Loading...
2011.10.18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC 1. EXTENSION Tax Map No. Site Plan No. 25-2011 Steve Dow/G.F. Ready Mix 2. TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 309.17-1-21 Site Plan No. 65-2011 Anthony M. Mangino 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.13-2-31 Site Plan No. 66-2011 Andrew West 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.19-1-9 SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 Lisa Pushor/Scott Spellburg 9. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 54-2011 Hospitality Syracuse 13. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2, 3 Subdivision No. 3-2011 Dawn Hlavaty-Starratt 27. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 288.16-1-87.1 Site Plan No. 63-2011 Francis T. Collins 31. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-7 Site Plan No. 64-2011 Robert L. Perkins 37. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4.1, 4.2 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 10/18/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, ACTING CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD KREBS DONALD SIPP BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Good evening. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for this evening. We have, first item on the agenda is approval of minutes. rd MR. OBORNE-The 23, Ford and Krebs were absent, and Magowan was in. So keep that in mind when you’re doing your. MR. TRAVER-Right. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 2, 2011 August 16, 2011 August 23, 2011 ND MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, THRD 16 & 23, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: thndth AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford (16 only), Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs (2 & 16), Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ndrdrd ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford (on the 2 and 23), Mr. Krebs (on 23) MR. TRAVER-Next we have two administrative items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: ND SITE PLAN 48-2008 NPA II, LLC-REQUESTING A 2 EXTENSION JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-And I believe there was a communication in the materials that we were handed out. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Lapper, would you like to speak to the application? MR. TRAVER-They’re requesting a one year extension for the site plan approval originally approved by this Board on October 21, 2009. MR. FORD-It’s a second one year extension. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. TRAVER-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Second one year extension. They’re hopeful that, it’s economic issues. They’re hoping that the project construction will commence in the near future. Their approval is currently set to expire October 20 of 2011. MRS. STEFFAN-Steve, Jon Lapper is here. MR. LAPPER-To answer any questions. John Kozio, the receiver, is with me tonight as well. The letter is pretty self-explanatory. It’s an important site in the Town, and those approvals are important to the value, and it’s unfortunate what happened with it being vacant, but there is interest in it now, and we do hope that we won’t be back here for another approval. On the other hand, you know, who knows, for another extension, but there is interest, and I think that something will happen. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think as one Planning Board member, we spent a tremendous amount of time on that site plan application, and I think that it would be appropriate for us to extend that for another year, based on the circumstances. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. MAGOWAN-I agree. MR. TRAVER-Any comments or concerns on the part of the Planning Department? MR. OBORNE-None whatsoever. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll put forward the resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN 48-2008 NPA II, LLC Site Plan 48-2008 NPA II received approval on October 20, 2009, the approval is good for one year to October 20, 2010. On 9/28/10 the applicant was granted the 1st one year extension to October 20, 2011; nd The applicant’s agent is requesting a 2 one year extension to October 20, 2012 (see letter dated 9/15/11); ND MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2 ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Okay. SITE PLAN 25-2011 STEVE DOW/GLENS FALLS READY MIX-FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. TRAVER-Next we also have a request for an extension for Steve Dow/Glens Falls Ready Mix. MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is for a further tabling consideration. We’d like to get this tabled out to November, and just to let you know that there was a property line issue that we could not verify. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) It took us a long time to finally get resolution on that, and we do have resolution in house on that. An application is in, using the proper protocols, and I do ask that the Board table this out to the th first meeting in November, which would be the 15. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You got everything on the deadline? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-You’ll see that next month. MR. FORD-Great. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any comments or concerns about this being tabled out to next month? MRS. STEFFAN-No. The e-mails on the status were helpful. So I’ll put forth the resolution to table. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2011 STEVE DOW/G.F. READY MIX A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes yard space to be used for the installation of four interconnected retention ponds. Ponds are to serve as a closed loop system for the containment of concrete manufacturing washout water. Modification to an existing use in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19/2011, tabled to 6/21/2011, tabled to 8/23/11; tabled to 10/18/2011; The applicant is requesting to be tabled to a November meeting (see e-mail dated 9/14/11 from M. Kugler) and has submitted revised application materials on 10/13/11; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2011 STEVE DOW/GLENS FALLS READY MIX, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This will be tabled to the November 15 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Very good. Okay. On the regular agenda tonight, we have three items for Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 65-2011 SEQR TYPE II ANTHONY M. MANGINO OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 67 ROCKHURST ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 72 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRY PORCH/DECK TO SEASONAL RESIDENCE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK, PERMEABILITY, AND FR REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 63- 11; BP 95-030 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/12/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-31 SECTION § 179-9 ANTHONY MANGINO, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I will quickly introduce this into the record. This is a recommendation for the Board’s edification. There’s an Area Variance associated with this. The location is 67 Rockhurst Road, and it’s Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) th issued a No County Impact on October 12. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 72 sq. ft. covered entry porch/deck to seasonal residence. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: As lot size is 0.07 acres or 2,920 square feet, any proposed expansion of the camp will in all likelihood require an area variance of some sort. What follows is the nature of the Area Variance. The applicant is required to go before the ZBA for front setback, side setback, shoreline setback, permeability and FAR relief. It’s a tiny, tiny lot. It is a true camp, one of the few that’s remaining on that peninsula, and we’d ask the Board to, I guess, consider that also when you’re making a deliberation for recommendation, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. MANGINO-Good evening. He stole my thunder. That’s what I’m here for. MR. TRAVER-Do you want to state your name, first, for the record, for our minutes, and discuss your project. MR. MANGINO-Sure. It’s Anthony Mangino, 67 Rockhurst Road, Town of Queensbury, Lake George waterfront. I’m the owner of a small seasonal residence there, proposing an approximately 72 square foot entry porch, covered, but open on three sides, composite and treated type construction, existing in place of that is there is an existing stairs there, but there is no cover, and partial that area is a paver patio, so that will be covered. So there’ll be an increase of impermeable area, but not by the whole 72 square feet, approximately 40 square feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Interesting. That is an extremely small piece of property. MR. MANGINO-Yes. MR. TRAVER-That’s very interesting. MR. MANGINO-Anything I propose, I will be here, in any direction. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I understand you have no intention of retrofitting the seasonal camp to year round use at this point. MR. MANGINO-That’s correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it certainly sounds reasonable. It’s a small deck. It’s covered. If you’re coming in from the rain, you want a covered porch. MR. TRAVER-And it’s replacing something that’s there. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Any questions, comments, concerns? MR. SIPP-My only comment is that there is no buffer between your land and the lake, and I’d like to see some plantings in there that take up some of the moisture coming down from the crushed stone driveway and the patio, and know the concrete was the inlaid stone that is there, (lost words), but it needs some plantings along the shoreline, and I think the Planning Staff would give you help in picking out what would be needed there. MR. MANGINO-Yes, there’s a considerable shrub, as you can see in the picture, that’s on my property. I maintain that. It’s about three feet wide by probably thirty feet long, and that’ll provide some buffer in between there, then the existing patio that’s down closer to the water, there’s a lot of green on the back side of that, and then there’s a shrub in between that patio, right on the shoreline, that grows actually very rapidly. I kind of keep it trimmed, but that’s got a substantial root structure there, too. MR. SIPP-I mean, the real buffer should be 15 feet wide, (lost word) interfere with your patio. There’s a need for something more. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Shoreline buffering is something that we’re trying to enhance, you know, to protect the waters, and it’s not really related to the, specifically to the Area Variance that you’re requesting, but you will be back for Site Plan Review, and you can plan on having some further 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) discussion on that, because that is one of our goals to try to increase the buffering around the lake, and there is some Code relevant to that, and as Mr. Sipp suggested, if you want to contact the Planning Office, they can give you some guidance based on your specific application and, you know, what might be appropriate. MR. MANGINO-Okay, that’s not a problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the buffering standards are in the Code, so you can access those on line. MR. MANGINO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Is everybody okay with the plan for the Area Variance? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll put forth a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 64-2011 ANTHONY M. MANGINO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 72 sq. ft. covered entry porch/deck to seasonal residence. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from front setback, side setback, shoreline setback, permeability, and FAR requirements as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2011 & SITE PLAN NO. 65- 2011 ANTHONY M. MANGINO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and we’ll see you soon. MR. MANGINO-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 66-2011 SEQR TYPE II ANDREW WEST AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SHARON DAVIES & OTHERS; JOSHUA’S ROCK CORP. ATTN. KATHERINE SEELYE ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 12 JOSHUA’S ROCK ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AND EXPAND EXISTING 533 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH 425 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE RESULTING IN A 575 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH 589 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: SIDE LINE SETBACK RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-11, SP 31-11, SP 32-11, AV 22-11, AV 23-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/12/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-9 SECTION § 179-9 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT ANDREW WEST, PRESENT 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. OBORNE-I believe the Board’s aware of the previous application that was before them concerning the boathouse. I believe that they’ve ascertained that the cribs need to have extensive work done on them, or accomplished on them, and again, they’re here before the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which I believe is tomorrow night for them, and they have expanded the size of the structure itself, as a result of this, and it still straddles the two lines. There’s really not much change as far as what they’re proposing. So with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-The property lines. MR. OBORNE-The property lines, that is correct. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, with applicant Andrew West. As Keith indicated, we were here in June and received a series of approvals from both the ZBA and this Board. This is a dock that exists on a residential lot with frontage on Dunham’s Bay. The situation that has occurred is that when Andrew got talking to dock contractors regarding the construction of, the rehab of the dock, it was suggested, there were certain changes that were suggested that would be more effective in terms of the rehab of the dock, and thus there’s enough of a change that Craig felt that it warranted coming back before the Boards. Regarding the variance, it really makes no difference because it’s the southerly edge of the dock that required the variance. That isn’t changing. So, in effect, what is being proposed really doesn’t have any effect on the variance that was issued before. It’s the same as it will be in the future with this proposal, but basically the piers will be seven feet wide, as opposed to the previous discussion, which took them back to six feet. So it’s bumping everything to the north by two feet. That’s the simple explanation, and I think in your packet you’ll see the architect’s depiction of it, and if you can make the distinction between red lines and black lines, it’s pretty clear as to what the changes are proposed to be. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought the drawings were very helpful and very clear. MR. FORD-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-Very easy to see the difference. In my opinion, it’s not a tremendous leap that we’re making. You’re replacing it, but it’s just a little bit bigger in size. It seems reasonable. I’m not surprised that you’re back because of that, but I don’t have any issues with it. MR. TRAVER-One of the things that we spent some time discussing, when you were here earlier this summer, was the lot line issue and so on, and at that time we were looking at a dock and boathouse essentially from the 1800’s, and in dealing with its location relative to that sort of odd situation with the property line. I noted in the revision, in the proposed plans, one set of cribs is being removed, and then the other one is going to be used as, is going to continue to exist and be rehabbed and then a new one is going to be added on, and I just wondered if in some way could the project be pivoted some way to move a little away from that property line issue, since we’re re-building, essentially re-building the dock. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, but the pier that will be re-built is the one to the north, which already exists on the subject property. MR. TRAVER-Which is the one that’s on the line. Okay. I see what you’re saying. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, the line bisects the dock. The one to the south, which was decided is intact and can remain, will remain. So I suppose if it had been the other way around, then maybe you’d just flip the dock in the other direction, and now you’re along the frontage, but that would have been. MR. TRAVER-Well, I guess I’m thinking, and clarify my understanding of the layout. The cribbing that’s remaining is the cribbing that is closest to the end of Dunham’s Bay? MR. MAC ELROY-To the south, correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and the one that’s going to be re-built is the one furthest out from the north, you mean by the north? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, to the north, yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, couldn’t you take the, you have the old original boathouse, and I know this isn’t going to work for the minutes, but you’re basically keeping this side and then re-building this 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) side. Why couldn’t you keep this side and re-build this side over here, and be further away from the line? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, if the condition of the northern pier was intact, if it was worth saving, I think that’s the recommendation that Andrew had gotten from the contractor is that it’s the southern pier that’s intact. It’s the northern pier that needs to be rehabbed and replaced. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I guess that’s what I was trying to clarify. What you’re calling the southern pier, or what is the southern pier, is the one that is the one that is closest to the end of Dunham’s Bay? MR. MAC ELROY-And fronts on the adjacent property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. I see. All right. MR. MAC ELROY-See that’s the. MR. WEST-That pier was re-done probably in the last 15 years, the southern pier, and just to clarify, the northern pier, approximately five feet of it, will remain intact, right. So we’re moving it two feet to the north, just to accommodate current building standards, you know, per the recommendation of the architect and when we went through the Park Commission process to actually file for that application, this came to light, but it’s not a substantial move, and we’re still going to use as much of the crib structure, the rocks in place there. We’re not going to be re- locating the northern pier, so to speak, completely. We’re going to be rehabbing it to the north by two feet. So I think that was the. MR. FORD-You’re actually going to expand it, are you not? MR. WEST-The northern pier will actually remain the same exact size, two feet to the north. MR. MAC ELROY-So seven feet wide. It will remain seven feet wide, and in that case the length is the same as well, on the north end. MR. FORD-Right. MR. OBORNE-This very well may be an issue at the Zoning Board. So, you know, I think that’s their heavy there. MR. FORD-The rationale for this, on the northern side, is to meet current building standards? MR. WEST-Well, so we need the slip to be able to accommodate building, current codes. So the slip right now is too small to bring any modern boat into it, fiberglass or otherwise. I believe it’s, what, seven feet. MR. FORD-What size beam boat could you put in there now? MR. WEST-We should have that information. MR. TRAVER-I think it’s the height, if I remember from our visit, it’s the height of the boathouse that’s more limiting, rather than the beams. MR. WEST-They’re both quite limiting. I believe it’s, I wanted to say seven and a half feet or eight feet. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, the height is not even seven and a half feet. It’s more like six, and the width of that slip opening is. MR. WEST-It should be in there somewhere. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-Approximately nine feet. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The only other question I had was, and I’m sure you’ve gotten this information from your contractor, but the rocks and so on that are used, well, actually two questions. One was the rocks that are going to be used for the construction, are they going to be transported 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) over water by a barge? Are you able to re-use all of the stone that’s in the existing cribbing, or are you going to need additional? MR. WEST-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. MR. WEST-It’s the exact same size, literally. MR. TRAVER-So you’re just basically re-building the timbers and that kind of thing? MR. WEST-Correct, and to the extent, you know, there will be a shift by two feet, but it will be built in kind, you know, timber, not in kind, but to the same standards. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, concerns regarding this? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m good. They didn’t want a deck. I mean, it’s replacing it and obviously expanding it a little bit, but it’s reasonable. MR. WEST-I mean, the whole goal here was to keep the historic nature of that boat dock, which is an icon in that bay, and it’s something special, and I worked with the sellers and the family to preserve that, through the design of both that and the house and so I appreciate the recommendation. MR. KREBS-And most boats today that would fit in that are eight foot beams. So you only have seven inches on either side when you bring it in. So you can’t make it much longer than that. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I’ll put forth the recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 63-2011 ANDREW WEST The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to renovate and expand existing 533 sq. ft. dock with 425 sq. ft. boathouse resulting in a 575 sq. ft. dock with 589 sq. ft. boathouse. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Side line setback relief. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2011 & SITE PLAN NO. 66- 2011 ANDREW WEST, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. WEST-Thank you. MR. FORD-We appreciate your attention to the historical significance that we’re dealing with here. Thank you. MR. WEST-You’re welcome. Thank you for recognizing that. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. KREBS-You’d also be proud of what your father had to say about you, too. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on the agenda is another recommendation. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE LISA PUSHOR, SCOTT SPELLBURG AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) STONE POINTE, LLC/SCOTT SPELLBURG ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LC-10A-LAND CONSERVATION LOCATION 45 ELLSWORTH LANE SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF THREE (3) PARCELS TOTALING 92.12 +/- ACRES INTO NINE (9) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.2 ACRES TO 44 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE, DENSITY, LOT WIDTH, LOT SIZE, SETBACK, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11, SUB 5-2006 APA , CEA, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 38.52, 1.36, 52.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; S. SPELLBURG, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. You had seen this at Sketch a while back. This is off of Ellsworth Road, and I’ll go ahead and I’ll read this into the record. This is Preliminary Subdivision 5-2011 associated with Area Variance 62-2011 for Lisa Pushor and Scott Spellburg. This is, again, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Engineering review was accomplished on 10/14. That should be in your packet. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of three parcels totaling 92.12 acres into nine residential lots ranging in size from 3.2 acres to 44 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. The variances associated with this project are as follows: Road frontage, density, lot width, lot size, setback, and permeability, and concerning SEQRA, and I’d like to just touch on this real quick. Typically in the past we, in the Planning Department, have asked the Board to accomplish SEQRA before recommendation, and we do strongly support that action. Typically that is associated with a Type I, usually with a realty subdivision, at some point, or with projects that are easily, it’s easy to issue a SEQRA determination for. In this case, I would ask that the Board weighs any potential environmental impacts at this point, and if they feel there aren’t any, go ahead and do SEQRA. If not, if you don’t want to do SEQRA, you have two options. You can go ahead and go forth with the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and then come back to SEQRA at Preliminary, which they’ll see in November, or, conversely, you can wait and get all the additional information that is needed. You can have the application tabled and wait until November to turnkey the whole issues at this point, and that’s something the Board will have to discuss, obviously, amongst themselves, but tonight we’re here specifically for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. There is not a SEQRA component necessarily attached to that, with the exception of the Planning Department’s policy that we would prefer that SEQRA be accomplished before we move forward with any other reviews. MRS. STEFFAN-Did you get the signoff and the documentation for the historic preservation and endangered species? MR. OBORNE-I think you’d have to ask the applicant that at this point. I know it’s in process, but with that, this doesn’t necessarily have to hold up the recommendation process, and they should have it, if need be, by the November deadline. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we can’t do SEQRA without that. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Because I think it’s Question Eight or something specifically asks that question. So we can’t answer that if we don’t have it. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. I guess for the long and short of it, I’m giving the Planning Board an out to go ahead and accomplish the recommendation. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It’s well within the regulations. So, with that, I did complete the subdivision review on that, and that’s really not anything to focus upon tonight. Again, it’s the variances associated with the subdivision. If the Board has any issues with that, please convey that to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and with that, I’d turn it over to you. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. My name’s Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering in Queensbury. With me is owner/applicant Scott Spellburg, and this is a project that is a nine lot subdivision that presently is configured in three lots, and that’s two separate owners that are sort of working together to accomplish this. We’re here looking for a recommendation in support of our variances. We think the way the area is zoned in particular, the Spellburg parcel, which is in an LC-10 zone, which is essentially surrounded by RR-3 zone, that creates the need for a number of the variances that we’re asking for. Once we get into the LC-10 zone, we’re looking at 10 acre lot size. We’re looking at 400 foot lot width road frontage, and we’re looking at 100 foot side setbacks, which is a difficult thing to do, and when we’re working with four and five acre lots. I believe our smallest lot is four acres, and they vary up through, no, I’m sorry, it’s three acres, and they vary up through, the large left over lot which is, what, eighty? MRS. STEFFAN-Forty-four. MR. HUTCHINS-The total contiguous holdings is 96 acres. So, and what I’m talking about on the zoning is this little green finger here is Mr. Spellburg’s lot, and you’ll see the RR-3 kind of surrounds it on two sides. As you get up back in here, this is steep slopes, and we’re aware of that, and we’re keeping them out of the picture. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, did not have this LC-10 area. MRS. STEFFAN-Really? Interesting. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. See, previously, it was right across, and it appears that, I don’t know what the thought process at the time, but it appears that they took that zone line and decided to follow the property line. I don’t know, but it presents a certain hardship for a project like this, and Mr. Spellburg’s owned the property for a vast number of years, and he’s always had this intention, and so we’re here. We’ve done a tremendous amount of work in laying the project out to get it to the point that we have a full blown Preliminary submission. It’s all graded. It’s all stormwater’s done. You see in front of you the proposed lot layout, and there is a shared drive, private road, that runs up through the middle of it that will access all of the lots. Each lot will have a driveway off the association road. Maximum slope of that road is four and a half percent, at max. If you haven’t had the opportunity to walk it, there is an existing woods road right there, and it’s a great walk and you can see the area that the slopes are an issue are well west of (lost word) proposed for the project. So, again, we were here at Sketch, in April, I believe, and we felt we had some support from the Board, and we’d love to answer your questions, and we’re looking for a referral for our variances. MR. TRAVER-Well, one question is with regards to the endangered species and historic preservation. Where do we stand on that? MR. HUTCHINS-Endangered species, we have a letter. It’s in the package. It’s probably attached to the SWPPP because that’s been getting triggered with stormwater lately. We have a sign off on endangered species. We have a question back from historic preservation that they want us to do a little more looking. So we’re dealing with that. Part of our issue here is tomorrow night. Without the variances, this doesn’t work, obviously, and, yes, historic preservation wants us to look a little bit more, but to answer your question. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments, concerns by members of the Board? We did look at this at Sketch. As I recall, this is essentially the same. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and you certainly made the case. I mean, just looking at those two zoning maps tells the story. This would have been a very different scenario if that zoning hadn’t been changed, and it seems reasonable to maintain what was, versus what is, in my opinion. MR. KREBS-Well, particularly considering the fact that that portion that really belongs in the other zone is going to continue to be open space. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they’re not buildable in the back. MR. SPELLBURG-No, we’re not changing the density of the houses. MR. HUTCHINS-It is nearly identical to what you saw at Sketch. We did re-configure one of the driveways a little bit, and one of the lot lines we did re-configure, because it worked better. MR. KREBS-And I’m pretty sure, too, it did say that the homeowner’s requirement of maintaining the road is included in the deeds. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. HUTCHINS-They will have to be in the association. We will file a maintenance agreement. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then, based on that, are there any members of the Board that have any specific concerns that we need to alert the Zoning Board of Appeals about, as they hear this tomorrow evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I would send it to them. MRS. STEFFAN-Although there is a public hearing for this. MR. OBORNE-There is a public hearing associated with this tonight. It is a subdivision. The thought process behind the public hearing was that there was a SEQRA aspect to it that obviously you have to open the public hearing, and people could potentially be here to add to the record. So my recommendation would be to open it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, then, we’ll open the public hearing. Are there any folks in the audience that would like to comment on this request for variances for the Zoning Board? Yes, sir. Come up to the table, and if you would begin by stating your name for the record and tell us what you have to say. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SKIP STRANAHAN MR. STRANAHAN-Thank you. I’m Skip Stranahan. French Mountain is a treasure. French Mountain should have been made into a park years ago. I’m very concerned about the density in the field, not at Scott Spellburg’s house, but behind my house. That’s our water supply that we draw the water from. Our well is actually located in those ledges, back about 200 feet from our home, and I’m very concerned about the density in that particular field. I’m not concerned at all about what’s happening up at the Spellburg’s. We’re really good friends. I’ve known them for years, but I think that we have to look after this mountain to take care of it in the manner that it was accustomed to, and in the last 100 years, there’s never been anybody lived in Will Harris’s field. Okay. So we’re talking about populating some people and setting them right over an industrial complex like ours that’s been there for the last 100 years. There’s going to be noise problems and other problems there that these people should be aware of, and they’re actually, and the 30 acres, there is a wetlands there that actually leaches through that mountain, and it’s all rock ledge down there, so whatever goes down in that ground ends up down at our place down there at French Mountain. I’m concerned about this, because I’m concerned that some of these people, if they’re going to be selling building lots, it’s different than what I was told, and these people should be informed that there’s noise problems that come from this mill that’s been operating there for the last 40 years. I think they should know about that, and I think we should be really concerned about how much we’re doing to develop the density of this mountain, because we’ve kept our mountain open to the public. We’ve provided the skidoo trail for the people to use, and we’d like to see it in a park like state. So I’m as interested in keeping it open as I am anything else, but I’m also interested in the water supply that comes down into our mill yard, not over populating it and not putting too many structures in that back, what I call the Will Harris farm. There’s a real significant history to this parcel, directly behind our mill yard, the 30 acres. It was actually where they’re proposing to go in is was Will Harris Lane, and this goes back on some of the patent maps, it’s been there so long. So this mountain was primarily a woodland that produced for you people and produced for Glens Falls the timber products that are needed to keep a community surviving, and what I’m concerned about, if we make the density of this property too highly dense with homes, that we will destroy any value it has for woodlands. My school taxes now are up to $13,000 a year, and I have not, there’s not been a child on that property in 70 years. So I’m concerned about what we’re doing here tonight, and I hope that you really have gone up and looked at the property, that you’re really taking a deep preservationist type of an idea here on what you’re doing. I really am concerned about that. I’ve lived on the property for the last probably 40 or 50 years. I know there’s wetlands up on that 30 acres, and I know that that water drains directly into our well every year. So I’d be real concerned about the density in the 30 acres, how many homes are in there. When I was first talked to about it, there was going to be like three homes, and now I think it’s up to, I don’t know, six or something like that. So we have an APA ruling there. Everything north of my place is in the Adirondack Park, and I’d like to see that property remain somewhere near a state where it’s been for the Spellburgs and myself and everybody else over the years. MR. TRAVER-Well, I appreciate your concern. Thank you. MR. STRANAHAN-Okay. Thank you. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. FORD-Could I ask one question of you, please? MR. STRANAHAN-Yes, you can. MR. FORD-What is the depth of your well, please? MR. STRANAHAN-I’m not sure what the depth of that well there. If I told you I knew I’d be probably lying to you. It’s probably down, I’m going to say it’s over 50. I don’t know about, Parker well drilled it, but it is located right in that ledge, and that water supply does supply our water down at French Mountain. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. STRANAHAN-We have over 10 families that rely on French Mountain for a living. We’re probably the one of the only people in the area that has employed four more people this month. So we’re providing employment for the people, and we’re probably biggest employer on Bay Road. So it’s very crucial that the people who decide to build up there understand that there is a noise factor there from that mill that’s been there for the last 40 years, and I’m not too sure that they do understand it, but there’s also, that’s an aquifer that supplies the water down at French Mountain. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. STRANAHAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thanks very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks. MR. TRAVER-Anybody else? Okay. I guess at this point I would leave the public hearing open, pending SEQRA. Okay. Would you like to come back to the table? Did you have anything you’d like to add to or in response to the public comment? MR. HUTCHINS-On the 38 acre parcel we’re showing five residential lots on 38 acres. MR. SPELLBURG-Here’s the 100 foot setback line. We’re more than 100 feet from any property line (lost words) two, three, four hundred feet. MR. HUTCHINS-So it’s not like we’re trying to pack them in there. This worked out reasonably well and everything on that particular lot, there’s no density issues with current zoning in the RR- 3 zone. Did you want to add anything? MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, just, when we did divide the 38 acres off, again, back a few years ago, four years ago, we did do the ENCON long form, and there is no wetlands. They went up there, we made a trip, we had to contest it because they said there was something up in the top corner, but they walked out and they did their tests and they came back with a negative, there is nothing up there, and we do have a copy of it, and it’s in with the paperwork. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Now, on the noise factor, I mean, that’s going to be a big thing, because, you know, like I said. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely, and I don’t want my neighbors to lose any part of their business by any means. The people going in there are going to have to understand this is, you know, you’ve got trees on one side, but you also have noise on the other side. That’s going to have to be a choice. They’re going to have to decide, and, yes, I don’t want to see somebody build a house and then a year down the road complain that we have a mill back there, because the mill’s always been there. I’ve been here my whole life. I hear it all the time. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I need that mulch every year, and, you know, I’ve got to get it. MR. SPELLBURG-I hear you. I need that mulch every year, and I’ve got to get it. MR. TRAVER-Any other comments, questions for the applicant by members of the Board? What recommendation do we want to give the Zoning Board? Let’s see, are they looking at this tomorrow night? MR. OBORNE-They are. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. TRAVER-Do any of the members of the Board have any specific concerns that we need to bring to their attention, other than what’s included in the application itself? MR. FORD-I don’t. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I’m not hearing any. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll put forth a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 62-2011 PUSHOR/SPELLBURG The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of three (3) parcels totaling 92.12 +/- acres into nine (9) residential lots ranging in size from 3.2 acres to 44 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief from road frontage, density, lot width, lot size, setback, and permeability requirements. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2011 & SUBDIVISION NO. 5- 2011 LISA PUSHOR/SCOTT SPELLBURG, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-We will see you again. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next we have Hospitality Syracuse. We have concluded our recommendations. We are now going into one tabled item, Hospitality Syracuse. SITE PLAN NO. 54-2011 SEQR TYPE II HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES; BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FRANK PARILLO ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 199 & 203 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. TACO BELL. RESTAURANT AND/OR NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 53-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/10/2011 LOT SIZE 4.62, 0.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2,3 SECTION 179-9 JON LAPPER & CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes, I guess you could consider this a tabled item. This was on the agenda, I believe, back in August. It was requested to be tabled by the applicant so they could perform a traffic study, which they have accomplished, and I shall go down, Site Plan 54-2011. This is Hospitality Syracuse, Taco Bell. Requested action is a Planning Board Site Plan Review for a restaurant. Location is 199 and 203 Corinth Road. It’s in the Commercial Intensive zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County Planning Board issued a, I believe they did have a comment on it, which actually, correct me if I’m wrong, Jon, spurred forth the traffic study. MR. LAPPER-Right. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. OBORNE-Based on alignment of the driveways with the McDonald’s across the way. The project description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,800 sq. ft. Taco Bell on a leased portion of property adjacent to the Super 8 Motel and exit 18 of the Northway. The main parcel is 6.58 acres in size and the proposal calls for 1.29 acres of leased area to accommodate the project. Access to an existing Single Family Dwelling is proposed off of the main access road and said road will terminate or stub-out approximately 340 feet from Corinth Road. Two internal to the property vehicular access points are proposed off of the main access and a right turn only lane for east bound traffic onto Corinth Road is provide as well as a cut through to the main access road for west and east bound traffic. Parking planned for 38 vehicles as well as 3 bus spaces. The leased lot will be cleared of vegetation in totality and the adjoining lot, or lease source lot, will have clearing for the proposed access road only. Signage proposed is non compliant and the applicant has received a sign variance from the ZBA on September 21, 2011 for 3 additional wall signs. Free standing sign to be compliant. The applicant is not seeking any waivers from site plan review requirements however a required Type C buffer waiver has been requested from the Planning Board, between the two uses that are on the property, the one use being a restaurant, the other use being a residential use. What follows is Staff comments. Basically we talk about the future interconnect that the applicant has proposed with the Motel to the east. You’ll notice that is up towards the southern portion of the parcel. It follows the soils. The concern that I do have, not to go through every point of site plan review, is lighting, on that, and I think I made that clear. I made that clear initially and then two more poles were added after the fact. So it was a little odd in that regard, but obviously there are engineering issues and there are traffic issues with this site, and I’m sure the Board will take a hard look at those two issues, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, again. For the record, Jon Lapper with Chris Boyea from Bohler Engineering. I want to just make a few general comments and then we’ll turn it over to Chris to get into some of the detailed engineering issues, but in general we looked at this site as a larger site that obviously someday will accommodate more than just the Taco Bell, and aware that we’re near the Northway and that we have the new project that just widened the Corinth Road to two lanes in each direction with a shadow lane for left turns, and I think it’s good planning, what we’ve come up with, to have the main drive for all of these uses with the ingress and egress, and as you see, you come in there and then come off of that driveway to get to the Taco Bell, and that’s obviously not something you’d design if you were just trying to do a Taco Bell, and that’s to get to a future lot on the west side of that driveway, and also a potential office lot in the back. Now that the road’s done and there’s sewer on that side of the Northway, it’s certainly ripe for development. On the other hand, in this economy, it still may be a number of years before something happens, but this was a way to plan it with future development in mind. We’ve gone through a round of detailed comments with Chazen. Bohler made a very thorough re- submission. We got the Staff comments, which really just talked about the lighting, which we’re ready to address. Everything else was satisfied on the Staff side, and on the Chazen side, I think the comments that are still left are really minor, but there’s still a number of them. I was a little surprised that the stormwater is prepared for 100 years, and they came back and said in an odd situation there could be some different analysis for a 50 year. I’ve never really seen that comment before, but at the same time, you know, we’re not quibbling with any of that stuff. It’s easy, and Bohler will, we’re sure we can get the sign off on the engineering. We’ll just do everything that they want, but that was the kind of comment that I was surprised to see. So the real issue is traffic, and we did, got the study, with all of the traffic counts from Creighton Manning, who are very well respected and not the kind of guys who are just going to tell you what if you’re on the applicant’s side. They work as much for the municipalities as an applicant, and they looked at it and said it was Level of Service A & B, after construction. So we were kind of surprised that the Chazen letter ended with, I’m sorry, the Chazen letter ended saying, yes, we read the Creighton Manning Study, and it said that the left turn movement was fine, but, you know, maybe you can get rid of the left turn movement because that’s the kind of thing that’s just going to kill the deal in terms of Taco Bell, because they just, they have to have that movement to make it work. At some point in the future, when this is developed, there is access onto Big Bay Road in the back, but that’s not something that we’re contemplating now, because I don’t know, you know, what’s really going to be there. Will there be use, two uses, three uses, and how that’s all going to lay out, so you can’t build a road now without knowing what’s going to be in the back. MR. TRAVER-There’s something vaguely familiar about that argument. MR. LAPPER-Yes, indeed, that does remind me of something that happened a year ago, but this is a much smaller scale, and the road works really well now with the two lanes that they have in each direction and the turning lane, and the traffic counts for Taco Bell are really not a big deal. It’s a good use next to the Northway, next to an interchange. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-One of the questions that Chazen asks are what are the hours of operation. MR. LAPPER-That’s Chris. MR. BOYEA-Yes. To answer your question specifically, again, for the record, my name’s Chris Boyea with Bohler Engineering. The hours of operation that we’ve requested is 24 hours a day. Now Taco Bell doesn’t operate 24 hours a day. However, in the future, it is possible that they could introduce a breakfast line, which then would change the hours of operation. So we want to be proactive and make sure that we get the approvals to operate. Also being next to the Northway, there’s a constant source of traffic, and I believe the McDonald’s across the street is 24 hours. So, in order to stay competitive, we would want to ask for that, but coming right out of the gate, they serve lunch and they serve dinner. Those would be the two things, and if I could, I’d just like to take a moment. I know that this is the first time we’ve been in front of this Board with this project. So I just want to kind of run through the proposal if I could a little bit with you. We did ask to be tabled on the last agenda, just because we have worked, and Keith and Craig have been great at the Town, and they asked that we come with as complete of an application as possible for this Board, to help work out a lot of the items. This is Exit 18 of the Northway, as you can see. McDonald’s is here. Motel Eight is here. Our proposal is to develop this spot right here, right next to Motel Eight. The overall parcel is 6.5 acres. It’s owned by a gentleman named Frank Parillo. He still is going to retain ownership of that land. We are simply leasing 1.2 acres close to Motel Eight, and here’s Motel Eight here. We’re leasing 1.2 acres right here. So it’s still going to be one overall lot. It’s not a subdivision. MR. MAGOWAN-Does Frank own all the way up to Curtis Lumber? MR. BOYEA-Curtis Lumber back here? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. BOYEA-Yes. I believe so. MR. LAPPER-There’s a lot that he doesn’t own that’s on the corner. MR. MAGOWAN-He doesn’t own that corner where the vegetable stand is? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. BOYEA-Yes, very small lot right there. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay, but he does, it’s this corner lot, but it does swing back over to Big Bay Road? MR. BOYEA-Yes. So on this overall lot, Keith had mentioned there’s a small residential house here, a garage and a shed that’s out there. Frank Parillo does own that house, too. It’s part of this overall parcel. That’s the only active use on the land right now. We’re proposing to keep it right now. However, if you feel it’s problematic, long term, we know there’s not going to be a house there. Eventually, that will hopefully get developed with a new project here as well, but for right now, there’s a month to month tenant in there. It does serve a purpose of it, and that’s why we’re asking for that 50 foot buffer, because technically when you have a commercial business here, we need, from a residential use, we would need a separation. In this case they’re owned and operated by the same landowner. So it’s a month to month rental that’s there. The proposal that we’ve come in with is a 2,863 square foot Taco Bell. It will have a drive thru service with two windows, a pre-pay window and a pick up window. The flow of traffic, again most of it’s coming from the Northway. That’s where most of our traffic is coming from. So we’re coming down Corinth Road, into the site here. Most of our traffic is same as many of the fast foods have changed over the years. We’re much more drive thru oriented these days than we were sit down business. So it used to be more than 50% was inside. Now it’s more than 50% uses the drive thru. So that they would come in and place. There’s a preview board, an order board, pre-pay, pick up and then back to get on to the interstate. We are proposing 38 car parking spaces, and those are right in here, and we’re also proposing three bus or large truck parking spaces back here. So that those vehicles can come in, back, and then exit back out. We’re doing that because we’ve noticed, you know, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a really good engineer to look at McDonald’s and say, they’ve got truck parking over there and buses and they’re used. They’re on and off that interstate, so we don’t, or boat trailers. Even people with boat trailers, I saw, campers. There’s a whole bunch of uses right, it’s been a great use for McDonald’s that’s over there. They provide space for that. So we would be remiss if we didn’t provide something so that somebody could pull off. We’ll be the second place for a 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) bathroom break for families, that’s there. The lighting. Keith had mentioned it, and it’s funny, I do understand where he’s coming from. So we did have some poles, light poles, and we’re proposing those throughout the site, light poles, very small lighting on the building. Our initial submission that we submitted showed 20 foot tall poles with 400 watt lights. Keith asked us to tone it down a bit if we could. So we came back in with two more poles, like he said, but the reason for that, and this is where there was some confusion. The reason why we added two more poles is we reduced all the wattages on those to 200 watts. So obviously when you take the wattage down, it doesn’t cast as much light, so we added two more to make it up, and I looked on the detail, and the detail still says 400 watts. The table’s correct, but the detail was wrong. So that’s the explanation in between there. MR. MAGOWAN-So they’re still 20 foot tall? MR. BOYEA-They’re still 20 foot tall, right, but instead of 400 watts, they’re 200 watts each, and then obviously a 200 watt light doesn’t do as much as a 400. So, we added the two poles. Access to the site, again we talked about it. The main access is here, and this would be a full movement access. So somebody could take a right in, or a left in, and somebody could take a left out or a right out. Up here, this is 14 foot wide, excuse me, this is a 24 foot wide. So it’s a fairly narrow two way street, typical access, 24 foot wide here. Up here it’s a 14 foot wide right out only, and again, if you look at the traffic report that’s been submitted, it supports it. It says it’s not necessary to have this right out here, but what it does do is it gives large trucks a place to exit without having to curve around the front. Delivery trucks a place to exit, and also in the future, we can’t design too much for the future, but we are designing for the future of Frank Parillo’s remaining land that’s out here. This would be a shared access drive, so that there would be no more curb cuts along Corinth Road, to kind of clean it up. The purpose of that curb cut in the location of where it is, it’s right to the left of this white that you see. It’s right here. Well, that’s halfway between Big Bay and the interstate traffic light. So it’s right in the middle, and that’s why we came up with the drive where it is. So at some point, there’ll be an application either for here or for back here that’s going to come back before this Board for development. They’re going to have the right to use this as well as they’ll have a right to connect a road to Big Bay to get to the traffic light, depending on the intents and intensity of whatever they propose. The benefit of having this, not only to the bigger trucks that we talked about, is most of our customers, I’m going to say 60% of them, so more than 50% are going to the Northway. So, and then again, most of our customers use the drive thru. So if you get where I’m going here. We know that this customer, being most of our customers, wants to get to the drive thru. If we take all these customers and try to, and funnel them down to this intersection, no matter what happens in the future, we’re going to be putting more and more and more on this, versus just getting the easy movement out that for the traffic study shows as a Level of Service B, which I’m not a traffic engineer, but I do have the traffic report and B is good. I wish I had all of those in school. MRS. STEFFAN-Trust me, we’ve seen a lot of D’s and F’s. MR. BOYEA-So, future cross access agreement, the Town Staff, when we met with them, said look, we’re trying for interconnected lots, and eventually, maybe Super 8, in the future, will get re-developed, too. I don’t know, but what we’ve agreed to is in the back here, Super 8 Motel is right here. To give you an idea, the back wall of the building. So back here we’ve designated a spot to do that interconnect, as part of these plans, so that in the back of Super 8 they’ll be able to maybe eventually get to Big Bay, and then out to the light. So that would be helpful for those guys, too. The stormwater, I’m sure you guys have seen many projects over in this area, good sand in this area. We have a lot of permeable soils. So we’re able to meet the New York State DEC stormwater rules and regulations. We’ve designed for the 100 year storm, and as Jon said that the comments from Chazen are easily addressed. We designed for worst case. They’re asking for something less. We can certainly prove that it does less. It does require infiltration. That’s what this system is designed with. So we’re going to collect, treat with stilling basins, and then infiltration basin and in this area, and then finally landscaping. As you can see, if you look at this, it doesn’t even fit on the whole board as far as the property, but if we just look at the lease lot, and pretend it’s a property, and this is what Staff had asked us to do, run the calculations both ways. How do you look on the overall six acres and then how do you look in case some day you were ever subdivided or something, how do you look on your own lot that’s there. So on our own lot, our 1.4, 1.2 acres, we’re 46% green. So, that’s pretty good in the overall. It’s more than Code requires, and then we were asked to do some street trees and to set the precedent going down, as you go away from the Northway. So what we’ve proposed is some red maples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and then we propose some pin oaks that are up in here, and then there’s a lot of smaller landscaping that accents the building throughout the rest of the site. I did not see anything of concern, again, most Staff, Town comments are minor, easily acceptable, and then Chazen’s comments are agreeable with the exception of Number 13 & 14 which are two of the comments with traffic. That’s why we wanted to talk to you about those tonight. I believe 13 had said something about consider no 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) lefts out here. We have to have that. It just doesn’t make sense to put that kind of restriction. From a safety standpoint, the traffic report supports the left turn out, and some of our traffic might be going to West Mountain. MRS. STEFFAN-Anybody local is going to be going out of there into a left, most local folks. MR. BOYEA-So it’s important for us to have that left turn out, and then the other item that we spent some time just explaining right now is the right turn out. We feel it’s going to be good for the overall customer now with larger vehicles and delivery trucks, but not only that, if, at some point in the future, another development project comes in, I don’t think Mr. Parillo’s in the business of just sitting on this land. I’m sure eventually he will come in, whether it’s an office or something of that nature. Having most of our traffic use that B movement that goes out and free up less congestion at this intersection just seems to make more sense to us. So those are the items, and we’re here to take a look at, we’ve been looking at this now with Town Staff. We’re very familiar with the overall project. We’ve tested the soils. We’ve submitted, hopefully, a very thorough package for you guys to review. We’re hopeful that we can answer any questions that you might have tonight. MRS. STEFFAN-You asked for a waiver on the Type C buffer. MR. BOYEA-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-How come? MR. BOYEA-Well, our options are we could tear the house down, and then we wouldn’t need the buffer. MRS. STEFFAN-But what about the, you know, you’ve got the trees. You said you’re going to put red maples along the. MR. BOYEA-I think it’s to the road. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. BOYEA-Is really what it is, and it might even just be because, we’re not subdividing. So it’s really all one property. So we’re really kind of putting a residential use, or excuse me, a commercial use on a residential, it’s a commercially zoned property in a C-1 district, but it’s got a residential use on it. MR. LAPPER-It’s the use issue, not the zone. MR. BOYEA-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Because the buffer is to either use or zone. It’s a residential use next to a commercial use, but Chris’ point is, (lost words) it’s only a month to month lease. There’s nobody that really is impacted. The tenant could leave, but it comes down to eventually it’s going to be knocked down anyway. If the Board wants it knocked down, it could be knocked down. MR. OBORNE-It is a separate lot, though. It’s not part of this lease. MR. BOYEA-It’s not part of this lease at all. Right, that’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-I was personally looking at it as a tradeoff, and so the green space that you’ve got with the red maples that you’ve identified, if you bolstered that up, I could be happy with that. Put landscaping in there, on this parking lot, right next to the parking lot, where those trees are, yes. If you made that, if you used that as like a Type C buffer where you had annuals and perennials and, you know, along with the trees. That would be very nice. You could even put picnic tables. MR. BOYEA-We could add some in there. However, just, what you’re looking at is a pretty picture. It’s colored for presentation purposes. This area in here is a detention basin. So it goes down and up. So even if we were to put a lot of landscaping in there, it’s not going to really give you the impact that you’re looking for because it’s going to be lower than the street. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. BOYEA-But we might be able to add some landscaping on this side. Again, the gentleman owns the whole land, so it’s, we might be able to do that. However, I think it’s all short term. I 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) mean, if you look at the house, I think he’s going to be better to have a sign there that says development site available, than probably what he’s getting for the house. MRS. STEFFAN-I understand that you’re doing some landscaping in the front and on the sides, but, you know, in my travels this summer, you know, one of the things that I saw on my trips through New Hampshire and Maine, you’ve got a lot of fast food establishments that are heavily landscaped with perennial borders, and they’re beautiful in the summertime, and so, you know, you’ve got the fast food thing, which is all about branding, but yet when you soften it up with, you know, some heavy landscaping and beautiful perennials, it just, it makes it much nicer, and I think when we re-did the Zoning Code, after we did the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, that’s really what we were looking for, and certainly in that Exit 18 corridor, I mean, we just did Main Street on the other side of the Northway, and, you know it’s kind of barren on the other side, and so here we really have kind of a pallet so we can pretty it up. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. I think there’s opportunity here. MR. SIPP-Well, I think you’ve got a good idea. Am I correct in saying that that’s the only part that you’re going to clear cut as of now? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. BOYEA-Yes, absolutely yes. MR. SIPP-The rest of it will be left as is. MR. BOYEA-That’s correct. Yes. MR. SIPP-Well, I think you do need some more landscaping. I mean, what’s growing in there is junk, but you’ve got a sand base there, and you’re not going to get much in the way of good looking trees without a lot of work. MR. BOYEA-We could potentially add some, I mean, it goes down and up in here, but maybe if we picked one side, either this side or this side, we could still be up on a higher, or we could do both, I guess, something of that nature. We could just pick something that works in there. It would look a lot like all the other landscaping, I mean, if you can, we have landscaping next to the road out here, around the sign, next to the building here, all the way down the drive thru, around the menu board, buffering the trash enclosure. I think that’s probably the only place that we didn’t really propose it, and the reason was because of stormwater, but if the Board wants, we could probably do a row, you know, next to this curb line or both curb line down each side to kind of help. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the first thing you probably have to think of is your snow removal, of where you’re going to plant those. You’re going to push it all down to the back, because if you’re going to, you know, plant the perennials, you definitely aren’t going to want to be putting, you know, five, six feet of snow and dirt over the top of them, you know. I’m thinking they’re not going to look too healthy in the Spring. MR. BOYEA-We’re proposing an asphalt wing curb here for that specific purpose. We’re thinking that it’s going to come this way, and then also in the drive thru area we’ve got very big green spaces that are back in here. MR. TRAVER-I think that that enhanced landscaping, as Gretchen said, would help with our issue about the buffer, and I know you’re talking about what might be, but we’re confronted by what is. So that might be a good way forward with regard to that. MR. MAGOWAN-I kind of like that, seeing something down that access road. MRS. STEFFAN-And it sets the standard, you know, if there’s another fast food, which likely will be on the other side of the lot where that single family residence is, you can kind of mirror it on the other side, you know, there’s Chili’s. There’s all different kinds of, although one is supposed to go on the other side of Town, but, you know, there’s all kinds of things that could go over there. There’s no drugstores on that side of Town. That’s probably next. Who knows. I’m sure there’s people in the pipeline already. That’s pretty valuable property with that new rehab. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If a customer comes in and parks and goes into the restaurant and comes out, can they, is there room for them to circle around the back where the, so that they can go around and make a fast right out that way? MR. BOYEA-Absolutely, yes. You’ve got a 10 foot drive lane here, and then an 18 foot bypass. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-So they can drive by the? MR. MAGOWAN-That yellow is cars. All right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know it is at the end, but I want to make sure that it’s wide enough coming out. MR. BOYEA-Right down here, yes, absolutely. You’ve got a 10 foot lane here and then a 12 foot lane. So you’ve got 22 feet. MRS. STEFFAN-Speaking of which, where do deliveries come in? MR. BOYEA-We have delivery doors right here, on this side of the building. So the truck parks in here. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay, any other further questions, comments from members of the Board at this point? If not we’ll go to public hearing. MR. KREBS-Well, I was just going to say, one thing is I like the fact that you can make a left hand turn out of that main drive, because otherwise what’s going to happen is if they can only go right, then people who want to go left are going to try and find a place to turn around, and that’s a very congested area to start with, because you’ve got people coming off the Northway. So I think it makes a lot of sense to have them go left. MR. FORD-Particularly where it is on the total lot there between the Northway and the other road. MR. TRAVER-And especially with its relationship to the McDonald’s. MR. BOYEA-Again, yes, when Creighton Manning did the study that’s what they basically came up with. They said, look, let’s put it right between the two lights, you know, that’ll be the central location, and then everybody else that ever has to develop in here will have to share that. MR. MAGOWAN-It definitely makes it easier coming out now that that light is there for Big Bay. MR. BOYEA-It’s a big improvement. MR. MAGOWAN-I’ve been using that going to Curtis, and it was always a pain. Now that light is, it’s just, even coming across down Minnesota Avenue and those avenues, closer, you know, Stewarts is a pretty busy spot, too, and trying to cut across and do that little (lost word) coming off of Luzerne, I know the roads well, but that light really makes a big difference there, I have to admit. I don’t have a problem with the left there. I think that’s, I like the, that access road for the future development and he can loop that right around and bing that right out onto Big Bay. MR. OBORNE-And I would say you can re-visit those turning movements at that point in time also. MR. KREBS-Sure. MR. OBORNE-If you want to restrict the left out, once you get out to Big Bay, if I’m here at that time, I would certainly be recommending that. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, let’s see if we have anyone for the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak to the Board on this issue, on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. TRAVER-No one? Okay. Well, let’s see. We have the updated lighting plan. Where do we stand with that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s your schedule? What are you looking at? MR. BOYEA-For construction wise? Well, pending this Board’s approval, we would then probably a month before building permit, is probably typically what it would take for us to generate the building plans, which we haven’t spent the money to do that yet, and then we would be in for building permit, and then I think we would probably gauge at that point whether 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) it’s a Fall site work and then open in the Spring, or whether we just start in the Spring. I think it depends on the weather. MRS. STEFFAN-So is the Planning Board okay with the light situation? You know, obviously there has to be a denotation change from 200 watts from the 400 watt, but does the lighting plan look okay to everyone? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Hours of operation were clarified for us, and then the stormwater situation has to be, but we could achieve that with a Chazen sign off, but the traffic study, how are we with that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s fine. MR. KREBS-It’s fine, it’s right here. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Any written comments? MR. TRAVER-Yes, are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I don’t see any. MR. FORD-And the enhanced landscaping plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s the really, the big outstanding issue, I think. MR. OBORNE-What’s the Board looking for in that regard? Do you want to denote locations that you want a more robust plan submitted? Do you want to review it? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think from our discussions what we’re looking at is an enhanced landscaping plan on the area between the main drive and the parking area, reflecting added plantings along the borders outside of the stormwater treatment area, and plantings that would be obviously smaller than the, shorter than the trees, but designed to help screen and buffer that area. I don’t know, do we need to be specific about numbers or we just need to see a plan? MR. OBORNE-I think they need to present a plan to you for your approval. MR. FORD-On the west side of the parking lot. MR. MAGOWAN-Do we want it on the parking lot or the access road side? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-All of the above. MRS. STEFFAN-I put on the borders of the stormwater retention basins. MR. BOYEA-If I could, that’s the one item that’s out there, knowing the grading here and I’m just hopefully making sense when I talk to this, about this, but we could probably go with a three or four foot wide landscape bed, a mulch bed, on each curb line. If you go too much wider than that, you’re going to be starting going down in the bank. MR. TRAVER-Right, we understood that. MR. BOYEA-To be specific about it, so a three to four foot wide landscaping bed, and it would be along, against, the western (lost word). 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. SIPP-What you need is a conifer in there because you’re going to have, those trees are going to be shedding leaves, and all winter. If you don’t have anything else, you’re going to have a clear view of West Mountain. MR. BOYEA-We have those trees, the red oak trees that are here. So we have the height. In that three to four foot wide landscape strips that are around here, we’d be proposing something low-lying, something that a snowplow, as it comes down through here, wouldn’t necessarily hurt. So I’m thinking, you know, one foot to eighteen inches max height along in that area. They will grow, but we just want something that’s tolerant of salt and I guess a little rugged just for snowplow purposes, but we can do that and we’d be happy to work with Staff, if that’s acceptable with the Board, what we’re talking about, the three to four feet on both sides. MR. OBORNE-I would prefer the Planning Board be satisfied than Staff. MR. FORD-Yes. Staff will work with you and we’ll review it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, with regard to species and so on, that’s fine. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. MR. SIPP-There are a lot of salt resistant conifers, not a lot, but there are some. You don’t want spruce. MRS. STEFFAN-I’d be happy with perennials. An area like that, fortified with nice perennials, they die every year. When your landscapers come in to clean up leaves and landscaping, they clean all the dead stuff up and then they grow back next year, and so I could be okay with perennials, and you don’t have to worry about the snow issue. You can plow right over them. They’re underground. Hostas, there are lots of things. Although it’s a little too sunny for hostas. MR. KREBS-Well, there’s decorative grasses you can cut right down in the Fall. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. There’s some really nice. MR. KREBS-And then they grow up four, five feet in the summertime. MR. BOYEA-That would be fine. MR. OBORNE-Just make sure they’re from the approved list. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. BOYEA-Grasses. MR. TRAVER-There is that area of increasing concern. MR. FORD-Not all grasses are created equal. MR. TRAVER-So if we’re looking at an updated landscaping plan, do we want to update the lighting plan at the same time? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just change the bulbs. MR. TRAVER-So with that you won’t need to make the concession of removing two poles. MR. LAPPER-Just (lost words) 200 watts each time. MR. BOYEA-With it being now narrowed down to grasses, in order to start our building plans, we can come back to the Board for that, to look at grasses, but now that we’re talking about grasses, and there isn’t a list of grasses that’s an approved list, we can pick from those, if we were fortunate enough to get an approval tonight, then we can start our building plans, which would then help expedite us through the process. If not, we understand, but just wanted to put that out to you. MR. TRAVER-Well, the responsibility of approving the landscaping really resides with us. Really, as with lighting, although we certainly understand and appreciate your reducing the wattage of your bulbs, but perhaps we can move this. MRS. STEFFAN-Our agendas are full in November, they’re very full? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, we could potentially have room for them, we can make room for them. th MRS. STEFFAN-I was just thinking, if they could pull this together in, say, because it’s the 18, if they could pull this together in two weeks, then we could get it on the second meeting in November. MR. OBORNE-I would prefer that they pull it together sooner than that. MRS. STEFFAN-One week? Well, the lighting plan is really not a big deal, but the landscaping plan. th MR. OBORNE-The final agenda meeting is the 27. MRS. STEFFAN-Of October? Okay. MR. OBORNE-Of October. I would say the drop dead on that would be the Wednesday before th that which would be the 26. th MRS. STEFFAN-The 26. Can you pull it together in a week? MR. BOYEA-There should be no problem with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Now the Planning Board is okay with the lighting plan as presented? Because it is, in my estimation, excessive, from a photometric. MR. TRAVER-With the reduced wattage? MR. OBORNE-Even with the reduced wattage, because I believe that the photometrics that are shown on there are with the 200 watt. Is that correct? MR. BOYEA-That’s correct. MR. OBORNE-Okay. So if you look at the photometrics that are on there, it is excessive relative to the Code. It is a commercial area, I understand that but 17 pole mounted fixtures. I have really nothing more to say on that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I misunderstood. I just thought there was an error, so that the data was incorrect. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was my understanding. I thought the data reflected 400. MR. FORD-I misunderstood as well. MR. OBORNE-The photometrics reflect the 200 watts, and it has been reduced considerably from the first incarnation. MR. FORD-There are going to be how many posts, total, light poles? MR. TRAVER-How many light poles? MR. BOYEA-I think there is 15 light poles. MR. FORD-I heard 17. MR. BOYEA-Actually there was 15. There’s now 17 poles. That’s correct, and as the Board is looking at the lighting plan that’s opened up, I’d just like you to note that there is a one foot candle line, which is shown on the plan, and as you can see, it does stay all within our property. With the 200 watt lights, we’re achieving an average of 2.5 foot candles in the parking area, and then we’re achieving. MR. FORD-It goes from a hot spot of what? MR. BOYEA-Your hottest spot is. MRS. STEFFAN-Through the drive in lane. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. BOYEA-Maybe 4.7 in the parking lot. MR. OBORNE-I see a 7, 7.3, 7.5. MR. TRAVER-7.4. MR. BOYEA-Yes, those are drive in, in the parking area, maybe 4.7, and then, yes, it’s an average of two foot candles in the drive lines, with the hot spots being around 7, 7.8. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because over where the drive in, right next to the building, you’ve got seven and eights, and then in the parking area, on the other side, right in the middle, you’ve got sixes, sevens. Actually, when I looked at this I thought it was kind of weird because they’re sporadic and then on the exit you’ve got 7.3, 8.7. MR. TRAVER-Maybe we should go back to talking about pulling two poles out of here. That is pretty hot. MR. FORD-What’s the rationale for that amount of lumen for the drive line, drive lane? The only time you need it is when people, when it’s dark, and people who are driving have their lights on. Why do you need that level of lighting, up to as high as eight? MR. BOYEA-As far as, again, this had more light to begin with on it. When we look at lighting designs for fast food type uses, it probably applies to a couple of other uses, too, but banks not necessarily are open as late as Taco Bell. We have a very late night business. The same with McDonald’s that’s across the street. McDonald’s achieves some very high lights next to the Northway, with very old, antiquated fixtures that aren’t allowed anymore. They’re very cast out, so what we’re trying to do is find that balance with meeting the Code with down light shoebox type fixtures, so that they don’t throw light backwards. They’ve got house shields. So when we look at a business that’s open late at night, most lawsuits, we look at lawsuits, come from people entering and exiting the facility off the road. So we want to make sure our entrances are clearly lit and illuminated as they present to the street, and if you notice on the plan that we do have some light around the right out only, and then we have some light around the entrance, but between those two, it’s dark. In fact, the one foot candle light doesn’t even, you know, along the street, it doesn’t even light up in that area. So that’s a whole dark area right there, but then as you enter, we want to make sure that the travel path from the parking spaces and to the front door are illuminated, trip hazard sidewalks or robbery, you know, somebody’s leaving, we want to have access out those doors. The drive thru area and the drive thru lane, we illuminate that because in the past that’s where most conflicts will happen, if they happen, in the parking lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you can read a plate number. MR. BOYEA-Well, plate number, but what you have is you have somebody that’s not paying attention and they’re getting their food. I’m paying, I’ve got to go to the next window, did they give me my sauce, did they do that, they’re in their own little lane, 10 foot lane. You have another lane next to it, it’s a 12 foot lane bypass, that person that somebody had mentioned can somebody go by them. They can’t. So we want to make sure that any spot where there is two cars coming together is illuminated, it’s easy to see, you turn to the right to see if somebody’s coming, it’s lit, and that’s the rationale that we have behind the general lighting of this facility. MR. SIPP-Will there be a walkway between the motel and you, so the people in the motel could walk down? MR. BOYEA-We’ve provided a walk. It ends about three feet from the property line, but the thought is that if they ever develop a walk over there, it’s close to the property line. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because they’re going to walk it anyway. MR. BOYEA-Yes, they’ll put a cow path, I guess is what we call it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly. You’ll have a path there. MR. BOYEA-And it probably won’t be where the sidewalk is. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, with the lighting plan from what I see, it looks like they’re lighting up the center, you know, the safety area, but the outside, like you said, is, you know, is low, so, I mean, you’re creating a light in the center, around the building, for the safety wise, then on the drive thrus. I mean, the eights are a little high over there. I mean, it’s awfully narrow. MR. KREBS-This is also where they’re driving to pick up. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. MAGOWAN-Right. I mean, how much would that drop down if you put like 150 over there along like, say, hypothetically? MR. BOYEA-Well, it would be substantial. You would notice it. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t think, do they have a buck seventy-five? MR. BOYEA-I’m sure we could get one. MR. MAGOWAN-They’re not a standard. I usually see 150, 200’s, 250’s and 4’s. MR. BOYEA-Yes. I mean, on that side we do have some building light, and that’s probably why you’re seeing the higher light fixtures there is because we’ve modeled, there’s some sconces on the building, and those probably contribute to those numbers, but again, the pole height being 20 feet, when you go to 150 watt, it’s only 50 watts, but the height and everything else, and the intensity. MR. MAGOWAN-But I do like the fact that the light is in the center, you know, and it’s so dark over there because it’s so undeveloped, too. MRS. STEFFAN-You know, our lighting standards are different, and they’ve actually changed. They’ve increased a little bit. We used to use uniformity ratios, but if you’ve been to our Wal- Mart on Upper Glen, it’s very dark, you know, our philosophy is dark sky, and so some of the norms that fast food restaurants have for lighting are not the norms in Queensbury. I’ve been to a Wal-Mart in Iowa that was brighter than most airports I’ve been to. You could read a book in the parking lot at night, no lie, and so, you know, we’re trying to be really careful that that doesn’t happen here, because we don’t want a glow that appears to be an airport somewhere, even if it is at a commercial corridor. MR. KREBS-But as Brad pointed out, it’s basically the perimeter is low light. So it’s only on their property that you really have the high intensity lighting. MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s still going to glow. MR. KREBS-Yes, but it’s also going to, you know, in our Wal-Mart parking lot, you have to be very, very careful at night that somebody doesn’t walk behind your car as you’re backing out because you can’t see. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can’t see them. It’s ridiculous. MR. KREBS-I think we have to look at safety also. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but the Zoning Code is the Zoning Code. So we have to comply with it or come up with a good reason why it doesn’t work. I’m hearing varied opinions on the Planning Board. Can we hear from some voices we haven’t heard from? MR. TRAVER-Well, my feeling is that the applicant made a compelling argument for this layout. I think it would be possible to adjust, but difficult. How do other Board members feel about the lighting plan? Do we want to see a revision? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I wouldn’t micromanage it, but I don’t have the insurance for it either, but I certainly would like light because there’s a lot of accidents that happen in a Wal-Mart parking lot, I can tell you that, and there’s also hit and run on drive in windows, and you’ve got to see what’s going on. You’ve only got a second to see it. So you can’t have too much light, as far as I’m concerned. MR. TRAVER-Okay. What about other members? MR. KREBS-Well, I’ve already said that I’m in favor of the lighting, major lighting in the drive areas, because, from a safety standpoint, at night, that makes a big difference when people are backing their cars around. I would, since the perimeter, where you don’t have a lot of light going off the property, I think that’s fine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you don’t have a problem with the plan as presented? MR. KREBS-No. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t, either. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Neither do I. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-I can live with it. MR. TRAVER-I guess I can, too. What do you say, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-At this point it doesn’t matter what I say. I think you should adjust it down a little bit, just so that you find some middle ground between where you are and what the Code wants. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, one of the thoughts that I had was, since we have so many poles, is there a particular, what I had trouble with was trying to identify a particular area where, by removing a pole or altering the wattage, we can have a significant impact on the overall numbers and I couldn’t really find one. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in some of the gas stations we’ve looked at some of the wattage, they’ve modified some of the wattage on some of the lights instead of them all being 200, some were 200, some were 100, or they used a different kind of bulb. So that’s an option that’s available to you. Bruce Frank’s the person who can talk best to that, because they’re different. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and he makes sure that the wattage is what is approved also. He’s very particular about that. MR. TRAVER-Well, we could. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s excessive compared to the Code. MR. TRAVER-Yes, if we simply indicated that it needed to be Code compliant then. MR. MAGOWAN-What do you think you could do to just like tone it down a little bit? MR. BOYEA-I think that the suggestion, we really can’t mix and match bulb type too much, and we wouldn’t suggest that, not on our project but on any of them because there’s different kinds. There’s high pressure sodium and then there’s metal halide and different, and LED. You’ve been through them all. They all have different shades of light. So we’ll try to stay in the same light family. What we could do, and I don’t think it would have too big of an impact, is go to 150 watt on the two poles that are immediately adjacent to the building at the drive thru. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. BOYEA-Because I think that there would probably still be enough light from the building wall sconces in conjunction with the softer lights that are over there to still provide adequate light in that area. However, going to 200 watt lights, as is shown, if we were to remove any poles, I think you would create a dark spot some place on the site. MRS. STEFFAN-So let’s work with the wattage, then. It’s just, the two light centers I’m assuming where the pay window and the pick up window. I mean, one’s got 200 watts and the other one’s got 400 watts, and then in between there’s 300 watts, and so, and actually there’s another C there, so that’s another 100 watts. So, I mean, there’s a lot of spill from the wall packs that are on the building, and so you could work with the wattages on those, I’m sure, to tone it down, and it doesn’t have to be dark, but at the same time, there has to be some reasonableness in that. MR. BOYEA-Yes, and I think that that’s the side of the building that presents to the Adirondack Northway. MR. TRAVER-That’s true. My next question is, what does that do to our timeframe? Can you put the numbers in the plotter and generate those? MR. BOYEA-These are very easy things to change from a technology standpoint. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. BOYEA-Except for grasses oddly enough. I’ll have to search those out, but we’ll do it. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Terrific, all right. I think we’re moving toward a resolution. Any other comments, concerns, questions from members of the Board? MR. FORD-In our guidance, did we confine that to both trees and grasses? Is that the only thing? MR. TRAVER-No, I didn’t hear that. MR. FORD-I want to make sure. MR. TRAVER-I thought, we don’t have a resolution yet. I think we just talked about. MR. BOYEA-Perennials was the last one I heard. So very good point. We should probably clarify those so I can get it right the first time. MR. TRAVER-I think it’s really up to the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-In my mind, grasses falls into the perennial category because they do come up every year. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So we’re looking at landscaping and lighting, and engineering. MR. OBORNE-Are you heading down the road of tabling to November? This is what I’m getting. MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. MR. OBORNE-When you deal with the engineering issues, I think that the Planning Board has relayed to the applicant that the traffic is okay as designed. So when you do your resolution for engineering signoff, make sure it’s specific to the first, how many comments are there, 14, 11, first 11, associated with engineering, just so Sean is aware of that. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that. Okay. I’m still re-reading that Number One comment. I mean, I. MR. OBORNE-Well, I can speak to that, I mean, that is a requirement. You need to show a 50 year storm, and he’s an engineer, that’s the way their brains work. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. LAPPER-If you’re showing 100, you’re showing a 50. MR. OBORNE-Not necessarily. Different calculations involved. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that’s exactly what he’s saying. MR. FORD-Maybe you’re showing two 50’s. MR. OBORNE-I didn’t say logic was part of the deal here. MR. TRAVER-I think it’s really just the way that it’s worded that causes confusion for the layperson, and is there a particular meeting that would be best? MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, whichever one, I think the second one would actually be preferable. th MR. TRAVER-Okay. That’s with a deadline of the 26. MR. OBORNE-And would you like to have in hand a sign off on that date from the engineer? MR. LAPPER-By the meeting. th MR. OBORNE-By the meeting, correct, or by the 26. MR. FORD-By the meeting. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be better. MR. OBORNE-I would suggest you leave the public hearing open at this point. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. TRAVER-Okay. We will then be looking at a motion to table this item and we will leave the public hearing open. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MR. TRAVER- RESOLUTION TABLING SITE PLAN 54-2011 HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE – TACO BELL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,800 sq. ft. Taco Bell. Restaurant and/or new commercial use in a CI zone require Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/18/2011; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2011 HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th This is tabled to the November 17 Planning Board meeting. The submission deadline for new th information will be at the close of business on Wednesday, October 26. This is tabled for the following, so that the applicant can: 1.Provide an enhanced landscaping plan. He will add robust plantings on borders of the stormwater retention basin. Borders will be three to four feet wide with perennial species from the approved list. 2.The applicant will update the lighting plan data, specifically decreasing wattages to improve compliance with the Zoning Code. 3.The applicant will obtain engineering signoff on Items One through Eleven. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-We didn’t get you approval this month, but we’ll see you next month. MR. FORD-See you next month. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2011 FINAL STAGE DAWN HLAVATY-STARRATT AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOCATION GLEN LAKE ROAD, ACROSS FROM ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.67 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2.16 +/- ACRES TO 5.10 +/- ACRES SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 36-11 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LK. CEA LOT SIZE 14.67 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-87.1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-We are at the Final Stage for this subdivision. I’m pretty sure the Planning Board is familiar with this application at this point. We have all signoffs in hand, to include the fire chief at this point, and that seemed to be the main issue with this. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-I do have one issue that I’d like to bring up, from a Staff perspective, that wasn’t responded to, and maybe Tom Hutchins can respond to it. There’s a bank at the entrance to the subdivision that could potentially be a sight line issue. I don’t know if those banks are proposed to be cut back or not. If so, if we can get that on the record, that would be greatly appreciated, and I do want to read in to the record, if I can find it, for the record, the following from the Fire Chief of Queensbury Central. “An onsite review was conducted of the proposed subdivision property at 157 Glen Lake Rd. by Chief Sirnrnes and myself. There were several needed changes that were presented to the Fire Marshal's office. It is our understanding that these 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) issues were addressed with the Queensbury Planning Board and the following changes were proposed to suit our concerns: Maximum grade of driving surfaces will be 12% An asphalt driving surface 16' in width and approximately 700' in length is proposed. Within the 700'' will be contained a paved area 20' wide x 50' in length to accommodate apparatus passing. The balance of the driving surface including the Cul-De-Sac turn around will be a gravel compacted surface to 90,000 lbs. We do accept these proposed changes to the plan as long as the property owner and the planning board understand and recognize two points of concern. The first is in regards to the all the driving surfaces both paved and gravel with the exception of the individual driveways for each home. It was our intent that all the common driving surfaces be 20' in width to accommodate apparatus passing, large diameter hose as well as other facets of a fire suppression incident. We will accept the single 50' section of 20' in width with the understanding that we raised a concern and that this has the potential to have a severe negative impact on fire and rescue operations for the residents of the subdivision. The second is that we strongly suggest that a retaining wall be placed on the uphill side of the grade to stop a shift in debris on to the road surface that will prohibit an emergency response to the homes. Less than perfect weather conditions constitute a large portion of the time we spend responding to incidents and anything that can be done to help keep passages clear for our apparatus will only assist the residents with receiving a rapid response to their emergency. It should be noted however that we do not recommend holding the project on this concern only that the retaining wall be considered and ultimately placed into the project. If there are any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact either Chief Rich Simmes at 361-5284 or myself at 361-3373. Jeff Hirsch, Asst. Chief” Queensbury Central Fire Company. Also archeological issues have been taken care of and endangered species has been taken care of, and again we’re at Final subdivision approval. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins with Dawn and Greg Starratt, and I would add engineering has been taken care of to the list of things that have been taken care of, and we’re here for Final. I won’t go through the whole project again. Just to highlight a couple of things we’ve agreed to, I met with the Fire Marshall, not with the Fire Chief, and the Fire Marshall did the negotiation with the Fire Chief, and we agreed to extend the paved area just a slight bit further than what we had shown at the last meeting. That, I believe, is the only detail that has changed on these plans since Preliminary. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’ve incorporated that into these plans. MR. HUTCHINS-We have incorporated that into these plans, and besides resolving engineering issues, most of which was done in writing and really didn’t impact plans, it was more storm reports and responses. So with that we’ll turn it over to the Board. We feel, we’re hopeful to wrap this up tonight. MR. TRAVER-What about the sight line issue that was raised by Staff? MR. HUTCHINS-There is a cut at that. We are cutting a small amount at that area, and we have no problem with making sure that we have a good sight line there. I mean, that’s. MR. TRAVER-I wouldn’t think you would, but let’s get that on the record. GREG STARRATT MR. STARRATT-Actually we’ve moved a little bit out on each side. The road bends there, so you’re actually seeing up both sides. It’s one of the best spots, considering some of the other driveways that we have going on to it. That one will be the best one, once it’s (lost word) there. MR. OBORNE-If we could get that shown on the final plans, so Code Compliance can make sure it’s installed properly. MR. HUTCHINS-No problem. MR. FORD-What was the actual extension of the pavement? MR. HUTCHINS-It went from 600 feet to 700 feet to take the asphalt surface beyond the apparatus turnout and the first set of driveways. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Yes, these first set of driveways are adjacent to each other. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. HUTCHINS-It went from 650 to 700 to get beyond that. MR. TRAVER-There were some other site plan comments about slope protection and so on. Those have been resolved? MR. OBORNE-They haven’t been installed into the plan. I just bring them up, two issues, obviously. The soils don’t really, aren’t conducive to stabilization based on track run, and I believe, Tom, you’re proposing matting along the slopes. I know that there’s one note on there that you’re going to remove the matting afterwards, and I suggest that that not happen. MR. HUTCHINS-I searched the plans today, the current plans, and I could not find where your reference to that is, but we would not remove matting. If it says it there, we went through every word and I couldn’t find it. MR. OBORNE-I’ll show it to you. MR. HUTCHINS-We would not remove the jute matting, no. MR. OBORNE-That kind of makes sense. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Very good. Any other questions, comments, concerns? I know we’ve spent quite a bit of time on this project. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a note here on additional comments, Keith, on the condition of approval, direct the applicant to provide deed language regarding the shared driveways and cross access driveways. MR. OBORNE-That is a requirement of the sub regs, and I did speak to Dawn yesterday, and I don’t know if you talked to Matt at all about that. MR. HUTCHINS-I did speak with Matt. Matt’s working on it, and he has done it in other situations and it goes through Town Counsel. He knows exactly what he has to do. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Anything else? All right. So, let’s see, we’re left to showing cuts on the driveway, sight line issue on the final plans, verifying there’s no language on the plans showing the matting to be removed. I think the deed issue that’s Code anyway. That doesn’t need to be part of our resolution, and the changes as a result of discussions with the Fire Marshall will need to be reflected on the final plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, Tom’s saying that that’s there, the language on the plan. Otherwise we’re going to have to. MR. HUTCHINS-Which language? MRS. STEFFAN-About making sure that the driveways are 20 feet and that they talked about retaining wall, but we’re not. MR. HUTCHINS-I believe everything he mentions in there is a reiteration of the plans as we have presented them. I don’t think he’s asking for anything in addition. The only thing he mentioned that we don’t have on there is a retaining wall, and we don’t feel that’s necessary with the cuts that we’ve proposed and the soils that are native to that area. MR. TRAVER-And the letter reflects that it’s really more in the way of a suggestion than a requirement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s what the Fire Marshall says that’s important, because he has authority in a town that doesn’t have fire districts. The Fire Chief doesn’t. So they discussed it and the Fire Marshall has said that that’s it. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry, the Fire Marshall? Okay, and we had met with Mr. Palmer. He was happy with our plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He has responsibility because it’s a fire protection district, and the Town controls fire protection districts. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So what language do I put in there? You guys tell me. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Fire Marshall approved it. That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think that we can, I don’t think we need to require a signoff because they’ve already got it. So, I think as far as Final, we don’t need to refer to those comments. MRS. STEFFAN-But Keith has a letter we don’t have. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. I received it at 6:55 this evening. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s for bringing it, Keith. MR. TRAVER-It is part of the record. MR. OBORNE-It is part of the record. I read it into the record. What’s the issue, I’m sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-Whether I have to put any conditions on the approval that speak to that letter. MR. OBORNE-No, I don’t think so. I think that stands on its own. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So that leaves us with. MRS. STEFFAN-The bank at the entrance of the subdivision needs to be cut back for improved two way visibility. This needs to be denoted on final plans. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So that’s one, and then, two, okay, we need to ensure language. Okay. So I have three things, the bank cuts, the language on the matting, and then the deed language. Okay. So those are the three things. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think on the language of the matting, they did a search of the plan and did not find the language that the matting would be removed, but that’s fine. MR. HUTCHINS-And we’re fine with that. If it says the matting will be removed, it’s an error. It shouldn’t be. I couldn’t find it. I know there was a table several iterations ago, way back that did say that. MRS. STEFFAN-And, Keith, you don’t care about the condition of approval about slope stabilization because of the kind of soils that are on the site. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, he’s proposing reinforced matting in this case. It’s not just a straight seeding. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you closed the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-I have not. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB. # 3-2011 DAWN H. STARRATT A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.67 +/- acre parcel into four lots ranging in size from 2.16 +/- acres to 5.10 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 7/19/2011; an engineering sign-off was issued on 9/16/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2011 DAWN HLAVATY- STARRATT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 3)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; 4)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 5)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; 6) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: 1.The approved final 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; 2.The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 7) This is approved with three conditions: 1.The bank at the entrance to the subdivision needs to be cut back for improved two way visibility. This needs to be denoted on the final plans. 2.The applicant needs to ensure that the language regarding upgrading slope protection matting will not be removed from the plans. 3.That the applicants will provide deed language to be reviewed and approved by Town Counsel regarding shared driveway, cross access driveways, interconnected parking and private roads constructed to provide access to the properties internal to this subdivision that shall be recorded as an easement and shall constitute a covenant running with the land. Operating and maintenance agreements for these facilities shall be recorded with the deed. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 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. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Congratulations. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 63-2011 SEQR TYPE II FRANCIS T. COLLINS AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 5 COLLINS DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE OF USE FROM A GENTLEMEN’S CLUB TO A DANCE STUDIO. CHANGE OF USE AND NO SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 11-441; SP 29-91, UV 14-91, SV 102-92; MANY BP’S WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/12/2011 LOT SIZE 6.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-7 SECTION § 179-9 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 63-2011, Francis T. Collins is the applicant. This is Site Plan Review for a change in use and no Site Plan Review in the last seven years. 5 Collins Drive is the location. This is in the Commercial Intensive zoning off of Bay Road. It’s a Type II SEQRA. th Warren County Planning Board issued a No County Impact on the 12 of October. Project Description: Applicant proposes a change of use from a Social Club to a Dance Studio for an existing 1,665 square foot building. Staff Comments: The building is situated on a 6.42 acre parcel on the west side of Bay Road and is one of four structures located on the site. Parking appears adequate for all uses to include requested use with 9 dedicated spaces located at the front of the building and additional parking located across the travel lane north of the building. If using Personal Service as the proposed use for parking calculations, the applicant would be required to have 6 spaces. The applicant has requested waivers from lighting, grading, landscaping, and stormwater requirements. What follows is Site Plan Review. I do touch on landscaping. Also to the rear of the parcel the gravel surface associated with the extreme southwestern areas of the site in need of attention. Although not wholly confined to this parcel, the lack of a coordinated traffic control plan on site and the compacted nature of the site in general contributes to drainage issues. Although snow storage should not be an issue on this site, a location should be denoted on the plan, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. This is not a very complicated application. It’s a very small building on a large site. It’s toward the front of this site, and what they propose is a dance studio in what was a social club. It’s a small building. I guess my first question was what is a social club, but I think they played cards there, but if you’ve been to this site, you will see that they’ve tried to dress up the site recently. I think they put some new paving in the front of it and they’ve striped the parking so that it laid out formal parking where before it wasn’t. There was also a question either in one of the Staff Notes or comments, about the crossing of the property behind the storage buildings which are behind this building here from people who work at C.R. Bard, and Mr. Collins, who really didn’t know he was going to make this application, and had scheduled something else and he’s out of town tonight, has since gone to the site manager at C.R. Bard. They do not have a right of way. They do not have an easement to go through his property. It was just something that people were doing to accommodate themselves to get out of the back parking from C.R. Bard. They’ve put fencing up since then. It’s the construction type fencing, but it entirely blocks off that. So I think it takes care of all the traffic issues or traffic problems. This is a small dance school, typical class is 10 students. Once in a while they may get more than that. They operate, and I’ve got a copy of their schedule, from 3:45 in the afternoon to no later than nine, nine fifteen, sometimes nine thirty at night. I stopped there tonight on the way home and they had a class going on. I think they had about eight people in the class. They were dropped off. They were there for, the kids were going to be there for about an hour, two hours, and this was one of their longer classes. There weren’t any great number of cars out there. I think the instructor’s car was out there, and that’s basically it. The back of the site, which I think Staff is talking about, has gravel for surface for the parking. That’s warehousing that trucks go to and from. They use the driveway which is on the north side of the little restaurant to get to it. So, Mr. Collins, who is very fortunate in these times to be able to get a new tenant, and they appear to have a very unique use. They aren’t going to be a problem on the site. So that’s why we’re here, to get it approved. MR. TRAVER-A comment was just made by a Board member that we didn’t get your name on the record. If you could just state your name for the record. MR. O'CONNOR-Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes. My understanding is that that gravel in the back is, I think I heard it described as roughly equivalent to the surface of the moon or something along those areas. Are there plans to remediate that in any way? MR. O'CONNOR-Not that I’m aware of. MR. TRAVER-Not that you’re aware of. MR. O'CONNOR-No, it was used only for the truck traffic. I think they did pave the area that’s in front of this building. In fact, to a degree behind this building for the parking that serves this 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) building and serves that little restaurant that’s there, and there’s a beauty shop. The beauty shop on the south end at the front, a little restaurant that probably seats 20 people on the north end of the front, and then this building here. Those areas, surfaces are pretty well paved. MR. TRAVER-Okay. There’s also a comment about landscaping. Have you given any thought, or has the applicant, about landscaping? You mentioned that they had put some work into improving the appearance of the property. MR. O'CONNOR-I think they did when they re-paved in front of the building and striped it and striped over on the other end of the side of the building as well. There isn’t a lot of room for landscaping. This building is back off the road. It’s not something that’s going to be seen. I don’t think you actually see this building going up and down Bay Road. MRS. STEFFAN-You don’t, you have to go in there to see it. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Really? Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t have a full site plan, but they did submit one that shows where the building is. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve been back there. There’s a furniture store back there. There’s a printer there, and I’ve been back there many times through the years, but I’ve just never remembered that building until I took a drive around. MR. O'CONNOR-The last time I was familiar with that building I think I got a permit for Enterprise auto, and that’s some time ago, because since then Enterprise auto went over on to Glen Street, but they were there for a while. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Interesting. MR. MAGOWAN-You don’t even see it. (Lost words) some movement back there, and it’s really, with the trucking company all the way in the back, I mean, there’s not much, I mean, I go to Brennan’s, there, and, you know, that parking lot is pretty rough itself, too. So I think it’s been a massive improvement to bring in the dance studio, some movement back there, and I think it will bring other steps to improving all that area back there. So I think it’s a good idea. MR. TRAVER-Any questions, concerns, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-I have none. MRS. STEFFAN-I mean, I’d love to see some landscaping, but, you know, I don’t know. MR. TRAVER-Well, there is a public hearing scheduled on this application for tonight. Is there anyone here who’d like to address the Board about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TRAVER-Are there any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. O'CONNOR-And I suppose I should, for your record, say that one of the waivers requested was for lighting. There’s no new proposed lighting. So what is there is there. MR. TRAVER-It appears from the photograph that that one outside light, I don’t know if that’s considered downcast. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s an older style downcast. MR. TRAVER-That’s a relatively old. MR. O'CONNOR-Which is probably also not visible to anybody except somebody in front of that building. They do go in, but you can’t see it in this picture, there’s a sign on the front door to use that back door. They have it set up so that there’s a seating area for the students before they go in to the like classroom. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. O'CONNOR-And that’s where their office is. So they go in that back, well, you had the other photo. The go in on the left hand side of the building. So that’s what that light serves is to give them light to get back there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there a walkway there? MR. O'CONNOR-I thought there was when I went back. I don’t know if it’s new or not. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I think the picture we have, it’s a little rough, but it looks like there’s a path. That would be that door here, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I know it’s the door on the top, if that’s the same picture of it. MR. MAGOWAN-Right there? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that’s it. MR. MAGOWAN-I think that’s just a closer view, and the walkway comes right off that. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought there was even pavement of some nature there. MR. OBORNE-So up on this picture is part of the door you’re talking about. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought when I looked at the site plan you went in the front doors and that’s where the office was and then the back was all the dance studio. MR. O'CONNOR-The day when I was there, there was a class there, and there was a sign up on the door, go to the side door. Now, I don’t know if they do that once the class is there. I don’t know. MR. TRAVER-It actually looks like there might be a sign, it’s hard to see with that photograph. There might be a small sign on the door. MR. O'CONNOR-There was a paper sign. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s so you don’t interrupt a class coming in. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, because if you look at that, you look at the floor plan, then that would be the door coming in over here. The door’s right here, and then that would be the dance studio up here. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, Planning Board, how do you feel about landscaping? MR. KREBS-I don’t think it’s necessary. MR. MAGOWAN-You bring that up, planters? MRS. STEFFAN-It would be cute as a button with window boxes. MR. OBORNE-There are locations for landscaping on this, but, you know, the question is, what would the Board want at this point. MR. TRAVER-Who’s going to admire it? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who’s going to see it? MR. OBORNE-The general public that frequents the place would see. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How about the gravel surfacing? Planning Board members have an issue with that? Leave it alone, take it? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I’d say leave it alone, based on the. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. FORD-Leave it alone. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, snow storage? Denote that on the plan? MR. O'CONNOR-I would think the snow storage is out in the back, if they have a problem, if they can’t put it near this building, they just plow it out in the back. Because the site opens up beyond this building into, there’s a good area in front of that big warehouse. It used to be Dempsey’s block and steel back there. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I think there are enough options. MRS. STEFFAN-That would be easy to denote on the plan, just put where snow storage is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think that there are enough options, in this case, that it doesn’t need to be denoted. MRS. STEFFAN-You don’t think so? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and site plan was generated in ’91 and should be updated to reflect existing conditions to include macadam areas on site as well as interconnect with adjoining parcels. MR. OBORNE-Again, that’s a requirement. I mean, you’d have to update the site plan at this point. MR. O'CONNOR-What he submitted was a 1991 site plan? MR. OBORNE-Yes. All the buildings were shown, but the only change that would be required would be the denotation of macadam on the site. It shouldn’t be too difficult to do. MR. O'CONNOR-Can he do that? Roughly? MR. OBORNE-We can discuss that. MR. O'CONNOR-We can draw lines on it. MR. TRAVER-You might want to note, for example, that Shop N Save is now Hannaford. Things have changed. MR. MAGOWAN-And Stan’s Seafood is the Convenient Medical. MR. TRAVER-Right. There you go. th MR. O'CONNOR-You have to know Frank to appreciate Frank. Frank showed up on the 15 of whatever month he filed and said I’ve been told I’ve got to file site plan, what do you think, and I said you file it. He never gave me a copy and then told me he was going out of town, and I apologize, I don’t have a copy of what you’re looking at in front of you. MR. TRAVER-You do, now. MR. OBORNE-So it would be appreciated if the site plan was updated. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. OBORNE-To the Year 2011. MR. TRAVER-Right. So we have another seven years. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and I’m not hearing any other conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. So you closed the public hearing. MR. TRAVER-We did open it. I will close the public hearing, in case I didn’t do it already. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN 63-2011 FRANCIS T. COLLINS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a change of use from a Social Club to a Dance Studio. Change of Use and no site plan review within the past seven years requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/18/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-2011 FRANCIS T. COLLINS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 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 satisfies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II SEQRA; 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; 4)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, & lighting plans. 5)And it is approved with one condition: a)That the applicant must submit an updated site plan to reflect existing conditions on site. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-And it is approved with one condition, that the applicant must submit an updated site plan to reflect existing conditions to include macadam areas on site as well as interconnects with adjoining parcels. MR. O'CONNOR-There is no interconnect, that I’m aware of, with adjoining parcels. MR. OBORNE-There was an interconnect, now that they’ve put up construction fencing, is my understanding? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. OBORNE-To eliminate that interconnect. MR. O'CONNOR-It wasn’t by easement. It wasn’t by agreement or right of way. It was people just using it as a convenience. MRS. STEFFAN-Including macadam areas on site as well as. MR. TRAVER-Can’t we just say existing conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Let me amend that so that the condition is that the applicant will submit an updated site plan to reflect existing conditions on site. AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Is it my understanding, when you say existing conditions, that you’re saying existing conditions in and about this building? You’re not talking the whole 6.31 acres? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. OBORNE-6.31 acres. MR. O'CONNOR-Come on. This is a 1500 foot tenant. MR. OBORNE-The only existing conditions that you’re going to have to show, although there would be a couple, would be the name changes associated with the buildings, and the construction fence going across and the location of the macadam. MR. O'CONNOR-All right, but I don’t want to have to have a surveyor come in and survey six acres. MR. OBORNE-You have a site plan right there. You can amend that site plan. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Okay. I’ll amend it. All right. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 64-2011 SEQR TYPE II ROBERT L. PERKINS AGENT(S) MARK REHM, ESQ. OWNER(S) NDC REALTY, LLC ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 319 & 315 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE VACANT BUILDINGS AND DEVELOP PROPERTY AS A RECYCLING CENTER AND OFFICE SPACE FOR MULTIPLE TENANTS. CHANGE IN USE AND NO SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 10-10, SP 7-11 SP 57-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/12/2011 LOT SIZE 6.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-7 SECTION § 179-9 TOM NACE & MARK REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-This is a special use permit for a recycling use at 319 & 315 Corinth Road. This is in a Commercial Light Industrial zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. There is no further action th required on this. Warren County Planning Board issued a No County Impact on October 12, and review should be before you. Project Description: Applicant proposes to use vacant buildings and utilize property as a plastic and cardboard recycling center. Upgrades include the installation of a covered truck scale, new landscaping, and increased access management. Further, the applicant proposes to sub lease existing office space to multiple tenants. Change in use and no site plan review within the last seven years requires Planning Board review and approval. Staff comments: The structures are currently vacant and were the former site of the Northern Distributing Company. The applicant proposes to provide access management by removing approximately 5,500 square feet of asphalt fronting Corinth Road and installing landscaping. As the existing site has unlimited access the proposed reconfiguration will result in two access points. Waivers from Lighting, Grading and Stormwater requirements have been requested. As far as my site plan review, please pay particular attention to the change to the southwestern interconnect as proposed. I strongly oppose that being removed. As a result of only one road proposed for access, the secondary access is vital, in my estimation. Parking does appear adequate, also associated with the potential use for additional offices, I think that works very well. Again, snow storage areas for the northern areas should be denoted. What else do we have here that’s, yes, on the landscaping plan, there is an issue that it is going into the right of way on Corinth Road, and there might be some sight line issues with that. I had spoken earlier with, now I can’t remember his last name, but John, the guy who handled the subdivision. MR. REHM-John Kelly? MR. OBORNE-John Kelly, and I apologize for not remembering your last name, because I did meet him out in the parking lot. We did take care of all that subdivision aspects of this as of today. So we’re good in that regard, but what I would be looking for, if you look at the landscaping plan, it is way out into the Corinth Road area and there are berms associated with this. So maybe if we could take that whole portion of the project and move it back to where the property line is, that may work pretty well, but that’s just a suggestion or a recommendation at this point. Looking out, any outside storage areas should be discussed at this time, signage details, and the rest are on the review, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things that I’ve got noted right away is the Staff Notes, it should be tabled unless the deed was filed with the County. MR. OBORNE-The deed has been filed with the County and has been confirmed. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. REHM-Good evening. My name is Mark Rehm. I represent Robert Perkins. I also have Jeff Davis from Perkins Recycling who may be able to help give some insight as to some of the operations and also Tom Nace, the engineer to the project. I thought it best if we were all present so we could answer fully and completely. I’m going to go through my spiel here and I’ll show you some pictures and then open it up to you for discussion. The applicant proposes to use the existing vacant buildings to utilize property as a plastic and cardboard recycling center. If anybody’s been up to the Warren Street project up there where they have currently operated for several years, they would see what is going on, and what goes on. I think, first of all, they should be commended for those operations. They run a clean shop, a good shop, and it’ll be nice to have it in this location where it’s being moved to. The proposal seeks, basically, to install a covered truck scale. In case anybody doesn’t know what it looks like, I have one picture here. I think that I had submitted it. I hope it’s in your packet. If anyone wants to look at it, I have it available. They also like to, the applicant would like to beautify the site with new landscaping. When we had sat down with the planning folks, and Keith in particular, we wanted to address a lot of the concerns that the Town has. We have no problem moving back the landscaping plan four to five feet, in order to accommodate and get out of that right of way, and in order to accommodate sight distance. We certainly want it to be safe, you know, ingress and egress. We don’t want to cause any problems there. We’re very flexible on that. You’ll note that, well, let me first show you the project. You’ve probably seen the site. You’ve been there. The building’s been unused. We want to basically use it. We’ve, if you look at your plan here, and I don’t have a fancy stand here, I don’t know if you want me to show you the picture here, if you’ve got it out and available, but I think what you might note is what we hope to do is to improve the access, the ingress and egress from the property. You’ll see that there’s two access points. There’s a 35 foot wide area where the trucks for Perkins Recycling will be pulling in and out of, following the site flow, in and to the recycling center, and I kind of want to point out, this isn’t a traditional recycling center where you have the general public coming in and out and putting bottles in and doing that. It’s not going to be a high volume, as far as number of people. Trucks from Perkins Recycling will be coming in and delivering and following that site plan, you know, as it’s shown on the site plan. So they’ll be using, to get in and to get out, that one ingress and egress, the 35 foot wide access point. You’ll see the other access point which is a 25 foot wide access point that leads to the office space. We wanted to remain a little bit flexible with that, but we think maybe one tenant, maybe two, given 3200 square feet, we couldn’t imagine going smaller than 1600 square foot for an office. So we’re proposing one to two, provided adequate parking, therefore, and I propose that other entrance way to be used for those office spaces. We did take a look at the Fire Marshall’s comment, and I think it points to what Keith had pointed out, and I have this marked in yellow in the back. If you look at where we have proposed, there’s a hatched line in the back. I think they want us to keep that open. We’re willing to do that, especially for public safety, you know, if somebody needs to get in there for emergency purposes, we’ll leave it open. We have no problem accommodating the Town in that regard. Also, if you’ll look at another area which will be left open, again, for the health and safety purposes, between the two, the existing site just to the, right next to us, and I’m forgetting my directions, yes, Green Mountain, to the west. Now, we don’t really want it to become a public thoroughfare for their folks to come in and out, they have their own entrance and egress, but if, for emergency purposes, or, you know, if delivery trucks come through that way, as opposed to sending them out and about, we don’t have a problem with that. We don’t want it overused. We don’t want it to become a highway for people to cross our property just for, you know, the sheer convenience of getting in to the neighboring parcel through our entrance, and I think that that’s not an unreasonable request. As Keith said, the parking that is proposed is adequate for 3200 square feet of office space. Mr. Nace has located the snow storage location. He will do so for the northern area where they’re concerned. We have no problem. There’s plenty of place to put the snow. We’ll put the location on the site plan. The applicant’s willing to provide signage to the same, you know, they’re going to comply with the signage requirements. Once the approval is sought, see they’re in the process of purchasing this property, and to design a sign, it’s certainly going to comply with the Code. It’s going to be a nice sign. It’s going to be in the same location as the sign that exists. We just didn’t feel, at this point, you know, without knowing whether we have a project approved or not, to get a sign person to get in there and design the actual sign, but it’s going to be in accordance with the Code, and we have no problem with that. If you’ll look at the refuse area, it is located, there is a dumpster located in the back. There’s very little that’s going to be out there. It is out of sight from any public thoroughfare, meaning Carey Road, or Corinth Road, and so that’s why there’s no screening involved. It’s going to be back there, it’s out of sight, out of mind, as far as the applicant is concerned. You’ll notice the two landscaping plans, one of which, the initial plan, was presented to the Board. You’ll notice that there’s grass that is proposed on that landscaping plan. Northland Gardens designed it. It’s a pretty comprehensive plan. It looks to be a good plan. The alternate plan, which came to my attention much later in the process and, you know, I felt the need to present it to the Planning Department, they had not reviewed it, according to their notes. If you look at it closely, what really differs boils down to maintenance for the applicant themselves. It changes the grassy area to a gravel type mix, and it’s not what you would call 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) just regular gravel. It’s a designer gravel. It’ll look nice, and what it does is cuts down on the maintenance for the applicant down the road. Let’s keep it looking nice, in other words. I’ve talked to Mr. Nace about it. It doesn’t seem, at least, and I’ll let him explain further, but from my lay standpoint of view, it doesn’t seem to impact stormwater at all. I mean, it still absorbs the water. I’ll let you embellish on that point, if you would. MR. NACE-Well, typically we treat gravel as pavement, but this is not a traveled surface. It’s not a surface that’s going to be driven on. It’s just simply a landscaping bed with gravel on it. So it’s still pervious. MR. REHM-Now you’ll see it’s a pretty detailed plan. Like I said, Northland Gardens did produce that, and if anybody has any questions, what they tried to do is use from the approved list plantings, etc., and really try to comply with beautifying that corridor, which I think everybody can appreciate. We looked for waivers for stormwater, for lighting and for grading. It seems, on second thought, really we have taken back and done the stormwater management. We had Tom Nace do that, and so really that’s, we’re not asking for a waiver on that component. The lighting is going to remain as it is, you know, as it exists now. I’m sure if you drive by it at night, that’s what you’re going to see at night, what exists now. As far as grading goes, you know, we are still requesting a waiver on that. The site is going to exist as it has existed for years. Stormwater management, I’ll let Tom answer any questions on that, but it certainly seems to comply. There was that question about the design for the 50 year storm, and those items can be easily addressed, in my opinion, by the engineer, Mr. Nace, and I think we can come into compliance with the engineer’s report, and I’ll let him discuss those issues, if they become any further issue. I just wanted to, in closing here, stress the following. I just, I really think they should be commended for their operations on Warren Street. You see they run a clean shop. It’s not a new person coming in and doing something different. It’s somebody that’s going to really add to that corridor, beautify that corridor, and improve the safety of the corridor, and they want to put a perfectly good building to use instead of letting it sit and sit and sit. It’ll just get into disrepair. They want to improve the ingress and egress, and they want to conduct a green business, bring green business to that corridor, which I think is admirable. So I’m going to leave it up to Tom to address any of the engineering concerns, and then if the Board has any questions, we’re all here to answer those. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-I think I must have been having a senior moment when I did the drainage on this, as far as calculations. I did 25 years, just not thinking. It is 50 years required for commercial sites. I have gone back and re-run the numbers at 50 years, and everything still works. There’s still half a foot of freeboard in the infiltration trench. So I will submit those revised calcs to Chazen for their review, but it does work fine. There were a couple of typos in the stormwater report. The soils are really Oakville. They’re not Windsor sands, as it says in one place. They’ve suggested that we provide erosion and sediment control for the project. The only thing that that possibly would apply to would be to any stockpiled material, and I don’t anticipate that there will be any, but we’ll put a detail on the drawing in case there is. It’s a fairly straightforward, simple excavation or paving job. It’s all flat. Everything stays on site. It doesn’t go anywhere. So, I think that’s pretty much it. They wanted, just for verification of groundwater separation to the bottom of infiltration surface. They wanted a deep test pit, and they say it would be okay to do that at the commencement of construction. So that’s what we would propose is when we start construction we’ll dig a six foot hole and make sure we have two foot of separation. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Tom, do you anticipate running across any layers of water or do you plan on hitting any high water tables there? MR. NACE-No, not from the work we’ve done in the back part of Carey Park, no. I expect you could dig 15 feet and you might be starting to see groundwater possibilities, but. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Okay. I mean, I think everybody’s aware of the soils in that area. They’re extremely deep and well drained. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s very sandy in that part of Town. What about, one of the comments, outside storage areas should be discussed, any racking, storage bins, storage containers or staging areas proposed? MR. REHM-None are proposed at this time because basically it won’t be occurring, my understanding, and I’ll let the applicant who runs the business explain what goes on. That might give you a better idea. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) JEFF DAVIS MR. DAVIS-Yes. We don’t store anything outside. We may have an occasional stack of pallets or something like that, but we don’t have any racking. Most of our storage is in storage trailers that we own and they’re fully closed. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and so are they on the plan, storage trailers? Do you have those on the plan, where you might put them? MR. DAVIS-Trailer storage is just storage of various trailers. We don’t separate the empties and fold or anything. MR. REHM-The southeast corner, yes, where it shows, denotes truck parking in the back, you’ll see. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-The reason I asked that question about racking is the neighbors, Green Mountain Electric, took it upon themselves to build racking, without site plan approval. So I just wanted to make sure that, you can thank your neighbors for that question. MR. REHM-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-So, Keith, are we okay with, those parking spaces are denoted for truck parking. What about storage trailers? Do we? MR. OBORNE-Is that the location that you plan on putting the storage trailers? If not. MR. DAVIS-Storage or empty or partially, they’ll all be. MR. OBORNE-You may want to expand that area to give you a little bit more malleability, give you a little more room to do that. MR. REHM-We can certainly do that. MR. OBORNE-Because I think those are the trailers for the tractor trailers, that’s, I believe, the location where you would put those, my understanding of your operation, and, you know, if you’re going to have, you know, some of the shipping containers or something along those lines. MR. DAVIS-No, when I say storage trailers, it’s just a trailer that’s no longer roadworthy. So it’s just used to storage material and it’s handled with the tractor trailers. MR. OBORNE-And how many do you think that you would have on site? MR. DAVIS-Maybe six or eight. MR. OBORNE-You might want to denote six or eight. MR. REHM-We can certainly do that. MR. DAVIS-We can add six or eight areas for that. MR. OBORNE-I’m assuming the Planning Board doesn’t have a problem with that, too. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No, we’ve approved like the electric companies, you know, they all have tractor trailers that they store materials in. MR. OBORNE-Yes, as long as it’s on the plan and the Planning Board approves that, then you’re good to go. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who was here before, Northern? MR. REHM-Northern Distributing. Yes. Well, there was somebody in between. Was there somebody in between? I can’t recall. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, well, we did Gross Electric on the other side of Town, and also in Carey Park there’s a company that does electrical. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. MAGOWAN-There’s the, yes, electric motor company. MR. TRAVER-How do folks feel about the signage details? I mean, we don’t have them. MRS. STEFFAN-I put any future signage will be Code compliant. MR. TRAVER-Code compliant. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, so that means you can get rid of that ugly metal thing first and start over? MR. REHM-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we want to put preferably a monument sign or, you know, do we have any feelings on that? MR. KREBS-I just think whatever, Code compliant. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-As long as there’s no red LED. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, obviously, I want to put that in. I went down Bay Street today. MR. MAGOWAN-Isn’t that bright? MRS. STEFFAN-The Cumberland Farms, it is this huge, the letters are this big. They’re bright red, and it is the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen. MR. MAGOWAN-I saw that and you’re the first thing that came to my mind. She would hate that. MR. REHM-No neon here. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t like it either, though. I have to admit, I do not like that. MR. TRAVER-There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that would like to address the Board on this application? Good evening. State your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ALLEN & DEBBIE RONDO MR. RONDO-Allen Rondo. MRS. RONDO-Debbie Rondo. MR. RONDO-We just wanted to know what the hours of operation would be. MRS. RONDO-And what kind of traffic it’s going to produce. We own property on Merritt Road. Our backyard faces that site. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. RONDO-And we can see the buildings right behind us, and obviously in wintertime it gets opened up more because the trees are, we’re concerned about the noise issue and exactly what’s going to be going on over there. We don’t want any foreign smells or anything. MR. RONDO-We hear enough through the Green Mountain Electric when they get their trucks in, and the clattering and the bumping and banging of the trucks, which is understandable. I do construction for a living, but when I come home, I don’t want to be hearing that. MR. TRAVER-Right, I understand. MRS. RONDO-Yes. We’re very concerned about it. We have kids. We have animals. We have, you know, and our backyard is right there. MR. TRAVER-Sure. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. MAGOWAN-Are you the one with the barking dogs? MRS. RONDO-Hey. No, I don’t leave my dogs outside. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. RONDO-Maybe the guy across the street. MR. MAGOWAN-That could be. MR. OBORNE-There you go, good answer. MR. RONDO-But that was our main concern. MR. TRAVER-So hours of operation, concern about noise and/or traffic. Those are your main concerns. MRS. RONDO-Yes, make sure we’re not going to have any weird smells coming over that something is going to be added outside or stayed outside, because it can, we know the recycling place over on Luzerne, that you can go by there, the traffic is horrendous on their days of operation, and I know this is only for their commercial use, but still the traffic, we have enough traffic going on right now with the new light that’s right by Stewarts, and now with the new Taco Bell that is going to go in, it’s going to get worse, and now with the new Hudson Headwaters right there, the one right on the corner of Carey and the one that’s going in right behind it, the traffic is horrendous. MR. OBORNE-You also have New Hope church coming in, too. MRS. RONDO-Yes, that’s farther down, though. That’s a little bit further down. MR. MAGOWAN-They have a large program. They’re kind of busy across the street all the time. MRS. RONDO-I mean, we get the school buses and traffic is just really bad there right now, people trying to turn into Stewarts and just going back and forth to Carey Road with Hudson Headwaters, and now with all these trucks that may be possibly coming in right there. MR. MAGOWAN-And the barking dogs. I understand. MR. TRAVER-Anything else? MR. RONDO-That’s it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for your comments. MRS. RONDO-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Do we have any written comments? MR. OBORNE-I have no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. REHM-And I’ll just have Jeff Davis describe for you what a typical day is there, just to let you know the amount of traffic, the hours of operation, etc. MR. TRAVER-Very good. Thank you. MR. DAVIS-The hours of operation, Monday through Friday, seven a.m. to three thirty p.m. We operate a baling operation, which is virtually noise free. They’re hydraulic balers. The building would be totally closed, but there’s absolutely not a noise problem. There’s no odor. There’s no odor emitted from our waste or any of our operations. We deal in clean waste paper. We deal in waste paper that’s generated by paper mills, as an example. The waste that they can’t use we reprocess and bale. We don’t deal in any rubbish or garbage or anything like that. So it’s all clean, industrial commercial type waste. MR. MAGOWAN-Just paper? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. DAVIS-And plastic. MR. MAGOWAN-Because I heard plastic. What kind of plastics do you do? MR. DAVIS-We deal in plastic from like companies that produce medical parts, catheters, the trimmings from that type of operation. Again, it’s clean. We don’t deal in any what’s known as post consumer waste. We don’t deal in milk jugs. We don’t deal in, as an example, we don’t take any cardboard that’s in back of fast food stores because it gets contaminated with foods and odors and things like that. So our customer list demands a high quality waste and that’s what we give them. So we mainly deal with like furniture companies, which is clean cardboard waste, and then a lot of the mills and plants in the area their byproducts. MR. MAGOWAN-Now do you bale the plastic? MR. DAVIS-Yes, we do. MR. MAGOWAN-Or how do you process your plastic? MR. DAVIS-We grind it and bale it. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Now how big’s your grinder? What kind of horsepower motors do you run on that? MR. DAVIS-We only have one grinder, and it’s a 75 horsepower motor. MR. TRAVER-And that’s inside, right? MR. DAVIS-That’s inside, and it’s not only inside the building, I don’t know if any of you are familiar with the Northern Distributing building we’re hopefully moving into. There’s several large, fully insulated. We’re going to use one of those large coolers for our grinding operation. So it’ll be totally noise free and it’s fully insulated. MR. MAGOWAN-They’re like six inches thick, I think. MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I was in there for a Budweiser tour when I did air conditioning, and the monitors and all that that they had to monitor and how they had to rotate the (lost word) amazing building. Yes. MR. DAVIS-So we’re going to leave one of them there specifically for the plastic. MR. MAGOWAN-That would be a good room for that. MR. DAVIS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The only other question that comes into play here is traffic. Your hours of operation seem great. I’m assuming you get your deliveries by truck traffic. Any idling trucks outside or is it kind of continuous flow? MR. DAVIS-Well, there’s some idling trucks outside in the winter, you know, you keep the diesels running occasionally, but there isn’t fleets of them there. We have three power vehicles ourselves, and the material that goes out is by common carrier trucking, and they’re in and out as fast as we load them. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, that seems reasonable. Okay. So I think those are all the neighbors’ questions. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Any other questions, comments, concerns? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So we have some decisions to make on the landscaping thing. That seems to be the big, outstanding item. MR. TRAVER-We’ve dealt with the interconnect, parking. MRS. STEFFAN-And are we okay with the office, the way it’s laid out? MR. SIPP-The only thing with landscaping is it’s salt resistant because those trucks come down Corinth Road at a pretty good clip and they’re going to throw that snow a good distance from the 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) edge of the road. I think what you’ve got there looks good, but I don’t know how much, whether they would be damaged by salt. MR. TRAVER-And they’ve volunteered to move it back as recommended. MR. MAGOWAN-I don’t think there’s much out there. I think it’s all macadam that’s in the front of those two buildings. The only grass was really in front of, well, partially yours, right, and then the rest is Green Mountain. MR. REHM-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and then that ugly metal sign we’ve got to cut down. MR. REHM-The only real difference, and probably the choice that’s really up to you, is from the standpoint if you want the grasses in there, which was our initial plan, versus the gravel, which, quite frankly, is better from a maintenance standpoint for the applicant and, you know, sometimes maintenance is key because you want it to continue to look good, and I think that that, in the opinion of the landscaper, Northland Gardens, was a preferable route, and we apologize about the delay in getting it to Keith, but they provided it to us. MR. OBORNE-I do have a question concerning that, and as far as the gravel, I have no issue with that, and we’re not talking p-gravel, we’re talking, is it riverstone or is it a little bit smaller than that? MR. DAVIS-I didn’t bring my proposal with me, but it’s a high quality landscaping gravel, as opposed to. MR. REHM-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And that’s fine. My main concern is that they put down a weed barrier, some geotextile underneath it. MR. REHM-Sure. MR. OBORNE-And it’s Northland, right? MR. REHM-Yes. MR. OBORNE-They know what they’re doing. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they do. This plan looks really good, I think. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think they should be lauded for what they’ve done with the access, absolutely. MR. MAGOWAN-That’s going to make it look, because that’s. MR. OBORNE-It’s wide open right now, as you can see, and obviously my concern about it being in the right of way of Corinth Road. I don’t mean to keep beating that dead horse. MR. REHM-Yes, we’ll move that back. MR. TRAVER-And they can make, I think all those adjustments can be made on the final submissions. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. REHM-The sign won’t look like that. I’ll tell you that. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that’s just, it bothers me. MR. TRAVER-That’s quite a sign. MRS. STEFFAN-We like them when they’re 20 feet tall, no more than 20 feet tall. So, do we want them to come back? Do we want to give them a conditional approval? MR. KREBS-Give them a conditional. MR. FORD-Conditional approval. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess that signage always makes me nervous, but I guess if it’s Code compliant. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. KREBS-And we’re not approving anything but Code compliant. MR. TRAVER-Correct. No written comments? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re not doing anything with the parking. The parking appears adequate. We’re good with that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-We want to give them the waivers that they’ve asked for for lighting and grading. We want them to keep the southwest interconnect. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that the snow storage locations were on the plan. It says the northern area. MR. OBORNE-Yes, specifically the northern area. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-As far as vehicular movements, we’re satisfied with the way the? MR. OBORNE-I think it flows pretty well, especially if you’re going to keep that interconnect open. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we don’t have to, that we don’t have to ask them to put the arrows in. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I know that you do show vehicular movements, especially to the back of the building and the unloading areas. MR. NACE-I believe you show that trucks could get in there and turn around and get back out. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. Right, and it looks pretty good with that. Again, the nature of that is because the Code states it is, you know, the site in totality. If this was a site that didn’t have a lot of open space, it would be more of a concern than it actually is, to be honest with you. MRS. STEFFAN-So we don’t need that clarified and we don’t want signage or pavement markings. Or we do? MR. OBORNE-That’s up to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-What do you guys think? MR. MAGOWAN-I think, correct me if I’m wrong, did we make Green Mountain put down some lines on their pavement? MR. OBORNE-I think that, I don’t recall, to be honest with you, because they changed their plan so drastically, to a certain extent. I think what I’m getting at with there is your ingress and egress movements. There should be arrows, consideration for one way in, one way out, with a left turn. I think that was the nature of that. MR. NACE-We’ve designed it as both entrances are two way, in and out. One is for the office. MR. TRAVER-So we don’t need to signal to the trucks which entrance to use, necessarily. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. NACE-Well, they are going to be trucks that are used to coming to the same, it’s not going to be new traffic. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-I think parking lot lines, at least to designate where the cars can go off to and stay out of the way of the trucks so people don’t, you know, for the office. I mean, aren’t they on the plans, I thought? MR. OBORNE-Yes, they should be, and they are on the site, I believe, too. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that what you’re asking? MRS. STEFFAN-If they’re on the site, they’re tired. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They said they are. MR. OBORNE-Where those trucks are, there are lines right there, is my understanding. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean, they’re on here. The parking lines and the handicaps. MR. NACE-The delineation will be. MR. TRAVER-It will be on the pavement. MR. NACE-The parking delineation. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, is that what you’re asking? MRS. STEFFAN-No, no. According, this vehicular movements, clarification on vehicular movements and then are proposed entrances off Corinth Road dedicated one way or one way out. Either way signage and pavement markings should be offered, and so that’s what I’m asking, whether we think that that’s important or if there are enough entrances so that, you know, it’s sufficient, and we don’t have to offer those. Plus it doesn’t sound like the traffic is going to be so significant. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, no. You’ve got 35 feet and 25 feet, and trucks here, a car can come down here and go in, they know better. MRS. STEFFAN-The refuse area is going to be in the back and won’t be shown, so we don’t have to worry about an enclosure. Sign details, I’ve got that covered. Landscaping, I’ve got move the proposed landscaping back five feet from Corinth Road to improve sight distance. MR. OBORNE-Well, at least to the property line. MR. NACE-Designate whether you want alternative landscaping or the original. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Do we like the second landscaping proposal? MR. REHM-Gravel is the second. Grass is the first. MR. NACE-Gravel. MRS. STEFFAN-You guys are killing me. MR. KREBS-It’s going to be less maintenance for them. So therefore it will look better most of them time than with that road (lost words) throwing dirt on top of the gravel anyway, and you are going to have some maintenance required. MR. REHM-And in either case I think they’re both pretty nice. I think you’ll be satisfied with that look. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ve got that. Got that. Got that. MR. MAGOWAN-What are you going to do with those water chillers, the A/C that’s on the outside. MR. DAVIS-The cooling equipment? Yes, we’ve got a home for them. We sold them. There was nothing left in there to cool. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. MAGOWAN-I know, but they were quite an elaborate system in the day. MR. DAVIS-It’s incredible. It’s incredible. Just the pipe and what’s on the roof, and it’s very elaborate. MR. MAGOWAN-Now off to the side there, I think they used to have a tank. That wasn’t a buried fuel tank. It was the pad that it was on. MR. DAVIS-Yes, with the light there, yes, and they used to fill their trucks there. MR. MAGOWAN-I just wanted to make sure you were aware of what’s over there, and I don’t know if. MR. REHM-Yes, we had a Phase I done and the bank, which is financing this project, had us look into it again and again, and again, and, you know, it was found that there was some remediation over there from some tanks and it was done in compliance with DEC and all the files have been properly closed. So we were aware of that, and thankfully we had the engineer look into it and the bank made us look further. MR. MAGOWAN-Just for, like I said, because if it becomes yours, it’s your responsibility. MR. REHM-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. We have a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN 64-2011 ROBERT L. PERKINS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to use vacant buildings and develop property as a recycling center and office space for multiple tenants. Change in use and no site plan review within the last seven years require Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/18/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2011 ROBERT L. PERKINS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 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 satisfies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II SEQRA; 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; 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; 5)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 6)Waiver requests granted: grading, lighting plans; 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; 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) 8)Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator; 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; 10)This is approved with the following conditions: a)That the applicant will remove the proposed landscaping back to the property line from Corinth Road to improve sight distance. The Planning Board accepts drawing revision done on 9/10/11; the drawing revision number is NLGP005. b)The southwest interconnect will remain. c)Any future signage will be Code compliant. d)The applicant will revise the stormwater calculations for the 50 year storm event and obtain engineering signoff. e)The applicant will obtain engineering signoff. f)The applicant will denote storage trailers on the plan currently noted for truck parking. g)The applicant will denote the northern area snow storage on plans. h)The Planning Board will approve up to two offices for this site. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You’re all set. MR. REHM-Thank you very much. MR. DAVIS-Thank you very much. MR. SCHONEWOLF-A couple of years ago we had a stint here on the Planning Board about signs and LED’s, remember the gas station at Exit 19? And then we said there was no sign ordinance and the Town passed a sign ordinance. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What about the sign in front of Queensbury High School? Is that Code compliant? MR. FORD-They’re exempt. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why are they exempt? MR. FORD-They’re out of our jurisdiction. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there’s two issues on the LED’s. We asked about some that we found, that’s example of one over which we have no jurisdiction. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Does it say that in the Sign Ordinance? MR. TRAVER-It says that in State law. MR. FORD-State law. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That schools don’t have to be Code compliant? MR. TRAVER-Well, that they follow a different Code. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I know that they do, but it doesn’t say that don’t have to be compliant with the Town’s Code? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MR. TRAVER-Right. The other issue that we raised several times and we got clarification on was since the zoning changed, what about the pre-existing signs, do they have to be brought into compliance? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, they’re grandfathered. MR. TRAVER-Well, that wasn’t necessarily clear. There was some talk about, well, maybe they have six months to come into compliance. MR. OBORNE-Five years. MR. TRAVER-Five years. MR. OBORNE-All old signs that are not compliant must be compliant within five years. MR. TRAVER-Okay, well, that’s different, yet, than what I heard, then. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why? Where does it say that? MR. SIPP-It says it on the last page of the Sign Ordinance. MR. TRAVER-So some of those are coming due, then. MR. OBORNE-No, within five years of the enacting of the Code. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They just enacted it two years ago. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But I don’t understand how this, they’re not the only high school doing it, believe me. I’ve seen several others in the State doing the same thing. MR. TRAVER-Right, sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And they’re on State highways, and I don’t think that’s a State highway, but. MR. OBORNE-That’s a Town road, in front of the high school. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, they’re exempt. So is any federal, like OTB. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So a fire district is exempt under the same situation because they’re a municipal. We don’t have any fire districts, but they’re a municipal entity and so they would be exempt, too. MR. TRAVER-Well, except that they’d have to negotiate a contract with the Town, and the Town might make it a condition. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s a fire protection district, but I said if there were fire districts, they’re exempt, too. MR. OBORNE-I think that would be a safe assumption, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Or anything else that’s a municipality, a library. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. KREBS-I personally think that lighted sign is a real detriment because you already have a traffic problem there, and now you have people trying to read what’s on that sign. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s too small to read, it’s too small. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Are we done with Planning Board business? MR. TRAVER-We’re not adjourned yet. No. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/18/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MR. FORD-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Acting Chairman 50