Loading...
1999-09-21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO TIMOTHY BREWER LARRY RINGER ALAN ABBOTT MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT PALING PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES 6/24/99: NONE 7/20/99: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 6/24/99 AND 7/20/99, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Before we go any farther, I forgot to welcome our newest member, Alan Abbott, to the Planning Board. Welcome aboard. MR. ABBOTT-Thank you. RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN NO. 71-96 GLENN BATEASE MR. MAC EWAN-A little background. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 71-96 – Modification, Glenn Batease, Meeting Date: September 21, 1999 “Description of Project: The Planning Board tabled the modification of Site Plan 71-96 at the July 20, 1999 meeting until the August 17, 1999 meeting for additional information. The applicant has not provided the information for review. Staff is requesting the Board set a specific date for which all requested information is to be submitted and completed for review by the Staff and the Board. The following information was requested: Landscape Plan Stormwater information on the existing conditions of the site Delineation (clearly identified) of the 370 foot contour in the field. Recommendation: The deadline date (Sept. 29) should provide for an adequate review th period by the Staff and the Board members. Staff would request the Landscape Plan and Stormwater Information be submitted by September 29, 1999, and the Field Delineation be in place by 12:00 p.m. on October 8, 1999. The Board and Staff will then have enough time to review the project prior to the first meeting in October – October 19, 1999.” MR. BREWER-Can I ask a question right here? Why are we separating the two items? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MRS. MOORE-One is a field delineation, and the reason why I did that was because you typically do a site visit, and I wanted to coordinate that with that. MR. BREWER-Okay, but didn’t we ask him to do that, how long ago? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we’re doing this tonight. MR. BREWER-No, I understand that, but. MRS. MOORE-This is a formal request, and he has not done that. MR. BREWER-I understand what your objective is, but they should have been done. MR. MAC EWAN-Two years ago. MR. BREWER-Exactly. So I don’t know why we’re giving him more time, I guess is my point. MR. MAC EWAN-Because of the procedures that the Code Enforcement Officer has kept going to Town Court on this issue, also the fact that now DEC is involved in it. We need to get something firm down on paper, that we have given him a date to do this, and then, if it is not done, I believe that DEC will be forthcoming in proceeding with their fines and levies on him. MRS. MOORE-Or you can make a decision. MR. BREWER-I don’t know why we just don’t make one deadline, instead of two, I guess is my point. MR. MAC EWAN-Because the material that has to be submitted to Staff has to be reviewed by Staff, and then it has to be coordinated with Staff to delineate out there. So when we go do site visits, we can see the slope and we can see the area of fill. It has to be marked. That’s what we talked about doing for a couple of months now. MR. BREWER-Right. So that’s what I’m saying. Why give him more time to do it. It should have been done, or should be done at the same time. I mean, we can do whatever you want, but. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the fact that it’s not done, Tim, is important. I think we’re trying to set a date now of September 29 as an end date for him, for Glenn Batease. I mean, if we don’t set that in a th resolution, we’ll be faced with the same thing that we’ve been faced with. MR. BREWER-I understand the September 29. I don’t understand the October 8. thth MRS. MOORE-If he field delineates by September 29, and you don’t do your site visits until th October 8, the possibility that more fill comes in at that time. th MR. BREWER-Yes, all right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put the motion up? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second? MR. RINGER-I’ll second the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-We're going to go by your formal one you’ve got. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Do you want to adjust the site visit date? That’s a Friday. MR. MAC EWAN-The October 8, you mean? th MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Just change it. I would recommend we change it to the 9, which is Saturday. th MR. VOLLARO-Is that a regular site visit date for us? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We can do it then. MRS. MOORE-Okay. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second on that? Larry? Maria, call the vote. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Brewer. MR. BREWER-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mrs. LaBombard. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbott. MR. ABBOTT-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Ringer. MR. RINGER-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. MacEwan? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERTA CONVERSE OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A, MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE LOCATION: WARREN LANE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY SEGREGATING THE CONVERSE MOBILE HOME PARK FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BD. VAR. 5/3/99 TAX MAP NO. 121-6-59/LOT SIZE: 16.32 ACRES/SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 16-1999 Preliminary and Final Stage, Roberta Converse, Meeting Date: September 21, 1999 “Description of Project: The application is identical to Subdivision No. 5-1999 approved by the Board in June of 1999. The Board approval expired due to the applicant’s failure to file the subdivision map. Staff Notes: The subdivision will separate a mobile home park from single family homes. The applicant’s submission meets the requirements for subdivision for preliminary and final review. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final subdivision.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. CARR-Good evening. Bruce Carr, attorney for the applicant. Thank you for taking me out of order. MR. MAC EWAN-No problem. Nothing’s really changed, other than the fact that plat wasn’t filed with the County? MR. CARR-Nothing’s changed. The reason we didn’t complete it within the 60 days was this was part of a sale, and after we received the initial approval, a title defect came up that we had to work with the County, and that did not get completed until early August. So it was too late to file the map at that point. So that’s why we missed that deadline. It’s all set now. Title’s clear, and we’re ready to proceed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions from anyone on the Board? In the interest of time, we’ll move this right to a public hearing. Does anyone want to comment to this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. MOORE-They submitted a Long Form. MR. CARR-Would it be possible for you just to adopt your findings of June 3, since nothing has rd changed? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that we can because that subdivision has expired, the approval on t that. So we’re back to Square One. We should be able to go through this real quick, though, for you. Am I right on that or am I wrong on that? MRS. MOORE-You’re correct. MR. BREWER-Was this re-advertised and everything? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it was. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And we have the cards turned in? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We're ready. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERTA CONVERSE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up on the table? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1999 ROBERTA CONVERSE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Sub. 16-1999, and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/24/99, consists of the following: 1. Letter dated 8/24/99 from Bruce Carr with preliminary and final stage application w/map S-1 revised 6/22/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice 2. 9/21/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/21/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Subdivision No. 16-1999, Roberta Converse – Preliminary Stage. 2. Applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How about a motion for Final. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1999 ROBERTA CONVERSE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Sub. 16-1999, and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/24/99, consists of the following: 1. Letter dated 8/24/99 from Bruce Carr with preliminary and final stage application w/map S-1 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) revised 6/22/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice 2. 9/21/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/21/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Subdivision No. 16-1999, Roberta Converse – Final Stage. 2. Applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. CARR-Thank you. I thank the Board and the other applicants for their courtesy. MR. MAC EWAN-Now is that the new plat? MR. CARR-Yes, I’ll give it to Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get that signed for you in the morning. MR. CARR-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-86 MODIFICATION GRANT ACRES, PHASE II OWNER: JOHN FAIR/MARGARET ANN GRANT ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: LOTS 45 & 46, GRANT ACRES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO GRANT ACRES, PHASE II APPROVAL FOR LOTS 45 & 46. THE MODIFICATION IS TO CHANGE A 30 FT. RIGHT OF WAY TO A 50 FT. RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN THE LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 27-1-4, 27-4-45 LOT SIZE: 51.00 ACRES/5.55 ACRES JOHN FAIR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-86 – Modification, Grant Acres, Phase II, Meeting Date: September 21, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment in an approved subdivision. Staff Notes: The modification will accommodate a wider access route to lot number 46. The proposed adjustment does not appear to have an environmental or neighborhood impact. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the modification.” 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anyone here for the applicant? MRS. MOORE-Matt Steves was supposed to be here. I don’t know whether he’s waiting until this Threw subdivision comes in or not. MR. FAIR-It doesn’t make any difference. I’m the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. FAIR-My name is John Fair. MR. MAC EWAN-And can you tell us the reason for asking for this modification? MR. FAIR-Yes. If you looked at the land, if you stood on Pickle Hill and looked due south along that line, there’s a hill that comes down, and (lost words) you have to cut into the hill to get that 30 foot right-of-way, and then it drops off, and it would be a lot easier if I could scoot that over about 10, 15 feet, that road, and the drainage, I wouldn’t have to put so many culverts or. MR. VOLLARO-This is looking south from Pickle Hill Road? MR. FAIR-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s on Lot 45? MR. BREWER-Lot 46, or actually both, really. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. FAIR-Yes. You’re looking due south into, you’re on 46, and 45 is on your left. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re just taking the original dotted line and moving it back to that 460 line. MR. FAIR-Do you have the old map? Did Steves send you a new one or an old one? I haven’t seen, I haven’t talked to him. MR. VOLLARO-The date on this map is August 5. We're just going from here to here, that’s what th we’re doing? MR. FAIR-Yes, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from any of the Board members? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No public hearing is scheduled. I’ll take public comment, if anyone wants to comment to this application. Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 7-86 GRANT ACRES, PHASE II, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As prepared by Staff, and that the Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the Subdivision modification and further finds that there is no significant change to the original SEQRA findings. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of application for Sub. 7-86, Modification for Grant Acres, Phase, II, Lots 45 & 46; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/20/99, consists of the following: 1. Letter dated 7/20/99 from John P. Fair to Van Dusen & Steves w/map S-1 dated 8/5/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/2/99 – Meeting Notice 2. Fax to L. Gailbrois of RFA Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve modification to Subdivision No. 7-86, Grant Acres, Phase II, Lots 45 & 46. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth n this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. FAIR-Thank you gentlemen and ladies, thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 65-98 MODIFICATION STEWART’S ICE CREAM OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF BAY AND CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE A BRICK DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AND ADDITIONAL LIGHTING FOR THE BANK BEHIND THE BUILDING. TAX MAP NO. 60-2-11.1 TOM LEWIS & DAN UNDERWOOD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 65-98 – Modification, Stewart’s Ice Cream, Meeting Date: September 21, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a design change of the dumpster and an alternate lighting plan for the Glens Falls National Bank ATM. The modification was tabled at the August 24, 1999 meeting for additional lighting information. Staff Notes: The applicant was requested to review an alternate lighting plan to accommodate any future development. The future development issues were a concern because there is a reciprocal easement to an adjacent parcel for access to the parcel. The applicant has submitted four lighting scenarios and a fifth scenario showing the existing lighting plan. The four lighting scenarios each have an area that does not comply with the ATM standards. The scenarios adjust the number of poles and the height of the poles from fifteen feet to twenty feet. The existing scenario contains areas that do not meet the requirements as outlined in the ATM rules. Specific areas of non-compliance are the North and South areas of the ATM, and the handicap space closest to the drive through. The existing light plan consisting of five light poles at 25 feet in height. The applicant has indicated that the existing light patterns will be adjusted slightly to illuminate the required areas and to minimize lighting areas not within its scope. If the adjacent property becomes developed it is anticipated that the current light pole locations will be incorporated with the access drive. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the relocation of the dumpster and would suggest the Glens Falls National Bank adjust the existing lights to minimize the light splash on areas not required to be lighted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, gentlemen. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. LEWIS-I’m Tom Lewis from Stewart’s Ice Cream. JOHN MEINRENKEN 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. MEINRENKEN-John Meinrenken from Glens Falls National Bank. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m Dan Underwood from Glens Falls Electric Supply. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets pick up where we left off last month. I don’t think that anybody on the Board has a problem with the relocation of the dumpster area. I think that’s a nice modification. One down, one to go. The issue, I guess, is the lighting. Do you want to bring us up to date on your other scenarios that you had? MR. MEINRENKEN-Well, it was my understanding that we needed to submit some plans that would show if a 20, if the poles lowered to 20 foot or 15 foot could possibly meet the Safety Act, and unfortunately they will not. Dan and I came up with another option, we were hoping would work, and that was adding a sixth pole. You also have those drawings. We showed six poles at 20 feet and six poles at 15 feet, and unfortunately, they failed also. So we are at our wits ends. We don’t know what else to even consider. The scientific data shows that we need the height to get the proper coverage. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so I’m fully understanding here. The State law requires the ATM area alone to be well lit, accessible, right? MR. MEINRENKEN-Within certain measurements from the ATM, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. MEINRENKEN-You start from the ATM and measure out. MR. MAC EWAN-Are banks, before this legislation was passed, were banks that were in business with ATM’s prior to this legislation exempt from the law, or does everybody have to meet the law? MR. MEINRENKEN-Everybody has to meet the law, and there was no lighting law before this. This was the first. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess what I’m really curious about, just from my perspective, since we started working on this lighting problem here, I've taken a ride around town and looked at some other banks who have ATM’s, obviously, and I don’t understand why this particular site needs to have the lights that it has there, when I see other ATM sites that get by with a lot less lighting. MR. MEINRENKEN-And I hear that from my own maintenance department, and they’re constantly coming to me and complaining, and all I can say is they have got to be paying fines like crazy, because there is just no latitude in this law. I don’t know how those banks are getting away with it. I don’t think they are. MR. BREWER-It says 2200 out of 34 ATM’s got violations, that’s how. MR. MEINRENKEN-They’re paying fines. They have to be, but I can’t prove that. I mean, banks don’t share violations among each other. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s true, but, you know, one of the curious things, because I happened to be by the one, Troy Savings, and they’ve got the fixtures that are mounted right on the wall, on the outside wall, and on the portable for the ATM unit itself. That’s not obtrusive lighting. I mean, it well lights the area. MR. MEINRENKEN-Is that a drive up ATM or is that a walk-in ATM, first of all? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a drive up ATM. MR. MEINRENKEN-It’s a drive up ATM. They only are, and I’m not sure exactly the positioning of this ATM, but they’re only responsible light to a municipal streeting. (Lost words) we’ve got to light that entire area, but if you have a, it’s either a natural barrier, like a fence, a six foot fence or a building, that’s something that’s stopping somebody from approaching you. You only have to light to that point, or if you are approaching upon a municipal road, you only have to light to that point. There’s other parts of it, and unfortunately the things that would stop us from going out the full 50 or 60 feet, none of them apply. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’ll open it up to the Board members. Cathy, I’ll start with you. Any questions? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. It’s just that, like I said before, the safety of everybody that uses that thing is what we’re here about, and I think that is of paramount importance, more so than the light shining on, too much light shining on where other people don’t want it. MR. MEINRENKEN-Can I interject one more thing? We were scheduled to go out, it was Friday night to adjust the lighting. The concept Chris Round suggested that if we could get out there and adjust the lighting to what we really need, because there still needs to be some fine tuning, you’d have an opportunity to see exactly what it would be, and compliments of Tropical Storm Floyd, we didn’t have any power. We still have some fine tune adjusting to do. It’ll be just a tweaking. I’m not going to sit here and promise that it’s going to solve everything, but we do need to adjust it a little bit. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s that mean, directing it more downward and then outward? MR. MEINRENKEN-Downward, outward, a little bit, the readings that we submitted last time showed that we have a couple of spots that we don’t quite get the reading we need. Those will be tipped up a little bit, by the handicapped area. We’ve got some other spots that we have more than we need. We’ll be tipping that down. There’s just some fine tuning. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Allen? MR. ABBOTT-In my former life, I worked for banks, and I've been standing in parking lots with a candle meter making these measurements. I know what a pain it can be, and they are very stringent with the enforcement of these laws. I think we’ve got to be able to protect the people that are using the ATM and allow them to be within the guidelines of the law, at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do have some questions. I've got some spec questions and some other questions. So if the Board will bear with me a little bit. You submitted several drawings, and I've read them all, taken a look at all the lighting, and have discounted A12, A10, and the last one which is another number. I forget what it is now, but the ones I’m looking at really are A2, which is your preferred lighting plan, versus your plan A8. So that would be the topic of my discussion, A2 versus A8. Now, in looking at the coverage, I see that the coverage on, the way A8 is now, now A8, so everybody understands it, is six bulbs at 15 feet, and in the spec box, under Statistical Specs, you have, at both the five foot zone and the sixty foot zone, you’re within spec, with the exception that you talk about, no greater than 60 degree vertical depression on a bulb, on a lighting fixture. If I look at the spec under Metal Halide, and I look at the horizontal and vertical beam spec, you’re vertical beam spec is 119 degrees. Now that leads me to believe that you’ve got a 60 degree center, as far as the impact of light is concerned, and what you’re really saying is you don’t want to elevate below 60 degrees, because you don’t want this section of the 119 degree beam to back light the pole. Because I looked up, to take a look at what the Metal Halides, there’s no physical restraint or no electrical impact on where the bulb sits. MR. UNDERWOOD-That is correct. A vertical or horizontal positioning of the bulb is the only thing that effects it, really. These happen to be in a horizontal position. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I think the reason you recommend, as somebody says here, that this is the manufacturer’s Lithonia Lighting recommendation that these fixtures never be aimed at more than 60 degrees, and I think the reason for that is they don’t want to excessively back light the pole. I mean, that’s the only reason I can see, 120 degree vertical beam. Now, when I look at this spec, six poles at 15 feet, even if you miss, lets say you’re 99% or 98% compliant with this particular configuration, there’s room in the basic spec for you to apply for a variance. Now if there’s only a couple of percentage of noncompliant areas, I’m sure you can get a variance on that, and this gives us what our original requirement or original thoughts on this Planning Board, to lower these poles, and we can get six poles at 15 feet, which accomplishes what we would like to do, and I don’t see anything in the spec that prohibits us from doing that, the way you’ve presented A8. A8 looks like a real good plan to me. Now, if you’ve got any reasons why, particularly since, under Statistics, you quote that A8, at the five foot and the sixty foot zone, meets the spec. It’s 14.1 foot candles and 20.0 foot candles. As a matter of fact, if you look at your drawing A2, your back scattering is a lot less than it is on your preferred drawing, that is the scatter behind the poles at the sixty foot parameter. MR. UNDERWOOD-You will take notice that we would actually have to be adding fixtures. The quantity would be increased, the number of fixtures would be increased to obtain this. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see anything in the presentation that said that, or I don’t see the drawings depicting that. I see an extra pole. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. VOLLARO-But I don’t see anything in these drawings that depict additional fixtures. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Right at the very top, where it says “Luminar Schedule” Type A is the Luminar Schedule, and the quantity would indicate 11, label A. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If you’ve got six poles, and you need eleven fixtures, you’ve got in some cases two fixtures or more on a pole? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And they say 11 on spec, so you show 10 on the drawing, and you say the quantity is 11, under Luminar Schedule? MR. UNDERWOOD-On A8 it would be 11, yes. MR. VOLLARO-By our count up here it looks like, two, four, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven. Okay. Well, I don’t have any objections to two on a pole. I mean, our big thing was trying to get from a 25 foot level down to something less than that, and this is 15 foot. MR. BREWER-What if you went between? What would it be at 20? I think it shows on one. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty foot doesn’t meet the spec at all. MR. BREWER-You couldn’t meet the spec at 20? MR. VOLLARO-If you get down to lower than 20 feet, which is drawing A12, get down into the statistical box, and you’ll see that at the sixty foot zone they’ve got zero foot candles. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, you look mesmerized. MR. LEWIS-I have only respect for your lighting acumen. I mean that seriously. I’m getting an education here. MR. BREWER-And when we all walk out of here tonight, we won’t know a darn thing about it, except the parking lot’s going to be lit. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we’re trying to accomplish, Tim, I think, is setting the poles lower. MR. BREWER-No, I understand exactly what we’re trying to do, but, is it going to be that much less? MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, I’m looking for the light poles to be lower. I know that when you are on Bay Road, and turning onto Cronin Road, that they’re really objectionable, the amount of light that they put out, and I think we can conquer all of that if we get them to lower the light poles. MR. BREWER-Right, but what happens, hypothetical, if you go to a Town, wherever, and they deny your request to put the lights in? You can’t have the ATM, or you just pay fines? MR. MEINRENKEN-No. In part of the information that I submitted, you can ask for a variance, that was the reason, and Mr. Robert Vollaro brought up at the last meeting about a variance. So, that’s the reason why one of the things we submitted was the scenario that shows like nine different scenarios at Scenario Number Five was what do you do if there’s a code, and unfortunately, the State legislature is overriding the town codes. They’re saying you will comply or you will be fined. MR. MAC EWAN-Spoken like true legislators. MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely. Two things. First of all, a 2.0 is fine for Day One, when you put the lights up, but you will fail down the road, okay. You can’t light this for the minimum on Day One. These lights will deteriorate in time. Lens get dirty and bulbs loose power. I have been fined already. I hate to admit that, for a 1.8 reading at another location. They just will cut you no break on it. So at 2.0, while technically is fine on Day One, that’s why we’ve been saying we need a 2.5. We have to have some safety valve. MR. VOLLARO-Well, your basic option of five poles, which really is your recommendation, is also two foot candles at 60 feet, exactly the same as this. MR. MEINRENKEN-We're stretching them in that area, and that’s why the fine tuning that we were talking about. We're going to have to fine tune that and see if we can make that work. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. VOLLARO-I doubt whether you’re going to get 2.5 out of fine tuning. I just don’t see it. MR. MEINRENKEN-That is an area of concern for us, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Would you reject the idea of the six pole system, at 15 feet? MR. MEINRENKEN-No. The 15 feet doesn’t give us the coverage we need. I have no problem with six poles, none. That’s why we threw it in the mix. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it seems to me in your statistical area is meets the spec. At five foot you get 14.1, which is 4.1 over 10, and at 60 foot you get two foot candles. So it seems to me that, on the face of it, this drawing meets your basic specification. MR. MEINRENKEN-Lets address that angle one more time, make sure we’re looking at that. MR. UNDERWOOD-That everybody understands the tilt angle on the drawing, where it says the mounting height. If you go across the top, “MH” stands for Mounting Height orientation. That’s the second box down, and then next is tilt, and if you go down to the fixtures that are designated or labeled “A”, you’ll notice in that tilt orientation of the fixture, actually the tilt, I should say, most, if not all of them, exceed the 60 degree recommended angle. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I guess what I want to talk about is that 60 degree recommended angle, and the reason for that, and I get back to the fact that the spec, under Metal Halide, talks about a vertical beam of 119, that’s what they’ve got here, but 119 divided by 2 is like 60, nominal, and that’s why, what you’re doing here is from the horizontal, you don’t want to dip anymore than 60 degrees because you don’t want this back piece, this back portion of the vertical beam, to back light the pole. That’s the only reason I can see for that recommended not below 60. Now the way I read this, I read this A8 drawing is the fact that that was the projection using your tilt of 70, starting with 70 degrees and working on down, and then I looked at the back scatter, back here at the 60, behind the lights, and it’s, that back scatter is lower in amplitude than it is on your recommended five pole drawing. Take a look. I mean, just doing a scan quickly, an integration with your eyeballs, a quick scan, and take a look at the back scatter behind the pole on your recommended five pole, versus the back scatter on the six pole, and the six pole is less back scatter than the five pole, even with the kind of depressions you’re talking about. Do you agree with that? Do you understand what I’m driving at here? MR. UNDERWOOD-Could I make a comment that the 60 degree would be like, 90 degrees would be like straight out directly. If I had the fixture, and I was directly out, and so zero degrees would be like, you know, flat. MR. VOLLARO-Zero is horizontal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Zero is horizontal. MR. VOLLARO-Zero is horizontal, and 90 degrees is dead vertical. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, none of these depressions are dead vertical. All of them on the six pole system are all less than a 90 degree vertical depression. MR. MAC EWAN-Where you’re talking about the tilt, where you’re talking it tilts it more than 65 degrees, at what height. MR. VOLLARO-More than 60. He doesn’t want to go below 60. MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but the tilts here are more than 65 degrees, on these recommendations for the A type unit. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they’re all greater than 60. MR. MAC EWAN-On what height pole are these recommended to be put? MR. UNDERWOOD-Basically, at this 15 foot pole, they’re not recommended to go more than 60, not less than 60. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, Luminar’s design specs they’ve got right here, right off your drawing, that they’ve done on here, where they talk about the tilts of the lights from 66.9 all the way on up to 73.2 or so, those light fixtures, they’re basing those calculations on what height of a pole? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. UNDERWOOD-Fifteen. MR. MAC EWAN-On a fifteen foot pole. MR. UNDERWOOD-This drawing is at 15, right. MR. VOLLARO-What they’re doing, Craig, is that these are the tilts from zero down, which is greater, they’re all greater than the recommended 60, but if you take a look, the subtlety is in the vertical beam. You follow what I’m saying? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I follow you. I don’t think they follow us. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask a question. Do you understand where I’m coming from? Do you understand my comparison that I’m making up here, or am I with apples and apples? Are we on the same page? MR. UNDERWOOD-To some degree, but I think it’s the degree of tilt. Once you increase the angle, you’re actually pointing them or directing them more up or more vertical, okay. If you go down you’re actually, so I think maybe it’s backwards. I’m not sure. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I had a problem with that myself, in where was zero. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, where did you start. MR. VOLLARO-Where is zero, where’s the data, and I couldn’t anywhere in this spec I couldn’t come up with data. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So I assumed, because it said, some place in the spec here, it talked about that, just let me look at it for a minute and I’ll get to it. Some place in here they talk about these lights being able to be elevated beyond the zero point. I can’t put my hands on it, on the spec right now, but it’s in here somewhere. MR. UNDERWOOD-Zero point would be directly facing directly down, directly down. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying now is that, from looking at it zero to seventy, that in order to get this kind of illumination, you’ll have to raise these lights even further? MR. UNDERWOOD-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-So the trade off now is a little more angle, a little more vertical angle, and the trade off for that is dropping these poles ten feet, and I still think I would go for the lower pole. That’s my knot hole right here. I don’t know what the rest of these folks. MR. RINGER-I still don’t understand what the problem would be if you went over to 60 degree, but you didn’t answer Bob’s question, or I don’t know if Bob put that out as a question. What happens if you do go over to 60 degrees? Where does the light go, or how is it effected? MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Because they mentioned the vertical illumination of being like 118. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 119. MR. UNDERWOOD-119. Okay. If you could use that same beam spread as you used with the finger example, like this, it kind of goes like this. If you have it pointed down, part of it goes down, and it does light the pole. Part goes out and lights the ATM area. As you tip this up, it goes up in the air, and goes, and misses the area around the pole. Back lighting the pole really isn’t a question. We know we need to do that, but basically it becomes more of a glaring, more of a, does that answer the? MR. RINGER-That’s what I was thinking, when you did that, you’re going to get glare in the neighborhood around it. I rode around there, too, my wife and I did, and we went up into the residential area to see how those lights were effected, and I didn’t feel they were effected in the outlying area, but if you were to raise them I could see, if that angle was changed, if that tilt was changed, that might effect more of the outlying areas. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but you’ve got to take a look at the light intensity at 60 degrees and 120 degree beam. It’s right in the middle. So you’re getting your maximum intensity in the center of the beam, 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) and it decays quite rapidly as it gets to the beam limits. It’s almost an exponential decay from the center to the beam limit. MR. RINGER-But they’re saying they don’t recommend more than 60. MR. VOLLARO-Larry, they don’t recommend it for a reason. I understand why they don’t recommend it, and they don’t recommend it because, not that anything’s going to happen to the light itself. There’s not going to be any degradation to the light when you swing the light around. They’re just saying they don’t recommend that you raise it greater than 60 degrees. MR. RINGER-And he’s saying because of glare and you’re losing the focus of where you want to put the light. MR. VOLLARO-I said we’d be trading that off against lowering the light poles 10 feet, a significant amount of lowering. Significant, not just a few feet. We're talking 10 feet and 25. Well, that’s the end of my presentation. MR. BREWER-They would be at 10 feet, Bob? MR. RINGER-Fifteen feet. MR. BREWER-Fifteen feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Versus 25. MR. BREWER-I can’t add to that. MR. RINGER-I can’t either. MR. MEINRENKEN-The other part of that, too, and I want to keep bringing it up, that is going to give us bare minimum on Day One. I have no safety valve there. MR. BREWER-Where did the magic number 10 feet come from, as a significant number? MR. VOLLARO-Ten feet is on their drawing. MR. BREWER-No, I understand that, but where did we originally come up with the 10 feet and 15 feet? MR. VOLLARO-We didn’t. It’s their presentation that they gave us saying that we can give you these various pole levels of 10 feet down, in one case 5 feet down, which is the 20 foot pole, and I looked at the data for the lowest pole, with one additional pole, going from five poles to six. MR. BREWER-But why are we lead to believe, or believe that 10 feet is better than 25? MR. VOLLARO-Because it’s lower. MR. BREWER-No, I understand it’s lower, but why is lower better? MR. VOLLARO-Lower is better because a lower light is less objectionable from the road. It’s down much further. MR. BREWER-Does it bother you from the road right now? MR. MAC EWAN-I think so. MR. VOLLARO-It does me when I go up there. I looked at it. MR. BREWER-Anymore than Lowe’s, or less? MR. RINGER-It’s the same height as Lowe’s. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a different kind of lighting than Lowe’s. MR. BREWER-Is it much brighter? MR. VOLLARO-Lowe’s is Halogen lamps. They’re different. MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s down focused, where these are tilted and flooding out. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. RINGER-The CVS on Quaker looks exactly the same, though. Both times I went over to CVS to look at the lights, the lights weren’t on, but the heights were the same, or it appeared to be the same. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question, just so I’m clear in my mind here. Now you say the scenario that you have now at this site, with the 25 foot poles, is what you’d like to go with, but the two things that keep ringing here are that they still aren’t quite adjusted to the right angle, and according to your specs, they’re at the minimum now, and you say that when the lights start to age, that they won’t meet the candle power that you need to be required by the State because you’ll get fined all the time. Well, you’re at that scenario already with brand new lights. MR. MEINRENKEN-We’ve have one spot that we’ve got to look at, yes, the handicapped parking spot is minimal. We're going to have to take a look at that and see if, after adjusting, we have got any kind of a safety margin. It’s true. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. According to the drawings that you supplied us, that 15 foot scenario, even by adding an extra light pole, but bringing the height of the pole down, will exceed what you have now as a bare minimum. It’s a better scenario. MR. RINGER-Except for the aim of 60 degrees. MR. VOLLARO-That’s very subjective, Larry. If you want to talk about beam angle, we can spend some time on that. MR. RINGER-We’ve already spent a lot of time on it. MR. BREWER-I know. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m frustrated. What you have there now I personally, I think it’s just too much on the people going up and down Bay Road and turning down Cronin. MR. BREWER-How can we say that it’s too much? Now, I have a problem with us saying it’s too much when the government says it’s bare minimum at what they are, two candle power, and they’re afraid of failure because they’re going to get fined, and we’re saying it’s too much. MR. MAC EWAN-The height is where I’m dealing with, Tim. That’s where I’m coming from. MR. BREWER-I don’t see it as a problem. I mean, you’ve got Stewart’s. You’ve got the restaurant across the street. You’ve got the social security, and it’s not bothering anybody there. Is it bothering the people across the street? Have we got complaints? MR. MAC EWAN-The traffic on Bay Road. That’s the point we’re trying to make. MR. BREWER-I don’t see it as a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Tim, let me ask you a question. If you can get, fundamentally, the same lighting on the ground, almost the same lighting plan, with a 25 foot pole versus a 15 foot pole, why would you go for the higher pole in that community? I don’t understand the logic. MR. BREWER-I’m not saying that we should go for it, but if it works for them, why didn’t they come in with 10 foot poles or 15 foot poles? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know. That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer to that. All I can deal with is the stuff they gave us. MR. BREWER-Apparently, it doesn’t work for them, because they came in with 25 foot poles. MR. MAC EWAN-They came in with neither. MR. BREWER-Well, whatever. MR. RINGER-I believe they’ve done a great deal of work and come up with different scenarios, and it seems like the scenario that they’ve put in to begin with is probably, even though we may not like the 25 feet, it’s probably the best scenario that we’ve got. MR. MAC EWAN-The consensus I’m getting from the Board up here is the Board is feeling comfortable with what they’ve accomplished already. That’s what I’m getting. So there’s no point in beating this horse to death anymore. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up then? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 65-98 STEWART’S ICE CREAM (*See amended resolution), Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As per Staff’s prepared resolution. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 65-98; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/26/99, consists of the following: 1. Letter from J. Howard to L. Moore with information for ATM Lighting Analysis, Dumpster Enclosure Detail, ATM Safety Act. Map S-2 dated 11/24/98. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 8/2/99 - Copies of ATM Safety Act 2. 3/23/99 - copy of approved plan 3. 8/4/99 - Meeting Notice Letter 4. 8/14/99 - Fax to T. Lewis from L. Moore 5. 8/17/99 - Staff Notes 6. 9/10/99 - L. Moore from J. Meinrenken, GF Nat. Bank – New Information 7. 9/4/99 - Received Draw. #28004699A2 dated 6/10/99 8. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice Letter 9. 8/17/99 - Rec’d by L. Moore 10. 9/14/99 - W. Levandowski from L. Moore 11. 9/21/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve the modification to Site Plan No. 65-98 – Stewart’s Ice Cream.. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. MEINRENKEN-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. LEWIS-Thanks for the dumpster. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-I forgot it. Sorry. Footnote. The Planning Board has determined that the modification, there’s no significant change to the original site plan modification and further finds there’s no deviation from the original SEQRA findings. Legal mumbo, jumbo. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s part of the motion? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s part of the motion, yes it is. MR. RINGER-I’ll make it part of the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we need to revote on it? MR. SCHACHNER-If it’s part of the motion, and that’s what you voted on. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MOTION TO AMEND MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 65-98 STEWART’S ICE CREAM, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: The Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change to the original site plan modification, and further finds that there is no deviation from the original SEQRA findings. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st MR. MAC EWAN-In this case I’ll vote yes because Mr. Brewer left the room. AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer SITE PLAN NO. 42-99 TYPE: UNLISTED BOB BECKER/MACHNICK BUILDERS OWNER: EDWIN KING ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: DIX AVENUE AND HIGHLAND AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 8,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BUILDING FOR A BEVERAGE CENTER (6,400 SQ. FT.) AD RETAIL STORE (2,400 SQ. FT.). BEVERAGE CENTER IS A RETAIL BUSINESS IN THE PC ZONE, HC ZONES ALLOW ALL PERMITTED USES IN PC ZONES. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 8/9/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/11/99 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.3 LOT SIZE: 1.58 ACRES SECTION 179-23 BILL PETROSINO & BOB BECKER, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-99, Bob Becker/Machnick Builders, Meeting Date: September 21, 1999 Description of Project: The Site Plan was tabled at the August 24, 1999 Planning Board meeting pending a “sign-off” from Rist-Frost Associates. The applicant proposes construction of a Beverage Center and a Retail Space. Staff Notes: The applicant has indicated they will be contacting Rist-Frost and A/GFTC regarding a “sign-off” and internal traffic concerns. They would also be willing to reduce the number of parking spaces to increase green area. The additional green area and internal traffic controls may reduce internal traffic conflicts between the two businesses. A/GFTC recommended a pathway be put in place between the two businesses. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the application with the recommendations of the Beautification Committee, reduction in the number of parking spaces, and installation of internal traffic controls with the pathway.” MR. MAC EWAN-Has Rist-Frost signed off on it? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’ll read that. It’s dated September 14, 1999, it says “Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed the updated site plan and additional information from Grennon Design Associates submitted in response to our comment letter dated August 11, 1999. The additional details and information are acceptable, and we have no further comments.” Do you want me to read the DOT from Washington County? Okay. This is dated August 24, 1999, and it’s addressed to Grennon Design, it says “Robert: As discussed, the proposed entrance as detailed on Sheet SP-1, for Bill’s Beverage on State Route 32 is approved. It is understood that it will be constructed to DOT standards and a Highway Work Permit will be issued when all the proper “paperwork” is submitted. Ian Miller” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. PETROSINO-I’m Bill Petrosino. I’m the owner of the proposed building. MR. BECKER-I’m Bob Becker from Machnick Builders. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Where did we leave off last month? You’re all set with Rist-Frost, signed off on that. Beautification, you’ve already been in front of them, got approval from them. You’re reducing the parking spaces that you have now. Right? MR. BECKER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And the pathway between the McDonald’s property and your property? MR. BECKER-We’d like to discuss that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets discuss. MR. BECKER-We were quite hasty in looking at that, and we sat back and looked at that further, and the owner has some safety concerns with that, and we just read a comment from the McDonald’s also that shows safety concern for that, mainly because that sidewalk drops people right at the drive through drive out, right into traffic. I feel there’s not that much commonality between the two facilities where there would be a great need to walk back and forth between the two, and the potential liability of that sidewalk may overshadow the potential benefit. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s well argued. Anything else? MR. BECKER-As we’ve drawn the sidewalk, it empties into a quieted area of shrubberies and bushes, and the only other place to put it would be into a parking spot or into the direct traffic of the drive through or into the roadway, and in hindsight, it does not look like a very good idea. I’d like you to consider that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. BREWER-Not yet. MR. RINGER-No, nothing right now. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything right now. I want to talk a little bit, I want to hear a little bit more about this new walkway, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Allen? Bob? MR. PETROSINO-I can make a comment about the sidewalk. I have a phobia about sidewalks. I have 70 apartments in the last five years, two people have slipped, and I've been sued twice. They have high liabilities. That sidewalk where it’s proposed is just the reverse of what seems like a practical solution to thoroughfare traffic walking between the two properties. Because the drive through, and not the entrance, is at the McDonald’s site. McDonald’s is turned just reverse of what would make the sidewalk practical. That sidewalk sort of empties right to where the drive through is starting out. So people are picking up their food and not looking for somebody walking on a sidewalk, and are going to the exit, and I just think that it’s a liability issue that really bothers me. I am also Chairman of my own hometown planning in the City of Amsterdam, and if you feel really strongly about it, I would just suggest that we tabled it for review in a year to see if the traffic flow between the two is such that would warrant a sidewalk, but I think to start the project, considering the location of the drive through, I think it’s maybe not the best conceived idea. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions from up on the Board? MR. BREWER-I wasn’t here at the last meeting. Traffic was not a concern? Not at all? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-No, not really. MR. BECKER-Traffic was a concern with Rist-Frost in the area of the entrance with stacking, and there was a concern of traffic coming off of Dix Avenue, for getting people out of that shared entrance into the Beverage Center property, an so we reduced two parking spaces and made a green area to give greater stacking ability for people coming in to get out of the way of the flow of traffic, and Rist-Frost, as we did, felt it was a good solution to avoid congestion at that shared entrance. The Department of Transportation on Hiland Avenue had absolutely no problem with the traffic in that situation there. In fact, we sent it to Albany anticipating more comment on it than they did, and they sent it right back to the regional office in Washington County. MR. BREWER-I guess the reason I ask that is because less than, was it a year ago, two years ago, Dunkin Donuts was in, and we rejected that project because of the traffic concern. Granted it was on the other side of the street, the location was different. In my mind it’s the same effect. You’re adding more cars onto the street. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was on Main Street. MR. BREWER-This here, right across the street. MR. MAC EWAN-The Dunkin Donuts was on the opposite side of the road. It was right on the blind portion of the corner, where when we did the McDonald’s, before we did the McDonald’s, we knew this was going to be a two lot commercial subdivision. MR. BREWER-We didn’t have any idea it was going to be there, Craig. I’m not arguing the point. I’m just bringing the question up. I guess traffic was not a concern of anybody’s, and I’m just raising the question. That’s all. MR. RINGER-We did discuss traffic at the last meeting, and everyone seemed to realize that it is a busy, busy intersection there, but sharing a driveway, we thought it was better than having a new (lost words) which was what they presented, and there was no other solution, other than saying you couldn’t put anything there. MR. MAC EWAN-Also, in last month’s meeting, when we discussed that Hiland Avenue/Dix Avenue intersection there, Washington County’s planning on doing some revamping of that intersection. Is that what we said last month, some changing of the signaling or something? MR. BECKER-They hadn’t indicated any of that to us. MR. MAC EWAN-Wasn’t that in some of our documentation, something? MR. BECKER-They wanted us to make sure that signs and plantings didn’t obscure any existing signs or signaling that they had and site lines that were already in place, and we have assured them of that and sent a site plan to them, and made sure that didn’t happen. Additional, they were concerned about drainage, to make sure that all our drainage was contained on the property, not contributing to the State highway, which it’s not. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Sidewalks and liability are a hot topic in this Town as of late. MR. VOLLARO-So, are they proposing just the deletion of the sidewalk going over toward McDonald’s? MR. MAC EWAN-That is correct. MR. BECKER-Right in your own letter from McDonald’s also suggests the same thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I think that was right in last month, wasn’t it? MRS. MOORE-No, it was not. MR. MAC EWAN-It was not? MRS. MOORE-I have new information for the public hearing, or letters for the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Okay. We left the public hearing open. If anyone wants to comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. We’ve got letters? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MRS. MOORE-Yes. This is dated 9/21/99 from Clark W. Brink, owner of Dix Avenue McDonald’s, “General Observations and Potential Concerns: 1. Dix Ave. (shared) entrance/exit current “Y” design will help slow down on site through traffic (good) 2. A street light located in grassy area south of intersection by walkway will increase safety and visibility 3. Current walkway terminates in a landscaped/treed flower bed located on McDonald’s property – will need to address. 4. Flies and vermin from dumpster may impact drive thru service windows 5. Additional landscaping for line of sight from Dix Ave. (heading east-southeast) which shields west side of building would be an enhancement. 6. Traffic safety is my greatest concern with Dix Ave. exit/entrance McDonalds drive through and the family (kids) nature of my customers. Generally I support proposal” And then I have a letter dated September 3. It’s addressed to Mr. Becker. “I’m rd writing to address traffic at the planned shared entrance with McDonald’s Restaurant and this project. The shared entrance is a compatible use since the fast food restaurant attracts most of its traffic in the morning and early afternoon, while the highest traffic levels for the beverage center are in the late afternoon and evening hours. Internal traffic at the shared entrance, therefore, will remain at fairly consistent levels throughout the day. If you have any other concerns, I would be more than willing to discuss this with you. Thank you. Sincerely, Bill Petrosino” And that’s all the comments I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. BREWER-You had somebody that wanted to speak. MR. MAC EWAN-Did we have somebody that wanted to speak? I’m sorry. I’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MARK LANGWORTHY MR. LANGWORTHY-My name is Mark Langworthy. I live just around the corner from the proposed site, and I’m really concerned about the traffic, the flow of traffic, and my wife and I and our neighbors are in and out of our driveway several times a day. Many, many times we’ve sat there five, six minutes trying to get in or out of the driveway. Several occasions, we’ve almost been hit. I’ve seen accidents in front of my house, on the corner, and I’m not opposed to new business in the area. I’m just very concerned about the traffic. It’s terrible to try and get in and out of our driveways. I’ve sat there in back of traffic myself, waiting to get in at night, say five o’clock coming home from work. I’ve had traffic backed up all the way around the corner, almost up to McDonald’s, just to turn into my driveway, because I’m sure all of you know that it’s very rare that someone will stop and let you go through. Everyone’s in a big hurry to get somewhere. I’m just concerned, even if this business only brings in another 50 or 100 cars a day in and out of their parking lot, that’s another 50 to 100 chances of myself and my family or somebody in the neighborhood, getting hit, getting killed, whatever. Again, I’m not opposed to the new business in the area. That’s not why I’m here. I’m just very concerned. I’ve spoken with the neighbors. Pretty much everyone feels the same. I don’t know why there’s no more support, no one came here tonight, but they’re all concerned and all have complaints about getting in and out of there, you know, the accessibility of their houses. MR. MAC EWAN-You think that the traffic they’ll generate on Dix Avenue is directly related to, like, McDonald’s and this proposed business? I mean, is it just from the volume of traffic that’s on Quaker Road these days? MR. LANGWORTHY-Well, I’ve got to believe that McDonald’s has had an impact on it. Obviously, there’s more traffic in and out of there. I’ve been stopped several times waiting for people to cross the lane to pull into McDonald’s coming from the Hudson Falls area. I’ve rounded the corner off Quaker Road onto Dix Avenue and been slowed and someone’s almost at a stop in front of King Fuels waiting people to pull into McDonald’s, and I’ve got to believe it’s going to be worse, especially if they’re going to use the same entrance and exit. People trying to get in and out, more people. I’ve got to believe it’s going to be a nightmare, to be quite honest with you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mark, where do you live, again? MR. LANGWORTHY-399 Dix Avenue. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-And where is that, again. MR. LANGWORTHY-Right next door to the firehouse, across the street from the Glens Falls Army/Navy Store. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, gotcha. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. LANGWORTHY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Now we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Now we need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a no. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. Did you say traffic patterns? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, she did. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not yet, I’m doing the drainage or flooding. Wait a minute, we did say existing traffic patterns, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, she’s got it in there. That’s why I didn’t say no right away. MR. BREWER-I’m not going to say no. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that a consensus of no on the Board? MR. BREWER-Well, if there’s a consensus, but I’m not going to agree to that. I don’t know. What’s everybody else say? Everybody else said no. MR. VOLLARO-I would say no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would say no. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RINGER-I think it’ll have an impact, but not as significant. MRS. LA BOMBARD-As far as the traffic pattern goes, no. This gentleman, Mark, here he came in, and he’s concerned about the increased traffic levels. Now, we don’t, how am I going to say this. He also said that he’s not against having a business like this coming in, but yet he’s still concerned that this is going to bring on lots of traffic. Well, that’s a moot thing. How much is a lot of traffic, and I guess what I’m saying here, if, on this last one, other impacts. Well, maybe it’s not going to alter the traffic pattern, but it may have a small effect on the whole overall corridor going through Dix Avenue at that point. Now, if that’s the case, you agree with me on that, and we want to pass this thing and say, okay, there’s a little explanation briefly, which I’m doing right now. Can it be mitigated? MR. BREWER-I don’t know. There’s another factor, Cathy, and I don’t mean to interrupt you. Proposed retail, do we know what that retail business is going to be? It gives you something to think about. Who knows what that use will be? Who knows what that use will generate? Somebody seems to know. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-My name’s Bob Sears. I’m the realtor involved in this project. There’s one question I would like to ask. Does McDonald’s have access to Highland Avenue or to Quaker Road? MR. BREWER-Through Kings. They have access through. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. SEARS-Through Kings they have, right. Here’s the other scenario, though. I think in actuality, this might have some mitigation to any traffic consequence, and that is, this has a more direct route to Highland Avenue, and easier access to Quaker Road, conceivably, through the beverage center. So you have another avenue out to Highland and to Quaker Road. This offers another alternative to the traffic pattern, as opposed to going up Dix Avenue and back on to Quaker Road, okay. So I think you have a process here that, in actuality, might improve the overall picture. Because you have another access route out of the main highway of Dix Avenue, and there’s another thing to look at here, to keep in perspective. The traffic count on Dix Avenue is about 12,500 daily, okay. Now that’s not bad. That’s a pretty heavily trafficked road, but it’s nothing like Quaker Road. Quaker Road in that area is around 21,000 daily. So I guess what I’m saying is, you have a lot of accessibility and a lot of ways out to Dix Avenue, I mean, out to Quaker Road, and any increase in traffic would be minimal, in my mind. It’s mostly people going down Dix Avenue that are going to use this. Now, Tim, to answer your other question about the 2,000 square feet retail. Number One, it won’t be a fast food. It very unlikely will be a fast food because in the covenants of the deed it says that there cannot be any meat of any nature sold on this adjoining property to McDonald’s. So that eliminates most of your fast food. MR. BREWER-I don’t have a concern with fast food. I said the use. MR. SEARS-Well, you wanted to know whether or not the use was going to increase the traffic. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. SEARS-So, typically a fast food would increase it more than anything else would, in lots of ways. MR. BREWER-That’s objective. MR. SEARS-Well, in my mind it is. As a realtor, a fast food is typically one that would increase traffic more than most, only because more people are in and out quickly, that’s all. MR. BREWER-The point being is, whoever goes to that retail spot or any similar retail spot, in my mind is going to locate because an eighth of a mile away there’s 21,000 cars going by, and right in front of you 12,000 cars are going by you daily. So you want something there that’s going to draw traffic. MR. SEARS-Absolutely, you want to take advantage of the current traffic that’s there. MR. BREWER-Absolutely, and you can’t hate anybody for that. They want to be where there is going to be a lot of action, so to speak. So, I’m just saying that, whoever might go there could be a high intensity use. I don’t know. I have no idea what is intended for that use. MR. SEARS-Well, we’re talking about Bill’s Beverage Center here. Bill’s Beverage Center is not that high intensity of a use. MR. BREWER-My concern is in and out, in and out, in and out. That’s my concern. Cars leaving this parking lot, cutting across Dix, taking a left. Maybe we should consider maybe, when we did McDonald’s, we should have considered maybe right only. I’m not, you know, that’s gone by. We didn’t do it. I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve also got to look at the phasing here, whether McDonald’s has got the majority of traffic, and how does this Beverage Center and the other building phase into the traffic? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-They may be high intensity units or moderate intensity units, three o’clock in the afternoon, where McDonald’s may be high intensity in the morning and at noon time. MR. BREWER-That’s the unknown I’m saying, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it is, but we might be able to take a look at the fact that it’s not going to be all in phase. There’s going to be some out of phase traffic there that might help the situation. MR. BREWER-I’m just saying I have a concern that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-I share your concern. I understand what you’re saying. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. SEARS-Thank you for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, we were on the last question on the SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The last one, and then Bob proposed a mitigation of we can still get out on Highland Avenue, and maybe people would go down, go south and go around to the light and get back onto Quaker where it would be a little bit safer. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re reasonably intelligent people up here that you have to look at the use of the proposed Beverage Center and how much traffic is actually going to be generated through that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, like you did say before, if you had 12 cars parked there, every hour, it would be more than full. MR. PETROSINO-If you’re not at all familiar with my other store, which is Anchor Beverage in South Glens Falls, there’s never 12 cars in front of the place, and yet I would be ecstatic to have the same business as I do now in South Glens Falls. The South Glens Falls has a much bigger traffic count going by it on a daily business, and we’re a very good sort of a corporate client. A lot of time has been spent on thinking these exact things and getting all the permits and process. It would be a shame, at this kind of late hour, with the end of September, to throw a last minute what if in front of this project. It would kill it for this fall completion. MR. BECKER-I think another to consider is under the SEQRA process the buzz word is “significant impact”, does it contribute to a significant impact? I don’t believe that the impact created by this is significant. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll hold anymore comment. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 42-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BOB BECKER/MACHNICK BUILDERS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-99 BOB BECKER/MACHNICK BUILDERS, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As per prepared resolution by Staff, with the addition that a new site plan will be submitted eliminating the sidewalk to the connecting property. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 42-99 for a Beverage Center and Retail Store; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 7/28/99, consists of the following: 1. Application, Engineers Report dated 7/99/Maps 1 & 2 dated 7/23/99, SP-1 dated 7/28/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 8/4/99 - Meeting Notice 2. 8/4/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 3. 8/9/99 - Beautification Committee recommendation 4. 8/11/99 – Rist Frost Associates review 5. 8/17/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 6. 8/24/99 - Planning Board resolution – tabled 7. 8/20/99 - A/GFTC comments 8. 8/24/99 - Staff Notes 9. 8/24/99 - Fax to T. McLaughlin 10. 8/24/99 - Record of Phone Conversation between L. Moore & C. Brink of McDonald’s 11. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice 12. 8/26/99 - Grennon Design Assoc. to L. Moore – NYS DOT approval 13. 9/10/99 - Revised Site Plan, Letter from B. Petrosino addressing shared entrance 14. 9/14/99 - Rist Frost Associates review 15. 9/21/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/24/99 and 9/15/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 42-99, Bob Becker/Machnick Builders. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st MRS. MOORE-McDonald’s asked if there could be a light at that one corner. MR. MAC EWAN-A light? What kind of a light? MR. BREWER-How high and what degree is it going to be aimed at? MRS. MOORE-McDonald’s asked if a street light located in the grassed area south of the intersection by the walkway will increase safety visibility. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have to worry about it. MR. RINGER-We’re taking the walkway out. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I just wanted to bring it up again, in case that was a question. MR. MAC EWAN-No walkway. MR. RINGER-No walkway. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. PETROSINO-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 30-99 TYPE: UNLISTED MARK RYAN OWNER: HAROLD KIRKPATRICK ZONE: WR-1A, CEA APA LOCATION: ROCKHURST APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RELOCATE A SINGLE STORY SEASONAL COTTAGE AND ADD SECOND STORY TO COTTAGE WITH MORE BEDROOMS (TWO) TO SECOND FLOOR. ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL PER SECTION 179-79. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN B. OF HEALTH VARIANCE, 7/19/99, AV 51-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-4, 5 LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 MARK RYAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 30-99, Mark Ryan, Meeting Date: September 21, 1999 “Description of Project: The application was tabled at the August 24, 1999 Planning Board meeting for additional information. The applicant proposes to move an existing building and to construct a second story to the seasonal dwelling. Staff Notes: The applicant met with the Executive Director and the Senior Building Inspector as the Board requested. The Executive Director has provided a written determination in regards to the movement of a seasonal dwelling. Please refer to the letter dated September 13, 1999. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-Yes. A letter dated September 13, 1999, addressed to Mr. Ryan. “Dear Mr. Ryan: This letter is to document our meeting on September 2, 1999 regarding your proposed construction activities permitted under the variances referenced above. The Planning Board Chairman (Craig MacEwan) conveyed concerns to our office regarding the damage of the cottage during your proposed relocation of the cottage and the resultant impacts on your variances. The area variance (AV 51-99), issued August 18, 1999, allows you to relocate a 518 square foot cottage at the location identified on the plot plan attached with the variance. The septic variance; Resolution No. 36, dated July 19, 1999, allows the installation and use of a holding tank for sewage disposal for the seasonal use cottage. If damage occurs to the cottage in transit or you choose to construct a seasonal cottage in lieu of relocating the existing cottage the variances only restrict the size, location and seasonal use of the facility. You would be permitted to construct a seasonal use (no heat or insulation) cottage of 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) like size at the location indicated on the variance application. Sincerely, Town of Queensbury Chris Round Director of Community Development” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. RYAN-Hi. My name is Mark Ryan. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we got that cleared up, I guess. Any questions from any Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I think Chris’ letter says it all for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions from the applicant? MR. RYAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-He just wants to get going. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we need to do a SEQRA. I’ll open up the public hearing first. Does anyone want to comment to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. LA BOMBARD-The Short Form, right? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we go any farther, Mark, can you clarify something for me? Why are we doing an Unlisted SEQRA EAF for a CEA, Waterfront Residential One Acre, when other applications are Type II and we don’t do anything? MRS. MOORE-This is proposing a relocation. MR. MAC EWAN-Just because of that? MRS. MOORE-That was my understanding from reading what the SEQRA Reg’s say. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Sorry. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 30-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MARK RYAN, 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 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-99 MARK RYAN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, and with the addition that Dr. Kirkpatrick gives his permission with the property as outlined, that he receives a deed from Dr. Kirkpatrick for the property in question. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 30-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/25/99, consists of the following: 1. Application, Map SP-1 dated 5/16/99, Map S-1 revised 4/27/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Copy of Septic Variance 2. 6/3/99 - Meeting Notice letter 3. 6/3/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation 4. 6/8/99 - LGPC Meeting Notice letter re: H. Kirkpatrick 5. 6/15/99 - LGPC to M. Ryan 6. 6/15/99 - M. Ryan to Zoning Administrator 7. 6/17/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 8. 6/24/99 - Staff Notes 9. 6/24/99 - LGPC to H. Kirkpatrick 10. 7/7/99 - LGPC Meeting Notice 11. 7/7/99 - Meeting Notice 12. 7/15/99 - C. Brown, Code Compliance Officer to M. Gallagher 13. 8/4/99 - Meeting Notice 14. 8/6/99 - M. Ryan to L. Moore – New Signature form and new short EAF. 15. 8/17/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 16. 8/18/99 - LGPC to M. Ryan 17. 8/18/99 - Zoning Board of Appeals resolution 18. 8/20/99 - R. Thorn to C. LaBombard, Planning Bd. secretary 19. 8/20/99 - Holding Tank Map 20. 8/24/99 - Staff Notes 21. 8/25/99 - New Information – Site Dev. Data, FAR sheet, various drawings 22. 8/24/99 - Planning Bd. resolution – Tabled 23. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice Letter 24. 9/13/99 - C. Round to M. Ryan 25. 9/21/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/17/99 and 9/21/99 concerning the above project; and 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 30-99, Mark Ryan. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st MRS. MOORE-Can I add something to that? That you make it contingent on approval that he obtains Dr. Kirkpatrick’s permission to utilize the property that he’s outlined on his map. MR. VOLLARO-I thought that was with prior permission? MRS. MOORE-He has the authorization to act, he signed that. MR. MAC EWAN-He needed to get this approval before he got his subdivision. Is that not correct? MR. VOLLARO-I thought so. MRS. MOORE-No, we’re not talking about a subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-No, he’s buying this actual piece of property. MRS. MOORE-Right. He needs site plan approval, my understanding, before Dr. Kirkpatrick will provide him with the piece of property. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MRS. MOORE-So if you want to add it, I’d like to see you add it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now is this going to be a deed that he receives with this property? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. How are you going to track that he gets permission? MRS. MOORE-When he applies for a building permit, he’ll need to do that so that he’s in compliance with his variance. MR. VOLLARO-But he’s going to own the property. So he’s going to have to have a deed from Dr. Kirkpatrick giving him that property, ownership. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BREWER-But when you get a building permit, you’ve got to show deed? MRS. MOORE-He has to show compliance with his variance, and to do so the deed would need to be shown. MR. BREWER-All right. I see what you’re saying. MR. RYAN-For my variance. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. BREWER-For your variance. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Finally, you’re all set. MR. RYAN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Move it gingerly. MR. RYAN-There’s an option there. I don’t have to move it. MR. VOLLARO-Listen, that option was always there, I think. MR. RYAN-In the letter it says I can move it or. MR. VOLLARO-Or build new. MR. RYAN-Build new. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. It’s a lot easier to build new than it is to move that. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 43-99 TYPE II DAVID & LINDA JOHNSON OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 347 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 1,650 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING THAT WILL INCLUDE EXPANSION OF GREAT ROOM, KITCHEN, SCREENED PORCH, A NEW MASTER BEDROOM, BATHROOM AND LAUNDRY ROOM. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/8/99 TAX MAP NO. 14-1-9.1 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 BOB FLANSBURG, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 43-99, David & Linda Johnson, Meeting Date: September 21, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing dwelling. The addition will be single story and consist of a new bedroom, laundry room, bathroom and an expansion of a great room and kitchen. Staff Notes: The proposed addition meets the requirements of the zoning code. The applicant’s drawing shows an addition that is in compliance with the setback requirements for the waterfront residential zone. The applicant proposes to install a new septic system that will be in compliance with the Town’s septic codes. The applicant has also indicated that there are no nearby wells and that drinking water will be drawn from the lake. The applicant has indicated that the stormwater generated from the new addition will be maintained on site. There does not appear to be any visual interference. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County? MRS. MOORE-No County Impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. FLANSBURG-Good evening. I’m Bob Flansburg. I’m the engineer for David & Linda Johnson for this project. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about the project please. MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. The applicant proposes to basically put an addition on the south side of the house, 16 feet wide, north to south, and to match the existing east to west, the depth of the house, with an additional six feet on the front. So we are coming out, we propose to come out another six feet, beyond the existing, toward Cleverdale Road. As stated earlier, there will be one additional bedroom, and that’s the master bedroom. That’ll be in the new addition. I’m not sure if you have any of these drawings, the eight scale floor plans. Okay. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. VOLLARO-I can’t read the dimensions on them. MR. FLANSBURG-Okay. Basically, it’s enlarging the kitchen and the great room, and providing a new master bedroom, master bath, walk-in closet and a laundry area, and a mud entry, and the exterior of the house would be re-sided, and get basically a new surface treatment. I will say that in planning this project the roofline, the height of the property, was designed so as to effect that as minimally as possible. So I’ve given the height on the drawing. I believe above the existing roofline, we’re all of maybe three feet higher than what it is now, in the new portion only, and you can see that from the elevations provided. MRS. MOORE-Can you just clarify what the height of that is? MR. FLANSBURG-Sure. From the ground, I guess, well, let me do it this way. Off of the first floor sub-floor there is 16 feet 4 inches, plus or minus. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. FLANSBURG-The front, or I should say the lakeside, is, the 12 feet closest to the lake is just an expansion of the existing screened porch. So that falls under the covered porches. MR. MAC EWAN-The existing house now has only two bedrooms, right, you’re adding a bedroom? MR. FLANSBURG-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s your septic system like up there? MR. FLANSBURG-Existing? There’s a septic tank, I believe, is a 1,000 gallon tank in there now, and about 140 feet of trench, which is basically an “S” shaped single trench emanating from the tank. That was put in back in the 70’s, early 70’s. What we’re proposing is a brand new septic system, using an Elgin system, which is recently approved in New York State by the Board of Health, earlier this year back in March, and I’ve used a few of them myself, specked a few of them, and I understand they’re growing in popularity around the lake. MR. MAC EWAN-Specifically what are they, what’s different about them? MR. FLANSBURG-What it involves is a four by three mat, on the order of six to eight inches deep. So it’s a man made mat, as opposed to a standard trench system, and it operates on all the same principles. It’s just that you have increased effectiveness of your bio mat, so that the waste gets treated much more effectively in a much smaller area. So you can reduce the footprint of what would be normally a conventional absorption trench system to about a third to a half of its size. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the life expectancy of the mat versus like a tile field or something? MR. FLANSBURG-I think they’ve tested them over 15 years, and they expect it to be all of 30 years. MR. MAC EWAN-So just hypothetically, if it lasted 20 years, you just dig it up, you take it out, and you put a new one in its place? MR. FLANSBURG-That’s correct. They’re growing in popularity, especially in the lake areas, and in my opinion, anything you can do to improve the septic systems in and around Lake George, I’m all for it. MR. VOLLARO-This is in lieu of the PVC lateral, the poles? MR. FLANSBURG-That’s what’s there now. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s going to replace? MR. FLANSBURG-We’re going to take that out and put the new system in, in basically the same area. MR. VOLLARO-Is this a rigid structure that you can put earth over and stuff like that? MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. They’re basically mats that are roughly the size of the table that are three foot by four foot, and you lay a perk pipe on top of them, and you basically put a staple over the pipe to hold it to the mats, but the effluent comes out of the pipe through this manmade material, and then you bed it in six inches of mason sand, not only under it but also on the sides. The trenches are about four foot wide, as opposed to two foot wide, for a conventional system. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re obviously not running the linear feet of the (lost word) as opposed to doing this stuff. MR. FLANSBURG-That’s right. MR. BREWER-What’s the difference in length? MR. FLANSBURG-Well, off the top of my head, I’ve done enough of them to say it’s basically the footprint, the area, ends up being about a third to a half. It’s lesser than a half. MR. BREWER-So a typical, would be like 40 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-A 100 foot run of (lost word) would be 33 feet of, or 40 feet of mat stuff. MR. FLANSBURG-Of Elgin. MR. MAC EWAN-Considering the size of some of the lots up in the Cleverdale/Assembly Point/Rockhurst area, it would be beneficial. MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, and this was approved back in March, I believe. I have a letter, because I’ve used it previously on a few design jobs. So this application seemed to fit. That way we don’t have to disturb, we can meet the various setbacks and so on without all that great of an effort. MR. MAC EWAN-Obviously, it must be cost effective, too. MR. FLANSBURG-They really are. Generally they’re within, by the time, you don’t have to do the excavation, and you don’t have the fill, as much fill. So generally you pay more for the manmade materials that you have to buy from a distributor, but it comes out in the wash in the end, and many times in fill systems, if you have a raised bed system, they work out to be generally cheaper. MR. VOLLARO-Where can you get specks on this? Who’s got them? MR. FLANSBURG-I just got them from, the local distributor is out of Troy. His name is Fred Ryan. I don’t know if I have it with me tonight, but I can get you that information. He’s right out of Troy. Elgin, the corporation, is out of Connecticut. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-I have just one question. In looking at your small drawing here, when we were out to the site, I noticed that you’re going to be building around that building, and I see two ridges, one to one side of the chimney, and one to the other, the ridge for the new extension and the existing ridge, and the chimney is located right between the two ridges. Now, have you looked at the draft on that chimney, being between two ridges that way? MR. FLANSBURG-We’re going to have to get it up above the highest ridge, obviously, a minimum of two feet, but I like to go, you know, maybe an extra foot. MR. VOLLARO-So there will be an extension to the chimney to get above the ridge? MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. The chimney is a bit of a question mark right now. They want to try to incorporate the, leave an exposed brick chimney, and perhaps in the master bedroom, but there’s some question we may be covering it. The chimney won’t go away. The chimney will be there, and so we will have to extend it. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s four bathrooms you said? MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, at the moment. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The other two just don’t have the plumbing fixtures. MR. FLANSBURG-The plumbing fixtures in them, that’s correct. The client is, the applicant is basically proposing that each bedroom have its own bath. MR. BREWER-Just a question on the test pits. Why such a variation in the two pits? MR. FLANSBURG-The perc tests? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. BREWER-The perc tests, I’m sorry. MR. FLANSBURG-Well, that’s a good point. I was out there in two days, and I got rained on, and I dug four holes. The first two feet of soil has some larger cobble in it, rock, not bedrock, but large, from what I could see out there in the test pit that we did dig, on the order of eight inches and so on. So I was unlucky in the first two holes. I had to bag those, and I hit them at two foot down. So I found two holes, and I dug a third. I went back the following day, had one of my guys go back the following day and do a third test, and we were getting on the order of, I think the highest was 12 minutes, and they were tending to more or less seem in the same area. I used in design 15 minutes. So I went beyond what my perc tests were. MR. BREWER-Right, but I just, test hole number one is average two minutes. Test hole two is average nine minutes, ten minutes. MR. FLANSBURG-Test hole number two, yes, I see what you’re saying. MR. BREWER-Do you see what I’m saying, the variation in. MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. I went with, all I can say is, in this area, there is an existing septic system now. So, the first hole, I wanted to get these two perc test holes in the area of the proposed system, which happens to be the same, and I can’t explain it. This never happened to me before, but I’ve dug the first hole. I would say that we’re digging in material that was placed there when the first system was put in, and I went off, in trying to maintain in the same footprint, and I found more indicative soil of what I think is actually there, and that’s the second hole, which is the eight to twelve minutes perc. So all I can assume from that is I would err on the side of being conservative and go with the 15 minute perc. I’d be happy to go out and do that perc test again, prior to the system going in. I don’t think you can be too sure, but I don’t expect the results to be anything different. MR. BREWER-Just curiosity. I don’t know if it’s any indication of anything or not, I mean. Does everybody else see what I’m saying? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but his, P-1, you’re digging that and doing those holes in areas where you’ve got an existing system now. Is that right? MR. FLANSBURG-P-1, I believe, is, P-2 is not, but P-1 is, again, we’re going from a hand drawn sketch that’s over 20 years old. So I can only guess where the existing system really falls. I know it’s in that area. MR. VOLLARO-It seems odd that in P-1 you’ve got a much faster perc than you have in P-2. You would think it would be the other way around, that P-1 would perc very, very slowly, because it’s near saturation, probably, at this point. MR. FLANSBURG-But you’re down, again, two feet. I’ve got one lateral that does an “S” through there. I don’t know how close I am and how much it’s effected by the existing system. MR. BREWER-Can I ask a question of somebody here? Would that be any indication of anything, Tom? The perc rate. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Without seeing the soils and the hole, Tim, I really couldn’t tell you. MR. BREWER-It just doesn’t mean anything. MR. NACE-Up around the lake, soils will vary, okay. You can run into areas where you have lenses of tighter, finer material, more siltly material, even some clay. MR. BREWER-It probably doesn’t mean anything, then. It’s just an observation. I just see such a variation. MR. FLANSBURG-I would have been alarmed had it been 30 minutes, or something drastically. If I’m within six minutes, then I’m going to design for a fifteen minute perc anyway. I decided that, okay, that’s good enough and we’ll go with that, but that’s the first time that’s ever happened to me in such a small area. So I didn’t know what to make of that. MR. VOLLARO-Actually, the closer to the lake you are, the better you are if you’ve got a 15 minute perc, as opposed to the 2 minute. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, that’s true. I think, from the deep hole test, from what I could see out there, two minutes surprised me. So I don’t know why it did what it did. As I say, we can go out and do another perc test prior to putting this system in. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from members of the Board? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment to this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have two comments. I have a Record of Telephone Conversation dated 9/21/99. This individual Eric Schroeder has no problem as long as it doesn’t adversely effect stormwater runoff. Provisions should be made for stormwater runoff. I received this one on 9/13/99, it says “To Whom It May Concern: This will verify that on the premises of 349 Cleverdale Road, there is no water well uptake. We take our drinking water from Lake George. We have been owners of this property for over 27 years and year round residents for more than 15 years.” And this is from the O’Brien’s that live at 349 Cleverdale Road. That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-99 DAVID AND LINDA JOHNSON, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 43-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/25/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/map SP-1 dated 8/26/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice 2. 9/9/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 3. 9/13/99 – R & M O’Brien 4. 9/14/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 5. 9/16/99 - Application to access records – 6. 9/21/99 - Staff Notes 7. 9/21/99 - Record of Phone Conversation – M. Gagliardi – Planning Office & E. Schroeder 8. 9/17/99 - Elevations 9. 8/23/99 - Percolation test rates Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/21/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 43-99 for David & Linda Johnson. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. FLANSBURG-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW OWNER: D’AMBROSIO TEXTILE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 24.71 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 LOTS OF 2.97 AC, 2.48 AC, 2.49 AC, 7.86 AC, AND 7.78 ACRES FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. TAX MAP NO. 137-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 24.71 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 12-1999, Preliminary and Final, William Threw, Meeting Date: September 21, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a five-lot subdivision for an industrial park. Staff Notes: The applicant has complied with the subdivision requirements. The applicant proposes large lots to accommodate septic, fire access, building and site amenities. Recommendations: Staff recommends the approval of the subdivision application for preliminary and final.” MRS. MOORE-I’m going to read through the Rist-Frost comments. They’re dated September 10, 1999 “Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced application and have the following comments: 1. We recommend that the plans include the following notes: a. Individual lot grading shall conform to Section A183-25 of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury. b. The scale should be noted on Drawing S-1. c. A note stating who will be responsible for maintaining the cul-de-sac island. d. The final plans should identify monuments in accordance with Section A183-20 of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 2. Will the developer maintain new road as a private right-of-way or will the road be turned over to the Town? 3. The new water main will require review by the Town of Queensbury Water Department. 4. The curb cut and roadway design will require review by the Town of Queensbury Highway Department. 5. If the documents are accepted as the final submission, they should include the seal and signature of a licensed professional engineer or licensed land surveyor with appropriate exemption. Please call if you have any questions.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing Nace Engineering and Bill Threw, and Van Dusen and Steves. I guess my only reaction would be to answer that, yes, we will comply with all of Rist-Frost’s comments. I would submit for the record that we are proposing that the road be a Town road and be accepted by the Town, as thus the cul de sac, the island of the cul de sac, is Town property and would be owned and maintained by the Town, as normal. The rest of the comments we’ll obviously comply with before asking the Planning Board to sign the final documents. MR. VOLLARO-This will be a road built to Town spec’s? MR. NACE-Yes, it’s designed and will be built to Town spec’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Considering that most of the traffic on that road is going to be truck traffic, do you think maybe it should be a little bit wider to handle truck traffic, or do you feel it’s adequate to handle, turning radiuses and everything else? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. NACE-It’s more than adequate, turning radiuses are fine. All of the, you know, no trucks will really be going around the entire cul de sac. Anyone that far back will be entering one of those back two lots. So they’ll turn around on the lot before they come back, but the cul de sac is adequate for tractor trailer turnaround. It’s a standard Town cul de sac. The width is, you know, normal 24 feet. In fact, there are a lot of County roads around here that are less than 24 feet of travel lane. MR. VOLLARO-So that when we get to the next one, the 100,000 square foot warehouse is in the upper left hand corner. MR. NACE-That’s the lower left. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to orient myself to that drawing. So long as we’re in compliance with the Rist-Frost letter, I’m satisfied. MR. BREWER-The only other question I have is, are these lots in the back subject to subdivision again, Tom? MR. NACE –No . Well, nobody, at this point, intends to subdivide these again. I suppose they’re large enough that if somebody really wanted to, although it would be tough to get the 40 foot of frontage. MR. BREWER-That’s my concern. MR. NACE-No. It’s nobody’s intent to subdivide them again. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-And as you can see from the site plan for the one lot, you know, the building takes up the lot. MR. BREWER-Well, the other lot potentially could be, but. MR. NACE-Yes, it’s certainly not the intent. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add, Tom? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment to this application? This is for the subdivision only. If you want to come up and make a comment, we’ll welcome you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WILLIAM THREW, 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: 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1999 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: As prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Sub. 12-1999; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/25/99, consists of the following: 1. Preliminary and Final stage application w/map S-1, S-2, S-3 dated 8/25/99 2. Stormwater Management Report dated 8/25/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice 2. 9/10/99 – Rist Frost Associates 3. 9/21/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/21/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Subdivision No. 12-1999, William Threw – Preliminary Stage. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-With one question. Do we have the notifications? MR. NACE-Yes. I just gave them to Laura. MR. MAC EWAN-We wouldn’t have got the far if she didn’t. Does someone want to put a motion up for Final? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1999 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As prepared by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Sub. 12-1999; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/25/99, consists of the following: 1. Preliminary and Final stage application w/map S-1, S-2, S-3 dated 8/25/99 2. Stormwater Management Report dated 8/25/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice 2. 9/10/99 – Rist Frost Associates 3. 9/21/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/21/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Subdivision No. 12-1999, William Threw – Final Stage. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. SITE PLAN NO. 44-99 TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW OWNER: D’AMBROSIO TEXTILE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 100,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE WITH 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) LOADING DOCKS AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. ALL USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 12-1999 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 9/7/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/8/99 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 24.71 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JIM MILLER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 44-99, William Threw, Meeting Date: September 21, 1999 “Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 100,000 square foot warehouse with associated site work. Staff Notes: The applicant has complied with the site plan review requirements for the construction of the warehouse. The building has the appropriate access, parking, and internal traffic control for deliveries. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Rist-Frost’s letter. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to start with the first one they sent? MR. MAC EWAN-September 14’s. th MRS. MOORE-September 14 is the final one they sent. th MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got one earlier than that, don’t we. Yes, start with September the 10. th MRS. MOORE-Okay. A letter dated September 10, 1999, “Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed the documents forwarded to us along with the above referenced site plan and have the following comments: 1. Construction details for the new retaining wall at the loading dock should be provided. 2. Curb cut will require review by the Town of Queensbury Highway Department. 3. Water main will require review by the Town of Queensbury Water Department.” I’ll read the Miller Associates comment, dated September 14, 1999, it says “Dear Chris: In response to the letter that I received from Thomas Center of Rist Frost Associates, I am enclosing a detail of a concrete retaining wall that will be constructed along each side of the loading dock. The detail will be included on the final plan.” A letter dated September 14, 1999 “Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed the updated construction details submitted in response to our comment letter dated September 10, 1999. The additional details are acceptable and we have no further comments.” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name’s Jim Miller of Miller Associates, representing the applicant Bill Threw. In with me is Tom Nace of Nace Engineering. I put the subdivision down so that we can see the lot that the proposed warehouse building is Lot Five, 7.78 acre lot, to the rear of the new subdivision, and you can see it’s located off the cul de sac. So the main access will be down and directly into the lot. You were talking about the circulation as to how we would access that lot. The 100,000 square foot warehouse will be a pre-engineered metal building. It’s located to accommodate a minimum of 50 foot fire access all the way around, because of the size and type of the building. The building will be sprinklered. There’s also a complete fire access road around the property. In addition, for fire protection, we have to have hydrants located a minimum of 500 feet from any point of the building. So we’re extending the eight inch water main to the building for sprinklers and extending six inch water lines to each of the two hydrants. The main access, as I said before, comes off the cul de sac. There’ll be five loading bays, right at the corner of the building. So access will come in and back into those bays. The required parking is 100 spaces. We don’t anticipate we need that much parking. However, some of that parking space will probably be used to accommodate some truck parking. So the intent is to put in the required parking, and spaces that aren’t used could be available for trucks. There’s a handicapped parking and handicapped access to the main entry door. There’s only one primary door, which comes into a small Office Manager’s space inside the building. The rest is open warehousing with the exception of some bathrooms for employees. The only other exits for the building are required fire exits. Lighting, it will be all building mounted, just security/emergency lighting at the exits, and there’ll be lighting, building mounted, at the loading docks. There’ll be no other additional site lighting. The site will be essentially cleared for grading. We’re going to try to maintain some of the existing trees and hedgerow along the property. We’re surrounded by Light Industrial property, light industrial to the rear. I believe Pro Craft is to this side. Some additional property of Mr. Threw and some undeveloped light industrial to the south, and then additional lots for the light industrial subdivision. The storm drainage will be contained on the site. It’ll be a pitched roof in two directions. So large infiltration trenches are located along each side, five foot wide, to collect roof water. In addition, there’ll be drywells, connected by perforated pipe, which would take any overflow from the infiltration trenches. In addition there’s drywells, connected all through perforated pipe, to infiltrate any water from the parking area. So all storm drainage is contained on the site. There’ll be a freestanding entry sign identifying the property, with 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) some accent shrubs and flowered trees, some groupings of Blue Spruce behind it to dress up the entrance, even though it is a warehouse facility, and then some planting and some shade trees coming in to the entrance, and near the entry of the building. Everything else will just be graded, seeded, mowed grass area. MR. MAC EWAN-The site doesn’t require a retention pond, I mean, considering the size of the building? MR. MILLER-No. Because of the soils that we have, with percs of about a minute, what we’ve done, well, we actually have some ponding areas, but it’s not required. What we do is, the entire stone trench area is five foot wide by three foot deep, will collect water and infiltrate it, plus all the drywells are connected by infiltration trench. So all of that water will be infiltrated into the soil, but what we’ve done is we’ve located the drywells in areas where they’re lower areas. So if there was some ponding, and another Hurricane Floyd, if there was some ponding, it happens off of the pavements until it’s allowed to drain down in. MR. MAC EWAN-Is this warehouse going to be used by Encore? MR. MILLER-That’s the intent right now, is they’re leasing some space next door. They’re looking for a larger building. They’re probably going to vacate one of the 50,000 square foot buildings and move into this one. MR. MAC EWAN-Is this basically to replace the one they lost down in the Town of Moreau? MR. MILLER-I don’t know. I don’t know that. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t know what type of material is going to be stored in it? MR. MILLER-They store bulk paper. What they typically have been doing on the adjacent site is, as product is manufactured, they have limited warehousing at their manufacturing plant, so product is placed into the tractor trailers, and when a trailer is full, then it’s taken to this warehouse facility, where it’s stored until, again, bulk, it’s shipped out. So the advantage to us is that there’s a minimum amount of traffic, where there’s full trucks coming and full trucks going out. So it’s not heavy traffic considering the size of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-So this warehouse is going to store finished materials versus raw materials? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And the warehouse construction is all pre-fab concrete type? MR. MILLER-No, it’ll be pre-engineered metal building, but it’ll all be a sprinklered building. MR. MAC EWAN-Wasn’t the one in Moreau sprinklered, too? MR. MILLER-I don’t know. MR. BREWER-No, there wasn’t. Only after it caught fire. MR. RINGER-The truck parking, is that truck storage or truck parking that you’re going to have there? We’re not going to use the parking for the cars. MR. MILLER-Well, the number of employees there varies, depending on the type of. MR. RINGER-I guess my concern is, when I hear truck parking, it means tractor trailers are going to be stored there. Are tractor trailers just going to be stored there? MR. MILLER-Well, what they’ll probably do is, they don’t have the room at their plant. So if they have some additional trucks that are available for shipping, and they’re not using them, they’ll probably store some here, yes. MR. BREWER-How many? MR. MILLER-I don’t know that, Tim. I know, like the other facility there, they had the two 50,000 square foot buildings, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen more than eight, ten trucks there at a time, and a lot of times they’re parked there, and then when one leaves the docks, they’ll bring one of those in. So it’s not like they’re going to store a fleet of, there’s 40 or 50 trucks there. MR. BREWER-When does construction begin, tomorrow? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) MR. MILLER-Yes, they’re very anxious to get started. I think they’re going to want to try to build this fall. MR. BREWER-And the landscaping will take place next year? MR. MILLER-Yes, probably in the spring. I think the intent would be to get the concrete and the foundations and things in utility work as quickly as possible, and the steel building could be assembled over there. MR. BREWER-Yes, because you’ve got a lot of work to do before that begins. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Anything to add, gentlemen? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, a comment on the SEQRA review. The applicant submitted two separate Short Form EAF’s, one for the subdivision, one for the site plan. In hindsight, that wasn’t really the most appropriate way to do this, due to any concern about possible segmentation. Really, under SEQRA, we should be reviewing the subdivision and the site plan together, for the purposes of potential environmental impacts. What I would urge the Board to do is, you’ve already done SEQRA review on a Short Form EAF for the subdivision. We’ve already approved that. What I would urge you to do is consider the questions, as you answer them now, as Cathy reads them, as you consider the questions, think of the entire action, the subdivision included, along with the site plan. I’m not suggesting that your answers should be different. I just want you to consider the entire thing as you answer the questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 44-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WILLIAM THREW, 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 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Now how about a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-99 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: In accordance with the resolution presented by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 44-99; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/26/99, consists of the following: 1. Application w/Stormwater Man. Report dated 8/25/99, maps S-1, SP-2 dated 8/21/99 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/2/99 - Meeting Notice letter 2. 9/7/99 - Beautification Committee recommendation 3. 9/9/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 4. 9/10/99 - Rist Frost Assoc. review comments 5. 9/14/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 6. 9/14/99 - Miller Assoc. response to RFA comments 7. 9/14/99 - Rist Frost Assoc. review comments 8. 9/21/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/21/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 44-99 for William Threw. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/21/99) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. MILLER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other matters before the Board? MRS. MOORE-I have Staff Notes to hand out for Thursday’s. MR. MAC EWAN-I have one comment for Staff, though. I love the digital pictures. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re a nice enhancement. MR. SCHACHNER-Thursday is not one of your regular meeting dates, so I’m not available, but my partner, Ben Pratt, will be here. He’ll be here late, but he’ll be here before the Indian Ridge. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask a question on Indian Ridge. Since I don’t have as much corporate memory here, as a lot of other people here do on Indian Ridge, so I’ve been reading a lot of the documents that Mark Hoffman has written. Now I recognize he has no standing here. MR. SCHACHNER-What do you mean by that? MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s, what I mean by that is people have said while he has made comments that are good for reference, but they shouldn’t be taken in the context of making a decision up or down on Indian Ridge. Now you’re getting to my question. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not getting anywhere. I’m not following you, but go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-I’m reading Mark Hoffman’s documents. Do they have impact on the decisions that this Board makes? MR. SCHACHNER-What documents are you talking about, Bob, the things that he submitted to the Planning Board previously? MR. VOLLARO-He has a letter out, and I don’t have it here. It’s with my packet. MR. SCHACHNER-A recent one. MR. VOLLARO-A recent letter that talks, what it does is it states, when he met with the contractor. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? That’s it. Meeting adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 42