Loading...
04-17-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 22-2012 Nigro Companies 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.6-1-22 through 26 Subdivision No. 2-2012 Joyce Shovah 5. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.14-2-36 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No. 1-2011 VMJR Companies 13. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 FWW 1-2011 Subdivision No. 5-2011 Lisa Pushor, Scott Spellburg 15. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 Site Plan No. 19-2012 Enterprise Rent-A-Car 20. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-29 Site Plan No. 20-2012 Robert L. Perkins 27. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4.1 Site Plan No. 21-2012 Ben L. Aronson 31. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-10 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 04/17/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, April 17, 2012. For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have public hearings scheduled on several of our agenda items this evening, and I'll go into more details when we open the first public hearing. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from February 21St and 28th, 2012. Do I have a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 21, 2012 February 28, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21ST & FEBRUARY 28T", 2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items this evening for Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA: SITE PLAN NO. 22-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NIGRO COMPANIES AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART RHODES OWNER(S) UPR. GLEN ST. ASSOCIATES, LLC ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 302.6-1-22 THROUGH 26 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RETROFIT APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF VACANT RETAIL SPACE AND INSTALL A 600 SQ. FT. COVERED PATIO IN THE PRICE RITE PLAZA FOR A RECOVERY SPORTS GRILL. REVISIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND CHANGE OF USE IN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 20-12; [7 SPR SINCE 1988; 7 SV SINCE 1990; 4 AV SINCE 1988; 1 UV SINCE 1994] WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 8.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-22 THROUGH 26 SECTION 179-9 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 22-2012 and Area Variance 20-2012 for Nigro Companies. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) variance application. Location is 735 Glen Street. Commercial Intensive is the zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA, when we get around to it. Project Description: Applicant is proposing to retrofit approximately 8,000 square feet of vacant retail space and install a 600 sq. ft. covered patio in the Price Rite Plaza for a Recovery Sports Grill. Revisions to an approved site plan and change of use in the Commercial Intensive zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variances: Relief requested from permeability and parking requirements of the zoning code as per §179-3-040 and §179-4-090 respectively. Nature of Area Variances, which is what the Planning Board is to consider tonight, plan will require area and parking variances as follows: Area Variance - Request for 33 square feet or 0.01% of additional permeability relief. Note, required permeability is 30%, existing is 21.94%, and proposed is 21.93%. Parking space - Request for 373 spaces below the required 729 spaces. Note, required spaces is 729, existing is 356, proposed is 356; there will be no addition or subtraction of spaces. Further, if leased spaces are included and this variance approved, the site will be operating with 575 total spaces, 154 spaces below the requirement. One more note: Parking Variance numerical needs derived from applicant's parking calculations of which staff concurs. Please see staff comments above and additional comments below with concern to easement parking. What follows is Site Plan Review, and if we get to that point on Thursday I will go over those, and again, we're here to focus on the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Eric Redding from Bergmann Engineering and Jamie Margelot from Nigro Companies. The simple version of this application is that we're switching a vacant commercial space for a restaurant space and restaurant has a slightly different parking methodology for counting based upon tables and employees, rather than square feet, and the parking difference is 15 spaces from what the requirement is now, and we sent photos to Keith today showing what the plaza looks like at one o'clock and at six o'clock and it's pretty much a sea of parking so we don't anticipate any issue. There's way more parking than is needed for those existing uses. Very simple. The more complicated explanation is that the spots are not all on this site because we have a lease which has been there for some 20 odd years with National Grid underneath the power lines. So although it seems like a lot of relief, we got a variance in 2004 to utilize those spaces because they're not technically on the same site but there's plenty of parking. So I don't anticipate any issue with parking, and Keith, could you flip through those photos? MR. OBORNE-I don't have those photos. I was told it was going to be on a disk. That's fine. I will concur and state for the record that there was, in fact, quite a bit of spaces at those times, as was mentioned. MR. LAPPER-These are, I'll just hand them up. I'll grab them back for tomorrow, but that just documents that there's so many spaces. The second variance is for permeability which is just to take a small part of the outdoor area, which is located behind the Five Guys, on that edge of the plaza where the new restaurant will go, and turn that into a seating area for 24 outdoor seats. A lot of that is impermeable now because there are sidewalks there. So the difference was a few square feet. We asked for the variance because it just was so, such a small number of square feet that it didn't seem to matter in terms of stormwater, but in the Staff Notes, Keith recommended that if we could shave something off somewhere else and make up the square feet, we wouldn't need the variance, and I think, Eric has looked at that, and I think that that's where we'll go. We want to run it by Keith tomorrow and see if he concurs with our math, but I expect that by the time we get to the Zoning Board tomorrow night, we'll withdraw that variance request, but for the sake of getting through tonight and getting to the variance, we'd ask that you would recommend it for 33 square feet of additional impermeable space, but I assume that that'll be gone by the time we get back here on Thursday, and that's my simple explanation, and the guys are here to answer any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thanks. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, wasn't that space once before used as a pizza parlor? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but square footage wise, that's a small part. It was mostly this medical office. MR. HUNSINGER-I learned something new in Staff Notes, that we now call grease traps protein recovery. It's not fat, it's protein recovery. MR. OBORNE-It's protein recovery. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, most of the questions that I have are more related to site plan rather than the variance request. MR. FORD-1 agree with that. MR. KREBS-And I do, too. Having been a retailer at one point in my life, I was looking at these numbers of required parking spaces, and I was thinking that Tractor Supply would be very happy if there were 192 cars sitting out in front of that store. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. KREBS-Let me tell you. MR. LAPP ER-Different retail has different demands, but most town codes it's all retail is retail, five per thousand. So there you go, but we certainly don't want to add any more parking spaces if we could. We don't need anymore. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I'm not sure where you would do that, but where do the parking spaces for this plaza end and begin versus the other plazas that are adjacent? Because it's really. MR. LAPPER-It cuts right through the middle of the parking lot, in terms of the ownership issue, but ownership doesn't mean anything to the customers, because they're just driving up and parking. We pointed out in the application, if that's where you're going, Chris, that Toys R Us uses about 27 spaces that are in that same area. So we just subtracted that to be completely fair and show you what the worst case was. Because we subtracted that shared use within the National Grid easement, but the property line is just right down the middle underneath those poles. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And we can answer any site plan issues, too, if you have something to suggest. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I'll leave it up to the Board if anyone wants to ask any of the site plan issues. I guess probably the biggest question that I had was on the engineering comments from the Town's engineer related to stormwater runoff and particularly if we were looking at the variance request for permeability. I thought it was important that we get those questions addressed. MR. LAPPER-And I fully expect that the permeability variance will be gone, and so what's left are the engineering comments about that saw cut, the temporary siltation issue, when they're putting in the new grease trap and the new sewer line, and Eric will address that on Friday, but what that essentially means is stockpiling it on the upslope so that if there was a rainstorm during the one day that there was a cut, the siltation would run right back into the hole. So it would be under the parking lot and wouldn't go anywhere else, just a design issue. ERIC REDDING MR. REDDING-And silt sacks will be provided at any of the catch basin inlets that'll be affected from stormwater runoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How about the landscaping? There's a couple of, I mean, they're mature trees, I mean, they're not fully developed trees that are being removed. Is there any plans to replace those? MR. LAPPER-That's in that area where the outdoor seating will be, and the answer simply is that if you'd like to see us beef up some other area, we could certainly work that out on Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, you know, I don't know if that, there's really one tree. You can see it there in that picture. MR. LAPPER-Yes, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know if that could be transplanted somewhere or not. I think it's kind of on the edge, as to whether or not it's too big or not. MR. LAPPER-Could you take care of that? JAMIE MARGELOT 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. MARGELOT-I'm Jamie from Nigro. What I was thinking was there's two landscape islands as you go out towards, into the parking lot they have very mature junipers and boxwood bushes. I mean, they're very large and very overgrown. My thought was to take those out and improve upon those two landscape islands, which we could show you in a plan, and you can see exactly where they are. It would drastically improve upon the existing landscaping. Transplanting that tree is probably not the best idea. Where it is, it's right next to the sidewalk, and you use a spade to get to that. You'd only be able to, you wouldn't be able to get a spade in there to get a full bulb. You'd only get about half of it, and I think that you'd end up with a dead tree in two years. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. MARGELOT-So we could look at improving those two landscaped islands and show it to you on a plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I think that's what we were thinking, yes. MR. FORD-Well, I'd appreciate that. MR. OBORNE-Would you like that for a handout on Thursday? MR. HUNSINGER-If we could, that would be great. Sure. What other site plan issues do Board members have? MR. FORD-How true is the coloration that we have in this depiction? MR. LAPP ER-Unfortunately that is completely wrong, because that is one ugly looking building. MR. FORD-That's a good start in your response. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the other one is more of a maroon, dark brown. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The brown is the color. Somehow that came from the architect's office and whatever color palette choices they had didn't include the correct one. So you have the, yes, that's the color, and the block on the side of the building is kind of an earth tone. So that should work pretty well, but the red not so much. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-It would sure stand out if it was that bright. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we got that the day we were submitting, of course, and we're looking at like, oh, I can't submit this. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Any other questions, comments? Would anyone like to make a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 20-12 NIGRO COMPANIES Tax Map ID 302.6-1-22 through 26 The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant is proposing to retrofit approximately 8,000 square feet of vacant retail space and install a 600 sq. ft. covered patio in the Price Rite Plaza for a Recovery Sports Grill. Revisions to an approved site plan and change of use in the Commercial Intensive zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variances: Relief requested from permeability and parking requirements of the zoning code. 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 RECOMMEND ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2012 AND SITE PLAN 22-2012 NIGRO 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) COMPANIES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted 17th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. LAPPER-See you Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-See you back Thursday. MR. FORD-See you Thursday. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2012 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOYCE SHOVAH AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OFF JOHN CLENDON ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.68 AND 1.72 ACRES WITH REMAINING 0.65 ACRES TO BE MERGED WITH LANDS TO THE WEST OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUEST FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. PLANNING BOARD MAY COMMENCE SEAR AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-12, ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION 6-1994 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-2-36 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MATT STEVES & WILLIAM NIKAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 2-2012, Area Variance 19-2012 for Joyce Shovah. Again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application. John Clendon Road is the location. MDR, or Moderate Density Residential is the zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Project Description: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1.68 and 1.72 acres with remaining 0.65 acres to be merged with lands to the west owned by the applicant. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variances: Relief request from lot size and road frontage requirements of the zoning code. Planning Board may commence SEAR and provide a recommendation to the ZBA. Staff Comments: The applicant has requested waivers from grading, stormwater, E&S, and topography. Staff has some issue with the topography waiver request as a proper density calculation with regards to the potential for slopes in excess of 15% has not been qualified or quantified. Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Lot 1 Lot Size - Request for 0.32 acres of relief from the 2.0 acre requirement of the MDR zone. Road Frontage - Request for 60.53 feet of relief from the 100 foot requirement of the MDR zone. Lot 2 Lot Size- Request for 0.28 acres of relief from the 2.0 acre requirement of the MDR zone. Road Frontage - Request for 60.53 feet of relief from the 100 foot requirement of the MDR zone. What follows is basically issues that will most likely be taken up at a later date. I would like to pursue the density issue, if at all possible. With regards to slopes to 15%, I'm not sure. We don't have a topographic survey on this, but with that, we're here for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I'd turn it over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Joyce Shovah, and together with William Nikas, representing Joyce Shovah as well. I guess I'll start. The property along John Clendon Road on the north side, it's kind of a unique piece of property, about four acres, kind of tucks in behind her existing home, which is the home that fronts out on Mountainview Lane, and portions of this project is to transfer about .65 acres of this back piece to the house parcel to be able to add a little bit of buffer along her backyard where her pool area is. A little history on this property, in 1994 this two lot subdivision was approved and signed off on by the Zoning 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) Administrator at the time, Jim Martin, but for some reason it was never subsequently filed. So that's why we're back here in front of the Board. For whatever reasons Mrs. Shovah at the time did not have the map filed, at least I'm not aware of, but again, it's lapsed and here we are. Some of the comments that the Staff has made, when I did talk to Keith and Craig about the driveway, Craig said that he wasn't overly concerned with the slopes in there but wanted to confirm that the driveway was not over a 10% grade. So we ran a profile down the centerline of the existing path that is there and it's about a four percent driveway. The property to the east is almost flat. We've walked the entire site and the area to the west has a little bit of undulation to it, but we did not discover any slopes over 10%. So as far as the density calculation, I'm comfortable in saying that there isn't any slopes over 15% that would require a reduction of that density calculation. This is obviously two lots fronting on John Clendon. Two proposed new homes in the back. This is in the water district. So it would be serviced by Town municipal water, onsite septic, share the driveway coming in in the back. We did send a letter to New York Department of Environmental Conservation for endangered species. We did get a letter back that they have no concerns with this property in that respect, and we also sent a letter to State Historic Preservation for any cultural resources. They asked for some photos. We mailed them detailed photos of the property. We still are awaiting response from them. I tried to contact them two or three times to see if there was any concern, and at this point we have not received any information back from them, but they indicated, in their discussions, that they didn't have any major concerns, but yet I don't have a signoff from them at this point. MR. FORD-When did you submit that request? MR. STEVES-March 20tH MR. SCHONEWOLF-How wide are those driveways? MR. STEVES-The frontage on John Clendon Road for each of the parcels would be 39.47 feet, and then tapering down to approximately a 60 foot right of way in there. So about 32, 33 feet actually as it goes back, and then we'll center the common driveway, and when you get to the end, as you can see on the map, and split the driveway from there. There is somewhat of an existing path right down through there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we drove down in there on site visits. MR. KREBS-And what will the width of the pavement be on that common driveway? MR. STEVES-We typically, and we're showing a 16 foot, which is ample for a residential driveway for two houses, to be able to have a vehicle pass each other. We could widen that slightly if the Board deemed it necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? What's the total length of the driveway? MR. STEVES-To the, actually where it branches off, you're looking at approximately 380 feet, 400 feet, in that range. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? How about the clearing plan? You have it labeled as approximate. I mean, is that intended to be? MR. STEVES-That's intended to be the extent of the clearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-We looked at the open spots that are in there now, and they superimposed the aerial that you see there and then going out and walking the property with the survey crew, and tried to put in there what we would think would be the best possible scenario, but leave as much property to the north in and along the front of the lots, which would be facing back towards John Clendon Road, and say utilizing the existing openings that are currently there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-1 have none. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing on this application. Again, on the back table there's a handout for the procedures in the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties and members of the public to provide comment to the Board. Anyone who wishes to address the Board during the public hearing I would ask that you state your name for the record and speak into the microphone. We do tape the meeting and the tape is used to 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) transcribe the minutes. Is there anyone here that would like to address the Board on this application? Yes, sir. Please come up to the table and speak into the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE WINTERS MR. WINTERS-George Winters, and I live at Four John Clendon Road. I've lived on that property for 50 years, and at one time the road they're talking about, I could drive down through there and then back up the other way, and Finch Pruyn owns the land bordering them, I believe, and they dumped a whole truckload of stuff so we couldn't drive down in there and they didn't want anybody on their land anymore, but I'm far enough away from this piece of property so it wouldn't bother me, and my property that I own is three-quarters of an acre, and I'm the second lot in, and then there was another house across the road, they had to have a variance. So there is some small lots in there. So as far as I'm concerned, putting them down to smaller than what they are, you know, the lots in there now I don't think are any bigger than that. Some of them might be, but I don't believe it, you know, I don't. So I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. The only thing is going down in there, Rudy Green's house, that's the next one that borders that, up toward the driveway they have there, Freddy Hay built them houses. He put a house in there, then they didn't have any water, so he hooked on to the house above and ran water down, but I think as time went on, that house got sold and then they had to do something different with the water. Well, I think he's hooked on to the main now, but I don't know how they would get the water down into this property. MR. HUNSINGER-1 believe they said it was Town water. MR. WINTERS-Town water doesn't go down in there. It'll be constructed. MR. WINTERS-At Town expense or at the landowners? MR. HUNSINGER-No, at the landowners. MR. WINTERS-Because you know we, I've been there for 50 years. We fought hard for everything. We had to pay, I had to pay according to the footage I had to get water down in there. We had trouble with power. We couldn't get power in there. So since I've been there we had to fight hard for the stuff we did get, but I don't know. So that's the only comments I have, and the road's going to be blacktop, or driveway? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's a driveway, yes. MR. WINTERS-Because that's another concern, if I lived down there I would have a concern over that, with the dust, you know, all of that was dust at one time. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. Yes, sir. SCOTT SORGER MR. SORGER-My name's Scott Sorger. I live at 18 John Clendon Road, the house on the bottom right there. I'm concerned about wetlands back there, is there any standing water back there? And maybe request a delineation from the DEC for wetlands back there, and I'm concerned that this driveway coming in, the current right of way there actually crosses part of my property, and I'm concerned. I don't want to be wedged in between two roads coming in here, you know, and, you know, there's a lot of wildlife in there, and, you know, it really, I'm going to be wedged in if I'm down there. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. MR. SORGER-I'm going to be wedged, I'm the house on the bottom right. MR. OBORNE-You're right here? MR. SORGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SORGER-And that road coming in. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. OBORNE-This one? MR. WINTERS-Right, like I said, where the right of way is now actually crosses onto that rear corner of my property in there, and, you know, I'm going to be wedged in between the road and a driveway there. I don't really, and I'm very concerned about the wetlands back there. Like I said, we have a lot of wildlife coming through there. We have deer coming through there all the time. I can hear the frogs in the pond or something right back in there. So I think there's standing water and some sort of wetlands there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WINTERS-And I really, I don't like the idea of being wedged in there when we've got such a pristine area back there. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. WINTERS-That's all I have right now. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. JAMES CORDELL MR. CORDELL-My name is James Cordell. I live at 7 John Clendon Road. TOM CANTIELLO MR. CANTIELLO-Tom Cantiello, 9 John Clendon Road. MR. CORDELL-One of the things we talked about was this access driveway. It goes way down and it used to be Penbrook Drive, but I guess it's not a road anymore. If you go into Google maps, that's called Penbrook Drive. When you see that on the map and then we're told it's not a road, I don't understand why it's on the map. I guess it's an old map, but it shows up today, if you went into Google maps, it shows up at Penbrook Drive. MR. CANTIELLO-So is it Penbrook Road, is it John Clendon Road, which it really isn't because it's off John Clendon Road, or is it a common public driveway? I mean, there's lots of different things we hear you calling it, but it makes a big difference. A, I stepped it off just before I came over. Two cars will not fit. So what if Person A's coming out, Person B's going in, what are they going to do? B. If it is a road, why hasn't it been plowed by the Town? C., if it's going to be a common driveway, who's going to plow it during the winter? D., where's that snow going to go? It better not go on my front lawn, and, E., if anybody's ever been down there, it's very bad visibility trying to get in and out of there. I know, my driveway's just about directly across from it and you've got to, you think you're in a school zone because you never know when somebody's zooming up there and then those trees just to the left, it's a very bad left turn. Right turn's not so bad, but, you know, and other assurances I know I would like is you're not going to widen it, because then you're going to disturb other people's property, or what I think are other people's property, and I just, you know, it's a question of is it a road, is it John Clendon Road, is it Penbrook Road, is it a common drive, and how is that going to be maintained. If it's a common drive it should not come out of taxpayer money. Those two people who some day may live down there, who's paying for their plowing? That's a long plow job, and where are they going to plow the snow? It better be on the owner's property, that way, not up on our property, and another thing I just want to throw out there is why can't a road go through the other side onto Mountainview, which would be a square turn, right and left? I have mostly questions. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll have the applicant address them. Yes. Anything else? MR. CORDELL-That one question that I brought up, is there some way that you can find out why it had been Penbrook Drive, and then what happened to it? There's got to be a record somewhere. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When that happens it's probably a paper street, but I don't know that for sure. That happens all the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CORDELL-What, that they misname a road? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, they name the road, it's a paper street. They never build it. MR. CORDELL-Yes, and I know that it was supposed to loop around, and John Clendon Road was supposed to come out there again, too. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If they didn't build it, they didn't build it. So it doesn't exist. MR. CORDELL-Okay. Anything else, Thomas? Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Fuller. MATT FULLER MR. FULLER-For the record, Matt Fuller, with the law firm of Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth, and I represent Laurie Dickinson who owns the property at the top of we'll call it the hill, but the driveway that's going to access these two lots, and it's right there, yes, and the concern that we have or the issue that's ongoing here right now is we don't have an objection to the subdivision per se. It was a subdivision in the past. For whatever reason the lots weren't filed, I think the map might not have been filed or whatever, but it was a prior subdivision, but the applicant has brought it on herself to commence an action against my client with regard to the road, encroachments and things like that. There is an ongoing lawsuit going right now. My client didn't bring it. She's a defendant, and so with regard to the access, you know, one of the things you're dealing with here is the paper street that was there, and my client's lot was one of the lots that was created in that whole subdivision that gave rise to these lots. So that needs to be resolved, and that's really why I'm here and the purpose of my client's I guess objection, if you will, would be to preserve that objection that she has that this is ongoing litigation, and as we all know, because I do the classes and sit on that side of the fence a lot of times, private access, private deed issues, private covenants and restrictions have no application at a zoning or planning meeting. I think the difference comes in when there's ongoing litigation with regard to access that an applicant wants to use in support of their application, and to both sides credit, and the sake of full disclosure here, Mr. Nikas and I have been working on that, and Bill Scott from my office and our litigation section is working on it as well. We don't have that finished yet, and so my goal here is to preserve any record, any status quo for my client, in terms of those access issues that are ongoing right now, and so again, as it relates to two lots out back that were there before, it's a one acre, two acre issue, we don't have an objection per se on those two lots. They were two lots in the past, but to the extent that my client was made a defendant to an action that now that same access is wanting to be used as part of this application, that we would object to. That needs to be resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-So I'm unclear what the actual issue is. MR. FULLER-Their claim's encroachment from my client onto this right of way that want to be used for the access to these lots, to the two lots. So the action involves the stick, the paper street that was there before and who had a right to use it, who doesn't. It's basically adverse possession issues. MR. SIPP-Has it come to trial? MR. FULLER-It's not on a docket right now. It's in discovery. I think we can work it out. Again, Bill and I have had those conversations and I don't foresee any reason why it can't be worked out, but I don't want any representation made tonight here that it is worked out or that it's done. It's not. It's still an action. My client's still a defendant. MR. HUNSINGER-So is it your contention that the area that's labeled as an asphalt driveway, is that your client's? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-Right at the top of the hill, yes. That's it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. WINTERS-George Winters, 4 John Clendon Road. Like I said, I lived there 50 years on this piece of property that I did, and Mr. Morehouse owned all of that, and then what he did, right next to my house there was a 50 foot right of way out, a road so they could develop this. There 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) was seven acres in there that his brother-in-law who lived in Florida was supposed to develop it. So that's probably how those two lots got down in there, but like I said before, we had to fight to get it down the road. When I first moved over there, we were supposed to get the Town road in the Spring. I moved over in May, and by June or July we were supposed to have a Town road, but everything changed in the Town and then they wouldn't take it unless they raised the grade up and put the rough road in, similar to what they do today, I guess, I think they have to blacktop today, but that's why, but that road there has been there for the 50 years that I know, but that's how they all got mixed up in there. He didn't pay taxes on it and let it go bad. So that's how those lots got down in there. He was supposed to develop down there, and off on Mountainview Lane, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. MR. WINTERS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-There's no written comment, but I do have a comment, though, if I may. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. OBORNE-Yes. This obviously should not have gone forward, if, in fact, there is an issue with access at this point, and if the applicant was aware of that, the Planning Department should have been aware of that also. So I just want to state that for the record. We were not aware of that until tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NIKAS-Penbrook Road was on an old map. Never been dedicated. Never been used. I think Mr. Morehouse had plans of subdividing the whole area, but that map has long since been disregarded, as far as title issues. It is a private road, never been a public road, not intended to be a public road. The two houses that are on this access now plow their own road, maintain their own driveway. So we're essentially going beyond the two houses that already exist on that road, and use that access freely. We're talking about a usable area that matches Town specs as far as what is usable for a car to access these lots. There are no wetlands back there. They're not on the State map, and if you look at the aerial, you'll see deciduous trees that will be cleared simply for the footprint of a house. It's a lovely area, treed, not wetlands. That would not be marketable if there were wetlands back there. As far as the litigation, I'm the second lawyer on the file. I think that litigation was ill-conceived when it was brought, which is why Matt Fuller and I have been discussing the issue. Craig, it wasn't disclosed because we have presented, what you see on the map and what we're planning to use as road, excludes the so called encroachments. In fact, the encroachments, when I got on the file, actually are an enhancement to the area. It's actually a landscaped area in front of Mr. Fuller's client's house. There is no impediment by what the former lawyer on this file called an encroachment, and I know that we'll get it resolved, in fact, I sent a letter today to Matt and Bill Scott to address that. So litigation will not be an impediment to what is before you. Other than that, private roads are commonplace. The landowner plows. There's plenty of width here for snow. If there are neighbors who feel there are encroachments, that's why we have Matt Steves here to make sure that there are no encroachments. Other than that, if there are other questions that I haven't addressed, please let me know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-On the question of the water, you said it was Town water, but then somebody said it's not. MR. NIKAS-No, it will be Town water because it's in the water district. Before you get a CO, you have to put in water line. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But at the moment it isn't. MR. NIKAS-Correct. MR. STEVES-There's no actual water line down this private drive or private road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I understand that. MR. STEVES-There's Town water out on the main road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-In front of it, down the road, and there are hydrants out there, too. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. NIKAS-Right. MR. STEVES-And that would be, somebody asked, that would be at the total expense of whoever was building the house. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. NIKAS-Right. MR. STEVES-As well as all utilities, and they would have to be maintained within the right of way no question, at nobody's expense but the homeowners. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. That's the way it works. MR. STEVES-That's the way it works. MR. SIPP-There's no thoughts of anybody buying, who owns the land there, to the north? MR. NIKAS-Finch Pruyn. If you go beyond that, you'll, I think, run into the Crownwood Hills subdivision, but beyond this property is, towards the Finch Pruyn property, is Rush Pond, right. So we've had discussions with them. In fact, they were a party to this lawsuit, and they have indicated no interest in subdividing or anything like that in this area. MR. SIPP-Finch Pruyn, at one time, owned that whole strip. MR. NIKAS-They did. MR. STEVES-You continue quite a bit east of there, and it does drop down in there, and there is that drainage (lost word) down through there, on the Finch Pruyn property, but it's considerably to the east of this parcel. MR. FORD-The plan calls for the shared driveway as well as the individual driveways to be paved. MR. NIKAS-Actually, it hasn't been decided whether it would be paved or whether it would be crushed rubble, depending on what the market is, Tom. I would actually recommend crushed rubble, rather than pave. It doesn't make sense to pave it that far in for two houses, and crushed rubble, as you know, packs just like cement. There's no dust issue or anything like that. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. STEVES-As far as Keith's comment, there is no dispute about who owns the property here. Our client owns this strip of land all the way out to John Clendon Road. It's just a question of do they have the right to the usage that they have within that strip of land. I believe there's no question as far as ownership. MR. NIKAS-No, there's no suggestion of trying to prevent anybody who's on this road. There are two houses on the road now. There's no attempt to stop use of the road as it's continued for many years. MR. HUNSINGER-So those front two houses are currently using your property? MR. NIKAS-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do they plow it from their house out? MR. NIKAS-They do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do they? So you've just got to plow to their house. MR. NIKAS-Exactly. In fact they probably get a free ride on the ones in the back, and as I understand it, I think that litigation was brought years ago, because there was some thought of actually dedicating that strip to the Town as a Town highway. So the encroachments would have prevented that from occurring. However, it doesn't make sense to build this road to Town specs for two lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. NIKAS-There was a lot of wasted money on litigation and that's why I'm sure that Matt and I can get this resolved as a private roadway, not a Town highway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-What's the general feeling of the Board about the potential lawsuit or litigation and approving it without a resolution to that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we're not approving it. We're just sending it to the Zoning Board, right? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it's going to come back. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So I don't have any problems sending it to the Zoning Board, because that's not part of the issue. I'd give them a chance to settle it, but don't bring it back until you've settled it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and on the recommendation to the Zoning Board we can note that outstanding dispute. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. Exactly. MR. NIKAS-And I'll second Matt Fuller's remarks. We're not here to represent anything other than we'll get that case settled. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. MR. OBORNE-If I may, I would recommend that you do not commence SEQRA because of that issue. I think you can do it at Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my next question. Yes. MR. OBORNE-You don't have to do it at recommendation. If you feel comfortable doing it at recommendation, that's fine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We can wait until it comes back. MR. OBORNE-We can wait until it comes back. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think that's a good idea. MR. OBORNE-My recommendation is that you do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Too many unanswered questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And go forward with the recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. With that clarification, would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV 19-12 JOYCE SHOVAH Tax Map ID 295.14-2-36 The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1.68 and 1.72 acres with remaining 0.65 acres to be merged with lands to the west owned by the applicant. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variances: Relief request from lot size, lot width, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) and road frontage requirements of the zoning code. Planning Board may commence SEAR and provide a recommendation to the ZBA; 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 RECOMMEND ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2012 AND SUBDIVISION 2-2012 JOYCE SHOVAH, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. We note that the Board should be aware that there is litigation pending. Duly adopted 17th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. NIKAS-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-If it please the Board, we have two items under tabled items. If it please the Board, I'd like to move the VMJR Companies discussion up ahead of Lisa Pushor and Scott Spellburg. TABLED ITEMS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE FWW 1-2011 SEAR TYPE I VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) MJ ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISE MGMT. ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT IND. LOCATION QUAKER RD./QUEENSBURY AVE. SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) COMMERCIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 6.49 ACRES TO 29.78 ACRES WITH 10.69 +/- ACRES PROPOSED AS OPEN SPACE. FURTHER, EXTENSION OF QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD TO ACCESS MAIN PARCEL PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET OF WETLANDS [GREAT CEDAR SWAMP] REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 65-10, SP 49-10 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC, ACOE LOT SIZE 6.39& 84 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 SECTION § CHAPTER A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-As noted in Staff Notes, the meeting that was supposed to happen between the applicant and the Town Engineer did not happen, and so I guess it's the intention that we will just table this item. Is there anyone here that's representing the applicant? Keith's going to check so we'll give him a second. All right. Seeing how there's no one here, we were going to table this to June. MR. OBORNE-1 think so. MR. HUNSINGER-We have meetings on the 19th and 26th. Do you have a preference? MR. OBORNE-1 have no preference whatsoever. MR. HUNSINGER-Why don't we say the 19tH MR. KREBS-Fine. MR. MAGOWAN-In June, didn't we change that from the 19th to the 21st? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did, you're right. What was the conflict on June 19th, Keith? I don't remember. MR. OBORNE-I'm not sure. When is the primaries? MR. KREBS-That's in April. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there was something else that came up. MR. OBORNE-That's why we're here today, right? MR. KREBS-We'll be here Thursday. MR. TRAVER-Do the conditions of the previous tabling motion still apply? MR. OBORNE-If that is the will of the Board, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I would say so. MR. TRAVER-Yes. We might want to reaffirm that we need to see a plan for the road before they get on the agenda, and require a conference with Planning Staff in order to communicate regarding issues, outstanding issues, as listed in Staff and engineering notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I would add that any forward progress with the County. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what we had the last time we tabled it, we had those conditions in it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right, and that's why we're tabling it again. MR. TRAVER-But this one was already on the agenda tonight. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So let's just table it again with the same conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-And we had said if they couldn't get the meeting together, we'd just table it again. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did someone make that motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 1-2011 & FW 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of an 84 +/- acre parcel into five (5) commercial lots ranging in size from 6.49 acres to 29.78 acres with 10.69 +/- acres proposed as open space. Further, extension of Quaker Ridge Boulevard to access main parcel proposed. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Proposed construction within 100 feet of wetlands [Big Cedar Swamp] requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/26, 5/31, 7/26, 9/20 11/15/11; 1/17/12, 3/20/12 tabled to 4/17/12; The applicant has not been able to act on the conditions of the tabling motion dated 4/17/12; MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2011 & FWW 1-2011 VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled to the Planning Board's meeting of June 21 st with the following two conditions: 1. That the applicant arrange to conduct a meeting with the Planning Department and support staff no later than May 7th to address engineering and staff comments. 2. That a design for the connector road to the County Line Road be submitted with the application before it re-appears on our agenda for SEQRA evaluation purposes. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 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 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF THREE (3) PARCELS TOTALING 92.12 +/- ACRES INTO NINE (8) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3 ACRES TO 44.1 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-11, SUB 5-06 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 APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-We're still at the Preliminary Stage with this subdivision for Lisa Pushor and Scott Spellburg. The requested action is obviously subdivision of land. 45 Ellsworth Lane is the location. The existing zoning is bifurcated between RR-3A and LC-10A. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. I think instead of going through all the notes here, I'll summarize that we're at Preliminary. We do not have engineering signoff, and there is still an archeological issue that I'm sure Scott will discuss with the Board. I would like nothing more than to move this project forward if at all possible. You have to be comfortable, obviously, with that first, because it does require SEQRA for Preliminary. They have received their Area Variances, and with that I'll have the applicant's agent and the applicants themselves tell you what the status is of this subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. I'm Tom Hutchins on behalf of Scott Spellburg, Lisa and Jamie Pushor. We were here in February, and instead of going through the details of the subdivision, I think the planning perspectives of the subdivision have been well reviewed. I want to run through a summary of what has been accomplished. There have been precious little substantive changes to the subdivision. The lot lines haven't changed. The road locations haven't changed. Wastewater system locations haven't changed. House locations haven't changed. There have been a number of technical and minor adjustments to the engineering. There is an APA letter of non-jurisdiction in the file. There is a letter from the Fire Marshal confirming the discussions that we had had last week with regard to the 20 foot drive width, or not last week, and what we had at the February meeting with regard to the 20 foot drive width, and as we explained, we were kind of stuck between that 20 foot requirement and a number of concerns to narrow the drives up. There is an endangered species signoff in the file. We did receive today a verbal clearance from SHPO. We do not have the letter. Scott spoke with. SCOTT SPELLBURG MR. SPELLBURG-Mr. John Bonafetee, he's the head of New York State. I finally got a hold of him and he said there's not a problem whatsoever. As a matter of fact, now that he's looking at the maps, the only reason we were even there is because we fell into this red tape brought on by the stormwater that we've adapted in the Town of Queensbury, and looking at it, and it took me three people to get to this man, but by the time I got to this man, he was the only one that said, you know something, the only reason we're even looking at this or considering it is because you're near a brook, but now that I'm looking at the map, you're nowhere near the brook. So you really don't belong to do any archeology dig. This is long after I'd sent letters out to the archeologist and they were sending me bills for$10 to $15,000, $7,000. So we had to get to the bottom of it and it just took a lot of time, but bottom line you could have e-mailed it to me. I wasn't in a position to accept it. He said I'll just put it in the mail tomorrow and you'll have it by the middle of next week. MR. HUTCHINS-So we have that on a verbal basis, again, subject to confirmation. With regard to engineering comments, we have resubmitted a revised set of plans that went on back in March, and we have received another round of engineering comments. There's many fewer than there were before. So we are working in the right direction, and sometimes with somewhat there's a couple of sets of regulations involved in stormwater regulation in the Town in the basin, as you're aware, and sometimes when you do something to adjust for a nuance of one regulation then you introduce something based on another regulation, and these two regulations don't totally work well together. So we're going to get through that. What we would like to do, 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) and we have, there's talk of a meeting between Keith, I, and the engineer, in order to hammer out some of those differences. We would like to move forward at least with this Preliminary phase of the subdivision, and then we can go on our way with the Preliminary and come back with the engineering issues addressed for Final. That's what we'd like to do, and if there's any specific questions, I'll be happy to review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Would this be a subdivision where we could combine Preliminary and Final in one night so that we could be able to do the SEQRA? I mean, obviously we can't do SEQRA. We don't have the documentation. We don't really know what's out there, but I'm wondering if we could combine, do Preliminary and Final. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we have the applicant saying that they have verbal. I mean, we could do a, we could get through SEQRA based on that representation and then if that representation turns out to not be what we expected we could re-open SEQRA and address it again. I mean, we could go either way is (lost words). I mean, that would certainly be a reasonable approach as well is to do Preliminary and Final at the same time. MR. TRAVER-Well, in addition to the archeological documentation, there does seem to be a lot of engineering comments, which the applicant is working on, regarding stormwater, and, you know, that certainly, again, is a SEQRA issue, and I'm just, you know, I'd rather, rather than have to re-visit SEQRA, and I'm not suggesting that the applicant is not being correct in the verbal conversation that took place, but we don't know how accurate the information is, the person on the other end of the phone was, without any documentation. So I'm just wondering if we could have it both ways, if we could not hold it up in the sense that we could still move ahead, although doing Preliminary and Final on what would have been the night that we would have done Final. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, that's the only option that I'm comfortable with. MR. KREBS-It makes sense to me. MR. FORD-1 have a comfort level with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 have no issue either way, to be honest with you. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It's not going to speed up the application or slow it down either way. If you table out to June with the knowledge that this is going to be turn keyed Preliminary and Final on that date, it's going to be the same date regardless. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that makes it easier for us, because then we don't have to go through every engineering, you know, let them work those out beforehand. MR. TRAVER-Right. I mean, there's talk of a meeting to work these things out. MR. OBORNE-And what Tom was alluding to as far as the stormwater goes is Chapter 147 and then it's DEC regulations also. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And he's right. There are issues with that that should be addressed. Absolutely, but with that, I'm heartened to hear that the biggest and largest problems appears to have been taken care of with obviously a lot of knocking and yelling and screaming. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before we take any action on this, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Keith? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. OBORNE-No written comments, no. MR. HUNSINGER-As much as I would like to close the public hearing, I will leave it open because once we close it, we could get ourselves into trouble. MR. SPELLBURG-Could I make one more comment? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. SPELLBURG-Before we go too much further, and again, now all of a sudden I'm in deeper than I wanted to be. I'd much prefer somebody else take care of it. On my lot, it would be Lot Two on your maps, I notice as I'm going through these engineering things, now I notice we've adopted a New York State water program. I've now been introduced to that. The Town also has another stormwater program. We're trying to make both of them work on a residential area that's probably a little rougher than usual. A lot of these cases, when we're going in for my lot, Lot Two, where the house already exists, they propose me to go in and change my lawn. Now this house has been here for 80, 90 years, but if you look at the map, the engineering is now suggesting, even though, Mr. Spellburg, you're over here and you're selling a house and the Pushors are doing whatever, you've got to go back and change the house that you live in because now it no longer sits in the stormwater program. So as I'm saying this out loud to you because it's not making any sense to me, either. I'm looking at this overall storm plan and the silt pond that they want in, the clay lining and I'm going to have to (lost word) in the paperwork that I should be digging an extra six deep so the inches of clay could go in. All this is commonsense, but what isn't commonsense is that I would have to go back and change my lot that I live on, which is all grass, and now I've got to turn it around and put stormwater protection on it. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's really an argument to be made to the engineer. MR. SPELLBURG-1 know, and if I get that chance. Every time I do this it costs me a lot of money to make these arguments. So I'm just saying, yes, some of it makes sense and other parts of it doesn't to me. I'm the outsider. Do you know what I'm saying? I'm just looking to build. MR. TRAVER-And we're not engineers. MR. SPELLBURG-I'm not an engineer either, but if I sold this land. Say it was dis-attached, and that was Bob over there. Bob wants to build a house. I've got to come back and change my lawn. That's what it's saying. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Probably tell you you can't fertilize it, too. MR. SPELLBURG-Absolutely, don't put your flag up too high, either. So you've got to understand. We're taking something that we've adopted in New York State and we're putting it I a situation where it doesn't always fit. So now I've got engineers going back and forth, and I'm just (lost words) and you're right, I'm not an engineer. I just know that if Bob builds a house over there, I shouldn't have to change my lawn. MR. OBORNE-1 would add, or comment also that if the Planning Board feels that some of these issues with stormwater are not relevant and we're just dealing with what's on paper or what's in a regulation, it's not relevant, you certainly can direct the Town engineer to just focus on certain issues. That's totally up to you. MR. SPELLBURG-If I may, that's the point I guess I was trying to get to. We're trying to carve these into stone, me being the outsider, me not being the engineer, we're trying to carve these into stone in an area that it doesn't always fit. (lost words) looking at it on paper and this is the whole projected plan, and in this case it doesn't fit in all these places. I have a silt pond and it's been working great, and that road that was there, I don't know if the engineer really knows the road was there. Yes, there should be change or it should be updated. I understand that, but they're making changes to this that doesn't really fit in a lot of cases. He should really walk the area or at least take a good look at it and say this is what should take place. Me changing my lot wouldn't have any bearing on anything, except for me going out and screwing up my lawn. MR. OBORNE-And we will be having these discussions, and I'm not trying to appear to be an advocate for the applicant, but I am an advocate for fostering completion of applications, certainly, and I do have, as Tom alluded to, I do have an e-mail out to both parties involved and will be facilitating some type of discussion to move this forward and come to some conclusion. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-So, I'm just trying to understand, I mean, without going into a lot of detail, what is the nature of why the existing lot has to be changed? Because it doesn't meet the current Code requirements? MR. OBORNE-1 think that you would have to drill down with Tom and Sean. That question would be more for Tom and Sean. MR. HUTCHINS-And I think, I can summarize the frustration that we're feeling and it's predominantly with the DEC program, when taken literally, and applied to a rural subdivision, does not work very well from a technical perspective, from an operational perspective, from a maintenance perspective and a permanent perspective. I mean, that program, they're going to be under a permanent, and these two are going to be responsible for every lot there, until every lot is completely built, and if they sell a lot, they have to, there's a process to pass that responsibility on, but it's very cumbersome for a rural subdivision such as this, and that's, frankly, that's where we're feeling the frustration, and sometimes we have to do things that seem a little bit silly in order to meet the letter of those requirements, and that's where we're at, and hopefully this meeting with maybe pear through some of that, and we can provide a little bit of judgment and say, hey, what really makes sense here, and let's move on. I don't know if that'll happen or not. We'll see. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I would try to always err on the side of commonsense, if I have a choice, and going along to what Keith said, I mean, there are some things that we have the authority to waive or to do. I'm not suggesting that we will or won't. I'm just saying, I mean, we understand the frustration. MR. SPELLBURG-Right, and I do appreciate it, and I do, that's what I'm trying to get to. There's got to be some kind of, I hope, some kind of flexibility to understand that some things shouldn't be changed, and in this process really the main goal, I'm now starting to look at the whole picture and I'm saying, okay, I'm in your position. This road is what really counts. The driveway is what counts. This is what's really going to be the tie in to this whole project. I don't know who's building what house. I don't know if you're building an A-Frame or you're building something else, but I'm now providing money out to put in proposed houses that may never be built. He may upsize the house. He may downsize the house. So he's going to be there doing the stormwater all over again, for a house lot. Let's concentrate on the road, let's get the road in, the driveway in. Yes, we just want to know that it works. I guess that would be my main goal here. Does this project work, how does it sit in here, and how much do I disturb, you know, we don't have Chris here now. How much do we really disturb of this mountain to get in what we're doing, and is it really going to affect it, and you're right. I am not an engineer. I just know some things are going out of bounds. So the flexibility, I guess, is what really comes in here and does it really work. MR. HUNSINGER-Let me understand further. So what you're saying is the requirement is that you engineer for stormwater for proposed houses now? MR. SPELLBURG-That's what it's turning out to be. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SPELLBURG-The roadway's going in. MR. HUNSINGER-Because typically we just focus on the, well, the roadway or the driveway. MR. SPELLBURG-Right, and would it mathematically work, meaning do we have room for the house. Do we have room for the well, the septic and the stormwater to go in, and now we know where we're going down the road, but the main concern would have to be this road, not me changing my lawn. MR. HUTCHINS-We're at a point where there's an awful lot of detail work going on on the specifics of each one of these building lots. Okay, and what kind of stormwater device are we going to have at the house on Lot Six, okay, and what we have tried to do is show that it can be done on Lot Six, and then if the guy on Lot Six wants a bigger house or wants to do it different then he can come back and see you folks. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. That seems logical to me. MR. FORD-That seems to make sense. MR. HUTCHINS-So there's a whole lot of detail work going on on individual, and DEC's program kind of asks you to do that. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-But that program works a lot better when you're chopping up 100 lots into a conventional blocky subdivision or putting up 200 apartments or building a shopping center than it does for a rural subdivision in the woods. MR. HUNSINGER-And there's not a lot of leeway where the house goes. Yes. Gotcha. Now I understand the issue. MR. SPELLBURG-And the area that you're working in would be more consistent. My area that I work in, or my yard that I work in, and they're talking about foliage and ground coverage and everything else, I have a three kids. I have a motocross track that covers a quarter of a mile. There could be a hunk of dirt the size of your house down at one end, and if I blink, my tractor's gone and all the dirt's moved. So, you're right. I'm not in the same situation. I really guess I don't want to build all this stormwater protection for houses that don't exist. I don't want to spend thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of dollars on something that may not even come true. If I get passed the road, the lot's mathematically correct, somehow this has to go down to the person that's buying the lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-As it should. MR. HUNSINGER-How do we drive that, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Well, I think the first thing to do is to have the two engineers communicate, face to face. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-I think that that could go a long way. After that, we certainly can look at each and every individual item that is still outstanding after that, if there are any outstanding items after that, I don't know. MR. KREBS-And are you going to monitor, referee that? MR. OBORNE-I'm not going to monitor, referee anything. I'm just going to facilitate. That's all I'm going to do. MR. SPELLBURG-1 do need some kind of easement on pushing forward these houses, because I'm not getting anywhere. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, one of the conditions we can have is that each house come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. MR. SPELLBURG-For the correct stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Stormwater. MR. OBORNE-That certainly is a condition you can impose, obviously. MR. KREBS-And, Scott, by the way, Site Plan Review would include stormwater. MR. SPELLBURG-No, no, and you can't say we didn't do stormwater. I did do stormwater. I'm just saying if there's a drastic change or something you've got to see. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. SPELLBURG-1 just know where I'm headed, and somehow I'm hoping it doesn't make sense to you guys, too. Keep talking. MR. OBORNE-I would add, also, that if you were required to come back for Site Plan Review, that may not be a good selling point for your lot, either, and we're thousands of dollars down the road in engineering on this. So let's just get this flat and move forward. Now what is an obvious caveat is that any houses that are going to be built within 50 feet of a slope of 15% must come back for Site Plan Review, and your main house falls under that one. MR. SPELLBURG-The main lot, yes. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. OBORNE-But all the others are not. All the others are fine. Tom made sure they were away from that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we'll table this to either the 21St or the 26th of June. Do you have a preference? Thursday's the 21St MR. MAGOWAN-It's the 19th or the 21St of June. Isn't the 26th out? MR. HUNSINGER-Did I have it backwards? MR. MAGOWAN-1 had it crossed out and I squared in the 21St MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry. So it's 19th or 21St MR. MAGOWAN-Do you want to do that now? MR. HUTCHINS-We'd prefer the 19th, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-1 had the 21St circled, but I thought we weren't meeting on the 19th. So it's the 19th or the 21St. So I'm sorry, which one would you prefer? MR. KREBS-The 19tH MR. FORD-The 19tH MR. HUTCHINS-We don't care anymore. MR. OBORNE-But we're with the understanding that this will be Preliminary and Final. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make that motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 15-5-2011 PUSHOR/SPELLBURG Tax Map ID 265.-1-2.3, 2.2, 2.1 MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 PRELIMINARY STAGE LISA PUSHOR, SCOTT SPELLBURG, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the Planning Board's June 19th meeting, where we will address both the Preliminary Stage and Final Stage of the subdivision. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-See you in a couple of months. Thank you. Good luck. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 19-2012 SEAR TYPE II ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) JOSEPH MONSOUR ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 676 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 480 SQUARE FOOT OPEN SIDED COVERED WASH AREA LOCATED NORTH OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN A CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 60-96, SP 27-95 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 0.92 TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-29 SECTION 179-9 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MARK MC MAHON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-This is here for accessory structures in a Cl zone and as such requires Planning Board review and approval. 676 Upper Glen Street is the location. Cl is the existing zoning. SEQRA status is Type 11. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 480 square foot open sided covered wash area located north of the existing building. Staff Comments: According to the applicant, vehicles are currently washed in the open on the pavement. The proposal calls for a GEO-MAT oil and sediment interceptor to be installed under the proposed 480 square foot carport. The proposal also calls for the waste wash-water to be piped to an existing sanitary sewer to the north. Town of Queensbury Sewer Department comments are attached. What follows is Site Plan Review. There are some concerns with previous approvals and the fact that those approvals are not being followed. Specifically, the previous approval back in 1996, and now we're talking, what, 17, 16 years ago, allowed only up to 23 cars on the lot. During a site visit there were close to 40. Also there were some differences with the 1996 approval, such as there were seasonal stands associated with this, which would actually reduce the cars allowed down to 19, 1 believe, at one point. I did reach out to Mark and gave him a heads up that there were some issues with my review and my site visit, and some of these issues were being taken care of back in '98, but it just seemed to fall by the wayside and wither on the vine, for one reason or another, I'm not sure, but as you can see, what follows are my additional comments. I don't think there's anything that can't be worked out. There may be some details that need to be brought forward in the future, if need be, and with that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MC MAHON-Good evening. My name is Mark McMahon. I am the Operations Manager for Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Upstate New York and Vermont. We operate over on 676 Upper Glen Street and Enterprise would like to propose to put a three-sided carport at the rear of our facility, to facilitate our vacuuming and vehicle cleaning. Currently, actually up until last Fall, we were doing both washing and vacuuming and cleaning the insides of the vehicle completely outside. Because we don't have a heated structure, when we turn the water off for them in October we have not turned it back on because we do not feel it's prudent to be washing vehicles outside and having the water, even though they're supposed to be using no soap, just a pressure washer that's installed there, we still feel we should treat the water somehow as opposed to letting it sheen across the parking lot. We also feel that it would be beneficial for our brand to have that be done inside some type of a structure. We propose to put, the carport being a total of 480 square feet, 20 foot wide by 24 foot deep, the colors matching that of our existing building are moderate white is the color with a black metal roof. We did, we would like to excavate and put it on existing blacktop and that was the reason that we originally had asked for a stormwater waiver. I did review the comments, and I do agree, over the years, the edge of the existing blacktop, I think the entire lot at one time I believe was gravel and was used for, there was a, Jo Jo's Restaurant was in there, and then the landlord actually operated a seasonal stand, and I do believe the entire lot was actually gravel. It's been very difficult for us to grow grass at the edge of the blacktop pavement section because it is, it's not really topsoil, it is a gravel base, and not this winter, but in previous ones, the plow has not been good to it, plowing, you know, off the edge of the pavement to keep the blacktop clear. One thought that I had, if it was acceptable to the Board, is that we could accumulate, we'd still like to ask for a stormwater waiver because our structure is going to be on existing blacktop, and not changing any of the permeability, but that maybe we could blacktop a section at the edge, which is all disturbed gravel now, and actually quite unsightly, maybe blacktop six additional parking spaces for 18 deep by maybe 60 foot wide, and then put some stone around the perimeter. In a conversation with my architect, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, he used a term of maybe putting some type of a stone diaphragm around there just to mitigate any runoff and try to improve the situation, but we would still like to ask for that waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. MC MAHON-I'm open to questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-How do you feel about the right turn only? MR. MC MAHON-1 have no problem with putting that back up. I don't know if, in fact, was that an actually posted sign or was that one that was on the ground itself? MR. OBORNE-I'm not sure. I'm sure it came down when they came through and did Upper Glen Street. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. MC MAHON-Yes, and I don't know, either, when that was done or when Soil and Water was putting the trash separator. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that was at the north of the north exit. MR. MC MAHON-Okay, at the north exit, then that was probably done, yes, when Glen Street was done. MR. OBORNE-That's what I'm thinking. MR. MC MAHON-So we have no problem putting that back up. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Good, because the left turn is tough. MR. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-See, I feel differently about that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You haven't had an accident there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we had this conversation the other day during site visits, and I used to rent from Enterprise a lot because I used to work for the State, and we used to travel. We would take rental cars, and I would be there early in the morning. I mean, I always took a right hand turn out, but early in the morning you don't have a problem. There's no traffic. You don't have a problem taking a left. So why have a 24 hour restriction when it's only difficult certain periods of the day. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, put the times on the sign that it's difficult. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That would be agreeable to me. MR. OBORNE-1 think it's a site by site issue, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely. MR. OBORNE-And this one there's two entrances, the way I look at it, and I respectfully disagree with you, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay. MR. OBORNE-If you're making a right out of the southern entrance, and somebody's making a left out of the northern entrance, that's the conflict. MR. HUNSINGER-So you're saying only a no left out of the north? MR. OBORNE-Correct, exactly, and that was what was previously approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That makes sense, then, yes. See, it's a good thing we had this discussion, for clarification. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-We had a lot of questions when we were there for site visits on Saturday morning about the exact location of the building. I guess I'm now a little unclear what the structure's going to look like. The photograph that was in the package showed as being open sided, and you just said there would be three sides. MR. MC MAHON-1 apologize. The color picture I tried to include. There was some question as to what the actual inside of it would look, the mat would look like. MR. HUNSINGER-So that was the purpose? MR. MC MAHON-That was the purpose, just to show you what the actual mat with the drainage system would look like. It's a relatively newer product and a newer concept, and basically, for lack of a better term, it would take place when you would have an inside structure, when you would have a trench drain in the ground and an in-ground oil/water separator. So that's the benefit of the product, and it can be moved. So it separates out your sand and your, you know, acts as an oil/water separator as well, but it is a mobile product. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-So the actual building itself would have three sides? MR. MC MAHON-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it a steel building? No, we had proposed a I thought that was included in the detail. If not, I apologize. MR. OBORNE-That's why I'm confused. MR. MC MAHON-1 thought that was, a three sided carport, open in the front, obviously, for our parking lot, the size, metal roof, and the size that they propose not going all the way to the top and not going all the way to the bottom. Strictly for the fact that it would not be able to (lost words). (lost words) condensation or water issues on the inside. We also didn't want to put any electricity in there, so what it would do is it would allow natural light to go in as well. MR. HUNSINGER-So there wouldn't be a vacuum in there, like there is in the picture? MR. MC MAHON-No, right now we probably propose to put the vacuum next to it, again, at the Board's recommendation. The thought was originally to not have it in there. We are open to putting it in there if it makes sense, but we are open to suggestions. MR. HUNSINGER-And would it be used year round? MR. MC MAHON-No. We would only be proposing to use this basically from April 1 through late October which is what we were currently washing now. Because we don't feel that we have the room to put in a full, heated year-round garage that afterwards we go up the street to a local carwash vendor, in the cold winter months. MR. FORD-Can you detail just a little bit for us verbally the treatment of the water, soot, debris, etc. that will be washed from the cars? MR. MC MAHON-Yes. The picture included in the packet shows the mat, and basically what it is, it's a multi-layered mat that it obviously safe enough for a vehicle to drive on. The mat has got separate sections in it that are, for lack of a better word, corrugated, and that mat actually traps all your sand and your sediment in it. Underneath the mat, as a secondary back up, there is a zurn oil/water separator that, for any particles that did pass through, petroleum wise, or the other, that do not allow it to reach the sanitary sewer system, but it is basically the equivalent of a full-blown oil/water separator. MR. FORD-How deep is that? MR. MC MAHON-About four inches total is the mat. So it's, the vehicle would drive up on a four inch mat, and basically a layered mat, and then what happens is is once the mat becomes visibly full, you can see that it's no longer drained, and we would have that serviced by Safety Kleen, and they come and basically lift the layers up, vacuum the sediment out, lay them back down, and then you're able to wash again. MR. FORD-What if that doesn't occur rapidly enough? MR. MC MAHON-From our experience, ones we've placed in down south in southern New York and New Jersey, that we could almost go six months without cleaning it out based on the surface area that's in there. Most of our cars are coming in, you know, are not caked in mud here because the majority of the roads coming in to us are blacktop, but we generally service them every three months. So we'd be done a few months after we started washing, say, May/August, and then again in September prior to closing it down. MR. SIPP-You're just operating in the spring, summer, to fall. So you wouldn't have a great collection of salt. MR. MC MAHON-Correct. MR. FORD-What's the potential for runoff out of this system onto the pavement on the sides of the structure? MR. MC MAHON-There should be very little. What we were looking to do here is we were looking to actually just wash with a standard garden hose. So unless there was some type of defect, you know, the mat should not overflow, that all the water that runs off the car should go right down into the mat, you know, the mat is much wider than the actual vehicle itself. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. FORD-How wide is it? MR. MC MAHON-1 want to say, it's going to sit inside there. I want to say it's 14 foot wide. MR. FORD-And how long? MR. MC MAHON-It should be 20 foot long. MR. MAGOWAN-The one you have there is 10 foot by wide. MR. MC MAHON-Ten by, yes, correct. MR. MAGOWAN-The concrete pad would be 14 by 24, 1 mean, this one here. MR. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there a drain underneath the mat? MR. MC MAHON-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MC MAHON-There's actually an extra oil/water separator underneath it, and then all the water collected goes through the mat and then out into the sanitary sewer line. We feel what we have now, where we have, in a sense, permission to wash without soap, and using a pressure washer, that this would be leaps and bounds better for us, as well as, you know, the look for our brand that's being done inside, and the water's going, in a sense, down the drain as opposed to across the parking lot. MR. MAGOWAN-And if your cars are leaking any forms of oil or fluids or stuff like that, usually they're taken right off the road anyway. MR. MC MAHON-Absolutely. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-1 have found, you know, all the rental cars are all new, usually under 24,000 miles. MR. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm always happy to be driving one with two or three thousand miles on it. MR. MC MAHON-Yes, but right now for us a 2010 is considered to be an old vehicle. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There was a comment here. I want to verify this. You said that the water goes into the sewer. MR. MC MAHON-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not the sanitary sewer? MR. MC MAHON-Yes, it does go into the sanitary. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, because Mike Shaw, the Director of Wastewater wrote, he said, but steps must be taken to ensure that the runoff, storm or other groundwater, does not enter the Town sanitary sewer. MR. MC MAHON-When I spoke to him his concern was the depth of the mat and if there was a 100 year occurrence that there would be no groundwater that would run over, hop up onto the mat and then go in, and we said that we have no problem raising the elevation of the slab an inch or two, which I thought he would be fine with that. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and we certainly can get clarification from Mike on that exactly what he was talking about. Because I see why you're thinking that. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Because that's a combined sewer. You don't want that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's an age old fight, every time I've ever been in. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or concerns from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. The only thing I would like is I'm thinking, you know, with the vacuum, for the noise mount and that, if it was able to be put inside, because you've gone up to 20 foot wide by 24 long, you'd have enough to be able to, you know keep that inside. MR. MC MAHON-Absolutely. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, it might be a little bit noisier for the person vacuuming, but I'm thinking of the neighbors around, not knowing what's going to happen with Friendly's and the wildlife behind you. MR. MC MAHON-Agreed. No, I think it makes good sense to put it inside. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Then you'd have to put power in it. MR. MC MAHON-Correct, but there is. MR. MAGOWAN-You could run that right through a piece of conduit. MR. MC MAHON-Yes, right off the corner of the addition that's on there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? We have at least one commenter. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM JARRETT MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett. I'm here on a personal basis, not as a professional, on a professional basis, and I was just in the audience for an application and I overheard this one, and bear with me, I'm not familiar with the details of this application, but I did, we did provide the consulting work on the hydro dynamic separator that Soil and Water put in on that site. I'm here speaking against the waiver for stormwater management, because that site is right on Halfway Brook, and quite a bit of that pavement is tributary to Halfway Brook, and I think it really merits some look at stormwater. Even if the entire site is not managed under this project, I think it should be reviewed, especially in light of the potential for overflow during, you know, if the mat plugs up or during severe storms. So I would really think that stormwater management should be looked at, and I have nothing against the project in general. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I know that, just to kind of follow up on that, that Enterprise was very cooperative when the stormwater management plan was put into place. I know that, you know, your business was disrupted for a long time, and, you know, you're very cooperative in allowing the State, I think it was, to actually do that project, and so I was a little surprised that you didn't have a stormwater management plan for your site as well. I don't know if the Board has similar feelings or other comments? MR. FORD-Yes, I do. Proximity to Halfway Brook is a major concern that I have, and I don't think that we should be waiving that, the management aspect of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? Did you have anything to add? MR. MC MAHON-Not at this time. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-The applicant alluded to the potential for upgrading or revising the parking plan. I sense this is going towards a tabling, and as such I would request that that be part of the tabling motion, a revised plan. We do not have an elevation drawing of that particular carport. I was under the assumption that it was what you submitted, the photo. So carport revised. It sounds like stormwater is on the table, and I don't mean to steal anybody's thunder. I don't know about landscaping. There is an issue with, and it actually is an interconnect, but it's not a formal interconnect between the Friendly's that I had witnessed. You can also see the tire tracks going through this area here. I don't know what's going on there, but with Friendly's that is being used as an access, an ingress and egress point. So I don't know if you want to approach that and make a formalized interconnect there. So those are some of the issues, and get clarification from the Director of Wastewater, and I believe we're spot on with it being 100 year storm or something along those lines, it's stormwater, but it's not quite clear. That's my two cents. MR. FORD-I'm not very excited about the plan to expand the blacktop either. That's just, I'm just one person. MR. HUNSINGER-In order to table this to June, we have a submission deadline of May 15tH Would that be a reasonable timeframe to submit any requested documents? MR. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have preference over the 21St or the 19th? MR. MC MAHON-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone on the Board? The 19th or the 21St? Does it matter? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, we'll be here. MR. HUNSINGER-The 19tn? MR. MC MAHON-The 19tH MR. SIPP-1 would like to see a little contour or elevations here, so that if there is a (lost words). MR. MC MAHON-Absolutely. MR. KREBS-Wouldn't that be part of the stormwater report, too? MR. OBORNE-We should have topography as far as the stormwater. It sounds like you may be doing some grading. I'm not sure. So, yes, topography would be part of that. Mark, you'll be able to turn that around by the 15th you think? MR. MC MAHON-1 believe so, yes. MR. OBORNE-You might have to get an engineer on board. MR. MC MAHON-Yes. I believe, and I can verify and let you know tomorrow, I believe Nace should have a lot of those, he should have some of the information already. MR. OBORNE-Okay. That would be great. Have him call me, or you call me, that's fine. We can sit down or just do it over the Internet. MR. MC MAHON-Okay. MR. FORD-Landscaping? MR. MC MAHON-1 guess we are open to, as we improve the site, we would want to, I mean, the lawn in the back is in disrepair that I noticed just when I was, again, there this afternoon. So I will include, you know, some type of landscaping plan. I think with the building at the edge of the blacktop, and then maybe even just a few arborvitaes on the end, I think that would deter anybody from being able to cut through from Friendly's. MR. SIPP-Up to the north of you, across from the Bank, that guy took over that flooring outfit and took down the visible trees that were there and put in some flowers and shrubs and made a whole lot of difference in that corner. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you ready with the motion? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 19-2012 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2012 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the 19th of June, and that the applicant will come back with the following conditions specified on his drawings: 1. That the vacuum will be placed inside of the building. 2. A stormwater management report will be requested due to the location next to Halfway Brook. 3. We would like the stormwater report to include the contours of the land. 4. We would like revised elevations of the new building. 5. That a parking plan will be provided. 6. That landscaping will be reviewed and a plan proposed. 7. Get a clarification from Mike Shaw relative to the runoff into the sanitary sewer. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-See you in a couple of months. MR. MC MAHON-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. If you have any questions, give Keith a call. MR. MC MAHON-Will do. SITE PLAN NO. 20-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT L. PERKINS AGENT(S) MARK C. REHM, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 315 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES USE OF AN EXISTING 9,815 SQ. FT. VACANT BUILDING TO STORE MATERIAL AND TO FABRICATE SCREENED POOL ENCLOSURES. CHANGE IN USE IN THE CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUP 3-2012 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 6.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-4.1 SECTION 179-9 MARK REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 20-2012 for Robert Perkins. This is a change of use in a CLI zone. 315 Corinth Road. CLI is the existing zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA, specifically due to the size of the building. That's pretty much it. Project Description: Applicant proposes use of an existing 9,815 sq. ft. vacant building to store material and to fabricate screened pool enclosures. The application states that there will be no exterior changes to the building and all storage and fabrication to be accomplished inside. Six parking spaces are provided for employees and company vehicles. Waivers requested for stormwater, grading, lighting and landscaping. Very limited comments on Site Plan Review. It's a one page review. There was, a transformer was moved, and that may just need to be updated on the plan. I think everybody's familiar with this site. It's been before us, in one form or another, for the past year. I think this pretty much finalizes it, and I think this may be the very last time this applicant is before us until the next change, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. REHM-Good evening. Mark Rehm representing the applicant. The applicant and family are in the back here. If we need any questions of them, I can certainly bring them up. It's pretty, what we've done is we've really only made a change to the site plan that's falling down here, 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) adding parking spaces, required parking spaces, for six, one for a company vehicle, plus one additional (lost words). What we can do here, we've provided the proper parking. We're using the existing building. There are no changes to the exterior. What we've done, and I do have some photographs, just so you know what's going on inside, just for the Board's knowledge, and let me just pull those photographs out right now, better to see it, an existing facility that does a similar type of job down in Florida, and again, I don't have enough for each one of you, but I can pass them down in the end. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be fine. MR. REHM-Sure, and really all it is is a modification of the screened enclosures which get sent up and, you know, if you need to size them for a proper pool area, that's really what's going on inside the building. Other than that, we've looked through the Staff Notes. I'll work with Tom Nace in order to properly reflect where the transformer has been moved to. I'll just make sure that that's accurate in my final plans to Keith here, and certainly we're going to stabilize that area, that it was noted on there, either by seeding or whatnot, and we'll certainly be addressing that issue, and the signage certainly will, it's going to be out in the front where the Perkins Recycling sign will be, and it certainly will be Code compliant. So they're going to do that at the time that it's necessary to do so. Other than that, we got a letter from the Fire Marshall. It appears that they're satisfied on that end, and I'll leave it open to the Board for any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-What is going to occur that will be different than on the interior of the structure as it appears right now? MR. REHM-In the packet what we have is I have a drawing of what is to be inside, and right now, as it exists vacant, let me just, I have a photograph, it's probably better to see it with the photograph rather than me explaining exactly what it is, but it shows where the saws will be placed. It'll show where the fabrication table will be and the punch press will be, and it indicates, you know, the use inside the building, which right now is, it's in pretty much the same layout, but certainly we're going to bring some items in there, but a picture speaks louder than words. MR. FORD-It's not being currently used for storage of any materials or equipment or? MR. REHM-No, it was just a vacant warehouse, you know, we classified it as a vacant warehouse. It was really not intended for any purpose whatsoever, and to my knowledge there's not anything being stored in there at this time. MR. FORD-Have you been inside it? MR. REHM-1 have not been inside it. I mean, anything in there right now? No. No. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions we had when we were out on site visits, will there be any noise outside of the building? MR. REHM-It'll all take place inside the building, and I think that the hours, which I pointed out in there, are pretty similar to the hours that the recycling is going to be done. So as far as any neighbors or whatnot, they should really not be impacted at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. REHM-It's completely done inside. It's not like they're going to have doors open or, you know, saws going outside. So, it'll be very minimal to say the least. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open the public hearing. Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing and note that no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEQRA. They submitted a Short Form. Unless there's additional questions or comments, we'll move to SEQRA. Don? MR. KREBS-Okay. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. KREBS-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. SIPP-No. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-I'll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. MR. FORD-Second. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 20-2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT L. PERKINS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of, April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #20-2012 ROBERT L. PERKINS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes use of an existing 9,815 sq. ft. vacant building to store material and to fabricate screened pool enclosures. Change in use in the CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/17/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2012 ROBERT L. PERKINS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 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 the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 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) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; Duly adopted this 17th day of April 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. REHM-Thank you, Board. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. REHM-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2012 SEAR TYPE BEN L. ARONSON AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MS-MAIN STREET LOCATION 64 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES 53 PARKING SPACES ON VACANT LAND TO THE EAST OF WHICH 24 SPACES TO BE BANKED FOR FUTURE USE. PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE NEW LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. REVISIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 10-02, SP 49-99, AV 83-99, SP 22-97, A V 19-97, U V 18-97, U V 14-94, A V 15-94, AV 94-92, AV 29-92, AV 1287, VAR. 777 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-10 SECTION 179-9, 179-7 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, if I could, before. It's difficult for Maria to transcribe notes when there are sidebar conversations going on. It is very difficult for her to do that. So if we could refrain from that, and that's my only thing prior to this. Okay. Site Plan 21-2012, Ben L. Aronson is the applicant. This is a revision to an approved Site Plan. Location: 64 Main Street. Existing zoning Main Street. SEQRA status Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant proposes 53 parking spaces on vacant land to the east of which 24 spaces to be banked for future use. Proposal to include new lighting, landscaping, and stormwater controls. What follows is Site Plan Review. I am going to hope and hope that the Planning Board has reviewed that. There are some issues with the design, specifically the use of gravel on the Main Street, in the Main Street corridor. It does say specifically in the Code that that should be for overflow parking only. There are other issues there that Tom and I have been on and off discussing, and a lot of that has to do with the stormwater and the permeable asphalt, and I'm sure that that they will discuss that. The grading is, in fact, denoted on the grading plan, on C-2. I would just like to make that perfectly clear, but what I would like to see would be the limits of grading on the whole parcel. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) That's not clearly defined. There's a large deciduous tree that I believe Tom visited today, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board for discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Hello again. I'm here tonight, it's Tom Jarrett, Jarrett Engineers, representing Ben Aronson and Double A Provisions. We are here to try to relocate parking from the north side of Main Street to the south side adjacent to the actual business, on parcel, actually two parcels owned by Ben Aronson, that have been combined. Our proposal involves 24 additional, or re-located spaces now immediately adjacent to the building, with the possibility of expansion of another 20 some odd spaces immediately east of it, shown behind what could be a future building right on Main Street, and we phantom that in to the build to line on Main Street. On purpose, we're trying to meet the intent of the Main Street guidelines. We've left space for a future building on Main Street so the parking would be in the rear of the buildings, or in the rear of that building, if and when that building is built. Double A needs parking for their employees. The space across the street is being lost. That property is being sold, or is at least for sale, and they need employee parking and this, we feel, is the best alternative that we can develop for that parking. We are in the process of addressing the technical comments received from your Town Engineer, and I'd like to quickly review the comments that Keith has provided to you, and I can do that before or after the Board asks me any questions that you have. Would you like me to get into that now? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. JARRETT-Number One basically I started to address. We think we have met the intent of the Main Street guidelines, and we think we've actually met the actual provisions, specifically of the Main Street guidelines, and I welcome the Board asking me questions or challenging me if you think we have not. So I'll jump right to Item Number Two, which is regarding the gravel parking, and after discussing this with Keith, we have agreed to put in asphalt pavement. Originally I had proposed gravel to match what was across the street and to save money. Understanding the Main Street goals, we will pave it and I'm going to address with Keith and with the Town Engineer whether it's done with conventional asphalt or with porous asphalt. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-You're welcome. It's a good project that way. We may be able to envision some reduction in the stormwater management system we've proposed if we put in porous asphalt, and I can offer that to my client. We have to discuss that further, but we will be paving it. Item Number Three is easements. We have no problem with whatever legal language we need to put in place to facilitate the interconnections in the future. Those properties to the south that I think we're talking about are in a residential zone but they are commercial currently. So potentially interconnects might be viable later on if those properties re-develop, or intensify, and we're willing to put that language in place. Number Four is the parking design, and I think Keith should weigh in on his ideas, but we think we've looked at all the alternatives. We think we've come up with the most efficient layout for not only Double A right now, but the future building that could be built on Main Street. So my argument is that we leave the design as is. Grading, Keith had not seen it originally, and I think that's because the site is so flat there aren't a lot of contours on there, but now I think you've seen it. MR. OBORNE-I've seen the light. MR. JARRETT-We can clarify it better if we need to for construction purposes, but the grading is on there. Lighting is one that I wanted to bring to your attention. Keith has pointed out that the illumination directly under our light pole, which is shown on C-3, is elevated. We have eight and ten foot candles shown directly under the lamp, which we didn't think was excessive at the time we designed it, and in fact we do get minimal lighting at the corners. We thought it was a good balance. Keith is suggesting to you that we reduce the wattage. We are willing to do that if you're in agreement that we would get slightly darker at the corners. So I leave that to the Board for some input. We're willing to work with you. The only thing I would object to is adding another pole, because that adds a lot of expense to the project and I think we've found a good balance point with the wall packs on the future building and the existing building as well as one pole in the center, but we're certainly willing to work with you on that. Item Number One on Page C-4 is the large tree. Keith correctly pointed that out to me, and actually when I went out and looked at it today, I didn't remember which tree you were talking about. When I saw it, I realized that we do show that we're removing it right now, and I was told originally it would have to be removed for the sewer connection, which is happening, will happen shortly in the future, but I think actually now we can say that we can either move our parking back slightly to the 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) south and make that one space an island, a landscaped island, or shorten up the space and provide motorcycle parking there. So I'm open to the Board's suggestions on that as well. MR. HUNSINGER-So which tree are we talking about? MR. JARRETT-If you go to Drawing C-2, no, excuse me, C-1, go to C-1, and immediately behind the addition on Double A, see the addition that extends to the east, the one story building? Look directly south of that and you'll see a symbol for a tree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes. MR. JARRETT-That's the maple tree that is a specimen tree. We will save that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And I guess I will take suggestions from the Board on whether you would like us to make it an island space, you know, remove the space entirely as an island, or just make it a shortened space for motorcycle parking. If I make it an island, I lose a space. I think we can live with that, from a project perspective. So we can come back to that. On that same page, the comment regarding buffer, I'd like to take issue with this because the area to the south is commercial, zoned Neighborhood Residential, but it's commercial right now. It's Jim's Glass, and the area directly to the southeast is Main Street zoning. So I don't think we warrant a buffer there, but I'll see what the Board's thoughts are on that, and lastly, the last Staff comment is additional comments Main Street guidelines. We think we've complied. I welcome the Board's thoughts. So I will open it up to the Board for questions or ideas. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, what's going on across the street in the parking lot that's there now? I notice that there were some woodchips? MR. JARRETT-I don't know, actually. I was told the property would. MR. MAGOWAN-Landscaping or? MR. JARRETT-The physical activity, I have no idea. I do not know. I was told the property was sold, but there's still a For Sale sign out. So I don't know the status. Keith may know more, actually. I don't know. MR. OBORNE-What I know would be anecdotal at this point. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. FORD-The current trailer at the southeast corner of the building? MR. JARRETT-Storage. MR. HUNSINGER-How did you get it in there? MR. JARRETT-I didn't get it in there, trust me. MR. HUNSINGER-Not you personally, but how did the applicant? MR. JARRETT-It's been there a long time, as you can well imagine. MR. HUNSINGER-Obviously. Yes. MR. JARRETT-There's a lot of brush and debris around it right now. MR. FORD-That's going to disappear. MR. JARRETT-It kind of has to for this parking proposal, yes. MR. FORD-1 would think so. MR. JARRETT-It's used for storage. MR. HUNSINGER-How are you going to get it out? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. JARRETT-They're going to use the heavy equipment when we build the parking lot to pull it out, I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. JARRETT-I'm not even sure the tires roll. MR. OBORNE-You should see if Perkins would like it. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Would that give them 61, then? MR. OBORNE-Sixty-one spaces? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. OBORNE-Oh, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? The existing maple tree. How far in to the proposed parking lot does it, I mean, it looks like it's right on. MR. JARRETT-It actually the trunk is outside the space, but I don't want to disrupt the roots. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-So I'd like to either shorten up the space. We can move our parking down a couple of feet and then shorten up the space to avoid impact to the roots. Technically you're supposed to protect the roots out to the drip line, but you can put paving in as long as you're careful, you know, inside the drip line to some degree. MR. KREBS-I like the idea of making it a motorcycle parking space and therefore not losing space. MR. FORD-Yes. I like that idea of motorcycle. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if you go with a permeable paving, macadam, I mean, that obviously would help. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Staff has suggested that the porous asphalt would eliminate the need for stormwater management, and the comments you're going to see soon, when I provide them, are going to suggest we differ, we disagree. We don't think it eliminates the need totally for stormwater management, but can it reduce it, and it certainly reduces the amount of salt that people apply, and it reduces the icing on pavements, but I'm not convinced that with silt plugging these things up over years, that the porous asphalt is going to work forever. So we don't think that eliminating stormwater management is a good idea at this stage. Time will tell, but we've talked about trading off maybe eliminating the drywells here or making the drywells smaller, and putting porous asphalt in, which we will propose to your Town Engineer and Keith will referee, facilitate, but in all seriousness, I think it probably could be a win/win for all parties here, and I don't know what the premium is for porous asphalt right now. It's not being used much up here yet, but it's coming. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is. I mean, we do have it on Schermerhorn's project off of Willowbrook. They're using porous asphalt. The new Hudson Headwaters parking lot is totally porous asphalt, and it's impressive. It is very impressive. I will say that obviously you need a certain amount of substrate and a certain type of substrate with the porous asphalt, and that may damage the roots of the tree, if that was to happen in that area. So there's ways around it, though. MR. JARRETT-I can counter, on this site we have such permeable soil underneath, you don't need much underneath. MR. OBORNE-You're right. MR. JARRETT-So we would not damage the tree in that situation. What DEC recommends for maintenance on these things is vacuuming. Now we don't have anybody up here that's willing to do that yet. So that's one of the things we need to weigh when we're proposing these nice alternatives in front of these Planning Boards is, a super vac, and some of the large urban areas have large trucks that go in and vacuum these parking lots, but up here we don't do that yet. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like an opportunity for some entrepreneur. MR. JARRETT-Entrepreneur. There you go. Exactly. If you buy the truck, make sure you've got some payments ahead, because not everybody's on board with that yet. MR. OBORNE-Yes, there are certain disposal issues with it, too. You're dealing with volatile organic compounds. MR. JARRETT-But it's coming. We will be doing that in several years, but right now the jury's still out on whether people will do that and how long this will last without doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-So you don't want to go out there with a shop vac, in other words. MR. JARRETT-I've seen people do that on prototype pavements, go out with a small vacuum. It's not practical on. MR. MAGOWAN-I'll tell you, my Billy goat, you bring it right down and it takes up all that winter silt. MR. HUNSINGER-What other questions, comments do members of the Board have? So the phantom proposed building that would go to the build to line, I mean, at this point it's just a concept. MR. JARRETT-It's only a vision of our office. It's not even a vision of Ben Aronson, but we're trying to meet the Main Street guidelines by moving parking back, leaving space for a building. That's all we've shown. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And that leads to my comment on the design of the parking lot, and it's just a suggestion. It's not anything that, you know, I'm pushing extremely hard, but if you look at the concept, and I'll pull this up and I'll get on my soapbox. If you see the way that the attitude of the parking lot is, it's north/south, okay, and it would potentially interfere with some building in the area to the north. If you were to turn it to an east/west axis, you'd have your requirement for parking in the rear taken care of for both those parcels and potentially other parcels down the road. So it's just, it's a five year plan. It's just a thought that I threw out there. Now as this stands, this does meet, I had a little philosophical difference with the Zoning Administrator on it, but that's just between the two of us, but as far as he's concerned, it does meet the intent of Main Street. MR. JARRETT-The original concept that we developed, in fact, I think we presented it to Keith early on, did have an east/west flow, and it just didn't work to get the number, when we phantomed in this building along Main Street, and left that space, it didn't give enough parking for both buildings. We're laying out parking for that future phantom building as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JARRETT-And it just didn't work. So we came back to this alternative which is more expensive and frankly not quite what I envisioned to save money to be economical, but I think it's a better long term plan, considering both buildings. Now in light of Keith's comment I'm certainly willing to go back and take another glance at it, but I don't think I'm going to make that leap. MR. OBORNE-I'd love to see that initial draft. MR. JARRETT-I can sit down with you again and we can talk about it. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. I mean, if the Planning Board is fine with it, that's the bottom line, to be honest with you. MR. JARRETT-We have looked at it hard. I'm certainly willing to look at it again, but we have looked at it hard. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, one of the things that it may do is allow you to put a larger building, or no? MR. JARRETT-Yes, but of course the larger building requires more parking, typically, and so we shoot ourselves in the foot at some point. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-You could always build a parking garage. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the other thought we had, you know, looking at the plan before we got out and, you know, got into the real world and looked at the site, is there is a lot of space to the southwest, but you need that for the deliveries. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Back in there? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Yes, right now that's where all the truck deliveries are, and truck staging, and we don't want that in the front. In fact, Keith's comment is we don't want deliveries in the front, and if the building's ever modified, you're going to ask for that to be removed. So we're going to need that space where that. MR. OBORNE-I'm actually asking for it to be removed now, but that would probably present a hardship for the applicant, and I understand that, but there are plenty of loading docks to the rear, but, yes, if you're going to expand the building, there's definitely a fine line there. MR. JARRETT-As soon as they touch the building, I know you're going to ask for that, but right now we're not touching the building. MR. OBORNE-1 agree. MR. JARRETT-And frankly parking, well, paved is a little worse than gravel. One of the reasons we left it as gravel, it leaves a lot of flexibility. When we pave it, we still have flexibility in the future. We can modify this if we have to. If a proposal comes in for a larger building, and, gosh, God forbid a garage needs to be built, we can do it if we have to. MR. OBORNE-But honestly, if you were to come in with a larger building, you would have to purchase lands around there anyway. So who knows what's down. MR. JARRETT-And I don't want to shoot myself in the foot, but the residential property immediately to the east is owned by Ben Aronson, there's a woman in there, and she has life tenancy, and so that property we haven't touched it, but future we might be able to put some parking there or there's options later on, and the parking we've proposed don't preclude those absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We're just trying to meet the intent of the standards while being as efficient as we can. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FORD-1 appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? MR. JARRETT-I think that gentleman from Enterprise wants to come back and speak. I didn't mean to blindside him, and by the way, on the record, they were very cooperative during that whole project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. No public comment? Did you want to speak, ma'am? AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 thought you had a written letter. MR. OBORNE-So I do. Yes. I certainly can read this in. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Geoffrey Burke and Patrick Butler, 2 River Street, Queensbury, New York 12804. To Queensbury Planning Board, Public Hearing tonight, Ben Aronson proposed parking space Site Plan 21-2012 "Planning Board Members: As residents at the above address, we have no objection to the development of parking spaces to further the business needs of Mr. Aronson. However, if this is to take place we respectfully request that the area be a blacktop surface and not a gravel surface. Furthermore, the Aronson property at the corner of Main Street and Second Street should also be paved to prevent the dust and environmental erosion that occurs throughout the year. Living at the end of Second Street, we cannot leave the house windows open because of the gravel dust that funnels down the street. After every rain storm or with winter runoff, our driveway is filled with gravel that flows down the street directly onto our property. Eliminating this pollution would be a great benefit to the entire neighborhood. Respectfully submitted for your consideration, Geoffrey Burke Patrick Butler" MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did you want to speak, ma'am? MARGARET MC CLURE MS. MC CLURE-1 would. I'm Margaret McClure, and I live at 9 Second Street. You saw on the corner, and then there's Jim's Glass, and I live there, and I have about an acre, over an acre of property there. These fellows are priests. They have churches down in the Albany area. This is kind of their getaway house, and, let's see, the best way to describe it is if you come in Second Street from Main. MR. OBORNE-Which property is it? MS. MC CLURE-Second goes all the way down into their driveway, sort of, and then it turns right. So all this stuff goes down into their yard and driveway, but it also passes by the edge of my property. MR. OBORNE-This is Geoff Burke here. MS. MC CLURE-And then I'm the one up on the corner on the right, that one, yes. So that whole side of my property coming down from Main is just, and there's trash, there's all kinds of stuff. I'm not saying the trash comes from there, but the silt from that parking lot on the corner. MR. JARRETT-Dust coming off of here? MS. MC CLURE-Yes, in 17 years I've been there, and it's the same. We've tried all kinds of ways to re-direct it, but it just comes up because this came up with your, if he could do something about that, and plus we think it would just add to the appearance there on the corner. Now with the whole beautiful new Main Street, which we really like. So that was just all I had to say, really. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Yes. MS. MC CLURE-Thanks. MR. JARRETT-I was not aware of that nuisance, but I'll bring that to Mr. Aronson's attention and see if we can address that. Maybe when he's paving this, he's willing to pave, I can't speak for him, maybe the entire thing, or at least an apron that might reduce that dust. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the feeling of the Board? Seems like we're going to be tabling this, I guess. MR. JARRETT-I have not finished addressing the engineer's comments. So I have no objection to tabling if you wish. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments that anyone wants to make before we consider a tabling motion? Why don't we table this to the 21St since we did two of them to the 19th already. MR. JARRETT-Before you table, could I get some feedback on whether you think we've met the. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you had a building there, then I think it would be, you know, the phantom building, if the phantom building was there. MR. JARRETT-You're asking me to erect a building? MR. HUNSINGER-It clearly would, maybe you could put up a fake building like they do in Hollywood. MR. JARRETT-Or we did Downtown years ago. Maybe I shouldn't have asked the question. MR. FORD-Fagade would be nice. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Moving along with a tabling resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I'm not hearing any major objections. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, table it. MR. FORD-And you will have an answer on that issue that this lady just brought up on potential for paving that westerly portion. MR. JARRETT-I will, and I probably will add it to the letter that we write to Craig that the Board will get regarding these public comments, since that's probably an expeditious way to handle it. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-What was that last comment, I'm sorry? MR. JARRETT-I'll put some responses in our letter regarding these public comments. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. JARRETT-So the Board will get it in advance. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Don, I'm not sure what you have, but I guess I'll hear them. I have a revised parking plan because of the tree, engineering comments, clarification on west parking lot. That's all I have. MR. JARRETT-Clarification on what? MR. OBORNE-On the west parking lot, which is the public comment concern. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Revised parking plan, because of the tree. MR. JARRETT-And I heard two Board members say they were comfortable with the motorcycle parking. Anybody object to that? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think that seems like a good solution, yes, or if somebody has one of those little mini cars they can, you know. MR. JARRETT-Well, that's true. The little Fiats or the Smart cars. Some of the motorcycles are probably bigger than them, actually. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wouldn't be surprised. MR. TRAVER-A lot of bikes need as much room, length, as a car. MR. JARRETT-They do, these days, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, Don, you're up. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #21-2012 BEN L. ARONSON MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2012 BEN L. ARONSON, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) Tabled to June 21St. So that we may receive from the applicant: 1. A revised parking plan 2. That they will be able to address engineering comments and public comments. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. See you in a couple of months. Is there anything else that needs to come before the Board this evening? MR. SIPP-Chris, some of you people were here when we approved Schermerhorn's senior housing off Gurney Lane. Has anybody seen that recently? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, what specifically? MR. SIPP-Well, has the entranceway not been moved to the south? MR. OBORNE-Not that I know of. MR. SIPP-Well, now if you go back to the original, which I don't have, but that entranceway is now to the south of where it was in the beginning which was in the middle of that stretch on West Mountain Road. MR. OBORNE-I'm not sure. Obviously I don't have the file with me, but I'm not sure. I really can't answer that. MR. SIPP-Well, it just seems, in all those trees on the south end, which was supposed to be where the stormwater was to go, are gone. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SIPP-Now, if you go to the back of the building, there was supposed to be 20 feet, I think, for the boundary line. I would say that it's not 20 feet. MR. OBORNE-Well, don't forget that they had to clear a right of way for the sewer line to go through there, and that was what was a bone of contention that Gretchen brought up, to Code compliance, and it was on the plan. MR. SIPP-On the west side. On the east side. MR. OBORNE-On the east side, correct, along where the access ramp is. MR. SIPP-Right. It's pretty close. MR. OBORNE-No, I agree. I agree. MR. SIPP-Well, I'm not seeing things, because I remember plantings were to be put along that entranceway. MR. OBORNE-Well, they certainly have not finished the project yet. I'm not sure if they've completed their landscaping, to be honest with you. MR. SIPP-Well, maybe they haven't, but I still say it was in the middle of the building. Now you go further south about 50 feet to get to the entranceway. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. SIPP-Which then comes up to the southern side of the building and then goes to the middle where your entranceway is. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. OBORNE-Yes. I'd have to juxtapose that with the plan, with what's existing, and that's actually, that's Bruce's job. So if he finds any inconsistencies. MR. SIPP-1 mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with it except that stormwater I think is supposed to empty into that sandpit on the south end of the property. MR. OBORNE-And there's supposed to be vegetation on that pit, too. So there's not a lot of that going on, but the plan has not been complete. The plan does not have a CO at this point. MR. SIPP-They don't? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. SIPP-Are they going to run an open house there? MR. OBORNE-Well, they could run an open house, but they certainly can't sell units until they get a CO. MR. KREBS-They can't occupy until they get the CO. MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to make the Board aware. I had a conversation today with Mike Hill, relative to Verizon Wireless. Are you up to speed with the issue, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought so. In the Federal Communication Act, there's a stipulation that the Planning Board has 150 days to review and take action on a cell tower plan, and apparently we're coming up to the 150 days or already have, and he's had some conversations with the applicant's attorney relative to that. The applicant has expressed a willingness to offer an extension and anyway Mike would like to come before the Board Thursday evening to get our approval for him to, I guess sort of settle the discussion with the applicant's counsel. I guess my own feeling is that personally I'm not too concerned about the 150 days coming and going because the applicant would then have to take action to sue the Board to say, well, we didn't act in the 150 days and take action that way, and by the time that any lawsuit would come, you know, before a judge we would probably take an action anyway. MR. TRAVER-And we probably could make an argument that we don't have a complete application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I'm not sure, I didn't ask Mike, you know, how that plays into it. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don't know how they can start the clock unless we have an application to review. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree, but anyway, that's the conversation I had with Mike. He would like to come before the Board on Thursday evening. I don't see it taking more than a few minutes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is his application complete? I missed that meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, we've been deliberating the application. The main issue now, and I don't want to get into a lot of detail on discussing the application since it wasn't on the agenda, but the biggest issue, if I may say that, is the, there's been concern expressed about the ability of the site to hold another water tower, and there was a representation made at the last meeting that there's plans by the Town to construct another water tower. Now it didn't come from anyone at the Town. It came from a neighbor. So, you know, I don't know if there's plans or if there are not plans, you know, the Town only said, you know, let's make sure we design this Site Plan so that it could accommodate. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Right, and I think we're waiting for a report. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. Yes. So we're waiting for that report. Verizon has made representation that, well, that's all fine and good, but really that has nothing to do with our project. We want to move our project forward. If the Town comes back and says you need to move the tower to a different location, then they'll come back and do a Site Plan revision. So, I don't want to say it's a Catch-22, but it's almost a Catch-22. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it's a freestanding tower as it is now. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It's a water control structure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And if the Town doesn't connect to a water tower, then that's what it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-1 wonder if it would be worth getting counsel's opinion on asking for an extension. Because if we ask for an extension, are we acknowledging that we're into the extension? MR. HUNSINGER-Good question, yes, but anyway, that's what Mike wants to talk to us about. MR. TRAVER-We might want to. MR. FORD-Let's see what counsel recommends. MR. TRAVER-We might want to decide the question that you properly raised which is has the clock started if we have an incomplete application. I would be more comfortable pursuing that angle. If we find out that yes, in fact, the clock has started, then work with the applicant and say, give us an extension, but if we ask for an extension, then we've already established that, not only has the clock started, but we're nearing the end of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-But does action mean approval? I don't believe it does. MR. HUNSINGER-No. Action could mean denial. MR. OBORNE-Action could mean that you've had a public hearing. I'm not sure what that means. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think that the window's intended to result in a resolution one way or another. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. TRAVER-So I think holding a public hearing wouldn't. MR. OBORNE-Okay, well we certainly have accomplished SEQRA on this already. So, with this new information, that's a whole other issue, too, that we discuss. MR. TRAVER-Which also supports the argument that it's incomplete. So I think that we might want to pursue that before we ask for an extension, because then we're acknowledging that the clock has run. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I mean, mostly what I wanted to do this evening is bring it up with the Board so that you can be prepared for the discussion Thursday evening. MR. TRAVER-Unfortunately I won't be here. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If you have any specific questions other than that, Steve, let us know. MR. TRAVER-Well, it might be, I don't know if it would be possible between now and Thursday, but it might be interesting to get Town Counsel's impression of, interpretation of whether that clock has started based on what we have before us. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I didn't ask him that question directly, but clearly he intimated that it has. Because apparently it's coming up in May, but I'm not sure how we started the clock. MR. TRAVER-It may not make a huge difference if the applicant is willing, but suppose we acknowledge to the applicant that we would like an extension. What's to prevent them from saying, you know, we've changed our mind. We're not going to give you an extension, now that you've established that we need one? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's the whole point of, you know, counsel wants to get that in writing. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-That's the whole point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why would you say you want an extension? MR. TRAVER-We would want an extension. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why? MR. TRAVER-So that we could make a proper review of the application. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, because they haven't formally submitted the application. MR. TRAVER-That's the other side of the argument, that the clock hasn't started. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, but have they submitted the application is my question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So why can't we review it and make a decision? The Town isn't going to put a water tower up on time anyhow, and if they agree to move it to move it to the water tower at a later date, the Town makes a lot of money on that, so it's a good deal, but it would be better to get them locked into being on a tower and being there so at least we have a shot at getting that revenue, because they're going to put a cell tower in the general area no matter what. MR. OBORNE-And I would recommend that we don't get too deep into this at this point, because we don't have the applicant here to rebut anything. MR. FORD-Right. We're given a heads up. That's all we need. We're ready. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course I guess the other question that we can ask counsel is, you know, is this a legitimate Executive Session discussion, since it's a negotiation, and I didn't even think of that until just now. MR. OBORNE-Well, I have the note down here. I was not aware that he had talked to you about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, in fact he called me, it was like ten after four this afternoon. It was very late this afternoon. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I'm sure he'll reach out to me tomorrow. I have it on my list here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was still at work. MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm sorry I'm going to miss Thursday night. It's going to be the first meeting I've missed in several years I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think so. MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? MR. SIPP-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-Second by Mr. Sipp. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2012, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/17/2012) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 43