Loading...
2002-02-26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE THOMAS SEGUJIC, ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 51-2000 MODIFICATION GARDEN TIME PROPERTY OWNER: GARDEN WORLD ASSOC., LLC ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 652 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION REQUEST IS TO COMBINE THE “SEASONAL PARKING” AREA WITH CURRENT PARKING; CLARIFY LIMITS OF PROPOSED FENCING; AND INSTALLATION OF AN “OFFICE/SHED”. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 109-4-11 LOT SIZE: 1.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MR. MAC EWAN-The first item on the agenda is a request for tabling for Site Plan No. 51-2000 for Garden Time, modification. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 51-2000, GARDENTIME, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Tabled until the second meeting in March, March 26 (applicant’s request, see letter dated 2/25/02). th Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to open up the public hearing and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN- No one’s here representing Beverly Tobin, so let’s move on to the next one. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE KLAK QUEENSBURY, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: KLAK QUEENSBURY, LLC AND TIMOTHY & SUSAN MONAHAN AGENT: FITZGERALD MORRIS BAKER AND FIRTH PC ZONE: PUD LOCATION: HILAND PARK PUD APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION THAT WAS CREATED WITHOUT PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. THE SUBDIVISION OCCURRED BETWEEN THE FAMILY GOLF CENTERS TO KLAK QUEENSBURY, LLC AND TIMOTHY & SUSAN MONAHAN. TOWN BD. RESOLUTION: 212.87, 446, 2001 TAX MAP NO. 290.13-1-1.1, 1.2 LOT SIZE: 65.95 AC., 22.56 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-2002, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Klak Queensbury, LLC, Meeting Date: February 26, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a two-lot subdivision that occurred in May of 2000. The applicant does not propose any development at this time. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The parcels are located to the rear of the golf course and adjacent to a few large land holdings. Topography: There is no information on topography noted on the plan. Water supply Sewage Disposal: Not applicable Drainage: Not applicable Lot sizes: Lots should be labeled as one and two. The largest parcel is 65.95 acres and the smaller lot is 22.56 acres. Future development: There is no development proposed at this time. The applicant has indicated any proposed use of the property will be reviewed under site plan. The original PUD designated this area to be developed as residential units. State Environmental Quality Review Act: Not applicable Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood 9. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): The proposal was approved for consistency by the Town Board resolution 446.2001 Staff comments: The applicant has requested several waivers. The waivers requested are appropriate because the PUD plan needs to be re-evaluated in this area when development is proposed. The project area contains wetlands and the regulations have changed since the PUD plan was approved.” MRS. MOORE-The applicant requested certain waivers from the Preliminary and Final Subdivision requirements, including such items as landscape plan and clearing plan, so to include that in your resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. FULLER-How are you? MR. MAC EWAN-Good. MR. FULLER-Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your application, Mr. Fuller? MR. FULLER-Yes. My client, Klak Queensbury, bought many parcels of land from what was Family Golf, in the bankruptcy proceeding. I think we bought after the bankruptcy proceeding. Just prior, I think a couple of days before the bankruptcy proceeding, from what I understand, Tim and Sue Monahan bought a portion of land from Family Golf. Our client subsequently bought a lot of different properties in Hiland Park from Family Golf, and we’ve turned around to sell a piece of property now and found out that it was subdivided, and that there wasn’t approval previously, and I’ve worked with Chris Round and we’ve done the maps and had it surveyed, and at this time all we’re doing is selling it. The next gentleman, I think, has admitted that he’s going to have to have site plan review, whether he wants to dig up the grass or (lost words) put in a house or anything. So, from our standpoint, we’re just looking for that retroactive approval, so that the sale can go through, then if Mr. Tatko, in turn, or the Monahans, want to come back, you know, then the PUD Regulations are going to kick in and you’re back to site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. FULLER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, are there any outstanding issues with this application? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MRS. MOORE-No, there are not. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Good evening. I think originally in the, and correct me if I’m wrong, but this is planned in the PUD as a residential development? MR. FULLER-Yes, it is. MR. STROUGH-That one rather long driveway accesses, I believe, it’s Lot Two is it? MR. VOLLARO-Your maps aren’t labeled. MR. STROUGH-Yes, they’re not labeled. MR. FULLER-We’re pulling up the survey. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and I’m looking at Rockwell Road, and I’m seeing that the lot, which is the 65.95 acre lot. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Will be accessed via a 50 foot right of way, that proceeds north of the 22.56 acre lot? MR. FULLER-No. If you look, just to the north of that, that’s showing the easement. That easement is to the lands that were previously owned by Sue and Tim Monahan. You see that right above on the map there? That easement runs to their benefit, and it runs over this entire northern boundary of this parcel. So I guess hypothetically where the lot designated as 27, do you see that on that, the four corners area kind of in there? That easement could, hypothetically, end right at that property line, but since they own two individual lots, the easement is shown on their lot as extending over that entire northern boundary. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that easement is not for the purpose of the 66 acre lot? MR. FULLER-No, it is not. It will not run to their benefit at all. This property would have to be accessed by Haviland Road. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So the 66 acre lot would be accessed by Haviland? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-All right. That was my question there. Do you know what the future owner’s development plans are? You said maybe sell them? MR. FULLER-I’m not sure what, I can’t speak on behalf of Mr. Tatko. Anything I would say would be conjecture. I’m not sure. He and I have not had specific discussions on what he wants to do, just because I don’t represent him. Again, anything that he wants to do to the property, be it one lot, I’m not, you know, from my discussions with Chris and Craig, we’re not even sure what they can do with the lot, because the topography has changed, with the golf course and things like that. So it would be speculation, I guess, for me to say what he wants to do with it. MR. STROUGH-Now “he” being Klak? MR. FULLER-Tatko. My client, if this is approved, we’re selling it. MR. STROUGH-And your client is Tim and Sue Monahan? MR. FULLER-No, Klak Queensbury. MR. STROUGH-Klak Queensbury, and they’re looking at the lots, so you’re representing them for the 23 acre lot? MR. FULLER-No, I’m here for Klak Queensbury, LLC. MR. STROUGH-Because none of this is labeled. So Klak is owner of the 66 acre lot? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And then Monahan’s the owner of the 23 acre lot. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And so you have no plan what they’re going to do with the 23 acre lot, but Klak, you don’t know any of his plans with that, either. MR. FULLER-No. The outermost control on what they could do would be what was approved in the PUD, and I understand that may have changed since. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. FULLER-So anything either party wants to do has to come back for site plan review, regardless of what they want to do. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. FULLER-They couldn’t put a shovel, I don’t believe they could put a shovel in the earth without that, coming back to you. MR. STROUGH-Unless they’re going to put one house in there. Okay. Well, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-No, it seems pretty clear. You just want to sell your position, and then anybody else that comes in would have to then come in front of this Board and explain what they want to do with it. MR. FULLER-Right. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Fine. This property, this 66 acres, looking at it, it’s kind of a funny shape. It runs, what, adjacent to the Golf Course? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And the only access, though, on Haviland Road is between Linton’s property and the Golf Course, right, that stretch there? MR. FULLER-And down, I guess, I think the stream cuts it off, down on the lower, it extends right down to the ravine, just up the road here, where that house is, there’s a, one of the houses. MR. SANFORD-Yes, okay, there’s a small little area there as well. MR. FULLER-Five hundred yards down the road, and I guess, technically, that’s an access to the property, too, but the stream cuts off that little piece right there from the upland section. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I have no questions. Thanks. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I just want to get, in my mind, what the definition of retroactive approval, what are we really saying, that this should have been approved or was approved at one time, or should have been approved some time before? MR. FULLER-Should have been. MR. VOLLARO-Should have been. Was this ever before a Board of any kind, before a Planning Board? MR. FULLER-Prior to this, I’m not sure. MR. MAC EWAN-It never was. MR. FULLER-When our clients bought it, no, Family Golf was in bankruptcy, and part of, one of their assets was numerous lots in Hiland Park, I believe with the Golf Course. So they’ve bought all these various lots, and, you know, subsequent to that we find out that, as did the Monahans, Monahans bought that property from them, and they find out now that it wasn’t approved. So, once we found that out, I contacted the Town, Chris, and said what do we need to do to make this right. So, yes, it should have come before you when they subdivided it in the initial instance. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. VOLLARO-So you just need this subdivision approval for sale? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Is that where we’re at? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it, Mr. Chairman, right now for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Where would the access come from for your property, for the 65 acres? How would you get on it? MR. FULLER-I think we’ve also supplied the initial PUD map. I believe it’s a cover map, from one of the parts of Hiland Park, and I think it shows a road across from Meadowbrook in that area, and then the road was, initially, when they first envisioned it, the road was to extend down around, behind the Linton property, into a, there was supposed to be some 20 or 30 houses. MR. RINGER-I see that 65 acres actually comes down into Haviland. I didn’t see that. All right. That answered my question. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything other than that, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. FULLER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE MONDELLA MR. MONDELLA-Yes, I have a question. Hi. My name is Joe Mondella. The easement between the Bowen property and I guess this is Linton, is this what we’re talking about is the access, that little driveway? MR. FULLER-No. MR. MONDELLA-Okay. So this would not be affected by this? MR. FULLER-No, and again, any, if I could comment back to him. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. FULLER-Any proposed use, A, has to come back to them. MR. MONDELLA-Right. MR. FULLER-Before anything can be done, and I think just from a practical standpoint, the stream’s right here. MR. MONDELLA-Yes. MR. FULLER-So, if they were to, if they wanted to put a bridge over that stream that’s got to get by them, and I don’t know how susceptible they are. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. MONDELLA-Okay. So the new accesses, where are they? MR. FULLER-Right here, right across from Meadowbrook Road, there’s 484 feet of road front. MR. MONDELLA-Thank you. MR. FULLER-You’re welcome. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. We don’t need to do a SEQRA on this. It’s part of the PUD. I’ll entertain a motion for Preliminary, if someone wants to put one up. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2002 KLAK QUEENSBURY, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 1-2002, Klak Queensbury, LLC. PRELIMINARY STAGE. Property Owner: Klak Queensbury, LLC and Timothy & Suzanne Monahan. Agent: Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth PC. Zone: PUD. Location: Hiland Park PUD. Applicant requests approval of a two lot subdivision that was created without Planning Board approval. The subdivision occurred between Family Golf Centers to Klak Queensbury, LLC and Timothy & Suzanne Monahan. Town Bd. Resolution: 212.87, 446,2001. Tax Map No. 290.13-1-1.1, 1.2. Lot size: 65.95 ac., 22.56 ac. Section: Subdivision Regulations, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 12/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 2/22/02; 2/26 Staff Notes 2/19 Notice of Public Hearing 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held 2/26/02 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application for Preliminary Stage is approved with the following comment: 1. In that resolution, an approval to delete the paragraph talking to the SEQRA. Duly adopted this 26th day of February 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2002 KLAK QUEENSBURY, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 1-2002, Klak Queensbury, LLC. FINAL STAGE. Property Owner: Klak Queensbury, LLC and Timothy & Suzanne Monahan. Agent: Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth PC. Zone: PUD. Location: Hiland Park PUD. Applicant requests approval of a two lot subdivision that was created without Planning Board approval. The subdivision occurred between Family Golf Centers to Klak Queensbury, LLC and Timothy & Suzanne Monahan. Town Bd. Resolution: 212.87, 446,2001. Tax Map No. 290.13-1-1.1, 1.2. Lot size: 65.95 ac., 22.56 ac. Section: Subdivision Regulations, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 12/01; 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 2/22/02; 2/26 Staff Notes 2/19 Notice of Public Hearing 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held 2/26/02 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application for Final Stage is approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The request for waivers listed in the December 19, 2001 letter from Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker & Firth, P.C. is approved, and 2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 4. All conditions are to be noted on the final mylar submitted for the Chairman’s signature in a form to read as follows: “Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 2/26/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:” 1. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-What was the date of that letter, John? MR. STROUGH-December 19. th MR. RINGER-December 19, 2001. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Fuller. MR. FULLER-Thank you for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 8-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED BEVERLY TOBIN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 196 LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES PEAKED ROOF OF BOATHOUSE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A FLAT ROOF AND DECK WITH RAILING AND STAIRS. SECTION 179-16 REQUIRES COVERED DOCKS TO RECEIVE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 5-2002 LGPC, APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 8-1-5, 8-1-27 LOT SIZE: 1.06 ACRES SECTION 179-16 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-2002, Beverly Tobin, Meeting Date: February 26, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant proposes the removal a peaked roof over a boathouse and replacing it with a 711 square foot sundeck. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The construction of a sundeck is an allowed use in the WR-1A zone 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? Not applicable. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Not applicable. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? No impacts anticipated. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The overall sundeck is 711 square feet with about 525 square feet of useable space. The sundeck is being constructed with a flat roof and the railing is enclosing the useable space. The U-shaped dock is not being changed. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Not applicable. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Not applicable. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Not applicable. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. Not applicable. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Not applicable. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) Not applicable. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Not applicable. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Not applicable. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 5-2002 Staff comments: The construction of a sundeck is consistent with projects on the lake. SEQR Status: Type II Part 617.5 Type II Actions: (c) (10) Site Statistic Confirmation: The sundeck is 711 square feet with about 525 square feet of useable space. The value from the top of the dock to the top of the rail is 11 feet 52 inches. Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood one.” MRS. MOORE-I’ll just note. The applicant has received an Area Variance with the condition that only the tree limbs which overhang the proposed sundeck would be trimmed. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicant, Beverly Tobin. The wish here is to convert a peaked roof on an existing boathouse to a sundeck. It will not expand the footprint, if you will, of the existing operation. We’ve been to the Lake George Park Commission and have their approval, subject to getting local zoning approvals. We’ve been to the County Planning Board, had No County Impact, and went to the Zoning Board and obtained a variance. The variance that we obtained was because this is a pre- existing dock, and the dock itself was built closer to the adjoining property line than 20 feet. The new regulations that came into effect since the dock was built said you have to have a setback on where your common boundary lines would extend into the lake. So we obtained a variance for that. The stairs on this sundeck will be off the back, onto the platform of the dock itself. There’s not a land bridge. It meets the height requirements of the Town, the mean high water mark, and it’s the same construction as what is presently there now. They don’t plan on changing the construction of the boathouse beneath the roof from what is there now. The Zoning Board of Appeals did put a condition on their approval. If you look at the shore side, there are some trees that reach out over the boathouse. They asked that they not be trimmed, except as necessary to have head clearance as you walk by them and the applicant agreed to that. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty simple and straightforward. Rich, we’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-I reviewed it. It looked like a complete submission, and it looked like it was thoroughly thought out. I have no questions. I think it’s fine to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In looking at the chart that you’ve supplied with this, looking at the math on this, from the Roger’s Rock gauge, and that was taken on 117.02, and the Roger’s Rock gauge was at 2.8, which gave you a lake level. I see how you got to the 320.66 as the level of the dock itself. You had to go up 16 inches to get to mean high water and five and a half to the top of the dock. So this is a little different way of doing it. Now, it’s okay. I follow what you’ve done, but what I don’t understand is how did you establish, from this kind of analysis, how you got the dock out 40 feet from mean low water. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. O'CONNOR-I didn’t. I did it from this analysis. MR. VOLLARO-See, you’ve got to know something about where the mean low water mark is, with some sort of a gauge, basically a stick, and when you get that Roger’s Rock gauge at 2.8, where it says that the height above the water is, I think, 16.1 on the gauge. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The total dock complex itself is 40 feet, 4 inches. MR. VOLLARO-But it’s got to be extending no further than 40 feet from mean low water. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re not extending the dock, what we’re constructing is not extending as far as that. MR. VOLLARO-See, I was looking for the same analysis that you did here, which was good, showing also how you got out 40 feet and couldn’t find it. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if I have that in the letter from Sunsoval or not. MR. VOLLARO-No, I looked at, your letter of January 31. MR. O'CONNOR-But I had a letter from the people who did that calculation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The Lake George Park Commission, in doing it’s calculation, did not find it beyond 40 feet beyond the mean high low water mark. We also are not changing the dock at all. What we’re doing is just changing the roof structure of the dock. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The wharfs themselves stay the same. The wharfs are actually longer than that piece. Let me look and see. MR. VOLLARO-I would guess the long and short of it is that if the dock is there it would be retroactive anyway. Nobody’s going to ask you to pull it out if it’s 41 foot out. I’m sure. MR. O'CONNOR-The cover letter does not address that, but I had a discussion with John Mason who did the calculations for me, and he indicated to me that it was not in excess of 40 feet from mean low water mark from the lake. MR. VOLLARO-And just for academic reasons, the actual height of this, right up to the top of the post, is 12 foot six and one half inches. That’s what I calculated from your numbers. MR. O'CONNOR-I believe that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I had nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really don’t have any questions. I just want to make a comment on the one letter that you submitted as part of the application, your letter dated January 18. I really thought it was a great letter th because it spelled out all the specific issues that we always look at in a very clear and concise manner. I mean, you could almost review the project just by reading that letter, and I just wanted to let you know I appreciated that. It was very straightforward. MR. VOLLARO-Which letter was that Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-The January 18 letter, because he hit all the boundary issue, the height issue, the length th from shoreline issue. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it was a good letter. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing, only to comment that this is one of the nicest put together packages, the most professional packages, as far as docks that I’ve seen. All my questions were right there. Everything was answered, and it was done so very clearly. MR. O'CONNOR-I thank you. Well, I’ll tell you, Staff gave me a couple of hints. I wasn’t going to necessarily do height. I thought it was so simple. She said, no, you want to do mean high water mark, height calculation, and show it. I appreciate Staff’s help also. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that more and more people who show up for docks are beginning to get the message on how to do it, and it’s not rocket science. More and more people. It used to be, a year ago, they give you a blank stare on height, or Roger’s Rock gauge, or any of that. You could tell they didn’t know what we were talking about, what I was talking about anyway. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. O'CONNOR-No, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Does anyone want to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2002 BEVERLY TOBIN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 8- 2002, Applicant: Beverly Tobin. Type: Unlisted. Property Owner: Same. Agent: Michael J. O’Connor. Zone: WR-1A. Location: 196 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point. Applicant proposes peaked roof of boathouse to be removed and replace with flat roof and deck with railing and stairs. Section 179-16 requires Covered Docks to receive Planning Board review and approval.. Cross Reference: AV 5-2002. LGPC, APA. Warren Co. Planning: 2/13/02 . Tax Map No. 8-1-5, 8-1-27. Lot size: 1.06 acres / Section: 179-16, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 1/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/22/02 2/26 Staff Notes 2/19 Notice of Public Hearing: 2/20 ZBA resolution 2/13 Warren Co. Planning 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/26/02 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and we’ll remove the SEQRA whereas. Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2002 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. Have a good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED T & R, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9 & LAFAYETTE STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.35 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.07 ACRES AND 2.28 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 103-1- 20.1 LOT SIZE: 3.35 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & RICH SCHERMERHORN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-2002, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, T & R, LLC, Meeting Date: February 26, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3.35 acres into two lots. Lot one of 1.07 acres and Lot two of 2.28 acres. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The parcel is divided with the main building on one lot and the accessory like buildings on the other lot. The accessory like buildings are proposed to be removed. Topography: The existing grade is provided on the drawing. The elevation change ranges from 335 feet to 340 feet. Water supply Sewage Disposal: The existing building is connected the municipal water and sewer connections. Drainage: Not applicable. Lot sizes: Lot one is 1.07 acres and lot is 2.28 acres Future development: The applicant has indicated the proposed tenant for the Main building and has indicated further development would occur on Lot 2 State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type Unlisted Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood Seven. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Previous Moore’s Lumber site. Staff comments: The access to the south appears to be close to the intersection of Glen and Lafayette. Staff would like to see this access point one-way, moved, or removed in favor of a wider access point at the other end. The Fire Marshal has also provided a letter addressing the no-parking area between the parking lot and Lafayette Street.” 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MRS. MOORE-Staff would suggest review of the curb cut proposed near Lafayette and Route 9. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn and Tom Nace. We’re representing T & R. T & R is an LLC that Rich formed with his partner when they bought the former Moore’s property. We’re here for a two lot subdivision to subdivide the existing lumber building from the rest of the site, with the intention that that front lot could be sold for a retail use, and we hope to be back with some development plans for the back two pieces very soon. Tom, do you want to just walk through the comments. MR. NACE-Do you want to read comments into the record, first. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, no, go right ahead. MR. NACE-Okay. One of the Staff comments was the, on the left hand or the Route 9 side of the site, there’s a proposed re-shaping of that parking lot in front of the old Moore’s store to be more friendly, and Staff comments were that the exit closest to Route 9 should become a one way exit or be deleted. It really cannot easily be deleted and still allow circulation through the parking lot. What we would propose is to make it a one way out. MR. MAC EWAN-A one way out. Okay. Is that it? MR. NACE-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the estimated time it’ll take to do the removal of the other, of all the other properties? Do you have any feel for that? MR. LAPPER-Do you mean to take down the sheds that are there? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We’re negotiating a transaction that Rich would build a building for a tenant on that next piece, and probably, you know, within a month or so, we’re hoping to submit on that, but we don’t have a signed deal, but we’d anticipate that construction would be this spring, if everything works out, and they would come right down. They would not be part of any future use. They’re pretty worthless. MR. VOLLARO-So those buildings will be taken down as required, and you’re not going to take them all down at one time? MR. LAPPER-No, that would all be on one parcel, and they would all come down. MR. VOLLARO-They would all come down. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We’d come back with a site plan review for that parcel next, if we sign a deal, and we expect that that’ll happen pretty quickly. MR. VOLLARO-All right. My next question, I wanted to just discuss that southern access. You said that you were going to make that a one way out only. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking at how much congestion even that would create at the intersection of Glen and Lafayette there. MR. LAPPER-The problem, Bob, is that it would make that parking lot almost useless because you’d have to be making turns to go back out the other entrance. It would just make it really cumbersome. MR. MAC EWAN-One way out would certainly be an improvement over what it is there now. MR. NACE-Right now it’s free access. It’s been a lumber store with fairly high volume in and out over the past, and this would certain improve that greatly. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to address the conditions that were set out in the Fire Marshal’s letter. I don’t know, do you have a copy of that? MR. NACE-Yes. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. VOLLARO-What’s your reaction to that letter, especially the last paragraph, it would be especially important for the applicant to post and enforce no parking area along the landscaped area between the parking lot and Lafayette Street? I assume he’s talking about this area in here. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s what I thought, too. MR. NACE-There’s no problem in complying with that. We would certainly post that for no parking. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess on any new, on a new occupant for that building, now, what is planning to go in there is a carpet, is that correct? MR. STROUGH-Nothing right now. MR. VOLLARO-Nothing. We don’t know what’s going in there. MR. LAPPER-We anticipate that that’s what it will be, but we don’t have a signed contract. Right now we’re really close, but we expect that’s what, a retail carpet center. MR. VOLLARO-You would be coming back for site plan review on that? MR. RINGER-Maybe not. MRS. MOORE-I don’t believe so. MR. VOLLARO-No? MRS. MOORE-There’s an allowed replacement use, but it would be under review, I mean, it would be under review with Staff, and then that determination would be made at that time. MR. LAPPER-We don’t anticipate having to make any site changes, in terms of the building or the layout, but if the new owner wanted to change the site plan that would, of course, require Board approval. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to digress for a minute with Staff, if I may. During our last meeting, we had a young fellow come in here to do a carpet store down on Queensbury Ave., and he came before us for site plan review, and he was making no changes to that building whatsoever. MRS. MOORE-That’s a different zone. I believe that was a different zone than this one is. This is Plaza Commercial, and at the moment I don’t remember what the zone of that one was. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The zone is dictating in this case, is that what we’re saying? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-That has to become an out, because they couldn’t go in that way, because you’d stack them onto Route 9. MR. NACE-That’s right. MR. RINGER-So there’d have to be an exit there. MR. NACE-People who are waiting to turn across traffic to come in there would be (lost words). MR. RINGER-I think it’s a good idea to have the one way there, also, and make sure that it’s coming out. Other than that, I didn’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-You intend to take up some of the existing parking lot, to increase the pervious area, and you’ll replace it with, what’s it going to be replaced with, landscaped area? MR. NACE-Yes, that’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-It’ll be grassed areas then. All these areas will be grassed, then? Okay, and then the buildings on what’s referred to as Lot Two, they would all be taken down at the same time? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. The pole barns would be all taken down at the same time. MR. SEGULJIC-So, essentially, it would just be an open, vacant lot for a period of time? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, that’s correct. MR. LAPPER-Well, we expect that that would probably happen in conjunction with a site plan review and immediate construction of a project, but we’re a month away from being able to determine that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I have nothing else for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I just want to be clear about something. If we approve the subdivision, it is possible that a tenant could go into the existing building without further site plan review? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I asked. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I just wanted to make sure I understood it right. So if we want to make comments regarding landscaping or some other issue, this might be the only opportunity? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I did have a couple of questions of the applicant. I had similar comments on that one access, and my thought was to move it further down Lafayette Street. I don’t know if that’s possible or not. MR. NACE-Well, it, for one thing, would make the end of that parking lot a dead end parking lot, which is hard to serve. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Sure. MR. NACE-You’ve got to have room for people to back up, and it makes more sense to allow circulation through, from end to end to the parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, because my comment was the same comment that was made, that there’s no room to stack vehicles at the light. MR. NACE-Well, they’re coming out. MR. HUNSINGER-In and out, yes. MR. NACE-If they’re going right, it’s a simple right turn. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-If they’re going left, they have to stack, but that’s stacked back in the parking lot, and if it takes people a minute to get out, that’s no big hassle. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I mean, just about anything that you would do with that access would be a major improvement over what it is today, and, you know, I remember when Moore’s was open, it was just a free for all all the time. MR. NACE-An accident waiting to happen. MR. HUNSINGER-The green space along Lafayette Street, would that be curbed? How would that green space be maintained? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think Lafayette’s curbed. MR. NACE-No, Lafayette’s not curbed there. Because of drainage concerns, it would not be curbed. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m thinking on the parking lot side, more so than the road side. MR. NACE-No, it would be open. We would have to allow drainage across. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How would you maintain the green space? MR. NACE-Simply mowing, and you’ll have an edge of pavement, obviously that you’ve got to cut in, originally. You would have to maintain that the same way you maintain the lawn in front of your house. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my thought is, what’s to stop a vehicle from just driving right over the grass and entering or exiting the parking lot at any location? That’s really where I was going. MR. NACE-The same thing that prevents them from driving across your lawn to get to your driveway, I guess. If you provide good access in and out of the parking lot, there should be no incentive for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and you don’t know what the use would be for Lot Number Two? MR. SCHERMERHORN-We have a use for it, but like Jon was saying, we haven’t signed a contract yet. So it’s just premature to say anything. MR. HUNSINGER-What about some shrubs or other plants other than just grass on that strip between the store and Lafayette Street? That would be a further deterrent to vehicle access. MR. SCHERMERHORN-We certainly, if you want to condition some shrubs, we could put some in. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. I’m just thinking of some low shrubs that would help define the green space better. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s fine. If we want to add, I don’t know, 12 shrubs spaced accordingly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. RINGER-It’s so close to the road, they’re going to get plowed right over every year. MR. HUNSINGER-I know, it’s tough. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-What’s the size of the building? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I believe it’s on the plan, 12,000 square feet, maybe. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I got that, but then if I add up the square footage that you use to determine how many cars, I ended up with 13,970, how many parking spots you’ll need, I got 10,770 for the warehouse, 2,000 for the showroom, 1,200 for an office, and I got 13,970. So I didn’t know which one was accurate. I was just wondering. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, most of it’s warehouse, would be the 10,770. MR. MAC EWAN-What was your thought, Laura, on those calculations? MRS. MOORE-I haven’t reviewed the calculations like John has. MR. STROUGH-These are just the ones listed here. MRS. MOORE-The reason why is because it’s an existing building. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and I just want to know how big the building. MR. NACE-Okay. I think that the 1200 square feet of office is on the second floor, okay. What your looking at, the existing building, is the footprint, okay. So there’s, you add the 2,000 showroom and the 10,770 of warehouse, that gives you your footprint. MR. STROUGH-That would make sense. Yes, it works. MR. NACE-The extra 1200 is in the office, second floor office space. MR. STROUGH-So the building is actually 13,970 feet, if you add the office. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. NACE-Total floor area. MR. STROUGH-Plus the second story. MR. NACE-Yes, including the second story. MR. MAC EWAN-Not plus, including the second floor. MR. STROUGH-Yes, 13,970 including the second floor. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I got that straight. Now, I just wondered, Rich, if you’re just limiting yourself here. Now are you going to maintain and own this first parcel, Lot One? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, the building will be sold. MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to sell it? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So it’s whoever buys it’s problem, because I was thinking if you’re going to keep it, I mean, that’s a big building, and if you wanted to do something in the future with it, other than carpets, you’d need more parking area, and I didn’t know that if you needed all of Lot Two, that you’re depicting here, that you might want to give some more to Lot One so that, because that’s a big building. I mean, if that was to be used, I mean, for storage, we figure parking spaces one way, but if it was to be used more for retail and sales or offices, you’d need more parking, and I just wondered why you didn’t give yourself a little bit more space here, but I suppose that’s going to be the future landowner’s problem, and I’m assuming that the person that’s buying Lot Number Two needs all of Lot Number Two. Are my assumptions correct? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Close, yes. Well, Lot Number One, the intended use for that, what is laid out here will serve their purposes for a long time to come. Lot Number Two, which we, I believe, are submitting tomorrow, proposed site plan, and again, the deals are not, contracts are not signed yet, but we have taken, what you’re talking about I have looked into, and everything works. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I was just throwing it out as a suggestion. MR. NACE-I think one of the issues there, John, is the existing building is really not suitable for other retail type use, other than something like a carpet store that was going to require a lot of warehouse space. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, Richie could have made it into anything. I mean, he could have made it usable for other things, but he’s not going to be the future owner. So it was just a suggest on my behalf. If you wanted to expand potential future uses, and you didn’t need all Lot Number Two, and you did give yourself a little bit more land there, because you’re going to need it for parking, because you’re at the edge of permeability. So, you know, it’s just a suggestion. MR. SEGULJIC-Can I jump in, John? Isn’t that asphalt area to be removed part of Parcel One? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Couldn’t that be parking? MR. STROUGH-No, then you can’t meet the permeability requirement. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Because this is going to be, I mean, if everything stays status, this is going to be Highway Commercial intensive. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Correct. MR. STROUGH-So, okay. That was my only suggestion. Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I have nothing. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Does anyone want to come up and comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter. MR. MAC EWAN-One letter? MRS. MOORE-Yes. It’s a long letter. This is from the offices of Marvin Rudnick, “To the Members of the Town Planning Board: This firm represents Abraham Rudnick, owner of properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed change in subdivision status of the above-referenced property also known as the old Woodbury Lumber office building (“Woodbury Property”). This letter is to place on the record before this Planning Commission, my Client’s objection to any Board action granting said application absent specific restrictions or induced waiver of future claims of hardship. In support thereof my Client asserts that any change in the character of use of the Woodbury Property or of its zoning as is being requested will affect at a later time the ability and/or cost to the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren or State of New York to re- align the intersection, a job needed to be accomplished long ago. My client asserts that at present, the unaligned intersection is dangerous to persons driving or walking through it. This is especially true since the Town authorized Price Chopper to open their parking lot to vehicles to and from Foster Avenue, an event that has created additional traffic to the intersection. Therefore, absent re-alignment of the intersection, so that Lafayette St. and Foster Ave. cross perpendicular, it will continue to be a hazard to motorists and pedestrians including my Clients and their tenants who use the intersection many times each day. Moreover, because any split of the existing lots separating the Woodbury Property at that corner from its adjoining land, will create the likelihood that when, at a later time the realignment of that intersection is approved by a governmental entity, Applicant may seek to argue that any “taking” of his smaller, one acre, Woodbury Property by eminent domain would constitute a unique hardship, an event that would not have occurred except for this Board’s action to be considered on February 26, 2002, and only as a result of the Applicant’s request. Later, if re-alignment is achieved, Applicant’s claim of hardship will result from his own doing, yet, he will be in the position of demanding that the Town, County or State compensate him in any condemnation action it may bring for the very hardship he created. Applicant may do so because the NE corner lot, the Woodbury Property, after dividing it, will be so small, that it may render it useless once the Lafayette-Foster- Rt. 9 intersection is rebuilt. However, if the property remains as one, any future “taking” would be, of course, of no or lesser impact. In my reading of a New York case, Matter of Style Rite Homes v. Zoning Board, 283 N.Y.S. 2d 623 (1967), for example, it was held that in a later action affecting the value of property, it was the burden of the landowner to show that the use for which he seeks variance from any zoning, not alter the essential character of the locality. In the matter before this Board, the Applicant knows of the non-alignment of Lafayette-Foster intersection, and therefore, must be held accountable for any hardship that results from his own request to make his property smaller knowing that it may be determined useless if the intersection is re-aligned. Under the Matter of Style Rite Homes, the landowner may later claim that the land in question cannot yield the reasonable return to which he is entitled. But here, the plight of the owner will be due to the unique circumstances he created. See generally Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 N.Y. 71, 76; Matter of Clark v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 301 N.Y. 86; Matter of Hickox v. Griffen, 298 N.Y. 365; Matter of Young Women’s Hebrew Assn. v. Board of Stds. & Appeals, 266 N.Y. 270). Therefore, Mr. Rudnick requests that this Board deny the Applicant’s requested splitting of the parcel; in the alternative, my client requests that if the Board desires to approve said Application, it does so upon assurances by the Applicant in writing that he waive any later claim to hardship caused by his requested action; and in further alternative, that the Town request as a condition of any Board action that Applicant – Owner offer that portion of the Woodbury Property to the Town of Queensbury at its present fair market value – not its value after being split into two properties – to provide land for the re-alignment of the said Lafayette – Foster – Route 9 intersection. Thank you for your courtesies. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN L. RUDNICK Marvin L. Rudnick” MR. MAC EWAN-Who sent that letter? MRS. MOORE-The law offices of Marvin Rudnick. MR. LAPPER-Let me give you a little background on what he’s talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, then, Cathi, I’d like you to comment, too, please. MS. RADNER-Can I hear what Jon has to say first? MR. LAPPER-Sure. Rudnick owns the apartments that you go up Foster Ave., behind the auto parts place. It’s adjacent to Aviation Mall and it’s adjacent to John Nigro’s Glen Square Plaza. He, Mr. Rudnick, has been requesting the Town to rezone that for a number of years from residential to commercial, and as part of proposed rezoning, which should be voted on next month, that would be rezoned. The intersection, as you know, does not line up, but the traffic lights coordinate, and so it still functions as an intersection. It sounds to me like he’s anticipating coming in with some sort of a commercial development on his property, and he’s 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) asking Rich to take care of his anticipated issue. Perhaps if he has some large development that has a lot of traffic, it may require the intersection to be changed, but there’s no plan, now, for that intersection to be changed. That’s a DOT road, Route 9 State road, and that’s the way it was constructed. What he’s asking for Rich to agree, it would be a taking now rather than a taking later. If, at some point, the State wanted to condemn part of this parcel because they wanted to change the intersection, that’s something that the State always has the right to do, and they would have to compensate the then property owner, whoever that is at the time. If they wanted to take part of the building down because they thought that was the right thing to do, they would have to pay fair market value. That letter is sort of asking Rich to agree, now, to what the price might be in the future if somebody, at some point, decided to do a taking, and that is wildly speculative and premature. This has been an existing lot, and we’re just trying to reoccupy an existing vacant building. It seems inappropriate, to me, to be contemplating these issues at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi? MS. RADNER-Does the Town have any plans or is the Town looking at anything, in terms of, I’m sorry, I was asking Laura, does the Town currently have any plans or anything underway, or even in consideration, that would involve moving that intersection or taking that intersection? MRS. MOORE-None that I’m aware of. MS. RADNER-Is that intersection there a Town road at this point? MRS. MOORE-I’d have to look. MS. RADNER-Because as I understand the letter, and this is the first I’ve heard the letter as well, what he’s saying is that guarantees should be made to the Town, and I’m not sure that the Town has any intention, I don’t know of anything, myself, where the Town has been looking to take that road. So I would tend to agree with Jon that this is rather speculative, and not really applicable here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment? I’ll close the public hearing. We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: T & R, LLC, 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 26 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion for Preliminary? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll introduce a motion for Preliminary. MR. MAC EWAN-Before you go with that, do you have any conditions that you’re thinking of putting on there? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Why don’t I discuss them now before we go through it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a great idea. MR. VOLLARO-Condition Number One would be compliance with the Fire Marshal’s letter dated February 11, 2002, which has been agreed to by the applicant. It also should state that the southern entrance. MR. RINGER-The southwest. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the southwest entrance would be a one way only. I think that should be specified. MR. RINGER-One way out. MR. VOLLARO-One way out. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. VOLLARO-And we would talk about some plantings along the front area. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I didn’t have anything specific in mind. MR. VOLLARO-I just had down plantings along front area, but I think we can’t just do that. We’ve got to nail it down a little bit. MR. MAC EWAN-We need to be specific. MR. STROUGH-That front strip I measure is 225 feet. Now what do you want to do, put one shrub in every five feet or something, or what? MR. VOLLARO-Every five feet? That’s too close. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mentioned 12. MR. STROUGH-Every 12 feet? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, I mentioned 12 total shrubs. MR. STROUGH-Twelve total shrubs. Is that fine with you, Chris? MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s also to help you not only beautify the site, but act more as a deterrent to stop traffic. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Twelve isn’t going to do the job, I don’t think. MR. LAPPER-Give us a number. Rich is willing to do 13. MR. RINGER-My only concern with putting shrubs in is that’s so close to the road they’re going to get plowed over every year. MR. STROUGH-Then you put those salt resistant shrubs in. MR. RINGER-That’s so close to the road, the plow, whoever buys your property is going to be replacing them every year. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have a scale on me, Larry, but it seems to me that the green space is at least 10 feet wide. So I would think if they were to put the shrubs back away from the road as far as they could, without encroaching on the parking lot, they might be okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. MAC EWAN-I need to have a number, a caliper and a species. MR. STROUGH-Well, 20 would put them about 11 feet apart. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Twenty? MR. HUNSINGER-That sounds fine to me. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you looking for? MR. STROUGH-All right. Twenty seems to be the magic number. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Twenty’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-What species are we talking? MR. NACE-Why don’t we leave that for Jim Miller to figure out what is resistant to salt and roadside damage. MR. LAPPER-We’ll let the Planning Department know what Jim’s proposal is. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you doing the motion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Then I would suggest something along the lines of 20 shrubs that are salt resistant of an evergreen type. That kind of narrows it down somewhat. MR. VOLLARO-I would prefer to use it as 20 plantings, and let, I think Mr. Nace has a good position on that. We’ll let somebody who knows what will go in there. I mean, I can’t even name a shrub that’s salt resistant, right off the top of my head. MR. MAC EWAN-Plastic ones. MR. RINGER-Yes, plastic ones. Beautification would love that. MR. MAC EWAN-That was in jest, for the record. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does the Board agree with those conditions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but they would only go into the Final, rather than the Preliminary. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Correct. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2002 T & R, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 4-2002, T & R, LLC, PRELIMINARY STAGE. Property Owner: Same. Agent: Van Dusen & Steves. Type: Unlisted. Zone: PC-1A. Location: Rt. 9 & Lafayette Street. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.35 acre parcel into two lots of 1.07 acres and 2.28 acres.. Tax Map No. 103-1-20.1. Lot size: 3.35 acres. Section: Subdivision Regs., and WHEREAS, the application was received 1.30/02; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 2/22/02; 2/26 Staff Notes 2/19 Notice of Public Hearing 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/26/02 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application for Preliminary Stage is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Final. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2002 T & R, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 4-2002, T & R, LLC, FINAL STAGE. Property Owner: Same. Agent: Van Dusen & Steves. Type: Unlisted. Zone: PC-1A. Location: Rt. 9 & Lafayette Street. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 3.35 acre parcel into two lots of 1.07 acres and 2.28 acres.. Tax Map No. 103-1-20.1. Lot size: 3.35 acres. Section: Subdivision Regs., and WHEREAS, the application was received 1.30/02; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 2/22/02; 2/26 Staff Notes 2/19 Notice of Public Hearing 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/26/02 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application for Final Stage is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) 1. That the applicant comply with the Fire Marshal’s letter dated February 11, 2002, that the southwest exit [access point closest to the intersection of Route 9 and Lafayette] on the site plan be one way out only, and 2. That in the area adjacent to Lafayette Street that we have 20 shrubs/plantings along the area defined as a pervious area, the shrubs will be defined at a later date to be salt resistant and have the ability to survive in that area, and 3. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 5. All conditions are to be noted on the final mylar submitted for the Chairman’s signature in a form to read as follows: “Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 2/26/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:” 1. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. PUD SITE PLAN NO. 9-2002 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. LAPPER, J. MILLER, T. NACE ZONE: PUD APPLICANT PROPOSES FINAL PHASES OF TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT IN APPROVED SUBDIVISION, LOT 4 – 36 TOWNHOUSES WITH GARAGES, LOT 5 – 12 TOWNHOUSES WITH GARAGES. CROSS REFERENCE: PUD SP 18-2001, PUD SP 65-2000, PUD SP 53-99 TAX MAP NO. 297.05-1, 1.2, 1.3 LOT SIZE: 3.51 ACRES, 6.74 ACRES SECTION: 179-58 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, RICH SCHERMERHORN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 9-2002, Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., Meeting Date: February 26, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant proposes the final two phases of the Hiland Springs Development, 48 townhouse units with garages. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The project is consistent with the original approval of Site Plan 53-99. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? Not applicable. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Not applicable. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Not applicable. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. This was addressed in the Phase I approval. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. This was addressed in the Phase I approval The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. This was addressed in the Phase I approval The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The plan should be revised to show the interconnected pathway. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The plans have been forwarded to CT Male for comment and review. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. This was addressed in the Phase I approval connecting to existing municipal lines. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. A landscape plan was submitted. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. This was addressed in the Phase I approval The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. A grading plan was submitted. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan 53-99, Phase I, this included a concept plan for all of the phases; Site Plan 65-2000 Phase II, Site Plan 18-2001 Phase III. Staff comments: The original concept plan included a playground, tennis court, and a pathway that was to pass through each phase. The status of these items has to be determined. Staff would suggest requesting a completion date. The previous site plans have some minor code compliance issues to resolve such as installation of lights. SEQR Status: Not applicable. Site Statistic Confirmation: Phase I -22 units; Phase II –26 units; Phase III –24 units; Phase IV –36 units; Phase V –12 units Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood 9” 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MRS. MOORE-I’ll just note, under discussion, the recreational elements of the plan have not been discussed. Staff would suggest establishing a timeframe for installation of the pathway, playground and tennis courts. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn and Tom Nace. We’re here for Phases Four and Five of Hiland Springs, a project that this Board was intimately involved in the both site design and building design and landscaping. There’s nothing really new here beyond what we’ve previously talked about and agreed to and we have no issues with Staff comments. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the plans for the recreation areas and the walkways? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The walkways and recreation areas I do propose to do. Laura did ask me for the time on it. Truthfully, the tennis court, I was truthfully waiting until the end of the project to see how I was going to do before I put it in. I do have plans on starting it. Completion would probably be around August 1 on the tennis court. The playground facility is actually, the land, it’s laid out for it. I just need to order the st equipment and put it in. MR. MAC EWAN-Back up to the tennis court thing for a minute. What did you mean you were going to wait and see how it turned out? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, in the original master plan, when I went to the Town Board, because this went through the PUD and through the Planning Board, it says on the Master Plan it was proposed as the final phase of my project, because it shows it on the last phase, out by the Golf Course on Phase V, I think we called it. So, I guess I said proposed on the plan, but I am going through with it, and it would be more like August 1 before it would be completed, because we’ve got to do the construction around the final phase st to put it in. MR. MAC EWAN-And the walkway and the playground is going to be done when? MR. SCHERMERHORN-August 1, or sooner. st MR. MAC EWAN-So all three of those entities will all come to completion right around the same period of time? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and the walkways, where the walking trails go, I just have to connect, the walkways are there. I just have to connect with the crushed stone, but I’ve actually considered doing black top, because we have quite a few children that like to rollerblade, and it’ll hopefully keep them out of the parking lots, and keep them on the walking trails that are circulating around it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good idea. What can we do to tie this in with this approval to ensure that they will all be completed, you know, by the end of August? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Certainly, as you’ve done in the past, or Dave Hatin has done, we could condition the final certificate of occupancy on the last building, until completion of the playground and the tennis court. I have no problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-We haven’t received a signoff from Male, right? We’ve got Tom’s, you know. MR. VOLLARO-Tom’s letter. MR. RINGER-Yes, but we haven’t got the signoff from Male that Tom’s letter answers all of the. MR. NACE-Laura, did you get that late this afternoon? MRS. MOORE-No, I did not. MR. NACE-Okay. I did. He said he was going to fax it to you at the same time. MRS. MOORE-It’s possible it’s sitting in the fax machine. MR. RINGER-Okay. So we do have a signoff. We don’t we have Laura read it into the record, since we don’t have a copy of it. I just want to be sure that Male has agreed with everything that Tom has. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is dated February 26, 2002, from C.T. Male, addressed to Mr. Round, “We are in receipt of letter dated February 25, 2002 from Nace Engineering, P.C. which addresses our comments from the same date. The letter does adequately address the comments contained in our February 25 letter. We th have no further comments related to this project. Upon receipt of final revised drawings, we anticipate signing off on the project at that time.” 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. RINGER-Other than that, I have no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-These are going to be rented, I assume, or owned? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, these are all rentals. MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the possibility of having shared driveways instead of having the four driveways? MR. SCHERMERHORN-These particular townhouses, the final phase, the individuals all have garages, and we’re just sticking to the original Master Plan that we actually did, I think it was a year and a half ago. MR. LAPPER-These are different designed units from what’s there now. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Different. MR. LAPPER-Because they have garages. Everything else doesn’t have garages. That’s why these have. MR. SEGULJIC-What will the units look like? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I did bring an elevation, because during the original Town Board, the PUD, they wanted elevations. So it’s in keeping with the same ones I’ve been doing. I know it’s kind of a small picture, but this has been circulated around before, but obviously you haven’t seen it, but it’s going to look very similar to the other buildings. MR. SEGULJIC-Out of curiosity, the one, two and three, what’s the status of (lost word) on that, what percentage? MR. SCHERMERHORN-One hundred percent. MR. SEGULJIC-One hundred percent? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-My first question is more for Staff, I think, than the applicant. In the Staff comments it says there were some minor code compliance issues to resolve, such as installation of lights. I just wondered what some of the other issues might be. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Chris, the issues that you’re referring to, I believe, Laura, it was four lights that actually are on back order. I just called today and they’re not in yet, and being that it was winter, I wasn’t pushing too hard. This is for Phase II. That was completed late Fall. They just didn’t come in, and what they are is those four Saratogian style lights that you see when you go out front. It’s not a stock item and, truthfully, it’s taken a while to get, but the wiring’s all there, everything’s there. I’ve just got to install it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, my question is, are there other issues? Because this implies that there are other things as well, and I wondered what those other things might be. MRS. MOORE-At the moment I believe it’s just the lights. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. One of the other questions that I had was on the proposed, I know we don’t do color review, but I liked the earth tone of the existing development, until they were all up, and then it’s almost overwhelming because there’s just so many. Did you have color schemes for these units that might be different? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, this was certainly an issue back when we met with Planning a year ago. I think we all kind of agreed that when you have large projects like this, it is hard to do multiple colors. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, I agree with that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I agree with you as well, and the siding choices I believe were going to remain the same, as if you notice like the Eddy Group next to me, very large building, the cottage style, everything matches, but they have changed some of the shutter colors and that sort of thing. I intend on keeping the 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) same siding color. We’ll alter the shades of the shutters as we go, but to alter the siding color, I think it might stick out at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think just changing the shutter colors and the front doors. I don’t know what color the garage doors would be. They’ll probably be white, I imagine. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I think, just entering some different colors in the trim work would, I think, go a long way. MR. LAPPER-Chris, it’ll also be softened as the trees grow, and Rich put in larger caliper trees than what the Town ordinarily requires on this project. So hopefully that will be sooner rather than later. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I mean, I’m not trying to be critical, because I remember the discussion very well, and we said, gee, we like the earth tone color. We like the green shutters. It was only once they all got up and you could see the visual impact of the uniform color scheme that some different colors, I thought, would be useful. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I’m almost done. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want me to come back to you? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, let me ask the questions I have for now. Now, one thing that’s good about Mr. Nace is you don’t direct any of the stormwater directly into a wetland or a stream. You make sure there’s detention or retention basins in every case. I think that’s very good. Well, some people don’t always design their projects as appropriately, and I thought you did a nice job with that. The only concern I had, because of the clay, silty, loamy soil, is that some of the detention basins might hold water. What is the perc rate here, and I’m just worried about like mosquito. MR. NACE-It’s very slow, but all of the detention basins have drains that are at the bottom of the basin, or at the low point of the basin. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. NACE-So there’s not a retention of water surface inside the basin. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. That seemed to be, the details are good. That’s the only thing I had now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’m just a little confused, maybe somebody can clarify it. We received some of this information just tonight, and I’m glancing through some of the C.T. Male letters, and they’re asking questions. So apparently they’re not clear on a couple of points. Where does it stand now? MR. LAPPER-Are you talking about the February 25 letter? th MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Tom responded with a detailed letter back to them, today they signed off on the letter that Laura read. He basically agreed to the conditions. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So it’s all been handled. I’m not sure why it happened this way, you know, why we’re getting it on the. MR. LAPPER-What happens, we don’t get C.T. Male’s letter until a week or less before the Planning Board meeting, but on the other hand, C.T. Male is very good about generating new comments so that the engineers respond to their comments and they, just like they did today, sometimes it’s right before the Board meeting, but if they came back and said, hey, you know, we agree with some of your comments, but we’re not comfortable with some of your answers, then we wouldn’t be here asking for final approval. We’d be back, but in a case like this, we think it’s very good working with C.T. Male because they will just respond, even though it’s the night of the meeting and say they’re signed off. That’s pretty typical. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. SANFORD-Okay. I guess, speaking for myself, at least, it would be nice if we had a little more lead time to look at this stuff, but that’s it. MR. NACE-I’d appreciate it, too. I had an hour yesterday to respond to their comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got a couple of questions. One is on the shedding of the roofs to the north, that would be the back of those buildings. Now we talk about those going into a 4500 cubic foot drain, essentially trench drains along the eaves. MR. NACE-That’s correct, each building would have its own. MR. VOLLARO-Now, my question probably tends to get close to what John’s question was, but 4500 cubic foot is plenty to hold, you know, seems to me like, I haven’t done the calculations, but obviously it’s a large piece. MR. NACE-The total volume of a, if I remember right, the total volume of a 50 year storm from those roof areas is about 2600 cubic feet. So we’ve got about twice as much, which means the water, you know, won’t be at the surface. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but I’m just concerned, if the perc is as bad as I think it might be out there, how long will it take for that to drain away? That’s going to be essentially a tank for a while, in a good storm. MR. NACE-For a day, or maybe a day and a half, but it does, the land is not, the soils are relatively tight, but they are drained, okay. They’re still upland. It’s not saturated. So the water can drain through them. It’s not like our typical Queensbury sands where it drains through within two minutes after the rain ends. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’re going to be classified as a retention pond, but they’re going to be, essentially they’ll be retention areas, but they’ll stay wet for a long time, I fear. I’m talking about mosquito breeding and things of that nature. I’m just a little bit concerned about that, you know, we’re dealing with a high water table there, I suspect, and also poor drainage area. I wanted to get into something in your, and I didn’t see it in C.T. Male. I looked for my comment in the C.T. Male comments, and I don’t see it. So I’ll ask you directly. On Page One of your stormwater report, where you, second paragraph under existing conditions, you talk about, it starts off with soil conservation and then you get into the end of that and you say, Thomas Nace generally agree with the exception that the soils classified as Hudson Silt Loam intend more toward the clay loams, which I can understand, but then in the calculations section, where you probably set your computer up for different types of soil, you talk about soil conditions, and they’re mapped as Hudson and Maudlin Silt Loams, and Elm Ridge Fine Sandy, as opposed to clay based, and I know that would effect the way the Hydro CAD runs. MR. NACE-They’re still all within that CD classification, okay. MR. VOLLARO-So the Hydro CAD is set up for just that one classification? MR. NACE-Well, there are four classifications, A, B, C, and D, and the soils do vary a little bit across the site, okay. There are, in fact, even on the eastern end of the site, western end of the site, we found some pockets of relatively sandy material, but when I ran the Hydro CAD, I classified them between the C and the D classification, tending more toward a number that is the D classification. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you took that into account when you ran the numbers through the CAD? MR. NACE-Yes, I did. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That was a question I had, because I saw a conflict in my mind. MR. NACE-That’s, when you start going in between the different classifications, it’s a judgment call on exactly what the soil’s going to act like. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think Laura had probably called you on a question I had, which was on the western side, western end of Hiland Springs Road. I’m just trying to get, there’s a catch basin there at 308.48. It’s right at the entrance off Meadowbrook. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now I see that that’s going to get piped into that drainage easement, and then it goes under Meadowbrook Road and through a 36 inch pipe. Both of those catch basins are set at exactly the same elevation. I would have expected the one sitting to the south to be just a little higher. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. NACE-I think those are the rim elevations you may be looking at. You’re looking at, what, Drawing Three? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 308.48, 308.40. So this is not the invert. This is not the bottom of it? MR. NACE-That’s correct. Those are the rim elevations. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t know whether they were or not, because usually we would set the one to the south a little bit. MR. NACE-That’s all been installed. That was all part of the subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all done already. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I just had one other thing, in consideration for maybe some landscaping at the intersection of Meadowbrook Road and Hiland Springs Road. Should we put some shrubs in there? Is there a reason why that’s not landscaped at the entrance and make that entrance a little more, you know, appealing I guess is the word. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I certainly could add some more, Bob. We did what was required on the original site plan for Phase I, which did include our signage in there. If we add anymore, the site distance could become a problem, because there is a knoll right behind where my sign is, but, I mean, certainly. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is just a suggestion. I can’t visualize, and I’m trying to think of when I was there, how that looks. MR. NACE- is some landscaping, I believe, around the sign up there. The sign’s on the north side, right, Rich? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, the sign’s on the north side, and there is some landscaping there. The only thing that’s not planted yet is the lawn, and, truthfully, I talked to the mason that did the cultured stone wall for the Eddy Group, and I actually have a layout where I was going to propose to actually do a cultured stone wall, to dress up the entrance even more. So that is a proposal I have in place. MR. VOLLARO-You still have that in mind? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I do. MR. VOLLARO-It would be beneficial to you to have a nice looking entrance there I’m sure. It’s something you’d probably want to do anyway, and I just wanted to discuss it. Other than that, I really don’t have any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-We already started over here. MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to make sure. Did you have one more, John, or a couple of more? MR. STROUGH-No. Are these townhouses, are you going to sell the townhouse units or are they going to be rented? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, these are will be rentals. MR. STROUGH-The only thing that I see, and it’s the same problem that I mentioned before, I like the clustering, but when I see these up here, it just reminds me of Dixon Heights, and when I go visit my friends up there, the problems I have finding a parking spot. Most families seem to have two cars, and bingo, if they’re both home, you know, but that’s just a comment. This is just a final plan. The only thing is on SP-6, sewer notes, “video” is spelled wrong. MR. NACE-Say that again? MR. STROUGH-“Video” is spelled wrong. MR. NACE-Engineer’s can’t spell. You know that. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. STROUGH-No, I have no more comments, everything seems to be fine, and so you’ll be taking care of the playground and the tennis courts I guess? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that Staff wanted to add? Anything you guys wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, have you got a motion that you want to do? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 9-2002 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 9-2002, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 1/30/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/22/02: 2/26 Staff Notes 2/19 Notice of Public Hearing: 2/6 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/26/02 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 Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The amenities of the playground, tennis courts and the walkways be completed by September 30, 2002, and 2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 2/26/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) 1. Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Mr. MacEwan, did you want to rearrange the agenda at all to address some shorter items that may appear? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, let’s do that. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES MARTO, MELANIE SCHWAB PROPERTY OWNER: MELANIE SCHWAB ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 573 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 2.84 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.645 AC. AND 1.056 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 3-2002 DEC WETLANDS TAX MAP NO. 123-1-9 LOT SIZE: 2.84 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS JAMES MARTO & MELANIE SCHWAB, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-2002, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, James Marto & Melanie Schwab, Meeting Date: February 26, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant was tabled at the January meeting to provide wetland information. Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision originating from a 2.7 acre parcel. The property is zoned Suburban Residential, SR-1A with a minimum lot size requirement of 1 acre. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The proposed subdivision would create one building lot. Topography: The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to show existing and proposed contours. Water Supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed lots have access to the municipal water system and will be serviced by on site sanitary disposal systems. Drainage: The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to show existing and proposed site grading. Lot sizes: Lot 1 is proposed at 1.056 acres. Lot 2 is proposed at 1.645 acres. Future development: No future development is outlined in this request. State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type: Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a Long form. Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood three Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 3-2002: 1/16/02, Relief for less than the required lot width. Approved Staff comments: The proposed subdivision would create an additional building lot on West Mountain Road. Such a new lot is required, per §179-30, C.; to have two times the permitted lot width as the proposed lot would front on a 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) local arterial road. The intent of such a requirement is to limit, as much as possible, the number of access points onto arterial and collector roads. While relief from such a dimensional requirement lies with the Zoning Board of Appeals, the final approval of such a subdivision layout lies with this Board. It appears as though the alternative of a shared driveway exists and is relatively feasible. The NYSDEC has provided a letter indicating there are wetlands on the property. The letter explains they are unable to determine the amount of wetlands on the property due to weather conditions. The applicant has provided a revised map locating a portion of the wetland associated with lot 1. The revised map identifies the Braeside subdivision; upon review of the Braeside subdivision (SB 7-1998) map there is a stream identified on the property proposed to be subdivided. The plans should be revised showing the stream.” MRS. MOORE-The Board had requested a delineation of the wetlands on the property. The DEC has indicated only a partial delineation could be done due to the weather conditions. Staff would suggest subdivision plat be revised identifying the wet area noted on the Braeside subdivision, and I’ll explain that. On Mr. Marto’s subdivision plat he references the Braeside subdivision, and as I look that up, it was noted on the Braeside subdivision that there was a wet area that should be located or delineated on Mr. Marto’s subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, would you read in DEC’s letter? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That may solve the problem. MRS. MOORE-This is dated February 8, 2002, it’s addressed to Craig Brown, “Mr. Marto contacted me in response to request from the Town of Queensbury regarding the potential impact on wetlands of a subdivision of property. According to Mr. Marto, Mr. John Muncy of C.T. Male flagged the wetland boundary on February 3, 2002. Based on Mr. Marto’s statement, I understand the Town has questioned whether a second lot, Lot #1, equivalent to 1.056 acres, can be used for a single family home without affecting the wetland. It is my opinion that it can readily be done. The delineation of the wetland by Mr. Muncy places all construction outside the wetland boundary and the 100 foot adjacent area regulated by NYS DEC. The Department regulates any activity, including excavation, the deposit of fill, construction and clearing of vegetation, to name the most common applied for activities, within 100 feet of the wetland boundary. Any work beyond the 100 feet does not require a permit from the Department. The position of the 100 foot adjacent area will need to be verified in order to be assured that the placement of the septic leach field as shown in the subdivision plan dated December 27, 2000, will not be within the regulated area. However, reading the subdivision plan it is clear to me that the leach field will not be in the 100 foot adjacent area. Hence, a NYS DEC permit would not be required as long as the 100 foot adjacent area is kept clear of construction activity. I agree with Mr. Muncy’s delineation of the wetland boundary behind Lot #1. the location of the wetland boundary behind the existing residence on Lot #2 is uncertain due to the existing snow and frozen ground. Whether Mr. Muncy’s delineation is correct or not, behind Lot #2 has no bearing to NYS DEC on the subdivision and future construction of a residence on Lot #1 and need not be verified by our office unless Mr. Marto intends to do a project that will bring into question the need for an NYS DEC freshwater wetlands or stream protection permit. The worst case is the bottom of the slope becomes the wetland boundary resulting in about .3 acres of Lot #2 as wetland. Any verification of the wetland boundary on Lot #2 could not occur until this spring. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Alan L. Koechlein Senior Wildlife Biologist” MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff satisfied with that? MRS. MOORE-I understand it. The reason why asked for the delineation of the wetland as a whole was so that we could calculate the amount of wetlands on the property, subtract that out, and provide an accurate amount of acreage that could be subdivided. It’s possible that the amount of acreage on this property could determine whether there’s enough acreage to subdivide a one acre zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Assuming DEC’s scenario of .3 of an acre, they meet the requirements. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and that’s what they’re saying. That last paragraph is saying it’s a worst case scenario. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not going to exceed that. Okay. Good evening. MR. MARTO-Good evening. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MS. SCHWAB-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. MARTO-James Marto. MS. SCHWAB-Melanie Schwab. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We tabled this pending this kind of a determination. I think, as far as I’m concerned, I think everything else is in order. Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Do you have a problem with submitting a plan showing the stream and showing the wetlands on Lot 2, for the final? MR. MARTO-I don’t have a problem. I got the, I had the property, after we met, and I needed to get a letter from the DEC, after getting done I also had the property flagged for the wetlands, and then I had my surveyor come out and resurvey the property because I was told that what I wasn’t aware of at the time, that there was actually a 100 foot boundary outside of wetland property that has to be identified, and that’s, I guess, where the problem was, which is wetland and which isn’t, so on and so forth. So, in effect, the boundary line made the wooded area behind my property wetlands, based on the boundary line, that 100 foot boundary. So I had the surveyor come out and survey, and came out to the 100 foot range or the radius of the wetlands, and when the gentleman came out, Alan Koechlein, he basically said, based on the information he received, and the surveyor’s remarks and notation, he said he didn’t have a problem. That it shouldn’t interfere with the construction. MR. STROUGH-No, but Staff indicated that, just when you submit the final plat, that you indicate where the stream is, and where the wetlands are on Lot 2. That’s all. MR. MARTO-Okay. Well, as long as it doesn’t, I can do it. That’s no problem. MR. STROUGH-It doesn’t get in the way of anything, I don’t believe, on my side. MR. MARTO-As long as it doesn’t thwart or put off what we’re going to, another month or two to simply do this. I mean, I’d be more than happy to do it. My surveyor’s on vacation for two weeks, but I’d be more than happy to submit that if that’s what they want, but it would be, I’d find it very difficult if we had to table this for another month or two. MR. STROUGH-Well, I wouldn’t table it based on that. I would condition it saying that when you go to hand in the final plat, that it includes the location of the stream and the wetlands on Lot Two. That’s all. MR. MARTO-That’s fine. MR. STROUGH-And I thought you did a very thorough job on your wetland investigation. I was glad to learn that it was a philistran ecological system of the unconsilated bottom class with the a non-title permanent water regime. It was very helpful. MR. MARTO-Thank you for that exclusive education. MR. STROUGH-Thank you. That’s all the questions I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I’m very comfortable with what you’ve submitted, and I don’t think you should have to come back again either. MR. MARTO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I would second what Rich has to say. In reading the February 8 letter from DEC, I think th that says it all. I wouldn’t even go so far as to ask for delineation of the stream on the property. Because if you look at the DEC letter, it’s pretty tenuous as to whether there is or isn’t. I don’t think I want to subject the applicant to another round, personally. Other than that, I’m satisfied. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. MARTO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I’m satisfied with everything. I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-All set. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you folks wanted to add? MR. MARTO-No, I agree with Mr. Vollaro. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re inclined to go that way anyway. We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. Why do we just have Preliminary on tonight? MR. MOORE-You have them both. MR. STROUGH-Yes, we’ve got Preliminary and Final. MR. MAC EWAN-My agenda says otherwise, but that’s fine. I’d just as soon do them both, get them out of the way. Okay, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Long Form, right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JAMES MARTO, MELANIE SCHWAB, 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 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) 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 26 day of September, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, for Preliminary. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2002 JAMES MARTO, MELANIE SCHWAB, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 2-2002, J. Marto, M. Schwab, for subdivision of a 2.84 ac. parcel into two lots of 1.645 ac. and 1.056 acres. Cross Reference: AV 3-2002, Tax Map No. 123-1- 9, Lot size: 2.84 ac., Section: Subdivision Regulations, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 12/26/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 1/18/02; 2/22/02 Staff Notes 2/19/02 Final stage application and revised maps shoeing wetlands, etc. 2/6/02 Meeting Notice 1/18/02 Notice of Public Hearing 1/8/02 J. Marto from CB – request for application fee 1/7/02 Received copy of Deed, Maps and letter from applicant 1/3/02 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held 2/22/02 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved for Preliminary stage in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, for Final. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ll make a motion. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. VOLLARO-John, before you introduce that motion, I just want to make a discussion on the Final, on the letter, Marto to Schwab to Craig Brown, on waivers, dated, at least it was received at the Town Planning Office on January 4, 2002, and that should be listed, that letter I think should be listed as part of the notices in the Final Stage. MR. STROUGH-All right. What was the date of that? MR. VOLLARO-1/4/02. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2002 JAMES MARTO, MELANIE SCHWAB, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 2-2002, J. Marto, M. Schwab, for subdivision of a 2.84 ac. parcel into two lots of 1.645 ac. and 1.056 acres. Cross Reference: AV 3-2002, Tax Map No. 123-1- 9, Lot size: 2.84 ac., Section: Subdivision Regulations, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 12/26/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 1/18/02; 2/22/02 Staff Notes 2/19/02 Final stage application and revised maps shoeing wetlands, etc. 2/6/02 Meeting Notice 1/18/02 Notice of Public Hearing 1/8/02 J. Marto from CB – request for application fee 1/7/02 Received copy of Deed, Maps and letter from applicant 1/3/02 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held 2/22/02 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved for Final stage and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The waivers as requested in the letter to Craig Brown dated January 4, 2002 will be granted. 2. All conditions are to be noted on the final mylar submitted for the Chairman’s signature in a form to read as follows: “Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 2/26/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:” 1. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) 3. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-And with the condition that the final plat include a revised drawing to show a stream and the wetlands, if any, located on Lot Two. MR. MAC EWAN-Strike that. I don’t think you’re going to get the swing on that. MR. VOLLARO-I won’t support that. MR. MAC EWAN-Having that delineated on the drawing. I think that the letter that’s supplied by DEC is ample for this. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, Staff is the one that desired it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Board feels comfortable that the letter from DEC is sufficient for what they want to do. MR. VOLLARO-I feel comfortable with the letter, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How does everybody else feel? MR. RINGER-The letter is good. MRS. MOORE-The only point that I have is that if the final plat referenced the information that was noted on the Braeside Subdivision for this lot, that would be beneficial. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you want to do that, just with a note? MRS. MOORE-He can revise the mylar that he has in hand, with the information from the Braeside Subdivision. MR. STROUGH-The applicant has basically agreed to do this, Mr. Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it’s an imposition on the applicant to have to do it with the kind of information I see supplied by DEC and I haven’t looked at the Braeside Subdivision, but, you know, the worst case analysis is three-tenths of an acre here. I just don’t think I’d want to make the applicant go through this for that. I think it’s totally unnecessary. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the swing is that way. Strike that, and we’ll go with your. MR. STROUGH-Strike the condition, but we’ll keep the notation. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. MARTO-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MAC EWAN-I will be back up here Monday morning for the Staff meeting. If you could have your plat to the office, to the Planning Office by the end of the week, we’ll sign it for you Monday morning. MR. MARTO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 36-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH & CHERIE LUKE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES, NACE ENG. ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 425 BAY ROAD APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY OPERATING A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, THE DIET CENTER, AND IS PROPOSING SUBLEASE OF 300 SQ. FT. FOR 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE (NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME). NEW USES IN MR-5 ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-18 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 5-01, AV 65-01, SV 66-01 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 9/12/01 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-43 LOT SIZE: 8,398 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-18 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-2001, Kenneth & Cherie Luke, Meeting Date: February 26, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant is currently operating a Professional Office, The Diet Center and is proposing a sublease for the remaining 300 square feet office space. This project required an Area Variance due to limiting site conditions and the unavailability to construct the required parking spaces on the site. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The project was granted an Area Variance for parking spaces and separation distance between access points. A professional office use is an allowable use in the MR-5 zoning district. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? Associated with the area variance is the need, according to the applicant, to develop parking areas within the County right of way for Bay Road. The applicant has been granted a work permit from the County for the construction and use of parking areas within the right of way. See Work Permit 02-01. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? An additional, albeit, low intensity access point onto a Regional Arterial highway is discouraged, given the closeness, (less than 40 feet in both directions) to other access points. The proposed layout will allow patrons the availability to turn around and exit the site without backing up onto Bay Road. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? No adverse impacts are anticipated with regards to these features. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. Aside from the required handicap ramp, no new construction is planned. No additional lighting is depicted on the project plan. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. See above notes regarding Area Variance. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. See above notes regarding Area Variance. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) Aside from the required handicap ramp, no new pedestrian conveniences are proposed. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. Although the proposed development should not alter any existing drainage patterns, stormwater management has not been addressed. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. No changes in the water or sanitary facilities are anticipated with this project. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant proposes to plant grass between the “new parking” area and Bay Road. No further plantings are shown on the project plan. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The project site appears to be adequately accessible, for emergency vehicles, from Bay Road. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Not addressed. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 65-2001: Resolved 11/15/01, Parking spaces and access drive separation distance Petition for Zone Change: PZ-5-2000, Resolved 6/26/01from NC-1A to MR-5 No certificate of occupancy, no sign permit Staff comments: The Diet Center is located in an existing building and is using 712 square feet of the building. The owners intend to lease out the 300 square feet to another professional office use, (no tenant is known at this time). Consideration may be given to further review in the future in order to insure such a use would be complimentary, as the site is undersized. The plans do not indicate any outdoor lighting and only minimal landscaping (grass). The existing sign location is shown on the project plan. Consideration may be given to relocation of the parking areas (to the rear) in the future, should the municipal sanitary system be extended and made available to this site. The applicant was requested to revise the site development data sheet for the file. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted short form submitted Site Statistic Confirmation: Building Footprint 1,372 square feet; proposed permeable is unknown. Land Use Plan: The project is located in Neighborhood 9.” MRS. MOORE-The applicant has received a variance for the location of the parking. The applicant has also received a Warren County Work Permit to occupy space within the County right of way. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. NACE-The floor is mine. Okay. I think the last time we were here, the real open issue is the Warren County Highway Permit. You should have in front of you a finalized, signed permit that states specifically that they are granted permission to, I quote “construct and utilize two driveway and parking lot partially within the right of way”, which was the question before, whether, it sounded like the permit gave them permission to construct but not to utilize. This simply addresses this specifically. MR. MAC EWAN-Refresh my memory. What’s the problem with them utilizing parking behind the building? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. NACE-The septic system is behind the building. You cannot pave or park on top of the septic, and to the north of the building, it’s wet. There’s, I’m sure if you go out any beyond where we’ve shown that parking lot, you’re in to the Corps wetlands. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff was concerned with comments relative to the fact that if sewer goes up through there, with the sidewalk there, if the sewer does go through, the fact of the septic field and the septic system is a non-issue anymore. MR. NACE-At that point, they could look at a re-configuration. I’m not sure that even out back that there’s adequate room to put all the parking in one location for six spaces, unless it’s combined also with the lot to the south, which has a similar problem. I think if there was some way of combing those two and doing a shared drive parking area, then it would be practical to do that. Without that shared drive, I’m not sure that it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, may I comment on this for just a moment, on the sewer project? MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-The sewer project coming up through Bay Road is really a project that is being done by the Baybridge Homeowners Association. Now, from where I sit, and I’m not too tied to this anymore, but I don’t see very much action in that area. I don’t even know what the probabilities of that sewer coming up there, as I see things progressing, right now, with respect to contracts being signed and things of that nature that would bring the project along, and on that basis, I wouldn’t want to hold this applicant’s feet to the fire on the probability that that sewer is coming up Bay Road, at this particular time. I’d just like that to be on the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. This was a residential property. Okay, and since it is in an MR-5 zone, it can be used for commercial purposes, and so I’m going to treat it as it was a commercial institution. MR. NACE-Professional Office. MR. STROUGH-Yes. For one thing, I am not happy at all to see the sidewalk torn up to put a curbing in, forcing any pedestrian who is walking along Bay Road to be forced either into the driveway or the turnaround strip of this proposal, or on to Bay Road, and, furthermore, it breaks up the continuity of extending that sidewalk further north, should we, and I think we do intend on continuing that sidewalk, I think that with the possibility, and the possibility is a strong one, that the sewer goes up Bay Road, they will be able to use the rear for parking, and landscaping in front, and that’s the way it should be done, in the best of worlds. So given that, I am clearly opposed to this proposal. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I agree with Mr. Strough. I think as you drive down Bay Road, it’s, at this particular point in time, being developed nicely and it’s attractive. I would like to see the parking in the rear, if possible, and not have that turnaround front drive that’s been proposed. So, again, I think we have to start at some point and looking at the cosmetic impact, and I support Mr. Strough’s position. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, looking at the site plan on it, and this small drawing that maybe some of you haven’t seen, but the back of that is pretty much all leach field. Now this whole conversation is really hinging, again, on whether this sewer is going to come up Bay Road. I guess I’m going to have to say that I’m probably the principle guy, and there’s one other person sitting in the audience here that is also very heavily involved with this sewer project. The way things are going right now, I just don’t believe that sewer is going to come up Bay Road in a timely fashion. That’s my own opinion, from sitting in a completely different seat than the seat I’m sitting in here now. So I would be in favor of this proposal, and I wouldn’t want to deter it, just on the basis that a sewer should or would or could or may come up Bay Road, because right now I think the likelihood of that sewer coming up, based on the Baybridge Homeowners Association, in conjunction with the Town, getting that done is slim to none. MR. SANFORD-How can we get clarification that? I mean, I heard it was going to happen this spring. MR. VOLLARO-If anybody knows when it’s going to happen, Rich, it would be me, and I would have to defer that to some other people, particularly, I think, some folks that are in the audience. I don’t want to get into a big contest on whether this thing is going to come up or not. Chris, do you want to make any comment on that at all? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. ROUND-I guess, I don’t know how, I think if you condition something in the event that it occur. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to get on the record with what you have to say? MR. ROUND-Could you ask the question again? The likelihood that the sewer district expansion is going to occur? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. ROUND-I think it’s very favorable at this point. How that affects your approval, I’m not sure, because I don’t know, are you proposing a condition in the event that sewer service does come along, that you would request a site modification? Is that what you’re looking at? MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s where some of the members here are going. MR. ROUND-If you put a condition, if you allow them to move forward under existing conditions with an existing site, if you’re looking for them to come back with a different proposal in the event a certain set of circumstances do occur, I think that you can do that. I don’t know if the applicant’s willing to do that or not. MR. NACE-I’ll certainly speak to it. I’m not willing to say that we can do it without sitting down and making sure that the layout will work for parking in the rear. I’m looking at it now, and I don’t believe that there’s enough room there to get the required number of parking spaces in, without moving the driveway over to straddling the lot line, making a shared drive, so that we were able to pull cars in perpendicular to the south end of the building. I just don’t think that there’s enough room between the back of the building and the lot, the rear lot line, to get six cars in there, and leave any sort of clearance between the building and between the edge of the property and the pavement. So I’m willing to say that that could be investigated at such time as the sewers are available out in front on Bay Road, on their side of Bay Road, but I can’t promise that it’s practical to put those parking, physically possible to put those parking spaces in the back. MR. VOLLARO-I like Mr. Round’s proposal for us that says we’ll explore that at the time, and I think that’s how I would like to leave it, we’ll explore that at the time. MR. NACE-I think we’d be agreeable to that. MR. VOLLARO-A site change modification based on the sewer coming through. MR. NACE-I agree with Chris. It does look very likely, now, that the sewers will come through. One of my clients is going to be pushing that issue very hard, but I can’t guarantee you that they’re going to be on the west side of Bay Road. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. That’s absolutely correct. I’m privy to what you’re talking about. That’s why I’m saying it coming past this property may not ever take place. MR. NACE-We just don’t know at this point. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, Chris. Larry? MR. VOLLARO-Thanks, Chris. I appreciate it. MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything on this right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Just for clarification, the plan is to remove the existing asphalt. There is an existing sidewalk there. The plan is to remove the asphalt and the sidewalk, and put in grass in that area, and then have, put in four parking spots? MR. NACE-Four parking spots out in front, and one on each end of the building. MR. SEGULJIC-Right now it’s all asphalt in front of the building. MR. NACE-It has been, it’s gravel parking that the present owner has put in there in order to get parking spaces. MR. SEGULJIC-So there would not, under this plan, there would not be a sidewalk going through that area? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. NACE-Correct, through that island area in the middle. MR. SEGULJIC-How about if we were to do something like have that area be landscaped, so at least it would break it up, have various plantings in there to break it up? MR. NACE-It’s a fairly small area. It would not take much to put some landscaping in it. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I can agree. Just having a grass area or an asphalt wouldn’t look too appealing. That’s it for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I think I already sort of stated my position, my feelings on this application. I would hate to hold it up, hoping that something may or may not happen in the future, but conversely, I would much rather see the parking out in the rear, and have some nice landscaping out in front, just like everyone else. So I guess what I was actually about to propose before Chris Round made the comment, would be to condition any approval on re-visiting the site plan, in the event that the sewer were extended to the site. I mean, I have concerns with eliminating the sidewalk and requiring them to walk through the parking lot, if the sidewalk were to be extended past this site, but again, that’s even speculation, too. So, you know, what we have is what’s before us. So that’s all I feel I really can act on is what’s before us. MR. RINGER-I think really what we’ve got to decide, if it’s just too small for what they want to do, if we decide it’s too small, we say no. If we decide they can do it, then. MR. HUNSINGER-And, I mean, I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, if there have been other projects that we have looked at where we allowed parking to be on the public right of way like we’re looking at here. I don’t know if that’s a bad precedent for us to consider or not. MR. NACE-There have been, on Quaker Road there have been quite a few. MR. HUNSINGER-Have there? MR. RINGER-With the County approval, which they got. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I think that was a big step for them, is to get the County to approve that usage. I didn’t know whether that was going to happen, frankly, myself. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I realize that. MR. RINGER-It’s been a long time. How many meetings with the ZBA did this take? MR. NACE-I don’t know. I haven’t been on board for the whole thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Just that you take the sidewalk away and you put curbing in, the sidewalk’s gone forever. You’re not going to get it back. MR. NACE-What if we were to leave the sidewalk in that grassed area and there’s a couple of feet, there’s, I think, two feet behind the sidewalk, leave that a planting bed and put some annuals in there. MR. STROUGH-And leave the sidewalk? MR. NACE-And leave the sidewalk where it is. MR. STROUGH-Would that be better? MR. NACE-We could do that. I think it would have the same effect. The area behind the sidewalk would have some flowers in it. MR. STROUGH-That’s better. MR. MAC EWAN-Why annuals? Why not perennials? MR. NACE-I’m thinking flowers versus shrubs. Because of the size of the strip. MR. SANFORD-What’s your anticipated timeline on this anyway? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. NACE-They were ready to do it last Fall. They’ll do it as soon as the weather conditions permit in the spring. MR. SANFORD-I, for one, would like to see a workup. I mean, it doesn’t look like you’ve really seriously considered parking in the rear. You’re looking at the drawing now and you’re saying, well, it may not work for us. MR. NACE-Well, I can tell you if you will in two seconds, I can tell you for sure. We have about, from property line to back of building, we have 35 feet, okay. For six regular parking spaces, we would need fifty- four feet, plus the handicap is another seven feet. So we would need 61 feet, and we have 36. So they just won’t fit back there. Now, again, if we could do a shared drive with the property to the south, then, you know, we could bring them up along the south end of the building. MR. STROUGH-Tom, couldn’t you put two here and two here? How many parking spaces do we need? We’re only looking for three or four. MR. MAC EWAN-John, I think you and Rich are out on a limb on this one, all on your own. I just don’t think we’re being productive here belaboring that point. Because I don’t think you’ll get the support. MR. STROUGH-So you make it very clear that you’re willing to take that sidewalk out, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the other side of the coin is that sidewalk ends right at that property line anyway. You’ve got the bike path and you’ve got the walking lane on the other side of the road. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s proactive thinking, thinking that it’s never going to be extended north of Bay Road? MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t say that. MR. STROUGH-Well, if it does, you’ve got a place in there where the sidewalk’s broken up. You’re going to force people out into the road, women with baby carriages. MR. RINGER-Well, I imagine if they extend the walkway, John, they’re going to extend it from the point where it stops, and pick it up again. MR. NACE-That’s still within the highway right of way there. MR. VOLLARO-I think this all comes up on if and when the sewer comes up on the west side of Bay Road we revisit this site for exactly the purposes that you folks are talking about now. MR. STROUGH-Well, you can only revisit it if they ask you to revisit it. Otherwise, it’s status quo forever. MR. VOLLARO-Well, not if we make a condition of approval that if the sewer comes through, we are going to revisit this site. MS. RADNER-I don’t think you have the authority to do that. I think you have the authority to give a condition that specifically says that if the sidewalk comes through, the applicant agrees to some sort of. MR. VOLLARO-If the sewer comes through, not the sidewalk. MS. RADNER-I think you can put concrete condition that if the sewer goes through, we’re going to move two spaces, if the applicant agrees to do so. I don’t think you can put a condition and have it be enforceable that you’re going to revisit something or that you’re going to leave your authority open to look at these issues again. You would be exceeding your authority, for one thing, and you wouldn’t have an enforceable condition. Terms like explore, reinvestigate, revisit, they’re not enforceable conditions. They’re not concrete enough, and I would caution you from going there. MR. SANFORD-Is that a recommendation? MS. RADNER-I think that Larry pretty much summed it up nicely. You’re dealing with what you have before you now. If you can place conditions on what you have before you now to address a foreseeable thing that could happen in the future, that’s fine, but perhaps what you’re really considering is, is the use before you now something you want to allow or something you want to disallow, and I’m not going to try and suggest to you which way to go from there. MR. VOLLARO-I think it has to go, we’ll make a motion and see where it goes. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. MAC EWAN-If we were to have you do that landscaping in that two foot wide area there, I’d be looking for something that would be more of a perennial type, shrub type that would, in my mind, that would act not only as a buffer but as a moderate screen from the parking area to the road. The question is, what can you put in there. MR. NACE-I’ll have to get Jim Miller’s help there. I really don’t know, but we could certainly agree to appropriately landscape it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other thoughts from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve driven past it so many times and looked at it, and I just don’t see it as a real sore thumb kind of thing that couldn’t stay almost the way it is out front there. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know the intent of the Bay Road corridor is to raise the bar on the architecture and the landscaping’s that are being proposed along there, and the right way of doing this, it’s a commercial enterprise. The right way of doing this is to put the parking out back and landscaping out in front. MR. VOLLARO-John, I tend to agree with that, but, you know, you’ve got a leach field back there. Now, what do you want to do with it? MR. STROUGH-But there’s a sewer going through. In all likelihood, I talked to Mike Shaw about it, and he’s the assistant director of wastewater. MR. VOLLARO-John, there’s nobody in this room that knows more about where this sewer is headed then the guy sitting in this chair. I’m going to have to make that statement. There’s nobody in here can take the test and pass it on what the devil we’ve done. MR. MAC EWAN-And I don’t think we can take up the cause as to what might happen down the road. MR. STROUGH-Well, I personally don’t have a problem with what the function is right now. I mean, leave it like it is right now. Let’s wait a few months, see what happens with the sewer thing, and then we can do the project right. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Cathi’s saying we can do that. MR. SANFORD-We could table this, can’t we? MR. STROUGH-I guess we could table it. MR. VOLLARO-We could table it, but I don’t think we have, in my own mind, I wouldn’t vote for a tabling. I think we ought to vote, put a motion up and see where the motion goes. MR. RINGER-We have a public hearing yet, too. Why don’t we open the public hearing and get some thoughts, and maybe we can get some additional ideas, if there is any, and then close it and get back to what we’re trying to figure out. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris and Tom, have you got any thoughts? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the thought of tabling it didn’t occur to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Tabling it for what reason? MR. SEGULJIC-If we were to table it, what exactly would that mean? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s an appropriate action to take. MR. RINGER-Because there’s no end frame, there’s no date for when that sewer may go in. So how could you table it indefinitely? MR. HUNSINGER-You could table it for a specified period of time. MR. RINGER-It’s been going on since April of last year. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got an applicant really hanging out here based on a tenuous decision to put a sewer in. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ve got an applicant here who’s only here because I think the Town said they had to come before us. I don’t know if the applicant was all that dissatisfied with the current arrangement, to tell you the truth. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s kind of history. It’s before us now. We’ve got to deal with it. MR. HUNSINGER-My preference still would be to approve it as is, with the condition that they come back and, instead of making it open-ended, put the burden on the applicant to come back with a plan that shows the parking in the rear, and let them figure out how to do it, and if it’s impossible, then they’ll have to prove it’s impossible. MR. VOLLARO-You mean have them do that now? MR. HUNSINGER-No, approve the existing site plan with the couple of conditions that we’ve talked about, the perennials along the sidewalk, and also condition it that, when the sewer is extended up Bay Road, that the applicant come back with a new site plan that shows the parking to the rear of the building. MR. RINGER-Counsel said we couldn’t do that. MR. VOLLARO-I think Cathi said that wasn’t a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-But that’s a specified action that they would have to do, rather than open-ended. We’re not saying revisit the whole site plan. We’re saying, they have to come back with a plan that has the parking in the rear. Is that specific enough? MR. NACE-Can I unwind your dilemma for you a little bit? How about if we table it until next month, give me a week to resubmit plans for the March meeting, and I will have plans that will show you, if practical, what a layout would look like for parking in the rear? MR. MAC EWAN-Have you talked to the adjacent property owner about the possibility of a shared driveway to gain access to that back parcel? MR. NACE-No, I have not. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you? MR. NACE-I, personally, have not. I don’t know whether the owner has or not. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you ask the Lukes if they would do that? MR. NACE-We’ll ask about talking to the adjacent owner. We’ll come up with a plan for planting up front, and I’ll look at the feasibility of parking out back. Now parking out back, are you talking about taking all of the new proposed parking spaces and putting them all out back, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess my thought is, if it’s impossible, if it’s physically impossible to put six spaces to the rear of the building, that you would devise a plan where you could put four, maybe, and then maybe two on the side, one on each side, the way you sort of have it planned now? I don’t know. MR. NACE-I will look and see what’s feasible. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay, and come back to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I would tend to agree with you, based on the map, you’re not going to get room for six spaces across the back. MR. NACE-I know I wouldn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing. I’ll open it and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ll entertain a motion to table, please. MRS. MOORE-Do you have the list of your conditions? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll do them right now. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2001, KENNETH & CHERIE LUKE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) Until the applicant can return with an alternate approach to parking, and that would be tabled until the 19 of th March 2002, and we would apply the conditions to this at that time, and have the property owner explore the possibility of a shared driveway with the adjacent property owner. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, Tom. MR. NACE-Can I have until next Wednesday to submit those? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Close of business next Wednesday. Thank you, Tom. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – PZ 1-2002 HOME DEPOT RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone, PZ 1-2002, Home Depot, Meeting Date: February 26, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant proposes the rezoning of a vacant/wooded 5.21 acre parcel, located between the Northway Plaza and Montray Road, from Single Family Residential (SFR-1A) to Plaza Commercial (PC-1A) to facilitate construction of an 98,222 sq. ft. home improvement store and associated improvements. The project will require demolition of a portion of the existing commercial space. The surrounding land uses are comprised of residential to the northeast, a municipal cemetery to the east, commercial uses to the south and southwest and Montray Road to the northwest. Additional commercial uses are located to the north of the subject site. The current Northway Plaza parcel is 29.83 acres. The site itself is wooded and topography is characterized as steep. There appear to be several natural “springs’ on the site. Review Process/SEQRA Review The Planning Board has been requested to make a recommendation on the rezoning to the Town Board. If a favorable recommendation is provided and the Town Board acts on the rezoning the Planning Board will be conducting a site plan review. It has been the practice of the Town that the Planning Board conduct the SEQRA review when there is specific project is included and therefore the Planning Board will be the lead agency for this purpose. The Planning Board is requested to commence its environmental review of the project. Information Submitted Petition of zone change application, stormwater report, and traffic impact study. Drawings: Location map, S-1 Existing survey, L-1 Demolition and Removal, L-2 Demolition and Removal, L-3 Lay out and materials plan, L-4 Lay out and materials plan, L-5 Grading and Drainage plan, L-6 Grading and Drainage plan, L-7 Utility plan, L-8 Landscaping, Lighting and Signage plan, L-9 Landscaping, Lighting, and Signage plan, L-10 Construction details, L-11 Construction details, L-12 construction details. Rezoning Review Town Planning Staff have reviewed the Rezoning request and prepared the following responses for the Planning Board’s review. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The proposed redistricting would extend the commercial area available in order to facilitate the expansion and redevelopment of the Northway Plaza, which includes the demolition of approximately 80,000 sq. ft. of existing retail area in favor of the construction of an 110,000 sq. ft. Home Depot facility. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? Both the Highway Commercial and the Plaza Commercial would facilitate the proposed use. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The property is adjacent to both the Plaza Commercial zone and the Single Family Residential zone. The Highway Commercial zone is compatible as the uses allowed are similar. The Pine View cemetery abuts a portion of the property (zoned Single family residential) and a residential use abuts another portion of the property. The proposed zone could be consistent with the exiting conditions as this request is to extend an existing district. Such an extension could be compatible with the residential zone if adequate screening / buffering is provided. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The location of the property to Route 9 and commercial uses may present the property as more suitable to commercial development than single-family residential development. However there are site conditions, i.e., wetlands, that may impact/ limit either commercial or residential development 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? Public Utilities: Sewer/Water The property is located in a public sewer and water district Transportation: Highways/Traffic/Circulation The applicant has submitted a traffic report to be reviewed. Schools/Emergency Services/Town Facilities There are no anticipated impacts on these services. 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? The current zoning does not allow commercial uses. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? The applicant has provided a long EAF for the Planning Board’s review. The applicant has provided additional information that characterized the impacts of the project as they relate to traffic, stormwater management, and cultural/historic resources. Technical review of these submissions is underway. The proposed project is located in area that contains wetlands, steep slopes, and is near the historical blind rock site. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The property is located in Neighborhood 7. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that access management should be carefully evaluated in this area. No additional references to the site are noted. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The redistricting would provide potential for the Northway Plaza to expand and be redeveloped, thereby recycling the plaza and possibly providing additional services for the community. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): ?? Petition of Zone Change PZ 5-99 on 8/17/99 rezone a portion of Pine view cemetery (SFR-1A) to Plaza Commercial. The purpose was to allow for additional development of Northway Plaza ?? Town Board Resolution 303.99 on 9/20/99. ?? Planning Board Petition of Zone Change PZ 2-2000 on 4/19/00 from SFR-1A to Plaza Commercial. The purpose was to resolve an encroachment issue and for additional parking ?? Town Board Resolution 213.2000 on 5/15/00 Staff comments: The purpose of Planning Board review of the change of zone is to evaluate the positive and negative impacts to the surrounding area and to provide a recommendation to the Town Board about the change of zone. Staff The Planning Board is the SEQR lead agency for this Petition of Zone Change. Currently, a Home Depot facility is planned for the plaza and this parcel. Such a project will be subject to Site Plan review from the Planning Board. Any commercial development in this area should maintain a substantial `vegetative buffer between the residential uses and the cemetery.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MRS. MOORE-Under discussion I have the review of impacts on stormwater, how will the stormwater impact the tributary to Halfway Brook, and under traffic, what improvements will be made. MR. MAC EWAN-We just need to do a formal resolution on this, right? That’s all we need to do? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’m sorry. I read the Staff notes for the Petition for Zone Change versus the SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Any comments that you want to make? Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH PZ 1-2002 FOR HOME DEPOT, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, in connection with the Home Depot project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director of Community Development to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – PZ 1-2002 RECOMMENDATION HOME DEPOT PROPERTY OWNER: GERTRUDE STONE AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER CURRENT ZONING: SFR-1A PROPOSED ZONING: PC-1A LOCATION: SOUTH EAST SIDE OF MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF A 5.21 ACRE PARCEL FROM SFR-1A TO PC-1A, A PORTION OF WHICH IS TO BE UTILIZED AS A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA AND PAVED AREA, THE REMAINDER UTILIZED AS A BUFFER AREA FOR THE PROPOSED HOME DEPOT PROJECT. TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION 57, 2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 72-7-3 LOT SIZE: 5.21 ACRES SECTION: 179-94 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dave Carr, Landscape Architect for the LA Group in Saratoga. We have with us a whole cast of consultants, which we’ll bring up as necessary to answer any questions raised by the Board. Shelly Johnston is here from Creighton Manning Traffic Engineering. She’s done a number of the Quaker Road traffic studies, both on behalf of applicants and behalf of the Town, and is very familiar with the traffic issues. She has drafted and submitted a full traffic report which you probably received about a week ago. I guess I’d like to start off with just having Dave walk you through the site plan quickly. We did this last month, and I’m sure you’re pretty familiar with the project, but just to get started briefly, and then get into the issues and questions that the Board has. We’re hoping to move in the direction of a recommendation, a positive recommendation on the rezoning to get back to the Town Board, and then to get into the SEQRA review, and if everything goes the way we hope, we would go to the Town Board, after the SEQRA determination by this Board, would go to the Town Board for a vote on the rezoning and then we would come back here for the detailed site plan review, but we understand that as part of your SEQRA review you’re going to want to get into site plan issues now, as they affect environmental impacts, and we’re here to answer all your questions and discuss the project. DAVE CARR MR. CARR-Thanks, Jon. So hopefully everyone can see. Once again, real quickly, I’ll just run you through the site. The total site area is approximately 35 acres, and the area proposed to be rezoned is approximately 5 acres. It’s down in this area down here. The total, as I said, the total site area is 35 acres. We are proposing a new Home Depot in place of approximately 80,000 square feet of existing commercial space, that will be demolished. The existing square footage of the center today is approximately 290,000 square feet. As I just mentioned, we’re removing approximately 85,000 square feet in this area right here. The existing parking is in this field in front. We are removing that 85,000 square feet and constructing a new Home Depot, which totals approximately 116,000 square feet. So the total square footage will be about 321,000 square feet, or an 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) additional 31,000 square feet over the existing, and that includes the 18,000 square foot garden center. Part of the proposal is to consolidate some of the entrances along Route 9, and I believe Shelly will speak to that. What we are proposing is to remove two access points closer to the intersection, consolidate them into a right in, right out in this area here, and then obviously the main intersection will be improved with a long entrance, exit throat, if you will, to control traffic. Presently, the cuts at this access are very close to the intersection. So you have people traveling in three directions, as people come in the site, which makes it very confusing. This will curbed and they’ll be funneled in through the site and then allowed to either turn towards the existing office building or the Travelers area or towards the Home Depot. We’ll be utilizing on-site sewer and water, and the storm drainage, which we have submitted a stormwater report and Kevin Hastings is here from our office if you have any questions about that. The existing storm system basically is collected in this front parking lot and is piped through the building and directly into the wetland area. Our proposal is to take all the new drainage area and as much of the existing drainage area that we could bring into that system because of grade, bring it over to a new detention basin that actually will be proposed in the rezoned parcel, so it can be treated before it dumps into the wetland. Another factor involved in this, as part of the proposal, is that the water coming off the roof of the proposed Home Depot is being pumped directly into the wetland. We did that with the Home Depot that we did in the Town of Amsterdam and the Army Corps of Engineers really liked it because the water coming off these roof structures do not contain particulates that you would get oils and things, salts that you would get off a parking lot. That allows us to make the treatment area a little bit smaller, and not impact as much area. So it’s basically clean water that’s feeding that wetland. So with that, I’ll turn it back over to Jon, and I’m sure you’ll have some questions. MR. LAPPER-Shelly, would you like to give an overview of traffic at this point? I’m just going to ask Shelly to quickly give you an overview on her traffic analysis. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there a traffic report that was submitted? MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because we haven’t seen it. MR. RINGER-You wouldn’t normally get a traffic report anyway on a subdivision, you know, on a zone change. MR. MAC EWAN-We would get it at site plan. MR. LAPPER-We submitted it now, because, in terms of the SEQRA, we just figured, knowing you guys, your level of detail, that you’d want to see it, so we submitted it at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Was it in our packets? MR. ROUND-No, it hasn’t been distributed to you yet. We just received it Friday of last week. So we didn’t want to, maybe some of you did get it. I’m sorry. I don’t know everything. You will be looking at, the technical review items that we have forwarded them to the Town’s engineer. They’ll be providing comment, and the only thing that we’ve done, anything technical wise, is we’ve conceptually reviewed the stormwater aspects, to say, hey, is this concept going to work, and I think, I don’t know if you’ve received the letter from C.T. Male today. I think Laura has a copy, if she hasn’t provided it to the Planning Board. It says it looks like it’s going to work, and one of our major concerns was was stormwater going to correspond with the recommendations that were made as part of the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, Halfway Brook Watershed Management Plan, and I think that it generally meets the intent of that plan, but there’s specific details on that, but again, tonight you’re really not going to delve that deep into those details. SHELLY JOHNSTON MS. JOHNSTON-I’ll make it brief, how about that? After all, I waited. MR. ROUND-No, I mean, feel free to present those and have those discussions, but they’re not going to get that kind of feedback until we’ve had time to review it. MS. JOHNSTON-That’s fine. For the record, I’m Shelly Johnston. I’m a Traffic Engineer with Creighton Manning Engineering, and our firm did do a full traffic impact study, consistent with traffic engineering standards and New York State Department of Transportation standards for a traffic impact study, and basically the scope of the traffic impact study, we looked at the signalized intersections on Route 9, both north and south of the signalized site driveway, and we also evaluated each of the site driveways themselves. We did traffic counts, in the Route 9 corridor and at the site driveways in November, documenting existing traffic conditions. Also documenting what the Plaza is generating now, at its occupancy rate right now. There will be about 35,000 square feet of existing occupied retail space that will be demolished. So some of the traffic that’s on the driveways now will essentially be removed and then we’ll add in the Home Depot traffic on top of that, if you follow that line of thought. The Home Depot will generate about, I think it’s 290 trips in the p.m. peak hour, total, and about 550 in the Saturday peak hour. Again recognizing that some 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) portion of the traffic that’s generated at the driveways now, 140 trips in the p.m. peak hour and about 110 in the Saturday peak hour will be removed because of the demolition of existing occupied retail space. Then when you also consider the phenomenon of past site trips, which I’ve talked about with the Board, is that traffic on Route 9 and traffic that’s on Route 254 now that travels past the site, that we’ll capture because of the Home Depot being at this location. So it’ll be new trips in and out of the site driveways, but it won’t be all new traffic on Route 9 and on Route 254. The bottom line is, the net increase in traffic will be 96 trips in the p.m. peak hour, and 300 trips in the Saturday peak hour, that’s a total of entering and exiting trips, new trips added to the adjacent transportation system. We distributed those trips, north, south, east and west, and assigned them to those adjacent intersections, added the Home Depot traffic on top of some background growth in the corridor and the Aviation Mall expansion approved traffic volumes from that study that was recently approved by the Board. So we looked at, cumulatively, what the traffic impacts will be with the Aviation Mall expansion, with the Home Depot project, and the existing traffic there now, and we made some recommendations. To cut to the chase, what the Staff comments asked for was what improvements are going to be made, and what we’ve recommended is some modifications to the existing traffic signal at the site driveway, to improve that, essentially modernize that existing traffic signal. It’s an old signal with limited capabilities. We’re proposing to revise that signal, to improve the phasing, continue the, what’s good operation on Route 9 now, not hinder the flow of traffic on Route 9, but facilitate access and egress to our site. In addition, there will be some removal of one existing unsignalized driveway on Route 9, and a reconstruction of another existing unsignalized driveway on Route 9 to make it a right in and right out. That, in general, is termed access management to try to control our traffic, put it in one location the signalized driveway. The study has been submitted to the Department of Transportation and I know that they are currently reviewing the study and have not determined exactly what their findings will be, but I anticipate that will be in the next couple of weeks. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-In terms of the first aspect of your review on the recommendation of the rezoning, I just want to point out the obvious that the location that Home Depot chose here is a redevelopment of an existing, tired site. The site, obviously, is underutilized, in terms of the vacant space, but also it was designed, for a time, before there was all the traffic in the area, the improvements that Dave is making on-site, or proposing to make, with extending the throats and moving the intersections away from Route 9, will all serve to not only improve safety on the site, but also on Route 9. So we view this as a major re-development, improvement of the site, and by Home Depot having the five acre parcel in the back under contract that we’re asking to be rezoned, that allows the stormwater management to be more efficiently dealt with, more effectively dealt with. At the same time, the vast majority of that five acre site will be green. As Dave pointed out, there’s a small strip of pavement, and a very edge of the building. So we’re really utilizing that for primarily stormwater management, and that shouldn’t have any impact on anyone in the back, and we’re not proposing any driveway onto that roadway, Montray, unless the Board determines otherwise. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Could you touch very briefly on archeological. Then I’ll ask the Town Historian to come up. MR. LAPPER-Perfect. We were made aware of an issue that I guess came up before the Planning Board at the time that the new hotel up the street was approved, that there’s local folklore, Blind Rock was perhaps the site of some Indian massacre in the 1700’s, and that that may have been located, if it happened, it may have been located, not on this property, but on the other side of Montray, on another parcel, and that that was the reason that it was determined by the Town that it would be appropriate to do an archeological study. John’s smiling so there’s probably more to it than I’m aware of, but in any case, we took that seriously, that there was a reason to commission an archeological study. We have received the Phase IA study which details from 11,000 B.C. to present, that talks about, which we’ll be submitting to you immediately, but it talks about the rich history of the area, in revolutionary times, the military road, and Blind Rock, and what that recommends is that this site would be suitable for going to the next stage, which would be the Phase IB, which shovel test, which they do every 50 feet, and a grid pattern to determine whether, if they find artifacts, then recommend that they go on. This is the standard methodology that we’ve all been involved in on other sites in the Town. The 1B shovel test is, weather dependent, it’s supposed to happen this Thursday, or else early next week if the weather’s not suitable. So we’re going ahead and doing it and we’ll have the results for you the next time we meet, but if it turns out that there are artifacts, then we would have to deal with those appropriately, in terms of if they were in a location that’s going to be disturbed, to try and remove those and preserve those during the construction, but we’ll see. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could I ask you to give up the table for a minute. Marilyn? MARILYN VAN DYKE MRS. VAN DYKE-I’m Marilyn VanDyke and I’m the Town Historian. This is a very interesting project in terms of the 5.21 acres that have been purchased in back of the area, because we have two types of historic sites here, and also an archaeologically sensitive area. The first site is the Blind Rock site which is located in a very short distance from here across Montray Road. This is a large, gneiss rock. It’s been there probably since heaven knows when, and it’s a very good example of a strong historic landmark in the Town. It was a 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) crossroads of travel, during the Native American times. There’s a deed boundary marker, and it’s also a legendary place of Ambuscades where soldiers and travelers were possibly waylaid. We say that with great care because we don’t have a lot of documented evidence of that, but because of the nature of the times in that period, it was considered a very fearful place to travel through when this was the frontier of America. Now the rock is still there, and it does need to be protected, and it is currently on private property, owned by the Kapoor family who operate the Ponderosa Restaurant. The second historic site is even more interesting, because it is the Old Military Road. Now this was a 16 mile road that was laid from Fort Edward to Fort William Henry in the year 1755 by a General William Johnson. It became the pathway of armies during both the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. Now that meant that there were large and significant numbers of soldiers who traveled this road. There are all kinds of figures, 12,000, 8,000, 3,000. It depends upon who you read. The armies, of course, leave a lot of telltale history as they travel, and some of that may still very well be in the ground. During the American Revolution, it was the diversionary highway traveled by Hessian Soldiers, and there’s also the story of the Baroness Von Riedesel who traveled through this area on August 14, on her way to Saratoga, and she was the only woman who chronicled the history of th war at that time. Now most of the vestiges of this road have been lost over time, but we do know several things about the road, that it was a cut along low land areas, not on high rise areas because what army would want to march up on top of a hill and try to bushwhack a road. So they would cut down on the lower areas, and if you see how this goes, there’s a low area here that came up out of what is now Pineview Cemetery and went up through here, and probably traveled on up past the Blind Rock and then on up to the higher area that eventually became Route 9. It is not correct to call the Old Military Road Route 9, because it had different paths in different places. So it is not what we know as Route 9 today. There’s a current attempt underway to research this road thoroughly, with all the known knowledge that we have, which are diaries, journals, deeds, old land maps and so on, and combine that with new computer technology to get this road determined as accurately as possible, and when we have that, we will be able to present to the Town Planning Board a map that will help you with future planning, so that you’ll know exactly, or to the best of our knowledge, where that road went. This project is being undertaken by the Warren County Historical Society, and a surveyor, historian by the name of Tom Nesbitt is the person who is doing a great deal of the research on this work, and we have a grant pending at the present time with the National Parks Service. So we hope we’ll be able to complete this work in a timely fashion to be able to give this information to Planning Boards in the future. I would like to read, very briefly, from A.W. Holden, who is the author of the History of the Town of Queensbury, and he’s talking in this section, on Page 14, about Blind Rock. “This rock is one of the numerous boulders that lie in the path of the diluvial drift trending from the lofty Adirondack range to the valley of the Hudson. It’s composition is gneiss it is deeply embedded beneath a drift and soil, the slow accumulation of untold ages, and, although legend states that within the period of a human life, over four feet of the rock has been exposed to view, yet the gradual wash from the hill above, and the frequent passage of the plow at its side, has so filled up the inequalities of the surface, that but a very small portion of the crown of the rock is now visible.” That is true today if you go to visit the site. Now here’s the important point. “It is situated a yard or two from the route of the old military highway leading from Fort Edward to Fort William Henry, and about twenty-five rods to the east of the present plank road to Caldwell,” the plank road later became Route 9, “on the farm owned by Mr. William Miller, and about two and one-half miles north of Glen’s Falls village.” So I think you can see that we have this kind of intersection here between the Blind Rock and the Military Road, and that we need to consider this area as a possibility. We need to study this while we can still do so. Many of these developments that came earlier, that were also on the higher pieces of land, failed to take some of this history into account in the past, but now we look much more seriously at archeology. I presented to the Planning Board a schematic map that was drawn by Zaboli. It shows some of the strong possibilities for the location of the Old Military Road, and I spoke with Karen Hartgen about a week and a half ago, and she informed me that it would be possible to identify such a roadway through an archeological investigation by determining disturbances in the ground. So I’d, therefore, suggest that we try to use this opportunity to document this section. It may be the only time that we ever get a real true section of the highway that we can identify it as such at this time, and before all the evidence is totally gone with development. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Marilyn. MR. VOLLARO-Marilyn, what’s a rod, how many feet? MRS VAN DYKE-What is a rod? How many feet, anybody remember? MR. MAC EWAN-Seven feet. MR. VOLLARO-Seven feet? MR. MAC EWAN-Sixteen and a half. MR. ROUND-Yes, 16. MR. STROUGH-But also, you and I have looked at the maps. MRS. VAN DYKE-Yes. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. STROUGH-Because we’ve worked before and I’m on your advisory committee council, and there was a crossroads there actually. There was a military trail that went from Fort Edward to Fort William Henry, and there was also the original Blind Rock Road which is naturally, as roads did in that time, probably followed a Native American trail that went east/west. MRS. VAN DYKE-But it’s not the one that’s called Blind Rock today. MR. STROUGH-Right. It’s not the one called Blind Rock today. We’ve gone through that, too, and this site was so significant that General Jeffrey Amherst, when he came up here, used that as a demarcation between French territory and the British territory in the south, and not only that, but Jeffrey Kowper, who used to reside and own the trading post, the halfway trading post on Halfway Brook, which is now currently in front of the Price Chopper, of the European travelers coming up to make their land claims to beware of going to the top of Miller Hill because it was a place of ambush because it was a crossroads, and last summer we came up with a three ring notebook which we overstuffed of all historic material that we have discovered and references to it, etc., on Blind Rock. Now, also in this immediate area, there’s an artesian well, that I’ve addressed before, and it’s the immediate source of water. To a Native American, not only would the rock have some significance, but the only immediate source of, the nearest and most approximate source of water would be the artesian stream which is located on the south side of Montray, and the Blind Rock is located on the north side of Montray, and I don’t think, Jon, that when they put Montray Road in, that they put it in with the idea that that would demark what is historically significant and not. So the area does have potential to be historically significant. MRS. VAN DYKE-I just feel that before you go into development or do your stormwater management plan, as you have defined it, that you do take time to do some study in the area and see what we can learn from it. MR. LAPPER-I just want to point out a couple of things. Marilyn mentioned the name Karen Hartgen, but didn’t explain that that’s who we had retained to do this study, and Karen is very well respected, and the fact that they’re coordinating between the two of them is a good thing, and in general, when, if there are artifacts, it’s only until somebody proposes development that somebody spends money to do the archeological investigation. So this is an opportunity, if you will, to find out, as John suggested, whether the area that is proposed for disturbance is the area of the Military Road where there are artifacts and we’ll know, within a week or so, what the story is. So we’ve hired a qualified consultant and we’ll have a detailed report, based on their findings, and present it to the Board for your review. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you, Marilyn. Anything else you wanted to add, Jon? MR. LAPPER-No, not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, obviously, one of my concerns is the historical importance of the area, and I’m glad that you’re doing and you’ve offered to do more than a cursory archeological investigation. I thought that was very good, and let’s see what happens with this test pit, but as you can see, it’s archeologically significant, and the stormwater is another thing I’m going to look at. Now the roof is going to be asphalt. Is it not? It’s going to be an asphalt roof. RICHARD LA MONT MR. LA MONT-Richard LaMont, with Greenburg, Farrell Architecture. At this point, I would just say that I doubt very much that anyone has picked a specific product for the roof, but it would probably not be an asphalted product, more likely one of the many plastic, vinyl type products that’s out there. That, as Dave had mentioned before, I think it’s generally accepted that the runoff from that type of product is generally clean, as opposed to, you know like (lost word). MR. STROUGH-An asphalt roof. Okay. Well, that was my question. Because when it comes time for site plan, I’m going to take a real close look at the stormwater runoff. What you’ve proposed already is, and I agree, better than what’s there, 100% better than what’s there, but I’m going to be taking a close look at it, and I’m going to take a close look at the historical significance of that, and I mentioned to you last time, and it’s still a little concern with me, that we have some kind of architectural design integrity, maybe not necessarily absolutely matching, but nothing that, like we don’t want an orange pumpkin. MR. LAPPER-Let me address that, John. We heard what you said at the last meeting. I came in and met with Chris Round, recently, with what was not the prototypical Home Depot, but with what had some upgrade features. Chris pointed out some aspects of it that he thought that the Planning Board would like to see changed, and we’re going back to the drawing board, and we’ll be back, the next time we meet, with a proposal to share with you, that will not be the standard Home Depot prototype. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. STROUGH-Okay, glad to hear that, and I also have to add that, I think the location that you’ve chosen is, if we can get over the hurdles, and we can, I think it’s an excellent location. You’re not taking down anymore trees. We’re not taking down acres of trees to locate you. You’re locating in an existing plaza that needs a little revitalization. So there’s a lot of good things to the location that you have selected in my mind, and that’s you, but you’re asking for a rezoning at this point. Now a rezoning, and if it wasn’t you going in, and we’re looking at a Highway Commercial, which the new site would be Highway Commercial intensive, as opposed to residential, that that would include gas stations, discothèques, fast food restaurants, have access onto Montray Road, things that I would be opposed to. So I understand, and that’s why I’m making it publicly clear, and get your affirmation. I understand that you’re willing to have this rezoning tagged to this project? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and the stipulation that the rest of the land will stay as undeveloped land, as a condition. That has to be there for the stormwater management facilities anyway. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the only other thing is just a figures thing, and just take a second look, and I’m not going to get into details, but your project description and your site development data numbers a little bit off and don’t line up. Would you just take a second look at that and make sure that they do next time, when you do come for site plan review? MR. LAPPER-When we first started talking about it, we were talking about the building, we didn’t, perhaps, include the 16,000 square foot, the garden center. MR. STROUGH-That might be, but I’m just saying, it’s not even important to me, at this point, but just make sure that it does, because I will be looking for that. MR. LAPPER-Either way, it’s very similar to what’s being removed, in terms of size, and I think we now have the numbers down. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right, and I see that you are proposing landscaping north of you that will screen the building from Montray Road? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s on the landscape plan. MR. STROUGH-And I understand, too, that you don’t own the project, I mean, you don’t own the development. The rest of the retail development is actually owned by somebody else. MR. LAPPER-Well, the Plaza is owned by a development company. The principal is here tonight, and will be with us for other meetings, and our project is being developed by Home Depot Corporation, Home Depot USA, Inc., and their real estate vice president is here, Roger Hershorn, and will be here at meetings to answer direct questions about the nature and operation of Home Depot. So we have the best of both. We have the Plaza owner and we have the tenant/developer/representative. MR. STROUGH-Okay, well, because somebody asked me, and the reason why I asked, and I said I didn’t know, was they said, well, you know how we have to look at the roofs of those buildings as you go up Route 9 towards the Subway? Is there anyway you could make Home Depot put some vegetation that might soften that view of the roofs as you go up Route 9 and down Route 9. So I said, I’ll ask. It doesn’t hurt to ask. I don’t know if you can because I don’t know of your relationship with the owner, but, and it doesn’t have to be tall trees. We’re talking about shrubs that may kind of cover the roof, but, Larry’s saying no, but. MR. RINGER-Well, you’re getting into site plan so much, that’s why I have difficulty with it, John. MR. STROUGH-I said I’d ask. I got that done with. MR. VOLLARO-You got it in there, John, all in one breath. MR. STROUGH-All right. Fine. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Not too much. Obviously, I mean, is there a cast iron commitment for this project or what could make it fall apart at this point in time? MR. LAPPER-If the Planning Board doesn’t grant site plan approval, if the Town Board didn’t grant the rezoning, we don’t have a project, but what we have is Home Depot, Roger Hershorn is sitting behind Shelly, so this is the case where we have the tenant as the developer. So they are very excited about this site, and we could get Roger on the record to say that, if you’d like, but we’ve got to go through the process. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. SANFORD-Okay. Obviously, tonight is just the actual rezoning portion. I’m not going to take up anybody’s time. I’m going to pass over it to the next person. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess I’m going to just ask, what kind of timeframe are we looking for actually starting construction, in other words, where are we? MR. LAPPER-They would like to be under construction this summer, so we’re hopeful that we could get through the process perhaps by the end of May. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking for a pretty strong target date for my next question. That’s what I’m really looking at. I’m really looking at for you to give me a really pretty firm target date, plus or minus three months, let’s say. ROGER HERSHORN MR. HERSHORN-Roger Hershorn. I’m a real estate manager, even though Jon promoted me a few moments ago, from Home Depot our goal, frankly, is to get under construction as quickly as possible. We will, from a plan perspective, be ready to start construction mid-May. Of course, I don’t know that we’re going to have Planning Board approval by then. So, as soon after, as soon as we get Planning Board approval, after mid-May, when our construction documents will be complete, that’s when we would hope to start construction. MR. MAC EWAN-How long does it typically take you to develop the site and be ready for store opening? MR. HERSHORN-It usually takes about seven and a half months from the time we start footings, until we open. This project, it may take a little longer. We’re not sure. We’re still trying to figure that out. Our building sits wholly behind the existing structure. So it is likely that we’ll be able to be constructing our building while at the same time doing demo and site work in the front. If that is true, then seven and a half months is probably a pretty good estimate. If it turns out that that’s not true, then, you know, add 60 days or so to get the site, to get the demo done and the site ready for construction of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There is. You’ve given me May as a date. I’ve thrown down a date, just picked a date out of the air, of August 2002. What I’m driving at here is that if this project doesn’t get into the ground, or start to go into the ground by a certain date, I’d like to propose that the zone be reverted back to its original zone. I’m looking to really get you guys committed one way or another, and the zone, in my mind, if you don’t commit to it by a certain date, say August 2002, that you actually start going in. MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s a different question than we thought we were answering. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know that. MR. LAPPER-I mean, with all the vagaries of the approval process and construction, I mean, if there’s going to be a penalty date, I would say let’s put it out a year from then. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we’ll put it out at any time. If you want to put a penalty date out of a year from now, or, you pick the date. I just want a date set on, down, that says we start by this or the zone reverts back to its original zone. MR. LAPPER-The concept is fine as long as the date gives enough flexibility for all sorts of bad things to happen. MR. VOLLARO-You pick the date. How’s that? MR. LAPPER-Okay. Do we need to do that tonight? MR. VOLLARO-I would like it tonight, yes, because it’s a condition on which I would be voting for a rezoning. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s continue on with our questioning. Jon, take a few minutes, because when we do the public hearing, you guys can talk about. Let’s just keep going with our question and answer period, in the interest of time here. What else have you got? MR. VOLLARO-That’s really my basic question. I want them to commit to a time. I don’t have anything else, Mr. Chairman. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I think the Plaza needs a boost, and I think that Home Depot would give a good boost. My concerns would be to make sure that there was no ingress or egress onto Montray Road, which you’ve shown. MR. LAPPER-We have not proposed it. MR. RINGER-No, I know, and I just wanted to make that a condition of any zone change or anything. Other than that, as far as the zone change, I don’t have anything. Site plan, of course, there could be a lot of issues that might come up. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. RINGER-And that’s it, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of concerns. The entrance by the, I guess it’s Monroe Muffler? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that going to still exist? Is that going to be taken out? MR. LAPPER-No. What’s proposed is many feet north of what’s there now. We acknowledge that that’s not an optimum situation. It’s too close to the intersection. So what Dave has proposed, what Shelly’s looked at in the traffic study, is a right in, right out, which is north of that intersection. That’s intended to serve The Travelers, and the tenants on that side of the site. MR. ROUND-Laura, do you have the planametric layer? I don’t know if that’ll show those drives. MR. SEGUJLJIC-In regards to stormwater, which is one of my big concerns, obviously what you’re proposing is an improvement. One of my concerns is obviously the wetland behind the Home Depot where the water is going to be discharged. One of my concerns, I’d like to see if it’s possible, is it possible to put a weir across that retention pond, as an added procedure for stormwater control? MR. CARR-Yes, and I believe that’s part of the proposal, and that would be the overflow. Obviously, we have an outlet pipe that, and I can bring up Kevin Hastings, but I think maybe I can get this. There is an outlet pipe that is close to the bottom of the pond, and it’s just above the level that’s required to treat the first flush of runoff, which is normally one inch or a one year storm, whichever is great. So that creates your first discharge level. So, in other words, everything above that level will flow through the pipe. The pipe is designed of a size to hold back the flow to keep it at a pre-development rate or an existing rate. The weir you’re talking about is, once the water increases in that pond, it could get to a level where it has an overflow maybe a 100 year storm, maybe even greater, where it would overflow through that weir, but you’ve already gotten through that treatment level, and that’s what, that’s, in my opinion, that’s the most important part of these detention basins is the treatment, and that’s what we don’t have today, and why I mentioned that about the roof, we could easily take that roof water and put it into the basin. It’s actually cheaper to do that. It’s actually cheaper to do that. We have, we’re proposing two separate systems. Obviously, they can’t be interconnected, and the reason why we did it here, because like I had mentioned, in Amsterdam the Army Corps of Engineers asked us to do that, because it was cleaner water and it feeds it directly into the wetland, and what you have to keep in mind is that water is still calculated in the overall post-development number. So it’s still, including that roof water, you still have to keep it at or below that pre-development rate, or that’s the goal. MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m correct, there’s going to be a garden center on site, correct? MR. CARR-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-One of my concerns would be storage of fertilizers. I would assume that’s all going to be covered? That’s one of the things I’d like to see. MR. CARR-Yes, that would be under roof. There is a roof over that structure. MR. SEGULJIC-Some big boxes, some States, are getting (lost words), improper storage of fertilizers, and one other clarification. On one of your plans you had a dug well. I was just wondering what that was? MR. CARR-I believe that’s an existing well on-site that needs to be removed. We have an existing water line that runs through the site presently. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. SEGULJIC-And just for, how high is this building going to be? Will you be able to see it from Route 9? MR. CARR-The roof? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. How is it visually going to be? What’s the visual impact going to be, if you’re driving north on Route 9? MR. LAPPER-Where on the map are you talking about, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Coming from the intersection of Aviation Road, driving north on Route 9. Would you be able to see it from? MR. CARR-You’re talking about the façade or the roof? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the façade itself. MR. CARR-Yes, the façade, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-They wouldn’t take the site if it was invisible. MR. CARR-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. So how high, generally, would the building be? MR. LA MONT-Rich LaMont, again, with Greenberg/Farrow Architecture. The highest part of the building would be, of course, the front parapet that would have a sign, the Home Depot sign, and that would be approximately 35 feet high. Behind that would be the actual roof of the building which would be more like 28 to 30 feet high. So I don’t think that the roof would be vastly different than what’s out there now, which is probably 25 feet or so. So that’s it. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Disadvantage of going last is everything’s already been discussed. I think there might be one issue left, and some of the other members have also said we’re supposed to be talking about the zone change. I don’t want to get into site plan too much, but one of the issues that I had written down, at first blush, was the whole cut and fill concept. Because there are some very steep slopes there. In fact, the building itself is going on some of the steepest slopes on the site, and I just want to make sure that that’s addressed adequately in site plan review, but I think everything else relating to the zone change has already been mentioned. I pretty much agree with my colleagues about no access on Montray Road, and I also wanted to see what some of the neighbors had to say about the project as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Does our eighth member have any questions? I didn’t want to overlook you down there on the end. Any other questions or comments from Board members? Staff? Can I ask you guys to give up the table for a couple of minutes? We’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN VAN DYKE MRS. VAN DYKE-Marilyn VanDyke. I just wanted to make one brief comment to the Board, in relation to your question concerning timeframes for accomplishment, that archeological investigations are not necessarily swift, and it does take time to do them. You also want to pay attention to the depth of the post holes that will be dug by the archeologists, so that they’re down far enough to find, if there’s anything to be found, that they will be found, and you don’t just whip through and do it and have it all done and brush it under the table, because she could conceivably find artifacts, and she might recommend further study. So you want to take that into consideration, in terms of your timing. MR. MAC EWAN-What role will you be playing, on behalf of the Town with this archeological firm that’s going to be doing these sites? MRS. VAN DYKE-Well, at the present time I’m not playing any role, except that I’ve had one conversation with Karen Hartgen about the Old Military Road. I did invite her to come to my office and look at the materials that we have on Blind Rock and on the Old Military Road, and to talk with the surveyor who’s 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) doing the current research on the road, who’s Tom Nesbitt. He resides in Ticonderoga, and she has an open invitation to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thanks, Marilyn. Anyone else? KEN ZACHARIAS MR. ZACHARIAS-My name’s Ken Zacharias. I’m a resident of Montray area neighborhood, and I’m encouraged by the Board member’s indication that they didn’t want to see any access to Montray Road by this project, or the fact that Jon mentioned that they weren’t interested in doing that, too. I encourage you to keep pursuing those lines, but also to indicate, someone I thought had a very excellent idea tonight, the fact that in the rezone, make one of the conditions that the remainder of the site will remain undeveloped. So that further down the line somebody can’t, as John indicated, put in some sort of gas station or whatever. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-If you gentlemen would come on back up. A couple of things that were hanging out there, we kind of want to get a far reaching completion date, to tie it in to our recommendation. MR. LAPPER-I think what Bob asked for was a date in which the rezoning would revert. What I would request would be 18 months after all approvals are in and the appeal period has past, only because after going to all the trouble of getting this approved, if somebody came in and decided to sue or whatever. I would look for a largest time that you thought was reasonable, just because who knows what’s going to happen, so that they could build the project. So I would say 18 months after the final appeal periods on all of the approvals, or the last approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Taking into consideration weather factors, financing factors, and whatever other facts that may be involved as well. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t care what the date was, just as long as we came to some. MR. MAC EWAN-There was also conversation regarding tying this rezoning just to this specific application. Was there comments, I heard a couple of comments to that. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry? MR. MAC EWAN-Wasn’t there discussion that you wanted this rezoning recommendation tied to this Home Depot project? MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think John said that. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t that really the same effect as putting a drop dead date on it? MR. MAC EWAN-It is in a way, I guess, but I’m just putting it out for comment, that’s all. MR. STROUGH-Well, the thing about it is, is if Home Depot didn’t go in, and you put a date in there saying it will stay zoned Highway Commercial until this date, somebody else could slip in. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s true. MR. STROUGH-I say tag it to this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that legal? MR. VOLLARO-Can we do that? MS. RADNER-If the applicant is willing to agree to it it certainly is. If the applicant is not willing to agree to it, then you’d better be careful on what conditions you’re tracking. MR. LAPPER-All I’m saying is that if, let’s say we get through the whole process and the Home Depot stops expanding, and another large department store wanted to be there, I mean, if it changed the footprint, we’d have to come back for site plan. I’m not trying to take anything away from you. I just want to be reasonable. MR. STROUGH-In my opinion, start from Ground One. Start all over, in my opinion. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. MAC EWAN-And I think the Board’s position on it, Jon, some other projects that we’ve had in recent history where we’ve run into this dilemma, and I think it’s a way to ensure that this project will come to fruition, and I think you’re going to get some support here for this thing, and I just want to be sure we’re heading in the right way with it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Then as long as it’s, perhaps, 18 months from the final approval, which is DOT, whatever, all the approvals that we need after the appeal periods have run, and if it turns out we’re in court, we’ll come back and talk to you about an extension, but I don’t anticipate that this is controversial. I don’t anticipate that’s going to happen. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t either. Any other comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, just one. I think John’s comment was that it remain undeveloped. Do we have sort of a conflict between Jon’s proposal, Mr. Lapper’s proposal, that the 18 months after all final approvals and appeals, and does that conflict in any way with the remaining undeveloped, Jon? I mean, is that what we want to do? If he’s giving us a time when he’s holding on to that, based on that 18 months, nobody can crawl in there, I don’t believe. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think the way I see it, and the way I think you’re seeing it, is that the message that we want to send to the Town Board, and that’s all we’re doing, is that we would like any rezoning to be tagged to this particular project, and that there’s a reasonable amount of time given for the applicant to do their project. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. That’s what this 18 months is all about. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and we’re not trying to necessarily leave the door open to someone else to come in. This project seems to fit well. We agree with that, and we just don’t want to rezone it and let something else happen there that might not be as agreeable. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask Counsel a question. John’s proposal seems pretty logical to me, but is there an implication of spot zoning in that kind of thing, that we’re actually zoning it for a particular? MS. RADNER-Yes, there is clearly, and that’s (lost words), is just carve an area out from the surrounding area and say we’re going to rezone it for this project. If you’re taking into account what’s around it, you’re taking into account buffer areas, you’re considering the entire project and whether the zoning fits within the scheme of the Town, then I think that you make it clear that you’re not spot zoning, but that’s a line you’re going to have to tread carefully. MR. RINGER-Couldn’t we just as easily, rather than limit it to Home Depot, when we make a recommendation, make a recommendation that the land be developed only to the extent as shown and all the buffer zones remain as shown now? What I’m getting at, it isn’t so much that we just want Home Depot in there, as we wanted to maintain the buffer zones in that area that we want the five acres to remain undeveloped for the most part. MS. RADNER-I think you’re getting into site planning issues instead of zoning issues. What you have to determine for the zoning issue is does it make sense to rezone this parcel, taking into consideration this project, and what’s going on around this project in the Town, does it fit within the zoning scheme for the Town, and taking into consideration your worst case scenario, the way you’re addressing that is by having this key date or keyed into a project so that it will revert back and that’s what’s going to give you your guarantee that you don’t end up with a parcel that’s not zoned consistently with the surrounding properties. MR. RINGER-So the date is better than putting it to Home Depot. MS. RADNER-Either way can be effective, as long as you’re careful in what you ask for and you’re careful in the way you do it. MR. RINGER-I wouldn’t want to be accused of spot zoning. When I first heard the comment about restricting it just to Home Depot, the spot zoning is the first question that I came up with. MR. STROUGH-But isn’t that going to be the Town Board’s headache, Larry? MR. RINGER-Well, it’s a recommendation, but we want to make sure if we’re going to make a recommendation we make a recommendation that’s appropriate. MR. STROUGH-That’s true. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MS. RADNER-Yes. I don’t think you could consistently rezone it but then say but you’re not allowed to develop it. If you’ve rezoned it, you’ve rezoned it, but you’re rezoning it knowing the project that’s going in and how it makes sense with what’s going on around it, and that’s what distinguishes it from spot zoning. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have any other comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what we’re really saying is that we’re in favor of rezoning as long as it’s part of an expansion of the existing Plaza, rather than a standalone project on just that site, is really what we’re saying. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. RINGER-I like Bob’s idea of a timeframe. I think that will handle the thing pretty well. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll take five and ask you guys to sit down and draft something up. What we’re going to do is take a five minute recess, and I want Larry and John to sit down with Cathi and draft this thing the way you want it to read. I think that’s the safest thing. Okay. Mr. Strough, do you have a resolution penned? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD TO APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST FOR THE HOME DEPOT, PZ 1- 2002, TO PLAZA COMMERCIAL ONE ACRE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: THE APPLICANT AGREES THAT WITHIN 18 MONTHS AFTER ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND THE TIME TO APPEAL THOSE DECISIONS HAS ELAPSED, CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BEGIN, OR ZONING WILL REVERT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE, AND BE IT FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THIS PERIOD WILL EXTEND IN THE EVENT A THIRD PARTY BEGINS LITIGATION, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-See you maybe next month. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – PZ 2-2002 RECOMMENDATION BENYAMINI ENTERPRISES, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: JAMES CULLINAN, G. CASS, SR. TRUSTEE, ROBYN TRUST AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER CURRENT ZONE: SFR-20 PROPOSED ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF THREE PARCELS ALONG EVERTS AVENUE FROM SFR-20 TO HC-1A. CROSS REFERENCE: SB3-1999, UV 62-1993, SV 63-1993, P1-99, SP 11-99, AV 20-1999, SP 13-99, P3- 98, SV 77-1999 TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION: 92, 2002, 1/28/02 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-34.1, 29.3, 29.1 LOT SIZE: 11.22 AC., 0.48 AC., 2.14 AC. SECTION: 179-94 JON LAPPER, DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone, PZ 2-2002, Benyamini Enterprises, Inc., Meeting Date: February 26, 2002 “Staff Notes: Description: The applicant has applied for a Petition for Zone Change to rezone property located east of Everts Avenue and south of Quaker Road. Parcels 302.08-2-72 and 302.08-2- 73, and a portion of 302.08-2-66.1 contain a total of 5.3 +/- acres and are currently zoned SFR-20. the rezoning request is to change the zone to HC-1A. Future plans have not been noted by the applicant. Adjacent property zoning includes HC-1A to the north, LI-1A to the west (across Everts Road, and SFR-20 to the east and south. The area requested for rezoning is currently mostly wooded with two residences located along Everts Avenue. A very small portion of DEC wetlands (subject to verification) is located on 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) parcel 66.1. A more extensive amount of NWI wetlands is located on 66.1 and 73, and these may or may not be subject to ACOE jurisdiction. Maps submitted include: “A Proposed Rezoning Plan,” dated November 1, 2001, at a scale of 1 in. = 50 ft; “A Zoning Map for a Portion of Tax Map 302.08,” dated December 11, 2001, at a scale of 1 in. = 100 ft.; and An “Existing Conditions Map for Tax Parcels 302.08-2-66.1, 72, and 73,” dated January 17, 2002, at a scale of 1 in. = 50 ft. Application: The Town Board forwarded the application to the Planning Board requesting a recommendation. The applicant as responded to questions as outlined in the Application – Petition for Change of Zone, as submitted. These questions are to be considered by the Planning Board. The Planning Board is to make a recommendation to the Town Board upon review of Petition. The County is expected to make a recommendation during their meeting scheduled for 2/13/02. Site History: A portion of the property was recently rezoned from SFR-20 to HC-1A by the Town Board (Resolution 483, 98). The request was to rezone 12.5 acres with no future development plans noted. Resolution 483,98 noted a condition by the Warren County Planning Board to leave the former transmission line as greenway. The Planning Board recommendation for zone change resolution 11/24/98 also asked that the Town look at adjoining parcels for rezoning, two of which were part of a rezoning from SFR-20 to HC-1A in Town Board Resolution 82.99, and one of which is part of this petition. 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP): The proposed project area is located in Neighborhood 8 in the CLUP. Except for Bay Road, there are limited specific recommendations for the neighborhood. Quaker Road is noted as commercial interspersed with undeveloped land. Areas between the Glens Falls line and Quaker Road are mostly industrial in character. Planning/SEQRA Review Process: Since a project has not been proposed, SEQRA Lead Agency status will go to the Town Board. A Long Form EAF has been submitted. The Town Board has asked the Planning Board for a recommendation on this rezoning. Any Town Board action on the rezoning request cannot be made until the SEQRA determination is done first. Staff Recommendations: The Planning Board needs to address each one of the Petition for Zone Change questions when considering their recommendation to the Town Board. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant desires the development potential of residential lots upon conversion to commercial property. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The HC-1A zone would allow the most intensive commercial development. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? Adjacent zones include HC-1A as well as LI-1A. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The portion of the property not containing wetlands contains suitable soils for development. Wetlands areas would act as a natural buffer to residential areas to the south and east of the property. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? Public Utilities; Sewer/Water The parcels to be rezoned are within public sewer and water districts; Quaker Road Sewer District and Queensbury Water Storage and Distribution District. Transportation; Highways/Traffic/Circulation Specific traffic data for retail development is not known at this time since no such development has been proposed. General traffic generation information submitted by the applicant is based on current HC-1A bulk and density requirements showing 80 vehicle trips per hour. NYS Dept. of Transportation guidance suggests 100 or more new trip ends be studied for traffic impacts. The applicant states that traffic circulation would be improved n this area through access management, i.e. consolidation of access points, upon redevelopment, and merging of several parcels. Schools/Emergency Services/Town Facilities Additional commercial development will not directly add to the school population. Minimal impacts on emergency services and town facilities, such as recreation, are expected. The local burn plant will be used for solid waste disposal. 6. Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question? Adjacent industrial/commercial zoned property is inconsistent with SFR-20 residential zoning. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? Development may impact wetlands depending on stormwater management and whether or not the wetlands will be used for such management. Permits would be required from regulatory agencies such as NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and/or Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan? See above. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The potential for access management, wetland protection, and additional commercial development would serve the public interest. Conclusions: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the neighborhood. Conditions may be placed on the property upon site plan review, especially regarding wetlands, traffic, and circulation. Redevelopment of a number of smaller parcels into a larger development would have positive impacts regarding traffic access.” MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Dennis MacElroy, from Environmental Design Partnership, and Hertzl Benyamini. Mr. Benyamini is an experienced real estate developer from Long Island, but we won’t hold that against him. This is a sort of procedurally the opposite application from the last one that we were here to talk about. Mr. Benyamini has obtained options on all of the properties in the area, the Hewitts Garden Center, the Transmission Service Center, and the Body Shop as well as the residence that we’re proposing to rezone and the two residences to the north, which were already rezoned. He doesn’t have a tenant. He hasn’t been able to market this because of the present zoning, but he’s tied up all these properties with the intention that if the rezoning is approved he will vigorously go out and find a commercial tenant or tenants to redevelop the property. The basic reason for our request or justification for our request is that we have a site that has not been developed to the highest and best use. It is not attractive. It’s, frankly, disappointing the way Hewitts turned out. At the time, I came in on their behalf, we were hopeful that it would look like their new Wilton site, and it, frankly, hasn’t. The County Planning Board recommended approval, and the Town Planning Staff notes talk about the benefit of redeveloping these sites and also access management for traffic, eliminating curb cuts, doing a purposeful and intentional development, rather than 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) what’s there. In terms of the residents, and I think some of them are here, or their representatives are here, that are proposing to be rezoned, let’s just say they were glad to sign contracts to sell their houses, and they’re glad to move out of that block, because they’ve got Duke Concrete and industrial across the street, they’ve got the radio station across the street. This is not an optimum residential area by any means. So this is a way for all of these properties to be combined and certainly all of the issues relating to buffering and traffic will be site plan issues that we would come back with, when and if they find a suitable tenant, but Mr. Benyamini is confident that he will. In terms of the residents that are still left to the south, and I don’t know if they’re in the City of Glens Falls or in the Town of Queensbury, not that that’s an issue, but there is a large 15 acre wetland immediately to the south, and just touching on the southern end of this site. That would be a perpetual buffer so that that can’t be developed. That’s the kind of a wetland where you need a wet suit to walk through it in some portions, and that is a permanent buffer between the commercial Quaker Road area and the residential area to the south, and that will always stay that way. I’d like to just ask Dennis to walk you through the details. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Jon. The plans you have before you are half scale plans. These are full scale representations of the parcels in question. Sheet Number One is a, the proposed rezoning plan. The existing boundary between the residential property and the commercial, Highway Commercial property, is located here. First let me orient you, Quaker Road to the top, Everts Avenue running north and south, the properties in question just to the east of Everts Avenue. The existing zone line cuts diagonally from Quaker Road down and jogs across to Everts. These properties just to the north were subject to previous zoning actions, changing the zones to Highway Commercial. The next properties in line, south of the existing boundary, include three different parcels, 72, 73 and a portion of 66.1. 66.1 is the Hewitts parcel, though as represented here colored in blue, the three parcels, 5.3 acres, requested for rezoning. The wetland area that Jon mentioned is contained within the Parcel 76, further to the south, and just about borders this property, the angle, the tail portion of Parcel 66.1. Better shown on the existing conditions plan here, you’ll see the designation of DEC delineation of wetlands to the south. To the west of this property is industrial, Light Industrial One A, and then in the northwest corner is additional Highway Commercial properties. I guess that about covers the description of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add, Jon? MR. LAPPER-I have a photo that I’d like to give you. This is an aerial photo that just shows the commercial area, the wetland and the distance to the residences. I think it’s pretty effective. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Well, let me just start off by saying that I don’t want anybody to take it wrong. It’s not this application, but I’m very much inclined not to support any rezoning when you come in front of this Board where you have no future plan, and here’s why. We could rezone it, then later you come up with a proposed tenant that’s totally unacceptable, and then your defense is, well, it’s rezoned for this use, even though it doesn’t fit in to the scheme that we would find appropriate for the Town. MR. LAPPER-Let me address that. That is a legitimate concern, and the way to address that is, for the sake of this review, the SEQRA review, you’ve got to look at the most intensive development, the biggest building you could put on the site, the most traffic, you could have on the site, so at the time that the rezoning, which in this case I guess would be the Town Board, as lead agency, but with the Planning Staff’s help, that they look at the impacts, they would have to be looking at the worst case scenario, just absolutely maxing out, smallest green space, most parking, most car trips, and make sure that that still works for the site, so that you’ve looked at it. It is much easier for me to be coming in, talking to you about a Home Depot, where I can say, here it is, and the only thing I can argue in this case, because that’s not possible, is to say that just to drive down that road, what you’ve got there is not an optimum situation, and you’ve got all these little parcels that are now tied up, but they may not be, if this doesn’t go through, somebody sells, something else happens, somebody puts in their own application, the transmission guy sells out to somebody else who doesn’t want to sell, and this is an opportunity to get rid of what’s there now, which is not appealing, in my opinion, and that’s going to be your decision, it’s an opportunity to clean up the site, and then to do one development, and it’ll have to come before you, for site plan. So you’ll still, even if it’s a permitted use, and whatever the commercial uses are. MR. SANFORD-No, Jon, right now, you’ve got residential that you want to rezone into commercial, you could literally come back, once we rezone this, with a big, ugly truck stop, and we’re going to say, no, we don’t want it, and you’re going to say, well, it’s zoned for that, and then we might be creating legal liability for the Town by doing this rezoning. I mean, I had a problem with it with Aviation Mall, when we tied the expansion to rezoning up on the hill, and I couldn’t see the connection, it wasn’t our decision, but I talked, I happened to be sitting here at the time. The Town Board approved that rezoning, and now I understand nothing’s going forward. They’re going to be boarding up that land, motel or hotel, and you’ve got a 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) rezoning out of the thing. I can’t see why we should rezone when you’re coming in front of us without any plan at all. If you have a plan, lay it on the table. MR. LAPPER-I think it’s analogous to what you’re talking about at the Mall, and in both cases, it provides an opportunity. If you don’t let, Pyramid doesn’t want to have that Howard Johnson’s building sitting up there. They spent, what was reported in the paper, over three million bucks, that’s just sitting there. They’re servicing the debt on that. They’ve been trying like crazy to re-tenant that, to knock the whole thing down and to redevelop it, but if they didn’t have that as part of the Enclosed Shopping Center zone, they wouldn’t have the ability to do the kind of development they want to do there. So that, even though temporarily that’s a bad situation, it doesn’t look good when you get off the Northway, and a financial successful town to have a vacant building. It creates the opportunity that they’re out there, at the conventions, marketing this thing to the large tenants. If they didn’t have the rezoning, they wouldn’t have that option. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I shouldn’t even have dragged that in. This application here, it may be great, and the land may make a lot of sense for the rezoning. However, from where I sit, I can’t see why we should create a situation that could be unpleasant for the Town, if we rezone and if an undesirable application comes in front of us when, right now, we could say to the truck stop, it can’t happen because it’s residentially zoned. MR. LAPPER-Chris, can we have a truck stop in this zone? MS. RADNER-Could I address that for a moment? You’re exactly right. When you determine whether or not you want to go to this rezoning, you want to consider that worst case scenario, and what they’re asking for here is actually very typical, to come in without a set project involved, but say this parcel’s zoning is inappropriate because of a change in time, because of a change in the land use around it. So we want you to change it to this zone, and when you’re looking at it, you can think of a hypothetical gas station, truck stop, adult motel, whatever is the worst case allowed in that zone, consider that in deciding whether or not to grant or deny this application, but they have the legal right to come here and ask for the rezoning. Your role is to decide whether you’re going to recommend approving or disapproving it, for those reasons that you’re mentioning. MR. SANFORD-Right. I’ll be clear then. You have your right to come here and request it. I would urge my fellow Board members not to grant you that rezoning until you come in front of us with a plan. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I think I have to agree with what Rich is saying. I thought about it, and I’m just taking a look along Everts road here. How many houses are going to be? MR. LAPPER-Five. MR. VOLLARO-And they’re along Everts, are they? MR. LAPPER-The photograph shows them very well. They’re all along Everts. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to get myself oriented here. There’s Hewitts. The residential area that, Laura, can you put that up again, showing the wetlands? Yes, that’s it. Okay. Those wetlands that are in there, what you’re saying is they provide quite a buffer to all of the commercial development along Meadowbrook Road? The residential development that’s to the. MR. LAPPER-Yes, east and south. MR. VOLLARO-East and south of that. Right, and that’s one of the reasons I’m having a problem with rezoning this without a specific reason. In other words, just rezone for rezone’s sake because it may be more marketable to the applicant, and yet I’ve looked, in my own mind, at the worst case analysis, maybe, maybe not a truck stop, but any of the things that that zone would allow in the worst case, and I’m just not sure, in my own mind, that I would go for that as well, without a better feeling for just what’s going to go there. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything on this right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I don’t know if I have any problems with it, because it’s already zoned Highway and it will have the buffer zone there. So I guess I don’t have any problems with it. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I feel similarly. I don’t want to disagree with my fellow members, but I think that, I guess I had a couple of questions first, as to which sites you actually control. What you would be doing, and here’s the picture right here, is that you would be buying up the remaining residential properties that are along Everts. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Do your holdings include Meadowbrook Plaza? MR. LAPPER-No, up to Meadowbrook Plaza. MR. HUNSINGER-Up to Meadowbrook Plaza. Okay. MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t include East Coast Tire and Battery, the white buildings. So these build lings here, and all of that. MRS. RYBA-One of the parcels in each zone is subject to petition for rezoning because part of this parcel is already (lost words). MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, did you have anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I just wanted to sort of complete the thought, is, you know, I think the proposal would consolidate what is now residential properties into Highway Commercial, and it would really be more consistent with the rest of the properties that are along Everts Avenue. I agree with some of the comments that Mr. Lapper made about some of the development along Quaker Road. I think, you know, any time that there’s an opportunity to upgrade some of the old sites, that, you know, really need to be refurbished, I think that’s a good opportunity, but again, I also agree with what was said initially. I think it would be easier if we did know what the end user would be, but absent that, it makes sense to me, particularly given the natural buffers that exist, the separation of uses from Everts Avenue over to Meadowbrook Road, to me, makes sense. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-What would be the total acreage, when it’s all said and done, with the rezoning? MR. LAPPER-Hertzl says 16 and a half. MR. STROUGH-16.2, I guess. MR. MAC ELROY-That includes property that is currently Highway Commercial. MR. STROUGH-Right, 11.2 acres, because in the SEQRA form is says 19.5. So there’s a three and a half acre difference between one and the other. All right. The water table is from zero to two and a half foot in this area. That’s something I look at. Now, what kind of restrictions would you face because part of that that you’re asking for rezoning is in the NWI wetlands. MR. LAPPER-Under the Town’s zoning, there would have to be a minimum of a 50 foot buffer on the project site, because the zone line would be at the end of the project site. So the first 50 feet would have to be green, and no pavement, or anything, right along the edge of that, the green that’s there now. So there would be an additional buffer on the site. MR. STROUGH-Well, the dark green, is that DEC wetlands delineated? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So the NWI wetlands don’t show up on that. Well, do you face any restrictions because some of that is NWI wetlands? MR. LAPPER-Depending on how a development would have to get squared off with a building and pavement, you might need a wetland permit for part of that, but most of the development would take place 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) to the north. You’d be using this for green space, for all the other, stormwater management, obviously, because you’d want to get the water into the wetland, as such. So those are site plan issues, but you’d have to design it right. I don’t think the wetland is going to be a hindrance. You can take advantage of the wetland. MR. ROUND-John, the map on the screen now does show NWI wetlands, but that’s, it’s subject to a delineation by, and verification by Army Corps of Engineers. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, that coincides with what I’ve drawn on, but I didn’t know how that might restrict potential development in the area. I needed to kind of know that. All right. Would those houses be taken out? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-I mean, it would be a lot easier for me to conceptually deal with this, if, well, let me pull something out of the blue, a Target were to move in. I’m just pulling something out of the blue here. MR. LAPPER-If you want to conceptualize it, the biggest development that you could put, knock down everything that’s there on that site, have the development in the center with the parking in front, along Quaker Road, a detention basin in the back, and just maxing it out. MR. STROUGH-See, and that might work, and I wouldn’t have a problem with maybe a Target moving in there. It might be an ideal location for a Target, but I do, Mr. Sanford’s concerns about rezoning it, then who knows what’s going to go in, and is it going to be contiguous with all the parcels? MR. LAPPER-I can understand what he’s saying, knowing, when I made the application, that I don’t have all the answers, but you have to remember not only the wetlands, but we’ve got Duke Concrete products across the street. So we’re in a serious industrial neighborhood, and it’s just not a great place for residences to live, and I think some of them are going to talk about that. MR. STROUGH-I can agree with that, you know, and the aerial photo I think that you’ve supplied amply shows that. MR. LAPPER-For that reason, we’re asking for a little consideration that we might not be asking if it was a closer call, but just knowing the neighborhood that we’re in here I think that goes a long way. MR. STROUGH-I’ve got this funny feeling that you’re doing this for a project that you’ve got in mind. MR. LAPPER-Well, Hertzl is here, and he can talk about that. He’d like to have a project, and he’s hopeful to have a project, but he doesn’t have a project. HERTZL BENYAMINI MR. BENYAMINI-Good evening. My name is Hertzl Benyamini. As Jon mentioned, I’m a developer based in Long Island, and what I’m attempting to do, what I’m hoping to do, I’m a contract purchaser on several parcels of property, approximately seven parcels, and my goal is to put together a site that would be feasible for retail development. All of the developments that I have done have been retail developments, and I envision a retail development on this project, and the approximate, basically to make this site work for retail development, two and a half acres of it is zoned residential, and I believe that if a site is put together with this acreage, it would accommodate either a single use or multiple use building, and there’s interest from national users in this area, and they’d all like to be on the Quaker Road area, and then I think this assembly together, putting a development would make sense. Unfortunately, I do not have a tenant at this time, and they all like to see if I have a product that I can deliver to them. MR. STROUGH-Well, then, wait a minute. You’re a contract realtor. Someone’s contracted you to come up from Long Island. MR. LAPPER-He has contracted. MR. BENYAMINI-I am a contract purchaser. I have the properties under contract. MR. STROUGH-Well, you’ve got somebody in mind. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STROUGH-Absolutely nobody in mind? MR. BENYAMINI-As I’ve mentioned, there are a number of retailers that do have an interest in being in this community. Obviously, as a part of the marketing package, I have to submit to them a site that has the proper zoning and a product can be delivered to them. What they like to know, basically, is, you know, at the 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) end of the day, can I put this project together and deliver a shopping center to them, and that’s what I’m here for, to attempt to put together a site. MR. STROUGH-Can you tell us the name of those interested parties? MR. SANFORD-He’s not going to, I don’t think, at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Let him answer the question, gentlemen. MR. BENYAMINI-Wholesale (lost word) is interested, Target is interested, a number of small users are interested. I do not have a tenant. MR. STROUGH-We know what’s going on, but I’m just trying to pull it out, because if I can pull it out, there’s some projects that I can be very comfortable with here, and there’s some projects that I might not be comfortable with, and, you know, you’ve got to keep this in mind. This parcel, like all the parcels, have gone through a Comprehensive Land Use Plan study. We’ve had neighborhood meetings. We’ve had all kinds of meetings. The whole Town has gone under intensive study. This was not projected to be recommended to be rezoned. We had a Steering Committee for the rezoning. I was on that Steering Committee. Nobody suggested this be rezoned. Nobody said this would be good for the Town. Maybe we missed it. That’s possible, too. Maybe everybody missed it, but the fact is nobody did come, at that time, nor anytime during that whole several year process and say, you know, this property should be zoned Highway Commercial. MR. LAPPER-I would argue it takes somebody with imagination, and here he is, and he’s trying for a project here. MR. STROUGH-And what I was trying to say, I’m pretty fine with that. I just would feel more comfortable if there was a specific project in front of me. MR. ROUND-Could I interject? I think Cathi said it well, at the beginning of this dialogue, was that you have to be careful. I heard the words out of your mouth that I’d be happy to rezone it rezone this for certain projects and not for others. That’s when you run the risk of spot zoning, is zoning a piece of property for a specific end user, and I know that’s what we’re struggling with. I think the things that you want to look at are, is this land suitable for Highway Commercial zoning, what does Highway Commercial zone allow, what are the impacts of the Highway Commercial zone as it relates to traffic, impacts on the neighborhood, the character of the community, and those tests that’s actually articulated on our application for rezoning. It doesn’t say about, okay, is this project suitable for Retailer X or Retailer Y or, I think the applicants got your message on that issue, but just be careful. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’re talking about three parcels. MR. ROUND-And I think just the contrary was true with a couple of applications several years ago, I think that, when you were in the audience, was that a specific project was proposed, on Aviation Road, and people did not like the specific project and therefore didn’t want to rezone it, but we have to look at each and every, or at least a representative number of uses, and what those impacts would be, and we have always cautioned the Board about dicing up our Zoning Ordinance to say, okay, we want this to be Highway Commercial Z, and we’ll eliminate musical instrument and record store from this list for this particular property, because that’s not suitable. That’s not land use planning. That gets in, you’ve got to look at things on a little broader basis. MR. STROUGH-All right. Theoretically, from what you’re saying, is that we’re thinking about rezoning three parcels, so, in a sense, there could be three different commercial enterprises. MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-We can look at it that way, or we have to look at it that way. MR. ROUND-You sure can. We’d encourage you to do that. That’s your prerogative. I think you might say we’re looking at each, any one of these properties, we think a property, as a standalone property, might not be suitable for a pharmacy or drugstore, and therefore we feel that it’s not appropriate to rezone this property, and I’m not advocating that you take one action or the other, because that would be a rational basis to say, you know, we’re not recommending a rezoning in this case. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-But we could ask the applicant if his intention is to. MR. ROUND-Yes, but when it comes to argumentative, you know, we know who you have. We want you to tell us, we’re not going to rezone it unless you tell us, I don’t think that’s a productive exercise. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. LAPPER-If he had, we’d tell you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, are you looking at buying Hewitts as well? MR. BENYAMINI-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we said that. MR. BENYAMINI-I have that property under contract. MR. LAPPER-And the transmission store, and the body shop next door to that on Quaker, and then the five houses. MR. STROUGH-So you’re looking at buying everything. Now have you purchased them at this time? MR. LAPPER-What he was saying to you, to answer your question, was he’s the contract vendee. Mr. Benyamini has signed a contract with all the parties that we mentioned. He’s got, subject to the zoning approval, he’s got the right to purchase all those properties. MR. STROUGH-So this would be one big contiguous? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-Well, if it could be treated like that, I’d be more comfortable with that, rather than. MR. LAPPER-We’re not here because we want two and a half acres and three houses to do a commercial project with access to Everts. We’re talking about the whole corner of Everts and Quaker, one comprehensive project (lost words). MR. SANFORD-How do you know that? He doesn’t have a future tenant. MR. LAPPER-But at the prices that he’s paying, he needs to do a good sized project, not a couple of little things. It doesn’t make sense, but you’re right, I mean, we don’t have a deal. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Enough said on that topic. We know where everybody’s position is on that. I’ll ask you guys to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KERRY GIRARD MR. GIRARD-Hi. My name’s Kerry Girard. I’m a resident of 3 Cline Avenue, Queensbury, New York. I could probably speak better up at that map, but let me give you a background. My uncle and I are the developers of those six lots on Cline Avenue, coming in off of Meadowbrook Road. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember it very well. MR. GIRARD-And there’s also a house out behind us, too. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember that one, too. MR. GIRARD-On the east side of those wetlands. I’m here concerned about the project and the rezoning of the residential land. I have the same concerns as some of you Board members do, not knowing what’s going to go in there. Right now, based on what Hewitts has done, from where I sit in my home, they’ve already pushed some fill back. I don’t know whether they did it or the prior owners, Queensbury Motors, had done it, when they had bought some parcels back there, but there’s been some trees down, and that buffer zone has been thinned down as it is. Noise and lights in the evening can be seen, and noise all day is heard from my house on Cline Avenue, based on the present use of that property. If you start encroaching on a residential zone, and I disagree that these residential lots were overlooked in your master plan for rezoning. I’m sure there’s a lot of hours and time spent on the rezoning, and these residential lots could have been left there as residential lots, because there is a New York State wetlands there, and it’s a very important wetlands. It’s a Class Two, and for us to build our homes there, we had to go through an extensive process to get a permit, and there’s drywells on every one of those lots, water retention stays on our property. They fully, we had to go through the SEQRA, and I’m not sure, and I’ll ask the question of the Board, can you even do a zoning change, or would a full fledged SEQRA have to be done in order to authorize that? Does the State of New York step in here and have final say on any type of rezoning where any property borders their wetlands? I think they do. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. MAC EWAN-For what this Board’s undertaking tonight, there’s not a SEQRA process. We’re just making a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. GIRARD-To the Town Board. The Town Board would have to do the SEQRA, then? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. GIRARD-Back when we did our development, there was a 100 foot buffer zone. Mr. Lapper, I’m sure, is more up to date on current laws, but I heard him state there’s only a 50 foot buffer zone. I don’t know if I heard or interpreted that right, but that seems awful thin to me. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s 50 foot on commercial, 100 foot on industrial. MR. GIRARD-There was a 100 foot on the residential. MR. ROUND-Yes. I think the wetland buffer that Mr. Girard’s speaking to was mentioned in the previous, there’s a 100 foot setback from, there’s a 100 foot no construction zone adjacent to DEC wetlands, and if you look, I think that this is an older photo that you’re looking at, but there’s not homes shown on the Cline Avenue properties that he’s speaking of right now, but you can see that there is an NWI wetland as well as a DEC wetland in that area. MR. GIRARD-Well, the homes aren’t shown but the building lots are shown here, on Cline Avenue. MR. ROUND-Right. Yes, so people know where Cline is. MR. RINGER-Cline’s right here. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve all got a small map of it. MR. GIRARD-So, again, the first concern is HC zoning could allow almost anything in there. That’s a big piece, you’re now going to create a larger piece of parcel, a commercial parcel, which means a larger project can go in there, which means, you know, probably higher lighting, more noise, trucks coming and going at all hours of the night, deliveries and pick ups. I’m concerned about those residential lots. The southern tier of the parcel in question, and, you know, if you do the rezoning you’re allowing buildings to go into that southern tier, are you not also? Granted the intent may be, today, to use it as a green space, or water catch basin, what not, but you don’t know who the purchasers are going to be. What if they put buildings along that southern tier and up through the wetlands? MR. MAC EWAN-It would require site plan approval. Any action taken on that parcel, if it was to be rezoned Highway Commercial, requires site plan review done by this Board. MR. GIRARD-Okay, but I heard you, in the Home Depot application here tonight, before this Board, put restrictions into that application about certain buffer zones, not allowing them to go out onto Montray Road, and to do certain things. I guess I’d be bringing that same subject matter up tonight. That if there was any consideration to this parcel, that restrictions would be discussed tonight to protect that development, called the Cline Meadow Development, that you’re talking over a million dollars worth of homes there. I mean, that’s a serious investment. It needs serious consideration, before any rezoning is done, any restrictions need to be done to protect the State wetlands, very important to the State of New York. Now I also know that large projects, when the State of New York can look at them, they can say, what is the economic benefit to the community, and does that outweigh the detriment to the wetlands and the environmental concerns, and if the answer is yes, that the economic benefits to the community outweigh those, these projects can get approved. That does happen. I mean, I’ve dealt with Allen Koechlein as well, and he seems like the same person that’s involved in all the wetlands permitting. I heard that earlier tonight with the couple there with the .3 acres of wetlands. So anyway, those are the major concerns. I’ve heard some disagreements, but if it gets to that point, where there is rezoning to be considered, you have to seriously address those residential lots that he’s speaking of right now. There are tall pines on the west side of that wetland, and as you know, the pine needles act as somewhat of a clean runoff into those wetlands. They would need to be left standing for a noise buffer, as well as a site buffer. If you allow the rezoning into HC zoning, all of that can be leveled and cleared. I don’t know how much control you’re going to have over that, and now, as a homeowner in the Cline Avenue Development, I have a major issue with the noise, and everything, and the site as well, and the effects on my property value and everyone’s property value that has built around that area. It’s very rare, I mean, I sat on the Zoning Board for the City of Glens Falls. It’s very rare that encroachment into residential areas, to this magnitude, is allowed and considered. Growing up in the City, you know, I was only maybe 100 feet off of Dix Avenue. I grew up with commercial next door to me. I understand that Quaker Road is commercial, and I believe it should be commercial, and it already is. We’ve allowed sufficient space there. To grow that space into a residential area, you’re only asking for a battle, and we’ll be back up here for every meeting, for anything that comes on this plate for this side. You’re encroaching into a residential area. That’s not part of your Master Plan of changing your zonings. I don’t even understand why it would be considered tonight. From a developer, a businessman’s side, I can see why he wants it. It makes the property more 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) marketable, but then again, I can’t fathom what you would do with that southern territory that he’s talking about, the residential area, if you’re trying to be a commercial tenant on the Quaker Road, okay. So I’ve seen the effects of Hewitts. I’m not really happy or thrilled with that. Thank God we have the wetlands, but that’s already been encroached from the west side. This project or any project that came in would just encroach that all the more. To give you a perspective, that last parcel on Cline Avenue here, which is, coming from east to west, from Meadowbrook right there, you’re probably only talking a 400 foot span, from the northwest corner of that parcel, to where you’re thinking about, if you go diagonally, northwest, that’s probably only 400 feet. So you need to consider those things, and in rezoning these residential lots to an HC zoning, you’re allowing all of that possibly to be leveled and filled. As fill is brought in, what you can see happened with Duke Concrete, all that was filled in. Maybe that was a mistake back then to allow them. I think they came over from Bay Road, didn’t they, and bought that, subsequently, many, many years ago, and now they’ve filled all that in, and that has changed the water table into the wetlands and what not, and you have percolation going from the City of Glens Falls towards Quaker Road. If all that yellow area becomes filled in, to bring it to a higher level, I think you’re going to slow down the migration of the water to the low points, and when that’s slowed down, that affects the water and the filtration processes of our homes. We’ve tiled them. We have pumps in those homes, but you allow a massive project that could go into that site like that to encroach that close to our residential neighborhoods, you could very well be effecting our foundations of the water that we get in our homes, now the re-salability of our homes, and as I said, it’s a sizeable investment that these seven homes have made. There’s homes on Meadowbrook Road as well that have been there, and I’d implore you all to think a little bit longer and harder before we make any type of approvals tonight, and I think there’s also a little bit of historical significance in the wetlands area. Back, again, when we were doing the development for the residential part, there is, on the maps, there is a railroad that was going through there which used to carry the clay and there was a brick kiln in on the property. As a matter of fact, Mr. Fitzgerald, that owns the property behind us, he preserved the kiln. It’s still there as you go through his driveway. Across, to the west side of the wetlands, is where the railroad runs, pretty much on that Lot 66.1, which goes from west to northeast, pretty much parallel with the wetlands. That’s where the railroad tracks, they’re not there anymore. They’ve been pulled out, but in your Home Depot application tonight I noticed you had the Historian pulled in, and the property was researched. I think maybe the same thing needs to be done here with this property. Okay. That’s pretty much it for my side. I thank you for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-May I ask him a question before he leaves that? The map you have in front of you, there’s a residence, Number 54, right on Cline Avenue there. Is there a couple of houses on that? MR. MAC EWAN-One. MR. GIRARD-One house. MR. VOLLARO-One house on that. That’s only 200 feet from the proposed rezone, according to the scale on this map. The scale looks like an inch is 200 or so. MR. STROUGH-It equals 100. MR. VOLLARO-Where do you see that? MR. GIRARD-The graphic scale and feed is an inch is 200. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, an inch is 200. MR. GIRARD-Yes, you’re probably closer. You’re giving it two. I gave it four. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s 400 feet. MR. GIRARD-I didn’t measure it. I’m just guessing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s pretty close. That’s getting pretty close to that residential. MR. GIRARD-That was my point. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the point you were talking about right there? MR. GIRARD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just trying to get a feel for that. All right. MR. GIRARD-The one last point I want to mention, maybe the developers need to know this, is that the Cline Avenue will never be fully extended. The State has included that in their wetlands. There is a sewer and water going through there, all the way over to Everts Avenue, and that’s a half a street. It stops, pretty 68 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) much, here. So if there’s any intent to make the square for the type of a truck route or something going, that’s not going to happen. MR. VOLLARO-You can pretty much see that up there, where that corner is occupied by the wetlands. So you can’t get right in there, you can’t get very much further over than that. MR. GIRARD-Right through there is the sewer district, and the State does classify that, and pretty much controls that. As a matter of fact, I think they’ve had the Town come in there, we’ve been there 12 years in May, and they had the Town come in and knock it down because they had it elevated a little bit too high with fill, and they’re pretty finicky over there about their wetlands. Verbally, they’ve assured me that there’ll never be a street there, but I know things change. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thanks a lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? LISA CHURCHILL MRS. CHURCHILL-My name is Lisa Churchill. I live at 11 Cline Avenue, that was the large parcel at the end of Cline, yes, and I also own another piece of property that runs next to the, where the sewer runs from, there’s another long, narrow piece of property, right below where the sewer runs through between the end of Cline Avenue and Everts. I also own that parcel which, right in there, that long piece right there. I own both pieces, and I can’t say anything any better than what Mr. Girard said. I, again, am opposed to this. As he showed you on the map, 200 feet is just not as close to a Target or anything else that I certainly would like to be. The noise, the removal of the trees, that gives us our buffer to Quaker Road. I mean, what it looks like h here is they’re trying to extend Quaker Road down Everts Avenue, and that, I just don’t see how Everts Avenue can support that. The southern end of Everts Avenue, from my property down, is completely residential. I just, you know, as far as traffic and the noise, the lights, I just can’t see Quaker Road coming down Everts Avenue. That’s a huge piece of property that they’re looking at, and we have, right now in the wetlands area, we have all kinds of wildlife. You’re talking about destroying all that. We have deer. We have foxes. We have, you know, all kinds of wildlife back there. If you’re taking out those trees, you’re losing all that wildlife, and I just, personally, myself, don’t want to be that close. I mean, when I bought that property, and built on that lot, with that beautiful wetlands behind us and surrounding us on all sides, that’s what we thought it was going to continue to stay, and I would be very against that. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. SHARON MOYNIHAN MRS. MOYNIHAN-Sharon Moynihan. My husband Jack and I live in the house next to the Churchill’s, which is the next nearest house to the one that sets furthest back, and I don’t have much more to add. The major concern, the noise, the lights, and all those factors that we’ve already felt from Quaker Road is about the biggest thing that would be of an annoyance trying to live there, not necessarily trying to sell any property, but just for the comfort of living there. We also bought it for the wetlands in the back and the feel of what it was like in a residential street. Also, I would like to take a little offense to the remark made about Everts Avenue. I know there’s a lot of commercial property there, but that’s what makes Everts Avenue not as nice a street. There are lovely homes, older homes, on the other half of Everts, and I’m sure those people who didn’t get any notification would also be very against it. That’s really about it. I’m very uncomfortable, however, about not knowing, or having them not say what they do intend to put there MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOYNIHAN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bruce? MR. CARR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bruce Carr. I’m here to speak for the project, actually. We represent George Cass, who is an owner of own of the two parcels that’s really an island right now. If you look at your map, where the light green is, and it sticks out there, as I understand, that was rezoned into Highway Commercial. If you look at what the Town has already done. They’ve now taken basically two homes, and made that an island. Because if you look at the wetlands, which cannot be developed, and you look at, you know, so anything to the south of our parcel cannot be developed residential or commercial, and if you look at just those two lots right now, those are the only residential lots, okay, in that area. Right now my client looks at Duke Concrete. They look at Fox Radio. Okay. This is not a salable, residential lot. Whether or not the Town made a mistake when they rezoned it or not is, you know, something for us to discuss at some other time, but I think the reality of the situation, right now, is that you have two homes stranded in the middle of a commercial area. You have a natural buffer, that wetland. Everyone says the trees can be taken, 69 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) the trees can’t be taken down in that wetland. Do you know the hoops that would have to be jumped through and the public hearings that would have to be held for anybody to even develop anything in that wetlands? And then, John, I think you brought up the point about the NWI Wetlands, which I think Chris had mentioned, you know, that even for them to develop on that light green area is going to take quite a bit of governmental action and approval before that even occurs. Okay. So what you’re really talking about is a development that’s still going to be north of the light green area, which is already Highway Commercial. The only practical use of the parcels that my client, the parcel my client owns, is for probably the stormwater management plan, you know, not for development plans. Stormwater management. Everyone says, well, we don’t know what’s going to go on and we’d prefer not to have any commercial development there. Well, of the 16 acres, 80%, probably more than 80%, is already Highway Commercial. We aren’t talking about making the whole parcel Highway Commercial. That is already existing. What we’re talking about looking at the situation as it exists today, and what you have is you have a natural buffer. You have two homes that are not Highway Commercial, that are in the middle of a commercial zone, and that’s simply all we’re talking about. We aren’t talking about a great deal of new expansion. We aren’t talking, and I don’t think anybody would want to have commercial development down into the truly residential zone in that area. I mean, just look at the cluster of homes down there, and you can see where the residential portion of that part of the Town of Queensbury is. It is Cline Avenue. It is the southern part of Everts Avenue, but you’ve got a natural buffer there that will not be crossed, and I think when you’re looking at zoning concerns, and the rights of all the citizens of Queensbury, including those two houses that sit there, that are now the only residential houses in that area, right there, then I think the only fair thing to do is to rezone that where it properly should be, and that’s a Highway Commercial zone. I know my client’s very upset. I mean, he doesn’t like looking at Duke Concrete. He will never sell his house residentially, and I think if you all ask yourself that question, you’d probably come to that same conclusion. That house will never be sold residentially. So the only possibility that my client has of realizing any return on his investment is for it to be properly rezoned as Highway Commercial. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? TERRY LENORE MRS. LENORE-Hi. I’m Terry Lenore. I live on 35 Everts Avenue, the southern end. First off, I was never notified that this was coming about. We had word of mouth from the neighborhood. I wanted to know why I wasn’t notified. I am in the Town of Queensbury. Something that wasn’t talked about here was the impact of traffic. We are residential. We have children. We have already had difficulties where the Glens Falls, City of Glens Falls just put in some stop signs because we were so worried about the traffic already in that neighborhood, and I believe that this will greatly impact, negatively, on the traffic in the area, and I worry about that for our children, and that’s the main point that I saw that wasn’t brought up here. When you talk about the Light Industrial zone that is there, there really isn’t traffic for those businesses there. There’s one next door to me, there’s CWI. There’s bus traffic there that you see, and then Duke Concrete you really don’t see any traffic for that business, and that’s it. I just wanted that point to be brought up. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. LENORE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MR. GIRARD-My name’s Kerry Girard, again. I just wanted to point out one thing about the wetlands. You Board members should probably drive through the property and review it, but Mr. Carr mentioned the trees in the wetlands. There’s typically not a lot of trees in wetlands, because they typically die. There’s too much water. So that’s a fairly good open span there. The trees are on either side of the wetlands, and that’s my point about, if you allow the western part to be rezoned, without restrictions, and those, the foliage and the trees to be cleared, you’ve got the clearing on the west side, the clearing through the wetlands. Then really the only trees are what we are maintaining on our east side. Do you understand what I’m explaining there, that there’s going to be a pretty clear view of what’s going on in that large commercial project, whatever lands are there. So don’t think of the wetlands as heavily treed, and heavily wooded. It might be heavily wooded, waist high, but that’s about it. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-Just a couple of really quick comments. I’d like to allay the neighbors’ concern. Cline Avenue is a lovely street with lovely houses, but it’s a good distance from what we’re talking about. As Mr. Carr mentioned, the only real use for this, it would have to be rezoned, but the only real use, at the back, would be for stormwater management, because of the proximity of the wetlands. I was talking about the 50 foot buffer between zones, but there is a 100 foot buffer from DEC wetlands. So that area, it comes to a triangle, and you’re not going to be able to support a building in that area at the tail end, but it would be important to deal with the stormwater. You have to have a buffer. So it would be important for the buffer. For all the reasons 70 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) that we mentioned, we think that it’s the appropriate thing to do. It’ll allow the area to be redeveloped properly with modern site plan review rather than what was there to begin with, and we want to assure the neighbors that the wetland buffer that’s not on the site being purchased would be there as a natural buffer. That’s going to remain. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. SANFORD-I have one comment. I’d like to, again, appeal to this Board, I think there’s a lot of issues than can be debated on whether or not, depending on the project, this should be rezoned. I think, in the absence of not knowing what the project is, it would be foolish and unwise for us to move forward and go for a rezoning. This is the same Board that, tonight, conditioned the Home Depot rezoning on the fact that they actually do it, and if they didn’t do it, we took away their rezoning, and now here we are actually debating whether or not we should rezone, when we don’t even know what the project is. That defies logic. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to even move in that direction. So I hope that when this thing comes to a vote, you know, we’ll use some common sense and say, first tell us what you want to do, then we’ll consider the rezoning. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? MR. SEGULJIC-The light green portion in the yellow, that’s residential that’s already zoned? MR. RINGER-That’s Highway Commercial. MR. LAPPER-That light green area. MR. RINGER-The two up above, that’s Highway Commercial right now. MR. VOLLARO-Right there. MR. LAPPER-That’s blue, and that’s Highway Commercial. MR. SEGULJIC-And it’s residential and it’s already zoned Highway Commercial? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s Mr. Myerberg’s parcel. He came in to the Town Board, at the time that Hewitts was done, and said, if you’re doing the zoning, please include my property because it’s not a good situation being residential, and the Town Board, with the Planning Board’s recommendation, rezoned that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Can I just ask a question? All the property from along Quaker Road, from that corner of Everts Avenue all the way over to the? MR. LAPPER-No, just three blue buildings, the first three. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Not the fourth where Dennis is, not. MR. VOLLARO-The retail service is not? MR. LAPPER-There’s one that’s parallel to Quaker that’s the fourth building in. That’s not included. That’s the tire place. MR. RINGER-The East Coast Tire? MR. LAPPER-That’s not included. MR. VOLLARO-Is not included. MR. LAPPER-Where the light is is not included, it’s everything to the west of there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but now all of the Hewitt’s property and including this property that’s in light blue, okay, is all under the control of Mr. Benyamini. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Approximately how many acres are you talking about here? MR. LAPPER-Sixteen and a half. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. VOLLARO-Sixteen and a half. MR. VOLLARO-Is that sixteen and a half acres marketable as it is now? In other words, you have contracts on that, but your contracts are. MR. LAPPER-He has contracts to purchase. MR. VOLLARO-He’s got contracts to purchase, contingent upon this property being rezoned? MR. LAPPER-Contingent upon receiving land use approval from the Town of Queensbury. MR. VOLLARO-When you say land use approval, do you mean rezone this property that we’re talking about? Is that what you’re? MR. LAPPER-It would also, he wouldn’t have to purchase it without site plan, but it’s a two step process. So he’s got to get it zoned, go find a tenant, and then come back for site plan. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to find out if we did not rezone that, how marketable is the rest of that property, that sixteen some odd acres? You’ve got all of that now. Is that a marketable product for you, and you’re saying no. It’s got to have the added acreage provided by? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BENYAMINI-The answer is for the green space requirement and for the property layout of a shopping center, I would need the entire sixteen and a half acres, stormwater management. I would need to have the entire sixteen and a half acres. Most likely there won’t be any buildings in the area that, the southern area where the two homes are the subject of discussion tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because I’m just looking at that corner there. Now that I look at the scale on this map, it’s only 80 feet from that residence. MR. LAPPER-Eighty feet from what residence? MR. VOLLARO-From, there’s a, at least on the map I’m looking at it’s one inch is one hundred feet. Now if you take the corner of the property you’re looking at, right there, and then go over to that first piece, that’s approximately 80 feet, by my scale. Is that about right, Dennis? MR. MAC ELROY-No, you’re at half scale there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see. MR. LAPPER-Bob, that would just be to the edge of the buffer that would have to be on this site. We’d have to have a 50 foot zoning buffer, non-buildable, and a 100 foot DEC wetland buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, basically the buffer, the area that you want rezoned on Lot 66.1, would basically be the buffer of that whole section. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So I think the whole thing seems to turn, in my mind, that you don’t have, in your mind, marketable property until you put this 16 acres in the package. MR. BENYAMINI-Correct. MR. LAPPER-If it’s residential, we can’t use it for stormwater management, and the buffer starts the next lot up. So that’s what the problem is. MR. ROUND-Not marketable for what purpose? Because I think the property’s being used in commercial fashion right now, and I heard some of the people in the crowd whisper, well, it is a shopping center versus a large box. So what parameters are you marketing the property under? Maybe that would be the best, so is it 60,000 to 100,000 square feet of commercial development in single or multi-phases? That might help the Board get a better handle on what actually is envisioned for this property. MR. BENYAMINI-It will be a shopping center of approximately 100,000 square feet, all together, retail. MR. VOLLARO-So you have a pretty good idea how you want to market this? 72 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. BENYAMINI-Yes. If it’s put together, and it’s properly zoned, I would have approximately 16 and a half acres for a typical shopping center of approximately 100,000 square feet can be laid on the property, properly, with adequately set close to the road and the parking and everything that can be marketed to major retailers. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? MR. SEGULJIC-So you’d have to have a 100 foot buffer because of the wetlands. MR. RINGER-One hundred foot setback. A 50 foot buffer. MR. ROUND-If the Planning Board here was the lead agency, and I think they can ask for it anyway, in order for you to get your hands around this project, not knowing what the end user is, you can ask, you know, show us, conceptually, what might a project look like on this site. MR. RINGER-The Town Board has already voted for them to be lead agency on this. MR. ROUND-I realize that. If you were the lead agency, you would probably request that anyway, because you’d need to do the environmental review. So you’ve got to figure out, well, how much traffic’s going to be generated by additional commercial use on this property, all right, but if the applicant’s looking for a positive recommendation, I’m sure he’s going to go the extra mile to put that kind of information in your hand, to reach a positive recommendation, and I don’t hear a positive recommendation coming out of the Board. So, you know, I think that’s the kind of direction that the applicant’s going to want to see. MR. VOLLARO-I was kind of holding that back, in a sense, because I know that the Town Board’s has got the (lost word) on this one. MR. ROUND-Yes, but I think the Town Board’s going to be hard-pressed to deny your recommendation, you know, to act contrary to your recommendation. If you look at, you know, we’re concerned about what people have said here about the traffic. We’re concerned about lights, etc. MR. LAPPER-We’ll provide whatever information this Board wants, but I think that the Town Board would give this a hard look under SEQRA. I mean, the Planning Staff will be advising them and they’ll ask the same questions. MR. ROUND-I realize that, but all I’m saying is if was a member of the Planning Board, and I’m going to vote no on that, how might I be persuaded to change my mind, and I might ask that I need more information. I’ve heard that from a couple of members of the Board. I haven’t heard from everybody. It’s just a suggestion. MR. MAC EWAN-From a SEQRA standpoint, this Board is better postured to do that job than I think the Town Board is in a position to, because we deal with it so much, on a regular basis. If we tabled this thing for a month, can you put together a conceptual layout of what your thoughts are, and how you want to develop this site? MR. LAPPER-What I would suggest, I guess, is that we would do a conceptual worst case, for SEQRA, that we would put the most that we could fit on the site, so you’d look at the worst case, and if you want us to show you want Mr. Benyamini thinks he’s realistically going to do, that’s probably going to be less than worst case. We can do either. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I think, hypothetically, let’s go with the worst case scenario for the parcel, and we’d view it as such. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. ROUND-I’m sorry to interject, but I like this over here on this end, I’m able to interact a little more often. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m worried that you’re the eighth member up here. MR. ROUND-I wouldn’t want to give the applicant the wrong direction, though. I mean, even after, I hate to see applicants go out and go the distance of the finish line and see no anyway. So, that’s the applicant’s risk. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no guarantees that anybody that comes in front of this Board is going to walk off with an approval. That’s the chance you take. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. ROUND-I just want to get that out there. MR. STROUGH-The applicant has had an opportunity, at this point, to listen to some of the residential concerns. It might also give them an opportunity to see how they would locate the site and develop the site and address those concerns as well. So, it would be killing two birds with one stone, the way I see it. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, they really should take into account the neighborhood concerns. MR. LAPPER-We heard loud and clear, and we know that’s going to be buffer. So we can do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I just wanted to list some of the ones that I heard, noise, lights, visual impacts and traffic, I think were the main concerns. MR. LAPPER-The only consideration I’d like to ask, tomorrow would be the application deadline for the Town. We’d like to get back in March. So, Dennis, how long would you need to do a conceptual? MR. MAC EWAN-You work weekends, don’t you, Dennis? MR. VOLLARO-Could I inject one thing? In the conceptual, you might want to try conceptualizing on the properties you have now, and then conceptualizing again on adding the 16 acres. What happens when those two things play against one another. MR. LAPPER-If we do that, it’ll be easy to prove the case that, between stormwater and buffer from the existing, it’s just not going to be feasible, but that’s fine, we’ll do it both ways. MR. VOLLARO-At least we’ll know. MR. SANFORD-This is hypothetical anyway. Again, we conditioned Home Depot on carrying it through, and I think it’s a fine exercise, but again, for us to predicate a rezoning on something that’s hypothetical doesn’t make sense. MR. LAPPER-I respect what you’re saying. You’re trying to be careful, but people have the right to ask for a rezoning, even if they don’t have a project in mind, until they have a tenant ready to sign a lease, whatever, you know, we don’t know what it’s going to look like. We’re arguing that this is the right thing to do for zoning, and we want to try and prove our case. I’m sorry that you feel so strongly, but I respect your opinion, and I hope the majority of the Board doesn’t agree with you, but we’ll try and satisfy your concern, as well as everybody else, by coming up with a conceptual site plan, so you have something to look at and chew on. MR. STROUGH-I’m more comfortable with that. MR. MAC EWAN-I gave Mr. Nace until next Wednesday to submit his stuff. Is that ample time for you to do what you need to do? I don’t want to start giving a whole bunch of different submission dates, especially when it’s going to take Staff to review it, and distribute it to us, and be able to go out on site visits again. So next Wednesday. If it’s not, if you can’t do it next Wednesday, then we’ll see you in April. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We’ll take the Wednesday and see if we can accommodate it. MS. RADNER-You may wish to consider reopening the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-I am going to reopen it. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Along those lines, Chris, what do we need to procedurally do to alert the Town Board that we’d like to be lead agency in the SEQRA review, should we get to that point? If we were to do a favorable recommendation, to the Town Board down the road, do we do it at that time? MR. LAPPER-Why don’t you do that now with a resolution asking them? MR. ROUND-You simply request it. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and they could pass a resolution at their next Town Board meeting, withdrawing their resolution and consenting. MR. ROUND-Jon, and, Cathi, how is that, I mean, this Board is not taking any action. I mean, so how do you designate an agency who has no? MR. LAPPER-They’re not an involved agency. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/26/02) MR. ROUND-Is not an involved agency, as lead agency. I don’t think you can do that. MR. LAPPER-Yes, you’re right. MR. ROUND-Until you have a project that requires your approval, in front of you. MR. LAPPER-What if you just include in your recommendation would be a SEQRA recommendation as well as a rezoning recommendation? MR. MAC EWAN-When we get to that point. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-If we do a positive recommendation, at that time, we’ll do it. Okay? On that note, I’ll re- open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-We’re anticipating this will be on for the second meeting next month. MR. STROUGH-All right. The second meeting will be the 26. th MR. MAC EWAN-The 26, for you in the audience, provided they make the submission deadline of next th Wednesday. MRS. RYBA-Could I add one thing as a point of technical clarification? Chris just mentioned that, as a courtesy, we would re-notice people, and I heard in the audience people said they didn’t get notified. I’d like to really make the point that Queensbury goes above and beyond the call of duty by notifying people within 500 feet. If you didn’t get noticed you were outside of the 500 foot line. I’d also like to note that if you have access to the Internet, all of the agendas are put on the Internet. We do notify, we do put notices in the newspaper for public hearings. So there are notices in the Town Hall. So there are plenty of opportunities for people to be aware of what’s happening, and if you didn’t get noticed, it’s because you were out of the 500 foot boundary line. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you, Marilyn. Okay. All right. Very good. Is there any other business? MR. STROUGH-Do we have to motion the tabling? MR. MAC EWAN-No, because it’s just a recommendation. We don’t need anything formal. Is that it? I’ll make a motion to adjourn, then. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 75