Loading...
2006-09-26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 INDEX Site Plan No. 22-2006 Martha Schmulbach 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-12 Site Plan No. 33-2006 Steven & Debbie Seaboyer 2. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36 Subdivision No. 6-2006 Cifone Construction 8. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 308.1-21.2 thru 21.6 Subdivision No. 4-2006 Lee Jarvis 12. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 307.-1-32 Subdivision No. 3-2006 John Whalen 13. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 289.17-1-1 Site Plan No. 27-2006 John Miles 18. Tax Map No. 308.16-1-60, 59, 58 Subdivision No. 11-2006 Richard Solomon 24. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 278.-2-4 Site Plan No. 37-2006 Angio Dynamics 28. Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10 Site Plan No. 57-2005 Northeast Dining & Lodging 51. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD CHRIS HUNSINGER MEMBERS ABSENT TANYA BRUNO SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Queensbury Planning Board for September 26, 2006. I have a couple of things to do this evening before we get to the first application, which is Mr. Cifone for his Final application. Two things I want to look at is, one, a resolution for Mrs. Schmulbach. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH MR. VOLLARO-A resolution for Martha Schmulbach. The motion here, and I’ll read it into the record. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Based on the following: 1. We’re going to table this to an unspecified date. 2. On July 18, 2006, this applicant was tabled for the following action. They request that the Code Enforcement Officer review disposal of soil from the site’s excavation and pending Department of Health review of the septic system. 3. To date the Planning Office has not received any documentation that either of these events have taken place. Additionally Ms. Bitter stated in the minutes of July 18, 2006 that the applicant would apply to the Town Board of Health for a septic variance based on the installation of an Eljen system. The use of this type system may then mitigate the separation distances from the wells on her property as well as the distance to her neighbor’s well. To date we have not received that variance from the Town Board of Health. Receipt of that variance is a requirement of this motion. 4. Additionally, the applicant must submit a Stormwater Management Plan per Chapter 147, being that the property is within a CEA, 500 feet from mean high water mark of Lake George set at 320.2. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Thank you. I just want to just briefly explain. You’re probably all aware that the Town Board just hired Barton & Loguidice. They want to have the Town 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) Engineer verify the results of the applicant’s engineer for soil tests, and that’s what we’ve been held up on. We haven’t been able to apply for the variance, and it may be possible that it won’t need a variance. We may be able to switch the location of the well and the septic so it doesn’t need a variance, but until we have soil tests that are verified by the new Town Engineer, we can’t before the Town Board or the Planning Board. So that’s why we’ve been held up, but that’s just been taken care of last night at the Town Board resolution. So we’re hoping that we can get that done and get right back here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The Town Engineer that you described, Barton & Loguidice, they are not the Town. They are the selected engineer for this particular project. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-For verifying soil tests, yes. So now that they’re on board we can move forward. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. Thanks for the information. The second thing we want to talk about tonight, and before I can go into this, I’ve got to let all the Town Board members and it be placed in the record that I got a phone call at home by Mr. O’Connor today asking, wanting to talk about this particular application, and I’m not in the habit of hanging up on people, so I did talk to him, but I want the Board members to know that I did speak to him outside of the forum of this Board, and those of you that have read this, the Town Board resolution concerning this application. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, what application are you talking about? Seaboyer? Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-It’s Seaboyer, yes. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2006 STEVEN & DEBBIE SEABOYER MR. VOLLARO-And there is a, it’s a resolution by the Town Board, Number 440-2006, it was introduced by Mr. Boor who moved for its adoption. It was seconded by Mr. Sanford, and essentially I can read it, it’s rather lengthy. I can say that it revoked the approval set forth in the original local Board of Health resolution for this sewage disposal system on the site of Debbie and Steven Seaboyer. I believe that’s up on Rockhurst, and the vote by the Board, Resolved that the Queensbury Town Board hereby directs the Director of Building and Code Enforcement to revoke Building Permit No. 2006-006, issued to Steven and Debbie Seaboyer, concerning the Seaboyer’s property located at 83 Rockhurst Road, Queensbury, and bearing tax number, so on and so on, until such time as all necessary variances are granted for placing a new septic system within a Critical Environmental Area for the purpose of serving new construction. This was Duly th adopted on the 11 day of September, and the AYES were Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, and Mr. Sanford. On the strength of that, I’m going to make a motion to deny this application, based on the fact that it no longer has a septic system that we can work with, and I’ll make that motion. MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just have a clarification. So what happened was they got the original approval for the septic system in ’95? MR. VOLLARO-Back in 2005. MR. SEGULJIC-Based on the existing structure. MR. VOLLARO-Based on the existing structure. That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Then they went out and did a proposal for a new construction. MR. VOLLARO-There is a question of whether or not the applicant would say that this is a modification. Other people would say this borders on new construction. I think that’s part of the situation that we have here. MR. SEGULJIC-So what the Town Board is essentially saying, they have to stay on the existing holding tank. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-That’s one of the proposals for, the reason that I think, the fundamental reason for the rejection was that the property does not demonstrate at least 50% of the area of the existing septic field. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, doesn’t have the 50% allowable increase. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on this? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FORD-Before we get into any further discussion on the motion, do we have a second? MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t done the motion yet. MR. FORD-I thought you had. MR. VOLLARO-I was talking to Mr. Seguljic. Mr. O’Connor, did you want to say something first? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I do. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me at the table is Mrs. Seaboyer and Mr. Seaboyer is in the audience and Mr. Center, who is the engineer on the project, is also at the table with me. In the sense of fair play and due process, I think your motion is not in order. The resolution that you refer to by the Town Board was made without a hearing, without notice, and in fact I think is incorrect in that it was made by the Town Board sitting as the Town Board, not as the Board of Health, but I acknowledge that we have a problem with the Town Board and that we’re going to have to go to the Town Board and straighten that problem out. Either that or we’re going to have to go to court and try and straighten it out in court, but I would ask that you treat this resolution the same as you treated the Peek application that we were here maybe two months ago, and in that application, in fact, that applicant had gone to the Town Board and had been denied a variance, but was told to come to the Zoning Board to get the variances they needed, come to the Planning Board, get site plan approval, and then go back to the Town Board, and the Town Board would take care of the septic, and you did approve that application, and you made it subject to them getting approval for the septic system from the Town Board, which is the same thing I would ask you to do for the Seaboyers. I’m not 100% sure that we even need to go to the Town Board, but that’s maybe a legal argument, and I’d ask you to look at Section 179-5-110, and that specifically talks about sanitary requirements in Waterfront Residential districts. That’s the only thing that I found in the Zoning Ordinance that kicks in consideration of septic when you’re doing something in that area or that zone, and that says any increase in the floor area of a principal structure serviced by sanitary sewer facilities of any kind that is located in a Waterfront Residential district, and which requires a building permit shall conform with the requirements of Section 136 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. This application is not for an increase in the floor area. The Seaboyers have been very careful to make sure that this is not an expansion. We spent about three months or four months before the Zoning Board of Appeals talking about whether this was new construction or modification of existing construction. The Zoning Board approved this on the basis that it was an improvement to the area, and we’ve had some discussions, and I apologize to the Chairman for my conversation within him this afternoon, but I wanted an opportunity to at least be able to address this before the Board made a motion, so that you would have full knowledge of what is going on. If you look at the Town Board’s resolution, they talk about expansion. They talk about new construction, and that, again, was without a hearing, without us there to put in any information before that Board, but that’s a Town Board issue. It’s not a Planning Board issue, is the point that I make. We came in with a plan before you for at least one month if not two months, and I don’t have my calendar here in front of me. You set forth how you wanted us to do the stormwater. You wanted it to be a major stormwater plan, as opposed to a minor stormwater plan. You acknowledged the fact that we are increasing the permeability of the site. You acknowledged the fact that we were willing to, or we acknowledged that we were willing to do the buffer along the lake with the plantings, with the landscape plan that you wanted. I think we’ve dotted every “I” and every “T” that you had in your concerns, 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) except for the issue of septic. We represented to you that we believed that we had Town Board approval the last time we were here, and we had it the last time we were here. MR. VOLLARO-And all of what we did during the time we went through that approval routine was based on the fact that you had an approval by the Town Board for your septic system. MR. O'CONNOR-Correct, okay, but this is no different than I think the Peek application. The Peek application was for a residence that was being modified within the Waterfront Residential zone that obviously needed variances. The depth of that lot, I think they actually are asking for variances greater than ours. MR. VOLLARO-They withdrew their application last night, you know, in front of the Town Board. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that, but it was before the Town Board, and it was on the basis, as I understood it, that the Town Board said that if they came back to them, they would allow them to put in a holding tank that would work, okay. We are not necessarily opposed to that. We think that it may not be the best to do, but we are not necessarily opposed. We want the opportunity. We want the opportunity to go to the Town Board. I don’t want to go to the Town Board and the Town Board say you’ve got to complete the Planning Board. I mean, some place the circle has to end. Each Board has to stand on its own and make its own decisions. With what falls within your jurisdiction, the way that we’ve set this up with the Town Board of Health, and the Town Board acting as the Town Board of Health, and we assuming and willing to assume the risk of whatever that outcome is for our presentation before them, I think we’ve got on the table everything you need to approve the application. MR. VOLLARO-See, we’d be approving an application that has no septic system associated with it, and, you know, then we’d be going against our own Code 136, which says that we’ve got to work with an acceptable system. MR. O'CONNOR-We have an acceptable system that works. We offered to put in an anaerobic system. If you remember the language in the Town Board, they thought we’d take a step forward ahead of everybody else and we had a system that nobody else had offered, and that they recommended to Mr. Center and to Mr. Nace and his firm that when he comes back with applications, that they try to convince the applicants to use as good a system as we’ve proposed. I mean, I don’t understand the difference between this application and the Peek application. MR. VOLLARO-I think there was some problems with that system when C.T. Male really looked at it, I believe. MR. O'CONNOR-The only problem, okay, we have a signoff letter from C.T. Male and a series of letters from them with one exception, and that was they wanted to talk to the designer of the septic system and they talked to the watershed manager in Canandaigua Lake because when you come down to the nitty gritty, the system that we designed was oversized and wouldn’t function properly and they recommended that we decrease it and you wanted to verify it with him. You also wanted to verify the maintenance program that we would put with them. We understand that as of this afternoon he has verified that, but within the rules of this Board, you gave us a comment to that effect, but would not give a signoff letter on that, but his comments and his only problems with the system that we provided, which may or may not be the system that the Town Board approves, was only with regard to the septic system. They had no comments and no problems with the stormwater management plan that was proposed or anything else on the site. MR. SEGULJIC-I think, overall, the plan looks great, but the problem now we have is we don’t have a septic system. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the fundamental problem. MR. SEGULJIC-As I recall, when we made the motion, one of them, the last part of the motion was to go to the Town Board and get approval, and then the Town Board essentially has denied it. MR. VOLLARO-Denied it. That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the problem. I guess, can’t we just leave the application tabled? I can’t see approving it because, Number One, we don’t have the final plan, and then, 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) Number Two, we don’t have Town Board approval, which was part of our, one of our conditions. So I don’t see how we can approve this. MR. O'CONNOR-The last one that you approved, you approved with the condition that the applicant, you approved it in the final form, and asked, and said that it’s not effective until the Town Board signs off on the septic. MR. SEGULJIC-I forget the details and I’m getting confused, but I recall, because this one the Town Board wanted us to review it first. MR. O'CONNOR-Not this one here. MR. SEGULJIC-Not this one here. I mean, we don’t have the final plans either here, so we can’t approve. th MR. O'CONNOR-I think you do, no, you do. They were submitted on September 11. MR. CENTER-The minor modifications to comments made to C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any. MRS. STEFFAN-We didn’t get new plans in our package this week. MR. CENTER-I was told, looking at the meeting minutes, we had to submit by th September 12 in regards to the comments made at the last meeting in August, addressing your comments, which we addressed, sent those in, get them to the Town, thth C.T. Male sent us a comment letter on the 20. We received it. It’s dated the 18. It thst was faxed to us on the 20. We answered those on the 21, responded back by fax to C.T. Male. I talked to him on Friday and then again on Monday. He was waiting to hear from George Bardin. He spoke to Mr. Bardin of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed on yesterday afternoon, and then I spoke to him this morning and he gave us an e-mail letter which basically said he couldn’t give us a final signoff, but he had spoken to Mr. Bardin, and the only concerns were maintenance issue of the septic system. There were th no other comments. The four comments that he had in his September 18 comment letter were all septic related, nothing in regards to the stormwater. Assuming that with that, that the stormwater plan was acceptable to him. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you are correct, because in the Staff notes it does say that the, th noted on the plans submitted by the applicant on September 11 . I never got the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we didn’t get them. MR. VOLLARO-Is this what we’re talking about? Are these the plans where it says comment number one, comment number two, comment number three, four, comment five? MR. CENTER-There was a couple of comments letters, I’d have to look at them. MR. VOLLARO-This is the only thing that we have in our packet is what I’m showing you now. th MR. CENTER-No, on the 11 I submitted new drawings, new stormwater report, an entire package. I’ve got it out in the truck. I was prepared to go over it when we were on the agenda. I didn’t bring it in right now, but I have all that, if I can run out and grab it, if th we’re going to continue to discuss that. I can show you what we submitted on the 11, and we submitted 14 copies. MR. VOLLARO-To who? MR. CENTER-To the Town, I dropped it off to the Town. th MR. BAKER-They were hand delivered on September 11. MR. FORD-Do you recall the date you submitted those? th MR. CENTER-September 11, sir. MR. FORD-Not the date you submitted, the date that you developed them? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) th MR. CENTER-I believe it was September 11. If I can run out to the truck, I’ll grab them. th MR. BAKER-I have a copy right here, and it was hand delivered on September 11 to our office, I have nothing in my file to indicate that it wasn’t forwarded to the Planning Board. This is the first I’m hearing of this. MR. CENTER-The revision date is Revision Five, 9/11/06. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to see what Staff has in their file. MR. O'CONNOR-Tom, do you have anything with 9/11? MR. FORD-No. I’m looking. This goes back further. MR. O'CONNOR-Here’s a set that was delivered. This is the set that was delivered to my office on the day they delivered it to the Town, with a revision date of 9/11. It’s got everything that you asked for. MR. HUNSINGER-The Staff notes refer to it, but we didn’t get them. MR. SEGULJIC-I see no advantage in denying this, at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask you this. What I would like to see probably is the applicant, my own personal opinion, and I’ll go along with whatever the Board would like to do, but I would like to see them come back with a new application that’s nice and clean so we understand it. Right now it’s fragmented. I don’t have it clean in my mind with respect to the septic system, knowing that it’s been denied. I know that there’s an Eljen system that’s going to go in there, but they don’t have enough room right now, on that system, to get 50% replacement. MR. SEGULJIC-If we table it, which I think we have to anyway because we don’t have the plans, it just stays in the system and they still have to get Town Board approval. MR. VOLLARO-The problem with keeping it in the system is that it’s always up on the blackboard and we always have to deal with it and moving it forward. We could table it to some time in December and put a date on it, so we’ve got a date on the board so that we can deal with it. We know it’s coming up on that date. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s what we should do. They just have to overcome the septic hurdle, which is out of our control. MR. O'CONNOR-When you say you have a clean set of plans, the revised plans are standalone plans, fully intact. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, Mr. O’Connor. I don’t have them. My problem is I haven’t had a chance to review them. When I don’t get a chance to review something, my mind doesn’t have a picture of what we’re talking about. Let me go up and down the Board. There’s two decisions here. We either deny this or table it. I’m going to ask, I’ll start off with you, Don, where do you stand? MR. SIPP-If we deny, can they re-submit? MR. VOLLARO-Sure, they always can re-submit. Absolutely, no question that they can re-submit a brand new application. MR. SIPP-And if we table it it’s going to go to December anyway. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll put a date on it, for the benefit of Staff, so that. With Schmulbach that we have here that’s been tabled indefinitely. I don’t know what’s going to happen there. MR. SIPP-Until the Town Board, as the Board of Health, makes the determination, I think we’re just spinning our wheels here. When they make a determination, then we can go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-Tom Ford? MR. FORD-In as much as there is additional information that has not been brought before us upon which to make a decision, I would feel uncomfortable with a denial at this point, but I would feel more comfortable with tabling it. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-To some specified date. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree with that. I don’t see any reason to deny it. It’s unfortunate that we didn’t get those revised drawings. They were referred to in Staff notes so we knew they were available, but you mentioned tabling it until December. MR. VOLLARO-Until some date, because usually when we get into this position, Staff would like us to tie it to a date, as opposed to letting it float. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand that, but, I mean, we already know there’s a revised plan. I’d feel a lot more comfortable tabling it to next month than two months out, because it’s certainly not the applicant’s fault that we didn’t get the benefit of the whole package. MR. VOLLARO-No, but don’t forget, one of the problems that we’ve been dealing with all along here is that we have no viable septic system. All this application is for, by the way, that’s before us, as I understand it, is looking at hard surfacing within the first 50 feet of the shoreline, that’s what we’re doing here. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that, yes. All the more reason. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tom, I know where you are. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I think we should table it. I don’t think we should deny it. Obviously there’s some, as Mr. O’Connor said, there’s some process issues that have to be addressed. So I think the right thing to do is to table it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We will do that, and do you have I think, a date that’s plausible on that, 10/24? th MRS. STEFFAN-For the 10/24 meeting, the deadline was the 15, which was obviously a couple of weeks ago, but. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve already filed, Mrs. Steffan. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but we have to give you a deadline date for any more submissions. MR. FORD-Bob, will that include the approval by the Board of Health? MR. VOLLARO-No, what they’re saying is they want us to go forward, as I understand it, they want us to go forward with this, in the absence of anything from the Town Board of Health with respect to the new septic system, and then we make this tabling motion based on the fact that a new septic system will be, when the new septic system becomes available, then this automatically, see, it’s very convoluted when you do it this way. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, the septic system could change the whole site design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. When you start playing with fragments and stuff like this, you get yourself in a lot of trouble. MR. SEGULJIC-When do you think you can get Town Board approval? How is that shaking out? MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve got to go to the Town Board hopefully in October. I want to talk to them about their resolution, which basically was without a hearing, revoking a prior permit, and I will try to do that before October. MR. HUNSINGER-You made a comment earlier that you have an existing septic system. Is that in compliance with current Department of Health regulations? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a holding tank right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. FORD-If we considered tabling this until after the Town Board has acted as the Board of Health and given its stamp, or given direction relative to the one issue that was of great concern to us. MR. O'CONNOR-I think Mr. Vollaro made a point, though. This application is before this Board for the hard surfacing within 50 feet of the lake. The septic system and the location of the septic system is not going to affect that. We certainly aren’t going to put any proposed septic system, whatever it might be, within 50 feet of the lake. MR. VOLLARO-But we don’t know. I understand what you’re saying, but it’s not hard information. MR. O'CONNOR-I think commonsense has to play some part in this, Bob. I mean, these people, we’ve been at this thing for two and a half years. MR. VOLLARO-I know we’ve got a lot of stuff that’s been, we’ve got a couple of things, one thing in particular here that’s has gone on. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, my position is the same as, I think you approved the Peek application, on the parameters that you were concerned about, subject to the Peek people going to the Town and getting a septic system approved by the Town Board, and that I would understand if you conditioned it, your approval on that basis. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m writing now. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but to table it to the point that we go to the Town Board and then come back, the Town Board may very well say the same thing that they said to us that they said to this applicant, that they said to Peek. Get all your other approvals done first, and then we’ll talk about what you’re going to do. MR. VOLLARO-And Peek went all the way through all of that routine, and pulled their application last night, withdrew it. MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is they pulled their application because they were told that the application that they had before the Board would not be approved, and I don’t mean to speak for somebody else, but how it was paraphrased to me, but they were led to believe that if they came back with a holding tank, in compliance with 137, they would get that approval. You need a variance for a holding tank, too. MR. VOLLARO-Well, on a full-time basis you do, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I’m going to do is I’m going to change this to a tabling motion, and it will be tabled until such time as the septic approval is received from the Town Board of Health. When they get an approval for their septic system, they come back to us and then we’ll go from there. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2006 STEVEN & DEBBIE SEABOYER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: It will be tabled until such time as the septic approval is received from the Town Board of Health. This would be tabled to an unspecified date, until such time as the Town Board of Health takes its action. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-The applicant does not consent to that motion. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2006 FINAL SEQR TYPE N/A CIFONE CONSTRUCTION AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION SMOKE RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO FURTHER SUBDIVIDE 5 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) PARCELS INTO 10 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.51 ACRES TO 0.95 ACRES AND SEEKS FINAL APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. AV 6-06, SB 7-85M, SB 11-01, AV 74-01, AV 98-01, SP 23-02 6/22/06 SKETCH REVIEW WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-1-21.2 THROUGH 21.6 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, representing the applicant. With me at the table is John Cifone and also Tom Center, who’s the engineer for the project. We’ve been here before for Preliminary, and we’re here tonight for Final approval. We think that we have met all of the conditions that the Board was considering at the time of Preliminary. There was a comment by Staff, and if I go through the Staff comments, that a no cut buffer is provided on the Final plat, however, it excludes Lots 20A and 21B for no apparent reason. We went through that at great length the last time and talked about the grading requirements of the site and said that there would not be a no cut buffer on those two lots. MR. VOLLARO-I remember that, and when I looked at it I understood that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That’s the only comment. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the other one is compliance with Kathy O’Brien’s letter of 21 July 2006. Her second paragraph talks about the eight foot stockade fence along the east property line and along the back of the southern property line in back of the 25 foot no cut buffer, and it looks like that was agreed to? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I think we had great discussion about that also last time and based upon the discussion, the comments by Mr. Cifone, I had the feeling that the Board was of the consensus that it was not really necessary. It wouldn’t serve a real useful purpose. The fencing is shown on S-2. MR. FORD-That’s my recollection as well. MR. O'CONNOR-The fencing along the side, southerly boundary, is already a developed lot, and our comment was that once these buildings get built, people aren’t going to feel as free to run through this property as they might now. MR. VOLLARO-The drawing, S-2, as dated 7/14/06, shows a stockade fence across the back end. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it does. We would like permission, or an understanding, that we remove that stockade fencing from the mylars when we submit them for signature. MR. FORD-Based upon our last meeting, why were they not eliminated? MR. CENTER-The submission deadline had passed. These were submitted prior to the meeting, in hopes that everything on here would address the comments, and we have final comments on Kathy O’Brien, and that’s what we talked about. These, you didn’t have these drawings in front of you the night of the meeting. We got Kathy O’Brien’s letter and submitted our comments and submitted for a Final at the same time, in hopes that, and we couldn’t change them. The deadline had passed to submit them. We weren’t allowed to submit revised drawings, and it was kind of left that, my understanding at the last meeting, was that we’d sleep on it and come back to this meeting and make a final decision on whether or not they needed to be left in or not, but there was not an opportunity, because it was tabled, we couldn’t do Final that night, and then we subsequently got bumped in the September meetings. MR. O'CONNOR-We had already submitted the Final plans, but they hadn’t been distributed to you, not unlike the last thing, for some reason, nobody seemed to know where they were, or why you hadn’t gotten them, and the time for filing new Final plans would have passed for this meeting. MR. FORD-Is there a Final plan that deletes those? MR. CENTER-We would say that we would ask for a condition that our Final mylars do not show. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. FORD-So the answer is no. MR. O'CONNOR-The answer at this time is no. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-As opposed to the ordinary where we ask for approval subject to us adding something to the plan, we would ask for approval subject to us removing something from the plan. MR. VOLLARO-Did you have any further discussions with Kathy O’Brien on this at all, to why she was so adamant about this in her letter? MR. O'CONNOR-I have not. MR. CENTER-The initial discussion was to prohibit traffic from getting on to the pole lines. MR. O'CONNOR-We had made inquiries but never got a reply. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll throw this open to the Board. I have no, by the way, I don’t have any comments on this application. I think it’s well done, but I’d like to get the Board’s comment on this fence. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. If I recall correctly, she had said she recommended the fence there to prevent ATV traffic from going through. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. CENTER-Yes, from Smoke Ridge Road to the pole lines, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The discussion was there’s already a house on the lot to the east, you’re building a house there and that’s going to prevent it anyway. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So I have no problem with taking the fence down. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t particularly have a problem taking it out either, to be honest with you, but let me ask the rest of the Board. MR. SIPP-I have no problem. MR. FORD-I didn’t at the last meeting, I still don’t. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the condition is that when I go to sign the mylar, it will be removed. It won’t be there. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Any other comments from any Board members on this? I think it’s a pretty complete application. It looks clean to me. MR. SIPP-Just a point of interest to me. On the landscape you have a Pear tree right up by the front door, Aristocrat Calorie Pear. MR. VOLLARO-Which drawing is that on, Don? MR. SIPP-It’s on the landscape. It’s no big deal to anybody but who’s ever going to move in there. MR. VOLLARO-You mean it’s right on somebody’s front door? MR. SIPP-Yes, well, this is a big tree. This is no little bush. This is a 15 foot by 10 foot spread tree, right by the, see the CP-1 on the landscape. MR. O'CONNOR-In the middle of the house, the door is on the outer part of the house. That’s like in the middle of the yard. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. SIPP-You’ve got a spread of 20 to 25 foot of mature tree. I mean, I don’t care if you put it there. It just doesn’t seem the logical place to slap a Pear tree. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cifone will delete that if, we will have a reasonable tree that will grow well. MR. FORD-That’s approximately in line with the fire wall, correct, between the two structures? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Obviously we didn’t prepare the landscape plan. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got one comment that I would like to make, however, that I would like to put in the motion, and it has to do with what’s in the stormwater management report, on Page Number Three, and it’s Item Number Five. I’d like to add to that, if we could, that the design engineer will make a final inspection of the site and confirm that the stormwater controls are installed per the final approved drawings. Do you see where I am on Number Five, prior to commencement of construction, the contractor shall have the engineer conduct an assessment, etc. Follow that with the design engineer will make a final inspection of the site and confirm that the stormwater controls are installed per the final approved drawings. MR. CENTER-Does Number Seven satisfy that, at completion of construction the contractor shall perform a spot final inspection? MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s the contractor performing the inspection. I understand that, but what I’m really looking for is the design engineer to say, you put it in according to my design. MR. CENTER-Would you like that added to Number Seven? MR. VOLLARO-You could add it to Seven, that’s fine. MR. O'CONNOR-We’d have no objection to that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2006 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a final stage subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to further subdivide 5 parcels into 10 lots ranging in size from 0.51 acres to 0.95 acres and seeks final approval from the Board. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board review. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and scheduled on 7/25/06; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2006 CIFONE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Three complies. Paragraph Four, Negative. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that this application is approved with the following conditions: 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) 1.Final plan/mylar will have a stockade fence removed at the rear and east of the property. 2.On Page 3 of the Stormwater Prevention Plan, Item # 7 should read that the design engineer will make a final inspection of the site and confirm that the stormwater controls are installed per the final approved drawings. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. O'CONNOR-Thanks. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2006 FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LEE JARVIS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 729 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 7.76 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 1.50, 1.55, AND 3.84 ACRES RESPECTIVELY AND SEEKS FINAL APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 29-2006 & 3/28/06 SKETCH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-32 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing the applicant, Lee Jarvis, who’s seated with me tonight. There was I think two comments that were left open after th Preliminary, was for C.T. Male signoff, which you received on July 20, and that you receive some signed and sealed prints, which I believe I handed you tonight, along with the mylar. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and they are I believe up on Staff’s desk. The only thing I would add to this, and I think the Final Stage is good. I have no problems with any of it myself, I’m going to open it up for Board comments, and then I’ll give you my one comment that I’m going to make. So I’ll start off with you, Tom Ford. MR. FORD-I don’t have any comments at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Seguljic? MR. SEGULJIC-All set. MR. VOLLARO-All set. Mr. Hunsinger? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-The stamped drawings have been explained. That’s the only thing I had. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The only thing I would ask for is that that areas of disturbance be clearly marked with construction material for inspection by the Town. This is the area that, you know, where we talk about the areas of disturbance. MR. STEVES-Yes, we’ll flag those out. Not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and we’ll put that into the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2006 LEE JARVIS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, a final stage subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 7.76 acre parcel 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) into 3 residential lots of 1.50, 1.55, and 3.84 acres respectively and seeks final approval from the Board. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/20/06; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2006 LEE JARVIS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Three complies. Paragraph Four, Negative. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that this application is approved with the following condition: 1.That the area of disturbance be clearly marked on the site with construction material for inspection by Town personnel. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2006 FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN WHALEN AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A, RC-15, LC- 42A LOCATION BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION OF A 40+ ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RESULTING IN FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE 34-ACRE LOT AND SEEKS FINAL APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE 3/28/06 SKETCH 6/20/06 PRELIMINARY WARREN CO. PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES; GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 40.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-1 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES & MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just make a note on here that this property is not within the Lake George basin and therefore Chapter 147 does not apply to this application. MR. SEGULJIC-I concur. MR. STEVES-Okay. Again, Matt Steves representing John Whalen who is here with me tonight. Again, this was another one that was already granted Preliminary. There were a few items to clean up between then and Final. I believe that the only one that was significant that was left was the one the one you just talked about with Chapter 147, which does not apply. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. MR. STEVES-The plat notations of no principal structures or residences within 100 feet, we did place that on the plan. Clearing limits, no cut zones noted. We did place that on there as well. Test pit denoted on Lot One. That was shown, provided, and I think that was about it. There was one as far as the draft language for the, in the deed, and it 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) would comply with what’s on the map as well, for the clearing limits and for the principal structures. I’ll have that conform with that. Mr. O’Connor is here tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-It would be identical to the language that’s shown on the plat. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-And I think the only other comment that was there in the C.T. Male letter was questioning the 33 foot wide right of way for Birdsall Road. At the time, that road was dedicated as a Town road. It was a 33 foot wide road. That’s all it is. New roads after a certain date, I believe it was by 1967, you required them to be three rod roads, which would be 49 and a half, or 50 foot, but before that it was only required to be two rods, which is 33 feet, but it is a Town road. MR. VOLLARO-It’s maintained and plowed by the Town. MR. STEVES-That’s absolutely correct. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things on your Map S-1, does the Town have an easement to go on the property of Lot Number Four? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-They do? MR. STEVES-Well, the Town can claim up to 50 feet for maintenance of the road as an easement, automatically by highway law. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because I know that was something that was asked about in there. MR. STEVES-It’s just like any other road that even if it were a deeded road or a deed for a property adjoining a road would go to the center of the road. The Town automatically has the right, up to 50 feet, for maintenance of that road. It’s highway law. MR. VOLLARO-I think that the comment Lot Four needs a driveway. MR. STEVES-On S-3 it is shown. MR. VOLLARO-On S-3 it’s shown. MR. STEVES-If you would like I could put it on S-1 as well. I have no problem, but it’s shown on S-3 on the grading plan. If you want the exact same location incorporated onto. MR. VOLLARO-I saw it in S-3. It looked right to me. MR. STEVES-Yes, it is shown. If you look over on the other side of the road, it is shown on that lot. MR. VOLLARO-Now the only other thing we have here is that Lot Number Five is a land hooked basically across the bike path. MR. STEVES-Correct. We explained that at the very beginning, that it was all one tax parcel that was broken by the bike path and a sliver of Niagara Mohawk in there, and we have, the Chairman has talked to Craig Brown and made a statement to me today about putting the metes and bounds on the inset map for the remaining property and show the area. It is well in excess of five acres, or it isn’t reviewable by the Department of Health, and it isn’t a building lot at this time and we have no objection to that. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing you’d want to do is when it gets put on the final mylar is the metes and bounds of that lot have to be noted on the final mylar before I sign it. MR. STEVES-That’s what I just said. MR. VOLLARO-Did you? I’m sorry. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. STEVES-And we understand, there’s no objection to that. We have it. We just didn’t place it on this map, but bearings and distances on that large lot will be shown for the mylar. No problem. MRS. STEFFAN-Comment Six from C.T. Male, it says ingress/egress rights and easements for the adjoining property owner should be shown. MR. STEVES-That’s across the front of the lots where there’s no building, and as I said, the gravel drive, I will denote on that that it is also, there are deeded right of ways across that, obviously, for those two other parcels, and I have already changed my map to say right of way to others, but that’s a good point. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Two things. One is, as I understand it, Glen Lake has a CEA 100 feet from the shoreline. So if you could just show that on the plat. The other thing is. MR. STEVES-That’s why we said no building within 100 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, but just put the CEA. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing is, and this is probably our fault, but you’re using two different terms, no cut zones, and clearing limits. Is there an intention for a difference? MR. STEVES-Clearing limit is the maximum to be cleared, and the rest of it is no cut. The reason for the no cut zone you see on the south side of the bike path is that was a requirement of the Board to make sure that no cutting was done over there for any reason. On the north side where the lots were to be developed we showed the clearing limits. MR. SEGULJIC-So the clearing limits mean that there won’t be any cutting beyond those clearing limits. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now the no cut zone along the bike trail, if you could just, because to me it’s kind of tough to follow on here, all the different, is it the dashed lines in there? MR. STEVES-No, the dashed lines are the actual building setback. We’re just saying that if you see the loop line to the north of that word “no cut”, that whole area what is now wooded is to remain wooded. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-What would help us look at some of these drawings, if you didn’t lay all the layers down on your CAD. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-If you pull a layer or two off your CAD, the drawings would be a lot easier to look at. When you lay them all down, it’s real confusing to the eye. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. SEGULJIC-And the reason why I’m bringing it up is because recently we had an application that had to come back because they went into what was a clearing limit and you could see how it was very confusing. MR. STEVES-I know the application you’re talking about. I was here sitting in the audience. I can do a separate sheet if you’d like, but the intent there, so the Board is clear, is the driveway that we’re sharing for those three lots is existing, the clearing is existing. We’re not, on the south side of that, going to clear anymore trees whatsoever. MR. SEGULJIC-If you could just try and make that clear. MR. STEVES-I can cross hatch it on the mylar so it’s very clear. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want it cross hatched, or do you want a separate sheet with the mylars? MR. VOLLARO-I would like to see a separate sheet with the mylar, just pull the layers off, so it becomes clear. MR. STEVES-And we’ll cross hatch it as well, take the contour and everything off. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you can do that. It’s a key stroke. MR. STEVES-Separate sheet for clearing plan. You’ve got it. MR. VOLLARO-Computers are great, but they don’t figure on the acuity of the two things l look at it with. That’s part of the problem. MR. STEVES-Understood. It’s a lot easier looking at it on the screen when it’s in multi- colors. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. A condition of the motion would be that Lot Number Five would be plotted on the final mylar and metes and bounds will be shown, on Lot Number Five. Is that Lot Five defined as Lot Five anywhere? MR. STEVES-Not yet, but it will be. On my map currently, that you don’t have yet because we’re going through it, it says Lot Five, other lands of Whalen. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-And I’ll have the bearings and distances in the area on it. MRS. STEFFAN-So Lot Number Five will be plotted on the mylar. MR. VOLLARO-Right, with metes and bounds shown. MR. STEVES-The 100 foot CEA line. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. There would be no building within the 100 foot CEA line. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe at Glen Lake it just says 100 feet within the shore of the CEA, I believe, is the way it’s worded. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought it was up to a certain elevation line. MR. SEGULJIC-Lake George’s elevation. Lake George is 400 feet, and then 100 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought it was based on elevation off of Rush Pond. MR. SEGULJIC-I can only speak to this map which I got from George Hilton. Critical Environmental Areas, it says Glen Lake CEA 100 feet from shore. MR. O'CONNOR-I remember when it was adopted. MR. STEVES-I’ll look into it, but I’ll show the line. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a C.T. Male signoff? MR. STEVES-There was only those two questions. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it. MR. STEVES-The only remaining question from C.T. Male was the 147. MR. VOLLARO-The 147, that’s right. I’ve got it on here. MR. STEVES-So we had to have the answer from you that it doesn’t apply, and that was the only comment they had left. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MRS. STEFFAN-So what do we do with that ingress/egress note on Number Six C.T. Male note? MR. STEVES-I have that on the map, I already related that to them that it was on the new map, but if you want a signoff because we now have the verbiage here today that it does not apply 147, then I can call it to them and then they’ll mail me the signoff, or mail you the signoff. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s fine. Yes, because C.T. Male signoff will cover all that. MR. STEVES-I mean, if it was a lot of issues, I’d understand, but that’s the only issue they had. MR. VOLLARO-We’re just going to condition this upon receipt of a final signoff by C.T. Male. That’s all, and it’ll take out anything to do with 147, and it takes out anything to do with his comments on the easement. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’ve got four conditions. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2006 JOHN WHALEN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, a final stage subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 40+ acre parcel into 5 residential lots resulting in four residential lots and one 34-acre lot and seeks final approval from the Board. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/20/06; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2006 JOHN WHALEN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Three complies. Paragraph Four, Negative. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that this application is approved with the following conditions: 1.A C.T. Male signoff. 2.A separate sheet for clearing plan. 3.Lot Five plotted on a mylar with metes and bounds shown. 4.Put a 100 foot CEA line on the plat with no building denoted. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. STEVES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN MILES AGENT(S): ROB PRATT OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: LI LOCATION: 312 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NINE (9) SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS (TOTALING 37,800 SQ. FT.) AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN RESPONSE TO THE JULY 18, 2006 TABLING. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2005-955 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/06 LOT SIZE: 5.51, 1.35, 2.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-60, 59, 58 SECTION: 179-4-020 ROB PRATT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PRATT-Hi, Rob Pratt representing John Miles. MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MR. PRATT-Good evening. MR. VOLLARO-We have a public hearing on this tonight, and we have to do an Unlisted SEQRA, I believe. So this is a site plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, this is an Unlisted Action. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I noticed there were only eight buildings proposed on Drawing C- 1. So that’s a change, I guess. MR. PRATT-Well, I got the inkling from you that you weren’t too happy about a buffer change. So we decided not to ask for any buffer change. (Lost words) on the buffer exactly what we needed to do. So we deleted a building. MR. VOLLARO-All right. If Board members would like to openly discuss this, feel free to jump in on it. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Pratt, did you get the Staff notes? MR. PRATT-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-You got a copy of those? MR. PRATT-Yes, he addressed them all. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. There was one of the items about the rare and endangered species. There was a discussion from the. MR. PRATT-For the Pinebush. You should have gotten a letter from Mr. Sipperly. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I think what happened there. MRS. STEFFAN-It says in the Staff notes that the consultant’s letter, which would be Mr. Sipperly, does not address the presence, or lack thereof, of any rare or endangered species, I think it’s supposed to say typically associated with this flora, the role or significance of this 2.5 acres, in terms of its relationship with the ecology community’s on undeveloped adjacent lands is also not addressed. He specifically talked about the Pine Barren but didn’t talk about. There’s something on Karner blue. MR. VOLLARO-It reverts back to a letter from Deb Roberts. Deb Roberts talks about the pitch pine, scrub oak areas as being a prime habitat for Karner blue. This was in the Deb Roberts letter of July 12, 2004 to Matt Steves on the John Whalen application, which I st think we just did. That’s where that comes from Richard Sipperly’s letter of August 21 doesn’t touch on the Karner blue at all, and the fact that he talks about pine pitch, scrub oak being the primary area there is a concern. MRS. STEFFAN-And the reason I brought that up is because if we go through the SEQRA, one of the questions is about environmental, those environmental things and so, I don’t know, can we do SEQRA if we don’t know that? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) th MR. PRATT-He has an August 12 letter, where his comments are this cover type is beset perpetuated by periodic fire in order to destroy invading vegetation. MR. VOLLARO-That’s in Sipperly’s letter. MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-We’re talking about another letter from Deb Roberts. She’s a PhD that does a lot of work for the Town on this area, and so I think you’d need a DEC letter from Kathy O’Brien, when we talk about the areas of this application that are in the pine pitch scrub oak area, since that turns out to be a prime habitat for Karner blue. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you understand what we’re getting at? MR. PRATT-Yes, but I mean, he’s saying that this, other large areas of this type are found in Albany County, Long Island and Clinton County. I mean, if this is left alone, this has been left for a long time. The common forests, you know, tend to overgrow it and it has to be periodically burned in order to seed back for future pitch pine. I mean, there shouldn’t be that much. MRS. STEFFAN-The problem is, if the Karner blue is there, and it’s living there, and it has to be protected. MR. SEGULJIC-See, we have to do our SEQRA, and one of the questions that gets asked is are there any endangered species there. Karner blue is a potential for an area like this. So we need a letter or something stating they’re either there or they’re not there. MR. PRATT-I don’t know, why wasn’t that concern brought up in the last meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-It was. MR. PRATT-It wasn’t on my notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There’s a letter dated May 31, 2006 from Nicholas Conrad from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation saying that your property is considered a sensitive area, and we asked that you bring back documentation, a response from DEC saying that you’re okay. I mean, the report that you got from Mr. Sipperly helps, but it doesn’t give you clearance from DEC to say it’s okay to go ahead, and that’s really what we’re looking for is some sort of a response from DEC, and basically what that involves is giving them a phone call and getting them to come out to the site. MR. PRATT-I think we did call them. Getting them to come out to the site is another thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I realize that, I appreciate that, but that’s what we were looking for, is some sort of a response from that letter from DEC. MR. VOLLARO-Usually Kathy O’Brien’s pretty responsive. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, she’s usually pretty good. MR. VOLLARO-She’s pretty good. She comes right out, takes a look at the property and comes up with a letter of, you know, a recommendation of some kind. She usually does a pretty good job. MR. PRATT-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So is that clear that we need a response as to whether Karner blue is present or not? MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Because we have to answer that question. MR. VOLLARO-Do you know how to get a hold of her? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’d give her a call. She’s usually pretty good. She might even do it on the phone for you. She could bring it up on her screen, take a look at it, and she might give us a comment letter and that’s all we need, because we can’t answer a SEQRA question without that. Anybody else? I’ve got some questions, but I’d like the Board to talk a little bit before I get into any of my stuff here. Has anybody got any other comments they want to make on this application before I make any of mine? MR. SEGULJIC-Go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Where is the existing septic tank and field located for the auto repair facility? Where is that located? It’s not on the map. I didn’t see it on the drawings anywhere. MR. PRATT-He has that directly behind the building. MR. VOLLARO-See, what I was concerned about there, I’ve got my own note here, but what I was concerned about is the proximity to the parking lot. I just want to make sure that this proposed parking that you have here for these 20 spaces don’t in any way encroach on the septic field itself. MR. PRATT-No. He’s not in the back, but I could have that put on for you. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, do you know where it is? MR. PRATT-Yes, it’s off the back of the existing auto, it’s off the back. It’s not off the side. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s off to the west, is that what you’re saying? MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s in that cleared space some place back in there where it can breath and do it’s job? MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that needs to be added to the drawing, to be located at least. The other comment that I have is on the Fire Marshal’s letter of 8/28, where the fire hydrant is located and what are the means of securing the gate. He wants to know about this gate, the sliding gate right here. He wants to know how you go about securing that gate. MR. PRATT-That would be the way that they would want it done. I mean, it wouldn’t be. MR. VOLLARO-He has a letter to that effect in here where he asked for three things, I believe. Did you see that letter? MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I think he’s asking, that letter is written to the Board as advice to this Board to think about that kind of problem. That’s why I’m bringing it up. Do you have his letter in front of you? MR. PRATT-I’ve got it here some place. MR. VOLLARO-It says the submitted plans have been reviewed and I offer the same comments outlined in the review performed on 5/22. Apparently he’s re-stating nd something he stated back on May 22, and those three comments are. “1) An on-site fire hydrant will be required, in the vicinity shown on drawing C1 per NYS FC 508.5.1. 2) The means of securing the 25’ sliding gate must be approved per NYS FC 503.6, 503.4. Note: Additional yard hydrants will be required when additional phases are begun.” So those are the three things that he noted on his comment letter of 8/28. So I guess we’ve got to come up with, you might want to get in contact with him and determine what the means of securing that gate is, or are going to be. MR. PRATT-Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-The next thing is, I guess this is more a help for you than anything else, but remove the bench mark at Elevation 505.65 from the nine foot pine tree to a more permanent location. I think it’s tacked on to a pine. So somebody’s put a benchmark in. Is that benchmark for survey purposes? MR. PRATT-Yes, it was for survey purposes. We can put a more permanent one in. MR. VOLLARO-It would probably be good for the future, especially if you’re going to do some, has everything already been surveyed out for the next phase? MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I think you have a deed in here that I read. It’s a deed of consolidation. So it consolidates all your properties into approximately 9.83 acres. Now, your submission on FAR, then, is incorrect, and your worksheet shows 5.7. MR. PRATT-That’s 5.4 for the three parcels that were consolidated in the back, and then it’s .34 acres of that piece in the front. So it’s 5.7 acres. It’s not nine, there’s only 5.74 acres there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I thought it was 9.83. Well, I did that by adding all of them together. I think there’s some, if I look at the deed and I start to look at all of, the way the deed is written, it seems like it’s consolidating three properties. MR. PRATT-Three properties were consolidated, in order to start off, and then there was a third, or a fourth piece on the front that was consolidated, to make it 5.7. It was 5.4 acres, and we added .34 on to make it 5.7 acres. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that should satisfy our consolidation requirement on our tabling motion. It seems to me. Your Site Development Data Sheet shows that you want 30 spaces, on your C-1 Drawing shows 11 for the auto repair, 20 for the new storage units up front, and 32 for future parking when the next phase is completed. That gives you 63. It seems to me that you’ve satisfied the requirements for parking. Where did you get the 30 from? My note is, where do you get 30? I think your drawing satisfies the requirement for 62 spaces. You have a space in addition to that. It seems okay to me. MR. PRATT-I’m asking to build the spaces as we do the, not to build all 62 at once. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Those spaces that are shown along, there’s 32 spaces shown for future on your drawing, I believe. Now, you’re saying that you would like to do those incrementally? MR. PRATT-I’d like to do the spaces as we did the last four. It’ll be done in two phases. It’ll be the first phase of four buildings. The second phase of four buildings. Just build the parking spots with the second phase. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but when the second phase is in, you will have satisfied the requirement for a 62 spaces on that property? MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And that seems satisfactory to me. MR. FORD-May I ask what is the length of time you anticipate to complete both phases? MR. PRATT-One and a half to two years. MRS. STEFFAN-Will Phase Two be dependent on the utilization of Phase One, the first four buildings? MR. PRATT-It’s going to be done through bank financing. So it’s going to go right along. The financing is in place. MRS. STEFFAN-For all of them. MR. PRATT-It will go. th MR. VOLLARO-Now you’ve sent, C.T. Male has a letter in of September 19, and I have a note on my notes that says a response to C.T. Male letter of 9/19, then a signoff. I see 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) Jarrett-Martin Engineers has commented on some of the C.T. Male comments. This th letter serves the purpose of addressing your comments on a letter dated July 12, but now we have a new letter dated September 19, 2006. Have you gotten together with anybody at C.T. Male on this? I think this was done by Jim Houston, yes. MR. PRATT-Yes. We have done everything. We have responded to all of it. There was like 24 different things that they were looking at, and we have a response to everything. Except, I’ve briefly reviewed your response letter for tonight. We cannot provide a comment letter because we are too close to the meeting. Generally the responses address our comments except for the following, no sub catchment map was in their submission. That’s drawing C-11. He had 21 which was existing topo should be provided for the northernmost portion of the site, and our response were the existing grades in site visits show that the site slopes from east to west, and the last 100 feet has similar slopes and contours. We believe the grading shown will suffice for the construction. It should be verified through the construction, if required, and then, 22, consideration should be given to the increasing slope from east to west across the northern portion of the site to promote more positive drainage to the infiltration basin, and our response was the grading has positive drainage, one percent plus or minus, toward the sediment basin. We feel the grading as shown will transport the water to the basin, and everything else they’ve said that they, those were the three things that they had a question on. Everything else has been addressed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’ll probably get a signoff letter from him, based on your th response to his September 19 letter. He’ll probably give you a signoff letter. MR. PRATT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’ve got to do, one of the things you’ve got to do, is put the location of the septic tank and its associated field on your map, so that we know where it is. You’re going to remove the benchmark. That’s already done, or you’re going to do that? MR. PRATT-We can do that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SIPP-Do you want the location of the fire hydrant also on that? MR. PRATT-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that would be a good idea. I’d prefer, have you had any discussion at all with the Fire Marshal of the Town, Mr. Palmer? MR. PRATT-Not with the Fire Marshal. MR. VOLLARO-It might behoove you to do that, call him and sit down and discuss just what he’d like to have done, particularly with that gate lock. Because I’m not familiar with the New York State Fire Code. I can’t help you with that at all. He can tell you exactly what he wants you to do. MR. PRATT-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And then we get a letter from him that says everything has been satisfied, and we’re clear and you’re clear. MR. SIPP-Do you propose a new sign for this property, business? MR. PRATT-No. MR. VOLLARO-You will get together with Kathy O’Brien on that pitch pine, scrub oak. MR. PRATT-I’ve got to get a letter from DEC for the Karner, right? MR. VOLLARO-The Karner blue. You’ve really got to go to Kathy O’Brien for that, and she’ll know right away where your site is. I think she’s got a GIS system up there at DEC. You just tell her where you’re at, as far as your tax map is concerned. I think she can pick it up, and then discuss it with you from there, or she can come out and actually walk it with you. I understand she’s got a pretty good GIS system there, at DEC now. It’s not too old, but George Hilton has told me they’ve got a pretty good system up there 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) now. So she can do a lot of this right from her desk, unless she sees something she really wants to not look at. Okay. That’s about all I have. I’m looking over my notes, and that’s, anybody else have any comments, other than what we talked about? MR. SIPP-Would you explain this, what you said about the buffer to begin with? MR. PRATT-We were asking for relief on the buffer, on one side of the buffer, and we decided that I didn’t get a good response on the first meeting, so I decided not to ask for relief. So, we took a building out and made it so we kept our buffer. MR. SIPP-Now, on Landscape C-3 I believe you’ve showed transplanting three native trees. MR. PRATT-In the front here, in the front of the property it needs to have some trees put back in that. MR. SIPP-What are you going to be using, pine? MR. PRATT-We’ll be using trees from the existing property, exact trees from the property, use a tree spade and take them and move them. MR. FORD-My compliments to you for listening to us about the buffer zone, and responding in a fashion that I feel is appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a public hearing? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is. I’m going to open the public hearing now. I just wanted to converse a little bit on this. I’m going to open the public hearing on this application. Does anybody have any comments? This is on the site plan for John Miles. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll leave the public hearing open. We’re not going to be doing a SEQRA tonight because we’ve got some information that has to come in before we do the SEQRA. So the public hearing will remain open, and we have a motion prepared. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Did anybody have anything to say about the colors? We talked about that the last time. You’re okay with everything? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I just thought Polar Blue trim. MR. PRATT-It’s not Polar Blue. It’s a gray building with a garnet trim and garnet door. There’s no polar blue in there. I don’t know why that came up. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It just seemed kind of odd, actually. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2006 JOHN MILES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. With the following conditions. 1.That the applicant provide a DEC response regarding presence of rare or endangered species. 2.A C.T. Male signoff. 3.That the applicant makes sure that the Fire Marshal’s comments in the letter of August 28, 2006 have been addressed satisfactorily. 4.To remove the bench mark from the nine inch pine to a more permanent location. 5.That the septic tank and field location from the auto repair shop be denoted on the plan. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) 6.That the location of the fire hydrants be included on the plat. st 7.Tabled to the November 21 meeting. The application deadline for that would th be October 16. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. Hopefully we’ll get you the next time. MR. PRATT-I’m tabled until when? MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t specify a date. MRS. STEFFAN-No, because I didn’t know how long it would take to get the DEC information. MR. VOLLARO-We can put any date and change it, so long as the Board has a date to work with. st MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Table it to the November 21 meeting, the application deadline th for that would be October 16. That’s about two weeks to get the material together. MR. PRATT-Okay. You need 14 copies of all that information, right? MR. VOLLARO-I’m afraid so. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2006 SKETCH SEQR TYPE RICHARD SOLOMON AGENT(S) BPSR OWNER(S) GEOFFREY & CHERYL HOFFMAN ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL RR-3A LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.38 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS OF 3.0, 3.0, 3.98 & 4.4 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 14.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-2-4 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-A four lot proposed subdivision, conforming lot size. There are APA wetlands that have been flagged, and it’ll be a minor subdivision under APA because it involves APA wetlands. The driveways are shared, as required in this zone, and the Staff notes indicated that they didn’t initially have the owner’s consent, which we just received that recently from Mike Muller, the owner’s attorney, and that was sent to Staff. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now the property appears to be outside the Lake George basin. So I don’t think 147 is required here. It’s just outside the basin. Any Board members have any comments? I want to open up comments on this and discuss this application. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it looked pretty straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. MR. SIPP-Is that stream that crosses the north end, is that intermittent? MR. LAPPER-No, I think that that’s a year round stream. MR. SIPP-Year round stream. MR. LAPPER-It comes off the back of French Mountain. MR. SIPP-Has there been any test pits made? MR. LAPPER-There have been test borings, four of them on each site, and that information is on the Preliminary map, for the Sketch Plan. The house locations have been designed to stay away from the stream and to stay away from the wetlands. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-Does that stream have a name or is it just an unnamed stream? MR. LAPPER-I don’t know. It wouldn’t surprise me if it has a name, but I’ll find out for next time. MR. VOLLARO-It probably comes under the heading of an unnamed stream. We have some words in here about the APA wetland area must be removed for density calc’s, but when I look at our own GIS generated, it looks like even if you remove all of those, well, I guess that we just have to make sure that the density calculations for this take out the lands that are designated as APA wetlands. MR. LAPPER-It would require 12 acres for the four, three acre lots, and there’s 14.38. So it looks like you’re right, like it’s pretty close. So we’ll have to make sure that the next submission specifies that. MR. VOLLARO-Right. It’s close enough to take a look at it. If it was that far away, I wouldn’t care, but it’s pretty close. I’d like to have an APA letter of non-jurisdictional interest, if that’s, so that. MR. LAPPER-It’s actually going to be jurisdictional. We’ll have to get a minor permit from, we’ve already submitted the jurisdictional. MR. VOLLARO-It is jurisdictional. MR. LAPPER-Yes. They came to the site and flagged it, but it’s just a minor subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Well, sometimes when they look at a subdivision like that from the APA point of view they take a look at it from their entire area to see how much you’re pertibating their area. MR. LAPPER-Any time that’s actually a subdivision where the wetland will ultimately wind up on two lots after you’re done, then that’s jurisdictional, even when you have an approved plan like Queensbury does. So that’s why, because it’s a division of a wetland. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this is, the idea of a non-jurisdictional letter goes out the window. Sight distances look good north and south. They appear to be adequate. I don’t have any comments really, of any significance, concerning the layout of this thing. It looks pretty good to me. MR. FORD-I’ve got concern about Lot One, both the proposed house and the proposed septic and it’s relation to wetland designated. The septic is definitely in the wetland and the house may be. MR. LAPPER-Lot One. The wetland setback is. MR. VOLLARO-Is 100 feet. This is what they say their wetland is right here. This is the 100 foot mark, and it’s set back 100 feet from that. MR. FORD-This is what I’m referring to, in comparing this map with this map. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I agree. There’s some inconsistencies there, no question about it. MR. FORD-Right. MR. LAPPER-We actually had APA out to do a field delineation. That’s what’s on here. You’re looking at GIS. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-And so this was an actual field delineation by APA, that’s on this map, and it says at the top Adirondack Park Agency statement that Mary O’Dell came out on May th 15 and actually flagged it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the wetland boundary as shown on this survey was flagged in the field by Mary O’Dell of APA staff on May 12, 2006. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So she actually set the flags that delineate this line. MRS. STEFFAN-And actually the perc test on Lot One is better than the other lot, the same as one other, but better than the other two. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, it’s worth noting that additionally that note continues to state that additional wetlands may exist elsewhere on the parcel that have not been flagged. We don’t really have any indication on this plat what wetlands weren’t flagged. MR. FORD-It’s interesting on the GIS that the wetland is part and parcel of that stream that runs through there and is not designated on this at all, but that may be the area that it has not been flagged. MR. LAPPER-I think that’s just a standard note, but we’ll get a letter from APA to verify. I mean, I know that she was out to the site, obviously. MR. FORD-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Once we see a person identified with the APA has actually been to the site and set the flags, I probably would have to take that over and above the GIS. I don’t know. MR. FORD-I agree, except that the point was made that there are additional wetlands that could exist on the property that have not been flagged, and that concerns me. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. BAKER-It says there may be additional wetlands. It doesn’t say there are for certain. MR. LAPPER-We’ll check that. MR. VOLLARO-Is that in your opinion, Stu, somewhat of a boilerplate that comes with APA, or is that? MR. BAKER-I don’t know if it’s boilerplate language or not, but I think when the GIS is indicating potential wetlands associated with the stream and they aren’t shown on the plat, it’s something to be looked at further. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think it’s a good thing to do it, so that you don’t get caught in anything on the Preliminary. MR. LAPPER-And we will. Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, if nobody else has any comments, I have no comments. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, just a couple. Go back to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for this area. One says to maintain the rural look along the road. So I’d really like to see. MR. LAPPER-Well, that would be why we have three acre lots, but I think what’s proposed, after, the seller is going to retain Lot Two, the second most northerly lot, and after they looked at it, they decided that they wanted to move the house back a lot closer to the 100 foot buffer. So I think that might be one way to help that by moving one of the lots back. MR. SEGULJIC-Maintain some trees along there, that rural look. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I can tell you one thing that we’re looking at in the new Zoning Code is to maintain any natural buffers along the road. So I think that would be another way to accomplish that. MR. LAPPER-There’s plenty of room to accomplish that. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The other thing is to minimize your driveways. You’ve already done it. You’ve taken two down from four. The one thing I was just looking at and discussing is clustering. I don’t know. Can we do that here? Because I think you need 15 acres minimum, clustering in RR-3. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the site’s got some limitations because of the wetland setback. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether you can cluster on this or not, because of exactly what Gretchen said. It seems to me that there’s some prohibition here against the clustering operation. It certainly can be looked at. I mean, you might want to make a note, as to whether or not clustering would be appropriate here. MR. LAPPER-That would serve to put the houses closer together on smaller lots, and that might make it look less rural. Really, there’s a lot of buffer. I think what’s important is keeping, along the road, keeping the trees and moving the houses back. MR. SEGULJIC-You can keep the trees along the road. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because the other houses in that particular area, they are set back from the road, the natural pines are next to the, you know, they’ve been maintained. So that’s a general look on that side of the road. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So I think that would go a long way. We’ll certainly do that for next time. MR. VOLLARO-Personally, from a personal point of view, I just don’t think clustering is something I’d want to see there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, by the time you work around the100 foot setback, it’s almost impractical. MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t visit this piece of property. This hasn’t been cleared. There’s a piece of property across from French Mountain lumber that’s been cleared, is this it? MR. LAPPER-I went by very briefly when the contract was signed, and I don’t know what’s happened since then. It’s about a half mile north of, even less than that, north of the intersection of 149. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just wondering, because we’re talking about keep maintaining the tree buffer and there is a, looked like a log landing. MR. LAPPER-I think that that may be part of this, but that’s just, most of this is still natural. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And it can be planted as well. MR. VOLLARO-How long ago were you there, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Actually our drive around last month. We went up Bay Road and we went up to the lake. We drove by and there was a big log landing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there is. MRS. STEFFAN-And I think it was right in this vicinity. Actually I kind of assumed that that was it. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was maybe that, part of the nursery lands, because it’s right near there, too. MR. LAPPER-It is near the nursery. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-If there’s no other comments from the Board, we’ll, there’s no public hearing and no SEQRA on this. It’s a Sketch. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 37-2006 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ANGIO DYNAMICS AGENT(S): NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): SAME C/O IDA ZONING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE ACRE LOCATION 603 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 35,500 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. EXPANSIONS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-06, SP 19-02, SP 20-06, SP 25-92 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/9/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE 13.00 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-10 SECTION 179-4- JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-We’d like to start out by thank you for putting Angio on the agenda tonight. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just make a slight humorous comment on that. I received on this application, I think, 4 letters requesting that this go on. It was quite interesting, there was, I said to myself, there’s no pressure here, including a phone call from Mr. Stec, and a letter from Mr. Caimano and a so, you know. One of the things I’d just like to express, is that why we do what we do is to try to keep some semblance of order in the way we review things, and the fact that this Board very often when we don’t do that is here ‘til, you know, could be 12:00, could be 12:30, late, because we haven’t managed these applications well, and that’s why people get moved from one month to the next and that’s why you were out in October and not in September, but you’re here now. Mr. Lapper you, for the record, you are so that we can. MR. LAPPER-For the record, John Lapper with Randy Bodkin on behalf of Angio and Tom Nace, Project Engineer. I’d like to just say that some people took on their own when we told them that we might not be on the agenda to write the Board. Because this is one of those rare projects in Queensbury where there’s a whole bunch of descent paying jobs associated even though the economic development guys always talk about that’s what they want it doesn’t happen all that often. So, I know that there’s a lot of people who’ve taken a real interest in this project, but we know that our job is to prove to you that it’s designed well and that’s why we’re here and that’s why we have Tom. One thing that’s a little bit unusual about this application I’d like to explain to start with is that because they do hope that their business will support a second phase after this, the plans show, although we’re not asking for approval for the next phase for an office building, but in terms of the SEQR review it’s totally appropriate and really mandated that that be disclosed, and so we discussed it at the Zoning Board and after that point we supplemented the SEQR application. The plans actually show that next phase. It’s not, there’s no plan to build it this year, next year, they hope that they’ll get there, but in terms of the SEQR we wanted to show you that the stormwater plan would accommodate that and that the site would accommodate that without requiring any variances in terms of setback, green space, etc. So we’ve got another phase and for the SEQR you certainly need to contemplate that, but we’re not proposing it at this time. MR. VOLLARO-That’s located in what I would call this parking area for Building 6, is that what you’re talking about? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. NACE-The end of Building 6, which is north, or, up the page from that you can see the Building 6. MR. LAPPER-Between the parking lot and the building. MR. LAPPER-Randy has a rendering, Bob, of that, which will show you right. MR. VOLLARO-I had thought that this would where the add-on was going to be. MR. NACE-No, this is the parking for it, this is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-This outline here is the future office building. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MRS. STEFFAN-Wow. RANDY BODKIN MR. BODKIN-Is this expansion here, which is a warehouse area and then we’re also showing here is a rendering for a potential two-story office structure on the north end of the current facility. Currently all on current blacktop area, but, I do not have approvals from the Angio board for that expansion. It’s our hopes that our growth continues in the right direction and we’ll be back in the future for that. We went ahead and designed the stormwater and everything with the assumption that would happen someday so the system would handle it. We’d like to do things once, right and not twice, so. MR. VOLLARO-So right now that’s going to go in some of the spaces that you have for existing parking. MR. BODKIN-Yes, but like we’re saying is the main focus of this is for, just from the back view, looking at it, this warehouse distribution center. And this is future parking that’s labeled on the site plan. The intent would be that would be only graded at this point and planted, seeded. It then becomes a staging area for this construction so I don’t tear up blacktop and so on and so forth. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, I see. MR. BODKIN-Then when this gets completed, this gets finished off, blacktopped, but, again we’re not looking for that now. Just trying to set the groundwork for the future. MR. VOLLARO-Right, now have you done for the future, have you done a density calculation so that your floor area ratio, you’ve got enough space? MR. BODKIN-Yes, no issues. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BODKIN-So, hopefully that helps. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. Because I was looking at the drawing and I didn’t see that, what I was looking for there anyway. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So just to follow up on that question. The site data on S-1, does that include provision for the future development or is that just what’s proposed? MR. NACE-The site data excludes what we’re asking for approval for now. The EAF, revised environmental assessment form that was submitted does include Building 6, which is the office building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, great. MR. VOLLARO-Okay that’s your Part I submission. MR. NACE-I think that was some of the confusion, there was an issue about number of parking spaces shown on the EAF versus what’s shown on the site plan and that was the discrepancy, er, the difference the EAF shows Building 6. MR. LAPPER-We have staff comments and CT Male comments and Tom responded to the CT Male comments and we got the same type letter you just discussed where they said that they looked at it and it looks pretty good, but they didn’t have time to write the detailed letter, but we can handle this however you’d like or we can go through Tom’s response and show you the changes. MR. VOLLARO-I’m interested in what Tom just said on the Environmental Assessment form. What area of that Part I were you talking about when you said there was some discrepancy there? MR. NACE-Okay, the Staff I think had questions about the number of parking spaces. They said that there were 405, I think, noted on the EAF whereas the 357, if I have the right number in my head was on the site plan data sheet and on the zoning variance. That is because as you saw from future plans when Building Number 6 in here, or the office building is constructed, a lot of these existing parking spaces are going to be 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) eliminated but we’re also contemplating a new parking lot out here which will replace what is lost, plus add a few. So, that’s the difference between 357 and the 405. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, I understand. Yes, I see it, it’s on page 5 of 21, and it’s under B-F, number of off-street parking spaces existing and proposal is 405. There’s a little bit of a discrepancy there between that and so when we do SEQR we’ll have to note that, that’s all. MR. FORD-I’m sorry I didn’t ask this while you were up there, but can you show us where the existing access road is as compared to the proposed off Hicks Road? MR. NACE-Sure, the existing access road is right here okay, and the new access road is here. MR. FORD-Will both be utilized? MR. NACE-Yes, both will remain. In the current stage of things before the office building is built when the warehouse is constructed this will primarily be a truck entrance, plus an entrance, an alternate entrance to the back parking and this will remain an entrance to the parking here plus maintenance access for the mechanical courtyard back in here. MR. BODKIN-That’s in addition to the two parking entrances of off (lost word). MR. NACE-Right, we have these entrances as well. Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Does that proposed truck entrance currently exist? MR. NACE-No, this is proposed. MR. VOLLARO-No, it doesn’t, this is proposed. MR. NACE-Anything labeled on here “proposed”, is proposed for what we’re asking approval for now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-The only thing that is shown on here for future is the Building 6 office building and the future parking, and both of those are labeled “future”. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, let me just digress for a second. Something may help you out here, I don’t know if it will or not, you, under project description, under G, where you have maximum vehicle trips generated per hour. Now, does this come out of an ITE assessment or is something that? MR. NACE-It’s sort of a melding of ITE and what we know to be the case from existing traffic. MR. VOLLARO-Because what happens when you do this, when you get into this 255 range, you trigger a driveway separation requirement in 179. MR. NACE-That’s assuming a single access portal, you know single access point. We have 4 access points on the site, so none of those driveways are gonna see even a 100 cars because they’re distributed between the driveways. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, then maybe 255 is a wrong number? MR. NACE-For analyzing the driveways. MR. BODKIN-It’s the right number for the site, but not for the driveways. MR. VOLLARO-For the site, but not for the driveways and when you say maximum vehicular trips generated per hour that’s for all four maybe? MR. NACE-That is correct, for all four. MR. BODKIN-That’s at shift changes, within any given hour we’ve got people coming to work, going. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-That’s the idea of the maximum trips generated per hour, it would probably be during your shift change. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Alright, we’ll get back to that because I, still have a little bit of a problem. What we try to do is limit the number of curb cuts on an arterial of that type, and when we go back to 179, it talks in there about, we can talk about the language, but the language is interesting, it says that the Planning Board can waive this, but it also has some other information in terms of the waiver itself. It talks about and I’m trying to get to where it is, this would be off-street parking. I think it’s 179.6. MR. LAPPER-We looked at it today and we really thought that it doesn’t apply because that 255, or 225, excuse me, is through the four different access points. So it’s not that, so we don’t think it really requires the waiver. Beyond that, this is an area of Town, except during balloon weekend where it’s pretty quiet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, you know, I can see where if you spread this across four of them, then it won’t be 255. It’ll be 255 divided by 4 and so that 255 may not trigger this driveway separation in my mind because you’ve got four access points as opposed to one. Usually, that one access point tends to trigger that requirement for driveway separation, but I can see your point. Okay, you can continue or the Board can continue to ask questions if they like go forward with that before we get to a public hearing, we do have a public hearing tonight. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you clarify for me on drawing SP-1 in the bottom of the center you have it labeled as a wet area. MR. NACE-Okay, that’s a wetland, that’s a flag, you notice the flag’s numbers around here. That is a flagged Army Corp wetland, Army Corp. MR. SEGULJIC-So that is a wetland? MR. NACE-Deb Roberts went out and located that for us. MR. SEGULJIC-And then you have a retaining wall along the edge of that correct? MR. NACE-Correct, along the very periphery. MR. SEGULJIC-That seems like it’s a 14 ft. retaining wall? MR. NACE-No, no that’s, I think the highest retaining wall is maybe 6 ft., 7 ft. I should remember that, I just looked at it the other day. 41 to 32, 3, 4. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see a top of wall, bottom of wall note here, so I’m looking for it. MR. NACE-It’s about seven feet tall at the highest. MR. SEGULJIC-And I’m drawing SP-5. MR. FORD-Above the ground. MR. NACE-What’s that? It’s a segmented wall, so it only goes about 12 inches below the ground. MR. FORD-How did you describe that again, please? MR. NACE-It’s called a segmented, a masonry segmental masonry wall. It’s reinforced, it gains it strength from soil reinforced matting that goes back under the fill. So it doesn’t have to have a big foundation, it doesn’t stick out beyond the toe of the retaining wall the way a concrete retaining wall would. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Then on Drawing SP-5, for reinforced retaining wall section it’s 14 ft. 4 inches maximum. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. NACE-That’s the maximum for that design. Okay, in fact maybe that’s, that dimension should be changed. Okay, that, the maximum on this particular site. That should have been edited out of there. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s like a standard detail or something? MR. NACE-Yes, it should have been edited. MR. SEGULJIC-Alright. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the problem we always have with these retaining walls, when you get into 179, they talk about no higher than and I think they mention something like 18 inches and we always struggle with these retaining walls and the way they’re. I notice you’ve got the Army Corp wetlands sitting right up against it, very typical, it’s right up against the wetland, much like we’re going to be seeing in a little while. MR. NACE-In two very narrow points only. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If you go to that Section of 179, where it talks about that and I’m trying to recollect what that is. It’s 6-060. MR. FORD-It’s Number Three. MR. VOLLARO-On the retaining wall, it says now, there is a problem, I think, internally and I hope that when Saratoga Associates gets to write 179 or rewrite 179, that this section gets a little clearer. Because there’s this fine line between the DEC wetland and the Army Corp wetland and things that apply to both. If you read this very carefully it starts off talking a lot about the DEC regulations, when you get to “D”, of 179-6-060, it talks about miscellaneous provisions and then it moves into all applicable federal, state and other agency permits shall be obtained. And then in addition, the following specifics shall apply and then they talk specifically to retaining walls, and I think in the new 179, and really I’m talking to the folks that are working the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and also 179. This wording should be carefully looked at because right now we’re being told that we’re not looking at anything, even the federal wetlands because this whole article talks only about DEC wetlands. I have a disagreement with the Zoning Administrator on these words and the way they read, especially how “D” reads. Because when you get into “D”, they say all applicable federal. They jump out of the DEC mode and go into the federal mode. And that’s where this retaining wall. MR. NACE-I think Bob, what it may be speaking to is in the DEC regulations if you’re looking for a wetland permit, part of the DEC requires you to do what’s called a joint application, okay, and it’s joint with the Army Corp of Engineers as well as DEC. Okay, so, they’re saying about any other applicable permits, they’re not saying any other federal wetlands, they’re saying any other applicable federal, state, local permits, and I think that’s probably what they’re speaking to is that once you start working with DEC permit for a wetland, the Army Corp is automatically brought in because it’s a joint application. MR. FORD-So the operative word there is applicable. MR. NACE-Right, we’re not, you know, with the federal wetland we can disturb right up to it. MR. VOLLARO-Right up to it. MR. NACE-To the wetlands, there’s no setback. MR. VOLLARO-See, but, that’s true, but when they talk about getting right up to it, it says in addition expansion or replacement of any retaining wall shall be discouraged, now this is under the federal section of this code, shall be discouraged except where the case where the alternative of a shoreline restoration or natural state is impossible due to excessive slope and that’s to be determined by the Zoning Administrator. Retaining walls shall be permitted to be constructed only for aesthetic reasons. Obviously, you’re not doing it for aesthetic reasons. Where permitted retaining walls shall not exceed 16 inches in height as measured from the stationery mean high water mark. And the mean high water mark under this would be the shoreline would be coincident with the shoreline. So I’ve never known how to get around this or how to treat this, Chris I guess I’m sort of making these remarks almost for your benefit, so that when you looking at this 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) in terms of 179 rewrite by Mr. Catalano, he takes this into account. I’ll make a note of this on an e-mail, if you need or whatever. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, go ahead and send it to Stu and you copy me. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Okay. MR. FORD-The height of that retaining wall is what instead of 16 inches? MR. NACE-It’s seven feet at the max. A lot of it’s only 1 ½ - 2 ft., but at the highest point it’s seven feet. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s a sloping wall. MR. FORD-And the rationale for that is? MR. NACE-That’s to avoid the wetlands, that’s our road, with the geometry of our road, for access to the back of the trailer area, to the back of the warehouse. MR. FORD-But the rationale for the differential between 16 inches and seven feet is? MR. NACE-Oh, that’s just the natural grade difference in the existing grade. As you come past the wetland, okay, here the walls at the highest because we’re closest to the lower point of the wetland as you come on down here that natural grade is higher and as you go on down it’s higher yet. So it’s the natural, the top of the wall is even with the pavement which slopes a little, but not much, but the bottom of the wall varies with the existing natural grade. MR. VOLLARO-So it could vary between seven feet., six feet, five. MR. NACE-Between a foot and a half down here to seven feet up here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and you can’t disturb the natural grade cause it’s in the wetland that’s the other side of it. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Well, again, you know, I always struggle with this and I think other Board members struggle with this as well, and I will send something to Stu on this and copy Mr. Hunsinger on it as well. I’ve always had a problem with this area. MRS. STEFFAN-This property adjoins the airport property, correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-One thing I did notice is the pictures are lovely, but the landscaping plan that you provided is very different than the pictures that are, for example, the tree line on Hicks Road is different then what is denoted on your landscaping plan. MR. BODKIN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN- I like the picture. MR. BODKIN-The plans are the plan. MRS. STEFFAN- But I like the picture. I don’t know how any of the other Board members feel about the landscaping. MR. NACE-One thing while you’re talking about landscaping, one thing to point out. We have not provided, well, let me go to the landscape plan. We’ve provided some street trees along our new entrance road, but we have not landscaped the area here between Hicks and the new parking. Thinking we would, the most appropriate time to do that would be after we’ve used it as a staging area and all disturbance is done with the future Building 6. When this parking lot is done, then we would landscape this very nicely. MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) UNKNOWN-(Lost words) requirements are a lot more stricter than yours, so rest assured, those trees (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got a vested interest in making it look right, I agree. I guess to get something off my board here, off my work, I’d like to just talk to the Board about this curb cut, this 225 trips per hour. I think they have a point when they say there are four ingress/egress points on this lot and that the 225 would probably be split evenly between that and wouldn’t trigger that 440 ft. separation. I’d like to get some comments from Board members on how they feel about. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, just clarification are some of these entrances, egresses going to be designated truck routes? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there’s one on the bottom that says. MR. FORD-Yes, I don’t think it gonna be an even distribution. MR. NACE-They’re not exclusive truck routes. Obviously, the most logical route for trucks will be in and out here, around and in and out here, but, you’ll notice there is also parking accessible off those same routes so, there will be parking, you know, employee access, using the same entrances as well. This entrance probably takes, right now takes the bulk of the traffic, and this with the parking back here and with future parking in here you’ll get a reasonable amount for this entrance. MR. SIPP-What are the hours, what would be the peak hours of traffic? MR. VOLLARO-It would be during the shift period. MR. BODKIN-Well, look we’ve talked before our schedules are flex schedules, so we can attract for the workforce we’re looking for, but, roughly starting at 5:30-6:00 in the morning your first shift starts to arrive, some of them don’t get there ‘til 7:00, and then your office people 8:00 and 9:00. Then second shift arrives around 3:30, 3:15, first shift being over at 3:30. So probably the highest peak would be between 3:00 and 4:00, that’s your highest peak hour depending on where those people live. If they live in Washington County, they’re exiting out to Queensbury Avenue, you know, Queensbury area they’re coming out Hicks Road. Providing the additional outlet onto Hicks, I would say 80% of our major truck traffic comes from the Northway and that’s the first point that they get to. Ridge Road and Hicks into that entrance. So we try to provide safety to our employees and we went back and forth on the placement of parking lots for a while because we don’t want employees walking across a truck route to get to the buildings, we want a safe egress there as well. So, with the way it’s laid out here now, we’ve satisfied everything. MR. FORD-It’s a good placement, I believe. MR. BODKIN-Yes, I mean, it’s what makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-So do trucks come up Ridge Road or up County Line Road, typically? MR. NACE-Most of our traffic comes up Ridge, cuts over, Ridge to Hicks. MR. FORD-Ridge to Hicks. MR. NACE-Ridge to Hicks. You know we got some local box-makers that we have in Cambridge, they would come up or Fed-Ex and UPS and the like. MR. SIPP-My concern here is the 3:00, 2:00 to 3:00 would be school bus traffic also. MR. NACE-That one bus that comes through? MR. SIPP-Well there’s more than one isn’t there? MR. NACE-I think there’s two, I think there’s two buses, but yes. MR. SEGULJIC-If I can chime in on that, Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the egress you’re speaking of. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, I just want to get around so that we’re all comfortable with this 440 foot separation and the fact that at peak hours probably no one of those ingress, egress 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) points hits the 225 mark. That’s what I, that’s what I, I’m not sure it’s a, it’s split directly in quarters, but I don’t think anyone rises to the level of 225. That’s just something that I have in my head and would not trigger the 440 separation. I don’t know whether, how other Board members feel about that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the other issue to me, particularly when you look at the Hicks Road entrances those are the only driveways. So it’s not like he’s, you know, any traffic coming in and out of their site is going to compete with any neighboring sites. MR. VOLLARO-Right, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think that really mitigates any impact that there would be. MR. VOLLARO-The requirement for separation, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. I like the way the sites laid out particularly well. So I wouldn’t want to impose even the thought of having to remove that truck site for any reason at all. MRS. STEFFAN-Well and also it is an employer. They have a social responsibility to their people and if there is a traffic issue, they can very well tell their employees that they want them to use a determined entrance, and so I don’t see a problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-No, I agree, so I’m gonna get rid of that in my notes, anyway. I’ve got a couple of notes, I’ll get rid of them in a hurry here so that Board members can, incidentally, SEQR for this Board is usually the last thing I want to get into. I want to make sure the Board understands every line in SEQR before we do it, not that I think it’s gonna be a problem here, but, you know, that’s just something that I’m trying to institute here. SEQR is last, last, last, last, three lasts in a row. On the sewer, just a notation that comes out of Mike Shaw on the sewer is that this parcel is located in the Warren County sewer district and they should be reviewing and permitting and inspecting the proposed changes here. MR. NACE-Yes, they’re already connected, the facility is already connected to Washington County. MR. VOLLARO-It’s already connected. So probably Mike’s comment doesn’t even, isn’t germane to this application. Okay. Now CT Male does have 20 items you have obviously talked to him about those and. MR. NACE-I’ve address them all with a letter hand delivered Monday morning first thing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-And we got back from CT Male a response from CT Male, an e-mail a copy to us, original to Craig, says, we’ve reviewed the response letter from Nace Engineering nd dated September 22 for the Angio Dynamics projects, based on a cursory review of the responses we feel that most of our comments have been addressed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay MR. NACE-Since we were so closed to the meeting, so on and so forth. MR. VOLLARO-So, you still need a sign-off letter for them to clear that. MR. NACE-We need a sign-off letter, I’ve talked to them and he’s okay with all the responses but we need the final sign-off. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, I’ve got a couple of questions on lighting, Tom, we can just discuss those. The easy one, what is the height of the pole mounted lights? MR. NACE-Good question, I don’t recall off hand. MR. VOLLARO-The spec we have is 20, so. MR. NACE-I’m pretty sure that’s what we submitted there was a package with a. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see in the details a lighting, you know, I was looking for it in your details, on details chart. MR. BODKIN-There were cut sheets on the fixtures (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Does it say that in the cut sheet, I looked for that. MR. FORD-How does that compare with existing lights? MR. NACE-That’s what I’m looking, I’m not, I don’t remember seeing that specified, but we would certainly specify that as 20 feet. I don’t see it noted, we will make a note to 20 foot height. MR. BODKIN-Yes, we’re paying for it. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just, you know, you got a different problem than I do. I’ve got to know that it’s kind of nailed down for the. Just put a note on that the pole heights match the 20 foot requirement in the code. Now, in the lighting plan itself there’s a min in there, you know, I like to look at the average over min to get a uniformity ratio and the min is at zero. MR. NACE-It’s our old argument, it’s where you put the box. MR. VOLLARO-You know, there’s never min zero unless the software is dictating that zero is someplace on, you know. MR. NACE-One of the problems is we’re probably at the point where we need to buy our own software package so we can do the lighting calculations ourselves because the consultants we use never quite make a reasonable analysis of where the actual box that they’re analyzing the numbers within, falls. MR. VOLLARO-When I take a look for example, Tom, when we’re looking at our code in parking lots I think it talks about a minimum of one foot candle or two foot candle, I’m not sure, I think it’s two. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s one in industrial parks. MR. VOLLARO-Is it one? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I’m picking out foot candles in the parking lot of 3.2, 3.3, 4.0, 5.3, just a couple I’ve looked at in the distribution of those lights. MR. NACE-There are some that get down to .8. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-So. MR. VOLLARO-You know it’s hard for me, you know, I’d have to sit there and I don’t have the software package, if I had it I could manipulate it around, but. MR. NACE-I think that’s my problem too, I think what they’ve done is the numbers you see, are the ones they’ve used to calculate their statistics. MR. VOLLARO-And I. MR. NACE-The numbers you see if you go out to the back of wetlands it’s 0.0, so that’s where your zero came from. MR. VOLLARO-See what, in order for example to take a look at uniformity ratios in different parts of sites, in order to do the calculation of the average over min, I can’t do it in any place on here because the average over min, because the min is zero. I can’t get a mathematical answer out of that. MR. NACE-Did you actually look at the parking areas or the road areas it’s really not zero, when I got this and looked at it, and I didn’t do a number by number statistical analysis but I looked to see if we were in reasonable shape for parking areas, are we 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) close to a foot candle. Then in the truck loading area, obviously we’re less as you get toward the outside of the truck loading area. MR. VOLLARO-It’s real hard to do with an eyeball integration though Tom, you know. MR. NACE-I understand that. MR. FORD-To what extent have federal aviation administration regulations for lighting near an airport have been taken into consideration? MR. BODKIN-There really wasn’t nothing specific from the FAA, although part of my intent to keep these values down low so we didn’t have an issue, ah, and keeping the parking area and the point of egress for employees getting in the building well lit. You know, the back route closer to the airport, keeping that less and so on. I do have approval from the FAA for this building structure based on it’s height and location so that form is filed and complete and on file. MR. FORD-And that didn’t taken into consideration the lighting? UNKNOWN-No lighting, no lighting was part of that, just the height issue because we got the whole flight. MR. SEGULJIC-So there was no lighting issue that. UNKNOWN-There was no lighting requirements, but just common sense we wanted to keep the lighting lower toward the airport. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see our spec calls for approximately one foot candle across the entire parking area, that’s a requirement in our code. In order, particularly out where you are in a rural area, you don’t want this big hot spot. Everything has got to be down lit, but in the statistics and the symbols they give was the average is 1.6 and the max is 56.5, the min is zero. So, in order to do what’s called a uniformity ratio, it means what is, a lot of people want to know what that is. It’s the ability of your eyes to react quickly for example, if you’ve got a very highly lit parking lot and an employee goes onto the dark road, these two things here don’t adjust that quick. So what they do is try to come up with a uniformity radio that allows for the adjustment of the eye to different light levels as you progress through. And there’s a, and we like it to be 4:1, and Tom is very familiar with this cause he’s done it a couple of times with us, so I would like to see the lighting so you know, we can come up with a least a uniformity ratio around the parking lots. MR. NACE-We can draw the boundary for that analysis, tight around the parking area and I think that will show you that it is. I’m confident from looking at it that’s it’s pretty close, it may not be 4:1, but it’s in a reasonable proximity thereof. MR. VOLLARO-Four to one is probably not achievable in most areas I’ve looked at, you can’t get the four to one, but if you could get close to a reasonable uniformity ratio I usually go along with that. So that’s what I’d be looking for in the lighting MR. NACE-Okay. Sure. MR. FORD-How difficult would it be to get a FAA sign-off on the lighting plan? MR. BODKIN-It’s not a requirement, not a necessary element from them, nor was it in the previous expansion that was done. MR. FORD-They don’t have any requirement for lighting on an approach to an airport? MR. NACE-Nothing in any of the permits I’ve ever filed with them or any question ever asked by them. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any problems with the low lighting in the parking lot, what I do see though is that there’s a lot of hot spots in different areas. Now, is than an anomaly of the? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, I wonder if the software is right? MR. NACE-It’s also the software, okay, because what happens if you accidentally locate your light fixture right on a grid point, it’s going to blossom like that, okay. You may be able to move your grid so that’s it’s taking on a value five feet away and it’s reduced the 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) light level in half. So it’s an anomaly of the software and that’s one of the reasons, and you might, because you don’t have a site that’s laid out on a perfect grid, or a light pattern that’s laid out on a perfect grid, you may move the grid off of one light and end up having it on another light. Those typical, real 50 or 40 foot candle values are generally indicative of right under the light. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes in fact when you look at the proposed new truck access road you have, well, there’s two different types of lights. You have the “A” lights and the “FA” lights, but for the same lights, you have different numbers underneath them. And, they’re pretty significantly different. You know the most is 56 ½, but the same lighting fixtures, just a littler further up, you only have 29 so, it must be some. MR. NACE-That’s just may be 5 feet off the grid, or something of that sort and that’s one of the reasons I don’t like the uniformity ratio on a site lighting plan because it’s just a numbers game. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying those numbers that are on this plan are really not indicative? MR. NACE-Well, they are indicative but it’s, it may be that that one grid point where you get a number is directly under the light, where the next light up is the same light but the grid is five feet away from the light and it makes that difference. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m kinda thrown off to cause when you look at the photometric pattern for the lights, as I read it, it has a maximum of 10 foot candles right under the light. MR. NACE-That’s an anomaly of the program, the what, the diagram you’re looking at there for the light is the manufacturers average analog type of diagram. What you get in the program is a digital read out of every point along that grid. MR. SEGULJIC-So this is averaging over (lost words)? MR. NACE-That’s right, the typical lighting diagram with the nice cloud looking thing that you get is actually easier and more accurate to design with because it does give you averages. The digital read out of every point is something you’ve got to understand before you. MR. VOLLARO-This is the old analog to digital conversion, that’s part of the problem. MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand that, where I’m getting hung up is I’ve seen a lot of other lighting plans where there weren’t these big high spots. Number One. Number Two, if we approve this, we’re approving it with all these high numbers on it which is not the signal we want to be sending people, we want lower lighting. MR. NACE-And I think if you look at the, at the average, you know, get out and look away from the lights a little bit and it is the reasonable number. We’re pretty close, from what I can tell, around a foot to a foot and a half around the occupied areas of the parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-And the thing is, the higher numbers are underneath fixture A which is two 400 watt metal halides, which is not a very high wattage bulb. MR. NACE-No, it’s not. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s something going on here. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’m wondering, that’s my conclusion. MR. VOLLARO-You know when we looked at the Wal-Mart plan, that was extremely well done in terms of the lighting and it was done by Lathonia. They’re the ones who did that lighting plan for Wal-Mart. I would suggest. MR. NACE-They’ve done a lot of our previous ones, they did not do this one. MR. VOLLARO-I know that I see Richard Jones did this, and I like Rich’s work but I don’t know whether this is his specialty or not, frankly, when I looked at that. So, Lathonia does a great job at this. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. NACE-We can get it re-run by Lathonia. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I would like, would like to see you do on that. I don’t know if everyone agrees with me on that, but I’ve seen a lot Lathonia’s work. MR. SEGULJIC-It just doesn’t, I can’t see approving this tonight with the hot spots. MR. FORD-I’d feel more comfortable with that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, what else do I have here before we get going. Now, this is not my area, trees and I don’t get along on this board, I’ve never been a good “tree man”. I like a couple of trees but a lot of people put a lot of trees in and I don’t think a lot of trees is what we want, but, anyway the number of parking spaces in here say that you need about 23 trees in the parking lot and I’m gonna punt on this one to the rest of Board because I’m not good at this tree thing. Don does a very good job on it and I think the other Board members are very good at this, I never look at this. Anybody else have any comment on trees at all? Do they want, right now they do have trees in their parking lot in terms of their design. I think it looks okay, I wouldn’t want to load the parking lot down with unnecessary foliage. That’s, you know, you’re going to be removing snow during snow times, trees don’t live well that way. MR. BODKIN-Right, and that’s the other thing again, the number of people, the shift hours, we try to make it so it’s easy to plow and maintain so we minimize that. Most of our trees are on the perimeter of Hicks Road and Queensbury Avenue where it’s most visible. We did want to stay away from big trees. Some of our trees that we’re planning to take down have been sited by the airport as being to high already, okay, as part of that whole flight plan approach thing. So, planting a maple that’s going to grow 70, 80 feet tall isn’t the best interest either. Be awhile before it gets there, you and I probably won’t see it, but.. MR. VOLLARO-Particularly me. MR. BODKIN-Right, so MR. SIPP-You’re going to be planting on the edge of Hicks Road when you do that. MR. BODKIN-Yes. MR. SIPP-And because those 3 inch caliber maple trees are not gonna bother anybody at that point. Well, you’ve got some going in. MR. BODKIN-Along the truck route and the right hand side there’s a string of soft maples. MR. SIPP-Yes, now, in the parking lot itself is there, there’s no center island or anything like that? MR. BODKIN-We’re trying to ease center islands for ease of snowplowing removal, etc. We do have some soft maples running down that left hand side next to catch basin two. MR. SIPP-Yes, those are sugar maples, yes. MR. BODKIN-Yes. MR. SIPP-One thing here, for this new telephone service, electric service, new gas service, all of this area is going to have to be disturbed, right? MR. BODKIN-Correct. MR. SIPP-And that future building? When is the future office building proposed? MR. BODKIN-If you could tell me when that happens then we could all be rich, but, I’m not sure at this point. MR. SIPP-You going to have a new sewage grinder pump. MR. BODKIN-That’s going in now. MR. SIPP-Going in now, so the actually the new electric and the new.. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. BODKIN-All going in now. MR. SIPP-Will go also but will stop at the proposed warehouse building. MR. BODKIN-It comes all the way in. We’re putting in new electric, new sewer line, so where you’re headed probably, is some of those trees that are there now are going to be uprooted. True. Especially there’s a couple of them there, one is a memorial tree that we planted a couple of years ago, in memory of a former employee, that’s going to be uprooted, replanted off site, probably at Jim Girard’s until such time the site is ready for it so we can bring it back along with a couple of others cause they have meaning to us and we’re going to retain them along with others, so. MR. SIPP-Well, also, Is this a whole new sewer line that’s going to be put in? MR. BODKIN-Whole new holding tank. MR. SIPP-Joins up with what is already existing. MR. BODKIN-Goes to an existing connection on County Line Road. MR. SIPP-And this is Warren County or is this Queensbury sewers. MR. VOLLARO-Warren County. MR. SIPP-Warren County. MR. BODKIN-Warren-Washington, whatever. MR. SIPP-You know around that pond… MR. BODKIN-Based on location, this warehouse and the future expansion. MR. FORD-You’re taking that future expansion into consideration with all of this. MR. BODKIN-Yes, for the size and location so we can tie in. We only want to disturb the ground here once. MR. SIPP-To give you a buffer between the pond and the existing parking lot where this disturbance of the new telephone line. MR. BODKIN-Yes, in the current grass area. MR. SIPP-No, I’d like to see some smaller trees put in there to give you a buffer between that. MR. BODKIN-That’s an existing green space there today between the pond and our current parking lot. MR. SIPP-Yes, but if you go east of that, up towards County Line Road. MR. BODKIN-There’s a string of white birch trees through there today. The intent was one has to be removed but they’ll be replanted after the excavation. So there is existing white birch there along County Line Road today in the intersection of Hicks. MR. SIPP-As long as when you tear something up, if you put it back. You know. Those sugar maples, if you use a lot of salt, are not going to survive. At that size, you use a lot of salt in that parking lot. They won’t do well. Sugar maple is susceptible to salt. MR. BODKIN-Be replaced as required. MR. VOLLARO-What would recommend in lieu of, are you talking about the ones that are in the parking lot now? MR. SIPP-No, the ones that they’ve proposed along the edge of the new entrance road. MR. BODKIN-I think of the eight or nine or ten, whatever we had planted in the Phase One expansion, I think we lost one of those maples over the last several years. I think that was due to wet feet syndrome. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. FORD-I think there were 10, weren’t there? MR. SIPP-We got 10. They’ll survive quite a bit, but that size and if you use a lot of salt on these parking lots, it’s gonna get to them. MR. BODKIN-Yes, it’s a Jim Girard mixture, so whatever salt content there is. MR. SIPP-There’s not much that will survive salt. MR. VOLLARO-So, Don, let me ask you this. Are you satisfied generally satisfied with the landscaping plan in this? MR. SIPP-Yes, I think that you’ve got enough shrubs and perennials going in will make it look nice. I would like to see a couple more red maple up in that, you’ve got two red maple and that’s it on the new parking to the south of the, I think there’s room for some more in there. MR. NACE-Where’s this at? MR. SIPP-Alright, to the south of the existing building you’ve got two red maple right together on the center of the new parking lot. Now, I would think there would be a need up at the other end, another couple of maples. Here, again. MR. NACE-Right. MR. NACE-We could probably put one up here towards the farm. I think we didn’t put any on this island because of the light poles. MR. BODKIN-Sure. Then across the way, there’s several hundred trees across the driveway there in that wetland area. It’s all wooded. MR. LAPPER-So is that okay, an additional red maple in that island? MR. SIPP-Red maple will do better with the wetness of that area right there. MR. VOLLARO-Don, I guess I’m not following this, there’s a new parking area with no tree in it and you want a red maple in that area? Is that where you.. MR. SIPP-Yes, they’ve got two at the west end. MR. NACE-We’re talking, Bob, we talking right here beside stormwater basin two. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, okay, I got it. MR. NACE-We’re talking about putting an extra tree in here. MR. SIPP-And then you move to the south there’s a couple more islands there which I assume they’re for. MR. FORD-Those are light posts. MR. SIPP-Maybe on the east side of that, the east end of those new parking lanes, there could be some more trees. MR. BODKIN-On the east end it’s up next to the building, it’s in that area. That’s not an option. MR. SIPP-That’s open area right now. MR. NACE-That’s blacktop area for that. MR. SIPP-Blacktop. Well, to the east of that? MR. VOLLARO-To the east of that you’ve got a building, you know, looking at. MRS. STEFFAN-It doesn’t meet the code though, I mean this, when you look at it according to Staff notes. The landscaping plan does not meet the code. 179.8-040. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. SIPP-Where’s the gazebo that I can see from the road? MR. VOLLARO-So Don, what have you added to that, you’ve added what to the, cause we’re trying to make a set of notes here for the tabling motion and we need to try to nail this down. MR. SIPP-I would say at least two, four, probably four to six more red maples in the area designed for the new parking on the east side. How about up near the gazebo also? MR. BODKIN-There’s one or two at the gazebo already. There’s no more room for more maple trees MR. SIPP-Okay. What is that, that’s not designated as. MR. NACE-Existing or soft maple, sugar maple. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the concerns I have here is in the Staff notes, it says very specifically that there are two code sections, no landscaping is proposed between or along the road edge between the two Hicks Road entrances and then the landscaping plan does not provide a calculation of trees required for the parking lot, but it appears that the new parking areas will require more trees to meet the standards. Both of those are referred back to 179-8-040. So your plan is lacking vegetation, the trees that are required according to code. MR. VOLLARO-The Code gives him 23 and they don’t have 23 here. It doesn’t quite meet the Code, but then again I’ve always had a problem with jamming trees into these sites. MRS. STEFFAN-But, then landscape strips along streams. I mean, this is very specific to the Code. MR. NACE-Code is 23 on the whole site, er? MR. LAPPER-Tom has a suggestion that you might be satisfied with. MR. NACE-What if we were to, okay, I think we can put maybe an extra two or three red maples over I think where Don was talking about. We can put one here by the pond. We have an island up here that’s not lighted, we could put one or two up here, but then what if we were to go ahead and do some landscaping in here with this phase. Okay, we can keep it out toward the road so it’s protected from damage when we come back to do this parking lot in the future, but, get some landscaping, some street trees in here and some shrubbery. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you just leave some of the existing trees there and work around them, perhaps? MR. NACE-We can take a look if there’s anything, the existing trees right now end right here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-We can certainly look there to see if there’s anything worth saving once it’s thinned out. I’m not sure, from what I saw. MR. HUNSINGER-I was hoping I could find an easy, ah solution, you know. MR. BODKIN-Those are scrub ash. MRS. STEFFAN-I think certainly would satisfy the Code requirements and it is the same standard we hold other applicants to so I think it’s the right thing to do. MR. NACE-Okay, sure. MR. BODKIN-It’s our long term goal to do that. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and since we don’t have a definite date when you’ll phase the next pieces in, I think it’s a good thing to do proactively. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. LAPPER-We’re gonna put three red maples in the parking lot and then plant that area along Hicks. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s the answer. That would be in the parking lot to the south of the existing building. MR. NACE-Let’s say to the south and east of stormwater basin number two. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, south and east of stormwater basin two, I see it. And there would be how many going in there? Three? MR. BODKIN-Three. MR. VOLLARO-You said three, I think before. MR. NACE-I said three and (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Three. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just gonna put some generic language, we’ve had the discussion and you guys can follow up on that. MR. VOLLARO-She’s going to use a generic description to satisfy the code and then. MRS. STEFFAN-What other conditions have to be in this. I’ve got a lighting plan alteration. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s one. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s there. MR. LAPPER-CT Male sign-off. Verify the 20 ft. poles. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think you’ve got that, do you have the 20 ft. poles? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, on the lighting alterations. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I don’t really see anything else actually. Warren County, CT Male sign-off. We’ll do the SEQR maybe next time around when all of this is settled down. The lighting is covered. I don’t see anything else. MRS. STEFFAN-There is a public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is a public hearing. Don’t get up cause I’m not sure that anyone’s here that wants to talk to this from the public, but I’m going to open the public hearing for anybody who’d like to speak to this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO- I’m looking at Mr. Salvador and he’s not looking at me, so that probably means there’s probably nobody here to speak to this application. I will leave the public hearing open. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m going to make a motion to table site plan 37-2006 for Angio Dynamics, 603 Queensbury Avenue, Queensbury. Today’s date, whereas a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for a 35,500 sf warehouse building and associated site work. We’re tabling this application with the following conditions. That we receive a CT Male sign-off, that the applicant provide an enhanced landscaping plan to satisfy zoning code requirements. That the applicant verify 20 ft. pole heights on lighting. The fourth condition is that the lighting plan, is that they provide a lighting plan alteration to satisfy calculations of the uniformity ratio. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t have to be 4:1, Tom, you know, it’s gotta be close. MR. LAPPER- Could we try and get this on for the first meeting in October, would that be possible? If we get this back in a week. They are hoping to get this under construction in October. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. HUNSINGER-I just commented to Tom, I might be the only person, I mean personally I would feel comfortable approving it based on, I mean we didn’t go through SEQR obviously, we haven’t considered SEQR yet, but if these are the only issues I feel comfortable moving forward. MR. SEGULJIC-These are the kind of projects we want. MR. VOLLARO-Oh yes. Well, moving forward to an approval based on our approval for SEQR? We’re doing SEQR tonight? MRS. STEFFAN-We’re doing SEQR now. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re doing SEQR tonight and doing a conditional approval. MR. VOLLARO-I have no objective to that, we can go with that, so long as we’re going to do that, though I do want to talk about a couple of sections in SEQR. So long as this board feels it’s ready to go through and understands this application well enough to answer all the questions accurately in SEQR, I won’t stand in the way of that. I’m not necessarily a fan of doing that, but I’ll go along with the will of the board on that one. If you want to move on SEQR tonight I’ll certainly participate in that. I think before we do that however, I want to go over their Part I before we do that, and take a look at their Part I before we do that, because I wasn’t anticipating going into SEQR tonight, I think Mr. Hunsinger has a point however, we do want this kind of thing in the Town of Queensbury and we can move. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that’s not the, the point is these items, they seem pretty minor. I mean, we’re talking about adding a few trees. The lighting plan alteration, I think the lighting plan that was provided just isn’t a true reflection of what the specifications, the cut sheet show. So I think there are some anomalies there, which I think we could explain. So you’re left with the CT Male sign-off letter, which they basically have in concept already and you know, we can condition it on that anyway. So I’m just looking at the items that are lest outstanding and nothing jumps out as being real insignificant. MRS. STEFFAN- The other thing to consider is they’re gonna have to for example, re-do the landscaping plan, re-do the lighting. If they come back, if we can get them back in, in three weeks they’ll have all of their drawings finalized and we could wrap it up that night. We can do it either way. MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate that. MR. BODKIN-Three weeks could make a big difference with the construction cost, the heating, but, you know, so If we could do it, I would certainly appreciate that. MR. LAPPER-We’re ready to go. MR. NACE-Yes, we’re ready. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just raising my opinion. MRS. STEFFAN-I can go either way. MR. VOLLARO-I think Mr. Hunsinger has a valid point. I certainly feel that we can go the extra mile here. It’s gonna take a little bit of time, cause I want to go through Part I and try, I did not go through Part I myself, personally, except for 255 thing that I thought might bother you. I did not want to have to go through the 440 ft. separation. Other than that, I have not reviewed this, so I’m going to have take a few minutes to look at Part I and see what your comments are on that. So you’ll have to bear with me a little bit. I suggest all Board members do that, go through Part I and see if you’re satisfied with a lot of these answers in here before we go to Part II. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to ask questions as I go. That 15%, this is under 3, what are the predominant soil types on the site? The poorly drained areas at 15%, that’s basically the wetland area MR. NACE-That’s the wetlands. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-Correct. Okay. Now, when you say the depth to ground water here, is a, the depth of the water table is zero to five. The zero is again down near the wetland area, I would presume, right? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And since you don’t have to deal with on-site septic I’m not worried about the depth below the field itself. Have we come to a resolution on the parking, in one place it’s 405, the other place it’s 357? MR. LAPPER-357. MR. VOLLARO-So 357 is the correct number. MR. LAPPER-Since your SEQR is going to contemplate the future expansion, can you MR. VOLLARO-405 is what you. MR. LAPPER-Ultimately. MR. VOLLARO-Right, so we don’t segment the SEQR. MR. LAPPER-Right, exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Right, I’ve got it. The second phase would be a twelve month build cycle and you’re estimating 2008, that’s your best guess. Okay. MR. BODKIN-For completion, yes. MR. VOLLARO-There’s Number Nine of. MR. NACE-That’s because the darn form doesn’t have a blank there and I meant to come back and write it in. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t. I created it, but I corrected it. I put a blank in for myself so what should go in there. Is that the 177 we’ve been seeing? It talks about number of jobs generated during construction. MR. NACE-Number of jobs after project is complete, Randy? MR. VOLLARO-It would be 15? After construction there’s a blank. MR. BODKIN-They filled that in for us pretty much. The press has filled that in, I guess over the next five years it could be upwards of additional 300, which was much high than what I had, you know I, talked about here. MR. VOLLARO-With this phase, phase I, this new building, this warehouse. By the way, this warehouse or does it house construction capability, manufacturing. MR. BODKIN-It frees up additional manufacturing and the old warehouse will be able to be expanded into. This area is 6000 sq. ft. on the first floor, 6000 sq. ft. on the second floor. Parts of this warehouse is office space and the rest of it is warehouse and distribution. High bay racks. MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t have any manufacturing in this building? MR. BODKIN-No. MR. LAPPER-But they’ll be able to convert existing manufacturing space, excuse me, existing warehouse space to manufacturing space. MR. VOLLARO-In some other place. MR. BODKIN-In the current warehouse. We’ve had conversations with Staff on that already and through multiple discussions. MR. VOLLARO-So I need to get a number in here, after the project is complete? MR. BODKIN-Put 150 in there. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay, 150. It just should be filled in so we have it. Just for my own edification, there’s nothing to this, where do you get most of your people from, local? Most of them? MR. BODKIN-Yes, the assembly type jobs are local. MR. VOLLARO-You train them up to do what they have to do. MR. BODKIN-Right, right. Part of our growth in the future years is engineering and research development. So a lot of those jobs are coming from outside to here. MRS. STEFFEN-They come from outside the country, often. MR. BODKIN-What’s that? MRS. STEFFEN-They often come from outside the country. MR. BODKIN-You got one starting from outside the country, yes. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed from taking a look Tom, some of our engineering enrollments in some of the engineering colleges have started to increase. MR. NACE-Really? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, very little, but yeah. You know, we’ve been on the down slope for like the last 15 years, people prefer basket-weaving to engineering. MR. NACE-Sometimes I don’t blame them. MR. BODKIN-Engineering will drive you to basket-weaving. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, I’ve looked at this. I don’t have any problems with what’s in Phase I. I think the only thing we’re gonna do is to take out the 255 trips generated per hour would be you’ve got to put something in there that doesn’t trigger the 440 foot requirement. MR. NACE-Put the total for four entrances. MR. VOLLARO-Okay we can do that and let the distribution fall where it may. Okay. Alright, Gretchen do you want to start off on, I’m happy. If everybody else is ready to go with SEQR, I’ll go with it. MR. FORD-Let’s go. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in the physical change to the project site? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-What are the impacts? Small to moderate? MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate as far as I can see. I don’t see major impacts to the site over and above what’s impacted already, so this is small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, let me go through the criteria. MR. SCHACHNER-What’s the change? Before you characterize the magnitude, you have to pick a change. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, any construction of slopes of 15% or greater. 15 ft. rise per 100 ft. of length or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. MR. VOLLARO-In their Part I, it does not. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MRS. STEFFAN-Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 ft. Doesn’t apply. MR. VOLLARO-They have 0 to 5, so they’re okay I feel. In their Part I, they say 0 to 5, 0 being on the wetland and 5 being, 5 is greater than 3, so I think they’re okay there. MRS. STEFFAN-Construction of a paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles? Doesn’t apply. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 ft. of existing ground surface. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Construction that will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we could say yes there. MR. VOLLARO-The answer is yes to that, cause they’re talking two stages. They’ve got two stages listed in Part I. MR. HUNSINGER-They said it could be 15 months. MRS. STEFFAN- But, is it a small to moderate impact, a potential larger, or can the impact be mitigated by a project change? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s small to moderate impact. MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate I would think. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and then the last example, excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material, rock or soil per year. MR. VOLLARO-No, they haven’t stated that in here, but it looks like there’s gonna be nothing removed off that site that would require, for example trucking onto either of those arteries. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, so. Number 1, the answer was yes, construction will continue for more than one year but it was a small to moderate impact. MR. BAKER-Mrs. Steffan, there’s actually two other questions under the item on the top of the following page. MRS. STEFFAN-I just flipped it over and found it, thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Sanitary land fill or designated flood way, both of which are no. MRS. STEFFAN-And both don’t apply. Okay, will there be an effect to unique or unusual land forms found on the site. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action effect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action effect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. SIPP-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action effect surface or ground-water quality or quantity? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flows, patterns, or surface water run-off? MR. HUNSINGER-I’d say no. MRS. STEFFAN-The examples are the proposed action would change flood water flows? Which I don’t think applies. Proposed action could cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed action will allow development in a designated flood way. MR. VOLLARO-I’d say no to all of those. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, so will the proposed action alter drainage flows, patterns, or surface water run-off? The answer is no. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect or threaten any endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or palentological importance? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS.STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR617.14? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the communities sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there, or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then, I will make a motion for a negative SEQR declaration. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll second. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 37-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ANGIO DYNAMICS, 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 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) 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. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. VOLLARO-Okay, with SEQRA out of the way, I opened the public hearing. I’ll now close the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-We are going to an approval with conditions, right? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We don’t have a motion so I’m drafting, I’m putting this together, okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2006 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Whereas a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: The applicant proposes a 35,500 square foot warehouse building and associated site work. Whereas a public hearing was advertised and was held on 9/26/06. Whereas this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record, and Whereas pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code (Chapter 179) the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code, and where appropriate the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Whereas, 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits, are dependent upon receipt. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that we find: That this application is hereby approved with the following condition: 1.That the applicant receive a C.T. Male signoff. 2.That an enhanced landscaping plan be submitted to Staff to satisfy Zoning Code requirements. 3.That the applicant verify the 20 foot pole height on lighting. 4.That a lighting plan alteration be submitted to comply with Town Zoning Uniformity Ratios. th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. BODKIN-Thank you very much. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING AGENT(S): THE CHAZEN CO. OWNER(S): RICHARD CUNNINGHAM ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION NORTH QUAKER ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE A 10,330 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RESTAURANTS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN RESPONSE TO THE AUGUST 15, 2006 TABLING. CROSS REFERENCE AV 68-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/12/05 LOT SIZE 3.104 ACRES TAX MAP NO.296.18-1-6 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & CHRIS ROUND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing is still open. I would just like to make one comment, and I would like to congratulate Mr. Baker, Stu Baker, on the completeness and thoroughness of the Staff notes, the way they’re written. I think this is, in my view at least, the way Staff notes should be presented to this Board. Thanks a lot, Stu. MR. BAKER-You’re welcome. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I won’t have Mr. Baker read these notes. They’re fairly lengthy and reasonably compact in the information that they present. I will ask this. Have all Board th members read these Staff notes of September 26? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. FORD-I have one correction, though. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, Mr. Ford. MR. FORD-On the second page of the issues from 8/15/06, motion to table, the second bullet on the next page, ingress and egress will be right in/right out only directed by an island with a mountable curbing, and that I believe is inaccurate. MR. LAPPER-You’re right. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FORD-It is a right out only. MR. LAPPER-Still left out. MR. ROUND-Full movement in, prohibited left out. MR. BAKER-It’s full movement in? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. BAKER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, since we were here last, we’ve made some submittals, and so I guess we’d like to go through, in terms of, for the record, to just go through how we responded to the items that you had requested, and then we had C.T. Male comments and we responded to those comments, and now we have Staff comments. So we’d like to just bring the Board up to speed, to just review our submittal, and then we can talk about it, if that’s okay with you. st MR. VOLLARO-This is the submittal of August 21? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and then we’ve just received C.T. Male comments last week, which we w have response that obviously we couldn’t give you. We’ve submitted written response to them, but we will just go over our response, just so that the record is complete. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-Go forward, sure. th MR. ROUND-Thank you. Chris Round, for the record. We were last here August 15. We provided you with a response to these seven items which were raised and were identified in the tabling motion, and I’m not going to read each of those, but I just have some slides, just to talk about what our response was, just so that you’re clear on what our response provided to you. First was estimate of excavated soils. We provided a calculation which indicated 13,625 cubic feet of excavated material would come out of the site. That’s the cut, and then also 9,875 fill to be brought back on site. Those numbers differ from the numbers that we’ve been talking about historically because we’ve applied this 25% expansion factor, which is a rule of thumb that, you know, when you excavate soils they expand from their compacted nature, and so C.T. Male reviewed those numbers and found a slight differing in opinion and their difference was based on, they assumed a six foot cut where the retaining wall is to be placed versus our proposal for four foot cut. The geo technical report does not say six feet of cut. It does say removal of organic soils, and then placement of fill. I think C.T. Male assumed a six foot cut. We’ve assumed a four foot cut. They’re both reasonable assumptions. Rather than argue that point, the issue with the cut and fill calculations was the amount of truck traffic that was to be generated as a result of that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the most significant outfall of material in and material out. That’s correct. MR. ROUND-Right. So that was the reason you folks wanted an accurate calculation for that particular issue. So what we agreed, you know, rather than continue to debate a particular element of fact, we said let’s, for the purposes, let’s use the C.T. Male estimate for generating truck traffic, and a conservative estimate, at the end of the day, equates to four truck trips per hour, assuming the C.T. Male calculation is valid, and that’s four truck trips, four trucks leaving the site under the excavation portion, smaller number of trucks per hour would be leaving the site under, to bring the fill. MR. VOLLARO-We had a total number of trucks that we have to deal with, however. We have 1670 trucks. MR. ROUND-That’s correct. That’s 1670 trucks over an eight week period, and we had mentioned in our previous conversation, back in August, that there’s over 20,000 vehicles on the roadway, and I’d have to look to Michael Hartman. The existing truck volumes are on the order of, 10% of that volume is, if you recall, it’s in our prior submittal that was before you last month that the volume of trucks that would be increased as a result of the construction phase, again, a temporary short term impact, would be negligible with regard to the additional truck traffic on the existing highway, and we’ve mentioned that, four trucks per hour. MR. FORD-While you’re addressing that, I would like to address it as well, because if you consider four truck loads coming out per hour, that’s four empty trucks hour going back on site. So that really doubles your truck traffic, and it really amounts to 3340 trucks, if we, because we can’t just consider a truck and its impact on traffic when it is leaving full. We have to also consider that same truck coming back on Quaker Road and entering the site. MR. LAPPER-Our statistics, we talk about truck trips. So it’s entering the site and leaving the site. So that’s correct, but what Chris just stated for the record, because now we’re talking about four truck trips per hour, four in and four out, and that’s compared to, if there’s 2,000 trucks a day on Quaker Road and there’s very good sight visibility on a straight area of the road, and there’s gaps because of the traffic light. MR. FORD-So you’re referring to round trip? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We’re talking about the round trip, but we’re making the point that it’s an insignificant addition to the trucks that are already on Quaker Road and Quaker Road is certainly designed to handle that and it’s a short term, temporary impact during construction. So, while, you know, we’ve been talking about this for the last few weeks about trucks, we view that as a pretty minor part of this construction process, you know, much less significant that Home Depot. The same site contractor looked at that site, did that site is looking at this site, and he said, you know, you could build four restaurants for what came out of the Home Depot site. I mean, so there’s nothing special or unique about this. The Target site needed an incredible amount of fill removed, and that wasn’t even an issue before this Board, nor was it for Home Depot, at Lowe’s, I mean, this is a much smaller site. So, yes, we’ve been talking about that issue. We think C.T. Male 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) pretty much agreed with Chris’ numbers. They added 25% because they want to be conservative, and we understand that, but there’s not a big difference, other than 25% they added just to be conservative. So we just want the record to show that we don’t feel that that’s significant. MR. FORD-I appreciate your opinion. MR. VOLLARO-I think the significance that I see in this is that while this is 1670 trucks, what you gave us as a requirement in your 8/21 submission was 800 trucks. So I see a difference between what you gave us then and what we have now, almost a 100% different in trucks. MR. ROUND-I think, as you did previous application is you identified how many would be generated, and it is 800, and if you either count it as a single trip to the site, it’s 800. If you double that, if you want to count it as break out trips entering and exiting, it will be double that amount, and our previous submittal said 800 trips out of the site. The EAF had a corresponding number, consistent with what was on the record last month, and consistent with what was on the record this month. MR. LAPPER-There’s no issue with a truck turning in. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess the basic issue that I have here, in my mind, is when we did the original SEQRA and we talked about the amount of fill, we talked about 10,000 cubic yards. MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that was the mindset that this Board had at the time they entered into SEQRA. We are now looking at 24,160 yards. MR. ROUND-No, you’re not. MR. VOLLARO-We are, as far as I can see. MR. ROUND-No. The amount of excavated material, the formal EAF asks how much fill is to be removed from the site. We are on record for 10,900 cubic yards that evening, th and in the evening of August the 15. Our calculation that we presented in response to your question was 10,900 cubic yards, continues to be 10,900 cubic yards. That’s the amount of excavated material. The volume of excavated material that will be trucked converts by an expansion factor of 25%. So that’s not a new number, and then C.T. Male agreed with that, with the exception of a two foot difference in the amount of excavated material associated with the retaining wall. MR. FORD-Which you’re not debating. You’re accepting that. MR. ROUND-No. We don’t believe that’s the amount that needs to be excavated, but for the purpose of generating truck trips, rather than argue, every time we’ve been here, it’s been, we don’t like your number. We want to see another number. Rather than debate that, you know, our goal is to give you the information you need. We’ve continually given you 10,900 cubic yards, and that’s consistent with your environmental assessment form that was presented to you and reviewed in the SEQRA Neg Dec issue. That number’s there, but for the sake of generating truck traffic, you know, if you want to use a more conservative number, you’re welcome to use that number, and again, that number is not different than the number that we’ve put on our EAF. It’s 800 truck trips, that is a trip. If you want to calculate them, that was leaving the site. If you want to count it entering the site and leaving the site and call that 1600, that’s a reasonable way to characterize that data. It’s still the same data. MR. LAPPER-It’s 3.4 truck trips per hour during that short construction period, versus four truck trips per hour. So we feel that that’s an insignificant difference because four trucks and hour, when you’re talking about 2,000 trucks a day, is just not significant, on a straight section of Quaker Road. MR. FORD-How many of those 2,000 trucks are at a pace that those trucks will be, entering and leaving the site? MR. ROUND-I guess I don’t understand the question. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. FORD-Is drawing a comparison between actual moving vehicles, truck traffic at whatever pace it’ll be, 30, 35, 40, 45 miles an hour, as compared to those trucks which will be entering and exiting the site. MR. LAPPER-Trucks stop to make deliveries. You can have tractor trailer trucks at Mark Plaza next door for the furniture store. They have break lights. There’s trucks that stop at the intersection at Lafayette because there’s a traffic light. I mean, there’s just nothing unusual about, you know, construction trucks have a sign on the back that says don’t tailgate construction vehicle. We just don’t think that there’s anything unusual about it. MR. ROUND-I think your concern is there’s two different issues there, you know, the volume speaks to a capacity issue, is there capacity on the highway. There’s not a capacity issue. Is there a concern about vehicle safety, vehicle entering the site. That is a normal construction activity that’s done on any construction site. There’s an adequate shoulder width. There’s adequate sight distances. So there’s not a particular unique circumstance on Quaker Road, the largest road in the County, and it’s one of the highest volumes, second highest volumes in the County. It’s a facility designed to handle truck traffic. We talked last month that the truck traffic, I think your concern is that it’s a significant number. We see the traffic impacts of the site when built is more significant than the activity that will take place during construction. When built, we will be generating a significant volume of traffic, and through our Traffic Impact Analysis, we indicated that would not have a negative impact on the highway system. So to take a single number of trucks during a short, very short period of time, and say that that is going to cause a significant problem and that is new rather than the facility when built, that seems to be arbitrary. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the things that doesn’t compute in here is that when we asked, I think, analysis of materials to be removed from the site, specifically the amount of fill to be removed and the amount to be brought in, and the estimated truck trips, what’s missing in that is how far do these trucks have to go and how long. MR. ROUND-I didn’t hear that, though, in that first statement, Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-We never got that piece of information. That’s missing. MR. ROUND-We provided that last month when we were in front of you. We indicated that we did not identify. MR. VOLLARO-You said you didn’t know. I have the record that says you don’t know. MR. ROUND-I said we did not identify a fill site. We said we suspect, we have not contracted for the construction of this, and when the facility was contracted for construction, we’d have a definitive answer for that. We said based on our knowledge and based on our consultation with Frye Companies. Frye was a site contractor. There’s correspondence in there. MR. VOLLARO-I read your attachment from Frye. MR. ROUND-We know Galusha. We know O’Connor. All these folks have pits in either western, excuse me, eastern Queensbury in the area of 149, or in Fort Ann. That’s where most of the sand and gravel pits are located in our region. MR. VOLLARO-But we don’t have a calculation to show how long a truck takes to get there, how long it takes to get back. MR. ROUND-I don’t think that was asked for last time. If you look at your record, it wasn’t said how long in time does it take a truck to travel to the site. I don’t know what bearing that has on this particular project, if it’s a 20 minute trip or a 30 minute trip. MR. VOLLARO-It does because you’re saying four trucks per hour. It may not be. MR. ROUND-Well, that doesn’t say that there’s going to be just four trucks servicing the construction activity. There may be more than that. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to know what the size of the fleet is, and that’s another thing we don’t know. MR. ROUND-That’s not the case. You don’t, that’s not an issue. Somebody might serve this site with four trucks. Somebody might service this site with four trucks. Somebody 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) might serve it with 16. Regardless, there’s, the volume of fill that could be loaded on to a truck at any given point, given, you have one excavator, excavating the site, putting it on to the truck, that’s a fair assumption to make. It takes more than, you can’t fill a truck instantaneously. It takes time to excavate and it takes time to fill a truck. So filling a truck once every 15 minutes is a fair estimate, and it was not a comment of C.T. Male, and in their response to our submittal, they did not raise that issue. That issue of travel time was not raised last month or the month before or the four previous times that it was in front of the Board. MR. VOLLARO-No, it was. MR. ROUND-Truck travel time was not identified. I would like to see the record. MR. VOLLARO-We asked in the record how far were the cut and fill, and you said you didn’t know. MR. ROUND-We said we didn’t know. We suspected that it would be from Fort Ann or Queensbury, and I just don’t know, how is travel time germane to the impact of the site activity? MR. LAPPER-Beyond that, these were not questions that were raised in Home Depot or Pyramid. MR. VOLLARO-We’re not talking about. MR. LAPPER-But those were much bigger cut and fill projects on Quaker Road. This is, you know, a small site. MR. ROUND-What would be the maximum number of trucks that would, during construction, that would enter and leave the site in a given day? MR. ROUND-Four per hour, for an eight hour shift. MR. HUNSINGER-Four per hour, so 32 trucks. MR. VOLLARO-No, it turns out to be less than that, actually. You’ve got to figure that there’s a seven hour shift here. People aren’t going to run trucks, trucking isn’t going to operate on an eight hour day. They have to have an hour for lunch. I calculated 21 trucks per day. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-In my calculation. MR. HUNSINGER-So that would even make the impact smaller. MR. VOLLARO-Over a longer period of time, is what it turns out to be MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m just trying to get a handle on, I don’t understand the concern from the Board, from members of the Board, about the truck traffic. The average daily traffic on Quaker Road is 24,000 trips a day. So even if you added the maximum, say 32 trucks, it’s a thousandth of the existing traffic. That would be the equivalent of putting this piece of paper on top of this stack. I mean, it’s so negligible, it’s not even worth the time that we already spent discussing it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what you said last time, Chris, and I really disagree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-One out of a thousand, Bob, is what we’re talking about. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t care. These trucks still have to get onto Quaker Road. You’re going to have to have a flagman there depending if they go right or they’re going to cross traffic and go left, whichever way they’re going to go. This is an impact to Quaker Road, as far as I’m concerned. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then let’s talk about mitigate measures instead of volumes. Because volumes are insignificant. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. I think they all go hand and glove in the calculation. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) NIRAL PATEL MR. PATEL-Is the concern of the impact safety of civilians? I mean, I’m just trying to understand, so I’m clear. MR. SIPP-It’s definitely. MR. PATEL-Okay. MR. SIPP-Because you’ve got a loaded truck leaving there. If it makes a left turn at one or two miles an hour at low, low gear, how long does it take him to make that left turn? Is there traffic being held up? Is it being stopped, or is it continuing as it was? That’s a safety point is to see that these people who are traveling on Quaker Road at 35, 40, 50 miles an hour do not come up upon a loaded truck creeping out of this site in order to get to the point where he’s going to dump his load. The same way coming back, where it may have to make a left turn into the facility. There’s a safety factor here. MR. PATEL-The only concern I have is, there is, and what’s funny about that, to me, is that, you know, what I don’t understand is Chris mentioned something last time whether the Board was somewhat predisposed on this project, whether they had a disposition pre-considered, but now we’re talking about safety, and we’re talking about the Home Depot job, which probably was 400 times the size of my job. MR. SIPP-That had the traffic signal. MR. PATEL-If I may finish. I have a vacant site that’s in close proximity to a traffic signal which has been proven through a Traffic Impact Statement that there’s enough time, enough gaps for ingress and egress of X amount of cars, let alone four trucks an hour, and by the way, I did the math on 20,000 cars a day, that’s two thousandths of a percent increase, two thousandths of one percent increase out of the traffic on Quaker Road. Furthermore, the Home Depot plaza has approximately 250,000 square feet of occupied retail space, children, family, post office, restaurants, office space and everything else, but safety wasn’t a concern there, to the point where. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s not before us tonight. That’s not before this Board tonight. We’re not looking at this evening. MR. ROUND-I can respond to Mr. Sipp. I think that is a fair concern, is trucks leaving the site, will that cause a safety concern. We have agreed to restrict left hand turns from our site during operation. We would agree to restrict left hand turns from our site during the construction process, eliminating that left hand turn movement. That certainly would mitigate or eliminate, not just mitigate, eliminate, any safety concern from construction traffic. MR. SIPP-Chris, you’ve still got a truck at two miles an hour pulling out of this site. MR. ROUND-But this is Quaker Road where there are those vehicles traveling every day. It is a two lanes in that direction, and then there’s an additional 15 to 20 foot shoulder. That is a normal movement. This is Quaker Road. Where are we to have trucks turning in and out of a site if not on a four lane highway, and a four lane highway with an unstriped center turning lane. Every construction project on Quaker Road has had truck traffic associated with it, and I don’t know that that’s been an issue that’s been raised for any project in front of you previously, and I think that is new to this particular project. It is a valid concern and I think that it’s properly addressed through restricting left hand turns out of the site by trucks. MR. FORD-Good. I’m glad we agree it’s a valid concern. That’s where I’m coming from, safety. MR. ROUND-We can address that. We’re here to address concerns. We can’t, I mean, the question about how long does it take a truck to travel to the site, I don’t know that that’s a safety concern. A truck leaving the site is a safety concern. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not safety, but it’s impact on the road. MR. ROUND-And I think the answer that we gave you is that there’s 20,000 vehicles on the road, and regardless of, and there’s nearly 1,000 heavy vehicles on the road. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-But, you know, this idea of vehicles on the road doesn’t wash with me at all, because if I’ve got a stream of vehicles and I just drop a couple into that stream, that doesn’t bother a damn thing. What bothers it is when I cross that stream of traffic at right angles, that’s a big impact. MR. ROUND-And we’ve agreed to restrict that movement. So we hear your concern. I think we’ve answered it. MR. SIPP-Now, if you take Mr. Ford’s pictures of accidents on Quaker Road, which happen coming out of the bank or coming out of the doctor’s office across the road, there have been several of them with cars. MR. LAPPER-That is anecdotal evidence, because we provided traffic data that said that this road has low accidents, for other roads under guidelines. You can’t say that Quaker Road is a dangerous road. I mean, people can do dumb things anywhere, but there’s very good sight distance and there’s four lanes, plus a center turning. MR. SIPP-A 15 cubic yard truck is not a station wagon. MR. LAPPER-I guess if we jump ahead to where we’re going to get probably in an hour, that for whatever reasons there are some members of the Board that seem to have been pre-disposed, that there were traffic issues here, you know, our job, my job is somewhat of a mediator to try and address the concerns of the Board and to change the project to satisfy the Board. Chris just said in that vein, hey, if it’s really a safety issue, then if we eliminate left turns out with trucks, and it’s only a right turn out, that addresses it, but it just seems that every time we come up with a suitable answer, it doesn’t make the issue go away. I mean, we know that Tom, who I have a lot of respect for, works next door, and so he’s particularly focused on this and he said that probably in November when we first started talking about it, but that said, we provided parking, or excuse me, traffic data which was reviewed by C.T. Male. We talked about, you know, we went to the County. We have the County conceptual approval. It’s just not an issue. There’s not a traffic issue on that road, and there certainly isn’t with truck traffic. So we don’t understand why this project, which seems pretty simple to us and to some Board members, to put a restaurant in practically the only zone in Queensbury where you’re allowed to put a restaurant has gotten you guys so worked up. We just have a hard time understanding that. So we’re here to deal with the issues as they come up. It’s a safety issue. We’re happy to agree to say no left turns for trucks out of the site. We think that should dispose of the issue. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I still don’t understand, we went into SEQRA at 10,000 cubic yards. I don’t understand now where we’re at 24,160 cubic yards, how those things equate into there’s no difference. MR. ROUND-I think, Bob, if I might, the calculation was 10,000 cubic yards. It’s how much fill would be removed from the site, what is the excavated material? You’re now counting material excavated from the site and fill brought to the site. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. ROUND-And the question that was answered was answered accurately, and it remains accurate. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. MR. ROUND-Would you read the question from the SEQRA form if you’d like, and maybe we can clarify that. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have that in front of me, but we can certainly get it, but I feel that when we went into SEQRA we were assuming 10,000 cubic yards. We are now up to 24,160. MR. ROUND-You can’t count fill twice. MR. VOLLARO-We’re not counting fill twice. MR. ROUND-You are counting it twice. Can you read to me from C.T. Male’s letter what their numbers are? And C.T. Male indicated, and I’ll read it for you, on the bottom of the page it says, in summary, if six feet were used in lieu of four feet, it doesn’t say use six feet, this would bring the total volume of cut to 10,250 cubic yards, rounded. Our number 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) was 10,900. I don’t see that as significantly different. The SEQRA form asks for the amount of excavation to be removed from the site, will be removed, and the answer was 10,900. Your consultant says if six feet were used instead of four, 11,250 cubic yards. That’s a difference of 350 cubic yards. That seems minor when we’re dealing with a volume of that significance. You may feel differently, but we believe it to be minor. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve also looked at this 1670 trucks, and was looking for the math piece that I did, but I think I used your 20 minutes per interval, 20 minutes, and I came up with I believe 21 trucks per day or 105 trucks per week, divided in 1,670 trucks, and I came out with 16 weeks. MR. ROUND-You’re using a lower number that we used. You assumed a seven hour work day. We proposed eight. I think you can slice it and dice it any way you want. We presented numbers we believed were valid and your engineer did not dispute. MR. VOLLARO-What I look at, when I look at that, I see 16 weeks, or four months of traffic interference at right angles on Quaker Road, fundamentally, that’s what I see. MR. ROUND-I think we’ve moved beyond that we’ve agreed that a right hand out only would be acceptable and we proposed that and would make it part of the record. So I think that issue does go away. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s a different issue than we looked at SEQRA. We have new information to look at now. MR. ROUND-The same amount of fill. The same project, same construction activity. I don’t believe that it is different. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORD-They were presenting before and I raised a question about the number of truck loads, and so maybe we ought to let them get back to their presentation. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, go ahead back on that. I’m not happy with it, but go forward with it anyway. st MR. ROUND-Yes. We presented the cut and fill calculations in our August 21 correspondence. C.T. Male corresponded to you and to us as well in their September th 19 correspondence and we’ve talked about the volume of excavated material consistent with what was identified on the EAF, and we’ve talked about truck traffic, and we’ve agreed to prohibit a left hand turn for construction vehicles out of the site consistent with the build condition. The Chairman identified last month that the SWPPP, Page 25, had identified incorrectly on our form a 25 year storm volume, storm events have been used for design of the system. We noted again in our reply that it was indeed a 100 year storm as we had articulated at the meeting that evening. I think Staff notes commented that they did not receive a revised SWPPP. We have a revised page for your records. I think we talked about it. I think the Chairman was kind enough. I think, hey, it’s probably an error and bears correcting and we agreed that it was. The Fire Marshal had a number of comments that were transmitted to us after that meeting. We didn’t have them in advance of our meeting last month. Those five issues were about emergency vehicle access, the request for a hydrant. The Fire Marshal identified that there’s an existing preemptive signal control at the Lafayette Street signal that is not functioning correctly right now, asked for a building floor plan and then asked for cooperation in regards to siting our fire protection, fire suppression equipment controls, referred to as SDC, sprinkler and other information as part of the building permit process, and we agreed to all of those elements. We demonstrated that the fire company’s vehicle that they had identified to us, they provided us with truck turning radius. We demonstrated it could enter the site without any prohibition. The concern was that there would be tipping of the vehicle. The Fire Marshal and the Fire Chief for Central looked at that and said it was not an issue. I think there was concern that we only showed a left hand turn movement. That was the movement that the Fire Department had a concern with. In fact both movements, either the right or the left, could be made without any interference of our lamb chop that prohibits the left hand turn out of the site. Regardless, we modified the lamb chop to use a mountable curb, so that means it’s, instead of a vertical curb, it’s angled, and that would further eliminate any concern from the Fire Department, and they’ve looked at that and accepted that as well. MR. VOLLARO-They wrote that off. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. ROUND-Site hydrant. We installed that. They agreed to that. Preemptive signal control, there was some concern that there’s malfunctioning equipment. What we did is we didn’t say we would not fix that. We think that’s an existing condition that’s an existing malfunctioning piece of equipment and it should be fixed today, and it should not wait until such time as we receive an approval and construct our facility. We passed that information on to Warren County Department of Public Works, and we also passed it on to A/GFTC, Aaron Frankenfeld. They took note of that. The County has two projects, an access management project as well as a signal timing, intersection improvement project that’s currently underway, and the indication from Lisa Penistan at Warren County is that they will address that issue. So we’re satisfied with that and we’re glad that was brought to our attention. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I just ask, what’s the problem with the signal now? MR. ROUND-I don’t know. What happens is that when an emergency vehicle approaches the signal, they can actuate a signal and control the signal and allow them free movement through the intersection. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what doesn’t work? MR. ROUND-It’s malfunctioning right now, and we said, hey, you should fix it now, it shouldn’t wait. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-It’s called passive control. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ROUND-We provided a copy of the building layout to the Fire Marshal, and then we also agree that as we develop our building permit plans, we will certainly site those facilities and the most convenient location for the Fire Marshal and the Fire Department. It just makes good sense. MR. VOLLARO-While you’re at that, he did a calculated occupation load of 596. We don’t have to talk about it now, but I just wanted to say that that’s his latest position. MR. ROUND-Okay. Buffer to the cemetery, this was one that was raised new to us last month, and in our response to you last month, we provided a series of figures, and I just have those on the screen for you. Our concern is that we do have a plan that can comply with that. You asked us to comply with the 50 foot buffer adjoining cemetery lands. We went out, and this photo is Ortho Photos. We superimposed our layout on that photo, and those little blue arrows that you see are photo locations. We took a series of photos, presented those last month to you, and our position, our opinion is that we would prefer our layout that’s proposed to you with a 33 foot buffer. If you look at the air photo, you can see that that area that’s directly adjoining us and also directly north of the Mark Plaza is significantly constrained by wetlands, both DEC and Federal wetlands, based on our review of the mapping availability, and we don’t see that that area is ever going to be developed without a significant fill, well in excess of any permit threshold. So we, you know, we don’t think a buffer’s required or necessary here, but we would agree to plant our existing plan to screen, basically what they’re going to see is that retaining wall. So it’s a masonry, and I have a picture of it later. You’re going to see masonry from a certain point in the cemetery, if visible at all. This is a photo from partially on Quaker Road, partially on the Mark Plaza site, Mr. Boychuk’s property, looking into the site, and basically the center of the photo where you see those two trees side by side, that’s where the corner of our parking area is going to be, just to give a perspective on that location. This is a photo that is, and I’ve got to scroll back, I apologize. This is a photo in the area of, and I don’t have a laser pointer, but it’s not in the developed area of the cemetery. It’s internal in the wetland area. There’s actually a little goat path, or a desired path, if you can see where several of the photos that I have that are on the wetland site, that line right there, there’s a little path in there that you can walk, and it’s basically, it’s 12 foot wide. It looks like they’re dumping grass clippings back in there. We took that photo from internal to the cemetery site, and what you’re looking at, in the background of the photo, is the Mark Plaza building. So this shows you, I’m in the wetland. I’m looking at the Mark Plaza building, and there’s a significant amount of vegetation, and that’s not even the corner of the building closest to our site. That’s the building closest to the cemetery. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. For a second, pardon me, but I just want to make sure that everybody understands, on 179-8-070, which is Code, I’ll read it, it says all industrial and commercial uses shall maintain a 50 foot Type C buffer between the use and the adjoining line of any cemetery. It says you must. It doesn’t say you may. It doesn’t say it’s a good idea, not a good idea. I’ll read it again, it says all industrial and commercial uses shall maintain a 50 foot Type C buffer between the use and the adjoining lot line of any cemetery. It can’t be any clearer. The King’s English is clear to me. MR. ROUND-I think where I was going, Bob, is that there is a waiver provision, and if you read further on, or at least initially on, and I have that reference, and I’ve got to just scroll ahead, and that’s why we provide you with the photos, and that was in our correspondence, is that there’s a waiver from the provision, and the Staff notes reference it in the Code, and so we’re asking for your waiver. You do not have to grant that to us. We acknowledge that. We’re simply requesting it. We think, as you do in many instances, you look at the Code, you look for the goals that you’re trying to achieve, and the goals of the buffer requirement is to screen adjoining commercial/industrial uses from view from the cemetery. All we’re saying in this case is our site’s not viewable from the cemetery, regardless of how the Code reads. So we think a waiver’s warranted, and later on in my slide, I’ve got to go back down, we said, you know, I think the reasons for a waiver are that portion of the site’s not going to be developed. It’s in excess of 500 feet away from, or even greater from the developed portion of the cemetery, there’s significant vegetation, existing native vegetation, that provides that buffer, and in most circumstances you like to retain vegetation rather than eliminate it. MR. VOLLARO-In the wintertime many of those deciduous trees are going to lose their leaves and you’re going to get a clear view. MR. ROUND-I can appreciate that, and then we also note that under our provision we would provide plantings to screen it. Again, buffer, screen, we’ll agree, and we’ll show that, and I’ve got to apologize, zipping through all this. MR. LAPPER-We were proposing 33 feet, and we proposed. MR. ROUND-There’s the screening that we propose. Regardless, if you choose not to grant a waiver, we have presented you with a proposal. Last month we presented you with this proposal of 50 foot buffer. So if you choose not to grant the waiver, we would comply with the Code. We think, though, applying commonsense and judgment, that with a 33 foot buffer, we can plant it and screen it and achieve the desired effect of the Code, and that’s your job to make that decision, and we can debate that, but there’s the planting plan, consistent with the Code. There’s the planting plan with a 33 foot buffer with the waiver granted. MR. SIPP-What are those trees? MR. ROUND-We have a series of, you see those larger looking species. Those are white pines. So those are coniferous, and this is consistent. It’s right out of the Code. It says plant with a mix of coniferous and deciduous and use trees and shrubs and lower cover. So that’s what those are. I think there’s an Arrow Wood in there, Don, and then there’s another species, and I’d have to look at the planting schedule, and I have it written down on the plan, but there’s three different species so that you would have a buffer and cover during all seasons, and so that’s what we propose, and at the end I was going to ask you to just come back to the waiver. We’d like ask for that waiver, we think it makes sense. MR. SIPP-If you look at your photos, you don’t have any white pine growing there obviously because it’s too wet. MR. ROUND-But this is not photos taken directly from the corner of our building. If you look back under existing conditions, if you look in the photo, you can see there are a series of pines there, but there are deciduous trees as well. I’m not going to tell you that they’re all pines back there. There’s a mix. MR. LAPPER-But also we’d plant whatever species you want. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. SIPP-Well, it’s not what I want. It’s to screen and conifers are not going to grow that well in that kind of soil. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. ROUND-There are conifers out there, and white pine do grow in a variety of conditions. MR. SIPP-Yes, but if you look at some of your own photos, those white pines are barren from 50 feet up. MR. ROUND-Well, I think some of those pines are further out. They’re in those wetlands that are on the cemetery lands, and we don’t propose. If you recall last month we said, you know, we don’t propose to plant in the wetlands because that wouldn’t be appropriate. MR. LAPPER-We could plant scrub willows like we did out in front of Lowe’s, that aren’t as attractive, but they provide a lot of screen. I mean, the type of vegetation. MR. ROUND-Yes, Don, I’m not a landscape architect. Our landscape architect designer did provide this planting. They consulted the Code, and they provided what the Town Code requires, in regards to the species, but we would do whatever would be most appropriate in the Board’s opinion. So that’s just, you know, we can come back to that, but in summation, we can comply with the buffer requirement. MRS. STEFFAN-If you go with the 50 foot buffer versus the 33 foot buffer, how many parking spaces will you lose? MR. ROUND-We’d lose eight spaces. We would go from 154 to 146. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-While we’re talking about spaces. MR. ROUND-Why don’t we wait and save that, because we have a whole section on parking analysis that we’ve provided you that talks about parking, and I think that’s the appropriate time to do that. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. MR. ROUND-Lo and behold next on our agenda is parking analysis. Okay. I think first and foremost our proposal revised, or as it’s initially proposed, exceeds the Town’s standards. Okay. The Town’s standards require. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the Town standard was 104 for this, okay. MR. ROUND-The Town standard is 104. We propose 154. If the buffer waiver was not granted, we would provide 146. We think that’s still significant. We asked and received a variance to provide that additional parking for a number of reasons, and the Zoning Board saw fit to grant that. That waiver request, or that variance was presented to you a year ago in September, as a part of our application, and the amount of parking was identified at that time. We came in in September, presented our plan for 154 spaces, and gave a rational, and it’s on the record. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no, we’re not contesting that in any way. MR. ROUND-Okay. I’m just letting you know, because not everybody that’s here was here necessarily a year ago when we started. So, first and foremost, we have parking in excess of what the Town requires. We were here last month, and new to us was you asked for a parking analysis. We think the concern was that we don’t think there’s enough parking because of two Board members visited a Wilton or Saratoga Golden Corral and said, hey, it’s extremely busy. We had difficulty finding a parking spot, and we had to wait in line to receive our meal, and I think the Chairman had a spreadsheet that evening that said, hey, I’ve done a parking analysis, and anybody can do it, and we suggest that you provide us with a spreadsheet and do so. We asked for copy of that analysis, and the Chairman, and the Chairman said, I think the words were, I’m not an engineer. It’s not my job to do engineering. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. ROUND-It’s not my job, according to my attorney, to do engineering, and I said just so we understand what the record is, we said, you know, we want to give you the 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) information you need. Having that template would certainly be helpful. So we moved on from that. So we went out and we did a parking analysis. We did two things, and we’ve done a number of parking analyses, by the way. We’re doing a parking analysis for St. Peter’s Hospital who’s undergoing and building a parking garage, building a big facility, a number of facilities on their Hospital. So we’re familiar with doing a parking analysis. So it wasn’t a stretch. The request was merely so that I can provide form and format that the Board is looking for. We provided that, a parking analysis. MR. VOLLARO-You gave us a two hour parking analysis in both cases. MR. ROUND-Please let me finish. We provided a parking analysis. So I asked for guidance. I was provided no guidance. I provided parking analysis and we used two figures, the ITE, Institute of Transportation Engineers, who’s business it is to do traffic analysis and to provide parking figures. We provided ITE rates for our Traffic Impact Study, some time ago, back in January of this year, and when we presented that analysis, this is in our response to C.T. Male’s comments today, in that we initially, we proposed to collect traffic data from an existing Golden Corral facility, the Colonie Golden Corral. We collected that data, presented traffic impact data from actual field counts. This Board and the Town Engineer said we do not want actual field counts. We believe the ITE rates are more accurate, and I think, and actually, we believe the actual data understates the amount of traffic that’s going to be generated at the Queensbury store because we think Queensbury’s restaurant is going to be more robust than Colonie. So, we said, rather than argue that point, we said we’ll use the ITE rates. We believe the ITE rates overstate the Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis that was accepted by both the County and the Town Engineer included ITE rates. Okay. Back to my parking analysis, so we provided a parking analysis that included ITE rates, and we also included a parking analysis that collected actual field data from Friday and Saturday PM peak periods from a Colonie operating restaurant and provided actual meal counts at that facility. C.T. Male look at that and said, we think the ITE rates are not acceptable, and we don’t like the Colonie rates. We think you should use the Wilton rates. We’re troubled by that. I have to be frank, candid, and a little bit animated here, because as Mr. Patel stated earlier, every time we provide some information, if it’s not the information, or the answer you want to hear, we’re asked to seek other information. So rather than argue that, we collected last Friday and last Saturday, we collected traffic data, during the PM peak period, when Mr. Vollaro says during a two period, in some instances we collected it for three or four hours, but the idea was to collect it during the busiest time. The busiest time was when the most parking is going to be consumed, and that’s a rational assessment. That’s a rational method to take. So we did that in both instances, and in both instances, and I’ll speak to those slides, in both instances, it demonstrated the ITE rates as well as the Colonie and as well as the Wilton parking analysis concluded, by real observance, that no more, less than 100 vehicles are parked at any one time. C.T. Male did not provide me with a complete analysis, but provided pieces of an analysis that was done, I don’t know if it was done by C.T. Male or if it was done by somebody else, but in that analysis, they assumed 27 vehicles would leave the site per hour, and following that rational, if 100 vehicles or some multiple of 80, enter our site and only 27 leave, pretty soon we’ll have too many vehicles on the site. Well, that’s absolutely true, but it’s not fact. It’s artificial. It’s a scenario, all right. We collected real information, and what we found is that in order to serve 200 people an hour, you’re going to have people enter and people leave. Turn over time in a restaurant, both as published in the ITE data, says high turn over fast food, or high turn over restaurant, average turn over is 45 minutes. That’s in our submittal previously, and then it’s based on our conversations with the operator of an existing Golden Corral and based on our conversations with a Golden Corral corporate representative, 45 minutes is normal turn over time. So 45 minutes, what does 45 minutes mean? That means somebody’s going to come in. They may have some time to wait in line, as they enter the restaurant, but they’re going to purchase a ticket to enter the restaurant and within 45 minutes their meal’s going to be done and they’re going to leave. MR. VOLLARO-Not true. My experience in two places. I’ve been to Colonie and I’ve been to Wilton. MR. ROUND-And how long did you take to eat? MR. VOLLARO-Approximately, in Colonie, we took approximately an hour and a half. MRS. STEFFAN-Wilton. We were in Wilton. MR. VOLLARO-We were in Wilton. We had to wait and when you get back to your table they have about four plates there that you can go back and you can go back and you can 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) go back. You don’t get out of there in 45 minutes. There’s just no way that that happens, not in either of those two, and I’ve been to both of them. MR. PATEL-In January, when this first, the traffic issue first came up, I did a study, at the Saratoga location, and the one thing that everyone has to understand is it’s an average, okay, just like everything else, just like the AADT on Quaker Road. It’s not to say there’s 20,000 cars evenly spread over 24 hours in a day. It’s an average annual daily traffic count. My average time in Saratoga, back in January, was 47 minutes precisely. I did 20 individual parties walking in, during the peak meal hour, because I didn’t want to leave any room in there for arbitrary conclusions. I said, all right, I’m going to take my peak dinner hour when I’m at max capacity, or close to max capacity, and what is my average dining time, and that number was 47 minutes. So how you ended up having an hour and a half experience is beyond me, and that may be because there was some. MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you how it happened. I mean, it’s very simple. We walked in and there was a cast of thousands waiting, a cast of thousands, maybe 50 people waiting to get tickets, at that area. You got a ticket, and the person that we went to said, sorry, there are no seats. As soon as we have a seat, we’ll get you seated. Then we did get seated, and because there weren’t any seats, that means that whole place was occupied, at that time of night, and it just doesn’t add up that you’ve got 45 minutes. MR. ROUND-I think there’s some concern that we’re presenting you with information that suits our needs and doesn’t suit your needs, and that’s what I’m hearing from you. That’s me saying that, and there was some concern that Colonie was not representative of Queensbury or other markets, and so we have Bob Burkeheimer from Golden Corral. He’s the Senior Vice President of Real Estate, Director of Real Estate, excuse me, deals with, and sites these facilities and is part of that. Bob’s going to speak a little bit to market size and operations turn over, etc., but we’ll come back to meals, etc. I think there’s a concept that if you have 365 seats during a peak hour, you’re going to have 365 people seating, and as we know, as the C.T. Male proposed is like two and a half people come in an vehicle on average and don’t fill a six top table, but we’ll come back to that. MR. VOLLARO-In testimony, Mr. Patel said between two and three people a car. I did all my analysis on worst case. What would be the worst case, at the ah. MR. ROUND-Yes, we have actual counts and we’d provide you with these estimates that there’s 2.6 people, based on meal tickets and vehicles on the site, and that’s the only way you can do the math. You can guess something else, but we’ve provided you with real numbers and C.T. Male looked at that and they used, their analysis used similar figures, but we’ll let Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I used two and a half myself in my calculations on my spreadsheet, you know, but my spreadsheet obviously shows, and C.T. Male’s spreadsheet shows. MR. ROUND-C.T. Male didn’t give us a spreadsheet. MR. VOLLARO-No, they didn’t, but they said that the site would probably not work during maximum time. MR. ROUND-They didn’t say that. It doesn’t say it in their letter. It doesn’t say it won’t work. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t say it won’t work. What it does give you is, so we’re into the C.T Male thing, what it does is talk about the number of parking spaces that would be available, and I think they said 140 something. SOMEONE WITH APPLICANT-They’re assumption of a 25% exit rate in no way is representative of actual. MR. ROUND-Of real world. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you what, I got the 25%, and I’ll tell you how I got it. I got it from a couple of areas in the original traffic study that I did, and I looked at some of your input/outputs that you’ve got there, and that’s how I drew the 25%, right from here. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve got actual traffic counts. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t care about that. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. ROUND-You don’t care about actual counts? SOMEONE WITH APPLICANT -These are actual counts taken at a restaurant. MR. ROUND-You asked us to do the analysis. Now you don’t like it. You want us to use the (lost word) number. I just don’t get that. MR. SCHACHNER-As Town Counsel, part of my job is to make sure that the record is accurate here, and now we’ve got people speaking not from the microphone, speaking simultaneously, and that won’t work for our proceeding. So, Mr. Chairman, however you want to control this, I don’t much care, other than that it has to be controlled for the benefit of our minutes. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, sir. MR. LAPPER-I’d like to put on the Director of Real Estate for Golden Corral Corporation and let him explain both comparing the market in Queensbury, Colonie, and Wilton/Saratoga, and also the operation of number of spaces that they have, that they require for restaurants, and what the demand is for parking. BOB BURKEHEIMER MR. BURKEHEIMER-My name’s Bob Burkeheimer. I’m Director of Real Estate for the east coast of Golden Corral. I oversee the real estate development. I’ve been with the company over 13 years and have experience in finding both of these sites, Colonie and Wilton. I did the real estate work on both of those sites. I understand there’s some question regarding the market size, in terms of Queensbury, how it relates to Colonie and how it relates to Wilton. In our demographic study, which is what we use in determining market size and volumes, store volumes, Queensbury is actually a smaller, much smaller market than Colonie. In the one mile demographic, and this is based on 2005 population, and in one mile of Colonie there’s 5,922 people. In one mile of the Wilton store, there’s 3,081 people residing. In one mile of Queensbury, there’s 2,616. It has the lowest demographic. MR. VOLLARO-And what was the other one before that? You had 3,000 something? MR. BURKEHEIMER-There was Wilton at 3,081 people. MR. VOLLARO-And Queensbury at? MR. BURKEHEIMER-And Queensbury was 2,616, about 400 less, and in Colonie there was 5,922. Colonie has the largest one mile demographic. Queensbury has the lowest amount, but the other thing that’s more significant than that is the growth rate. In one mile of the Colonie store, the growth rate is, and this is based on same thing ’05 information given by the U.S. Census Bureau, 1.84% growth rate. In Saratoga Springs in Wilton it’s 22%, and in Queensbury it’s negative four percent. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. You’re saying our growth rate in Queensbury is negative four. MR. BURKEHEIMER-In one mile. MR. SEGULJIC-In one mile. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Exactly right, in one mile of the site it’s a negative four percent. This is U.S. Census data. So, of the three markets within one mile, Queensbury has the lowest amount, population, as well as the growth rate. In three miles of the site, we look at, when we do all of our stores, we have over 500 restaurants. We do an average of 40 stores a year. We look at one and three miles. So we are consistent on all of our sites, the demographic information. On three mile population of the Colonie store, there’s 32,282. Saratoga/Wilton is 27,713, and in Queensbury there’s 33,498, which is roughly the same, a little bit higher, Queensbury actually has the highest three mile population, from roughly a little bit higher than Colonie, about 1,000. MR. VOLLARO-May I just ask you a question? MR. BURKEHEIMER-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-You do the work to choose sites that are suitable, areas that are suitable for your restaurant. Is that correct? 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. BURKEHEIMER-We look at market and site specific, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If a lot of your demographics are correct, and that Queensbury is within one mile a negative four, why would you want to site a store here, rather than some place else? MR. BURKEHEIMER-Well, because if you look, what I just said was three mile population was equal to or a little bit higher than the Colonie store. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, then that translates into the fact that this store will probably be visited even at a higher rate than Colonie and visited at a higher rate than Wilton. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Not necessarily. Because at the five mile population, which is within the demographic and market radius serving this market, the Colonie store at five miles population is 116,000 people, with a growth rate of 3.7%. Wilton, at five miles, is 42,553 people, with a population growth rate of 12%. The Queensbury store, within five miles, is 55,000, less than half of the Colonie store, with a growth rate of two percent. MR. VOLLARO-And yet, you’re putting in, by testimony from Mr. Patel, you’re putting in the same size store in Queensbury. MR. BURKEHEIMER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Without the market that the other two have. That, to me, doesn’t sound like very good marketing. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Well, no, sir, you’re obviously wrong, because at 55,000, and 42,000, it’s bigger than the Wilton store. The five mile population is a little bit bigger than the Saratoga store, but much smaller than the Colonie store. Both of those markets have the same size restaurant. We only have, because of the concept, the markets that we have, I mean, the store size that we have for these markets is basically one store. MR. VOLLARO-One size store. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Correct, that’s right. MR. VOLLARO-And the one that’s going in to Queensbury would be the same size as Wilton? MR. BURKEHEIMER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s what Mr. Patel has said to us before. MR. BURKEHEIMER-That’s right, 10,330 square foot store. MR. VOLLARO-Whatever it is, it’s the same size, 365 seats. MR. BURKEHEIMER-That’s right, but the point I was trying to make is that the sales for both Colonie and Wilton are roughly the same, give or take a little bit. They’re not that much farther apart, and this store, for Queensbury, and both of those stores are average stores, sales volume stores, for the market, average sales stores for our company, and we think that the Queensbury store will also be an average sales volume store. MR. VOLLARO-What do you mean by average sales volume? Give me a number. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Exactly right. I mean, we average, roughly about 3.2 to 3.5 million dollars in sales. MR. VOLLARO-How does that translate to people? I’m not worried about how much money you’re making. I’m worried about how much, we’re talking about, in a night, how many do you serve? MR. BURKEHEIMER-Well, you know, if you take like the meals served and what they have up there, with Wilton and with Colonie, both are average sales volume stores, and I think that the gentleman provided you with excellent data in terms of peak hours, which, I mean, Friday’s, dinnertime five to seven, is probably one of the busiest times. It is a peak hour. You don’t get much busier than during those two hours. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-I was at Colonie Saturday night, five to seven, full store. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Good, I appreciate that, and we hope you come back all the time. MR. VOLLARO-Full store. MR. BURKEHEIMER-And the other thing I want to say is that we work on averages, and we’ve done extensive studies because we are, you know, the concept of a Golden Corral is quality food at a reasonable price in a family atmosphere. We don’t serve alcohol. We’re not the same as a Friday’s. We’re not the same as an Olive Garden where they have a bar where you can sit down and have a drink. What we do is we turn people. Our average customer stay is 45 minutes. What I’m saying is an average at 45 minutes. If you want to sit there and eat longer and have a great meal, that’s great. We appreciate it, but what I’m saying is the average customer stay is 45 minutes, and what you don’t do in other restaurants, or what you do in our restaurant you don’t do in other restaurants. You go in. You pay up front. You go. You serve yourself, and it’s dictated by how long you want to do it. It’s not dictated by someone serving you, somebody bringing you drinks, cocktails before, you know, everything’s done, the meals are prepared, the food’s cooked already. We don’t have off the menu. We don’t have entrees. So we base it on average time, and that’s how we get the volumes is turning people, and we’ve been in business over 30 some years and they’ve perfected this concept, and the way it is, is to move people in and out of the restaurant. So, obviously people are going to stay longer, an hour, whatever, or less, but on average time, it’s 45 minutes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve asked Mr. Patel, and in testimony he has told us that the meal turns in dinnertime is somewhere between two and three turns, which means he’s got 365 tables in the Wilton, in the proposed store for Queensbury, gives us a little over. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Well, that’s not true. One of the things, you know, what you have to realize is, like I said, we’re not like a, you know, like a TGI Friday’s or an Olive Garden where you have a hostess seat you. What we have is, you know, we might have, and actually the restaurant that we’re proposing has 342 seats, not tables. MR. VOLLARO-No, 365 is the number. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Three sixty-five, okay. MR. VOLLARO-That number’s kind of burned in my head. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Okay. What we have is you seat yourself, and often, and… MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m sorry, that is not true, because when we went to the Golden Corral in Wilton, somebody seated us because there was no room. They said you have to wait until we get a table. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Let me tell you how it is on average, let me tell you how it is in most system wide within our chain. You seat yourself, unless it is one of those, you know, rare occasions where we are so busy. That doesn’t happen very often, but the problem is we have a lot of four and six top tables. That means four and six people, chairs to a table, but what you often have seated are people, you know, like all of us, you don’t want to be seated at a two table where you’re feeling crammed in, especially when you’re having a buffet, you could take two or three plates or whatever. So you have two people sitting at a table that accommodates four people, and usually, more so than not, and it just drives our operations people crazy, you have two people sitting at a six top table. So, you know, you don’t have, in a restaurant with 360 seats, you don’t have 360 people sitting at that restaurant. For the most part you probably have on average about 200 and some people, and even though all the tables, in your case, might be full, you don’t have a restaurant full to capacity. I wish we did, to be quite honest, but it never works that way. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think, and you know, I’ve got a whole packet of testimony here, and one of the things that came out in that testimony, in the minutes that, I’ll try to paraphrase it, but most of the time we are at full capacity, most of the time. MR. BURKEHEIMER-I would like to think that. I know restaurants that are at full capacity, and we have a few of them, and I think that Mr. Patel’s sales would be probably double of what he’s doing, and I would love to have Mr. Patel be at a seven million dollar store, but I know he’s not there. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Mr. Burkeheimer, if I could ask a couple of questions. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Yes, sir. MR. SEGULJIC-How do you account for transient population then? MR. BURKEHEIMER-What do you mean? MR. SEGULJIC-You’re taking population within five miles, but there’s loads of people driving up and down the Northway. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Yes, you know, we look at seasonality, and that’s what you’re talking about, I’m presuming. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’re a tourist based population. Our population fluctuates dramatically. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Yes, and we look at that as, you know, that’s your gravy, and the same thing in, we have markets all around the country that have a portion of seasonality, but the seasonality, for the most part, when we look at these markets, usually doesn’t, you know, effect it more than a couple of percentage points. It’s usually, you know, I live in an area where there’s tourism and we have tourist boards who, boy, they just, you know, they want you to believe what it is, but in reality, the reality is it affects you just a couple of percentage points. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I could point out a number of hotels. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Exactly right. MR. SEGULJIC-I would assume that one of your mainstays would be families traveling. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Actually, no. We’re not like a Cracker Barrel off of a highway. Cracker Barrel has done a very good job in marketing highway business, and actually we do not. We rely, the majority of our business are local residents within the market. MR. SEGULJIC-So you see no increase in business in August in Saratoga, maybe two percent? MR. BURKEHEIMER-I mean, and Mr. Patel can answer that better than I can, but I think what the six week racing season I guess you might have, I mean, you’ll see an increase, but I mean, is it? MR. PATEL-Eight to ten percent. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it, only eight to ten percent. MR. BURKEHEIMER-I mean, most of it is residential, people who live there. That’s the bread and butter, and that’s why we look at the demographic information. MR. LAPPER-How about in terms of the number of parking spaces that you require. MR. BURKEHEIMER-We look at, we have a recommended 150 spaces that we require, that we look at per site, per area. MR. VOLLARO-That’s for your standard restaurant, of the same kind that’s going in? MR. BURKEHEIMER-That’s right, and it’s a recommended number, and we have, I mean, and many of our restaurants are less than that, and the reason we have that recommended number is because we get a lot, I mean, we get calls constantly. We’re developing around the country, in all 48 states, and, you know, what it does, it gives developers guidelines, so we’re not getting hit with every quarter acre piece of property out there. So they know that as a guideline we need two acres, 150 spaces, you know, but it’s a guideline. We also know that most of our stores, and I mean the majority of our stores, and I’m not talking the I Drives in Orlando, Florida that service, you know, Disney World. Most of our stores at peak times, I mean, if we break 100, 120 parking spaces, we’re happy. What we try to do is accommodate for those few days a year, you know, we do not want our customers inconvenienced at all, and, you know, two of our busiest days that come off the top of my head are where you’ll see a full parking lot are Mother’s Day and Veteran’s Day. We do, on Veteran’s Day, we give all of our veterans, anybody 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) can come in to our restaurant saying they’re a veteran, they get free meals. We do a major campaign with the VFW for, we collect, I think last year we collected, I don’t know, half a million dollars for the VFW system wide, and we give it to them, but that’s two of the busiest days that I can think of, but, for the most part, I mean, it just doesn’t happen. MR. VOLLARO-Can I ask a question? MR. BURKEHEIMER-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-When the standard for Queensbury was 104, they went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and got 154. MR. BURKEHEIMER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, so that’s very much in line with your 150. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Does that 150 number that you’ve given me service basically patrons? MR. BURKEHEIMER-No. What we do is we estimate the number of parks for both employees and guests. So we could adequately house everyone on site. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In that case, Mr. Patel says, based on that, on testimony in November of last year, 2005, he says that he needs 35 of his 154 spaces for employees. MR. LAPPER-Niral’s going to have to talk about that. It’s the wrong number. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not the wrong number, it’s the wrong number, but it’s what’s on the record. MR. LAPPER-But it’s the wrong number. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a problem with that. MR. LAPPER-No, let Niral talk about that. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a real serious problem, you know. I can come up with the testimony and tell you exactly what Mr. Patel told us. MR. LAPPER-Read it, but he still has to testify about who he actually employs. MR. PATEL-Thirty-five is absolutely worst case scenario, if I have a dozen, or depending on what day of the week it is, a half a dozen employees in training. I’ve always tried to be honest with this Board and give them worst case scenarios, and now it’s being turned against me. Okay. I came into the Town of Queensbury looking for a fair application process and I am not receiving that. We’re discussing parking issues. Wal-Mart Super Center, a proven 250,000 square foot big box was given a variance for less parking. No safety concerns addressed there. Nobody was sent down to the Wal-Mart in Saratoga Springs and said, hey, go count cars coming in and out of your parking lot. How am I being held to a double standard here? MR. VOLLARO-You’re not being held to a double standard. MR. PATEL-Absolutely. Twenty-six employees is absolute peak after a fully staffed trained restaurant exists, that includes management. So that’s a 22 employees, hourly employees and four management. MR. VOLLARO-Just let me read this if I may. It’s testimony that comes out of November 2005. It’s Mr. Patel says, I may mention something about traffic. There’s 154 spaces that we are proposing on this site, and the restaurant does seat 350. It’s actually 365. During peak periods of the 154 parking spaces, all of them were to be occupied, but 35 were to be occupied by employees alone. That’s exactly what he said. So avoiding peak periods, and so 35 of those spaces would be occupied immediately by just employees and management. That’s his statement to us. Just so we get the record straight. MR. BURKEHEIMER-I’d like just to, in our restaurants, and this is, you know, I mean, considering, using commonsense here, in terms of our employee base. A lot of our 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) employees for the most part, do not have cars, you know, so I’d like for the board to consider a common sense approach to this. The fact is that in most of our restaurants, we have younger people working, high school kids, college kids. A lot of kids are being dropped off by parents, then a lot of adults; some have cars, some don’t. I would think the worst case scenario, would probably be 30 cars. I just can’t imagine there would be much more, to be honest. MR. VOLLARO- But, that’s what on the record. MR. PATEL- I understand that was the record from nearly a year ago, and actually what was enlightening through this entire process was I actually got a good gauge on what my mealtimes were, what my customer flow were, where my traffic counts were in and out of the parking lot. And during this process, I actually learned that I was off. So I’m for the record admitting to that, that I was wrong in November 2005 and that the real number as it shows in my traffic counts, done as recently as this past weekend, when maximum occupants on the parking lot on worst case scenario which occurred on Saturday between 5:30 and 5:45 was 93 cars total including employees. So, going back to what we were just talking about 2., you know, going into the numbers we have already discussed, you know, I’m now corrected. MR. LAPPER- That’s the number 93. MR. PATEL- 93 is worst case scenario at a full, or when I say full again, I’ve got to be real careful these things are being taken out of context at my highest volume point during the day, whether that means all seats are occupied or not, it’s at the highest volume when the restaurant is full efficiency, 93 cars occupied my parking lot. MR. ROUND-I think one of the reasons for Bob to speak, was about the gauge that Colonie is representative of the real world. It’s an average store, it’s in a very large market. It’s comparable to Queensbury, and so, for us to present you with information from Colonie, is certainly representative of what might occur if Queensbury was to be built and was to be an average store. We presented that information from Colonie and I have a graph and this was the same information presented to you last month in our submittal, a little different colors, little different configuration, but this just shows a Friday, PM peak at Colonie. Colonie has, help me out, Niral, number of spaces. MR. PATEL-181, I believe MR. ROUND-Colonie does have a larger lot, however. MR. VOLLARO- Colonie also can share a lot with the Colorado which is next door. MR. ROUND-No it does not, there is no cross use. MR. PATEL-There is no cross parking between Colorado Steakhouse and the Golden Corral. MR. VOLLARO-But, they’re right next door to you. MR. PATEL-That means nothing, there’s a natural buffer in between. That’s like saying I’m gonna share parking with Mark Plaza, even though there’s a major wetland and grassy area right there. MR. FORD-May I just go back, I have a question for Bob. MR. ROUND-Sure. MR. FORD-Because, you do this analysis of the population and so forth. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Yes, sir. MR. FORD-Both Colonie and Wilton are average stores, so they turn about the same number of meals on average per day. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Or week. MR. FORD-You pick it. Then what is the value of your analysis of the population when they vary so much. You’ve got in a 5-mile radius, Wilton at 42,000+ , an average store, turning the same number of customers in 5-mile radius of Colonie at 116,000. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. BURKEHEIMER-You’re absolutely right and I think you’re being over simplistic in terms of. MR. FORD-I’m giving you your figures. MR. BURKEHEIMER-No, no, no, that’s right. I mean, I could go into a whole detail job description or a detail analysis of what I do in looking at markets, in terms of everything from income base to. MR. PATEL-Retail. MR. BURKEHEIMER–When we look at a market, we’re looking at not only the population, income, employment levels, who’s employed, what kind of employees there are in markets, you know. What kind of day time population. MR. FORD-This is helpful information, because all you stated were numbers. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Well, I didn’t know if the Board actually wanted me to go into the whole analysis of what I do when I look into a market. I’ve been doing this for 20 some years and quite. MR. LAPPER-If I could just interrupt. The purpose was just to show that when we have actual counts that we’ve submitted for Colonie and Wilton, that those are similar to what we can expect in Queensbury and that was the purpose of putting Bob on to testify. MR. VOLLARO-Well you know, I’ll say something. In the data that was supplied, and I won’t bring it out now, but the ones you said was the Wilton site. I did analysis on that, it was the Colonie site that was put into Wilton. If we’ve got to go off-line and bring this out, I’m not gonna bring it out tonight, but, I did the analysis. MR. BURKEHEIMER -You’re saying we were confused? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you were confused. Either confused or you put the wrong data in the wrong place. So, I’ve got a problem with a lot of this. MR. ROUND-Our point was just get back on topic, on task is that I think. MR. VOLLARO-We’re already into 25 minutes to 12:00. This gentleman did a great job, it took up to 45 minutes of our time here and I don’t know exactly what I got out of that, but ah. MR. PATEL-If I may respond to that Mr. Vollaro, the one thing I’m going back to where I don’t understand how the board really feels about my application. We were supposed to be number seven, that was a special issue to the agenda for tonight. You passed a rule and regulation that said you were only going to listen to six meetings, agenda items, a th night. Somehow on the 15, exactly 11 days ago, you swept another application per your decision in front of us. So, I feel that’s a little unfair as well and I do agree it is getting late and we do need to start making some decisions here. MR. ROUND-I think the information was helpful, I think some of the board members felt so. The idea, the concept is that Colonie is representative data. We presented you with data from Colonie parking counts. The graph in front of you shows the Friday peak. We did 210 meals between 6:00 and 7:00, 159 meals between 7:00 and 8:00, and what the bars show is our, how many spaces were occupied. So, a maximum of 91 spaces were occupied on a Friday at the Colonie store, doing 210 and 159 meals during those periods. MR. LAPPER-What were the other numbers for Wilton? MR. ROUND-Similar situation Saturday, as many as 82 vehicles housed in this parking lot and actually did more meals and so what this says is that there is higher turnover. If there’s less cars in the lot, it means that the vehicles are entering and leaving and if you look at that bottom line, the red line is vehicles out, so you do see on the order of 20 vehicles leaving on a 15 minute time segment. I think CT Male’s analysis or perhaps the Chairman’s analysis was on average 37 vehicles and so turnover was understated and that’s why the analysis of CT Male, an hour versus 20 per 15 minute period. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-Where that came from was from data supplied on the Traffic Study, you’re saying that a lot of the data that was supplied on the Traffic Study really doesn’t count because. MR. ROUND-No, because Traffic Study studied traffic and trip generation and used. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it showed more than that, it showed vehicles in, vehicles out and that’s how I come up with a number. MR. ROUND-Right, but, but, traffic analysis. MR. VOLLARO-What you’re trying to tell me, Chris is that all of the data that you’ve supplied over the last year is really sort of immaterial because now you’ve got actual analysis on site. MR. ROUND- Bob, if I presented you with a parking analysis back in January would you have accepted that as a traffic impact study? MR. VOLLARO- A traffic analysis back in January? MR. ROUND-If I presented tonight’s parking study and tried to call that a traffic impact study would you have accepted it? MR. VOLLARO-The traffic impact study. MR. ROUND-No it was not, it was not a traffic study. I’m presenting you with a parking analysis where we’re actually counting cars exiting and entering a site from Colonie. We presented that information and you rejected it back in January. You said, we do not like the Colonie traffic counts, we want you to use IT estimates and what we said and what you’re agreeing with is that the data that’s presented in the traffic analysis overstates the volume of traffic that’s entering and exiting the Colonie site. The parking analysis counts real data. The traffic analysis that the counted Colonie data was real data, but at every turn you’ve rejected real data and you’ve found it to be unacceptable and you instead relied on picking and choosing pieces of information to manufacture your own outcome. MR. VOLLARO- No, no. MR. ROUND-I have great frustration with this effort and with this process because we present information, your Town engineer signed off on it, but that’s not acceptable, let’s reopen it, let’s re-look at it. MR. VOLLARO-When did he sign off on it. MR. ROUND-Sign off on it? We were here last month. He signed off on it and you ask for a parking analysis? The only information that CT Male looked at this month was parking and excavation of fill, because you asked him to look at it again. Not because they found it insufficient. MR. VOLLARO-Look if he thought that I was wrong in asking for them to look again, he had an obligation to tell me. MR. ROUND- He works for you, he does what you tell him to do. MR. VOLLARO-Really? MR. ROUND-I believe so. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t believe that’s true at all. If he’s got any integrity as an engineer, I really disagree with that. MR. ROUND-I don’t doubt his integrity, but he is of your employ. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true and you’re in the employ of Golden Corral, and that’s where we stand. You’ve got the same problem that I do, Chris. MR. PATEL- Well, you know what, let’s let’s, I’d like to present a question. I guess I want to understand as Chairman, as a Planning Board, am I wrong in saying that your job is to make decisions on applications based on what your Code calls for? 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-That is correct. MR. PATEL-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, no. MRS. STEFFAN-No, no. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s part of it. We’re looking at it holistically, Code is our guiding light. MR. PATEL-So Code is your guiding light. Understood, so let me present a scenario to you. Alright, again going back to what I said a few minutes ago. It’s been my honest approach to this whole process, my sincerest wishes is to appease the board, why I’ve made concessions, whether they be restricting left hand turns, whether they be planting vegetation to separate me from Mark Plaza, whether it be reducing the pylon to a monument sign, whether it be just tonight restricting turn movements with trucks during my excavation point, which is going to cost me thousands of dollars more. I’ve done that. To appease the Board and their concerns. Okay, so now, I present the question now while we are harping on this parking issue, if there were no other Golden Corrals in upstate New York and I came to you and said I want to build a 10,330 square feet restaurant which seats 365 people and I’m proposing 104 parking spaces, on what grounds, could you deny me? MR. VOLLARO-On a 104 parking. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me, excuse me. MR. PATEL-Maybe that’s calling for a decision, okay, but. MR. VOLLARO-Hold on a second, counsel would like to say a word, may he speak please. MR. SCHACHNER-Counsel is going to advise the Planning Board, that I don’t think it’s appropriate to answer that question. There’s any number of reasons for that advice, not the least of which are, it’s, I don’t think it’s your job to be answering questions in a cross- examination format from an applicant or an applicant’s representatives based on hypothetical situations of applications that are not before you and don’t exist. MR. PATEL-Okay, I’ll agree with that, I’ll remove my statement. But, I guess what I want to understand is. MR. VOLLARO-You want to understand, sir, and I’ve give you the understanding now, exactly what you want. This is out of our Code and I’ll read it to you. It’s out of the Code of site plan review and what it says, this is taken out of context. In making the determination, the Planning Board shall consider those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development consideration set forth herein under this chapter 179-9-80 and in doing so the Planning Board shall make a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objective and general guidelines set forth in this article. A net overall. Then it talks about the parking, it talks about the Planning Board review of site plans shall include as appropriate, but not limited to the following general standard, the location, the arrangement, the appearance and the sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. It’s something we’ve got to look. MR. PATEL-I understand that. MR. VOLLARO-This is not something we’re fabricating. MR. PATEL-I understand that, but my problem with this whole process is this. Is I have not only met, but I have more than exceeded all requirements in developing this project. My application meets and exceeds all requirements, again I state, of your Town Code and policies and regulations to approving this project. So now I begin to wonder is there really some predisposition here by some Board members whether it be, you know, because, well, I’ll leave that out, but, what is that that is holding my approval? You know, many suggestions were made, whether it was reducing the sign, the color scheme and you know, I’m actually glad someone brought up the color scheme because after we went to the Adirondack theme, I actually liked the appearance of the restaurant much better, so thank you for that. But, everything that’s been asked for was conceded to, including this buffer. Even at 146 parking spaces, I have met and exceeded your parking requirements. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think you have 146 spaces cause I think that in testimony you say that of those 46 (146), 35 will be occupied by your management and staff. MR. LAPPER-Our simple answer to that, but, we have actual numbers from peak hours that say that 90 spaces is all they need. MR. VOLLARO-But, but, that’s not the case. If you take a look at your worst case analysis there are, the last time that we were down at Wilton, we could not find a space. And I can tell you when I sat there. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Excuse me, does Wilton also include the hotel spot? MR. PATEL-Yes, it does. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. MR. BURKEHEIMER-How do you know which park? When we did the Wilton store, I think we designated. If you are talking about cross-parking, the Wilton store has the hotel adjacent, I mean, they share the same parking. I don’t quite all understand how you can determine which cars were resident guest parking of the hotel? MR. VOLLARO-Because we watch people pull into the parking lot and go into the restaurant. MR. BURKEHEIMER-Okay, okay, alright, okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’d just like to, I’d just like to say, I kinda share that applicants frustration with the parking issue. Going into this evenings meetings, I had concern too, based on the information presented by CT Male. But, based on the information, analysis and empirical data that they’ve just presented, I think unless there is some question or some discussion we haven’t yet had, I think we should move on to the next item. Just for the record, Mr. Round was correct, we did have a sign-off letter from CT Male, dated th August 7. MR. VOLLARO-He did and I stated on the record that I thought and said to Mr. Edwards that I thought that the sign-off was premature. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s your opinion, Bob. That doesn’t dismiss the fact that we had a sign-off letter. MR. SEGULJIC-But, on the other hand, we have the ability to open up other issues as we move along. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not saying we don’t, I’m just saying let’s move on. MR. VOLLARO-Don’t forget we’ve gathered. MR. HUNSINGER- We seem to be stuck on parking, we should try to move on. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re stuck on a lot of things. We’re over a year on this. We’re approaching the kind of time we took to do Wal-Mart on this application. MR. PATEL-Who you gave a parking reduction to, might I add. MR. LAPPER-If I could slow this down for a second. There’s just, now we’ve been talking about this obviously for a year, and we’ve been trying to analysis this and I just, I don’t, I understand that people on the Board, I understand that this Board analyses things far more than any of the other dozen towns that I practice in, in any given month, and I accept that and that’s just how it is. But, what bothers me about this particular project more than everything else that we do here, and I’ve been before this Board for basically 20 years, but it just seems that some of the Board members have had predisposition that somehow putting this restaurant on Quaker Road is something that’s going to mess up the road or mess up the area. I don’t understand that, because this is the only place in town where you can put a restaurant like this. It’s appropriate because of traffic. CT Male signed off on traffic. We have a County letter, that you have now that says it’s a county road, it’s a state road that the county manages and the county issues permits and they’ve given us a conceptual sign-off. In fact, their letter said that our traffic report was too conservative. So I just don’t understand. If we’re showing numbers from 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) actual, because you asked us to supplement with actual numbers, that we really need 90 spaces peak hour and we’ve got 146, if that’s the number. MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve got 111. MR. LAPPER -But even if that’s the case, that 90 included employees. I mean, so that 90 number that we’ve used in these other, that was shown. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question, the last letter that we got from DPW, from Lisa Penistan? MR. LAPPER –Yes. st MR. VOLLARO-There was a traffic study issued on August 1, 2006. MR. LAPPER -No, we have to explain that, that’s a mistake. MR. VOLLARO- That’s a mistake, another mistake, okay. MR. LAPPER -Let Chris explain that. MR. ROUND-Bob, Staff said the report was dated August 1, 2006, that was the traffic impact study as you recall, has been supplemented three times at the request of this board. There was an original traffic study, they used ITE rates. MR. VOLLARO-That was, that was January 12, 2006. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only study I’ve ever seen. MR. ROUND-Right, and then you asked for queuing analysis and we actually did a queuing analysis that supplemented that, it was letter of report to you. And then we also supplemented it with driveway counts at the Mark Plaza, so we sent that information, and st put an August 1 date on it, cause that was the date it was packaged and sent to Warren County. So, everything that you’ve seen was consolidated in that document and sent to Warren County. One and the same, reports one and the same. MR. VOLLARO-But, we’ve never seen the consolidated document, is that what you’re telling me. MR. ROUND-But you have. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got it incrementally, we’ve got it. MR. ROUND-Right, for convenience sake rather than say, the traffic impact statement is the January date, the “X” date letter and the third letter, we put it all in one package, for simple, simplification for the review. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But, one important note. MR. VOLLARO-Now, just one second, did Lisa Penistan sent a letter with respect to that consolidated package? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Could you read that into the record, please? th MR. BAKER-Yes, it was sent by Lisa Penistan to Chris Round on September 19, 2006. On that same date we received a copy of this in the Community Development department by fax. The letter reads: Dear Chris Round, The Warren County Department of Public Works has reviewed the revised Golden Corral traffic impact study. We felt the study included good information but we would also like to note that in our opinion when evaluating the level of service at this location, it may in reality, be better than computed using the highway capacity software. We feel this way because the HSC is not able to take into the consideration that vehicles can and do use the bus center median. Use of the median for storage allows a vehicle more effective use of directional 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) traffic gaps, while the software requires one gap in both directions. Because of this we also feel that the recommendation to add a site exclusive left turn lane on Quaker Road, to enter the Golden Corral will have a negative effect on traffic entering and exiting this and other sites on that section of Quaker Road. If a turn lane was placed we feel that vehicles waiting to enter or exit sites on the opposite side of Quaker Road, will be unable to use the median as a storage location resulting in vehicles being forced to stop in the traffic lanes causing more backups and adding additional conflict locations. Respectfully yours, Lisa A. Penistan, Transportation Analyst. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. ROUND-Do you have a question about that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I mean, the fact that she seems to be concerned about the traffic movements on Quaker. MR. ROUND-No, there’s two points. One, she states that first, the highway capacity, the HCS model, does not allow you to place vehicles from a modeling standpoint, does not allow you to take vehicles out that you’re traveling and put it in the center turn lane. MR. LAPPER-To make a left hand turn. MR. ROUND-That’s what occurs in the real world conditions, people get out of the center, need to get out of the left hand turn lane to make a left. So what it does is it overstates the amount of vehicles traveling in the two lanes traveling in either directions. Are you following me? MRS. STEFFAN-So it makes it five lanes. MR. ROUND-So no, it doesn’t allow you to use five lanes, even though there are five lanes. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. ROUND-Alright, so it models, it doesn’t recognize the center turn lane, okay. This Board and CT Male asked us to look at striping this dedicated left hand turn lane, the County has said, we prefer not to. MR. LAPPER -Left turn in. MR. ROUND-Left turn in. MR. LAPPER –It’s not necessary. MR. ROUND-So please do not stripe the center turn lane, that’s the sum and substance of the letter. MR. LAPPER -They say it works fine without striping it. MRS. STEFFAN-Let it stay the way it is. MR. LAPPER -Yes, which means. MR. ROUND-Right, you’ve seen that they have not, we’ve talked about this several times. The County, on Quaker Road, for some reason, does not like to stripe the center turn lane. They’ve had a change of heart, they have striped Bay Road, you’ve seen with a center turn lane. It’s a little bit different character roadway, but they’ve started to do that. I suspect in the coming years, you’ll see a change in that school of thought and they will start to allow the striping of center turn lanes because I think they’re concern in this case was, let’s not just do it for this one location, let’s take an orchestrated approach and I suspect that down the road you will see that. It’s preferable from our standpoint, but they’ve chosen not to. You asked us to go consult with Warren County, we did so. They said hey, you’re model overstates the traffic on the roadway. There’s no concern and we prefer not to have a striped turn lane. MR. LAPPER-And they’re the ones who are going to issue the permit for the road work. Cause it’s their road, their jurisdiction. Where I was going with this, you know I, don’t in any way want to make this personal. I know that the Chairman and the members of the Board take this extremely seriously as do we. We don’t understand why there’s been 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) such a road block on something that we see as a pretty straight forward, putting the restaurant on Quaker Road. MR. ROUND-Does, public, receives this debate with projects that have significant public opposition. It’s not in the barometer that the project is good or bad, but generally we struggle with projects as a community when you have a bunch of people pulling at us in different directions and that we’re going to have you know, significant impacts which hasn’t been the case. MR. LAPPER -Al has been the only neighbor who’s stepped up and he owns the site next door. And what’s most interesting about that, is that, that is the site that has the extra curb cut that if were approved now, they wouldn’t get two curb cuts. So we, when Chris was talking about the supplemental information that went in, in August to Lisa, to Warren County DPW, that information included, we went back and studied, after Tom raised the issue after we talked about the Mark Plaza eastern driveway curb cut, which is nearest to our proposed curb cut. We went and studied that, and the peak hour left turns out of there were eight cars. Which is just, which is absolutely miniscule, because the prime entrance where most of the stores are is the western most entrance. So we went and did that analysis that in terms of what the impact on that site is, if people have to wait an extra few seconds to take a turn, “A”, they can go to the other site, the other driveway which would be easier, but “B”, we’re only taking now about 8 cars, peak hours, making left turns. That’s not a big deal. MR. VOLLARO-Out of their western most drive? MR. LAPPER-Out of their eastern most drive. MR. VOLLARO-Out of their eastern most drive. MR. LAPPER-Cause that driveway is closest. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the Passonno Paint driveway. MR. LAPPER-Right, that’s closest to the driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Most people don’t use that, most people use the other. MR. LAPPER-Exactly, which is why it’s a minimum issue because we’re near their least used, less used driveway and when we actually got the numbers, eight cars making left turns is no big deal. So we look at this thing in terms of all the numbers, Niral knows what he’s selling, he knows how many cars are there, he knows how busy his parking lot is. We’ve asked for a variance so we can have extra spaces and we just don’t understand why you’re fighting us on that 146, 154 spaces isn’t enough. We obviously believe and Golden Corral corporate believes that that’s plenty of spaces for this facility. MR. VOLLARO-Well, why would they then put an average of 150 when my calculations show you’ve got 111. I’m looking at the difference between the two. MR. LAPPER-Their 150, that includes employees, so you got to be apples to apples, so that’s, we’re 146. The 150 is how many spaces per restaurant it doesn’t, it includes employees and guests. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, see, what happens is when you get testimony that seems in conflict with that. MR. ROUND-It’s not. MR. LAPPER -Niral telling us he has 22 employees, plus 4 managers. MR. ROUND-Right, I think the Wilton store has 208 parking spaces, total. Has a 64-unit, 63-unit hotel. Typically, at full occupancy you have a manager and 63 occupants. I mean, you don’t car pool and two desk clerks. So there’s 64 out of 208. Do the math, 66 less 208, so we’re well below the 150 target. Even with the employees. The things I’m struggling with, these are both operating facilities. We have observed data and we’ve exceed the standard and I know, what information can I give you so you’ll say this is adequate parking. MR. VOLLARO-You know what, I think you’ve given us all the information we can take on at this particular point. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. LAPPER-I’ve gotta give you something else in the interest of compromise because I don’t like to get land use approvals through litigation. I never want to do that, it’s expensive, it’s time consuming, it’s not the way any of us want to do business. It’s not the way Niral wants to do business. At the same time, does he think legally he deserves to have this permit? Yes, he does and we want to convince you to grant it to us not to ask a judge whether you made the right decision. So what we would be willing to do, much like Chris said, that we would voluntarily give up the left turn out for the trucks to bring the eight weeks of excavation, and whatever, six weeks of fill. What we would be willing to do when we got together with Golden Corral corporate last week, we’d be willing to do a different configuration within the restaurant, instead of the 365 number that has burned into the Chairman’s mind, we could do more booths and less tables which would reduce that count by 23 seats. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question so long as you’re on that kick. Is there any way, because you know when you put that drawing up there, that shows the whole site, it’s obvious to my eye that it’s a very tight site. It’s tight because, and the fact that you’re developing with an underwater, or stormwater controls. MR. LAPPER-Underground. MR. VOLLARO-Which is very, I think engineering wise, I love it, you know. But, you’re doing that because you don’t have the room to do it any other way. It’s expensive to put this site together. MR. LAPPER-Because that site is valuable enough because of the traffic count and the visibility to do it, but, by doing it that way, yes, it’s expensive. But it makes it so we can develop this site without impacting the wetlands. I mean it’s good engineering. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but you’ve got. MR. LAPPER-And the ground. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got a very, very tight site for the amount. MR. LAPPER-Well, when you say that, we have a lot of green-space. We’re not asking for a green-space variance, if we were then it would be a tight site. We’ve got all of the development area on the site and we leave all the resources alone with less than a tenth of an acre of federal wetland disturbance and no state wetland disturbance. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes. One of the things that’s always sort of bothered me in this a little bit is the design criteria that says we’re designing to .095, that’s always bothered me on this site. MR. LAPPER-You know I know that and that’s not really fair because federal standards are you can go and do a disturbance of up to a tenth of an acre and you fall under the nationwide permit and you don’t have to talk to the Army Corp I mean those are the rules. It used to be it was a half acre a few years ago and it’s gotten more restrictive. So, that’s. MR. VOLLARO-I would have probably felt more comfortable on this had you gotten a letter, or whatever, I forget what they call it from Army Corp. MR. LAPPER-Here’s what, the way that works is that once we do the disturbance we have to fill out a form and file it with the Army Corp, so we do have to notify them. MR. VOLLARO-Well look, it’s getting on to 12:00. MR. FORD-We’ve got people who have been sitting here waiting to address the Board as well and we may have an additional communication from the public that we’d like to hear. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, I’m gonna open the public hearing, I think my. MR. ROUND-Bob, under the alternate plan that would allow us to do the 50’ buffer, we’d further reduce our wetland impact, so it wouldn’t…be closer. But again, we’ve always been consistent in that that’s a design target. Everybody that’s doing site development tries to stay below the tenth of an acre. That’s just the way it is, if it, if John said if it was 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) a half an acre, we’d disturb up to a half an acre. You know, cause it would cost us less. We’d have to do less site work, you know, so that’s just the fact. MR. LAPPER-But, it’s gonna be less than .95. MR. VOLLARO-.095. MR. LAPPER-.095, excuse me because of that. MR. VOLLARO-You’re just slightly under the line. MR. LAPPER-Because of that 50’ buffer. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to open the public hearing, if someone would like to come up to speak to this application, come right up now. I’m sorry it’s so late, but it’s what we do here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AL BOYCHUK (63 QUAKER ROAD ADJOING THE PROJECT) MR. BOYCHUK-A couple of things. Again, the process, I believe there’s a letter to Gretchen, from another neighbor, adjoining neighbor across the street. Last time you had a letter from TD Bank North also stressing that because the center lane, the middle lane will be used as a stacking lane for people turning in to, from the west entering the restaurant and that will create problems for people exiting on the south-side of Quaker Road, majority of them, and these are the letters that you had from TD Bank North and now Adirondack Specialist, which is also Cingular telephone (lost words) and the other, the doctors were not able to arrive, but they did also have concern, but they’re not here we can’t take that for anything. But, it’s the stacking of all the cars that are going to be coming in; buses. These people do a tremendous bus business which should be addressed. A bus crossing Quaker Road heading through two lanes, they also move very slow. So you know, there will be tie-ups, additional tie-ups on Quaker Road, which are there now and it’s going to actually make it worse. These are you know, the letters from Mr. Tatar should also be noted. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve received that letter in our packet from Mr. Tatar. We have it, it was delivered to us. MR. BOYCHUK-All right, and that’s it, I’m not going keep repeating the same thing over and over. It’s a great restaurant, but this site is just too small. If they lower the standards of seating inside, the people are still going to come in looking for parking spaces to fill up, so the space is going to be smaller. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve tried to intimate that to the applicant, whether or not this building could be made smaller and be more accommodating to a site of that size, but it seems like it’s going to be that size or nothing. MR. BOYCHUK-You know, but, even if they make it smaller, the people are still going to be coming in there trying to utilize it. The traffic will be building up, more so, because they’re going to be leaving there, without, looking for spaces and then leaving the premises. So, the traffic will. MR. VOLLARO-That would form a problem with internal circulation which is another thing that I’ve concerned myself with. If there is not enough parking and people come in, it’s an attractive site and they want to eat there. They come in and there’s no, they’re gonna want to get out. That going to definitely affect the circulation on the site, another concern I have. And it goes right back to what I read to the applicant before and that is in making decision the Planning Board shall make a net overall evaluation of the project. They give us that room, here, you know, we’ve been playing here with numbers for several hours now. MR. BOYCHUK- I’ve addressed the Board in the past, I’m sorry for taking up their time, but basically it’s not worth repeating the same thing over and over. The main concern would be the traffic, the congestion this will create for people trying to enter and exit all the other businesses in that small area of Quaker Road. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. 78 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. BOYCHUK-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much Mr. Boychuk. MRS. STEFFEN-Is there someone else, Mr. Strainer? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Strainer? DAVID STRAINER (1124 RIDGE ROAD) MR. STRAINER-I’d first like to start off, I have no problem with the Golden Corral coming to Queensbury. It’s not the restaurant per se, that I don’t agree with in this location. It’s any type of high volume restaurant in this location is going to be difficult. You know, this is a restaurant that’s going to do a number of cars. When you take a look, you just can’t take a look at that one area, cause you have peak mealtimes for every one of these restaurants here. You’ve got Applebee’s down the road, you’ve got Giovanno’s, you’ve got Red Lobster, you’ve got the Olive Garden and from what I always thought we were going to get a (TGI) Friday’s in the Northway Plaza. Another time period is going to be extremely difficult on this road. I do agree with the fact where they’re talking about the trips with the dump trucks. Those aren’t significant numbers for Quaker Road, if you’re going from Aviation to Hudson Falls, or vice versa. But, you are looking at these dump trucks that are going to be stopped, hard to get out cause I work right next door. I know at times it takes me five to seven minutes just to get out of Mark Plaza that Mr. Boychuk owns. You know, alone, just looking at what they have to do to make this a buildable site, tells you that it’s not right. You know, you can only have in and out going right. Who’s going to police this? At the Northway Plaza if you’re coming out on Quaker Road there’s a left that you’re not supposed to take and I can count ten times a day when people are doing that. Who polices it? Also when come down here to Applebee’s, there are people pulling a U-turn to pull into this plaza. It’s dangerous. You know, we’re supposed to promote the health, safety and welfare of our citizens and if you’re gonna make this road even more dangerous then it really makes no sense, but the big difference to me that the Northway Plaza has and that the Lowe’s Plaza has, is they have other ways to get out. They don’t have just one place to come in and out and to force them to go right on right. Who’s going to police this? Nobody, and it’s going to be a dangerous situation. What bothers me even more about this, again, I could mitigate every little problem you’ve come up with tonight, but the fact of the matter is right across the street is the firehouse. That is one of their main entrances of getting in and out onto Quaker Road. What happens if there is an accident? What happens if those people can’t get out? You know, I just sat here and listened to this for quite a while and it’s the same thing, this is too much of a project in too small a space. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Mr. Strainer. Anybody else want to speak to this application while this public hearing is open. MR. FORD-Do we have any written communication that has not been entered? MR. VOLLARO-We have, we have one that we’ve gotten ourselves, but nothing in that’s in the record to be read. MR. BAKER-There was a submittal by the applicant in response to both staff and engineering comments, as well as the letter which I’ve read from Warren County DPW. MR. LAPPER-Can we respond to the public comments? MR. FORD-There’s also a letter from the owner of the Cingular. MR. VOLLARO-Oh yes, we’ve got that, that’s in the record. MR. FORD-That’s in the record? MR. VOLLARO-That’s in the record. MR. LAPPER-Can we respond to the public comments? MR. VOLLARO-Sure, by all means. MR. LAPPER-Those are anecdotal and lay testimony about fears about traffic problems next door. And, Mr. Boychuk mentioned the bank. The bank closes at 5:00 and the peak hour for this restaurant is 5:00-7:00. I mean, just in terms of conflict, I don’t think that the 79 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) Mark Plaza or Realty USA is too busy generally after 5:00 pm on weeknights because the restaurant’s peak hour is different than those businesses. But in general, we’ve submitted traffic reports that have been modified as you’ve required. We’ve submitted it to Warren County who is going to issue the permit. We’ve submitted it to CT Male, on your behalf and no one is saying there’s a capacity problem, no one is saying that we need a traffic light at our exit. That’s again, anecdotal lay testimony that people are concerned, but this site, the whole issue of, and I know that the Board, cause you’ve mentioned it a number of times, you just think there is too much on the site, but it’s been engineered and designed that the site can accommodate the building. The parking surface, the landscaping, we’re not asking for green-space variances. We’ve done everything you’ve asked, so it may appear to you that there’s too much on this site, but we’ve complied with what the code requires for siting this, and Niral comes to town and with two successful restaurants in nearby communities and says, I’d like to be in the Queensbury market and he pulls out the Town Zoning Code and asked himself, gee where do I have to find a piece of property so that I can build my restaurant? And the answer is, Quaker Road is one of the few areas in Town where it’s allowed and the reason why it’s allowed is that you have this five lane road that has good visibility and good access and good capacity. And no one has ever said that there’s a capacity issue like this is going to be too much traffic for Quaker Road, Quaker Road needs another lane. That’s not what we’re talking about here, this is just and I don’t understand it. I know that you guys are careful and you’re trying to do the right thing, but I think you’re going overboard here. This is just not the project you need to shoot down to protect the town, it’s just not that big a deal about putting this restaurant on this piece of property on Quaker Road. Does it have to be designed properly? Does it have to be engineered? Do we have to deal with the stormwater, so the stormwater can be treated before it goes into the wetland? Yes, that’s what has to happen, it has to be treated on site. Everything, all those design requirements are being met and I don’t know why this process has gotten so out of hand. I’ve heard from Planning department members that there have been all sorts of private meetings on this property between members of different boards and the Town engineer. I don’t understand the level of concern, I don’t see it. I’ve done many many projects in Queensbury and I don’t understand this doesn’t compare to the scope or magnitude of Lowe’s, Home Depot, Target, any, I mean, I could name dozens and this is not that big a deal. It’s not a traffic generator like these other big traffic generator in this corridor. MR. VOLLARO-It’s the highest volume turn-over restaurant in Queensbury, or will be. MR. LAPPER-But if you take the cumulative, what’s there now, with all these other restaurants. Um, Olive Garden, Red Lobster. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s an interesting comment, I remember we’ve heard a lot of anecdotal information tonight, so I’m going to throw my two cents in. I remember a few years ago when this board was looking at the Dunkin’ Donuts on Upper Glen Street. There was a lot of concern about the drive-through window at Dunkin’ Donuts and people concerned that the queuing of the drive-in window would back out into Glen Street. And finally I just said, if the drive-in lane is full of cars, you just don’t stop, you drive on, you go somewhere else. And I can’t tell you how many times when I’ve gone to go out to dinner, I’ve gone to Applebee’s and there was a 45 minute wait or you couldn’t find a parking spot. You know, if the parking lot is full, you drive on. MR. VOLLARO-However, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-If the store’s full and you have to wait 45 minutes to get a table, you go somewhere else. That’s the beauty of Queensbury, that’s why people like to live here. You got 15 choices within a 5 minute drive. You don’t have to fight traffic to go visit this restaurant if you don’t want to. MR. VOLLARO-You’re absolutely right, what you’re saying is the site self-polices itself. That’s really what. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, to a certain degree it does. I mean, it’s human nature. MR. VOLLARO-But, in the Code, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not trying to diminish the concerns. I had the same concerns as the Board tonight about parking and traffic. MR. VOLLARO-But, the Codes says when we talk about parking. It’s gets specific in that areas of the location and sufficiency of the off-street parking. They’re not saying that, 80 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) well, you know, they want the parking to be adequate for the space that’s involved and whether or not it gets people go. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the applicant has met the test. I think he has more than met the test. He has given empirical data, he has shown us everything that we have possibly asked for and more. I’m sorry, Bob, I think we should move on. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s. MR. HUNSINGER-We spent 2 ½ hours on this tonight alone. MR. VOLLARO-To me it’s important. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not saying it’s not important, I’m saying we covered it, let’s move on. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I have to get up in five hours and go to work. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, that’s not my problem. MR. HUNSINGER-I know it’s not your problem, Bob, but it’s your problem to sit here and argue with our applicant for an hour and half, while the rest of the Board sits wanting to move forward. MR. VOLLARO-Look I didn’t. MR. HUNSINGER-While the rest of the board sits here wanting to move forward. MR. VOLLARO-Look I didn’t chew up all the time, the time has been chewed up by the applicant. I’ve given the applicant every opportunity to say everything he wants to say. And that’s what we gotta do. Now, one of the things I see in the Fire Marshal’s report, they talk about a calculated occupancy load here. He says this building can be occupied by 596 people. When I look at that at three patrons per vehicles, I get 198 spaces. Every time I look at this. MR. LAPPER-You have to let respond to that, that’s really funny. We laughed when we saw that. Because what they’re doing, you can’t be at the buffet line if you don’t have a seat. So what they’re saying is that if everybody standing in the buffet line has five square feet. that how many people with the fire code if you jammed it? But because it’s a restaurant you don’t get into the restaurant if you have a seat. So that, you can’t count it twice, you can’t count the people on line at the buffet grabbing their apple pie. MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying that his analysis is incorrect. MR. LAPPER-I’m saying that his analysis would be like if it was a meeting hall and how many people you could have if everyone is standing there shoulder to shoulder, but you can’t have shoulder to shoulder because the same people at the buffet line are the same people that are sitting at the seats and you can’t count it twice. MRS. STEFFAN: You also get a certificate of occupancy for a certain number of people so the restaurant has a capacity. MR. LAPPER-Yeah, yes both of those. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what he’s got here, 596 for his certificate. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the maximum occupancy of this room is 300. If there were 100 people in this room it would be packed. I mean that’s what the Fire Marshal is saying. That’s the most people you could put in that building. MR. LAPPER-Let me go on from that, somewhere that I really don’t want to go, but I don’t know why the Board has taken this special interest in trying to find reasons to turn this down. But what I see in the record is that the Fire Marshal seems to have gotten annoyed that he was talking about emails from the Board to him, asking pushing him to try and say stuff. That stuff needs to be in the record and it’s not in the record. There’s obviously communications that should have been in the record. You know, there’s the new FOIL law that the governor just signed that gives you legal fees, if you don’t. I mean 81 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) that there have been private discussions, private emails, I don’t want to get into that stuff. All we’re trying to do is build a restaurant, I don’t want to make a case why this process wasn’t fair. But, I do think that it was pre-judged and I don’t understand it cause I’m used to this Board and it doesn’t usually happen. MR. VOLLARO-Pre-judging would have been back in September of last year when we could’ve come out and said we just don’t like this project, but we’ve been looking at it for a full year now. MR. LAPPER-Well, I don’t think you’ve been looking at it fairly. MR. PATEL-I think though, in all honesty, if you look at the last three months, four months, it’s been the same issues repeated. And for the last four months we’ve done nothing, the engineer, who is a very well known, respected engineering firm in the area, a very well known attorney in this area and myself, as a restaurateur, who wants to only do the right things to get this restaurant built and functioning safety not only for myself, but for the Town, civilians, everything else. And we’ve responded and tried our hardest to go above and beyond what was technically really required of us. Technically, if this was the first Golden Corral, I was opening, there really would be no empirical data to compare to in Saratoga. And by your code, I’m not required, I’ve met the requirements, simply. But, no I said, you know what, I’m gonna do my, I’m gonna be straight forward and I’m gonna show them that this is okay. But now it’s coming back and I’m really firmly believing that it’s not gonna go that way because there is a predisposition here. MR. LAPPER-I want to just make the record clear, that what I offered when we went to the public hearing is that what we’d be willing to do would be again, to change booths, tables to booths so we would be a net decrease of 23 seats so we would go from 365 to 342, which in terms of the how many, 2.5 per car, it certainly helps the parking analysis. It makes it smaller than the other restaurants, and again, I agree with what Mr. Hunsinger said, if somebody drives by on Quaker Road and see every spot taken which based on our numbers of 90 spaces including employees, is not going to happen. But, if they see every spot is taken, it’s just like when you drive by Olive Garden and you see eight people standing outside, you keep going. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that not what our Code says we’re supposed to do. I understand. MR. LAPPER-But the code says 104 and I know you understand. MR. HUNSINGER-What are we going to do Bob, we gonna move on or are we gonna sit here and argue until 4:00 in the morning? MR. ROUND-Bob, I just want to make this point, the code that you sited says, talked about sufficiency of parking, that’s your concern, right? What are the tests for sufficiency of parking? We looked at the Town code, we exceed the Town code, we looked at ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, we looked at their code, we exceed their code. We looked at two operating restaurant and we exceed what we demonstrated capacity. So, you tell us how we determine the sufficiency of parking, you tell us how to collect that information to demonstrate it to you and we will collect it. But, I suppose that we present that information, there will be a new standard established the evening we present that. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve got a couple of other things on the letter, retaining wall and sign details and that would conclude the comments. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, let me try and resolve this. MR. ROUND-This could be very quick. What we presented to you in our submission back in August, was the concern I think Mr. Seguljic brought it up, he said there was concern is there going to be a guardrail, a fence? How would you prevent pedestrians from doing that, but we haven’t specified that particular thing, but we’ve identified two options. One is a rigid cast in place slab type feature, which is on the screen in front of you, which was presented to you. This is if we choose the Versa-Lock type wall. The applicant prior to us talked to you about segmented wall with stackable blocks. This is the type of structure that would work with the Versa-Lock installation. The other option is a post and rail type of feature, so you can put in a guardrail and/or fence. We agree and we recommend to the applicant, to Mr. Patel, that we include a stop for vehicles as well as either a handrail or fence to prevent pedestrians and so we concur with the Board on that issue. There’s just two photos of what we’ve been talking about, Versa-Lock, this is one option. We also presented to you and the Town engineer reviewed a, what is called, 82 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) it’s a Ready-Rock, it’s very similar in appearance, but it’s a much larger profile block. So instead of these smaller stackable boxes, it’s much larger, similar appearance, similar type of installation detail. So these show like a, you see the photo on the right shows a fence, guardrail detail it’s gonna either be that or there’s a fence and you can’t quite see that there’s a rail up above. Sign detail, there was the monument sign we presented, I think we presented it to you last time and you asked for copies. We provided that with our submission, 15’ feet all, nominally 10 feet 3 inches wide. So, we came down from a proposed pole mounted sign at your request, and propose a monument sign. So that was that. MR. SIPP-How much did you come down? MR. ROUND-Well, a monument or a pole mounted sign, I believe you’re allowed 25 feet. tall and that’s what we’re proposing. MR. SIPP-25 feet? MR. ROUND-That’s what allowed under your code is a 25 foot pole mounted sign. We’re not proposing that, we’re proposing a 15 foot tall monument sign. MR. SIPP-Can we go up on Rte. 9 and take a look at the. MR. ROUND-Yes, we agree with you, that’s why we proposed the monument sign. MR. SIPP-Well, I proposed the monument sign and I don’t think 15 feet tall is what I proposed. MR. ROUND-If at the end of the day that’s the issue that’s gonna resolve this project, we would happily shorten the height of that monument sign, but we’ll save that one for last. MR. SIPP-I agree, I agree that we’ve hashed this over. We’re just going over the same ground time after time. To give you my impression, I have given you this before, this is the only high volume restaurant in the Town of Queensbury that has no light to exit onto a main arterial. MR. LAPPER-You said that. MR. SIPP-I’ve said that before and I’m saying that again. I am concerned not with anecdotal reference or whatever you want to put on it. The people of Queensbury are concerned about traffic and this will continue to put more traffic onto the road because it’s in the wrong place. MR. LAPPER-But, if this was about a light we’d be talking about should we put a light in. MR. SIPP-No, no Jon, you twist the words here . MR. LAPPER-No, I certainly don’t, I’m listening to you. MR. SIPP-And next week you’ll say well, you wanted a light there, we’re gonna do whatever we can. You’re not going to get a light there. It’s the only restaurant without a light, it’s the only place in the Town of Queensbury where we don’t need any more traffic and this is what people have said in the latest of the year, year and a half, we’ve been into the PORC rewriting. MR. LAPPER-But a light is not necessary, I mean, the traffic, the County would issue a permit for this for a curb cut. A traffic light just isn’t necessary in this location. MRS. STEFFAN-Can I ask a question about the sign? You talked about a monument sign out front, there’s a sign on the side of the building. So, this monument sign is in addition to the signage on the building. MR. ROUND-Correct, there will be a sign mounted on the Quaker Avenue face or the southern face. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me. I’m gonna call for a time out here for about a couple of minutes and I’m want to confirm with my attorney on a time out basis. Okay? We’ve taken all the testimony we can take. We’ve got everything we need in terms of testimony, in terms of information and we will give you a resolution within the allotted period of time. That’s at least my decision, I don’t know how the Board feels, but I’m 83 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) gonna poll the Board and see how they feel about that. But, we’ll make a resolution to give the applicant a resolution within the allotted period of time. How do you feel about that, Tom Ford? MRS. STEFFEN-Does counsel have input here? He’s making a. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER -You don’t need a resolution and I don’t know that I would advise a resolution to agree to provide a decision within the allotted time. You have a legal obligation to provide a decision within the allotted amount of time, and you can simply, if this is Board consensus, you can simply tell the applicant, if there’s a Board consensus, you can simply tell the applicant that this case will not be decided tonight but will be decided within the allotted time. However, you skipped on very important procedural point which is, right now as we sit here I understand it you have an open public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-We have to close the public hearing. MR. COUNSEL-Right, that is my concern. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but before I even do that I would like to. MR. SCHACHNER -You can discuss it among the Board where you want to head, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I want to do, I want to get a consensus. Does the Board agree that we’ll take the allotted period of time to make this decision. Right now we’re not gonna. MR. SCHACHNER -I don’t think you should commit to taking the entire allotted period of time, I think you should simply indicate to your fellow Board members your proposal is to not, as I understand it, what you’re proposing to your fellow Board members is to close the public hearing and to make a decision on this application within the statutorily required time frame. MR. VOLLARO-That’s exactly right. MR. SCHACHNER-If you want to sound out your Board members, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Don. MR. SIPP-I agree. MR. VOLLARO-Tom Ford? MR. FORD-I can proceed that way. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I do not agree. MR SEGUJLIC-Can you explain it to me. So, we’re gonna take, what 62 days? MR. VOLLARO-We’re gonna take. MR. SCHACHNER-Up to, up to. MR. SEGULJIC-Up to 62 days. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You can take four days if you want. MR. SEGULJIC-Then a resolution, then at one of the meetings that the applicant is notified. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Then we give them our decision at that time. MR. SEGULJIC-Then at that point we have vote on it, the resolution? 84 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/26/06) MR. SCHACHER-Right. At an open public meeting at which the applicant is present and anyone else who wants to be. Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, I’m for that. MR. VOLLARO-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m ready to move forward and my suspicion, well, I won’t say it. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my suspicion is the only reason why you don’t want to move forward tonight is because you want to take the time to draft a declination resolution, because that’s the only time that we have postponed resolutions. So that someone can draft an iron clad resolution to defeat a motion. MR. VOLLARO-You can take the allotted time to do an approval or a denial. MR. HUNSINGER-I said it’s my speculation, I understand that, I understand that, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, I think we have consensus to go on the allotted time period. MR. SCHACHNER-Within the allotted time period. MR. VOLLARO-Within the allotted time period. MR. SCHACHNER-Now that being the case, the only formal step I’m going to recommend is a motion to close the public hearing. MR. VOLLARO- We have to close the hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s my concern. MR. VOLLARO-I make the motion to close the public hearing. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll get back to you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 85