Loading...
2011.01.25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2011 INDEX Subdivision No. 1-2011 VMJR Companies 1. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4 FWW 1-2011 Site Plan No. 67-2010 Thomas & Maureen Valenti 11. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-41 Site Plan No. 69-2010 James Kalock 15. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-77 Site Plan No. 53-2007 Provident Batavia, LLC 15. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 239.7-1-14 Special Use Permit No. 3-2011 Matthew Sokol 24. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-17, 18 Site Plan No. 4-2011 NESS Holding Company 28. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-51, 52 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’d like to welcome everybody to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, January 25, 2011. For those members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. We do have several public hearings scheduled this evening. If you wish to address the Board during the public hearing, there is a handout on the back table that talks about the procedures of public hearings. I would just ask that you take a look at those and we’ll make further announcements as we come to them. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 SKETCH PLAN FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) MJ ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING, P.C. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CLI [COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL] LOCATION QUAKER ROAD/QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 6 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 6.0 TO 29.9 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 65-10, SP 49-10 LOT SIZE 84 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 BRIAN OUSTERHAUT & GEORGE TURNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, did you want to summarize your Staff Notes at all? MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 1-2011 and Freshwater Wetlands 1-2011 for VMJR Companies. Sketch Plan Review is the requested action. Location is Quaker Road/Queensbury Ave. CLI is the existing zoning. This is a Type I SEQRA potentially, but not at this point because we’re at Sketch. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of an 84 plus or minus acre parcel into six lots ranging in size from 6.0 to 29.9 acres. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes mixed use development to include manufacturing, warehouse and office space. The main access for this project will be the extension of Quaker Ridge Road through the National Grid easements onto these lands. Further access is proposed due east of Queensbury Avenue through Warren County lands and private property; total combined road length proposed is approximately 4,400 linear feet. The site contains +/- 13.55 acres of wetlands and it is required that mitigation plans be forth coming for any disturbance within building area wetlands. As this proposal is at sketch plan, a full review to include stormwater and E & S will be performed during Preliminary Subdivision submittal. Just to remind the Board, full EAF has been provided with the Sketch Plan, but we’re not doing the EAF at this point in time. There’s a couple of other issues. I do want to bring up Additional Comment #3. Statement under 7.0 Summary concerning pre-defined lot configurations. There seems to be some issues with the applicant and that comment as denoted by a conversation I had with the Zoning Administrator today. I want to implore applicants to call me first before bothering any potential Councilmen or the Supervisor, to be honest with you, to get right to the crux, if you’d do that. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the Board. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. OUSTERHAUT-Sure. My name is Brian Ousterhaut. I am a project director associated with MJ Engineering and Land Surveying P.C. in Clifton Park, New York. I’m joined by George Turner. George is a Landscape Architect with MJ Engineering and Land Surveying as well. We’re here on behalf of VMJR Companies, the applicant for the Sketch Plan layout. I’d like to, Keith obviously did a pretty detailed job in terms of describing the overall components of the project, but if it’s okay with you, I’ll just run through quickly kind of the intent of where we’re at tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OUSTERHAUT-This project is located north of the Wal-Mart that’s under construction right now off Quaker Ridge Boulevard. It’s located on an 84 acre parcel, also located south of the Airport. It’s identified as Tax Parcel ID 303.11-1-4, and as mentioned, it’s a Commercial Light Industrial zoned property. The primary entrance point for this project is an extension off Quaker Ridge Boulevard that would have to go through a National Grid easement. We’ve been in discussions with National Grid. They don’t have any problem with that proposed easement. The proposed build out is basically maxed out at 500,000 square feet in terms of Light Industrial/Commercial office space. I’ll kind of get into the thought process behind that as well. The project’s being completed right now under a Build New York now grant. That grant runs through October of 2011. So the applicant is trying to get this project approved in that timeframe because the grant monies will run out. The Build New York Now grant that’s afforded to projects, basically is what is commonly referred to as shovel ready site status. It’s developer friendly preferred. It means that a Planning Board such as yourself have gone through, generally looked at the projects, a lot of the approval processes have been done in advance. Those projects would also be required to come back and obtain site specific Site Plan Reviews. Basically the intent is to allow flexibility and get a pre-approved site. Obviously the project goes through SEQRA, as Keith mentioned. A lot of the leg work on this project has been done. Archeological studies have been completed. Traffic studies have been completed. The wetlands have been completed, pending comments from the Planning Board and interaction with the Town. Those wetlands impacts will be permitted, mitigated and addressed, but obviously we’re not at that stage yet because we’re at Sketch Plan. So we want to make sure that the proposal’s in front of everyone, you know, if they get modified, we’ll address the wetlands impacts at that time. No sense going through that process quite yet. As I mentioned, the intent really is to provide flexibility. I think, you know, there’s probably three or four, last I knew, approved tech parks, certainly within the area of Queensbury, you know, and I’ll discuss this a little bit, and I’m sure there’ll be some interaction back and forth, but, you know, there’s two routs that an application of this nature can take. One is it can go through the conventional subdivision and site plan approval process, which is what you have before you. It can also go through a Planned Development District, a PCID in this case, what you have in your Code. The project was progressed under a more conventional subdivision and site plan review format, simply because, as I mentioned, the project is under a Build New York Now grant, which does have a time expiration to it, and it was thought that that’s a more time economical way to approach the approval process. It involves less approvals and so forth. I think the difficulty with that process, though, is the applicant’s intention is to provide flexibility. We don’t know who the end users are going to be for these tech parks. We don’t know exactly what their building configurations are going to look like, how many square feet they’re going to require, and under a conventional subdivision layout, as you’re aware, we’re pre-defining those lot sizes. So, you know, one of the thought processes that the applicant had is, you know, perhaps that’s one of the problems of, you know, I’ll say vacant tech park space, throughout the Capital District, not just Queensbury, is that, you know, a lot of people look at these lots as pre-defined and, you know, national or even international RFP developers go out, and, you know, they look for large spaces, and if you don’t have a lot that can conform to those requirements, well, then you’re out of the game. So, one of the thought processes was, was to try to build in the flexibility to the greatest extent possible, to say, you know, let’s look at what those impacts could be. We’ll base that on a certain maximum build out of square footage, but let’s not, you know, handcuff ourselves into pre-defined lot sizes and building sizes that are going to change when the applicant’s come in with their site specific proposals in front of you on a site plan by site plan basis for approvals. That’s kind of the thought process in what was trying to go on. So we, you know, it’s my understanding that proposals like that haven’t really been brought before this Planning Board before. There are some other towns where this has been accomplished, and is being done throughout the Capital District, you know, Vista Tech Park in the Slingerlands, Bethlehem area is one. There’s a technology park in Ballston Spa that does that. So it’s a little bit unique, probably to, you know, to this area, and certainly it’s a newer concept in the Capital District, so to speak, but the intent is to try to build in flexibility without pigeon-holing, you know, undeveloped lots to sit there for five to ten years and just go nowhere. So that’s kind of the, that’s kind of the thought process behind what’s been laid out. In terms of the Sketch Plan, you know, what’s before you is a concept. It has no direct merit in terms of end users at this point. As I mentioned, the building configurations will change. The lot sizes could change, but we have to start somewhere. So that’s kind of the thought process tonight. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. OUSTERHAUT-Not at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. I just wanted to comment, we did do a similar type approval with, I always forget what they call it now, the industrial park near Exit 18, Tech Meadows, is that what they call it now? MR. OBORNE-Carey Subdivision Park? MR. HUNSINGER-No. The City owned property. MRS. STEFFAN-Over near Bare Bones Furniture? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Where the, where we issued a, essentially an umbrella permit and we set parameters under which, you know, development could occur, and as long as the development is within those parameters, you know, it’s a simple site plan, and, you know, really no further SEQRA review. So we are kind of familiar with that process, yes. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Although, you know, I’m not sure we can go as far as you’re hoping, based on our Ordinance, you know, our Zoning Ordinance. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes. I know, under the existing zoning, we would be required to go down a path where we would have to do, obviously, erosion and sediment control plans, grading for those lots and things of that nature. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OUSTERHAUT-That’s certainly doable, but it seems kind of a wasteful exercise in that it’s never, ever going to look like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OUSTERHAUT-So, you know, I guess the interaction of how we get from Point A to Point B is really, you know, kind of the process that we’d like to try to understand better. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-The PCID approach to this property. Is it your understanding that the main reason that you don’t want to go with that more flexible approach to addressing these parcels is because it’s much more time consuming and it would endanger your funding? MR. OUSTERHAUT-Well, there’s a couple of reasons. From our perspective, you know, planned developments are a great thing, but if you look at kind of where planned developments came from, you know, they’re used on I’ll say what’s called sites that have certain restrictions on them, you know, maybe you’ve got a certain area where wetlands you want, you know, you would look at doing variances in certain areas of that parcel, you know, it’s a creative approach, really, to looking at a non-conforming land use, potentially, in terms of what you want to do, where you do cluster developments in certain areas because you’re avoiding other environmental restraints, things of that nature. This is a sizeable parcel of land. It’s 84 acres. There’s no variance needed. All the setbacks can be met, you know, certainly there are wetlands that are connected to the Great Cedar Swamp and certain areas of this project, but, you know, we’ve laid out a concept Sketch Plan that, you know, minimizes those areas. We’ve avoided archeologically sensitive areas, you know, wetlands are held to a minimum, if hardly at all. So, you know, we looked at it and there were really not constraints on the overall property that necessitated that. Of course there’s also the consideration of the fact that there’s additional approvals needed under a PCID because we would have to go in front of the Town Board. That’s a discretionary approval process where, you know, it becomes part of the legislation of the Town. I mean, it’s a much more formal plan, and because we didn’t require variances, the way that we looked at this project, the thought process was this would be a more conventional, less time consuming approach to go through, understanding that we’re under the Build New York Now grant. MR. TRAVER-So then, as you say, if we proceed in the, we’ll call it a conventional approach, and you have a subdivision, then you would come back for a lot line change or something if you have a customer that wants such an adjustment? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes. At least that was the thought process that we outlined when we met with the Town Planning Department, in terms of doing lot line adjustments, later on down the line, yes, and certainly those applicants would be required to come back before you, just like they’re doing at other parts, you know, and they would be required to come and do site specific site plan review process. So you’d go through the full Site Plan Review process, but knowing that SEQRA, the overall impacts of the development, looking at the maximum build out, all that’s taken into account so that, you know, the Board is comfortable with the overall project, and then you’re reviewing each one on its site specific merits, I guess, would be the best way to approach it. MR. TRAVER-I see. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-I mean, the one thing, if I could add, the one thing that I see that would give you additional flexibility under a PCID, the only thing that I see, is a distribution center. That would give you a little bit more flexibility if you went the PCID, but, yes, they have to go before the Town Board, and the zoning has to be changed. MR. OUSTERHAUT-So we just thought as extra steps that warrant, while they did offer some greater flexibility, it wasn’t as advantageous, from a time standpoint, for us, and quite frankly, you know, we met the existing zoning. MR. HUNSINGER-And your point’s well taken, too, about traditionally Planned Unit Developments were designed so that you could cluster development, and in exchange, you would leave a big piece of land open for, you know, open recreation uses or whatever. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes, and I think if you look at, you know, granted it’s a Sketch Plan, but I think if you look at what we’ve outlined, in terms of green space requirements, the size of the overall property, you know, there’s a lot to work with there from an open space preservation type, you know, viewpoint. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SIPP-Would you need signoffs from the Army Corps or FAA in order to proceed with this? MR. OUSTERHAUT-I should mention, we’ve had discussions with Don DeGraw at the Airport. Don’s doing some things. The Airport does maintain certain easements over a corner of that property for flight lines. There’s going to be some tree trimming that goes on as a result of that, that the Airport’s taking into consideration. So we’ve had those discussions with the County and the Airport, and in terms of, there’s easements over that, in terms of building heights that are allowed under that easement envelope, so to speak, in terms of an aerial envelope, and in terms of the Army Corps of Engineers, yes, that would be the local Corps of Engineers, and we’ll obviously, once we pin down a configuration that looks correct. I mean, at this point it’s probably more definitively the road system, you know, that would be locked in stone from a perspective, and then we would actually put on, you know, covenants and easements for those wetlands that the future tenants wouldn’t be able to impact. So, you know, those would be preserved, but wetlands permitting for any impacts that we’re doing would absolutely have to, you know, go through the local Corps, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s the timing on the road system? What are you looking at, doing the road, continuing the Wal-Mart road through first before you? MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes. John, maybe you want to talk to that, but, my understanding from the applicant was, yes, they want to continue that road through the National Grid easement and then up there, and then that would give them access, so proposed tenants would be able to look at, you know, the proposed lots and so forth, just like you would if you were looking at a residential community and you wanted to pick out your lot, so to speak. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Extending that road through is beneficial to the Town. MR. TRAVER-One other clarification. The Sketch Plan layout Sheet C-02 that you handed out, am I correct that that is just a colorized version of the same document that’s in the submitted? MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes. It’s just for ease of reviewing. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. TRAVER-Yes. Sure. It does show the property much better. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Black and white gets a little tricky on a site this large, with all the topography and so forth. MR. TRAVER-Right. It does make it much easier to see what’s going on. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-As I read through the material, one of the things that immediately came to mind, and throughout the reading of the documents, was the good anticipation, that you’ve looked into so many of the issues already. You’ve acknowledged them, and they will be topics of discussion in the future, and it’s good that, right up front you have acknowledged that, because we, as a Planning Board, would certainly be looking very carefully at so many of the issues. I’m interested in the timeline with the Build Now New York and that, you have a grant for that. What kind of timeline are you on there? MR. OUSTERHAUT-The applicant has a Build New York Now grant. So maybe John can speak to that, as he’s a little bit more familiar with the timing on that grant, but that grant has been on, well, let’s go back to your first point. This property’s been looked at by the applicant and the owner for a long time. It’s been talked about throughout the Town. The timing is right for him to bring this forward, with hopefully the upturn in economic activity and so forth, and, you know, the development of the Wal-Mart site, you know, in terms of the study. So those have been ongoing for quite some time. MR. FORD-Right. MR. OUSTERHAUT-In terms of the grant, the grant runs out, I believe, at the end of October, of October of 2011, and that’s through the Economic, that’s through New York State Economic Development Corp. MR. FORD-So how far down the road must you be by October? MR. OUSTERHAUT-We need approvals. MR. FORD-Shovel ready, but nothing beyond that. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Nothing definitive, in terms of, right. Those applicants, so, yes, let’s just kind of follow the timeline. So let’s just say November happens and the end of October happens and we’ve got Preliminary approvals from the Planning Board. Right now I don’t believe there’s an end user for this park, but let’s say somebody becomes interested in it afterwards. That person would have to come back. They would have their own engineering firm, develop very specific site plans within the guidance that the Planning Board approves for this development, and they’d have to come before you with their site plan to show you exactly what they want to do on their lot in that subdivision, in the tech park. So they’ll have to come, you know, the future end users would have to come back in front of the Planning Board, but they come back under an expedited review scenario, because, under SEQRA, you’re taking a look at the overall development. MR. FORD-Right now you’re anticipating how many users, how many people would be moving in, companies? MR. OUSTERHAUT-Well, that’s a great question. MR. FORD-I thought it was. That’s why I asked it. MR. OUSTERHAUT-It could be one. MR. FORD-That’s where I was going with the question. MR. OUSTERHAUT-If somebody wanted to take 500,000 square feet. Sure, if somebody wanted to take 500,000 square feet, then, in the applicant’s eyes, that would be a fantastic thing and the tech park would be built out. So it could be as few as one. If everyone wanted to take 50,000 square feet, as long as it, you know, it could be 10. The concept plan in front of you is somewhere in the middle. We tried to do a mix for this Sketch Plan of a 200,000 square foot building footprint, a couple of 100,00 square foot footprints and a couple of 50,000 square foot footprints. So, how that’s all going to shake out, I’m not exactly sure, but the idea is to build in that flexibility. So if somebody does want 500,000 square feet and they wanted to be a single 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) end user, they would have that ability, and there are some companies out there that look for space that large. MRS. STEFFAN-So then you wouldn’t need the road infrastructure that’s designed here. You’d probably go with a different road scenario. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Well, you’d want to make sure that you’ve got proper egress to the site. So you want to make sure that emergency vehicles get in there. I mean, the intent, in all likelihood, for somebody to take 500,000 square feet, that’s a pretty large footprint, so, you know our best guess is that there will be multiple tenants, and that’s why the road configuration’s shown as possible, or shown as is, I should say. We’ve looked at grading. This roadway seems to make sense. There’s some common space in the middle of it that provides some benefit to the employees, but, from a cut and fill scenario, this road layout makes a lot of sense. MR. FORD-I’m glad to see that you did concentrate, as we will concentrate, on the wetlands, the historic preservation, and stormwater management, pretty critical in that area right there. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Right, and the stormwater regulations are changing in February and March. So we’ll be under those new requirements. We just got done doing the stormwater for 9,000 acres up at Fort Drum up in Watertown. So we’re used to the stormwater regs. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The developer has mentioned that he also has a third project, which is a strip mall over to the left of the Wal-Mart road. Is that on hold until this is decided, or could the two of them be run concurrently? MR. OUSTERHAUT-I think that, that project’s not part of this project. They come separately. I think the timing has to do with, you know, I think that’s a retail space, as I recall. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is, but he made the comment he was looking for, you know, you’ve got to have an anchor, and if the anchor came along, what do you think he’d go ahead and do that and do this at the same time? MR. OUSTERHAUT-I think if people were there, sure. People would love to build. MR. HUNSINGER-Related question to that, in the traffic study, did that include the other parcel as well, those projections? MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes. That looked at a maximum build out of 500,000 square feet here, and I believe 80,000 square feet or 100,000 square feet of retail in that section. So that traffic study that has been done looks at, it looks at a phased approach. Up to a certain point, the level of service at those intersections is satisfactory. Over a certain threshold that’s in that traffic study, there’ll be upgrades that will be needed, which makes a lot of sense from a development standpoint. MR. HUNSINGER-And it talks about traffic improvements, traffic enhancements, but it wasn’t clear in my mind what exactly they would be. Is that something you could comment on now, or is that premature? MR. OUSTERHAUT-No, no, no. I mean, the traffic study’s been looked at. I can get you additional information on that if it’s not clear in the report. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OUSTERHAUT-But I know that, over a certain threshold, you know, during the build out, I know they were looking at turning lanes that would be added on, out on Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Queensbury Avenue. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And how about Quaker Road? MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes, and the same there, and some intersection improvements there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I know from my point of view that as we go forward with the development of this particular site I would want the Town to have their own traffic engineer look over the data, because there are a lot of what I’ll call failed intersections. I mean, the degradation in the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) numbers of level of service were just, in my mind, as a Planning Board, unacceptable. We’re seeing a lot of D’s, E’s, F’s, and, you know, one of the things that the citizens complain about most is traffic, and, you know, more development you have more traffic, and in this particular situations with the level of service numbers that you’ve provided, there was an awful lot of degradation in those numbers. So we really hope you look at that. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes, and clearly there would have to be intersection improvements, absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we have to look at that carefully. MR. HUNSINGER-I know there was a traffic study recently by the Glens Falls Transportation Council. I always forget the proper name. MR. OBORNE-For? MR. HUNSINGER-For that whole section in Town. MR. OBORNE-For this corridor. MR. HUNSINGER-Are they anticipating expansion of Quaker Road down there to four lane? How far, does anyone, do you have any idea? MR. OBORNE-I’m not familiar. I can’t answer that for you right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. Did you use any of the traffic analysis that was done in that study? MR. OUSTERHAUT-We weren’t, we do do traffic studies. We weren’t the firm that was contracted to do this traffic study. I don’t believe he had that information, but I’ll certainly check with him and have that information for you at the next meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. It wasn’t that long ago. Maybe it was just before you started working for the Town, Keith. MR. OBORNE-I’m sure we have that on file. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I think it was mentioned in the Wal-Mart presentation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, it was part of the reason why the upgrades were made to Queensbury Avenue recently. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes. So it’s the same traffic consultant that the applicant used for Wal- Mart. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OUSTERHAUT-So he should be familiar with that. That’s why he was brought on, for continuity. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other comments, questions from the Board? MR. KREBS-My only comment is I’d love to see 500,000 square feet used, absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-It would certainly change the quality of life in the area. MR. OUSTERHAUT-It would help the tax base, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anything else? Did we give you enough direction? Usually on Sketch Plan, you know, we’re giving a lot of feedback back to the applicant, but, I mean, you’ve already presented a lot of information to us already. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, there’s a lot of information that’s not carved in stone. It’s theoretical. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. OUSTERHAUT-The intent there was to satisfy a lot of the surveys and additional information that the shovel ready program actually asked for, and in retrospect or hindsight here, we’re trying to fulfill the obligations for the shovel ready program, in addition to giving you all the information up front that you’ll need to base any of your judgments on the future development of this property. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-Yes. They certainly have done their due diligence up to this point. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Have you filed the subdivision application yet? MR. OUSTERHAUT-No. Not yet. I mean, one of the things that we would like to do, and I don’t know if that’s a meeting with the Town Planners and/or a workshop session potentially with the Board, but, you know, we want to, to the extent that we can, and knowing what we’re trying to, you know, knowing what our objective is, you know, how far down the road is it going to please the Board to go? I mean, do we want to see full grading on every single lot for every building that’s conceptual in nature at this point? I mean, those are the kinds of discussions that’ll really help us understand, you know, we obviously have a very tight timeframe. So I need to submit by th February 15 to get on the March agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Now is the forum by which to ask those questions of the Board, what level of detail are you looking? Obviously they’re looking to put lines on a piece of paper at this point, with some, you know, diligence done on the archeological land and wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I started talking about the tech meadows park on the other side of Town, you know, the single biggest difference between that project and yours, that project is almost perfectly flat. There’s no wetlands. There’s, you know, there’s no other concerns to be worried about. So it is literally just lines on paper. Yours, depending upon the eventual lot configuration and building placement, you know, stormwater’s going to change, impact on wetlands could change fairly significantly. It’s kind of hard to get to that level of detail because of the site itself, but I’m not an engineer either. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Right. I mean, one of the things, I believe there’s the ability for the applicant to request a waiver for, you know, final grading on a project of this nature, and I understand that there are environmental constraints on this project that clearly we all want to avoid, you know, to the extent that we don’t have to impact wetlands, we don’t want to. To the extent that, you know, right now we have a plan. We will avoid those archeologically sensitive areas. They’re not that large. There’s several of them throughout the site, but they won’t greatly impact the future development of the site, so to speak. So I think one of the things, and that’s, this concept looks at that. I think one of the things to consider is, you know, how do we build it into the overall approvals? I mean, we could do restrictive covenants over certain areas of the project, from a legal standpoint, that could certainly satisfy, I think, your concerns over some of those environmentally sensitive issues, and still allow the flexibility of somebody to come in and say, okay, well this is an envelope I can work with for this lot, and certainly, you know, you’re going to end up reviewing those on a case by case basis anyway, when they come back in to see you. MR. HUNSINGER-Right MR. OUSTERHAUT-So that’s the difficulty that we’re trying to have, maintaining flexibility but also understanding that you have certain requirements you have to live up to, that you have to follow as a Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Since you mentioned the archeologically sensitive areas, that was one of my questions, whether or not you planned to go to a Phase II. MR. OUSTERHAUT-No, at this point, we’re avoiding. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OUSTERHAUT-So, you know, we’re, you know, the archeological consultant’s been in contact with OPRHP, and, you know, at this point, they’ve asked for avoidance, and at this point we don’t see any reason why we can’t avoid those areas. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-So when you say avoidance, does that mean that, do you mark it off somehow? MR. OUSTERHAUT-Yes, it becomes part of the actual deed that’ll go with the property and becomes a restrictive covenant. That’s one way to do it. We’ve done that on other projects and it’s just, it’s off limits. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TURNER-Sometimes those areas are designated with a, you know, three barrel picket fence, you know, a kind of visual barrier as to where they exist. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. TURNER-Sometimes it’s hard, the stuff is buried in the ground. We would be entertaining something like that, you know, that’s certainly within their scope of how you delineate these. Whether or not they’re marked, physically, with some kind of placard out there, too, as well, informing people, you know, part of the process is education. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TURNER-So we’d be looking to follow everybody’s rules and, you know, not step on any toes. We want to have a successful project here. MR. FORD-Oftentimes you can draw attention to them and it actually enhances the environment, rather than acts as a detriment. MR. TURNER-Right, because you have vigilant people, and if they’re, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-But the other concern is, once people know where they are, they have a tendency to get pirated. MR. TURNER-It can backfire on you, but. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Well, we’ve used fences in the past because, you know, ignorance is not always bliss, so, you know, sometimes these things get well delineated visually so that people can’t make the argument later I didn’t know where it is was, even though there’s a restrictive covenant that goes along with the deed. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. That said, from a site plan situation, I mean, you’ve provided a lot of detail, but as we move forward, you know, the more detail the Planning Board has, the easier it is to say yes, because, you know, I guess one of our goals in this particular situation is to make sure, or be assured, that this configuration or this particular subdivision can have development on all the sites as prescribed, and so, you know, contours and grading and all the kinds of things that would be required to actually build these buildings would be things that we would consider, so that we could give it the thumbs up and say, yes, this can be subdivided. This can be built on. They can put large structures, you know, and infrastructure on these lots, and so you’ve demonstrated it to us, visually, obviously, with all the supporting data. So the detail, I think, is really important for us to be able to move it forward, in an expedited, and I know expedited review has a very specific term, but in an expedited fashion so that, you know, you’re not being tabled and you’re not coming back. So the more detail we have, the easier it is for us to weigh and consider it, and make decisions. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, just in terms of the specific site plan review, typically the two issues that people get tripped up on and require multiple meetings are lighting plans, and landscaping plans. I think everything else you can pretty much anticipate based on, you know, what you’re looking to accomplish with the subdivision. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And then as long as the lighting plan is within the Town Code, that makes that one easy, and the same thing with parking, and landscaping. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Meet the required luminary schedule. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And, of course, the sign. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. The Sign Ordinance. MRS. STEFFAN-We love those monument signs. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Well, the sign, I’m pretty sure we can pin down a sign. That’s certainly going to be easier. MRS. STEFFAN-But the other thing that you might consider between now and the time that you actually submit is, you know, looking at those traffic studies and the patterns, and you may need to decrease some of the square footage, and I know that any developer wants the maximum development that they can put together, but at the same time, you know, I would like to recommend that you really look at the traffic study, because the deterioration may just warrant a reduction in size, you know, in square footage proposed. MR. OUSTERHAUT-On the same token, you might be able to get intersection improvements on the project. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely. MR. FORD-And not just intersection improvements. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. FORD-It may go beyond intersection improvement. MR. KREBS-Well, one of the difficulties is, what is the use of the building? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KREBS-I mean, if you have a plant that’s almost all automated, you’re going to have very few bodies coming to that plant to produce, or if you’re talking about a warehouse, it may have very few people, but if you’re a hand assembly manufacturing, you’re going to have lots of people. So it’s very difficult, at this point, to make those determinations. MRS. STEFFAN-But, you know, that’s one of the unfortunate responsibilities that we end up having is, you know, is it tractor trailers that are coming in, or is it people traffic that’s moving back and forth. Because with any of these, for example, a warehousing and distribution facility, all you have to do is look at some of the sites down in Wilton and then go out past like Canajoharie where they’ve got some of the other warehousing centers, the amount of tractor trailer traffic doubles, you know, is quite formidable, and we have a predominantly residential area. So, the corridor between Exit 19 and, you know, all down Quaker Road is the primary traffic pattern. So that’s of great concern, and, you know, if we had a lot of truck traffic, for example, coming from Exit 19 going to a warehousing and distribution facility, I can assure you that the public would be crazed to think that that intersection would be jammed up with (lost word) going back and forth. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a target market for users? MR. OUSTERHAUT-I mean, the idea is to keep it as flexible as possible, so that, you know, you’re not limiting who could potentially do that. I mean, clearly we’d have to conform to the existing zoning that’s in place for, you know, Commercial Light Industrial. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, I didn’t know if maybe you were thinking, you know, high tech. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Well, that would be ideal. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. That would be a different traffic pattern that warehouse distribution. MR. KREBS-But you may have a mix of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. KREBS-You may have both. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other final comments, questions from the Board? Okay. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. OUSTERHAUT-Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. I appreciate it. MRS. STEFFAN-It was a good package. MR. KREBS-By the way, I thought you did an excellent job. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it was a very good package. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. OUSTERHAUT-Thanks again. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. I meant to mention it earlier, if there’s anybody in the audience for the James Kalock project, we will be tabling that when it comes up on the agenda. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2010 SEQR TYPE II THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 117 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF ROOF TO ADD A 1,000 +/- SQ. FT. SECOND STORY CONTAINING 3 BEDROOMS, 1 BATH AND LAUNDRY ROOM. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 56-10 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.27 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-41 SECTION 179-9, 179-13-010G MICHAEL O’CONNOR & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 67-2010, Area Variance 56-2010 was previous to this. Thomas and Maureen Valenti is the applicant. Site Plan Review is the action. 117 Birdsall Road is the location. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. It’s a Type II SEQRA. No further review is needed. Applicant proposes removal of a roof and add a 1,000 square foot second story addition containing three bedrooms, a bath and a laundry room. Basically, what is going on with this house, it’s an expansion of a non-conforming structure. The variances have been taken care of with this, and this is back before you for final site plan review. Staff, at this point, has zero issues. Everything seems to have been addressed. I think there are a few issues with the engineer. The comments are before you, and the applicant has been provided with a copy of those comments, and with that, I’d turn it over. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing Thomas and Maureen Valenti in connection with the project, and with me at the table is Lucas Dobie, who is from Hutchins Engineering. Their firm are the engineers for the project. I guess you never say never. I did get the Staff comments, and I was very happy to see that on every issue that they had it was marked complete, addressed and complete, complete, addressed and complete, and said this should be very, very, of course I get paid by the hour. So maybe I should stretch it a little bit. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, did you see the engineer’s comments? MR. O'CONNOR-But then I got here and I saw the engineer’s comments. However, after I got here some time they were handed to me. Basically I still don’t think that there’s anything there that’s substantive. The items that they’ve talked about are approximate limits of disturbance and corresponding area should be denoted on the plans. No problem. This is a re-build, if you will, on the existing footprint. There is very little disturbance. The only areas of disturbance is the areas that are going to be planted down near the lake, and the area of the septic system that’s in the back of the property, and the area where we removed the existing septic system from. Along that same line, there is in place right now an asphalt driveway. That will be left in place during construction. It will be one of the last things that will be taken out, in relationship to one of the other comments. So there is very little area of disturbance. I could tell you that, orally that the area that’s going to be disturbed is the area shown where the septic field is going to be placed, where the pre-cast concrete pump station is going to be placed, and the driveway, hopefully will be a one day, two day job. They’re going to tear out the other asphalt and replace it, because we’re downsizing the driveway. Vegetation notes for site re-stabilization should be added to the plans. We can do that. The area where we’re going to stage materials will be re- 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) seeded to the extent that it’s disturbed. There’s no plans to go in there and grub it or to actually disturb it, but it will probably be disturbed simply by storage of materials and equipment. The same thing for the area of the septic system. A detail of silt fencing identified on the plan should be provided. There are two areas that you see the “SF” on the plan, at the end, or halfway down the walkway, there’s a silt fence that goes from the proposed walkway over to the property line that’s on the west, and then down along the lake there’s a silt fence. We can show you detail or we’ll put a detail on the plan, a typical silt fence detail. I don’t think there’s anything magic about that. A stabilized construction entrance should be detailed and added to the plans along with driveway removal and replacement details and specifications. The construction entrance is going to be the existing driveway. That’ll be left it in place until we’re, the project’s done, and then it’ll be re-paved, typical paving, driveway, single family paving. I don’t know what details you need of that. Typically, on all the plans I’ve seen, we show driveway, probably have crushed stone and four inches of blacktop, maybe three inches of blacktop, a couple of inches of topping. We can show a cross cut, if that satisfies that, and clarify on the plan the runoff drainage/flow patterns planned for the driveway. There’s a stone trench that’s on the site plan, and the idea is to grade the driveway, the finished driveway, so that it will drain to that stone trench. So, we’d asked for your approval. We would ask for your waiver of the items that we asked for, waivers for in writing. I also would ask for one additional thing. Since we began this project, which was some time ago because we had to go through the variances and what not. Mrs. Valenti has purchased the adjoining property, which is a much more substantial home than this was, and the purpose of this was to make this more of a substantial home, and at this point, they are going to see whether or not the adjoining property that they have purchased is sufficient for their needs, their family needs, and if it is, they may just leave this property as a guest property, without making all the improvements that they talked about here. The idea was to make it a bigger home so they could live in it. They may very well make those improvements, if they decide that, they have some grown children, the grown children want to become much more involved in this property. They may make those improvements for the grown children. They may actually even turn around and sell the property. So there is a one year period for your approval to be acted upon. I would like, in this case, to ask that you make the approval period two years, so that they have this year, or this summer to make their determination, and then go forward from that, and I’ve got a written request for that for your file. I didn’t want to presume too much, but. I should ask you if you had comments or questions that would put the approval at risk, we should go over there first and then find or not you would extend the approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that within our authority, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I think that it’s in your authority to condition that upon Zoning Administrator approval of that, to be honest with you. I know that their site plan approval is good for one year, if that’s what is stated in the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-If you’ll give me a second, I’ll look that up and give you a little better guidance on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s right on your forms, I think, Keith. MR. OBORNE-What’s that? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s right on the forms. Look at your proposed resolution. It’s right on there, and it’s good for one year. MR. OBORNE-Well, I know it is good for one year, but can they extend it to two is the question. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve done it before. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-I have nothing else. If you have any questions for myself or Lucas. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-I know you’ve got a limited area here to do anything about buffering the lake, and what you have there for plantings are very good. I hope that you’d attach that to the sale of this property, that they had to come back for judgment by a Board as to where these plantings should be and how many. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. O'CONNOR-I thought that we had detail on the plans itself which would be binding on the successors as well, if they were going to utilize this approval. See the acceptable buffer plantings at the top. MR. SIPP-Yes. Those are all acceptable. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and we show on the plan the area where they will go. It’s a very limited area. MR. SIPP-Yes, I know. The right of way makes it limited. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. Your approval runs with, my understanding is the approval runs with the land, and if somebody wants to use it, they have to accept the terms and conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I see no preclusion, so to speak, you can set the conditions as you wish as a Board. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no problem with you doing that subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. In fact, I’ve got to write a letter to him because the variance was dated in October of 2009. Their approval runs for one year unless, their approval is not effective until we get the site plan, and that’s always an issue. I just want to clarify that in writing so everybody’s on the same time schedule. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? I mean, you addressed the two biggest items that we typically deal with on lakefront property, and that’s the septic system and the shoreline buffering. So the rest of the stuff we typically can work out. This isn’t your first trip to the Planning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-No. If you remember we were here because you had to make a recommendation as to the variances, and you gave us input at that point, and actually the third thing that we did, which you recommended, was cut back on the non-permeable area. So we did listen. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? 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-Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-If there are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQRA. So we can move right to a resolution, if anyone would like to offer one. Our Secretary is writing feverishly. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and you closed the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-I did. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 67-2010 VALENTI 117 Birdsall Road [Tax Map ID 289.17-1-41] A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal of roof to add a 1,000 +/- sq. ft. second story containing 3 bedrooms, 1 bath and laundry room. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval; and The PB provided the ZBA with a recommendation on 10/19/2010; and The ZBA approved the variance on 10/20/2010; and ` 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/26/2010 tabled to 1/25/2011; and The application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2010 THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1)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 2)Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3)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 4)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 5)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 6)Waiver requests granted: grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and 7)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 8)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. 9)This is approved with two conditions: 1.That the applicant will address the engineering comments and obtain a signoff. 2.If the Zoning Administrator is in agreement, the Planning Board extends the approval for this application to a two year period. th Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-You say address the engineering plans and signoff. Can’t Staff signoff on these? They’re rather simple. Does it have to go back to engineering? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the engineer works for the Town. So Keith would talk to the engineer. MR. O’CONNOR-At our expense. MR. OBORNE-I can’t make that decision, as much as I would like to. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, they basically just asked for notes and comments to be added to the plan. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll tell you the cost when we get done. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 69-2010 SEQR TYPE II JAMES KALOCK AGENT(S) CURTIS DYBAS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 336 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING THREE (3) BEDROOM HOME. SITE PLAN: EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 2-2011 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, 100 YR. FLOODPLAIN LOT SIZE 0.36 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-77 SECTION 179-9, 179-13-010G MR. HUNSINGER-As I had mentioned earlier, we will be tabling this application. A public hearing was scheduled this evening. Did you have anything else to add to that, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Unfortunately due to the inclement weather last week. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, this got caught up in it. MR. OBORNE-This was the only application that I wanted to get, not I wanted to get done, but we had on the agenda to get done Tuesday, Wednesday, Tuesday scenario, and unfortunately it th got kicked. So it needs to be tabled to the 15. There is an Area Variance meeting for them tomorrow night. Hence why you cannot review this. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we will extend the public hearing to the February 15 meeting. Would anyone like to make that motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 69-2010 JAMES KALOCK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: th To the February 15 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 53-2007 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC OWNER(S) JIM QUINN, KEN ROTUNDO ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 67 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY EXISTING ND INCOMPLETE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BY REMOVING 2 FLOOR LIVING SPACE AND MODIFY PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED DRIVEWAY TO ALLOW ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PARCEL TO THE NORTH. THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT; PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 4-09, BP 06-271; NOA 11-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/12/11 APA, CEA, OTHER APA, L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.45 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7- 1-14 SECTION 179-9 KARLA BUETTNER & NICHOLAS LA FOUNTAIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 53-2007, Provident Batavia LLC is the applicant. This is Site Plan Review for a major stormwater project in a CEA. 67 Knox Road is the location, Waterfront Residential is the zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Applicant proposes to modify existing incomplete single family dwelling by removing top floor living space and modify previously installed driveway to allow access to neighboring parcels to the north. Further site modifications to existing conditions are proposed. This proposal has been classified a Major Stormwater project. As we know, the ZBA back, I guess that was in 2008, stated that a resolution that the lowest portion of the natural grade of the building site coverage by the building or finished grade of cut required to accommodate the building to the highest point of the structure, that resolution is attached. I’ll summarize here. The applicant has revised the plan to include a house no taller than 28 feet at this point, and that is as measured from, in what is this case cut grade. According to the applicant, further modifications include the removal of the 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) entire top floor to include the living space over the garage. Additionally, changes to include the removal of the existing nine foot wing walls to the north and south as well as proposed upgraded stormwater control measures. Further, the applicant is proposing to install retaining walls along the eastern portion of the proposed driveway, in order to better site the proposed wastewater system. I have visited the site in December. It is stabilized except for that one bank where they are proposing to put that wall, and that should mitigate any issues with that. What follows is site plan review. I do want to add an addendum. I was not able to receive engineering comments on this project tonight. What I’m going to do is I’m going to go ahead to web mail and see if I have received those comments and hopefully we can get them up there, if the Planning Board so chooses to review those comments, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BUETTNER-Good evening. Karla Buettner from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes. I’m here on behalf of the applicant, and I’m here with Nicholas LaFountain, who’s going to tell you all the good details that I will be unable to tell you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. BUETTNER-I want to just start the presentation by thanking the Board for letting us come back here again and working with us for the past few years. As you know this property has been involved in litigation with the Town, litigation with the property owners on either side of it, and I am very pleased to report that we have settled all of the litigation and we have a letter of support, which I believe Attorney Tom West faxed to Keith this afternoon at 5:30 this afternoon. I have copies for all of you if you need it. Attorney West represented the neighbors to the north and to the south. There was issues with respect to a shared driveway. That was litigation in Supreme Court. There was issues with respect to different Code compliant issues, and we have resolved all of that, and both neighbors are now in support of this project. So I have those, I have that letter, Mr. Chairman, if you want me to pass it out , I have that letter from Mr. West, if you deem it necessary. MR. OBORNE-I can read it into the record if you care for me to do that. Absolutely. MS. BUETTNER-While Keith is looking, the applicant has come here and has substantially changed the project to meet all of the Code requirements. For the past year, the applicant has been working with the Town, making sure that we’re in compliance with the FAA, we’re in compliance with any stormwater issues, we’re in compliance with the height issues, and at this point, it’s our understanding there’s no variances needed. There are some Staff Notes that we are able to address tonight, and Nick will be able to address those, and at this point, what I would like to do is pass it over to Nicholas, so that he can go through his presentation with you, he can discuss all of the site issues and answer any questions for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great, thanks. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Hello, guys. My name is Nicholas LaFountain with Provident. So I just wanted to start off with going through this little presentation of, to kind of bring us up to speed here. I just wanted to give you guys just an accurate idea of where the site is. I know you guys visited it possibly in December, in relation to Lake George up on Assembly Point. Now here’s some views I took from Fall, I’d say about middle of summer last year, when all the foliage was out, and as you can see, our building that we’re looking at is this building right in here, and you can see here that the neighbor’s camp here, and the neighbor on this side as well. So I’ll show you in the next image what we’re planning to do with the building, but you’ll see that that window right there is the critical point, and you’ll, the roof line is about, just about below that. So, see that as a visual, you won’t be able to really see the house at all, once we’re done. Now, on the left hand side you’ll see that existing picture of the house. As Keith mentioned, the retaining walls that you can see down here, the nine foot retaining walls on either side are being removed from the building, and up here the red is showing the old structure. This is a new roofline. So there’s about, depending on where you are, because of that natural cut grade, you’re between eight and nine feet removing of the existing roof. So there is no second floor. There’s just the first floor and the basement, and the basement is day lit out to the lakeside. So if you’re going down Knox Road you’re going to see this elevation. If you’re seeing it from the lake, you’re going to see this elevation. That window that I mentioned is this window right here. So you’re going to basically not see it from the lake with all that foliage. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What is the height? MR. LA FOUNTAIN-The height right now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I mean, the new, what you’re proposing, yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. LA FOUNTAIN-The new height is going to be about 27 feet 3 inches, and that’s a good question, because in these diagrams here, you can see these faint lines in here. That’s the, was the existing grade before we started on the site, and 28 feet above that is this line up here, and so, no matter how you measure from either the natural grade, we’re still in compliance under the 28 feet. Floor Area Ratio. Craig Brown and I did the calculations, and I think Keith might have done them as well. We’re in compliance, you can see with the calculations down below. Now we got a memo from the Staff Notes about a week ago, and I just wanted to address those comments in here. Page A-6 was missing out of the architectural set. That was just a cross section of the house. As you can see right here I included it. I also made handouts of these missing pages. Do you guys want me to hand them out to you? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I don’t need them. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just hold on to them. I mean, typically we don’t accept new information the night of a meeting. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Yes, that’s fine. So we can go back a page here. So Page A-6, that’s the page I was just showing. Now the IP Post page, the proposed driveway retaining wall is now located on the IP Post drawing. That added roughly about 66 square feet of hard surface to the number, but as you can see in the second item now we’re still in compliance, we’re at 22.4 and we’re not allowed to go over 25% for impermeability. So we’re fine there. Third item is, we’ll definitely be in collaboration with the Highway Superintendent for work performed in the right of way, and the fourth item in the Staff comments was about the previous wastewater system, and that was all removed when the camp was demolished, and I think that’s, I added those two pages here, but I think that’s it. So I’d like to open it up for the Board’s questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where does that driveway come out, on Knox Road? MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Yes, on Knox Road. Right here you can see the driveway, here’s the driveway right here coming out, and here’s Knox Road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you’re just going to loop it around where it is now? MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s going to come out on the public part of Knox Road, not the private part at the end. MS. BUETTNER-Correct. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So this is really a new plan from what we’ve seen before. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-The architecturals are a drastic change. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Whatever happened to the cellar windows? MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Say that again? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Whatever happened to the cellar windows? MR. OBORNE-You’re still proposing the cellar windows. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. OBORNE-In fact you were proposing to open up one side, I believe. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Yes. The cellar windows, I think you’re talking about these windows down here, this is the basement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-On the Knox Road side there used to be cellar windows at one time, and then it got filled up. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. LA FOUNTAIN-So as of right now they are still filled up. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They don’t exist. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, one of my points of confusion, is there still a bedroom over the garage? MR. LA FOUNTAIN-No, there is nothing on the second floor. Second floor is gone. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So not even on the garage. There were color pictures that were provided, and I was just, I was confused, based on the picture that was there, because it wasn’t in any of the plans. I just wanted to be sure. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Here’s the garage right here. As you can see, there’s about four and a half feet above that, it’s gone. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re going to tear the roof off. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-The whole second floor up is going. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So in a sense you’ve got a one floor ranch. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-With two stories on the lakeside. MR. SCHONEWOLF-With two stories on the lakeside. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Basement and first floor. MR. OBORNE-Would you like me to read in the West Firm’s response? MR. HUNSINGER-How long of a letter is it? MR. OBORNE-It’s one page. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sure. Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-It’s not too bad. January 25, 2011, Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Attention: Chris Hunsinger, Chairman. This is 467 Knox Road. “Dear Chairman Hunsinger: We represent Dr. Stuart and Bonnie Rosenberg, who are the owners of the property immediately to the north of 67 Knox Road, together with Robert and Victoria Glandon, who are the property owners immediately to the south of 67 Knox Road. As you are aware, the prior construction activities at 67 Knox Road has led to considerable controversy, appeals to the Zoning Board of Appeals, subsequent litigation and separate litigation concerning a pre-existing shared driveway that ran from the Rosenberg’s parcel over 67 Knox Road. In addition, there were separate issues concerning the applicability of the code revisions to the Queensbury Zoning Code in 2009 to the current proposals for 67 Knox Road. As you are further aware, it was the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals that the new code requirements apply to this project and litigation challenging that determination has been discontinued on the merits. We are pleased to report that we have reached a settlement of all outstanding disputes such that both the Rosenbergs and the Glandons support the version of the plans submitted to this Board for consideration the January 25, 2011 meeting. The plans, as proposed, resolve all issues concerning the location of the driveway, the location of the septic system and the size of building as it relates to building height, setback and floor area ratio in accordance with the new code requirements. Other issues, such reciprocal easements concerning the shared driveway and a deed covenant concerning the location of any dock that may be constructed at this property, have been resolved by separate agreement. However, we take no position concerning the compliance of the proposed plans with the stormwater requirements of the applicable codes as we have not reviewed the plans regarding those issues. Thank you and the Board members for your diligence concerning this project and your willingness to support code compliance at this location over the years. Very truly yours, Thomas S. West” That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from the Board? Did you receive engineering comments, Keith? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. OBORNE-We have not received engineering comments. I did not receive engineering comments in my e-mail. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I will assure the Board that they were sent, though, for review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I wouldn’t feel comfortable approving this without engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if anyone would. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Were there any other comments on the project as a whole? MR. OBORNE-The Water Keeper does have comments on that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-From Hague? MR. OBORNE-The Water Keeper. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I know who he is. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-Well, I have questions here about the plantings that you intend to put in. You’ve got a lot of nice tree arrangement in the front, large trees, some smaller one story trees, but what you’re putting in here is not acceptable, most of it is not acceptable, that’s on the first page of this, in the box up in the left hand corner. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-I believe all those plantings was what was recommended as indigenous species to that area, that came right off the County website. MR. SIPP-The County website? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Have you looked at the Town Code? MR. LA FOUNTAIN-What was that? MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got some things on here that have, azaleas, burning bush, river birch, which are not really native to this area. You’ve got a, I don’t know what’s in the under story. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-I believe those species did come directly off the County website, I mean, or else we wouldn’t have put them there, and we wouldn’t have done that landscaping plan. MR. SIPP-Yes, but you’re talking about a shoreline buffer, or are they just talking about plants that look nice? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Look under 179-8 in the Town Code, you’ll see shoreline buffers, and you’ll see what’s suggested. I didn’t compare that to this, but I’m just saying that’s where it is. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-These are definitely for vegetation for holding in the water. MR. SIPP-But as my colleague just said, if you go to 179-8, you’ll find a list of plants and trees that are acceptable. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-That is not a problem at all. We’ll definitely look at that Section and if these are in any way different, we will be changing these to make sure that the plans reflect those. MR. SIPP-You’ve got some ground cover in there, but I don’t know what it is. It was under the snow the last time I saw it. There might be something in there, but I kind of doubt it, that’s native to this area, and burning bush especially is not very, it’s invasive. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-And we also did some research with doing low phosphate sod. We have a letter from Saratoga Sod Farms for that as well. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. SIPP-Low phosphate sod? MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Yes, that’s so that there’s no potential runoff into the lake. MR. SIPP-Well, sod is not, grass is not a good drainer of runoff water. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-I agree, and I mean, we’ll definitely re-look into the, that Section of the Code. MR. SIPP-One of the speakers that will be up after you is very familiar with that area and probably can give you some good hints. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Great. Great. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, if you could give up the table, please. The purpose of the public hearing is to solicit comments from the public on the project. If you wish to address the Board, I would ask that you address your comments to the Board, and try to maintain comments that are related to the project. Having said that, is there anyone that wants to address the Board? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We did submit comments to the Planning Office last week, and if I could summarize those for the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. NAVITSKY-We realize this application has been in front of the Board for a few years and we appreciate the due diligence on it. Whoever, we feel that there still remains several design inconsistencies regarding the plans and non-compliance, which will not mitigate the excessive disturbance and clearing at the property, and we request the Board to apply the Town’s regulations regarding Sanitary Code and Stormwater Management ordinance during your deliberations. Regarding stormwater management, some of the inconsistencies we see in the application are regarding the clearing. On Drawing DA-1, it states that the disturbance on the property, which the property is 18,000 square feet, was approximately 13,100 square feet. However, in their stormwater report, they state that over 7700 square feet remains as wood and grass and in the same condition as pre-development. So that seems to be inconsistent, and the numbers don’t add up. Actual conditions will probably increase stormwater runoff. The stormwater runoff report claims that there are paved driveways on the site, and parking areas when they’re actually gravel, and pre-development, again, that will lead to less runoff in pre- development conditions, and they should analyze it to those conditions. Also, it appears the stormwater management report refers to four areas of study, and the drawings refer to six areas of study, and we just think that needs to be coordinated also. Regarding infiltration rate, in the report it states that it’s eight inches per hour. However, the rate that they use in their calculations are almost double that of 15 inches per hour. So again, there’s an inconsistency there that could affect the size of the stormwater facility. Also, we don’t think that that’s conservative enough, considering the heavy rain falls, and that the infiltration rates will be less. Soil investigation and perc tests should be added. They’re referred to in the stormwater report but not shown on the drawings. Regarding the wastewater treatment system, the existing natural slope exceeds allowable limits for absorption beds. The existing grade, where they propose the bed, is 34%. This was before the grades were altered, and that was based on their February ’06 survey. New York State Department of Health regulations states the maximum allowable slope is eight percent. So they were actually four times the allowable natural slopes. Final grading for the absorption bed area is at 20%. That is two and a half times the allowable limit of eight feet, and again, that is not permitted, and the absorption bed systems require pressure distribution. They are, they do not provide that. The pressure distribution through the system provides a better distribution of the effluent through the bed. They pump up to the bed and then allow it to trickle into the bed. So we also feel that this needs to be determined whether it’s a fill system, due to the amount of earthwork that’s been done, and a retaining wall that supports that system. So these may be consistent with the engineering comments that will come through, but we feel more information is needed. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. LORRAINE RUFFING 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MS. RUFFING-My name is Lorraine Ruffing and I live at 66 Bay Parkway on Assembly Point. Previously my family rented the property to the north of 67 Knox Road, that is the Rosenberg property. I would just like to maybe reiterate what has just been said, that this property has an extremely steep slope. Many of the trees were taken off during the construction. So this is going to increase the amount of runoff, and I understand from the proceedings tonight that the wing walls that were built are going to be removed. This will, of course, also increase the runoff. If you’ve visited the site, you know along Knox Road, I mean, the grade is absolutely incredible. I still don’t understand, from the, what I saw of the driveway, how you would ever get a car safely down that driveway and up again, and I would just like to say that a number of the residents on Assembly Point feel as I do, that this particular instance of construction is extremely unfortunate and doesn’t take into consideration the constraints of the land. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? And I know there’s at least one written comment. Were there any other written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. I think it’s fairly obvious that we probably should table it until we have the engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Once we have the engineering comments, then we can make a decision. We don’t need the (lost words). MR. TRAVER-Yes. It’s difficult to comment, obviously, without the engineering. MR. FORD-I’d concur. MR. HUNSINGER-But in the meantime, I mean, you did hear comments from the Board about at least the planting schedule, some concerns about that. If you could just, you know, double check the species and the types of plants that are proposed against the Code in 179. Is there any other guidance that we can give to the applicant? My apologies that we don’t have the engineering report. MS. BUETTNER-Mr. Chairman, I was going to, may I comment on some of the public comments that were made? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes, go ahead. MS. BUETTNER-I’d like to take the last lady first. I understand that, from what she said, she rented the Rosenberg property and was concerned with the driveway issues. As indicated, we have a settlement agreement with the Rosenbergs and they are fine with the grade of the driveway, the way it works will be fine for them, and I understand that she may have issues with it, but the way that it’s depicted and the Rosenbergs are in agreement with it and support this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. BUETTNER-And, in addition, while we understand that the project, as it came out originally, may have been overbuilt on the project, may have been larger, was not what this Board wanted. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. BUETTNER-We took that into consideration and we’ve reduced it and cut it down to bring it into compliance. So, it’s almost as, yes, we’ve had it and we’ve worked very, very hard to get it into compliance. I’m going to let Nick talk to what the Water Keeper said, but with respect to the approval, it is unfortunate we don’t have VISION’s comments today. My understanding was that he was going to give it, Nick spoke with Dan Ryan. He was going to give them to us, and while obviously you’ll want to table it tonight, I would be bereft if I didn’t ask for some sort of a conditional approval, an approval conditioned on the engineering comments and our meeting those comments, just because this is a project that has been languishing for so long, and everyone has worked so hard, and I know the neighborhood would like to see it move along and the Town would like to see it move along. With that said, I’d like Nicholas to address the Water Keeper’s comments. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Actually I’ll start with the lady’s comments first. With a few tree removals at the beginning of the project site, she said that basically the steepness of the grade. Well, all the soils are impeccable soils, and as you’ve seen over the last four years, with no stormwater controls, because we had a Stop Work Order, that site has been completely stabilized and has no erosion that has happened. Even on the Water Keeper’s note that the, there’s the embankment that the septic system is proposed on. It’s a one on twelve that has the filter mats on it as well, and that is a, that bank has not eroded, not collapsed, nothing, and that doesn’t have the proper vegetative controls that we need, and, I mean, we’d really like to keep working on this hard so that we can build that retaining wall, hold that slope back, build the septic system and complete it, and bring the whole project into compliance. MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant did bring new information this evening, if we’re going to table this anyway, do we want to accept that so they don’t have to re-submit it at a later date. I mean, we’re not going to consider it tonight. MRS. STEFFAN-If they submit it to Staff, then we’ll end up getting in the new package, then we’ll know it’s new information and not just stick it in our package and not find it. MR. FORD-Yes. I concur. MR. TRAVER-And I would say, even though we have not reviewed the engineering comments and therefore cannot hypothetically condition it on approval, you will have the engineering comments shortly, and therefore when you return, you should be prepared with a response addressing every issue. So you’ll still be ahead of the game the next time you come before us, I would think. MS. BUETTNER-I just want to make sure we do get those comments as quickly as possible. MR. OBORNE-And I’d add to that absolutely you’ll get those comments as quickly as possible, but those comments must come through my office and then we’ll distribute it out. Okay. Just one other comment, too. I totally understand that you want to get your conditional approval. I don’t know if these comments are going to change the plan at all, at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So, I mean, that’s a very outside chance, I understand that, but that’s something the Board should consider also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I appreciate your comments and your position, but I just, as one Planning Board member, I don’t know how we could, in good conscience, condition this on an engineering approval when we haven’t seen what concerns the engineer might have. There might be significant concerns that, you know, do require plan modification. We just don’t know. MR. FORD-You’re doing your duty as you see it. We’re doing our duty as we see it. MS. BUETTNER-I understand. I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-And we really appreciate how far you’ve come. I mean, this project, well, I just tossed some of the real old plans because they’re no longer relevant, but, I mean, you know, we’ve been here a long time trying to make this work, and we really appreciate the efforts you’ve made with the latest submission. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Will we only be addressing the engineering comments on the next return? MRS. STEFFAN-The landscaping plan. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-And the landscaping. Okay. MR. FORD-The landscaping issue. MRS. STEFFAN-And so, you know, in my mind, the two conditions that we’ll table you for will be to review and modify the landscaping plan, the planting schedule, and then for you to address VISION Engineering, or engineering comments. We don’t know what they’ll be, but since you’ve th got a window of time between now and February 15, which is the submission deadline for any new materials for a March meeting, I would just encourage you to make sure you’ve addressed those engineering comments sufficiently so we’re good to go, and all the conditions have been met, and we’re set. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. LA FOUNTAIN-So there’s no, there’s not a possible way of putting us off until the next meeting instead of? th MRS. STEFFAN-No, because we’re at January 25, and the submission deadline for February’s thth meetings was on, actually the 17 because the 15 fell on a Saturday. So we’re a week plus past the submission deadline for February, and we don’t have any additional meetings scheduled. So, sometimes we have Special Meetings if there are big projects that are coming up, but I don’t foresee any in February. We haven’t talked about it. MR. OBORNE-Well, we haven’t talked about it. The agenda has not been built at this point. It will get to you by Thursday, some preliminary to you. I would add, if you could, with my notes, I know that there was one incomplete page, if that could be submitted, A-6. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. They said they had it with them this evening. MR. OBORNE-Okay, but with the submittal back to you, you’re going to want that, and also the calculations updated for the permeability, which you have. If you could submit them, that would be fine. That’s all I’m looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’d be looking at a, well, we could put you on the first meeting in March, th which is March 15. If anyone would like to make that motion. MS. BUETTNER-If I may, just because they usually put me in court and don’t put me here. If, for some reason, we’re able to obtain the engineering comments and address them within the next week, what is the procedure? Are we able to ask for a Special Meeting for this project, or, for a special Planning Board meeting? I’m not trying to be difficult and push. I just. th MR. HUNSINGER-No, the way the procedure works is submission materials are on the 15 of the month. Staff then reviews them for completeness. Projects that are complete they forward on to engineer, onto the engineers for their comments. Typically we get the engineering comments a week or two before the meeting. Staff Notes go out the week before the meeting. So there’s a whole procedure built into the schedule. So it’s really difficult to pull a project outside of the confines of the process. Unfortunately, but. MS. BUETTNER-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, the process is designed to create predictability for you as well as make it manageable for us. So it is what it is. MS. BUETTNER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other final questions or comments? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and as it is, it’ll be two and a half weeks that you’ll have to turn it around for the submission deadline, so that’s really not much time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so there’s still not a lot of time. Yes. MR. FORD-Having made those comments, I do want to make this further point that it is duly noted the changes that have been made and that it hasn’t been an easy process, and my compliments to the team that continued to work diligently to bring us to this point. MS. BUETTNER-Thank you. MR. FORD-So be encouraged, not discouraged. MS. BUETTNER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Mr. Ford. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I walk by that project about once a week for the last few years. That’s a tremendous improvement. MR. LA FOUNTAIN-Thank you. MS. BUETTNER-And it’ll look even better when it’s done. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 53-2007 PROVIDENT BATAVIA, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Tabled to the March 15 Planning Board meeting. Submission for any new materials will be th February 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can satisfy the following conditions: 1.That they will review and address engineering comments. 2.That they will review and modify landscaping plans and plantings schedules to comply with 179-80, the Queensbury Town plant list. 3.The applicant will also update permeability calculations and the applicant will also submit Page A-6 that was missing from the original submission. th Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And if you want to leave those copies with Staff this evening you can. MR. BUETTNER-Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We’ll see you in a few months. Before I introduce the next item, Special Use Permit 3-2011 for Matthew Sokol, Mr. Sokol is a member of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, and I am a Director for Warren County as well, and as Director, I was appointed to a committee that Mr. Sokol serves on. So, to avoid any appearance of any conflict of interest, I will recuse myself, and I will turn the floor over to Mr. Traver. NEW BUSINESS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3-2011 SEQR TYPE II MATTHEW SOKOL AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) DONALD & LUCYNA SOKOL ZONING NC [NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL] LOCATION 340 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2,430 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT IN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER. FOOD SERVICE IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. CROSS REFERENCE SUP 64-10, AV 58-10 LOT SIZE 1.30, 0.87 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-17, 18 SECTION 179-9, 179-10 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MATTHEW SOKOL, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. OBORNE-I’ll read in the notes quickly here. Special Use Permit 3-2011 for Matthew Sokol. Applicant proposes a 2,430 square foot restaurant in existing shopping center, 340 Aviation Road. This is Neighborhood Commercial zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: As stated, applicant proposes a 2430 square foot restaurant in the existing shopping center. The proposal calls for an 85 seat restaurant bar with the potential for additional outdoor patio seating. The restaurant intends to employ up to five people according to the parking plan calculations. The previous proposal, Special Use Permit 64-2010, was approved with an AV 58-2010 for parking and permeability relief, and as such is still in effect. Note: The current proposal does not require additional relief. The applicant is requesting waivers from the following, lighting, location of utility systems, stormwater, topography, landscaping, land use boundaries, perc rates, waste plans and snow removal requirements. The Board is familiar with the previous application. This one is a larger version of that, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Keith. Good evening, and I have to say, Matthew, congratulations on your new endeavor Downtown. MR. SOKOL-Yes, my wife’s endeavor. I have a new part-time job. We’ll see, but thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Sure. Obviously, this is a familiar project to us. It’s interesting to see the revisions that you’ve made. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. FULLER-It is. For the record, Matt Fuller and I’m here with Matt Sokol and John Horrigan and Cullen O’Brien, the three sponsors behind the project, and a lot of it did flow out of the last meeting, and I think feedback that they’ve gotten on the project, obviously, word hit the street, and also of some interest in the other spaces. Obviously the Sokols family owns the plaza and there has been some interest in the other spaces which would benefit the plaza in general. So, looking at that, looking at the layout, and really the size before we just over 1,000 square feet, and I think, again, some of the comments they received of that may not be big enough, and I think I was one of those commenters barking in their ear a little bit about that, and I think the layout, just so everybody knows, it’s right down in the corner, immediately adjacent to the last spot where we were. Again, the difference is going from 1,000 square feet, just over 1,000 to 2400 square feet. No other changes, really, to the plaza at all. Certainly outside, the same representation as before, with the parking. If we need the spaces, we’ve shown them. The intent is not to create more impervious space, obviously. I think pretty comfortable that the parking required in the zoning is oversized for the plaza in general. People are in and out, and it’s transient in general. That is, we’ve given you the layout for the interior, and again, flowing the old space, I’m pointing to the drawing that we have, just to the lower part of the page of the space we were talking about before, similar entrance, right up in the corner, as you come in, restroom, seating, the bar area, high tops, a little lounge, and the kitchen and things are laying out a little bit better for them, as far as the fit up that they’re going to have on the interior. I just did some counting, nine tables, two booths, three high tops, 16 at the bar service, again, better access, I think, from the patron standpoint to the bathrooms, and the ingress and egress. Parking hasn’t changed. The needs are 85 seats, 5 employees, for 25 total spaces. So we didn’t have to go back and get additional variances, and really that’s it. The septic, no changes to the information we had on the septic from before. There’ll be a grease trap installed under the Code. They’ve already started looking at that. The Fire Marshal, they’ve been through a walk through. I know that was one of the comments, and I had e-mailed back, because I saw the Staff Notes, that see comment attached. The comment is there is no comment. So they’ve been through that conversation, and with that, if anybody’s got questions, we’ll be happy to. MR. TRAVER-One thing I noticed, the same comment that was saw before from Staff about the parking, getting to the parking requirements, that there are five employee spaces, and as I recall, I think the plan was you were basically going to impress some of the workers from the store to work in the restaurant in the evening, and that’s the reason you didn’t need additional parking, but I’m wondering with the increased size, do you not need more employees to serve a greater clientele? MR. SOKOL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I appreciate the second, and I probably should have seconded Mr. Fuller’s first resolution and we wouldn’t be here for the second time, but my partner, both partners over there, John lives in back of my store, and I work at the store seven days a week, so, quite honestly, either one of us can walk to the facility if we need help. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SOKOL-It’s going to be a work in progress. We’re not quite sure how much. There’s down times, there’s up times. There’s swing times. So, quite honestly, you know, the first six months may be hectic because it’s just going to be, I think chaotic initially. That’s where John and myself can easily walk over there. After that, things settle down, I think we’re going to be in a good routine. So, my other partner Cullen has been in the business for 25 years. He feels very confident that five should be plenty. He has done everything from cook, serve and tend bar. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FULLER-One of the other comments, I think we talked about last time, is looking at the parking that’s along Dixon Road, and if you think about laying out parking lot for a plaza like that, there’s more spaces out back there, when I think about it logically, there’s more spaces out back there than I think the businesses are going to need, from an employee standpoint, with the bank closing, at the time the bank does, the hair salon, you know, so as those businesses are closing, this one’s going to pick up, and like we said last time, employees are going to be encouraged to park out back, not in the parking lot proper, and then, so it, from a strict number standpoint, you’re right, is five going to be enough, is it going to be in play. I think the overall theme is, in general, the numbers, even with the variance that we got, I think are still high for that plaza. So taking that into account, the overlap that I think you’re going to have with the different uses, that number still works. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the last time you were here we also talked about the fact that, you know, it’s likely if there were young people working for you they might get dropped off, and the other thing, the patrons will be families, and so you’ll have more people coming in one car than you 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) would in other scenarios. So, you know, I think we talked about that a little bit the last time you were here. MR. FULLER-Yes. No, it’s a good question, more space, are you going to need more employees. It’s a good question. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? The construction isn’t any different, it’s just a bigger business. MR. FORD-No, it looks good. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So some of the Staff Notes, the other thing, clarify the location of the solid waste and recycling areas. I think we did explore that. We were using, were going to use Sokols. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was a question last time as well. MR. FULLER-There is one out back, and the main area is down behind the store. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I see we’re also scheduled according to the agenda, for a public hearing tonight. So we’ll open the public hearing and ask if there are those in the audience that want to comment on this project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Seeing none, I suppose we can close the public hearing. MR. KREBS-Do we have any letters? MR. TRAVER-No written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-The only comment that I wanted to make to you folks is that on that plan, you’ve got an exhaust fan just exhausting out of the side of the building into the potential future outside patio. That’s just, I’m throwing that out as somebody who, you know. MR. FULLER-Actually it’s changed since then from the visit with the Fire Marshal. MRS. STEFFAN-Is it going straight up? CULLEN O’BRIEN MR. O’BRIEN-It’s going straight up. MRS. STEFFAN-Perfect. I was going to recommend that, because one of the things that happens, it gets smelly. MR. O'BRIEN-The original idea was, no, you’re absolutely right. Cullen O’Brien for the record. The original idea was because John and myself, we’re contractors first and foremost, and Mr. Magowan will appreciate this. Going up through a roof, we wanted to make sure we didn’t penetrate a roof, there’d be leaks and those kind of things. We wanted to save the Sokol family, as well as us, some hassle and some headaches. So the idea was to pop it out the back, but with the Fire Marshal, the fact that the patio, you know, we were thinking down the road, yes, but gotta move it. So it is going to go up through the roof. MRS. STEFFAN-Good. That’s a wise idea. MR. TRAVER-Yes. That’s right. I didn’t notice that. MRS. STEFFAN-All righty then. So the public hearing’s closed. MR. TRAVER-It is, indeed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-All right. The last time we approved this Special Use Permit, we put a permanent Special Use Permit, you know, we have the option of having a renewable. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we want to make it the same as we did the last time? As a permanent? MR. TRAVER-I think that’s appropriate, and for the same reasons. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I just wanted to clarify that and get agreement. MR. TRAVER-Good point. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUP# 3-2011 SOKOL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 2, 430 sq. ft. restaurant in existing shopping center. Food Service in the NC zone requires a Special Use Permit; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/25/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3-2011 MATTHEW SOKOL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1)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 2)SEQR Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3)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 4)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 5)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and 6)Waiver requests granted: lighting, location of utility systems, stormwater plans, topography, landscaping, land use boundaries, perc rates, wastewater waste plans, and snow removal requirements, and the Planning Board grants those. 7)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 8)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and 9)This is approved with the condition that all signage must be Code compliant. 10)I just want to make a note that the application is approved with the stipulation that the applicant has asked for a permanent Special Use Permit and the Planning Board is granting permanent Special Use Permit, and we refer to Section 179-10-040K(1)(a) in the Zoning Code that says that a permanent Special Use Permit allows a specific use to continue 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) indefinitely until the specific use ceases for any reason for a period of six consecutive months. th Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. FULLER-If I don’t see you before, we’ll see you around Easter weekend. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2011 SEQR TYPE II NESS HOLDING COMPANY AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) LEGACY LAND HOLDINGS, LLC ZONING OFFICE LOCATION LOTS 4 & 5 FAIRFIELD PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,930 SQ. FT. DENTAL OFFICE LOCATED IN EXISTING OFFICE PARK TO INCLUDE ASSOCIATED PARKING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. OFFICE IN AN OFFICE ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 15-06; AV 50-07, AV 12-07, SP 42-08, SUB 10-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/12/11 LOT SIZE 0.63, 0.64 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-51, 52 SECTION 179-9 TOM JARRETT & DAN VALENTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-As previously stated, Site Plan 4-2011, NESS Holding Company. This is an office in the Office zone, which requires Planning Board review and approval. This is Lots Four and Five of the Fairfield Professional Park, Bay Road. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 5,930 square foot dental office located in an existing office park, to include associated parking with stormwater management. The proposal calls for the combination of Lots Four and Five to facilitate the building and parking for the project. Shared parking as envisioned during the subdivision discussions is being utilized. This project would be the second professional office located in the office park. What follow is Site Plan Review. No major issues, in my eyes, that the applicant could not take care of, but I would like to go down to the additional comments. With the build out of Fairfield Office Park commencing and Baybrook Office Park located to the east of the office park nearing completion, traffic mitigation at the intersection of Bay Road may need to be explored. Applicant is proposing a 65% increase in parking relative to the Code, and a potential110% increase in parking when future spaces are factored. Justification for this increase may need to be forthcoming. Lighting not energized adjacent to pedestrian pathways along Baybridge Extension. I’d like some clarification if at all possible, and although the applicant intends to combine lots 4 and 5, the Planning Board may wish to make this a condition of approval in order to avoid area variances, and the owner’s signature is on file. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and Dan Valente, developer of the Fairfield Professional Park. For the record, we’d like to correct, the owner of the lots is Northeast Surgical Specialists, NESS, not NEES. Somewhere along the way we creeped in with a extra E. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-I’m not sure it was them. It could have been mine. I don’t know. We are proposing a 4800 square foot building on two lots within the park, not just one, with parking to support the surgeons that are proposed to own this building. They do own the site and they will own the building. Dan developed a theme for this professional park several years ago. This Board approved that subdivision and our development plans are consistent with that theme. Lighting and stormwater and landscaping and parking are all part of that theme. If you recall, there’s shared parking to be utilized by these lots. The same entrance that is utilized by Dr. Parsons to the east, on Lot Six, and wastewater and water supplies are by Town systems. I think it’s pretty straightforward. We’ve looked at Staff comments. We received engineering comments tonight. In our opinion, I know I’m a little bit bias, but they are very benign in my opinion. I would like to address the comments that Keith brought up just now regarding traffic and lighting and the two lots, and parking. Traffic onto Bay Road was analyzed during the subdivision process, and it was declared that, and I think all agreed, that our park would not be 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) warranting mitigation on Bay Road. It’s across the street that really is dictating concerns and controls that may be needed in the future, and with regard to parking on these particular two lots, on this particular development, we are proposing in excess of what the Code requires as a minimum, but Dan can speak to the fact that the surgeons actually need that parking. They need five to seven staff members per surgery, and it dictates the level of parking we’ve shown on this site. You’ll notice we have some basic parking shown, and we have expanded parking possibly needed in the future, and we’ve shown that on the plan on purpose. We’ve also shown the expansion of the building itself that may be needed. Just to be clear with the Board as to what the requirements, 4800 square feet is required now. We’ve shown about 1200 square feet possibly needed in the future, and these two lots would be combined, and we have no problem with you conditioning it appropriately. Lighting throughout the park will be consistent with what has been developed for the park itself that Dan put in, as well as what Dr. Parsons put in, and Keith made the comment that the lighting along Baybridge Drive is tied to the specific lots as they develop, and that was the theme that was developed with the subdivision. So as those lots are sold along the front and developed, the lighting, those light posts would be energized as circuits through those buildings. That’s the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We’ll throw it open to you for questions, comments from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-On the engineering comments, it talked about the SWPPP, and asked for clarification. MR. JARRETT-We have a SWPPP open for the park. It is still open. We will provide that number to the Town, and we plan on utilizing that and monitoring the site during construction. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a concern on the lighting plan. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-There seemed to be a real hot spot right at the building entrance. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We looked at that comment, after we received Staff comments, and probably an unfortunate situation when we developed that lighting plan. We used high pressure sodium lamps, and we didn’t really find a wattage that was appropriate. We’ve now, based on the comment, dropped it down to a compact fluorescent and gotten it down in wattage, well below what it was before, and actually slightly below the Town standard. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-So we’ll submit that to Staff. I think it’ll be fine, and over the lighting is, we feel, compliant, still compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So, I’m sorry, what are you proposing instead of what’s shown? MR. JARRETT-Thirteen watt compact fluorescents, in those two fixtures at the two entrances as opposed to the high pressure sodium that we had before. MR. OBORNE-Is that a 60 watt? MR. JARRETT-It’s equivalent to 60 or 75 now. I’ve got to refresh my memory. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s quite a difference than high pressure sodium. MR. JARRETT-Yes. The Town Code still requires, I shouldn’t say requires, favors high pressure sodium, fluorescents are not mentioned in the Code, but we think, in this case, based on the comment, and based on the need to reduce lighting, it’s appropriate to propose that. So we’d like you to consider that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, that was really the only spot. MR. JARRETT-Yes, it was. MR. HUNSINGER-It was just that one. So it jumped right off the page. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. JARRETT-Yes, it did, and I should have caught it before I did, but I didn’t really change it. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things I, just a little design feature in your drawings, I really liked that you put a little picture of the actual light that you’re putting in, instead of having to put an extra cut sheet in there? MR. JARRETT-We do it when we have it available, and it seems to work. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just nice, it cut down the paper and showed us exactly what you’re doing. MR. JARRETT-You will see those same photos if we develop more lots in this park, which Dan says we will. MRS. STEFFAN-They’re good looking lights, though. Those are very nice. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s becoming a dental park. MR. JARRETT-It looks that way, doesn’t it? MR. VALENTE-Whatever works right? MRS. STEFFAN-Apparently our community will have the best teeth in the region. MR. SIPP-Are you going to continue the walkway as you have it now, all around? MR. JARRETT-The walkway will be all the way around the park. That’s right. MR. SIPP-Where is the sign going? MR. VALENTE-The sign is located directly in front of the building. If you look on Drawing C-2, we have it, as you’re driving up to the building just to the right hand side of the entrance, in front, in the green space. MR. SIPP-The new lighting code, sign code which was passed and I think it limits you to six foot in height. MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. MR. SIPP-So that’s new. MR. JARRETT-Well, we would anticipate being compliant. MR. VALENTE-We’ll have to comply with whatever regs you have in place at the time of our sign permit application. MR. SIPP-Will that be lighted? MR. VALENTE-I’m sure they will have some lights on it. Yes. I would think so. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Probably just like the other one, right? MR. VALENTE-I would assume similar, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? MR. VALENTE-It should be a good addition to the community. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you address the Staff comments about the swales? MR. JARRETT-Actually the swales, the original intent was they would be about two inches deep and it would not affect parking in that area, but based on the Staff comment, we’ve actually moved that parking slightly to the north to avoid the light pole conflict, and we’ve eliminated the swales within the parking spaces themselves. So there’s no conflict now. They weren’t really deep swales, but we just moved them to avoid the perception of a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And, Tom, did you cover the shrub? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. JARRETT-Yes. It was 37. We’ve corrected the number. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Are Board members concerned about the comments about the parking spaces? Are you satisfied with the applicant’s explanation? MR. OBORNE-I will say one of my concerns is on C-2, Number Two. I don’t know if you want to have two way traffic going through that drop off area. MR. JARRETT-We intended to have that as one way. We’ve now proposed signage on our plan to make sure that it’s one way. MR. OBORNE-Either way it doesn’t matter. You’re probably going to loop it around? MR. JARRETT-We intended it to be one way, and I should have provided the signage. I did not. It would have been signed ultimately anyway, but we’ve now shown it on our plan. MR. VALENTE-It will be directed so that the car will pass through the staff parking area and then loop up to the building for pick up. The passenger side of the car will be closest to the building to pick up anybody that’s come out of surgery and might be a little uneasy. Yes. MR. JARRETT-That was the whole basis for the design of the site so that they could be picked up after surgery. MRS. STEFFAN-So, Keith, do you want that as a condition, or are you satisfied, with the plan change? MR. OBORNE-If they show it on the plans. MR. JARRETT-I can pass this around. I know you want to see information tonight, but it’s on the plan, and then you can do what you wish with it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. MR. OBORNE-We do have him on the record stating that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, what I thought is I could put a condition in that the applicant will address outstanding Staff comments, because then that gives you the opportunity to check other things off your notes. MR. TRAVER-Perhaps address Staff comments as discussed on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I like that. MR. TRAVER-Be a little more specific. That takes some of the pressure off Staff to approve the. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else 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. January 20, 2011, Mrs. Gretchen Steffan, Secretary, Queensbury Planning Board RE: Proposed office building Lots Four and Five Fairfield Office Park “Dear Mrs. Steffan: I am the property owner immediately adjacent to the east of Lots Four and Five in Fairfield Professional Park. I am not able to attend your meeting scheduled for January 25, 2011. Please convey to the Planning Board my full support for this application. I have no reservations or objections to the proposed building and look forward to further development in Fairfield Professional Park. Sincerely, David C. Parsons, DMD”. MR. JARRETT-Thank God he didn’t want no competition next door. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, if there’s no other comments, I will close the public hearing. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable in considering a conditional approval? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. Proceed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 4-2011 NESS HOLDING COMPANY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 5,930 sq. ft. Dental Office located in existing office park to include associated parking and stormwater management. Office in an Office zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/25/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2011 NESS HOLDING COMPANY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff 1)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 2)SEQR Type II, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 3)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 4)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 5)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and 6)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 7)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 8)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; and 9)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and 10)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. 2.The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) 11) 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. 12) This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That Lots Four and Five must be combined to avoid the need for an Area Variance. 2.That the applicant will submit a modified lighting plan for the 13 watt compact fluorescents at the entrances. 3.That the applicant will obtain an engineering signoff. 4.Any signage will be Code compliant. 5.That the applicant will address outstanding Staff comments addressed on the record tonight. th Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. VALENTE-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Just before we consider adjournment, I had a conversation today with the Town Supervisor and Craig Brown related to the Town Engineer. Apparently there’s been some confusion as to whether or not VISION is going to remain the Town Engineer, and it sounds like they’ve, there’s been some discussions to work that out, and really kind of the offer that was extended to me, and it was requested that I discuss it with the Board, is having the engineer attend the Board meetings again, you know, and I kind of said, I said, well, you know, just speaking for myself, I think the Board would be enthusiastic about that. I don’t think there’s going to be any concerns, because I think there’s been a number of times when, if the engineer was present, we could have acted on an application instead of tabling it, and what was conveyed to me is the cost to the Town of doing that is pretty minimal in light of the big picture. MR. TRAVER-The only concern I would have about that is first with the excellent agenda planning that we’ve seen in process now, perhaps, as the agenda is developed, a decision could be made as to which applications the engineer could be needed to be present for, Number One. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And Number Two, having the engineer present, does that create any tension between our policy of not reviewing materials submitted the night of the meeting? I mean, I can foresee a situation where, in anticipation of, or as a result of some off the record discussions with an engineering firm, we would be presented fairly routinely with materials the night of the meeting, and I’m wondering if there’d be some tension there with that policy. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No, it’s certainly possible. I hadn’t thought of that. MR. FORD-I would prefer that the engineer be available to us at our request. MR. TRAVER-Yes, based on the agenda. We can probably pretty well anticipate his need. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would organize the agenda so that items where we need the engineer, you can tell ahead of time, that you put those at the beginning of the meeting. So he can come and then leave, but my experience has been, over the years, that, we always had Town Engineers that were on payroll, but having an engineer at either a Planning Board meeting or a Town Board meeting was very helpful. Very helpful, because it stopped us from straying off into something where we didn’t want to be. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. KREBS-And sometimes we have questions that we don’t have a way to get an answer for, that you could have an immediate answer and therefore maybe you could proceed where you can’t proceed. I’m just thinking of the applicant’s standpoint. Sometimes we can’t make the decision because we don’t understand it sufficiently. If the engineer was here, he could explain the situation and then maybe then we could proceed. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. Did you have any comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I see, I have no issue with the technical aspect of the engineer being here, but what I do see is that VISION is wanting to have full Site Plan Review authority over each project. That’s my understanding, and that is what got us into this issue 18 months ago with overlapping and my comments and his comments, and that’s what a lot of tabling resolutions were generated from that, as a result of that. If he’s here for technical reasons, I think that that is fabulous, for those times, but does that also give the applicant a chance to present materials during the night of the meeting and not do their due diligence to begin with? There is a balance. MR. TRAVER-Yes. That’s my concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s a fine line, and I appreciate those comments, and part of that, you know, I did talk about it a little bit today. It was actually kind of a conference call with Dan and Craig, and, you know, I think if there’s, you know, your comment about the engineer trying to do Site Plan review rather than technical review, if you can draw that fine line. Sometimes you can. Sometimes it’s fuzzy, but I think if there’s a difference of opinion between Staff review and engineer’s review, quite frankly I think oftentimes that makes a good stepping off point for discussion at the meeting, you know, to flesh things out, you know, and I don’t want to say I would welcome that differentiation, but I think in some respects it might be really beneficial to the Board to see that difference of opinion, so that, you know, we could flesh it up the night of the meeting. So I don’t really see that as a negative, necessarily. MR. OBORNE-I see it as a negative, a potential negative for applicants. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It could be. MR. OBORNE-Is what I see it may be. Dan and I have a great working relationship. I have no issue with that, from that point of view, but an engineer is not a planner. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So there is a line right there. MR. TRAVER-We’ve also, in the reports from the engineer that we’ve seen, it’s usually prefaced by comments from the engineer that the review is purely technical, and, you know, whatever arrangement, or new arrangement, there might be, language like that could be in the contract, that, you know, the definition of duties or. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, one of the comments that Dan had made, and I guess it came from Dan Ryan, is that if their engineering review is limited to only certain aspects of the site plan, you know, maybe stormwater management, for example, if there’s a site plan item that then impacts the stormwater management down the road, there could be potential liability. So, you know, he wants to have the ability to review the entire site plan, because there’s a liability there for him, by, you know, even if the signoff is conditioned to say this is only, you know, my review was only for stormwater management, there’s still a potential liability for him. That’s part of where Dan was coming from in some of his comments about reviewing the entire site plan. MR. TRAVER-Well, if potential liability is brought to the table, it might be worth having a workshop with Planning Staff, with the engineer, with Town Counsel, and take a look at all those issues, and us, obviously, and take a look at all those issues, and, you know, look at some hypothetical situations where there might be an issue, you know, one way or another, either with the Site Plan Review versus the technical review with liability. I mean, obviously we want to, I mean, it would be a significant, potentially a significant change in how we process the application, so I think it’s worthy of our study. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. SIPP-I think it would be helpful. I think in a tough situation it would be helpful, such as we had in the past where we got balance on one side and two sides balance one another, and maybe the engineer’s comments would settle the issue finally. I think that basically that’s their job is to give us the information that will get us to a final decision quickly without horsing around. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-I guess another, I mean, a more fundamental question, perhaps, if we change that arrangement, would that make available to us the review any earlier than the ones that were not submitted in time for the applicant tonight, for example. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-But obviously that’s an ongoing issue. Those are all things, you know, why don’t we just sit down and discuss all these things and see if we can come up with a better way of doing things. I mean, we’ve certainly done that very effectively with the agenda and a number of other issues. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I think that that’s the right idea, because I think most of us who have been on the Planning Board for a while can agree that VISION has done an excellent job for the Town over the past few years, but we also have a very competent planning staff right now. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And our systems and processes have been very effective, especially the last year. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-So we want to make the process better, and we also don’t want to spend money unnecessarily, and so, even though I understand the liability issue, we are the customer, and so we have to come up with the right fit that meets our needs and will also satisfy, you know, VISION’s requirements, but I think we have to put that on the table and discuss it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, and I’m reminded, I mean, we’re just reviewing a medical facility. I’m reminded, you know, first do no harm. I mean, it sounds great, you know, the engineer’s going to be here, I mean, your first instinct is, how can that possibly hurt, but I think we really need to be thinking about that, and make sure that we don’t end up with a situation that endangers any of the quality of the processes that we’ve developed over the last few years that have made everything, I think, smoother. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-With the possible exception of when we get engineering comments. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it requires the same kind of planning on our part that we do for an attorney. MR. TRAVER-Sure, absolutely. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When we see something coming, I mean, you can see those train wrecks coming along, we bring in an attorney to advise us. You’re going to see them with an engineer. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely, and we’ve done that in the past. MR. FORD-That’s where I go back to my previous comment. I think they should be on our call. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I would agree with that. My only concern as Staff advising the Board is and are the potential overlaps with the planning aspect. That’s my only issue, to be honest with you. MR. TRAVER-I think we just need to make sure that we enhance the system that we’ve got and we don’t damage the system that we’ve got. It’s really been working well. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I couldn’t agree more. Absolutely. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Do you want to set a workshop date for that at this point, because I know that VISION does not have a contract for them at this point. It’s ad hoc. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-As someone commented earlier, we don’t have a third meeting in February. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-We have enough applications to potentially have that go. MR. TRAVER-Really? Wow. MR. KREBS-I’ve got to stop attending Thursday meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, you have conflicts on Thursdays? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, we could do a Tuesday, if the room’s available. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the room generally available Tuesday’s? MRS. STEFFAN-I can’t do the first Tuesday. I’ve got another board meeting. MR. OBORNE-It is. I would have to check on that. th MR. HUNSINGER-Do members want to come back as soon as Tuesday, February 8? MR. TRAVER-We can pose it to the others involved, see if it’ll work. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I wouldn’t foresee it being more than an hour, a hour and a half workshop. MR. OBORNE-I’d have to see the availability of, well, first of all, who would you want to be there? Would you want counsel there? MR. TRAVER-I think if we’re talking liability, it would be wise, unless, on the other hand, counsel says don’t worry about liability. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-And they don’t have to come to the meeting to tell us that, but I think they should look at that issue. MR. KREBS-Well, (lost words) engineer, he’s got his own liability insurance. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Right, but I mean, you know, we’re all in this together. I think it would behoove all of us to know what, if any, exposure we have, in changing what we’re doing. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I would advise that you do put that in resolution form, so then we can follow that guidance. MR. TRAVER-What about, what would be your recommendations in terms of representation from the Planning Office? MR. OBORNE-I think Craig and myself certainly should be there, and those two. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, one of the nice things about having the Special Meeting Thursday is you can report back to us Thursday and we can set a date definite, perhaps. Okay. MR. OBORNE-I’m assuming that counsel could get back to us in time. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And I guess if not, then we would ask that they be at that workshop. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-Right, and it probably, not necessarily knowing what the issues might be, I suspect they’re going to want to be there anyway, you know. MR. OBORNE-I’m sure they’re going to want to be there. MR. SIPP-I wonder tomorrow they will have a session that would give us some insight into what other Planning Boards do. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s a question that could be asked certainly. MR. OBORNE-I know the one that I serve on, it is project dependent if the engineer is going to be there. They’re not there, you know, blanketed. The attorney is, but not the engineer. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s the most common thing. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. So we’d modify the contract to include some kind of retainer or something so they’d be on call, a certain number of hours. Interesting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t know. So, I’m sorry, you said you would request that we make a resolution? MR. OBORNE-Yes, please, and I would go with Tuesday, with the assumption that this room is open and with a back up date, potentially. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I’ll make the motion. MR. TRAVER-Hypothetically, we could do a back up of meeting an hour early the following Tuesday, which is our first meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s true. MR. TRAVER-I mean, I think we might be under some time pressure if we did that, I suspect, because I think we’re going to find there’s more issues than we anticipate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m sure. MR. TRAVER-But, what the heck, you know. thth MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. We’ll do six o’clock the 15 as a backup date, if the 8 is not available and people are not available. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How about seven o’clock, so we can eat dinner. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if it’s on the eighth it would be seven o’clock, but if it’s the fifteenth, it would be six. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Then it would have to be the six o’clock. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WILL HOLD A WORKSHOP AT 7 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 8, 2011, WITH A BACKUP DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2011 AT 6 P.M., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The purpose of the workshop would be to have a discussion with the Town Engineer, Planning Staff, and Town Counsel regarding policies and procedures for the coming year. th Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. TRAVER-I hope not. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/25/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ll move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2011, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th Duly adopted this 25 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And I forgot to welcome back Mr. Ford. MR. OBORNE-Congratulations. MR. TRAVER-Yes, here, here. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 38