing dock. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that the new Code requires, and you might want to think about this between now and the next meeting, is a shoreline buffer, 15 feet wide, and you might want to refer to the Code, and when you come back in October to show us a planting schedule. MR. MC CALL-And that’s a requirement to get a permit for this? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MC CALL-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-That way you don’t have to wait and then just get tabled. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. MC CALL-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and we will leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anything else you wanted to add, sir? MR. MC CALL-No, not at all. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to table this to October 19? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2010 PAUL KASSELMAN, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Pending County review, until October 19. th Duly adopted this 30 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-My apologies. We’ll see you in a month. Thank you. MR. MC CALL-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we want to talk about the diner as the first item? MR. FORD-Sure. 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, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-On our meeting Tuesday evening, we discussed the Pilarinos diner, and we had asked the applicant’s agent to come back this evening and present any new information that they might have. I assume you have something to present, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper. If I could read this into the record. “Dear Chairman Hunsinger: We’re hereby committed to moving forward with demolition of the hotel 14 days after the Planning Board grants Site Plan approval of the diner project. By October 4, 2010, we’ll notify the New York State Department of Labor of our intent to commence abatement and demolition within this timeframe. Completion of the work is expected to take 85 days. So, compared to where we were two days ago, they’ve now committed to not wait for a closing on the diner, but to proceed, 14 days after Site Plan approval, to start the demolition, and th they’ll take care of the pre-requisite to notify the Department of Labor on October 4 and send them the plans. So this is a date certain, and the 85 days includes 20 days of asbestos demolition and about 65 days of building demolition, asbestos remediation removal. You had asked for a date certain, and this is a commitment to move forward without waiting for a closing and a check from the diner purchaser. On the second issue, also to clarify my comments from the September 24, 2010 letter, I want to acknowledge the existing FEIS for the redevelopment of the hotel site will require the construction of a connector road to the Aviation Mall property. If the hotel site is to be proposed to be re-developed in the future with a different project than was contemplated in the FEIS, the Planning Board and the New York State Department of 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) Transportation will determine if a connector road is necessary, and I hope that’s more along the lines of the commitment that you wanted to see. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. FORD-Just a question of clarification on Paragraph One, or in Paragraph One. The date specific would be what, Jon? th MR. LAPPER-By October 4 they would notify the Department of Labor, and that would take approximately two weeks to get clearance to start the project. Whatever date this Planning Board approves the diner project, it would start 14 days later, the demolition, and continue for 85 days after that. th MR. SCHONEWOLF-So I guess they’re not going to make September 30? MR. LAPPER-No, certainly not, but it’s a set timeframe, and it’s not contingent upon a closing. MR. FORD-But it’s a timeframe, not a date specific. MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s a date specific that starts with the date of the approval of the diner project. MR. FORD-No, there’s an expectation that the demolition would take 85 days. That does not specify a specific date for completion. MR. LAPPER-Well, I don’t think anybody would know for sure how long a project like that would take. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. No other questions? th MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, we tabled this to the 19. th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, to the 19 of October. MR. LAPPER-Can you give me some more direction? th MR. SCHONEWOLF-Come back on the 19, I guess. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM J. VAN GUILDER OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 397 LUZERNE ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.529 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 2 LOTS OF +/- 2.0 ACRES & 1.529 ACRES. SUBDIVISION: SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: SITE SETBACK, LOT SIZE & ROAD FRONTAGE RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 50-10 LOT SIZE 3.5 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-53 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 WILLIAM VAN GUILDER, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-I’ll read this into the record. Subdivision 11-2010 William VanGuilder, Preliminary and Final subdivision review. Location is 397 Luzerne Road. Existing zoning is MDR. This is an Unlisted. You have already accomplished that at the recommendation stage. What we’re here for right now is Preliminary and Final review. I believe the Board is up to speed on what the applicant is requesting, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. VAN GUILDER-Good evening. William VanGuilder. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. VAN GUILDER-No, I don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? No questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. st MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing was held open from September 21. Okay. Well, if there are no comments and no one wants to address the Board, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And if there’s no questions, I will ask the Board to move forward with SEQRA. MR. TRAVER-I think we already did SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. We had to do SEQRA for the Zoning Board. I’m sorry. st MR. OBORNE-Yes, you did SEQRA. That was accomplished on the 21. MOTION APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2010 WILLIAM VAN GUILDER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.529 +/- acre lot into 2 lots of +/- 2.0 acres & 1.529 acres. Subdivision: Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Site setback, lot size & road frontage relief. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review and provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 & 9/30/2010; 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 MOTION APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2010 WILLIAM VAN GUILDER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Paragraph A complies. We adopted a Negative Declaration on SEQRA. 1) Approved with the following statements and conditions: a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) th Duly adopted this 30 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We should acknowledge that waiver requests for topography, landscaping, stormwater, and clearing in the Final. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2010 WILLIAM VAN GUILDER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.529 +/- acre lot into 2 lots of +/- 2.0 acres & 1.529 acres. Subdivision: Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Site setback, lot size & road frontage relief. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review and provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2010 WILLIAM VAN GUILDER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Noting that we are granting waivers for stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting. 1) Approved with the following statements and conditions: a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 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; and e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and 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 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) th Duly adopted this 30 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. VAN GUILDER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. KREBS-Would you like these drawings? MR. VAN GUILDER-If you no longer have use for them. MR. KREBS-No, we’re just going to toss them in a barrel. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re just going to toss them. We know you need some of them. MR. VAN GUILDER-I definitely made enough of them. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2009 PRELIMINARY STAGE FRESHWATER WETLAND 4-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ERNEST BURNELL AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 419 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 34.22 +/- ACRE LOT INTO 4 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.0 TO 21.06 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 43-10, SKETCH PLAN 12/15/09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 34.22 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 271.-1-21 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that there are any representatives here for that. If you’ll give me a second, let me run out and see if there’s somebody out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Is there someone there, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You can go ahead and read Staff Notes while we’re waiting. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Subdivision 7-2009 for Ernest Burnell. This is Preliminary subdivision review. This is 419 State Route 149 is the location. Existing zoning is Rural Residential Three A. This is an Unlisted, Long Form required. The applicant proposes subdivision of a 34.22 acre parcel into four residential lots ranging in size from 3.0 to 21.26 acres. Staff Comments: The parcel proposed for subdivision has approximately 750 feet of frontage on the north side of State Route 149. The parcel has an existing single family dwelling on site and will be included in the proposed subdivision. The parcel has many steep slopes and wetlands as noticed on the survey. The applicant does not propose any clearing or grading within 100 feet of the identified wetlands. The parcel is predominantly wooded; however, there does appear to have been some logging on the parcel in recent years. What follows is soils. I will jump down to the application protocol. All right. We’ve already completed, on 12/15/09, the Sketch Plan Review. You’ve already completed your SEQRA review on 8/24/10. The Zoning Board has granted the variances requested on 8/25, and now the applicant is before this Board, 9/30, for Preliminary subdivision review only, not Final. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. My name is Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing the client, Burnell. I guess I’ll start with the fact that we are here for Preliminary. We have received engineering and Staff comments. Some of them are detailed corrections that have to be, have been actually made into the drawings at this point, in preparation of submission of Final. Most of it is detail. I think the one thing that I would like to address a little bit, well, two. One is, I don’t 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) know, has the Board been given the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, or Fire Company, I’m sorry, letter. MR. HUNSINGER-I believe that that was discussed. I think that they’re aware of it. MR. NACE-Okay. You’re aware there’s a letter. MR. TRAVER-We didn’t get the letter, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we didn’t get a copy of the letter. MR. NACE-Actually that went to Craig. MR. OBORNE-It should be in the file. MR. FORD-Could that be read into the record? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Keith, could you read that into the record? MR. OBORNE-I shall. I just want to make sure. Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company. This is dated August 25, 2010, Town of Queensbury, Craig Brown. “Dear Craig: I met with Tom Center of Nace Engineering regarding the Burnell subdivision today. The only addition that I request to be added is a 12 by 50 foot pull off located approximately 300 to 400 feet in from State Route 149. This could be utilized for water supply operations in the event of a fire within the subdivision. Additionally, the fire apparatus responding to fire calls in the development on a regular basis have a gross vehicle weight of 70,800 pounds, and a length of 37 foot 7 inches with a wall to wall turning radius of 39 feet 11 inches. So I am requesting that the cul de sac at the end of the road can accommodate this. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Patrick Mellon, Sr. Fire Chief, Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company Incorporated” This one is dated September 9, 2010. This is from Craig Brown, Stormwater Management Burnell and Poirier subdivisions “Dear Mr. Center: I am writing to you in response to your letter of September 2, 2010 in which you expressed your concerns and positions regarding the applicability of the Town Stormwater Management regulations. I understand your position to be that since the two above referenced subdivisions do not meet or exceed the thresholds as outlined in Town Code Chapter 147-8, paragraph B, (2) you are not required to submit all information as required in paragraph B (3) of the same section. I have reviewed Chapters, 147- 8, 179-6-080 and A183-31 of the Town Code and I agree with your position on this matter. While you may not be required to submit this information, our Planning Board may request additional information as part of their review of your projects. Please be sure to pay special attention to the above referenced sections when preparing your submission materials. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this office. Regards, Town of Queensbury Craig Brown Zoning Administrator” One more, and I probably should have read that one last. MR. NACE-I was going to say. MR. OBORNE-Now I do have, if you can remember what was just said, this is a response to this following letter from Tom Center. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Town of Queensbury Zoning Administrator, Burnell & Poirier Subdivisions “Dear nd Craig:” This is dated September 2. “We are seeking clarification on the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) design requirements for the Burnell and Poirier Subdivisions currently in the Planning Board submission stages. As you know both projects are single family residential subdivisions with no Town infrastructure and disturb a total of more than one acre but less than five acres. Town of Queensbury Chapter A183 Subdivision of Land section A183- 31(A) titled Storm drainage and Chapter 179 Zoning section 179-6-080 titled Stormwater runoff, both state that stormwater drainage shall be in conformity to Chapter 147. A review of Chapter 147 section 147-8 (2) describes criteria which if met by the land development activities would require the SWPPP to include post construction stormwater runoff controls. Neither of the proposed subdivisions meet the criteria in Chapter 147 section 147-8(2) and; by our interpretation, would require the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to only address erosion and sediment control for the construction of single family home residences requiring no town infrastructure. Our plan is to provide all required SWPPP information on the SWPPP drawing. We believe a detailed Stormwater Management Report is not required based on the above interpretation of the Town of Queensbury Zoning, Subdivision and Stormwater Codes. Furthermore, NYS DEC General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities will only require the SWPPP to address Erosion and Sediment Controls for the proposed 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) subdivisions. (Reference NYS DEC SPDES General Permit For Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity Permit No. GP-0-10-001, Appendix B, page 35). We would respectfully request a determination at your earliest convenience as we are preparing our response to engineering and staff comments for the upcoming submission deadline. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Thomas R. Center Jr., P.E.” Of which he made a response that agrees with the applicant. It basically states, the long and the short of it is, you really don’t need a Stormwater Management plan, but you still need the E & S requirements of the SWPPP. MR. NACE-That’s correct, the Erosion and Sediment Control, which we’ll provide at Final. I do have plans that show response to Staff and engineering comments. One of the things was the turnout for the Fire Department. We’ve located a turnout here about 400 feet in, which is where they’ve asked. We’ve also elongated the one leg of the turnaround, hammerhead, to accommodate the fire truck length that they’ve specified. The rest of the Staff and engineering comments are more detailed drafting corrections and details that we’ve addressed and will include on the final submission. If there are any of those that you want to go over in detail, I’d be glad to address. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? One of the engineering comments was on the slope of the driveway, and it says that the cut and fill slopes on Lot Three of the shared driveway exceed three to one. Were you able to correct that? MR. NACE-That’s the side slopes here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-And we have re-graded it so it is three on one now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? Do you have any concerns with the Staff comment about no dwellings within a 50 foot radius of slopes greater than 15%? MR. NACE-No. We’ve made that correction. As far as the Site Plan Review? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-No, we have no problems. We understand that you may want all of these lots to come back for Site Plan Review, and that’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-How’s the Board feel about that? Okay. All right. Anything else? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show that there were no comments received. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any final comments from the Board? Would anyone like to make a motion for Preliminary? Would it be appropriate to do the Freshwater Wetland permit now or at Final. MR. OBORNE-I’d do it at Final. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion for Preliminary approval? MR. OBORNE-If I could interject, as a condition of Preliminary approval, prior to the applicant moving forward to Final, that engineering notes be addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. He said he already has. MR. OBORNE-It hasn’t been signed off by Clark. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-Prior to submission of Final? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Prior to submission of Final. MR. NACE-They can’t be incorporated in the Final for his review at that point? MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, if the Board’s comfortable with that. I’m just trying to protect the Board at this point. You’re about to give Preliminary subdivision review approval, without engineering signoff at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-If you’re comfortable at Final with the signoff, that’s fine. MR. KREBS-I am. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’d approve Preliminary with no conditions. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-With the understanding that they would be addressed in the Final. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that clear to everybody? I mean, we could make the motion that way. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Specifically that there’s no conditions, but it’s understood that engineering and Staff comments would be addressed at Final. MR. TRAVER-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I made that a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2009 ERNEST BURNELL, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 34.22 +/- acre lot into 4 lots ranging in size from 3.0 to 21.06 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/24/2010 & 9/30/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2009 ERNEST BURNELL, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: There’s no conditions, but it’s understood that engineering and Staff comments at Final. th Duly adopted this 30 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. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 61-2010 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & TANYA BRUNO OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-5 LOCATION 119 GURNEY LANE APPLICANT IS CONDUCTING AN UNAPPROVED AGRICULTURAL USE. AGRICULTURAL USE IN THE RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 51-10, AV 82-03, SB 8-01 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 2.89 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 228.-1-85 SECTION 179-9 SOPHIE BRUNO, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-I shall read this into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 61-2010 for David and Tanya Bruno. Site Plan Review is the requested action. Location is 119 Gurney Lane. Rural Residential Five Acre is the existing zoning. It’s a Type II SEQR No additional review. Project Description: Applicant is conducting an agricultural use, the raising of poultry, on a 2.95 acre parcel adjacent to Gurney Lane. Staff Comments: Relief requested from minimum lot size and property line setback requirements for the raising of poultry was granted by the ZBA on 9/22, and, basically, as a condition of approval, if you are to approve this, the applicant is asking for waivers from landscaping, grading, lighting, stormwater and scale requirements. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. BRUNO-Hi. I’m Sophie Bruno. My parents are on their way home from Albany. So I’m stepping in for them tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Were you asked to stall? MS. BRUNO-No. I don’t actually know when they’re coming home, but. I don’t know what they’ve already been through. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Was there anything else that you were going to add? MS. BRUNO-Just that we’re taking care of the chickens one by one, actually. So they’re setting them back. They haven’t been any problem to the areas around. There’s a lot of buffers and what not so that the feces doesn’t get into the water area, the streams out there. They’re set back far enough from the road that you really can’t see them. You can just see the top of their hen house, which we actually are going to have to replace, due to the molding and everything. So, all in all, they’re not going to be able to be seen. I don’t think it’s a very big problem. They’re not a big problem to the area. They’re just little buggers. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I believe I read them into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-You read them last week. Yes. Okay. And it’s a Type II SEQR action. Well, unless there’s any questions or comments, I suppose I ought to close the public hearing first. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no comments received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no questions or comments, would anyone like to put forward a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2010 DAVID & TANYA BRUNO, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant is conducting an unapproved agricultural use. Site Plan: Agricultural use in the RR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Lot size & front setback relief. Further relief requested from minimum parking requirements as well as minimum parking space size and drive aisle widths. The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 9/21/2010; The ZBA approved the variance request on 9/22/2010; A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/30/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2010 DAVID & TANYA BRUNO, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Waivers requested were granted for grading, landscaping, and lighting plans, stormwater, and scale. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)Waiver requests granted grading, landscaping, lighting plans, stormwater and scale; and g)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and h)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. th Duly adopted this 30 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you very much. MS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GREGG LABER AGENT(S) JACK KELLEY OWNER(S) MAUREEN IRELAND ZONING CLI LOCATION 319 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES WHOLESALE AND RETAIL ELECTRICAL SALES FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED WAREHOUSE. NEW RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 10-10; AV 49-10 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 12.95 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4 SECTION 179-9-020 JACK KELLEY & JOSH LABER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 56-2010. The applicant’s name is Gregg Laber doing business as Glens Falls Electric. Requested action is Site Plan Review for new retail commercial business. 319 Corinth Road is the existing location. Existing zoning is CLI, Commercial Light Industrial. This is an Unlisted SEQRA action. Project Description: Applicant proposes wholesale and retail electrical sales facility with associated warehouse and office located in a 17,340 square foot building fronting on Corinth Road. The office portion will encompass 5,090 square feet in the front portion of the building of which 1,000 square feet will be devoted to retail/wholesale space. The remainder of the building will be dedicated to warehouse space. The proposal calls for additional access to the rear of the site with installation of a 20 foot wide driveway. Staff Comments: The main property was recently subdivided into four separate parcels (Sub 10- 2010) with this parcel designated Lot 2. Variances (A.V. 49-2010) for front, side and travel corridor setback relief were granted on 9/22/2010. There appears to be no use intended for the 915 square foot wood frame house located on the northwest corner of the parcel; currently the building is vacant. What follows is Site Plan Review, and I’ll just jump down to additional comments. Fire Marshal comments hopefully are attached. I would like to see, from a planning perspective, orange construction fence to be installed indicating the limits of tree clearing for the proposed driveway. The Board may wish to ascertain what the proposed surface of the driveway will be. The applicant has requested waivers from grading, landscaping and lighting. The subdivision map must be filed before any C/O or Building Permit issuance. The Planning Board may wish to make this a condition of approval. Just for your information issue, the mylar was dropped off to my office yesterday, has been signed by the Chair, and just needs to be submitted to the County for approval. And with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. KELLEY-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Jack Kelley. I’m the Director of Economic Development for Prime Companies, and it gives me great pleasure to be back here before you again this evening, and I would like to introduce to you Josh Laber who is the Vice President of Finance for the Company. His dad, Gregg, is the President and principle shareholder of the Company and he is in Ohio attending a lighting certification school, so that the nice pretty pictures that he included in his portfolio, that he’ll be able to supply those to you in the future as a consultant, if you so wish. I think it would be appropriate for me to ask Josh, with your permission, to describe what they plan on doing. It’s really exciting that we can retain a Queensbury company here in the community. Josh? MR. LABER-Yes. Good evening. If you don’t know, Green Mountain Electric, third generation family business, headquartered out of Newport, VT, purchased the Glens Falls Electric Supply Company in September of 2008. Our intention in our business, we’ve got six other locations, is to ultimately own our own real estate, in order to not only control costs, but to secure our future in the communities that we’re in, and this property came up for sale, and we’ve been looking for about a year now, and we feel this is going to be a good step in allowing us to have our own building in this area, and also give us an opportunity to grow in the future in this community. So that’s our plan. MR. KELLEY-We’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d open it up for questions, comments from the Board. MR. TRAVER-Well, you heard Staff’s comments. Can you talk a little bit about the driveway and how you, what the surface of it would be? Do you have any problem with the construction fencing, those types of issues? MR. KELLEY-No, there’s no problem with that. The driveway that would come in and come around the west side of the building would be ultimately blacktopped. The parking area in the front , which I do have a parking layout plan that I can leave behind, there’s a couple of spaces that currently are going to require some sod removal and we’ll put bluestone in behind the building. We would not add any additional blacktop, but use bluestone in that particular location also. With the permission of the Chair, I’d like to approach and give you a copy of the parking map. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. KELLEY-This particular plan also gives you a layout of their racking plan in the warehouse area, and the current intention is that the front office area, only a portion of that is going to be utilized for the Company, and they’re going to probably sub-lease out some Class B office space. Since we also applied for the application, the wood framed building, you’ll notice we did put five parking stalls out there. Initially they would be used, since they are a Vermont based, three hours away, that they would probably use this initially for their own housing, and then as things become mature, this could be used as a small office facility at the same time, and the layout and the planning design has been laid out and done in such a manner that they complement each other. MR. TRAVER-I see there are a couple of spots somewhat larger than others. Are those for handicap parking access? MR. KELLEY-Yes. That’s correct. Their particular Auto CAD system did not have that graphic to fill in at that location. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. KELLEY-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? I had a question on the, I guess it’s on the elevations of the house, the wood frame building, where it has the incandescent flood lights labeled. MR. KELLEY-Those are current existing floodlights. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So those aren’t the spec sheets that were provided? MR. KELLEY-No. There are no spec sheets on the current existing lighting, only the lighting that was going to be installed on the metal buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are those downcast lights? MR. LABER-They’re cut off, dark sky friendly fixtures. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. I mean, I figured you were a lighting company, so, I mean, if they weren’t the appropriate ones, you would have. MR. KELLEY-You know why I brought Josh along. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. KELLEY-And I think we gave you the specific specifications in the back here also. MR. HUNSINGER-You did on the other ones, yes. MR. LABER-Yes. Those are LED lights as well. So they’re white in nature, and use about 50 to 60% less wattage than the traditional metal halide did. MR. HUNSINGER-We had a presentation from Stewarts last week where they talked about the LED lighting and saying how easy it is now to comply with the Town lighting plans because of the use of LED lights. MR. LABER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show that there were no comments received. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQRA action, and I think they submitted a Short Form for Site Plan. MR. KELLEY-That is correct, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, would you do us the honor of reading through SEQRA? MR. TRAVER-I’d love to. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-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. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. FORD-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. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. TRAVER-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-Then I’ll make a motion that we find a Negative SEQRA Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 56-2010, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GREGG LABER, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 30th day of, September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2010 GREGG LABER, 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 wholesale and retail electrical sales facility with associated warehouse. New Retail/Commercial businesses require Planning Board review and approval; and 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/30/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2010 GREGG LABER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Paragraph A complies. We found a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Waiver requests are granted for grading, landscaping and lighting plans. 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)Waiver requests granted: grading, landscaping & lighting plans f)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff. g)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. h)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. th Duly adopted this 30 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Congratulations and good luck. Thank you very much. MR. KELLEY-Just one added notes that they are accepting applications for employment. MR. TRAVER-Good to know. MR. KELLEY-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2010 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED TOM WESSLING & ROGER BROWN AGENT(S) JEFFREY R. MEYER, ESQ. FITZGERALD, MORRIS BAKER FIRTH OWNER(S) ESTATE OF CHARLES MOORE ZONING CI LOCATION 10 MONTRAY ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF TWO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR RETAIL BUSINESS, KARATE STUDIO, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND/OR OTHER PERMITTED USES. SITE PLAN: NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: FRONT, REAR & TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK RELIEF. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PARKING SPACE MINIMUM AMOUNTS, SIZE AND ACCESS AISLE WIDTHS. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-10; SV 53-10 WARREN 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) CO. PLANNING 9/8/2010 LOT SIZE 0.52 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-50 SECTION 179-9 JEFF MEYER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman and Board members, I will recuse myself because I am the realtor who has brought this transaction to contract. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ford. Whenever you’re ready, Keith. Brad, do you want to sit in? MR. OBORNE-This is Site Plan 59-2010 for Tom Wessling & Roger Brown. This is Site Plan Review. Location 10 Montray Road. Existing zoning is CI. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes removal of two existing residential structures and construction of a 6,000 square foot building for retail business and karate studio. Staff Comments: New commercial building in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The applicant is not within a sewer district and as such will have an on-site wastewater system installed. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted their approval on Wednesday of last week. Not much else to say. I believe that the Board is up to speed on this application, and with that, I shall turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before I turn it over to the applicant, I did, last week, ask the applicant to bring color renderings. So thank you very much for that. We don’t usually accept new information the night of the meeting, but we did ask for it. So, good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. MEYER-Certainly. I guess, left to right our direction, is Tom Wessling, myself is Jeff Meyer, Tom Hutchins and Roger Brown. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. MEYER-No. We went through the Zoning Board. They had a brief discussion. They liked what we were proposing and granted the requested variances and I believe the one thing that you had requested of us was the possible color, which has just been presented to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from the Board, then. BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE MR. MAGOWAN-Well, in the engineering aspect, I drove by and I noticed, and one of the concerns I had, you know, it’s all sloping down Montray there. You’ve got that huge retaining wall from Home Depot all around. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s way down a ways, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I didn’t really see any stakes of the property marks, but I noticed the last house you’re taking off, right, or are you taking both houses? MR. HUTCHINS-Both, both houses are removed. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So, I mean, my concern is what is the guarantee to make sure that the stormwater controlled far enough up where it wouldn’t create a, from the future, you know, pushing on that. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we have re-worked stormwater in response to comments last week. We’ve looked at it again. We basically, that basin shown there is going to be dry up to, it’s going to take a 50 year storm to show any liquid in that, and that will be for a very short period of time. It does not overflow under any model conditions, and we’re taking, we have added, which you don’t see on your plans, but in response to some of the comments, we have added some additional stormwater devices further uphill to capture more of it before it gets down in. So we’ve increased the capacity of the basin area down here, and we’ve also decreased the, call it the stormwater load that’s being directed towards it. So, we have looked at that, and especially now, I’m quite comfortable that we’re okay in that aspect. It will have to be confirmed with soils test data. Obviously we can’t do test data there now with the house there. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. You mentioned that last time. MR. HUTCHINS-But both myself and the Town Engineer who was with us are familiar with the area and very familiar with the soils, and I’m much more comfortable with it than I was when we 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) talked about it last week, and it will go back to the Town Engineer, be it a condition of approval or be it in the interim before the next meeting. So, I think we’ve addressed it and we’ve improved it. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MR. SIPP-That was my concern last time. You will provide us with a stormwater plan, and note it on the plat? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we have provided a stormwater plan, but in response to engineer’s comments, we have made some modifications to it, and, yes, I will re-submit. I haven’t had the opportunity to re-submit that to him yet, but we will do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There were a couple of Staff comments that I wanted to discuss. One of them is on filter fabrics during site work, covering of inlet grates is not advisable. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that’s a note that shouldn’t have been on my detail. That’s a formerly acceptable method of doing it, which is no longer an acceptable method of doing it, because it has caused some problems in some isolated incidences, and we will update that detail. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and the other one was on Page S-7, the lighting associated with the eight fixtures appears excessive when viewed against the Code. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We’ll back off the lighting plan, and re-submit it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-They are higher than the numbers in the Code. We think it’s appropriate lighting, but, granted, it’s higher than the values in the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you just back down maybe the wattage and, I don’t have that page in front of me right here, but. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Again, the pole mounts are 150 watt fixtures, and we can back those down to 100, and we’ll look at the building mounts and back those down as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-The illumination plan for the signs? TOM WESSLING MR. WESSLING-Just a note included in there it’s internally illuminated. MR. MEYER-Yes, on the sign drawing it mentions that it’s internally illuminated, internal lighting, translucent panel with interior lighting. MR. WESSLING-Maybe something similar to what’s in front of the Continental Insurance building, like a nice brick base with a couple with the size light, not too bright lighting. MR. JACKOSKI-What about on the building itself? MR. WESSLING-That would be similar to like what exists on our current building, the translucent kind of glass with the mild lighting behind. MR. HUNSINGER-The building colors that you’ve presented, is that a, a lot of times when you make photocopies, especially color, they don’t come out real good. MR. WESSLING-The original was a little bit of a, what was it like a darker green? ROGER BROWN MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s a little off. It’s going to be a little darker. MR. WESSLING-Closer to earth tone. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it’s not as blue? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. BROWN-No, it’s not. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be darker. Okay. Do you know what the, I didn’t see a name shown on here. MR. BROWN-For the actual color? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BROWN-He didn’t put that on there. MR. WESSLING-(Lost words) the palette of colors, but. MR. BROWN-We could provide that if you need the actual colors. MR. HUNSINGER-A lot of times, you know, we get a chip or something, and, you know, it’s so you can specify the color and the brand. I think it’s an attractive enough building. I think it’ll look fine. MR. BROWN-It’s a really attractive building. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? No other questions? MR. OBORNE-I have one, if that’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Was there any proposed access for pedestrians off of Route 9 at all? There was mention in my notes, store entrances should be placed in the front of the building. You do have a vestibule. I was wondering if you’re going to have a sidewalk to the sidewalk, which is logical for pedestrian movement. MR. HUTCHINS-We’re not showing one, but you’re right, it’s probably logical. MR. BROWN-I think it would be something that would help business. MR. HUTCHINS-I think there’s probably relatively few pedestrian customers, but it’s probably logical. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, Tom, doesn’t that slope toward the building, though? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There’s stairs there now. There’d have to be some steps. MR. MEYER-Yes. What they’re competing with is the Americans with Disabilities Act, because there was a question about having to provide ramp access if stairs are present. Lucas was looking into it. That’s one of the reasons why it wasn’t shown initially. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I think, given that grade, personally, I don’t know that, in that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s a good drop. MR. WESSLING-With ice and snow, that could be a problem. I think ideally the traffic, the pedestrian traffic should follow along around the side of Montray and then up the blacktop parking lot. MR. JACKOSKI-You seem to be a destination business anyway, which tends to be vehicular. I think the bus stops frequently along that route, on the corner. MR. WESSLING-Yes, usually it’s not much pedestrian business. It’s vehicular. MR. OBORNE-I will add that obviously you’re planning for the future also, so there may be a different business in there in the future. So, and that may become a destination for pedestrians. Not to countermand what you’re saying, though, Steve. MR. JACKOSKI-You’ve got so much road frontage on this corner lot, I mean, it’s a non-issue, but I’m only one person. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. BROWN-We don’t have, at this point (lost words) walk-in, and if it is, it’s somebody that we don’t want to walk in, I’ll be honest with you, quite frankly. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and my thought is, if you have a change in tenants, they’d probably have to come back for Site Plan anyway, change of use. MR. OBORNE-I’m always going to side for the pedestrian. That’s just my nature. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I agree with you. I mean, we spent a lot of money to put sidewalks on Route 9. It seems kind of silly to have a storefront that close and not connect it. I understand if it causes ADA. MR. KREBS-But at the same time it’s a lot of expense if it’s never going to be used. MR. HUNSINGER-If it causes ADA problems, and there is, in that corner, at that intersection, there is a pedestrian crosswalk across Route 9, with a walk sign and traffic delay. MR. WESSLING-Near Pizzeria Uno, you mean? MR. HUNSINGER-No, right at that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Toward the Wood Carte. MR. BROWN-The red brick that they put on there. MR. WESSLING-There’s no safety device. There’s just a path. It doesn’t stop traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WESSLING-So in the future, if there’s a traffic light, I guess it’s ready, maybe was the plan. MR. BROWN-You’re thinking of the one up, there is one up further next to Uno’s. There’s a, you push the pole. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s the one I was thinking of. I’m sorry, yes. MR. MEYER-If they’re coming from the north, they wouldn’t necessarily be using that sidewalk anyway. They’d come down the hill and enter through Montray. MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, can you show the shot again that shows between the, to the right of the yellow house? I’m sorry, go back. You were shooting right down the line, but, yes, thank you. That’s relatively sloping straight back, Tom? I don’t see any topography lines leaning to the south. MR. HUTCHINS-It slopes from sidewalk directly toward the existing building. It drops off pretty good, and then it’s relatively flat, but there is a nominally four foot grade difference between the sidewalk and the front of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-And there’s not enough room to put a handicap ramp there, is there? MR. HUTCHINS-It would really be a, I mean, we could probably work out a ramp, but it would be four feet of drop. It would have to be 40 feet long. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s why I said there’s not enough room. MR. HUTCHINS-So you’d have to swing it around to really. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s really more like five feet almost. I think the reality is, if somebody’s walking down Route 9 and they see the front door, they’re going to cut across the grass. MR. WESSLING-That’s what I was going to say. They’d probably go right to the right of that telephone pole and across the grass, because traffic does that now. If it’s trying to get to Montray, traffic will cut, go through our parking lot and along that grass. Because they know that building’s vacant, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 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? Good evening. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN POTENZA MRS. POTENZA-I would like to say good evening, ladies and gentlemen, but unfortunately I’ll just say good evening gentlemen. My name is Lynn Potenza, Marilyn Potenza, and I own the property south of the project. I own Miller Hill Mall which is south of the project. I did not receive st notice from the ZBA. So I’m here tonight to ask a few questions. On Tuesday, September 21, I attended the first Planning Board meeting pertaining to this project where the recommendation to forward this to the ZBA was approved. I was unaware that the ZBA meeting would be the nd following night, on September 22. My first question pertains to procedure. How would the ZBA know the decision of this Board would be given to them, given them ample time to review this in 24 hours? Considering the number of variances requested, I would think it a respectable thing to do to give the ZBA ample time to review it. Of all the variances requested, setbacks, stormwater runoff, etc., my biggest concern is parking. To allow 18 reduced size parking spots for a 6,000 square foot building does not seem practical. Although one could argue for the present occupants it may seem okay, may I assure you, I’ve been a landlord for 30 years, and tenants and uses often change, especially on the corridor of Route 9, and parking will definitely be an issue. R & T are moving from the cement building next door and although it may appear they only have four parking spaces, it was the requirement of this Town to put additional parking behind the building with access stairs to get them approved. Whether customers use that or not is not the issue. Please take a strong second look. The Miller Hill Mall is approximately is 12,000 square feet, and that pertains to both buildings, and it required 60 parking spots for that 12,000 square feet. I have a layout, unfortunately I didn’t have time to make copies, but I do have a layout showing the layout of the building and the parking spots required for Miller Hill. So, you know, I hope that you will take a second look at this, and I thank you for your time and your effort, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions. MR. JACKOSKI-May I ask, of your, you said 12,000 square feet? MRS. POTENZA-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-What percentage of the parking spaces do you feel are not being utilized? MRS. POTENZA-Well, out of the 12,000 square feet right now 9,000 is rented. We have a vacancy of about 3,000 square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that a prime spot vacancy, or is that a more toward the rear vacancy? MRS. POTENZA-Well, I have Subway. I have Papa John’s Pizza. I have Liberty Tax, and I have R & T Antiques. What used to be in there was a mattress company, and they have filed bankruptcy and left. So that is up for rent right now, but, I mean, when you look and you see that Subway is basically an in and out business, although there are seats there for people to come in and sit and enjoy their lunch. Papa John’s does not have seating. That is a take-out business only. Liberty Tax, that’s basically a six month business, although they rent it on a year round basis. A lot of their customers, or applicants are drop off and pick-up, too. MR. JACKOSKI-So you’re thinking that the significant number of your parking spaces aren’t getting utilized currently with the tenants that you have? MRS. POTENZA-No. I think a good percentage of it is being utilized. For instance, I know that a good percentage of Subway parks to the back, and walks up and has access to the front. Papa John’s has access to the back of the building, just as R & T Antiques has access to the parking to the back of the building. MR. JACKOSKI-I ask because I’d gone back there since, it must have been yesterday. There were only four cars back in that whole parking spot. MRS. POTENZA-Well, whether they park there or not is not the issue. It’s required by the Town for us to have those parking spots, and that’s my concern, and I know, believe me, as a landlord I know that sometimes it’s over access, but to reduce a 6,000 square foot building to parking spots of 18 parking areas, reduced size parking areas, I think is not practical. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MRS. POTENZA-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MRS. POTENZA-And I don’t know why I was not notified for the ZBA. Things happen. Mail’s not delivered, you know, and I understand that, but I am concerned because it does directly affect me, and affect my property and affect the neighborhood. I look forward to Roger and Tom in their new building, and I assure you this could be mitigated. I know it could be mitigated. MR. HUNSINGER-So the notice that you received, it was only about Site Plan Review? MRS. POTENZA-Yes. I received one notice of Site Plan Review, and I was there. I heard you say it’s being referred to the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. POTENZA-I did not know, nor was there any comment made, that the ZBA meeting would be the following night, and I thought, well, by the time the ZBA reviewed it, it would be at least a couple of weeks, and then I would be notified when it went before the ZBA, and until I read the article this morning in the paper was I aware that it had gone through ZBA and was approved. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There was a legal notice in the paper about this. MRS. POTENZA-I did not pick up the legal notice. MR. HUNSINGER-It is, we’ll talk about it in a minute, but just for your edification, it is pretty standard protocol. It doesn’t happen 100% of the time, that an applicant will come before the Planning Board for a recommendation, and that was something that’s new in the new Code, that the Planning Board makes recommendations to the Zoning Board on zoning variances. So it’s pretty standard practice that they come to us on Tuesday night, go to the Zoning Board on Wednesday night, then come back here the following Tuesday. In fact, we arrange the schedule for that to happen as often as possible. MRS. POTENZA-In retrospect, Chris, I think that’s great, because I know that there is an awful lot of lag time, there used to be an awful lot of lag time, between going to the respective Boards and getting approval, and I’m thinking, how could we correct the situation, and I looked tonight on your schedule, and I’m thinking, well, there’s six applicants before you tonight. Believe me, I don’t want to do anything that will increase the taxes in the Town of Queensbury, nothing, nada, zero, but I’m thinking maybe a phone call to the six people, a week prior to a meeting would, from the Planning Board saying, are you aware that you are, the project or the project in or around the property is going before such and such a Board. That may be the answer. I don’t know. I never had a problem with the U.S. mail, but, you know, nothing’s ever perfect. Nothing’s ever perfect. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Thank you. MRS. POTENZA-So, okay. You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment on this project? Okay. For my own information, Keith, is there typically a zoning notice sent out as well as the Planning Board? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, seven days prior to the meeting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It was in the paper. I saw it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but, you know, people don’t always see it when it’s in the paper. MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is not the first time recently. Something’s going on, but we do follow the typical protocol in Municipal Law, and it is seven days. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It’s five days, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-So a neighbor, if there were a project coming before both Boards, would they get two notices? MR. OBORNE-They would get two notices, one for each Board, absolutely. Not, obviously, they would get the recommendation notice, then the ZBA notice, but they typically wouldn’t get the Site Plan notice because they’ve already gotten the recommendation notice. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. Okay. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. OBORNE-And it’s always seven days before. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from the Board? Did you want to comment on the parking? We talked about it a little bit, you know, last week. MR. MEYER-We did talk about the parking a little bit last week, and the Zoning Board went over it in detail, and they were more than comfortable with what was proposed and the numbers, and I guess the substandard size is not entirely accurate. The width is accurate. They may be a foot or two short, but it’s based on, the fact that the requirement is now 20 is almost based on a typo and not actual, a prudent requirement per the Code. So, it’s, they are the properly sized parking spaces. They allow for ingress and egress on the site. It’s more than ample parking. Actually some of the Zoning Board members said they wish we had come in with fewer than 18. Obviously they didn’t vote on that or anything near it. It was conversational amongst the Board, but they were very comfortable with the parking proposed. MR. KREBS-Well, and the more parking spaces you put, if you pave it, the more runoff you’re going to have. So, I would prefer less and not have the runoff problem. MR. WESSLING-They did say there’s often too many parking spaces. We pointed out, as we look at the floor plan, there’s a lot of storage areas and office areas that, in quotes, aren’t truly retail space. How they’re defined in the Code is different from how they exist in reality, and the felt that the number of spaces met our, what is true retail space and they said often there’s too many, like K-Mart was referred to, of course. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s always talked about as the extreme. Yes. MR. KREBS-I had a 14,400 square foot furniture store, and if I’d ever driven in and there were 20 cars there I would have fainted. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, there was not. MR. HUNSINGER-So where are we at with this one this evening? MR. WESSLING-I did speak to the Town Engineer. He felt that issues between him and Tom could be addressed in a contingent approval, and that he didn’t think he had anything major and he knows Tom well and they can kind of hammer it out, if that so pleases the Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes. What I was hearing was the two items at plan revision, appropriate inlet grate protection, revising the lighting plan. The only thing that might be an issue is the stone color. You had commented that you wanted to take a look at the stone color, if I heard you right. MR. HUNSINGER-No. I was concerned about the siding color more than the stone, but since you asked, the stone color, is it dark gray as shown here? MR. BROWN-Well, it’s not as dark as it’s shown on there. It’s like a natural, earthy tone. Actually, if I could think of it, I think the new bank on Bay Road has the same, it’s kind of Adirondack. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-It’s not going to be as dark is it appears on here, but it’s going to be an earthy tone and kind of to simulate the one on Bay Road, the new bank that was put in, the same kind of stone that’s on there. A lot of the new houses, Schermerhorn and places like that, new places. MR. JACKOSKI-With all the green space in front, is there any opportunity to maybe put a tree or two? I know you don’t have a lot of large display windows, and the building is really very attractive. MR. KREBS-Even some lower shrubs. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, just to soften it up a bit. MR. WESSLING-Did the landscaping plan show anything in front? There were plantings around the sign as well. MR. JACKOSKI-I saw them on the sign. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We’ve got one on the side. We’ve kind of left it open at the building, but, with that said, with the grade, yes, t here’s probably room to. MR. JACKOSKI-No, it was off to the side, I didn’t even see it. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of tree is that? MR. HUTCHINS-A callery pear. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s clear. How tall will it be? MR. HUTCHINS-It will be, it’s a three, three and a half inch plant when it goes in. MR. WESSLING-It’s probably going to be about 15 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, 12, 14 feet tall, something like that. Yes. Okay. MR. WESSLING-And we certainly agree to keep that siding in an earth, Adirondack natural kind of green color and not a bright or obnoxious green, if that satisfies your concern. MR. OBORNE-If I could, are you satisfied with that, not an obnoxious green? I mean, do you want a palette, a pan tone or something along those lines? MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t, but. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it’s all right. It’s an Adirondack. MR. JACKOSKI-An Adirondack evergreen. MR. WESSLING-We’ll certainly maintain that standard. We understand exactly what you’re talking about, if it’s a green color you want. MR. BROWN-To go back to your comment, I can see what you’re saying. It’s not going to be any neon, blues or greens, it’s going to be a nice, right, you know, Adirondack color with the stone to compliment it. It’s going to be a very attractive building. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Are people comfortable moving forward, or do they want to table this? MR. KREBS-I’d like to move forward. MR. JACKOSKI-I’d like to move forward. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted Action. They gave us a Short Form. I’m sorry, before we consider SEQRA, is there anyone that objects to closing the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-There were no other written comments, right, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And Short Form SEQRA. MR. TRAVER-I could do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-I think, if I may, I believe SEQRA’s already been accomplished on this, to be st honest with you. We did that back on the 21. MR. TRAVER-You are correct. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) st MR. HUNSINGER-The 21, you’re right, Keith, thank you. MR. OBORNE-By all means, if you care to do it again. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s okay. Okay. Would anyone care to put forward a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2010 TOM WESSLING & ROGER BROWN, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal of two existing residential structures and construction of a 6,000 +/- square foot building for retail business, karate studio, professional offices and/or other permitted uses. Site Plan: New commercial building in the CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Front, rear & travel corridor setback relief. Further, relief requested for parking space minimum amounts, size and access aisle widths. Planning Board may conduct SEQR review and provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21 & 9/30/10; and The Planning Board provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 9/21/2010; 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; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2010 TOM WESSLING & ROGER BROWN, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Paragraph A complies. 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)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and f)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff g)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator. h)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. i)The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: 1.The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) 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. k) This plan is approved with the following two conditions: 1.Final plans to be revised to show appropriate inlet gate protection during construction. 2.Lighting plan on final plan modified to obtain compliance with Code. The lighting plan shall be modified to alter the fixtures from 150 watt to 100 watt, to obtain compliance. 3.Engineering signoff. th Duly adopted this 30 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: MR. HUTCHINS-Who’s going to look at the lighting? Is Keith going to look at the lighting, the revised lighting? MR. HUNSINGER-I thought you agreed to put in 100 watt instead of 150. MR. HUTCHINS-Right, I agreed to do that. Okay, but that’s not exactly how the motion was worded. MR. OBORNE-Could you amend that to replace the 150 with 100 watt? AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. WESSLING-Thank you very much. If we got through the Planning Board tonight we were hoping for a winter construction. So that’s still the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 PRELIMINARY STAGE JOHN FEDOROWICZ AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) WILLIAM J. JR. & JUDITH RICHARDS ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1433 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 3.7 AND 6.44 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. SEE RETURN ON APPEAL DATED 10/9/09 CROSS REFERENCE SUB 8-99, SUB 1-00 LOT SIZE 10.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-19.11 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Sure. Okay. Application Subdivision 13-2007 Preliminary Stage, preamble will go as this. This application was denied by the Planning Board on March 24, 2009. As a result, this decision was subsequently challenged by the applicant in New York Supreme Court and a decision was rendered by the court on October 9, 2009. The court has remanded the application back to the Planning Board on the basis that the Board acted arbitrarily and without rational basis. Further action to include SEQR and Preliminary subdivision review is now before the Board. Note: It has been determined by the New York State Supreme Court on August 17, 2010 that the public hearing has been closed by this Board and cannot be re- opened. See attached documentation from Town Counsel and the Supreme Court. The applicant is John Fedorowicz. Requested action: Subdivision of land. Location is 1433 Bay 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) Road. Existing zoning is RR-3A. This is an Unlisted SEQR. So Long Form has been submitted. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdividing a 10.14 acre parcel into 2 lots of 3.7 and 6.44 acres. Prior subdivision that created this parcel (Sub 1-2000) included the condition of no further subdivision. The project proposes an approximately 840 linear foot gravel driveway at an average grade of 9.19 percent. Erosion and sediment controls are proposed as well as permanent stormwater management practices. What follows is Staff Comments which gives a history of the subdivisions, and I’ll just go over what the application protocol is at this point. Sketch Plan Review was accomplished on 11/27/2007. Approval of the SEQR Negative th Declaration did not happen as the application was denied on March 24. The Planning Board is now tasked with Preliminary subdivision review, which is front ended by a SEQR review, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and John Fedorowicz. I think the record’s pretty complete. We’re here to answer any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-One of my concerns is the, I know that we need to talk about SEQR at some point. One of my concerns is the driveway and the visual impact that has on the wetlands in the Dunham’s Bay area. This property is, can be seen from that area, and I’m wondering what is being proposed to make sure that this driveway is not impacting on the view shed in the Park. MR. LAPPER-The answer there would be that because the driveway is curved, if it was a linear driveway, you would see the length of the driveway, but because it’s curved, it will be buffered by the vegetation along the driveway, and the fact that from any point where you’re looking at it, you’re only looking at a portion of it because it comes around. So if you’re in the wetlands, you would only see a small portion of the driveway. Also the trees are tall on the side of the driveway and would block the cut. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and what about the house site itself, up on top? MR. LAPPER-The house site is very well buffered. What would you say about the view? JOHN FEDOROWICZ MR. FEDOROWICZ-Is on the front side, and actually (lost words) where the wetlands you’re talking about, and you cannot see it from the wetlands in any direction, because it actually faces away, on an angle from the wetlands, and there’s no runoff to the wetlands when through that review. MR. LAPPER-But in terms of the trees around the house. MR. FEDOROWICZ-In terms of the trees, there’s probably about, if you look at it from the cliff back, there’s probably 100 feet back there’s mature trees there that are well, big canopies. I mean, it’s not going to be seen from any of the wetlands. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. FORD-Will blasting be required? MR. LAPPER-The records show that there would be minimal blasting. That was asked, and that was in the record. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Which is pretty average for the area around Lake George and Queensbury. As everybody knows there’s a lot of blasting in the area around Lake George. I mean, that’s pretty typical. MR. FORD-Would you address the issue of stormwater control, please. MR. LAPPER-Well, the stormwater controls have been completely designed and reviewed and signed off by the Town Engineer. The Town Engineer signed off on that. There have been many levels of review and modification, but there’s vast stormwater controls capturing the runoff along the road, and there’s a basin at the bottom of the driveway to capture and treat the stormwater coming off the driveway, before it gets to the road. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. SIPP-Is there a maintenance plan for the stormwater coming off the road? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That was in the record, that was all in the record that there’s a maintenance plan. MR. SIPP-For all the check dams and? MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s all part of the stormwater report. MR. SIPP-Do we have that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Yes, you do. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? Going back to the blasting, do you know the approximate locations of where blasting will occur? MR. FEDOROWICZ-Approximately, you could say area from, say from Area 116 to possibly 128. MR. HUNSINGER-And where will the rock go that’s removed? MR. FEDOROWICZ-We have cuts and fills. It’ll be probably put in that area for (lost words) runoff. It’ll be like when you dynamite the shot small enough, you can grade on the sides, use for bank slope, so on. That’s pretty typical in any construction area. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the other concerns that was addressed I think at the last meeting where we reviewed this project was the stabilization on the sides of the driveway and what the slopes of those fill and cuts were. MR. FEDOROWICZ-There would be a three on one slope. We talk about the natural drainage as it shows on here, it shows what the slopes are. MR. LAPPER-What the finished grade will be. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Right. It’s, we addressed that last time a three on one slope. It’s done pretty much everywhere, to direct it back into the basin and so on. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? I know what the other question I was going to ask was. On the cut and fill for the driveway, some of the area of disturbance crosses over into the other lot. MR. FEDOROWICZ-Yes, and we addressed that with the easement that we have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FEDOROWICZ-That has been addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-My recollection was that the comment was that it was owned by one person, so an easement wasn’t necessary. MR. LAPPER-And in this case there’s a 20 foot grading easement that’s shown on the map that goes to the other. MR. FEDOROWICZ-At your request it was to be put in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What else, questions comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-I may have some additional questions once I review the maintenance plan, and look at the map again in terms of this, the blasting at 116 and 128, and I would like to also return to the area and check out the view shed again. Those are my main concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? MR. KREBS-We may want to do it as a Board, go again and visit the site. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, one of the unusual things is, you know, the judge had ruled that we can’t re-open the public hearing. We can’t ask for new information. I think our inclination this evening is going to be to table this to October, to a meeting in October. MR. LAPPER-We understand. MR. HUNSINGER-So that we can complete our review of the record and address any additional concerns that we have. MR. LAPPER-You certainly have every right to review the record. There’s no issue there. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have draft agendas put together, and there certainly is remove on the th October 26 meeting. Would that be your recommendation, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. That would be fine. Does that work for the applicant? Does that work for you, Jon? MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other questions or comments that the Board wants to get on the th record this evening? Would anyone like to put forward a motion to table this to October 26? MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th This application is tabled to the October 26 meeting. th Duly adopted this 30 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: MR. LAPPER-I just have one quick comment before you close this. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. LAPPER-The Staff Notes talked about four or five waivers, and only one of those is still requested, and this went on for years, so I can understand, the record’s voluminous and I can understand that Staff missed that, but all of those were supplied with the exception of the location of the septic systems on the adjacent lots because they were built at a time before those records were kept by the Town, and since they’re subsurface, there’s no way to tell where they are, but the point in the record was that the well on this site, all the wells on the adjacent sites are shown, and the well on this site is more than 150 feet from the property boundary, so that even if they were immediately on the property boundary, which it’s not likely that they are, it would still be sufficient. So that’s the only waiver is because we have no way of knowing where the adjacent septic systems are. MR. HUNSINGER-So all of the other waiver requests have been complied with? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We’ll see you next month. DISCUSSION ITEM: QUEENSBURY PARTNERS MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening everybody. It’s good to be back here before you all. For the record, I’m Matt Fuller with Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth, and I’m joined with Dan Galusha from Queensbury Partners and Dave Bogardis from Northeast Land Survey. We’re here on the property, of course, across the street, kitty corner here, at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock. It’s about 34.050 acres, to be exact. So just over 34 acres of land. Just, I know that many people know about the project and the site in general, but I’m going to just recap a couple of things and 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) then kind of discuss where we are tonight and why we’re here, just getting your initial thoughts on it. As proposed back in, and I have a cover letter here that I gave you. As proposed back in 2004, the project was originally 174 units on the entire parcel, consisting of 17 multi-family buildings, about 10 units per building, and then a clubhouse with an additional four units, a pool, and that encompassed the entire property, from Bay and Blind Rock, you know, basically from Bay Road back, I think, which was the contentious issue back then. When the project was originally proposed, it was Site Plan 56-2004. What would have been allowed under the zoning is 192 units, and again, 174 was planned. That, as we know, that project didn’t go anywhere. The zoning got changed. Things happened in the Town, and we’re back. Some different changes with the project. I think if, I noticed stuff in the letter, some of the minutes and things, seemed to be the concern along Bay Road and keeping the office look there, and that is what we’ve done now. The subdivision was approved. There is a filed subdivision map. We’ve got shown now five commercial lots along Bay Road. They range in size from 1.14 acres. We’ve got the commercial lots right here along Bay, ranging from 1.14 acres up to 1.72 acres. As far as the units hat we’ve got, we’ve got proposed 98 total units, residential units. There’s five, 12 unit buildings, three 10 units, one an office and eight dwelling units here, and a pool area, and the residential part of it now is just over 26 acres. I gave you the initial development specs, 26.396 acres to be exact. So there’s about 10 and a half acres of wetlands. There are some upland pockets of land within the wetlands which we’re not going to be developing because they’re in the middle of the wetland. Twenty percent slopes are about .96 acres, and that’s generally this area here. You can see from the initial topo, and the balance is about 14.49 acres, and under the density that’s allowed in the zoning, that would be 116 units, and we could have crammed 116 units in there, but the site just didn’t work if we tried to do that, and so we put a lot of thought into it, and Dave, various different ideas going back and forth, and the number that we think works for the site initially here is 98 units. Just looking at the site a bit, the impermeable is 5.73 acres, about 22%, leaving over 20 and a half acres permeable land. The clearing, the total clearing, is 2.87 acres. There’s no wetland disturbance. We’re not going to need any wetland disturbance variances or anything like that. None of the buildings will be over 40 feet. I think they gave you a picture. That’s a couple pictures, actually, of a project Dave has done. That’s kind of the idea that we’re looking at. That was initially here to give you an idea of for the building. The parking we’ve got meets the zoning. Again, we’ve got, I think it was 257. That might be off. DAVE BOGARDIS MR. BOGARDIS-257 places with a ratio of 2.62 per dwelling. MR. FULLER-Okay. As far as the internal improvements, originally when the subdivision was done, and there will be a subdivision modification coming back with it. We were going to have a public road in there, and I think Dan and his partners have looked it over with Dave, and that’s going to be private . They’re going to keep this as an internal association, so that that road will be part of a development, part of this development, and these commercial lot owners in the front, I think for marketability purposes, won’t have any obligation, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, any obligation on that. Two access site points inside, and you’ll note right off of Blind Rock here there’s another curb cut, I guess you could say, access point. That was a carryover from the original plans. I know Keith and I talked about that, why is that there. When we do come back with formal plans, we’ll have a better, you know, a vertical look at that. That’s a fire access gate. It’s not a full time open area. We were looking back through the minutes, and that was a topic that came up is another access for these units that were over in this area, off of Blind Rock, just in case something happened internally. So we’re going to keep that on the plan, and proceed with that, because I think actually there was a letter in the old file from the fire department asking for that. So it seems like a good idea. Right along Blind Rock here, and in the past, again, looking at what past issues or comments that came out, there’s going to be an earthen berm with plantings, and again, we would come back with, you know, more detailed plans and sketches on that, and a site plan, the same along Bay. That’s part of the Bay Road corridor requirements as you know. Right behind that will be the stormwater basins, instead of in front of it, and we think it gives it a cleaner, you know, look from the road, and again, all access. There won’t be any driveway access onto Bay directly. It’ll be all internal to the road. Utilities, water, sewer, electric, gas, it bears commenting again, when the project was originally before the Town, there was some issues with the sewer up in the neighborhood here, and Dan and his partners put that sewer line in. That was about a $900,000 project, and the next effect was that the Town Hall here tied into that. It’s already tied in. I know because I was working on it from the homeowners side. There was an issue in Surrey Fields, and we were going to have to go after the prior developer, we’ll leave them nameless, but there was a big issue with the septics in there, and they’ve been able to tie in, and that, and I should say the senior center right down here also ended up contributing part and helping out offset some of that cost, but still, a $500,000, over $500,000 project, to Dan and his partners. Again, not to impact the application, but just to show you that there was a lot of work and forethought that went into this before the zoning was pushed back to 1,000, and it’s all been sited for the whole area, you know, not just 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) this project, but that sewer line that’s there, and again we’ll have those specs for the actual site plan, but that whole sewer system right there was sized for the whole area. So it’s not that, you know, the project’s going to eat up a significant portion of that. It was designed with 174 units in mind and beyond. So the whole neighborhood in general. Dave, did I miss anything, Dan? All right. I’ll sit back down then. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Input from the Board? MR. KREBS-This is indicated as a senior property, right? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-Not necessarily. MR. FULLER-Higher end apartments, yes, not excluding, obviously, not exclusively. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll jump in if no one else has any other comments. I commend you for putting the sewer in. I mean, that solved all kinds of problems for, you know, a lot of this area of the Town, and I think that was great. I remember years ago when the Town was debating about putting it in and, you know, couldn’t seem to find a way to do it, you know, it took private developers like yourself to get it done, and do it, and I was really excited when I heard we were going to have a workshop discussion item on this property, but I’ve got to tell you, I’m disappointed in the design. Part of it is my own preconceived bias, I guess, when I looked at, because when I first looked at the plan I said, you know, it looks like they just didn’t pay any attention to the commercial part of it, now I know why. I had forgotten that we had already approved a subdivision for that, but, you know, my thought on that property, and it goes back to actually a couple, three comprehensive plans ago, where they talked about, you know, this being the center of Town, and creating something at this corner that would create a sense of community and a sense of, you know, what Queensbury is all about, and with that piece of property, we have an opportunity to do that, and, you know, these are very attractive houses. Don’t get me wrong, you know, I’d probably be happy to live there. I mean, I lived in a townhouse a few years ago. I loved living there. There was no maintenance. I had a nice garage to drive into, you know, you didn’t have to go outside, but I’m sitting here listening to your presentation, and you’re talking about putting berms in so you can’t see it from the road, and I’m thinking to myself, you know, what’s wrong with that picture, you know, why can’t we do a nice, tasteful smart growth development that has a nice presence on Bay Road, and it’s something that everybody can be proud of, and you think about some of the issues that are going on in this section of Town, and you have the opportunity to solve a lot of them with this project, and, you know, just kind of thinking a little bit out of the box, maybe, but traffic’s an issue, and why is traffic is an issue, because of Adirondack Community College, and it’s, you know, kids driving back and forth to class. Well, ACC’s talking about putting in dorms. Maybe there’s an opportunity, with part of this project, to put in, you know, student housing for people at ACC, and it’s not kids. I mean, you look at the demographics of, you know, the typical student at ACC, and I think the average age is like 32, you know, I mean, it’s a lot of adults, too. It’s not just 18, 19 year old kids out of high school, and then, you know, the commercial piece, you know, there’s lot of discussion and, you know, I mean, if you Google smart growth on the Internet, there’s a site that comes up, I think it’s the EPA website, actually, and they give examples of projects of, you know, mixed use development where you have a mix of, you know, a walkable community with, you know, retail and commercial space and housing mixed in together, and I think you have an opportunity to do that here, and I know the Town code says you’ve got to have this in 300 foot setback before you can build houses, but I think if you could come in with a plan that had, you know, maybe commercial on the first floor and maybe apartments on the second floor for part of the development, I think, you know, that could be the kind of thing that the community could really endorse. So, that’s my soapbox for this evening. MR. KREBS-See, I like the berms because if you’re a resident, the berm is going to reduce the road noise that you’re going to have from Country Club Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but if you’re driving down Bay Road, what kind of a presence does the development have on the street, you know, and that’s something, you know, the Bay Road corridor, we were chastised for some of the developers for some of the projects we’ve put in across the street here because they don’t front Bay Road. I mean, this is designed so it’s not going to front Bay Road. So you’re going to see the back of the building, with a big berm. I don’t know. MR. FULLER-Chris, I’ll tell you, in talking about it, those berms were addressed at prior Planning Board comments, and solely, you know, from my standpoint, I tend to agree with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. FULLER-I’d rather see tasteful buildings there and not a big mound of dirt with trees on top of it. That was solely, maybe it was the wrong Planning Board’s comments we were looking at, but that’s where that came from. It was solely to address, we don’t want to see it from Blind Rock. That’s where that came from, and I was mistaken along Bay. It’s not a berm area along Bay. It’s just trees. MR. HUNSINGER-The other thing about that site, and I was negligent to not mention it, that’s one of the most beautiful views in the whole Town of Queensbury. I mean, you know, I can envision a courtyard up there on that hill where you could sit out there and drink coffee and have an outdoor café or something, you know, looking out over the fields and the mountains in the background. That’s one of the most beautiful views in the whole Town. MR. BOGARDIS-You’re taking the approach of a mixed use project which we would have taken, except that the last people that had this project in here, it got kicked out of here because of the residential in the front and it didn’t conform to zoning. So this was put together so it exactly conforms to the wishes of the Planning Board minutes at the time it was reviewed before and rejected. DAN GALUSHA MR. GALUSHA-Chris, I was there. I was a partner back then, and I own it now, but the real problem was originally when we came in, we spent a lot of time and a lot of dollars and cents, that doesn’t make a difference here or there, but when we came in, and I think you were there at that meeting that night, I mean, we walked in and we didn’t even really get a chance to really present anything. We pretty much pretty much got booted out, which you were there. You realize. So, you know, after you go through those things, you get a little gun shy. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. GALUSHA-I agree with you, you know, and I think, not for this project, for the Town, they ought to look at having workshops so you can come in with your ideas and look at them and have this type of discussion, before you come and you spend all this money and time trying to present to a Planning Board exactly to what their Codes are, when you’re sitting here saying, well, that’s not really what we want, and I know that happens in other towns because I develop in other towns, and we do a lot of projects all over, and it’s nice to have, to be able to just sit down and here’s my idea, what do you guys think, and get some direction. So when you and start doing a preliminary plan, at least you’ve got an idea of what they’re looking for. You’re not guessing at it thinking, is this going to be right, or they don’t like this. I mean, it’s a lot of commonsense to be quite honest with you. That’s kind of why we’re here. MR. FULLER-That’s why we’re here. It never got this far last time. MR. HUNSINGER-And quite frankly what you presented is exactly what our Code encourages, and we talked about that a lot with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, that, you know, if you have, you know, there’s a vision for the Town, and we try to put forth the vision in the Plan, but then when you write the Code, and when you’re sitting there kind of like in a vacuum, like, you know, you were, you’re going to say, okay, this is what the Code tells me I should do, so this is what you do, and this is what you come up with, and it’s nice, but we could do better. MR. GALUSHA-Well, you’re exactly right, but in doing better, you know, being able to come in and sit down and go through some ideas would help this Board, not only on this project, but on many other projects. It may solve a lot of problems. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. GALUSHA-I’m just speaking from what I’ve been through with this Town and other towns. I just think it would be very productive in a lot of things that you folks do. MR. FORD-You mean a Planning Board that would actually be involved in planning. Son of a gun. What a concept. MR. GALUSHA-That’s just my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for edification, I went to the, you know, I Googled smart growth and I saw the EPA site, and you know, a lot of the stuff that’s on there is for big cities, you know, it’s transit related development and stuff like that, but, I mean, you have a big enough lot there, and maybe the topography eliminates some stuff, but I think there’s an opportunity to do something great there. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. BOGARDIS-That wasn’t where we were headed with this because of the professional office along the Bay Road corridor, and we were trying to be strictly conforming to your zoning code, which I think we were. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KREBS-Right, and see what I like, too, was the fact that you don’t have five or six road cuts with those individual commercial lots. I like the idea that they go in, you know, and if you’re a commercial business, you’re still going to put enough of a front on Bay Road to attract people to your business. MR. BOGARDIS-Well, it’s that corner lot that would be the key, on Blind Rock and Bay, that the use of that would be the most instrumental thing. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are those all individual stores? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, these are apartments. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, what’s the blue in the front? MR. FULLER-That’s the stormwater. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. BOGARDIS-But there’s five or six commercial lots along Bay Road, which can be. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which will match the rest of the commercial lots that are along Bay Road. MR. BOGARDIS-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. BOGARDIS-And they, you know, they can be combined into, they’re divided now I think into five or six commercial lots, but they can be added up to be one or two, depending how they’re subdivided. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because there are some nice, well, the one dentist that just put his office up there and so forth. There are some nice establishments that are set aside, and they look like they fit. When I first looked at that, I thought it was going to look like horse stalls. Now I realize what it is. MR. FULLER-Is retail allowed in office? MR. OBORNE-Retail? I’d have to look at the use charts to be honest with you. I believe so. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Didn’t they just change that? MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure. MR. SIPP-Not too long ago. MR. OBORNE-One thing I know is if you’re going to put, if you’re going to develop any of those front lots there, you’re going to need variances for access, but that’s not a huge issue. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know, I mean, maybe I’m naive, but I think, again, if you brought in a smart growth plan that everyone could rally around, I don’t think the zoning issues would be a problem. MR. BOGARDIS-Wouldn’t that require zoning variances? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, probably. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-But, you know, again, I think the community could rally around it. MR. BOGARDIS-Would it focus on professional office along Bay Road? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. FULLER-We can do, retail’s allowed, a permitted use. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, that’s the trick, and, personally, I never understood the 300 foot. That didn’t come out of the Planning Ordinance Committee, because what we, I mean, some of the concepts that were talked about were performance zoning and we were like, the use doesn’t matter, it’s the design. MR. GALUSHA-I think that comes because it was basically, originally, like what I would call an overlay zone, and then it just kind of gotten taken out of context, and then it got taken out of context, and, to be quite honest with you, it got taken out of context to push it out. I know that, I think everybody does. MR. HUNSINGER-But I mean, I think if you came in with a mixed use project, where you took a look at the acreage that’s within 300 feet of Bay Road and said, you know, the maximum development you could put, commercial development would be, you know, x square feet. Well, we have that x square feet, but we have it spread out over the course of the lot, and, you know, again, and it’s just my thought. I don’t know how well it would be received, but I just think that was one of the things we were looking for with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. OBORNE-Just to clarify, retail use is an allowable use in the office zone. MR. FULLER-It is? Permitted use. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-And if you try to tie the development in with ACC, you know, I think you could have a captive audience with the students for some of the goods and services that might be marketable there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-A bookstore and a coffee shop. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a very common thing now for colleges to take their bookstore off campus to help support the community. MR. GALUSHA-Yes. Well, just looking at this, too, I mean, it’s a blank slate, so as far as lots and things go like that, I mean, the sky’s the limit as far as what we want to come up with, but we could, since it’s going to be private, internal roads, we may not even need that road lot. We might be able to bump the boundaries right to here, have the internal driveways right in here, like you’re talking about, have mixed use along here, you know, sidewalks out to here so that you can get over to the community center, then you get more creative back here with these buildings, with the mixed use that you’re talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe have like an inner courtyard or something with no traffic, pedestrian friendly. MR. FULLER-Almost have this road come in here, and then have the access off the back of these commercial lots internally. Eliminate that road lot all together. MR. BOGARDIS-Right. What we want to do is to get in front of that, you know, we always agreed, even though some people didn’t, we always agreed that that should be commercial or whatever, kind of follow down Bay Road, but what there was was originally, and I think there still is, there’s a transition, they talk about in your plan a transition zone from commercial to residential, and that’s kind of what we’re trying to do back in there. I mean, that was part of the whole plan. MR. GALUSHA-And what the Chairman is saying is forget that and join the project as a mixed use project, and maybe make some of that in the back strictly residential, but make some of that stuff along Bay Road and Blind Rock Road a combined commercial restaurants bookstore and maybe apartments or something over that for student housing. Is that what we’re saying? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you know, a walkable mixed use community. MR. GALUSHA-We have to see if that works with our business plan. MR. OBORNE-And that would require a Use Variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m sure it would. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. FULLER-That’s why I think we’ve got to get creative with the lot line. With that 300 feet, just work it so that you may need Area Variances, but the Area Variance. MR. FORD-It’s going to require variances. We know that. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, what you’ve designed. MR. FULLER-Meets the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-It meets the Code. I mean, you know, like I said. MR. FORD-Thank you for that effort. MR. SIPP-Matt, what killed the project last time was the traffic and the citizens in that area were very annoyed with the fact that they would have 300 and some odd cars, probably a good share of them moving out between seven and eight or eight and nine, and the traffic there is bad because of ACC. Now you’ve got an exit there onto Blind Rock Road, coming out of the center of this project. You know you can’t make a right turn on the end of Blind Rock, and those cars stack up pretty well. So anybody coming out of there may be hung up for five minutes because the light is not with them in the sense of the timing of it, and I would like to see some of this commercial, as it has been stated, moved back into the interior a little more or blocked off in some way. Cars should be parking in the rear of it so they can’t be seen from either Bay Road or Blind Rock, and you’ve got fewer cars, but I don’t think that’s going to fly with the neighborhood, again, just like it didn’t before. MR. KREBS-Yes, but, Don, one of the things that I like about this design is that these people, when leaving, have a choice of either coming out here or coming down here and going on to Bay Road. So the population, depending on where you’re coming from in here, could go out two different exits. MR. SIPP-You sit down there between seven and nine, and see the number of cars turning right there to go to ACC. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would say the level of service would have to be reviewed. MR. KREBS-Well, there’s another alternative, and that is to have the Town put a turn lane in here, so that in fact you could make a right hand turn. MR. FORD-These thoroughfares are going to have to be addressed as this development proceeds. MR. HUNSINGER-This light’s getting to be a problem. If you’re coming down Blind Rock Road and you want to take a left onto Bay, what happens is if the first or second car is turning left on Bay, they’re yielding to all the traffic coming straight. The light turns red, one or two cars go, and you’re sitting there for two and three turns of the light. MR. FORD-That intersection will just have to be addressed from both Bay and Blind Rock. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is why I started by saying what are the issues in this part of Town, and, you know, maybe there’s a way that this development can actually eliminate some of those issues instead of, you know, make them worse. MR. SIPP-You’ve got to have a good traffic study done. MR. BOGARDIS-Well, you also have to keep in mind, if you have that access road, people waiting at that light are going to want to have to cut through and get onto Bay so they can make that right if it’s not addressed by the Town. MR. OBORNE-There will be cut through traffic. MR. FORD-Yes, that’s right. MR. OBORNE-Especially if the Level of Service on that road is at a C or a D, somewhere around there. They’re going to be hanging a right coming. MR. FULLER-Going east on Blind Rock, if they can’t get right, they’re going to cut through the development. MR. KREBS-But, Matt, that may be good for the commercial businesses. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. OBORNE-I mean, there are ways you can get around it, with traffic control devices. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that might be a mitigation issue, that, you know, that might be encouraged. Seriously. MR. GALUSHA-Well, that’s why we left the front commercial. As you folks well know, is that comes with time, and we could kind of build that out. We don’t know what we’re going to do, but we kind of left it open, as things come along, so we have options. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think, you know, with this design here, I think you’re going to have some opposition from the school, because we’ve heard that before, with more apartments, townhouses, come more school children. MR. GALUSHA-We have some information on some existing ones. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GALUSHA-That will actually show you people that go rent luxury apartments, don’t usually rent them with very few kids, and my ex-partners, which we still do a lot of work, they’ve got how many, 1500 of these, Dave, over 1500, and they’ve actually got the records of all of their, they brought this concept in years ago. So they have all the records of exactly how many kids they have in those, and it’s, I don’t have the numbers with me, but I’ll share them with you. It’s not a lot. Because like I say, they’re not $600, $700 rent a month apartments. So it kind of separates the clientele. MR. HUNSINGER-I just remember that was one of the issues before, and it’s been an issue, it was an issue with the Comprehensive Plan, too. MR. FULLER-And when we were talking with the Town Board about what that setback was going to be, it came up again, and I contacted Queensbury, for the population figures, the Superintendent’s office, and the enrollment, it’s been plummeting, pretty good. MR. BOGARDIS-It seems to be somebody my age or older, who’s kids have moved away and they don’t need a big house, or the younger professionals that don’t have children, they don’t want children yet. They’re in their career years. MR. KREBS-I know they’re multiple buses, but I often go up and down Meadowbrook Lane, and at the time the kids are getting off the bus, and there’s only six or seven kids getting off the bus at Schermerhorn’s apartments, that are 200 apartments back there. MR. BOGARDIS-Impact on school is very small, and we can demonstrate that for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I can’t stress due diligence more than anything. You know that. MR. BOGARDIS-Small economy suites, that type of thing, and try to get it in a real low, get a component of this project where you could get it into something not too expensive and not too large, 700 square feet, 650 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I know the College is looking at putting up dorms, and the only thing that’s holding them back is financing it. So maybe there’s an opportunity to partner with the College and do something there. MR. BOGARDIS-We’ll take all this into consideration, what you’re saying. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just telling you what issues I know that are in this part of Town. MR. GALUSHA-I’m just trying to follow what’s there for all the right reasons. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand. MR. FORD-I also have, as a realtor, an increasing number of people who are looking for housing, good quality housing, with masters on the first level and close to services, in Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, this is on the bus line. You cross the street from Town Hall. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. KREBS-The other thing is, if you look at the ACC students, there’s more than enough property at ACC to put the dorms over there, and personally I would rather see you not have that traffic back and forth across Bay Road if you could avoid it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s already there, though. MR. KREBS-Either pedestrian traffic or, yes, but if they’re in the dorms and they’re on ACC’s property, they’re just going to go directly to. MR. GALUSHA-We were really looking to do high end luxury. That’s what, that’s kind of where we’re headed. That’s what we’d like to do. The residential helps the commercial. The commercial helps the residential. All of one or all of the other just doesn’t work. MR. FORD-I think the College housing can be taken care of on the campus. MR. BOGARDIS-In a project like this where there’s a commercial component and a professional office commercial component and then a residential component, it usually works out that the residents have gone to work before the businesses and offices open up, and the residents come back, you know, there’s an interchange where the traffic isn’t all at the same time, because of the hours of business operation. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I understand what you’re saying. I mean, I would hope that one of the goals here would be that people would live there and work there. MR. GALUSHA-You’re exactly right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that would be the ideal work, you know, and that’s what helps eliminate traffic. MR. BOGARDIS-The ideal world would be to live there and have a daycare center there, all in one. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. BOGARDIS-But that project site isn’t big enough for some of those goals. MR. HUNSINGER-I feel like I dominated the conversation from the Board’s perspective. Sorry. Anyone else have anything else to add? MR. GALUSHA-One of the other reasons, just so you know, like where we put the berm, up along Blind Rock, that was done for a couple of reasons. One, to kind of try to burn that up and put some trees on the other. If you look at those units, when you actually sit in your units (lost words) and you sit out on your back deck, you’re looking down into where it’s wooded. It isn’t going to be disturbed, and we try to put some of that in, because you have, you know, we’re trying to build luxury, high end apartments, and some of those amenities, as you can see laid out, make it very attractive for people to rent. So, you know, some of those, we tried to follow the Code you’re doing, but we tried to use some commonsense and what looks nice and what you would want to see if you lived there, and that’s how we kind of laid a lot of this out. We spent a lot of time on it. MR. FORD-First floor master suites. MR. FULLER-Well, honestly, I think, from our standpoint, (lost words) we understand you don’t like that, but if it gives us, I think, a little bit more flexibility to kind of work with the site, to be honest with you. We were kind of pushed in a direction based on the comments from before, what the zoning allowed, what it didn’t allow, and not knowing what comments we were going to get. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Just don’t wait too long to come back, because it may be a different Board you’re confronted with. MR. BOGARDIS-Well, I think we have an opportunity to take a look at that professional office commercial area and try to plan something different with that, as maybe even a second phase of the project. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. GALUSHA-I’ve always wanted to be flexible. We need the residential. We need the commercial. I mean, I’ve got to figure out a way that I can have and do both, because I think that really is the thing that makes the most sense. If not, it remains vacant. MR. HUNSINGER-I couldn’t agree more. MR. GALUSHA-And I can’t pay the taxes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure. MR. KREBS-And you might even consider, for the ACC students on the commercial buildings, if you built second stories or third stories, where you put small apartments up there. MR. GALUSHA-We talked about that early on. A piece of my flesh is still in the wall I think because of that. So we did look at the last time with looking at doing a residential commercial. That’s what’s kind of happening in other areas, they start to do that. They’re putting residential up and commercial at the bottom. What that does, it allows you to get at least dollars and cents coming in. As you know there’s a lot of commercial vacant, good new commercial. MR. KREBS-In fact that’s exactly the concept we have for Main Street in our Zoning Ordinance is to have commercial with apartments on the top. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly, yes, and again, I just think when you look at the award winning designs, you know, around the country, I think, in fact for years I had this one saved, and I don’t think it was even 30 acres, and I remember when I found that one, I was like, that would be the perfect thing to do here. I no longer have that bookmarked, so I can’t remember where the development was, but it was met with the skepticism by the community, but it was wildly successful, and, you know, became a destination, and the community really endorsed it and embraced it. MR. GALUSHA-We build a lot of different, we’re in the construction business. So we’re seeing a lot of new things, and a lot of really neat things. I mean, this product was the first product we built in ’01, I mean, it was (lost words) apartments with pools and a clubhouse and luxury. That’s not going to fly. So there’s a lot of different ideas, and I’ll just say one thing, coming back to a workshop type thing could help all this, similar to what we did tonight. I thank you for that. MR. FORD-Yes, we loved it. Let’s do it again. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll do it again, absolutely. MR. KREBS-We’d be more than willing. MR. HUNSINGER-And I mean, if we need to, we haven’t done this in a long time, but we’ve held joint workshops with the Zoning Board, too, so, if you think whatever you’re going to be designing is going to require a variance, we could do a workshop with the Zoning Board. I’m sure they’d be willing to do that. MR. GALUSHA-We’ll go back and we’ll sure come up with some things. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. GALUSHA-Tell us what you’re looking at. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Great. We’d welcome you back. MR. FULLER-Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Thank you. Any other business before the Board this evening? MR. FORD-Yes, I just want to compliment our Chairman for expressing the views you did tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve been thinking about this site. MR. FORD-It showed. It showed, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Sitting on the Board for 10 years, you learn something. Right? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/30/10) MR. JACKOSKI-I move to adjourn. MR. FORD-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, Introduced by Stephen Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 30 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 39